U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Merry Christmas!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 05-17-2012, 11:30 AM
Status: "More snow please" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Madison, WI Metro Area
15,420 posts, read 21,581,188 times
Reputation: 7812

Advertisements

An interesting read for those inclined.

The Limits of Density - Neighborhoods - The Atlantic Cities
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-17-2012, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Chicago
1,279 posts, read 825,679 times
Reputation: 1383
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
An interesting read for those inclined.

The Limits of Density - Neighborhoods - The Atlantic Cities
Fair enough.

But the thing is that building up leaves more space for other things. Building up allows people to live there, work there, and find recreation there.

As far as I know, there is no federal law that says a 100 story building CANNOT have:

Residences
Office spaces
Grocery stores
Movie theaters
Commercial shoppes
Libraries
Etc.


Building out means at some point in time we are going to run out of room. Building up means that the point in which we run out of room comes far later. And building up with all amenities included doesn't mean interaction between people has to stop. Some towns hold less people than some high rises do, but people in those small towns, physically more spread out in comparison to their neighbor's property, would think/say they aren't missing anything.


Who craves space?

I think post #100 describes the camp that the article of your posted link is in. Or not. I don't know. My opinion.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
5,435 posts, read 3,376,336 times
Reputation: 3786
I understand the point, but I don't think what he's talking about is practical.

As an example, I'd argue we need more density in portions of NYC. But what's needed is not so much the replacement of current mid-rise apartments in Manhattan with residential skyscrapers, but the building up of areas in the outer boroughs with pretty good transit access, but which remain detached single-family housing (Bay Ridge, Borough Park, Prospect Park South, etc). Building them up to the "rowhouse standard" of much of Brooklyn would really help with density, improve street activity, and be an all around plus, except for some houses of architectural merit being lost.

However, with average home prices in these areas ranging from $500,000 to $1,000,000, you'd never see such redevelopment, because it would be too expensive to buy out these areas just to demo the houses and put in slightly higher density townhouses in their place. Indeed, the prices in NYC, and the lack of any truly blighted areas, mean you have to build up pretty far if you want added density, barring acquisition of brownfield site or a large industrial property.

Thus, building dense areas even denser, instead of moderately dense areas to normal density, tends to win out.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
17,609 posts, read 10,166,610 times
Reputation: 6207
I don't think people living in Staten Island would really want any more density. They likely moved there because it was not dense.

I can't believe Richard Florida gets paid to write non-sense like this:

Quote:
Similarly, you don’t find great arts districts and music scenes in high-rise districts but in older, historic residential, industrial or warehousing districts such as New York’s Greenwich Village or Soho, or San Francisco’s Mission District, which were built before elevators enabled multi-story construction.
So basically, if you want a great arts district in your city, jump in a time machine and build a bunch of rowhouse between 1870 and 1890. If you don't have a time machine, do your best to imitate the architecture in the Mission or Greenwich Village, and the "artists" and indie rock bands will come.

Last edited by BajanYankee; 05-17-2012 at 03:34 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,094 posts, read 5,942,972 times
Reputation: 2942
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I don't think people living in Staten Island would really want any more density. They likely moved there because it was not dense.

I can't believe Richard Florida gets paid to write non-sense like this:



So basically, if you want a great arts district in your city, jump in a time machine and build a bunch of rowhouse between 1870 and 1890. If you don't have a time machine, do your best to imitate the architecture in the Mission or Greenwich Village, and the "artists" and indie rock bands will come.
The Pearl District in Portland is an ex-warehouse district, as is LA's Downtown Arts District, I believe in Dallas Deep Ellum used to be industrial - it is pretty common because these areas are easy to be converted to live/work spaces for artists.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
28,709 posts, read 14,973,396 times
Reputation: 9183
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I don't think people living in Staten Island would really want any more density. They likely moved there because it was not dense.
Might be right, for many of the residents. Same is true of Long Island. But there's nowhere left to build. Since they've run out of room and demand is high, prices go up and then you get a situation where the residents' children will have trouble affording to live in their parent's old neighborhood. The desires of the current residents aren't the only thing that matters.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 04:06 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
17,609 posts, read 10,166,610 times
Reputation: 6207
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Might be right, for many of the residents. Same is true of Long Island. But there's nowhere left to build. Since they've run out of room and demand is high, prices go up and then you get a situation where the residents' children will have trouble affording to live in their parent's old neighborhood. The desires of the current residents aren't the only thing that matters.
Whatever happened to other cities in the United States? New York, San Francisco, DC and Boston are not the only cities young people can live in. If you can't afford to live in San Francisco, there's always Nashville, Richmond, Roanoke, Columbus and Chattanooga. There are jobs in those cities, too.

I typically hear this grievance from posters in the DC forum who think all SFH neighborhoods in the city should be reconfigured because: (1) they can't afford to live in a hip "nabe" and want more of them or (2) they simply think everybody should live in a hip, walkable "nabe." Not everybody wants that. Some people enjoy having a yard, and if a yard means there's no room left to build condos so you can have a hip, walkable nabe, then too bad.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
28,709 posts, read 14,973,396 times
Reputation: 9183
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Whatever happened to other cities in the United States? New York, San Francisco, DC and Boston are not the only cities young people can live in. If you can't afford to live in San Francisco, there's always Nashville, Richmond, Roanoke, Columbus and Chattanooga. There are jobs in those cities, too.
Not everyone wants to move. What if you grew up in New York (or its burbs, I was using Long Island as example) and want to stay there.

Quote:
I typically hear this grievance from posters in the DC forum who think all SFH neighborhoods in the city should be reconfigured because: (1) they can't afford to live in a hip "nabe" and want more of them or (2) they simply think everybody should live in a hip, walkable "nabe." Not everybody wants that. Some people enjoy having a yard, and if a yard means there's no room left to build condos so you can have a hip, walkable nabe, then too bad.
But plenty of suburbs are available with yards. Let cities do what they do best at.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
17,609 posts, read 10,166,610 times
Reputation: 6207
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Not everyone wants to move. What if you grew up in New York (or its burbs, I was using Long Island as example) and want to stay there.
Tough. Life's not fair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
But plenty of suburbs are available with yards. Let cities do what they do best at.
The houses are already there. Are we going to confsicate them through the use of eminent domain and build more condos?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
5,435 posts, read 3,376,336 times
Reputation: 3786
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I don't think people living in Staten Island would really want any more density. They likely moved there because it was not dense.
What this sort of gets down to, is who makes the decision?

Is it up to the property owners? If it is, than zoning in and of itself is pretty much wrong. Individuals should be able to sell their property to whoever, who can do what they want with it.

Is it up to the city as a whole? I'd argue so, since this is the base of government. Perhaps in the context of NYC, the borough at large might have a say as well.

The third alternative, which seems to be what you're saying, is it's up to the neighborhood. This has historically been the popular argument, as it's seen as giving "a voice to the community."

The issue is, however, this doesn't distinguish that there's a clear difference between a neighborhood (an arbitrary, often undefined, group of blocks which are seen as having some commonality) and a municipality (which has clear functions). Treating neighborhoods as if they are municipalities in terms of their rights undercuts the ability of a city to self-govern. It allows vague, localized interests to shape broader municipal policy.

A city government, in the end is majoritarian, not based upon consensus. It's okay to pick winners and losers, and if in the end it was a bad decision, than the city government can deal with it at the ballot box.
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.


 
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 $89,000 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.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top