Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-09-2012, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,943 posts, read 34,484,403 times
Reputation: 15007

Advertisements

This seems to be the mantra in many cities across the country. There seems to be a general sentiment that more density is always a wise thing. It's almost as if the pendulum has swung from one extreme (auto-centric suburbia) to the other (dense, walkable, "sustainable" development).

Perhaps it is wiser. I just find it interesting that people advocate development with such zeal and fervor. We saw the same thing with people going all in with the housing market ("You CAN'T lose on real estate!"). It seems like people are adhering to the principles of development (particularly economic development) like religious fundamentalists. Only I guess we can call them market fundamentalists.

What do you think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-09-2012, 09:28 AM
 
Location: NYC
7,305 posts, read 13,466,096 times
Reputation: 3714
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
This seems to be the mantra in many cities across the country. There seems to be a general sentiment that more density is always a wise thing. It's almost as if the pendulum has swung from one extreme (auto-centric suburbia) to the other (dense, walkable, "sustainable" development).

Perhaps it is wiser. I just find it interesting that people advocate development with such zeal and fervor. We saw the same thing with people going all in with the housing market ("You CAN'T lose on real estate!"). It seems like people are adhering to the principles of development (particularly economic development) like religious fundamentalists. Only I guess we can call them market fundamentalists.

What do you think?
In my city, which has a ton of abandonment, I welcome almost any economic device to improve quality of life, tax base, and population growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 09:28 AM
 
8,680 posts, read 17,223,798 times
Reputation: 4685
The development community always advocates development with zeal and fervor. Some in that community are realizing that building outward is no longer an option in many cities--they have reached their limits for horizontal expansion, and the new business model is building upward rather than outward. In other places, they're still advocating for new suburbs, because it's the consumer product they know how to build.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
5,501 posts, read 9,454,065 times
Reputation: 5606
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
In my city, which has a ton of abandonment, I welcome almost any economic device to improve quality of life, tax base, and population growth.
Same here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 10:39 AM
 
546 posts, read 1,172,857 times
Reputation: 467
I think it is bad that cities keep wanting to build. Cities that continue to grow, die.

Look at this:
Ryan Avent's The Gated City: Are NIMBYs Killing The Economy? (Book Review) : TreeHugger

Here is an article that criticizes a book that says restrictions on development are destroying the economy and big cities need to allow more building development. However, I agree with the web author on his criticism of the book. If you continue to build too much, you destroy the very thing that people come to cities to have.

Perhaps both suburbanization and densification of already existing urban cities are wrong. We need a 3rd way, which is to convert some auto-centric suburbs into more dense urban areas and protect our existing cities.

Some cities like NYC, Boston, Philly etc should not be expected not continue to grow, otherwise they will die as historic buildings which are beautiful are demolished for more cold modernist glass boxes to house more people and infrastructure, schools, social services etc are strained to the limit. There needs to be limits to growth and development, and it has to stop in cities. Other cities which have been parking lot bombed, like Indianapolis or Cleveland for example, can allow growth and development but they should keep their historic buildings, and not allow them to be demolished to build developments. Old buildings are good as they are cheaper to house local businesses and poorer residents, which help maintain diversity in the city as well as they are much more pleasant to look at than glass boxes. Development should be much more controlled and stopped if necessary. For some cities, like Indianapolis or places where they are lots of empty surface parking lots to build infill on, they can build density to promote a healthy economic enviornment but existing places with already existing buildings and businesses should not have development or extremely limited development.

I think a mantra to simply keep building more and more is very destructive whether it be suburban sprawl or urban dense infill. The government should not serve the interests of real estate developers who simply want to build to get more money, but they should build only where it is needed and it will not disturb the rights of private property owners who happen to have humble property sitting where a developer wants to build. There are too many examples of eminent domain abuse by redevelopment agencies and private developers across the country.

Imagine if a city is like a human body. Growth and development of a city is like a human. During its infant stages, it needs to grow and develop to become healthy. But what happens when an adult human continues to grow physically? That is considered like a cancer or a fatal disease, and the person dies. The same goes with cities. Cities that continue to growth, die.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
41,790 posts, read 74,837,182 times
Reputation: 66728
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKFire108 View Post
Perhaps both suburbanization and densification of already existing urban cities are wrong. We need a 3rd way, which is to convert some auto-centric suburbs into more dense urban areas and protect our existing cities.
I prefer a fourth way, which is to rehab/build on infill first and whenever possible -- city and suburb -- by reclaiming empty lots and abandoned storefronts, factories and warehouses, shopping centers, etc., many of which aren't all that historically significant.

Why "protect" cities and not suburbs? One is no better than the other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
14,362 posts, read 16,918,642 times
Reputation: 12390
I'd actually argue that San Francisco is the only realistically "filled" city in the U.S.

New York could grow quite a bit more without sacrificing much, as there still are a lot of under-utilized former industrial areas. Indeed, there are arguments the reason rents are so high in NYC is because so many limitations have been put up to stop new construction, particularly construction of new residential high rises in Brooklyn and Queens.

Most other cities have not come close to being full, because there is plenty of abandoned/blighted property, not to say vacant land yet to rehab, before "densification" is even considered.

I find the arguments in the article cited earlier somewhat unpersuasive, but perhaps not atypical coming from an architect. While I love historical neighborhoods, I'm not sure it's better to have a moderately dense neighborhood where only the very wealthy can live, as opposed to a denser neighborhood, albeit one with less character, which people from a broader income spectrum can afford. What use is so much historical beauty if only the 1% get to enjoy it as anything but tourists? There has to be a balance between utility and form - too much emphasis on form, and you can end up with something like Venice - a dead city where most property is owned as occasionally visited second homes by the very wealthy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 12:05 PM
 
546 posts, read 1,172,857 times
Reputation: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
I prefer a fourth way, which is to rehab/build on infill first and whenever possible -- city and suburb -- by reclaiming empty lots and abandoned storefronts, factories and warehouses, shopping centers, etc., many of which aren't all that historically significant.

Why "protect" cities and not suburbs? One is no better than the other.
It depends on what you mean by infill. If you're talking about 1960s Robert Moses style wholesale demolishing and rebuilding of urban districts, which includes abandoned storefronts, factories, warehouses etc then I would disagree strongly. If you mean by repairing and turning an abandoned warehouse into a condo loft, I would agree.

Cities need to be protected more than post-WWII autocentric suburbs because old architecture is rare and it is not built anymore. Otherwise, post-war architecture is in abundance and people still build it, and they most likely won't go back because it is more expensive to build. Even if those particular buildings, like an empty warehouse or storefront, are not historically significant, architecturally they are because they are rare and they aren't built like that anymore. You may not personally like old style architecture, but many do and they need to be protected more than suburban post-war auto-centric buildings do since once they're gone they're gone, while the latter they can always build more. As I said, these old buildings like old storefronts are good incubators of local businesses whereas suburban stripmalls are dominated by chains because small business owners cannot afford the high costs of having vast amounts of storespace whereas a cheaper old building in a city has a small space can hold a small locally owned store.

There are hundreds of Walmarts around the country that aren't significant in that they continue to be built and aren't anything special architecturally, so demolishing them and building a Masdar style city in an otherwise place of strip malls would bring a lot of economic and walkability to an area. No one is going to miss somewhat new strip malls, and it will do a lot more than strip malls on that same piece of land will ever do. If you ever miss the strip mall or Walmart, don't worry because they still keep builidng them out in the exurbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 12:11 PM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,314 posts, read 9,212,530 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I'd actually argue that San Francisco is the only realistically "filled" city in the U.S.
SF is currently building and planning to build thousands of housing units (over 4,300 units are currently under construction throughout the city), as well as hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space, with millions more planned. And the population grew by about 20,000 from 2000-2010. So San Francisco is definitely not filled yet. And that's talking city limits of course, the metro is growing faster...and who knows, maybe one day hell will freeze over, and SF will annex Daly City or something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,943 posts, read 34,484,403 times
Reputation: 15007
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKFire108 View Post
I think a mantra to simply keep building more and more is very destructive whether it be suburban sprawl or urban dense infill. The government should not serve the interests of real estate developers who simply want to build to get more money, but they should build only where it is needed and it will not disturb the rights of private property owners who happen to have humble property sitting where a developer wants to build. There are too many examples of eminent domain abuse by redevelopment agencies and private developers across the country.
Many people don't feel this way about it. They move to a neighborhood, often underserved by retail shops, and demand the services they want at any cost. I see this on my neighborhood listserv all the time:

"Yeah, that was a church used to house slaves during the Underground Railroad, but we need retail."

"Of course no one wants to demolish a park designed by Frederick Olmsted, but we need retail, and I'd like to be able to walk out of my door and get a cupcake from time to time."

It's ironic that these same people often lament the destruction of pre-war streetcar development, but then turn right around and place their immediate needs and desires above long-term planning. How are they any different from people in the 1950s who said, "Eh. We need highways, so we can do without all of that 19th Century architecture." People thought freeways were worth the cost then just as people think density is worth the cost now. From reading my listserv, it seems that people are okay with building on anything and anywhere so long as it leads to more coffesshops.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:24 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top