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.
JKfire, all of your ideas are based on a government that has nearly unlimited authority and unlimited resources to expend on these projects. You won't find either of those things in the real world, and probably (hopefully) never will. The closest approximation might be in present-day China, where they have built and abandoned quite a few experimental "model cities" that failed horribly for one reason or another.
Taking your list by the numbers:
1) You can't just make things walkable, transit oriented and mixed use ex cathedra. Many places are quite simply in the wrong place, and got turned into sprawl because the land was cheap and there was a nearby freeway.
2) One size doesn't fit all for transit. Densities can and should vary, and different transit modes are better for different situations.
3) Inclusive housing is important, but declaring that it shall be so by decree is pretty ineffective--it only guarantees that it will never be built. Traditional low-income housing is found in older neighborhoods and smaller housing units. There are better ways to ensure a suitable stock of low-income housing, like not knocking down older neighborhoods because you have decided they are an "obsolete" housing form--we used to do that, which is why we're in our current fix when it comes to low income housing.
4) Corporations aren't the only folks who can behave unethically--and subjecting something like ethics to a majority vote is pretty dangerous. Make the planning process open, with options for public participation and community input. Discourage "smokestack chasing" and local incentives intended to attract corporate tenants over local business, and public giveaways for those corporate tenants--but don't ban corporate/chain businesses out of hand.
5) There are already some pretty good rules regarding protection of wilderness areas, and measuring the potential effects of projects on the natural world. Following them would probably work out a lot better than an outright ban on any further horizontal development.
6) Farms aren't "wild." Wetlands restoration and other repair of natural functions that clean air and water are important things, but they are expensive and sometimes there just isn't enough left to repair.
7) This one actively contradicts the next one.
8) Plenty of old buildings are low-density, one-story, or single-family homes, and history didn't stop in 1945. In fact, the current "hip" thing in preservation circles is "mid-century modern," characterized by horizontal, single-family homes in car-centric neighborhoods. The desire for preservation runs directly into conflict with the desire to level anything that isn't sufficiently dense or tall, and designating every building before a certain age as historic dilutes the meaning of the designation: it's commendable to at least consider a building's historic value prior to demolition, but lots of buildings simply don't make the cut, or have been too altered or degraded by time or damage to retain their historic character--or they never had it in the first place.
9) NYC and Portland are two very different places. Large cities take up a lot of space, and it's quite simply impossible for everyone to be really close to unspoiled nature. As we see with suburbs, adding in little rectangular substitutes for unspoiled nature vastly increases the amount of space needed per unit, and dilutes your aim to create an urban place. Create places worth being, with periodic use of parks and public spaces, along with varieties of density, height and intensity of use, and a variety of ways to get around, and you satisfy the same need.
10) Community design guidelines are one thing, but picking one era/style of construction gets old fast. At the level of a neighborhood, or historic district, strict design guidelines can help maintain the look and feel of a neighborhood. And while sometimes I find poking holes in an overly self-important architect's self-esteem amusing, a really skilled architect can turn ideas into physical form in ways that inspire the public, in ways that a design by committee simply can't.
11) Regional tax sharing and regional planning are good ideas. But don't go overboard with them, and realize that resources are limited--eventually you have to pick what can be done within your available budget (and political capital, and resources, and space) and what can't be done.
Stucco is okay for Spanish Colonial Revival but looks like crud as a retrofit on a house originally designed for wood siding. What do you think of Hardiplank or other cementitious or composite siding, Malloric?
Hardiplank or SmartSide compared to what? Hardiplank looks the closest to solid wood siding while costing (in materials) at or less than OSB composite. On the other hand, it's harder (more labor) to install so it actually ends up costing about as much as paint-quality cedar siding. Vinyl and OSB are the two cheapest options, which is why they are so popular with builders. Brick and EIFS "stucco" are maintenance free or as close as you can get to it (EIFS is also an excellent insulator).
Ever taken the siding off a cheap tract house built with OSB? There's a lot of corners cut, at least in houses built in the '50-'80s. I really doubt cedar siding would last much longer than OSB. Fiber cement doesn't do well if it freezes when it's wet, but otherwise isn't that effected by water exposure like wood is. With vinyl or cement composites the concern is more about proper installation. Vinyl expands with heat and Hardi expands when it gets wet. If not properly installed you get warping in vinyl and cracking/disintegration with Hardi.
On the other hand, you not build a house that directs the water behind the siding and traps it there, and cedar siding -- even in a rainy climate like Seattle -- is good for 30-50 years. You'd still have to paint it more frequently than you would Hardi, of course.
Last edited by Malloric; 12-08-2011 at 03:21 AM..
12-08-2011, 12:59 PM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 12 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,926,035 times
Reputation: 4052
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKFire108
Don't you think that urban planning is very hard? There are many facets to it that have to be balanced but it isn't as easy as it sounds because there are so many different forces and interests at work.
What do you think of my ideas of how places should be planned and built (or not built)? After my year or so on the forum, here is what I think should be done in America and hopefully the world after I took into account the multi-faceted nature of urban planning. I got these after seeing how hard urban planning is and try to synthesize something that is best for the earth and all of its people.
I hope this is understandable, I wish I could detail it more but I want to keep it short because I don't want you to read a whole book here so I am sorry if it isn’t detailed enough and vague.
1) Redevelop the vast expanses of suburban big box stores and their parking lots into New Urbanist communities, about 4-6 stories (not too tall if people don’t want them) and make them mixed use, walkable, and transit oriented.
2) Connect those New Urbanist communities in #1 to transit to other “nodes” of New Urbanist communities in suburbs and also to the big city. A good way to ensure speed and safety while having cheap costs and minimizing potential of eminent domain I think would be to use elevated American maglev lines, such as those shown here: http://american-maglev.com/index.php
3) Have a good portion, at least 50% of the units of those New Urbanist communities be either a community land trust or under a deed restriction put by the municipality. Either way, the goal should be to allow the homes to be affordable forever by limiting the amount the land underneath the homes can appreciate by a cap of 3 to 4% per year maximum. This is to ensure the housing is inexpensive for the mass majority of the middle and poor class.
4) Set strict laws similar to San Francisco to ensure most of the commercial tenants of those New Urbanist communities or even the whole municipality are locally owned non-chain stores, and any business that practices unethical behavior such as Wal-Mart should be barred if it is voted on *democratically* by the community.
5) Set all undeveloped wilderness areas and farmland nationwide automatically as protected wilderness protection zones and protected farmland zone, where no developer for any reason can build any suburban housing, office parks, or commercial strip malls.
6) Selectively rewild certain areas by either converting them into local organic GMO-free locavore farms and/or rehabilitating them back into wilderness or wetland areas.
7) Take a full tally of all properties in all dense urban cities in the country and mark all vacant lots and single story or low density post-war buildings, and selectively if applicable redevelop them into higher density and taller, more intense uses. There are many areas in Queens or Brooklyn have single story office buildings like Chase banks or Duane Reade that can be demolished and turned into 4-6 story buildings with a grocery store, any type of store or even a bank but with office space/affordable housing apartments on top.
8) Proactively put all buildings made before 1945 as historical landmarked properties that cannot be demolished or significantly altered by developers in any dense urban city. The city of London has done this, much stronger and more pervasive than New York’s yet London is a prosperous city despite limiting development. However repurposing can be promoted. Developers can be allowed to build additional stories on top of pre-war buildings if applicable and if democratically approved by the community, and many examples of this have happened already in New York.
9) Promote the New Urbanist villages as offering the same urbanity like NYC or Portland, Oregon but being close to nature where children can play, to redirect development pressure away from big cities like NYC in order to preserve their old historic buildings from redevelopment and ensure higher quality of life for all people. Relieving development pressure can also lower rents for people in the big city too.
10) Have the people democratically decide or influence the design of new buildings in the New Urbanist communities. Most people overwhelmingly prefer the old 1700s/1800s/early 1900s style building to 1950s and later Modernism, so if the community wishes for their community to look like that and be built with real bricks and brownstone, it should be that way. If they want more modern styles, then let it be so. Architects should serve the people and not “decide” what is good for them.
11) Someone here mentioned it would be bad if cities were emptied out of residents and thus tax revenue. In keeping with the theme of promoting enviornmental protections too, city areas should be remade to become regions and thus tax revenues should be shared amongst the big city and the suburbs/rural areas near by it. Thus there can be a more unified directing of resources and tax dollar and more cooperation in deciding matters regarding wilderness protection zones and the like.
What do you think of these ideas? I hope that you like them and I think all of America can benefit from them. I don’t think I covered everything and may have left many details out but if I did put them, it’d be too long so I tried to make it short so you can read it well. Since I am only a man I don’t know if I took everything into account but I did my best so if you have any ideas or constructive criticism I’d love to hear them.
Great thread subject! Your ideas for how places should be planned and built(and not built) are interesting!
Your ideas seem to be a lot about zoning, and for promoting high quality density but also preserved nature/wilderness areas.
However, there can be more mixed density instead because plenty of people like very low density, low density, medium density, high density, and extremely high density. (Personally I prefer a lot of high density and extremely density, but I also like some medium density, low density, and very low density.
My favorite points you mentioned are number 4, 9, and 10, and 11.
Number 4 seems to be about promoting high quality commercial establishments, and I agree with that.
Number 9 seems to be about urban preservation for plenty of those places that exist, but also urban renewal for some new places so high quality urbanity can spread and relieve some pressure on existing areas.
Number 10 seems to be about society deciding on the type of architecture that is created, and more creative freedom for what is built in places.
Number 11 is about trying to have the economy support urban planning and architecture practices and make them thrive instead of the economy discouraging urban planning and architecture projects.
Like nei, I'll focus on one item. From time to time, I'll come back.
4) Set strict laws similar to San Francisco to ensure most of the commercial tenants of those New Urbanist communities or even the whole municipality are locally owned non-chain stores, and any business that practices unethical behavior such as Wal-Mart should be barred if it is voted on *democratically* by the community.
Pretty much everything would be barred under that clause. There is no guarantee that locally owned non-chain stores will be more "ethical".
I agree with you. I will add that I do not believe Wal-Mart is an inherently unethical company. Lots of people don't like them, just like they don't like oil companies, but don't have any problems with a hip company like Apple, who makes dramatically higher profits, makes all of its gadgets offshore, and exerts overwhelming control over its partners and customers.
Re: maglev trains. The longest run in the entire world is 19 miles (Shanghai).
The OP's proposals are largely utopian - but it is a utopia that if put to democratic vote as he suggests, would probably be voted down. Any single item in his proposal is no less than expensive. And many are outrageously expensive with no plan to pay for it.
If you took all of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett's money you might get a few miles of high speed rail built. It won't be enough to get from LA to San Francisco.
This thread makes me wonder: Should urban planners have dictatorial power over every facet of a city?
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.
