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.
I doubt those of you in the suburbs would want your suburbs to be demolished either though. What makes you think it would be easier for governments to demolish suburbs than to urbanize them?
It's the same thing. To urbanize them requires you demolish them first. You have to take the large (by urban standards) lots and break them up, demolish the sprawling houses which are on them, and build attached houses or mixed-use buildings or whatever is currently in urban fashion. You have to remove the cul-de-sacs and dead ends and build a grid of streets with sidewalks. You have to add commercial space throughout the formerly residential areas. None of this can be done "in place", and none of it will be done with the co-operation of the residents, so it would require the government to demolish them.
It's the same thing. To urbanize them requires you demolish them first. You have to take the large (by urban standards) lots and break them up, demolish the sprawling houses which are on them, and build attached houses or mixed-use buildings or whatever is currently in urban fashion. You have to remove the cul-de-sacs and dead ends and build a grid of streets with sidewalks. You have to add commercial space throughout the formerly residential areas. None of this can be done "in place", and none of it will be done with the co-operation of the residents, so it would require the government to demolish them.
I think you're mistaken. If the market demands it, changes will happen. Sure, zoning regulations can slow this process down, but they can be changed.
Cities didn't just pop up out of nowhere. They started out as villages and towns, and grew over time. If you go back far enough, even NYC probably had more in common with modern sprawl than with the current city.
I am on vacation in Las Vegas right now and there are some subdivisions that haven't sold any houses that were built and sit vacant, due to the housing bust in 2008. I think that at least those should be demolished. They sit unfortunately encroaching on places like Red Rock canyon.
I've already seen Youtube videos of urban planners calling to "return" suburbs to nature i.e. demolish them if they are not within 0.5 miles of a train station. I saw this one video where this woman went on to show how Atlanta should look decades from now, and it makes suburbs which are away from rail lines turn green (like demolishing and rewilding) so I do not believe it is that far from reality but it would take a massive reshuffling of property rights and political systems before that happens. So don't think that it isn't possible to demolish potentially thousands of suburban homes and return them to wilderness. Urban planners have already at this very moment thought of doing it over a period of decades, if they aren't within walking distance of transit lines. That video I saw presented the woman as showing a picture of metro Atlanta and these existing train lines extending from the city center, then she talked about "returning those places to nature" which were not within walking distance to a trainstop. The non-green areas of the map were suburbs/office parks/strip malls and the green were wilderness. She then flipped the chart and shown how Atlanta they wanted to look decades from now, and most of it was green (wilderness) where it wasn't before in the present day map. Scary stuff.
Oh phooey, I just lost my response by hitting some strange button. I'm going to try again.
Vegas is a special situation.
I don't put much faith in youtube videos regardless of who is "starring" in them. Perhaps these urban planners should start this "returning these places to nature" project with the downtowns of cities >200,000 people. After all, these areas were once "nature" as well. I'd love to see the confluence of the Monongahela, Allegheny and Ohio rivers in Pittsburgh as George Washington saw it. I'd love to see the confluence of the Platte River and Cherry Creek in Denver as William Larimer saw it. Bring it on!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Have you been to the Midtown grocery outlet yet? It's pretty decent. And yes, the western half of the central city does pretty much cry out for a grocery store. I'm still hoping that the old Greyhound depot gets turned into a medium-sized market, along the lines of Fresh & Easy or Trader Joe's.
As to "Why is anyone going to pay $4 for a half-gallon of milk when you can buy it for $1.40 elsewhere," the answer is "Because, in some cases, making the trip to 'elsewhere' costs them more than $2.60 in time and resources." Such as, for example, people who don't drive, or people in a hurry. Obviously, if nobody bought $4 half-gallons of milk, nobody would sell it for that price. Stores don't make money off merchandise that doesn't sell.
Specialty deli/market places aren't really places to pick up milk--they're a place to pick up specialty Italian olive oil or obscure Japanese candy or fresh Chinese vegetables.
And while some of the delis and convenience stores close up after lunch, others are open until midnight. And hey, if you're okay with convenience stores, there are two AM/PMs in the central city already, and a 24-hour 7-11 getting ready to open at 14th and J.
I guess I shouldn't care if somone is stupid enoug to pay $4 for a half-gallon of milk, but $2.60 in time and resources? Suburbanites, contrary to what many city people think, don't go hop in their Hummers and drive 10 miles to buy a half-gallon of milk and nothing else. Surely you remember my husband's suggestion from a previous thread about this-you borrow some from the neighbors until you can get to the store again if you absolutely, positively have to have a cup of milk for a recipe or something, say you're giving a dinner party with mac and cheese as the entree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
It's the same thing. To urbanize them requires you demolish them first. You have to take the large (by urban standards) lots and break them up, demolish the sprawling houses which are on them, and build attached houses or mixed-use buildings or whatever is currently in urban fashion. You have to remove the cul-de-sacs and dead ends and build a grid of streets with sidewalks. You have to add commercial space throughout the formerly residential areas. None of this can be done "in place", and none of it will be done with the co-operation of the residents, so it would require the government to demolish them.
Like the govt. has the money to pay for such nonsense. Here in CO where we vote on all our taxes (as does California I believe), that would never, ever fly.
I think you're mistaken. If the market demands it, changes will happen. Sure, zoning regulations can slow this process down, but they can be changed.
"The market" ISN'T going to demand it, though. Why should it? For the market to demand it would require that suburbs become so undesirable and urban areas so desirable that it becomes economically viable to buy up huge areas of the suburbs and redevelop them as urban areas.
Quote:
Cities didn't just pop up out of nowhere. They started out as villages and towns, and grew over time. If you go back far enough, even NYC probably had more in common with modern sprawl than with the current city.
Possibly, but modern suburbia is still a very different animal than early NYC. NYC started out as a bunch of towns, not as a city with suburbs; the modern suburb is mostly a modern invention.
"The market" ISN'T going to demand it, though. Why should it? For the market to demand it would require that suburbs become so undesirable and urban areas so desirable that it becomes economically viable to buy up huge areas of the suburbs and redevelop them as urban areas.
Possibly, but modern suburbia is still a very different animal than early NYC. NYC started out as a bunch of towns, not as a city with suburbs; the modern suburb is mostly a modern invention.
What I have in mind would be a much more gradual process. First, if this is a desirable area, a developer may decide that they will buy a lot, tear down the house, and build two houses, or a duplex, or something. If that's successful, other developers would do the same. Then, maybe someone decides to acquire a couple lots, and build an apartment building. Then, as the population density continues to increase, retail might move in to serve them. If traffic becomes a problem, action can be taken to correct it; maybe some of the cul-de-sacs and dead end streets are connected?
As I already said, this kind of transformation is artificially restricted by zoning and such. But, if there is enough demand, variances can be issued.
In the end, this wouldn't be as efficient as an area that was designed to be urban from the beginning. But, if natural evolution of the land was allowed to happen, you could eventually end up with an urban form that resembles medieval parts of European cities.
Cities didn't just pop up out of nowhere. They started out as villages and towns, and grew over time. If you go back far enough, even NYC probably had more in common with modern sprawl than with the current city.
No. New York City, and most early cities, were built very densely and non-sprawly from the start, especially before mechanized transportation. Density around 1800 was roughly 40,000 per square mile (only 60,000 people in the city in 1800), and likely Philadelphia and Boston was at similar densities (I saw some old pictures but . There was an abrupt transition from dense urban to rural. Even in the late 1800s, much of the northern half of Manhattan was rural until transportation was built, usually elevated rapid transit. For example, much of the Upper East Side was rural until an elevated rapid transit line was built and then apartment buildings were quickly built.
No. New York City, and most early cities, were built very densely and non-sprawly from the start, especially before mechanized transportation. Density around 1800 was roughly 40,000 per square mile (only 60,000 people in the city in 1800), and likely Philadelphia and Boston was at similar densities (I saw some old pictures but . There was an abrupt transition from dense urban to rural. Even in the late 1800s, much of the northern half of Manhattan was rural until transportation was built, usually elevated rapid transit. For example, much of the Upper East Side was rural until an elevated rapid transit line was built and then apartment buildings were quickly built.
Yeah, but that's already about 175 years after the first Dutch settlers settled. I had something like this in mind:
Yeah, but that's already about 175 years after the first Dutch settlers settled. I had something like this in mind:
I can't tell much from that photo. But the early settlement was compact; there was a wall at one end (the future Wall Street). Wall shown in this 1660 map:
I can think of 2 reasons why some of our modern sprawling suburbs wouldn't have the density of the 1674 image when they're 50 years old: zoning laws, and no shortage of land.
I'm far from being an expert on 17th century building practices. But I'd guess that, between the time the fort was built, and the above image from 1673 was made, there was a pattern somewhat like this: houses "a" "c" and "e" were built first. Then, houses "b" and "d" were built between them. Then, as demand and wealth increased, maybe houses "b" and "c" were razed to make way for a bigger multi-unit house, or a store with living quarters above, etc.
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.
