Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes I understand, but I was referring to the date of the original plan. The poster I was responding to made it sound as if those neighborhoods were all built that way due to the Comprehensive Plan, when Seattle didn't even have any sort of urban plan when most of those neighborhoods that have been posted in this thread were originally developed.
Well, I guess that is the problem. Without planning 100 years ago, the city couldn't grow in an urban way. If you look at the most urban cities in the nation and world, Seattle doesn't look like them. I showed Philly, Boston, D.C., NYC, London, and Paris and they all had streets that looked similar. Pittsburgh also had streets that looked similar. Seattle doesn't mainly because of the reason you just pointed out. Street width and setbacks are the two most important factors for urbanism.
May I ask what the worst thing about the houses in those pictures is?
As for the insulation, it all depends. When I first moved to Pittsburgh, I lived in an uninsulated frame rowhouse (well, one side of a duplex) with those tiny windows, and I had horrendous heating bills in the winter (topped out near $400). I now live in a brick rowhouse which is technically uninsulated except for the attic, but I have neighbors on both sides (and original window openings with double-paned replacements). We're on the budget plan, so it smooths out the payment spikes over the winter, but I think our usage typically tops out at $150 (which is also inclusive of hot water, cooking gas, and our gas dryer).
It's a matter of taste of course, but compared to other parts of the country, I think Pittsburgh's take on mid-century modern is somewhat bad. The foursquares and Pittsburgh's knockoff of the Craftsmen are acceptable (and typically have much nicer interior finishes than the outside would suggest), but you can find numerous houses which look like those anywhere in the country of that vintage.
Picture #1: Narrow buildings, mismatched brick, those gawd-awful glass blocks. The house on the far right looks a bit decrepit.
Picture #2: Same, plus the aluminum siding, aluminum awnings. There does seem to be a pride of ownership there, OTOH.
Picture #3: Ditto, plus the two on the left look like badly done "pop-tops". Again a pride of ownership apparent.
The insulation does not "depend". See the Arbor Day link, or go to their sources the Dept. of Agriculture and the Center for Urban Forest Research. Both research-based statements.
" “The net cooling effect of a young, healthy tree is equivalent to ten room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.” —U.S. Department of Agriculture
“If you plant a tree today on the west side of your home, in 5 years your energy bills should be 3% less. In 15 years the savings will be nearly 12%.” —Dr. E. Greg McPherson, Center for Urban Forest Research "
As to the last bold, sure. You can see houses like that in Chicago, Milwaukee, Denver, Portland, some of the California cities. That's just how it is. There are only so many floor plans.
Picture #1: Narrow buildings, mismatched brick, those gawd-awful glass blocks. The house on the far right looks a bit decrepit.
Picture #2: Same, plus the aluminum siding, aluminum awnings. There does seem to be a pride of ownership there, OTOH.
Picture #3: Ditto, plus the two on the left look like badly done "pop-tops". Again a pride of ownership apparent.
The insulation does not "depend". See the Arbor Day link, or go to their sources the Dept. of Agriculture and the Center for Urban Forest Research. Both research-based statements.
" “The net cooling effect of a young, healthy tree is equivalent to ten room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.” —U.S. Department of Agriculture
“If you plant a tree today on the west side of your home, in 5 years your energy bills should be 3% less. In 15 years the savings will be nearly 12%.” —Dr. E. Greg McPherson, Center for Urban Forest Research "
As to the last bold, sure. You can see houses like that in Chicago, Milwaukee, Denver, Portland, some of the California cities. That's just how it is. There are only so many floor plans.
If we are talking about which is more urban, you shouldn't even have the option to plant a tree on the side of your house. The structural density of the neighborhood shouldn't allow it. That is the problem with all the midwest cities. Single family homes.
If we are talking about which is more urban, you shouldn't even have the option to plant a tree on the side of your house. The structural density of the neighborhood shouldn't allow it.
I cannot think of a setting where trees do not have a high utility. They provide cooling in the summer. (Parenthetically, some of the "great minds" on Urban Planning didn't even know that.) They take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. (Ditto)
Why do you think Arbor Day started in Nebraska? Trees add aesthetics and other positives to the urban environment. Omaha has a lot of trees. When you pull into any city on the Great Plains, the first thing you notice is the presence of trees again!
The issue of the benefits of trees in urban areas is separate from the issue of street trees. Many European cities, as you know, put trees in semi-public courtyards in the middle of blocks. Plus there are parks and "parklets" to consider, along with smaller-scale plantings in front of homes, like bushes and flowers. So really there are many ways to get greenspace into an urban area besides street trees.
There's also the savanna hypothesis from evolutionary psychology to consider. Essentially, since humans evolved in a grassland environment with scattered trees, this is where people across all cultures tend to feel most comfortable. This would suggest that while adding some trees to a treeless environment is a step in the right direction, going too far and creating a mock closed-canopy forest overdoes it and creates an unfriendly environment.
The issue of the benefits of trees in urban areas is separate from the issue of street trees. Many European cities, as you know, put trees in semi-public courtyards in the middle of blocks. Plus there are parks and "parklets" to consider, along with smaller-scale plantings in front of homes, like bushes and flowers). So really there are many ways to get greenspace into an urban area besides street trees.
There's also the savanna hypothesis from evolutionary psychology to consider. Essentially, since humans evolved in a grassland environment with scattered trees, this is where people across all cultures tend to feel most comfortable. This would suggest that while adding some trees to a treeless environment is a step in the right direction, going too far and creating a mock closed-canopy forest overdoes it and creates an unfriendly environment.
You will never convince me there can be too many trees. The bulk of the research, and it seems the preponderance of opinion on this forum and on urban planning favors trees, street trees, yard trees, parks, you name it. I'm not hep on living in some concrete environment and having to go to a park to see a tree.
Picture #1: Narrow buildings, mismatched brick, those gawd-awful glass blocks. The house on the far right looks a bit decrepit.
Picture #2: Same, plus the aluminum siding, aluminum awnings. There does seem to be a pride of ownership there, OTOH.
Picture #3: Ditto, plus the two on the left look like badly done "pop-tops". Again a pride of ownership apparent.
Mismatched brick is what happens when you attempt to patch in something new (like small windows) on a 19th-century building. I feel bad for the people in my neighborhood trying to restore houses like this, because they can't ever get the brick right even if they do fix the windows, and usually give up and just paint the house.
Aluminum siding is terrible, but it's endemic in every urban area in the U.S. with a substantial number of frame houses which were not protected by historic districts. The awnings themselves are ugly as sin, but they're an easy problem to fix.
The ones in the last picture are in Oakland, and likely mostly converted to student rentals, meaning they're owned by slumlords. The other two streetviews are almost certainly homeowner occupied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
The insulation does not "depend". See the Arbor Day link, or go to their sources the Dept. of Agriculture and the Center for Urban Forest Research. Both research-based statements.
" “The net cooling effect of a young, healthy tree is equivalent to ten room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.” —U.S. Department of Agriculture
“If you plant a tree today on the west side of your home, in 5 years your energy bills should be 3% less. In 15 years the savings will be nearly 12%.” —Dr. E. Greg McPherson, Center for Urban Forest Research "
The west side of my home is a party wall. Well, really the northwest side of my home is. Regardless, it's a moot point, as my house is only twelve feet wide, and even if I wanted a street tree city regulations would bar us from doing so unless we removed our front porch. Regardless, my point is heating small urban rowhouses does not have to be exorbitant. If you have two party walls and an insulated attic, you're really only losing heat out of two walls.
There's also the savanna hypothesis from evolutionary psychology to consider. Essentially, since humans evolved in a grassland environment with scattered trees, this is where people across all cultures tend to feel most comfortable. This would suggest that while adding some trees to a treeless environment is a step in the right direction, going too far and creating a mock closed-canopy forest overdoes it and creates an unfriendly environment.
Seriously? An "unfriendly environment" because of trees? That's certainly the first time I've ever heard anyone claim that.
Again, as Katiana noted, even if trees are deliberately planted somewhere and thrive, there's nothing unnatural about it.
If we are talking about which is more urban, you shouldn't even have the option to plant a tree on the side of your house. The structural density of the neighborhood shouldn't allow it. That is the problem with all the midwest cities. Single family homes.
Street trees are on the sidewalk, however -- in the public domain. This portion of the conversation is not about trees in front of a residence with a set-back.
Well, I guess that is the problem. Without planning 100 years ago, the city couldn't grow in an urban way. If you look at the most urban cities in the nation and world, Seattle doesn't look like them. I showed Philly, Boston, D.C., NYC, London, and Paris and they all had streets that looked similar. Pittsburgh also had streets that looked similar. Seattle doesn't mainly because of the reason you just pointed out. Street width and setbacks are the two most important factors for urbanism.
Do you realize that zoning didn't exist 100 years ago? Modern urban planning began as a progressive era reform to segregate factories from residential areas. Prior to that cities would lay out the streets and build some of the infrastructure but gave developers a free hand to build what they wanted. Most cities in the US didn't have zoning until after WWII. Before streetcars, row houses and shared wall developments were the norm because almost everybody walked, so travel distances within cities needed to be minimized. Detached houses were the product of changing transportation modes and increased prosperity. At that point lot size was generally determined by the cost of land relative to the income of the people it was intended to be sold or rented to. Seattle and New York look different because they were developed under different economic imperatives, in different eras, not because of planning.
Last edited by Drewcifer; 12-11-2013 at 10:16 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
