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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-24-2013, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,893 posts, read 7,653,336 times
Reputation: 4508

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Sort of. I said earlier I did not know any families in 1960 that did not have A car, though I did know of a few older people like my grandmother who didn't. She didn't get around by walking, BTW; she called my father, and I think he took her grocery shopping, too. The situation in 1945 was much different though. BTW, in that picture of the open house, do you think that was staged? All the cars look the same.
I don't know if that image was staged, but those cars are definitely not all the same. Of the cars I know, there is: a Buick, a Dodge, a Studebaker, a Chevrolet, a few Fords. The Buick and Dodge may be from 52-53, but most are a few years old, and I think a couple are even from the late 30's.

 
Old 01-24-2013, 10:06 AM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,318,926 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
It's remarkable to me that people think the ONLY type of dense development is "dystopian" or "soviet-style" towers. Talk about hyperbole!
From: Dystopia | Define Dystopia at Dictionary.com

dys·to·pi·a

noun a society characterized by human misery, as squalor, oppression, disease, and overcrowding.

Cram 5.5 million people into the boundaries of Old Toronto and this is what you are going to end up with, despite whether you build "soviet-style" [SIC] housing or not.
 
Old 01-24-2013, 10:15 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post

Cram 5.5 million people into the boundaries of Old Toronto and this is what you are going to end up with, despite whether you build "soviet-style" [SIC] housing or not.
You said Toronto not Old Toronto, which are very different in size. I responded assuming you were reffering to 5.5 million in Toronto's current city limiits.
 
Old 01-24-2013, 10:29 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,713,037 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
From: Dystopia | Define Dystopia at Dictionary.com

dys·to·pi·a

noun a society characterized by human misery, as squalor, oppression, disease, and overcrowding.

Cram 5.5 million people into the boundaries of Old Toronto and this is what you are going to end up with, despite whether you build "soviet-style" [SIC] housing or not.
First of all - I don't think even the most extreme urbanists say _ this far and no further. Even fairly radical ideas embraced by urbanists such as the Portland Growth boundary are quite liberal in how far that boundary is from the city central and can be expanded as the situation allows.

Secondly - dystopian is EXACTLY how opponents of urbanism paint even modest increases in density.

Third - if Toronto (or any other similar city) had continued to grow at similar density to the center city then it's over all footprint would have expanded somewhat, but been much much smaller than the current foot print.

But all this is theoretical. Most urbanists or new urbanists, don't discount at all the allure or desire of some to live in suburban areas. Urbanists fight battles on two fronts - NIMBY's who like the city as it is (or more frequently as it was 10 years ago) and say "this much and no more" and sprawlites who continue to demand more and more subsidized roads and city services and then build extremely low density developments that cause all the innumerable problems that the city ends up subsidizing. And even that wouldn't be a huge problem if they didn't also have land use policies that lock in such low density sprawl forever. The design and implementation of dendritic roads is another problem that can never be fixed.

So when you say a "dystopian" future - personally I envision vast wastelands of paved over greenfield, decaying in a world no longer supported by endless cheap energy and unlimited tax payer money to pay for extreme inefficiency.

Last edited by Komeht; 01-24-2013 at 10:43 AM..
 
Old 01-24-2013, 10:31 AM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,759,792 times
Reputation: 1616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annuvin View Post
From: Dystopia | Define Dystopia at Dictionary.com

dys·to·pi·a

noun a society characterized by human misery, as squalor, oppression, disease, and overcrowding.

Cram 5.5 million people into the boundaries of Old Toronto and this is what you are going to end up with, despite whether you build "soviet-style" [SIC] housing or not.
I'm not proposing to cram 5.5 million people into the boundaries of Old Toronto, but even if you did do that, you would get densities about the same as those of the Upper East Side. I'm pretty sure the people in the UES don't consider themselves to be enduring misery, squalor, oppression, disease and overcrowding. At Paris levels of density, you could fit 5.5 million people into area the size of Old Toronto+East York+York+the part of North York South of the 401. For neighbourhoods like the one Nei posted, you could probably add the rest of North York and still leave the 905, Etobicoke and Scarborough completely unpopulated. By the way, this wouldn't require "crowding", this could be done so that every household has a kitchen, living room, dining room, bathroom (more than one for families), and one bedroom per couple and per child/single person.

If the currently built up part of the GTA were to reach those kinds of Brooklyn style densities, it would have a population of maybe 30 million or so... Before you say that sounds scary, don't worry, the GTA will never come close to that in our lifetimes. The point is, there's plenty of room within the already built up portion of the GTA for more people. What I think we should do, is at least allow the population in these areas to increase, not even forcing people to live there, just allow new housing to be built, as well as allowing homes to have secondary suites (like basement apartments) and see what happens. It would be especially important to allow the densification to happen in areas near transit and workplaces, so that this doesn't cause congestion to get worse, and eventually, many areas that currently have poor transit could see their transit improved as their higher densities justify it... or just if employment shifts towards transit accessible areas. Also you said you take the GO train as opposed to driving, that shows that transit can work for longer distances too.
 
Old 01-24-2013, 10:08 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,890,268 times
Reputation: 18049
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
There's another thread for this particular endless argument.

If you want to criticize suburbs, as a whole, streetcar and train suburbs are part of it. If you want to criticize a particular sort of suburb, such as post-war tract developments, just specify it. If you try to paint with a broad brush, you're going to get called on it -- just as someone who doesn't like cities is going to get called on it if he assumes all cities are like Detroit.
this si a endless agrument with some that calim that sunburbs annexed are urban areas. i do not agree as mnay are not ruabn in nature at all reagrdless of infrastrucure available.
 
Old 01-25-2013, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,414 posts, read 11,910,584 times
Reputation: 10533
I think the problem people often run into here is there are three different definitions of suburb. Briefly they are.

1. An incorporated (or unincorporated) community outside of the central city.

2. A residential-focused neighborhood where most people commute to the City Center or other nearby job concentrations.

3. A neighborhood/municipality built in a postwar/autocentric style.

None of these match up well. Let me use Pittsburgh as an example.

  • There are communities just outside the city, like Millvale, Etna, or Sharpsburg, which are Victorian mill towns, and have essentially identical housing stock to unquestionably urban parts of the city core. They are urban in all senses but the first
  • There are areas within the Pittsburgh which were built specifically as streetcar suburbs, like Morningside, Squirrel Hill, Friendship, etc. Despite having small business districts in some cases, they were basically places the middle-class lived and commuted to Downtown or middle manager jobs in the mills. They are suburban in the second sense, but otherwise urban
  • There are also neighborhoods within the Pittsburgh city limits which were largely built up after World War 2, including Stanton Heights, Summer Hill, Banksville, and much of the greater West End. These areas are indistinguishable from suburbs except by accident they are within city lines, and are actually more suburban in places than some of the first ring suburbs, which are "streetcar suburbs."
Personally, I don't think urban means within the core city. City limits vary widely state by state, and much of the West has vast tracks of suburban development within city limits. Not to mention places like Jacksonville, Indianapolis, and Louisville which have had city-county mergers. So I think we can dispose of this.



Technically, the second definition of suburb is probably the most historically correct. The first suburbs indeed developed because of streetcars, and removal from the place of work is a core hallmark of them. So I consider streetcar suburbs to be suburbs.



As to the last definition, I tend to talk about "suburban built style" as opposed to "semi-urban" or "urban" built style. It's a bit confusing, but I think it's a more concise way to describe it than "post-WW2 autocentric development."
 
Old 01-25-2013, 10:00 AM
 
7,592 posts, read 9,444,553 times
Reputation: 8949
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
Ah yes. Trees do take a long time to grow. Cars however grow quickly when people need to get to work, though. Given the constraints NEI showed you of the area, how did people get around if not for cars? Bus isn't the answer, btw. No, most of these white veteran families had cars, because they were offered with similar financing packages. Since the early 30s a massive expressway network was planned and built throughout (with low bridges to keep buses and their attendent minorties away). The cars, they were there.

53, levittown Pa:

Open house: Full parking lot!

Try to find something online about a significant number of people moving to late 40s mid 50s veteran white-land suburbia without the newest, most exciting, freedom inducing invention yet: the modern auto! Maybe it was different further away from the I 95 (another 1950s invention) corridor, but I am doubtful.

Reading list: Growing Up Levittown: In a Time of Conformity, Controversy and Cultural Crisis:Amazon:Kindle Store I haven read this, but it's been recommended to me.
As someone mentioned before, I don't think for a minute that this photo was staged. The interest in these homes looked legitimate enough, no need to embellish...

Some great deals for veterans, whether it was for a home, car or higher education...but you had to get through WW2 or Korea in one piece. If you did, then the world was your oyster..
 
Old 01-25-2013, 11:10 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,096,962 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassVt View Post
Some great deals for veterans, whether it was for a home, car or higher education...but you had to get through WW2 or Korea in one piece. If you did, then the world was your oyster..
True (for white veterans, anyway).

A good friend of mine served in Iraq and recently bought his first house. Got a pretty good deal with a whole bunch of veterans' benefits - but nothing like what was offered back then!
 
Old 01-26-2013, 09:33 AM
 
Location: Richmond/Philadelphia/Brooklyn
1,263 posts, read 1,272,260 times
Reputation: 741
I strongly agree, though I would prefer every "suburb" have the density of inner Brooklyn all the way out to the cornfields.
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.


Closed Thread

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
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