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.
It is worth noting that once the streetcar was invented, detached houses with yards were where people chose to live if they could afford to (overwhelmingly). I think one advantage of streetcar suburbia like that found in Seattle, Minneapolis and Denver is that it creates an environment that people other than urbanism geeks want to live (in terms of trees, and grass and greenery in general) and yet still has urban style population density to provide for an amenity rich environment and good transit.
Much of inner Minneapolis feels like a city built into a forest garden, and yet still has enough density to be walkable and bikable. I think it is best of both worlds and wouldn't trade it for all the row houses in the world.
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.
I'm not talking about zoning. I'm talking about planned cities. The most urban cities were planned in the beginning. They were designed before the car. Cities that were not don't stand a chance to compete in urbanity. That is what I mean.
I'm not talking about zoning. I'm talking about planned cities. The most urban cities were planned in the beginning. They were designed before the car. Cities that were not don't stand a chance to compete in urbanity. That is what I mean.
Aside from street layout/grid what else was really "planned" a 100+ years ago?
Seriously? An "unfriendly environment" because of trees? That's certainly the first time I've ever heard anyone claim that.
Well, I first heard about the savanna hypothesis when I was in elementary school (and I'm 34), so it's been around for quite awhile now.
Admittedly people who grew up in areas of dense forests tend to feel less claustrophobic about being surrounded by it (it doesn't bother me much personally). Still, densely forested areas don't seem to be intrinsically loved by all people the way savanna is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
Again, as Katiana noted, even if trees are deliberately planted somewhere and thrive, there's nothing unnatural about it.
Street trees often require a lot of care, particularly when saplings, to survive. Most trees evolved, after all, to be part of a forest biome surrounded by other trees which helped to retain moisture normalize temperature swings. Few evolved to be lone trees in the midst of a grassy field, let alone surrounded by concrete and asphalt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewcifer
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.
Indeed. I'd actually argue the opposite of MDAllstar. Good urban neighborhoods are good because they were unplanned.
That's not to say that all planning by nature must be bad, but bad planning can destroy the potential of a neighborhood to evolve by forcing universal form or single-use. In contrast, having no restrictions on development resulted in dense mixed-use neighborhoods which (once the mills closed) became highly desirable once again.
Basically, pre-1920s neighborhoods across America were largely developed in a "free market" (ack!) method, which meant they balanced the appeal to potential residents, customers, employers, and developers. After that, zoning allowed the rise of NIMBYism, allowing current residents of an area to artificially limit either housing supply or what uses were possible in a given area. This made some sense during the period we were dealing with factories and stockyards, but it makes much less sense today.
Aside from street layout/grid what else was really "planned" a 100+ years ago?
The highlighted and having a zero lot setback is really all that matters to establish the highest level of urbanity. They need to be tight. Retail etc. is a given because people walked to stores, so neighborhoods had retail. The real issue is the age of the cities. There is absolutely nothing a city that came up during the car can do to compete against cities that came up before it. The car is really the difference in urbanity for cities. Look towards Europe and NE cities to see what I mean. Pittsburgh has that in many parts and Seattle doesn't. It's really almost unfair to compare them because of this.
Aside from street layout/grid what else was really "planned" a 100+ years ago?
This is the highest level of urbanity and streets like it can be found in the most urban cities in the nation and world. The question is, how far removed from an intensity standpoint are the streets in question to this? That is the easiest way to measure how other streets stack up.
The highlighted and having a zero lot setback is really all that matters to establish the highest level of urbanity. They need to be tight. Retail etc. is a given because people walked to stores, so neighborhoods had retail. The real issue is the age of the cities. There is absolutely nothing a city that came up during the car can do to compete against cities that came up before it. The car is really the difference in urbanity for cities. Look towards Europe and NE cities to see what I mean. Pittsburgh has that in many parts and Seattle doesn't. It's really almost unfair to compare them because of this.
Okay but aside from streets none of that was "planned" was it? You keep talking about zero lot development as if cities "planned" that 100+ years ago, which they really didn't.
Well, I first heard about the savanna hypothesis when I was in elementary school (and I'm 34), so it's been around for quite awhile now.
Admittedly people who grew up in areas of dense forests tend to feel less claustrophobic about being surrounded by it (it doesn't bother me much personally). Still, densely forested areas don't seem to be intrinsically loved by all people the way savanna is.
Street trees often require a lot of care, particularly when saplings, to survive. Most trees evolved, after all, to be part of a forest biome surrounded by other trees which helped to retain moisture normalize temperature swings. Few evolved to be lone trees in the midst of a grassy field, let alone surrounded by concrete and asphalt.
Indeed. I'd actually argue the opposite of MDAllstar. Good urban neighborhoods are good because they were unplanned.
That's not to say that all planning by nature must be bad, but bad planning can destroy the potential of a neighborhood to evolve by forcing universal form or single-use. In contrast, having no restrictions on development resulted in dense mixed-use neighborhoods which (once the mills closed) became highly desirable once again.
Basically, pre-1920s neighborhoods across America were largely developed in a "free market" (ack!) method, which meant they balanced the appeal to potential residents, customers, employers, and developers. After that, zoning allowed the rise of NIMBYism, allowing current residents of an area to artificially limit either housing supply or what uses were possible in a given area. This made some sense during the period we were dealing with factories and stockyards, but it makes much less sense today.
I never heard this "savannah hypothesis" and most of my ancestors from the last few millenia anyway came from Europe, particularly parts of Germany that are heavily forested. I kinda think the savannah thing is a crock; it certainly seems not to have gained any traction. Who says all people "love" savannah? Can you provide a link?
We get it that you don't like trees. You also don't like grass, from your posts on Urban Planning. You seem to be in the minority on both issues.
The highlighted and having a zero lot setback is really all that matters to establish the highest level of urbanity. They need to be tight. Retail etc. is a given because people walked to stores, so neighborhoods had retail. The real issue is the age of the cities. There is absolutely nothing a city that came up during the car can do to compete against cities that came up before it. The car is really the difference in urbanity for cities. Look towards Europe and NE cities to see what I mean. Pittsburgh has that in many parts and Seattle doesn't. It's really almost unfair to compare them because of this.
As to all of your other issues, it just comes down to how friendly a city is for walking. There is something of a zero-sum game here, as the more friendly a city is to driving, the less friendly it becomes for pedestrians. Ultimately no American city touches on European cities, because aside from a road here and there we are loathe to make city streets pedestrian only - let alone having the whole downtown have limited automobile access.
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.
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.
Trees help significantly with cooling costs. Now I know Pittsburgh is a land of "you don't need air-conditioning here" people, even when there are reports of people literally dying from the heat, but most people appreciate the cooling.
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.
