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.
Yes, I also think what is happening in L.A. proper can serve as a bench mark for suburban area's around the nation. L.A. is doing a wonderful job turning a suburban style city into walkable nodes. Area's like KOP and Tyson's Corner have a wonderful chance to develop around new street grids and transit. Walkable communities are the wave of the future and I doubt developers will ever go back to subdivision building. Atleast not in major cities.
Well one thing the LA area has got going for it is that it has denser suburbs than any other metro area (save the Bay Area, which is about the same). Retrofitting these dense quasi-suburban areas is less of a gargantuan task than changing the more meandering traditional-style suburbs of the South and East Coast. Additionally, because most of these suburbs are still on the extended grid of Los Angeles proper, there are less major infrastructure changes that need to take place to increase walkability.
I don't know if I can agree with you here. I have studied a city to great degree that was one of the first to embrace new urbanism principals Gaithersburg MD. The city used to be a sprawling typical city full of subdivisions, but is now remaking itself with massive redevelopment and new urbanism everywhere. A city with 60,000 people over 10 sq. miles will soon be a model for infill new urbanism redevelopment for post WWII suburbia.
You're way overblowing the "walkability" of these areas. The Kentlands in Gaithersburg is just a more compact version of suburbia. Everything is still built car-scale. You don't really see much pedestrian traffic there. The physical design of the area is not one that really makes you want to leave your house and walk to the Whole Foods, Giant or Kmart to go shopping. Almost everybody there drives and will continue to drive in the forseeable future.
If we're talking about suburban locales, by in large the answer is 'none' (including DC). I know it's all the rage to talk about "walkable nodes" and "retrofitting suburbia", but the truth is suburbia cannot be "fixed". It's a fundamentally broken design in regards to walkability.
I pretty much agree with this. You can't turn a minivan into a Ferrari no matter what type of engine you put in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas
Thirdly, and I know this a hard fact to accept for new school urban design folks, the majority of people in this country love driving everywhere. I personally don't understand it, but there is no room for doubt on this.
Well, the infrastructure is designed for cars, gas is cheap and cars are cheap. The last point, imo, is an important one. A new BMW 3 Series could easily run into the six figures in Britain or France whereas you would only pay $50,000 max in the States. That's a big difference. Any joker on the street with a credit score above 600 can walk into a used car dealership and drive off with an Acura, Lexus, Hummer, Infiniti, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Audi, etc. When you can buy such nice cars on the cheap, why wouldn't you want to drive???
The rest of the world doesn't have luxury cars galore like the States. If you wanted to drive a BMW in Barbados, you would probably spend about $125,000 after factoring in the VAT and other tariffs. That's why you see so many sucky cars in other countries. We've got it really good over here in the sense that you can be a secretary and still roll up to work in an X5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas
The only thing that will break this car addiction most people in this country have (this includes most people in DC or NYC or anywhere else for that matter) is for oil reserves to run out and no cheaper alternative being found. That sounds dystopian, but it's been the truth ever since car companies started equated owning an automobile with freedom.
I doubt it. Cars are becoming much more fuel efficient. And a lot of people will just keep driving regardless of fuel price.
You're way overblowing the "walkability" of these areas. The Kentlands in Gaithersburg is just a more compact version of suburbia. Everything is still built car-scale. You don't really see much pedestrian traffic there. The physical design of the area is not one that really makes you want to leave your house and walk to the Whole Foods, Giant or Kmart to go shopping. Almost everybody there drives and will continue to drive in the forseeable future.
Whole Food's is not designed to be walkable yet. The downtown kentland development will go a much longer way to being walkable. Also, Watkins Mill Town Center and Crown Farm have a much greater potential to be walkable since the commercial is actually integrated into the fabric of the city community. Kentlands is only half done. The downtown area of kentlands when built will completely change that.
Crown Farm which will be denser than Kentlands and have greater integration will most likely have way more people willing to walk than Kentlands because of the superior design. The downfall of kentlands from a residential to commercial perspective is the separation of residential and commercial uses. People only walk to commercial uses when the community is truly mixed use. Crown Farm will have close to 1,000 apartments above commercial uses with row homes surrounding that. It is a much more integrated plan. Downtown Kentlands will have 2,500 additional units on top of the commercial that is now a sea of parking outside of kentlands in present day. The key factor here is integration which the developers of kentlands in the 1980-1990's didn't understand. The new urbanist developments going up in Gaithersburg in 2012 do however understand that and are getting way denser and mixed in their uses. Kentlands is basically a residential neighborhood which is the problem. There is no commercial to walk too other than the tiny main street. The rest of development is a typical strip mall for now.
Well one thing the LA area has got going for it is that it has denser suburbs than any other metro area (save the Bay Area, which is about the same). Retrofitting these dense quasi-suburban areas is less of a gargantuan task than changing the more meandering traditional-style suburbs of the South and East Coast. Additionally, because most of these suburbs are still on the extended grid of Los Angeles proper, there are less major infrastructure changes that need to take place to increase walkability.
I think it's the opposite actually. More sparsely populated suburbs have more land for major infill development projects a la Downtown Silver Spring, Atlantic Station (though not in the burbs) and Ballston, Virginia.
If any "walkable" development is to be built in the American suburbs, it's likely to be along the lines of a Downtown Silver Spring or Gaithersburg, which requires a lot of land. It's not likely to come as the result of adding a few condos here and there in densely populated (by American standards) suburbs that have less space to build on.
I pretty much agree with this. You can't turn a minivan into a Ferrari no matter what type of engine you put in it.
Well, the infrastructure is designed for cars, gas is cheap and cars are cheap. The last point, imo, is an important one. A new BMW 3 Series could easily run into the six figures in Britain or France whereas you would only pay $50,000 max in the States. That's a big difference. Any joker on the street with a credit score above 600 can walk into a used car dealership and drive off with an Acura, Lexus, Hummer, Infiniti, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Audi, etc. When you can buy such nice cars on the cheap, why wouldn't you want to drive???
The rest of the world doesn't have luxury cars galore like the States. If you wanted to drive a BMW in Barbados, you would probably spend about $125,000 after factoring in the VAT and other tariffs. That's why you see so many sucky cars in other countries. We've got it really good over here in the sense that you can be a secretary and still roll up to work in an X5.
I doubt it. Cars are becoming much more fuel efficient. And a lot of people will just keep driving regardless of fuel price.
The only factor that stops people from driving is high parking costs, low parking inventory, and high congestion. Those are three things that are necessary in any urban environment. This is prevalent in any major CBD. It's a necessary evil and without it, people will have an induced demand to drive.
Whole Food's is not designed to be walkable yet. The downtown kentland development will go a much longer way to being walkable. Also, Wakins Mill Town Center and Crown Farm have a much great potential to be walkable since the commercial is actually integrated into the fabric of the city community. Kentlands is only half done. The downtown area of kentlands when built will completely change that.
Crown Farm which will be denser than Kentlands and have greater integration will most likely have way more people willing to walk than Kentlands because of the superior design. The downfall of kentlands from a residential to commercial perspective is the separation of residential and commercial uses. People only walk to commercial uses when the community is truly mixed use. Crown Farm will have close to 1,000 apartments above commercial uses with row homes surrounding that. It is a much more integrated plan. Downtown Kentlands will have 2,500 additional units on top of the commercial that is now a sea of parking outside of kentlands in present day. The key factor here is integration which the developers of kentlands in the 1980-1990's didn't understand. The new urbanist developments going up in Gaithersburg in 2012 do however understand that and are getting way denser and mixed in their uses. Kentlands is basically a residential neighborhood which is the problem.
All of these places really just end up feeling like really gigantic apartment complexes with very limited retail. People will probably drive less (and actually make some pedestrian trips) for basic errands. But the regional context in which they live will pretty much ensure they have a car-dependent lifestyle.
The only factor that stops people from driving is high parking costs, low parking inventory, and high congestion. Those are three things that are necessary in any urban environment. This is prevalent in any major CBD. It's a necessary evil and without it, people will have an induced demand to drive.
That's true for older CBDs and central cities that have practical limitations on how much they can accommodate automobiles. But that's not true for newer developments that are built with the expectation that people are bringing cars.
All of these places really just end up feeling like really gigantic apartment complexes with very limited retail. People will probably drive less (and actually make some pedestrian trips) for basic errands. But the regional context in which they live will pretty much ensure they have a car-dependent lifestyle.
Limited retail, what do you think is missing? I don't think you have seen what Crown Farm is doing have you? The Rio Washingtonian Waterfront combined with Crown Farm will be a national model and will also overflow with retail. I can't think of an ammenity that that are won't have.
Well, I don't think this is a movement to stop people from having car; it's a movement to make it easier to perform daily functions without a car. The premise of a NYC, DC, Boston, Philly, and Chicago lifestyle is only possible in those cities and an additional select few. These cities have the infrastructure to support this lifestyle. It would take 100 years of redevelopment for suburbs to develop at that intensity. Those cities weren't built over night either. I think people need to stop trying to compare the suburbs to cities to try to point out their limitations and start highlighting their possibilities and potential improvements. That seems to be the largest problem with these discussions. People aren't trying to improve walkability and car free living; they are just trying to highlight what suburbs still need to do and it's always in a negative connotation too.
That's true for older CBDs and central cities that have practical limitations on how much they can accommodate automobiles. But that's not true for newer developments that are built with the expectation that people are bringing cars.
Which is why you have to purposely limit parking like Montgomery County is doing with the White Flint Sector Plan. You have to limit the supply through legistlation so people are forced to switch modes.
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.
