The beau unreal of "back to the city"

[gallacus]

Originally Posted by GregHenry

Please don't change the subject. This isn't about either you or me; this discussion is about what everyone else is doing. Whether you care about them doesn't change the fact that they're doing things.

I'm confused . Isn't the following quote your opinion? I don't see much in there about what other people are doing...

Originally Posted by GregHenry

Don't knock sprawl. This 'Merkan loves sprawl. I've done the gritty, urban thing, and I'm doing it, again, until I extricate myself from this lot. I yearn for clean, flat, grids with new clean restaurants on every strip mall outlot, wide roads, right-angle turns, easy parking and all the shopping destinations. We should consider putting a shelf life on all construction, perhaps 35 years, so we can tear everything down after the time is up, and things start to look run-down. Nostalgia's fine for the U.S. Capitol. In most other things, it just ends up looking dingy.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

interesting you say that (though I think his point that places for mixing is really in the same vein)

I agree Florida's hypothesis is not totally implausible, but I am not sure his factual assertions about the negative causal relationship between highrises and mixing are actually correct.

it could easily (in my mind) be used as a reason why improved transportation connections between cities is a good thing.

Absolutely. Once you are thinking in terms of migration churn and other such interchanges of people, ideas, capital, and so forth between places, the importance of all sorts of intercity networking is underscored. That includes transportation, and in fact you might even argue that one of the real inherent advantages of cities is that they allow for rapid and efficient transportation between different places each with lots of people.

you'd still want to observe jacob's suggestions rather than assume housing everyone in towers is really the best answer. as was pointed out, it's more complicated than that.

I agree it is more complicated, but I think you still have to consider second-best solutions even if you think a lot of Jacobsian cities would be first-best. Urban transportation infrastructure alone is a huge problem--we haven't been building out the sorts of local networks Jacobsian cities really need, and the current lead time on such projects is in the decades. Meanwhile, we do have the option of packing more people near our existing local networks, and that can be done in years rather than decades.

Anyway, I agree it is complicated. At least these are worthy discussions to be having.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I agree Florida's hypothesis is not totally implausible, but I am not sure his factual assertions about the negative causal relationship between highrises and mixing are actually correct.

he's using correlation as far as I can tell, perhaps for purposes of his argument, that's fine since he's not arguing they shouldn't be built, but that cities should be careful not to fix the things that aren't broken. it's almost a modern argument against destroying the lower hill. it's probably not relevant for anyone but planners who, unfortunately, have a tendency to go overboard with ideas.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I agree it is more complicated, but I think you still have to consider second-best solutions even if you think a lot of Jacobsian cities would be first-best. Urban transportation infrastructure alone is a huge problem--we haven't been building out the sorts of local networks Jacobsian cities really need, and the current lead time on such projects is in the decades. Meanwhile, we do have the option of packing more people near our existing local networks, and that can be done in years rather than decades.

Anyway, I agree it is complicated. At least these are worthy discussions to be having.

I saw you reference european plaza/piazza in regards to smallman st which I think is entirely within the realm of creating good places to mix. I think those things not only enable mixing, but also attract people. the problem is when it's controlled top down, say, as a ura project and filled with chains, it probably isn't going to attract creativity. you create the space, but allow people to fill in around it.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

he's using correlation as far as I can tell, perhaps for purposes of his argument, that's fine since he's not arguing they shouldn't be built, but that cities should be careful not to fix the things that aren't broken. it's almost a modern argument against destroying the lower hill. it's probably not relevant for anyone but planners who, unfortunately, have a tendency to go overboard with ideas.

I'm not sure that is always the right answer. Say you've got a scenario in which there are already low-mid rise buildings clustered near all your local rapid transit nodes. Ideally you might be expanding your local rapid transit system to create more nodes, but again that can take a lot of time, and funding might be constrained for reasons beyond local control. You might not exactly call that situation "broken", but to add more units near local rapid transit nodes, you may need to start converting some parcels into highrises.

Note a variation on this theme is that there are actually infill options available near some transit nodes, but people in the relevant areas are objecting to highrise infill specifically because it would "change the character" of the neighborhood, or something to that effect. And of course proximity to transit nodes is only one possible thing that could define a prime location--walkability to major employment clusters or regional amenities would also count.

I agree this sort of highrise development in strategic locations should not be done thoughtlessly, but I don't think we should rule it out either. And I do think it is a live issue in many places--in fact, I think we are already seeing something similar happening here, say in discussions about what to do with the Buncher properties in the Strip. The proposed apartment blocks are not highrises, but I have seen people objecting to even that scale of infill project on the grounds it may jeopardize the existing Strip, and precisely on a "if it is not broken don't fix it" sort of logic.

I saw you reference european plaza/piazza in regards to smallman st which I think is entirely within the realm of creating good places to mix. I think those things not only enable mixing, but also attract people.

Indeed. But of course that opens up the possibility of combining both residential highrises and smart, "human scale", public places. Among other things, I am not sure Florida is right that it actually matters what sort of structures people live in, if they have public places consistent with a Jacobsian vision.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I'm not sure that is always the right answer. Say you've got a scenario in which there are already low-mid rise buildings clustered near all your local rapid transit nodes. Ideally you might be expanding your local rapid transit system to create more nodes, but again that can take a lot of time, and funding might be constrained for reasons beyond local control. You might not exactly call that situation "broken", but to add more units near local rapid transit nodes, you may need to start converting some parcels into highrises.

if said area was already generating an outsized share of economic benefits to the region it might not make sense to go in an incentivize changing it. to me, the takeaway is that you shouldn't generalize and that you need to look at each situation specifically.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I agree this sort of highrise development in strategic locations should not be done thoughtlessly, but I don't think we should rule it out either.

I don't think anyone ruled it out, even in the article he says it's good that they are increasing density in an area built for it (midtown)

Originally Posted by BrianTH

And I do think it is a live issue in many places--in fact, I think we are already seeing something similar happening here, say in discussions about what to do with the Buncher properties in the Strip. The proposed apartment blocks are not highrises, but I have seen people objecting to even that scale of infill project on the grounds it may jeopardize the existing Strip, and precisely on a "if it is not broken don't fix it" sort of logic.

it would take a distorted logic to argue that the vast surface lots aren't a "broken" imo. I do think that you can say simply building highrises won't necessarily foster interaction and therefore economic creativity, that regardless of the size of the buildings, you need to pay attention to how they interact with the rest of the city and within a development the size of buncher's.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Indeed. But of course that opens up the possibility of combining both residential highrises and smart, "human scale", public places. Among other things, I am not sure Florida is right that it actually matters what sort of structures people live in, if they have public places consistent with a Jacobsian vision.

to some extent it does since old spaces often require creative solutions.