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.
Which of the largest metro areas is going the best route on how brownfields and other available open space WITHIN their central city(s) are being redeveloped?
Is the opportunity to create new architecture and density being used well? Or is it tacky, suburban style strip mall hell?
Feel free to post links/credited photos to show how your city is doing it, in addition to those listed here.
Most cities have a mixture of both central infill and new suburban tracks.
FOr Houston we are on a two year delay for new suburban development.
The environmental studies, permits etc takes two years to accomplish.
TWo years ago virtually no permits were going in so new construction isn't going to fast as it did ten years ago.
Infill projects are blazing though. Older hoods are getting well deserved face lifts,
single family homes are being converted into multi family dwellings. Public transportation projects, oark projects aand projects encouraging walking abd cycling are poping up like crazy.
dunno if it's because there is a bottle neck on new tracks but older hoods are really getting done improvements
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,750 posts, read 23,828,256 times
Reputation: 14665
Why are Boston, NYC, Chicago, SF, DC, and Philly in this? They were full with infill back in early 1900's. Any further development would basically be demolishing something old to build something vertical and modern, not a whole lot of parking lots or brown fields to fill.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 07-29-2013 at 02:18 PM..
There are still opportunities for infill now -- which cities are currently doing the best job of reusing vacant lots and other underdeveloped properties in their central city?
Why are Boston, NYC, Chicago, SF, DC, and Philly in this? They were full with infill back in early 1900's. Any further development would basically be demolishing something old to build something vertical and modern, not a whole lot of parking lots or brown fields to fill.
Are you sure you've been to these cities? Even in NYC, there are plenty of development sites. Even Manhattan has lowrise buildings, parking garages and the like to be redeveloped.
Atlantic Station in Atlanta is a great example of this. It used to be a steel mill, but now it is a mixed-use urban area near Downtown and Midtown. I would say Atlanta is one of the best in this category.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,750 posts, read 23,828,256 times
Reputation: 14665
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCH_CDM
Are you sure you've been to these cities? Even in NYC, there are plenty of development sites. Even Manhattan has lowrise buildings, parking garages and the like to be redeveloped.
I've lived in Boston and visited the rest including several visits to Philly and NYC. Just saying, the sunbelt metros have exponentially more land to redevelop. Anyway, carry on I suppose demolishing parking garages and abandoned infrastructure and such would qualify just as well.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 07-29-2013 at 03:10 PM..
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.
