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 12-15-2012, 12:12 AM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,760,401 times
Reputation: 1616

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jobaba View Post
It's beautiful for sure. I'm not sure that kind of development is realistic in the US. Because new development and New Urbanism is usually confined to places where people need autos.

Here's one with a good ratio, matching facade, setback, building height, with ample parking and use of one way streets to save space...

Google Image Result for http://www.realestatecharlestonarea.com/xSites/Agents/AgentOwnedRealtyCo4/Content/UploadedFiles/cityCharlestonSC_KingSt.jpg
I've often wondered why there aren't more prominent examples of New Urbanism in city cores. Most city cores have plenty of parking lots and such that could redeveloped, and many cities do have the demand.

Quebec's small towns often have narrow main streets too, like that street in Charleston or narrower.

La Malbaie: La Malbaie, QC - Google Maps
Montmagny: La Malbaie, QC - Google Maps
Joliette: L'Épiphanie, QC - Google Maps
Victoriaville: Victoriaville, QC - Google Maps
Saint-Hyacinthe: Saint-Hyacinthe, QC - Google Maps
Saint-Jerome: Saint-Jérôme, QC - Google Maps
Terrebonne: Saint-Jérôme, QC - Google Maps

Trois Rivieres seems to have built a parking garage and done away with on-street parking and has lots of restaurant patios: Trois-Rivières, QC - Google Maps

And who said you had to have room for both on-street parking and restaurant patios. One thing that seems common in towns and small cities of Quebec is placing restaurant patios in parking spots: Sherbrooke, QC - Google Maps

I've heard of San Francisco doing this too, although I'm not sure if they do it on the same scale as Sherbrooke above which seems to have over a dozen in its small downtown. Quebec main streets are also narrower, which means being close to traffic is not as unpleasant since there is less traffic.

There's a number of approaches that restaurants can take for outdoor seating actually, other than the sidewalk, including courtyards, rooftops, balconies/terraces of some sort, side streets, squares. I'm not sure what it's called, but some restaurants also have large windows that can be drawn up like a garage door, opening up the restaurant to the street for when the weather is nice. One of the things you can see in the Dubrovnik streetview is that there's a little nook with tables. You can have something tucked away off a street with cars too, there are places along these lines in many Canadian cities and suburban downtowns.

Last edited by memph; 12-15-2012 at 12:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-15-2012, 08:41 AM
 
7,375 posts, read 11,546,048 times
Reputation: 8174
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
I've often wondered why there aren't more prominent examples of New Urbanism in city cores. Most city cores have plenty of parking lots and such that could redeveloped, and many cities do have the demand.

Quebec's small towns often have narrow main streets too, like that street in Charleston or narrower.

La Malbaie: La Malbaie, QC - Google Maps
Montmagny: La Malbaie, QC - Google Maps
Joliette: L'Épiphanie, QC - Google Maps
Victoriaville: Victoriaville, QC - Google Maps
Saint-Hyacinthe: Saint-Hyacinthe, QC - Google Maps
Saint-Jerome: Saint-Jérôme, QC - Google Maps
Terrebonne: Saint-Jérôme, QC - Google Maps

Trois Rivieres seems to have built a parking garage and done away with on-street parking and has lots of restaurant patios: Trois-Rivières, QC - Google Maps

And who said you had to have room for both on-street parking and restaurant patios. One thing that seems common in towns and small cities of Quebec is placing restaurant patios in parking spots: Sherbrooke, QC - Google Maps

I've heard of San Francisco doing this too, although I'm not sure if they do it on the same scale as Sherbrooke above which seems to have over a dozen in its small downtown. Quebec main streets are also narrower, which means being close to traffic is not as unpleasant since there is less traffic.

There's a number of approaches that restaurants can take for outdoor seating actually, other than the sidewalk, including courtyards, rooftops, balconies/terraces of some sort, side streets, squares. I'm not sure what it's called, but some restaurants also have large windows that can be drawn up like a garage door, opening up the restaurant to the street for when the weather is nice. One of the things you can see in the Dubrovnik streetview is that there's a little nook with tables. You can have something tucked away off a street with cars too, there are places along these lines in many Canadian cities and suburban downtowns.

I like them all. I've never been to QC actually, but Montreal a few times.

To me, there are examples of using urban planning to improve urban city cores, but much of it is token. Maybe knocking down a parking lot or two to put in a water fountain. Widening a sidewalk or putting in a bike lane. It seems to me 'true urban planning' works best at the genesis of a city/town/section. It seems the city planners in QC had a lot of foresight.

It's one of the reasons I didn't go into urban planning as a profession. Too much conceptualism and proposals, too little tangible application and 'work'.

Also important to note that while King Street in Charleston looks nice, it is in reality a tourist street. It's not a true live/work/play area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2012, 03:00 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,828 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobaba View Post
Gotcha.

In an urban design sense, the street is not wide enough I'd say. No room for parking spaces, any kind of divider, and certainly no room for a bike lane.

The sidewalks are wide enough, but any kind of outdoor seating would make walkability difficult.
Well, it looks wide enough for two lanes + bike lanes, but not any room for parking. That means long sightlines, which make drivers comfortable with driving faster. But, that's really an aside from walkability, at best tangentially related (more and/or faster cars = fewer pedestrians).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 08:19 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33051
I stumbled across this article recently. I found it thought-provoking and thought it would fit in this topic. It's not about religion, except for the "Church of Urban Planning" religion.

Separation of Church and Urban Planning | Newgeography.com

Recently, the Journal of the American Planning Association (JAPA) published research that directly challenged prevailing views in urban planning. In an article entitled Growing Cities Sustainably, Marcial H. Echenique, and Anthony J. Hargreaves from Cambridge University, Gordon Mitchell (University of Leeds) and Anil Namdeo (University of Newcastle) found that compact development (smart growth) had only a marginal impact on sustainable development and should not "automatically be associated with the preferred spatial growth strategy" (See Questioning The Messianic Conception of Smart Growth). This was particularly unsettling to the powers-that-be in urban planning, who have struggled for years – predating the current greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction concerns – to make anything but smart growth virtually illegal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 08:47 AM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,793 posts, read 10,707,607 times
Reputation: 2515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
– predating the current greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction concerns.

So, has "we need more brown jobs" Kotkin decided that GHG is a legitimate concern?

Last edited by brooklynborndad; 12-18-2012 at 09:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 08:52 AM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,793 posts, read 10,707,607 times
Reputation: 2515
For Cities: To Be Dense or Not to Be Dense, That Is (Not) the Question | Sustainable Cities Collective

"While the arguments of the paper are well-developed, there is a risk for other cities to aim at applying the same findings to their urban policies. For example, the paper argues that the CO2 emissions will not increase substantially in the dispersal or expansion model, while many other studies on other cities have confirmed that low-density suburban development in general is more energy- and GHG-intensive than dense urban cores and downtowns. Another study also has shown that emissions vary by an order of magnitude in various neighborhoods of the city of Toronto, concluding that variation in total auto and building-related emissions is quite significant between census tracts of Toronto, ranging from 3.1 to 13.1 tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year. With a robust methodology and rigorous analysis, they show that the ten census tracts of Toronto with the highest GHG emissions are located in the lower-density suburbs, attributing the high emissions to private auto use."


Thats why we don't rely on one study alone. Unless, like Kotkin, we have well developed, highly ideological, agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 09:00 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33051
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
For Cities: To Be Dense or Not to Be Dense, That Is (Not) the Question | Sustainable Cities Collective

"While the arguments of the paper are well-developed, there is a risk for other cities to aim at applying the same findings to their urban policies. For example, the paper argues that the CO2 emissions will not increase substantially in the dispersal or expansion model, while many other studies on other cities have confirmed that low-density suburban development in general is more energy- and GHG-intensive than dense urban cores and downtowns. Another study also has shown that emissions vary by an order of magnitude in various neighborhoods of the city of Toronto, concluding that variation in total auto and building-related emissions is quite significant between census tracts of Toronto, ranging from 3.1 to 13.1 tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year. With a robust methodology and rigorous analysis, they show that the ten census tracts of Toronto with the highest GHG emissions are located in the lower-density suburbs, attributing the high emissions to private auto use."


Thats why we don't rely on one study alone. Unless, like Kotkin, we have well developed, highly ideological, agenda.
I know "we" don't rely on one study alone, more than most people who post on here, I think. As far as any one person being exempt from that rule, I find this quote from the article very enlightening (all emphasis mine):

The need for greater openness in academia also caught the attention of Australian transport and urban development consultant Alan Davies (in Will Compact Cities Deliver on the Environment), who wrote:

There needs to be more consideration of evidence-based research by those interested in cities. One reason why there isn’t is illustrated by the reaction to the Echinique et al paper by some members of the US Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSA).

On a similar note, Professor Schweitzer noted that it is common for advocates of compact development to charge skeptics with unethical behavior. This creates an environment that is not conducive to developing objective and reliable strategies that effectively addresses objectives such as environmental sustainability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 09:18 AM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,793 posts, read 10,707,607 times
Reputation: 2515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
On a similar note, Professor Schweitzer noted that it is common for advocates of compact development to charge skeptics with unethical behavior. This creates an environment that is not conducive to developing objective and reliable strategies that effectively addresses objectives such as environmental sustainability.

I haven't seen that in regard to this paper. I have seen some pretty on point discussion of the methodological limitations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 01:11 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,828 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I stumbled across this article recently. I found it thought-provoking and thought it would fit in this topic. It's not about religion, except for the "Church of Urban Planning" religion.

Separation of Church and Urban Planning | Newgeography.com
This deserves to be its own thread because, frankly, the issues it raises, obvious ideological tilt aside, go far beyond the basic principles of designing a walkable area. The linked article directly questions the basic value proposition of new urbanism, as well as the basic concept of environmental protectionism. These are much more general concerns than the specifics of promoting walkability.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2012, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,252 posts, read 26,226,229 times
Reputation: 11706
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
This deserves to be its own thread because, frankly, the issues it raises, obvious ideological tilt aside, go far beyond the basic principles of designing a walkable area. The linked article directly questions the basic value proposition of new urbanism, as well as the basic concept of environmental protectionism. These are much more general concerns than the specifics of promoting walkability.
I agree. Interesting article. I hate the phrase "smart growth" anyway. It feels coercive...like anything you do other than that is by definition "dumb growth." Of course, everyone wants to feel "smart." I experienced this issue this weekend when I was looking for an iPad cover and felt compelled to go with the "Smart Cover." Such a dirty marketing tactic.
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
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top