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 02-10-2013, 11:41 AM
 
Location: New York City
4,036 posts, read 8,943,879 times
Reputation: 3703

Advertisements

It has very little to do with the stores. It’s all about commercial agriculture and agribusiness. Prices are lower because food is produced on an industrial scale. There have been huge tradeoffs because for this, but food is cheaper now than any time in human history. You can go to the store and buy a whole chicken for a few dollars. In the 30s and earlier, poultry was a luxury item that you only ate on very special occasions, like Thanksgiving or Christmas, if at all. Many people nowadays have chicken every day. It’s the cheap protein.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2013, 12:40 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,716,650 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlite View Post
To me, the hardest thing to reproduce from pre-1940 urban neighborhoods is the fine grain of mixed use. Those neighborhoods had dozens and dozens of little stores, maybe an A and P that would barely be considered a supermarket today. I think current planners and designers are working seriously on this, but so often there's no more than a Starbucks and a Whole Foods. It's one reason I'm more hopeful for developments adding to existing areas, rather than creating brand new ones. Of course going into existing areas means more NIMBY opposition, even if the building would strengthen them.
That's because those neighborhoods weren't planned, they evolved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,090,068 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
That's because those neighborhoods weren't planned, they evolved.
You mean like how NYC was planned? Or did you mean how like Radburn, NJ, wasn't plannet?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Richmond/Philadelphia/Brooklyn
1,263 posts, read 1,273,699 times
Reputation: 741
Cool Bs

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIMBAM View Post
It would be a mistake to try and copy pre-war USA as time has moved forward and there are better models for dense twenty first century urbanism available, ones that incorporate greenspace better and offer a higher quality of life. Pre war urbanism was nice, but it was a failed model that ended in everyone fleeing it for the suburbs. It's better than the suburbs, but we can take its strengths and leave its weaknesses behind.
BS, I think the prewar model can work out perfectly fine and is best. Also, please explain why many people are coming back to prewar down towns these days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Richmond/Philadelphia/Brooklyn
1,263 posts, read 1,273,699 times
Reputation: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlite View Post
To me, the hardest thing to reproduce from pre-1940 urban neighborhoods is the fine grain of mixed use. Those neighborhoods had dozens and dozens of little stores, maybe an A and P that would barely be considered a supermarket today. I think current planners and designers are working seriously on this, but so often there's no more than a Starbucks and a Whole Foods. It's one reason I'm more hopeful for developments adding to existing areas, rather than creating brand new ones. Of course going into existing areas means more NIMBY opposition, even if the building would strengthen them.
I would have to disagree. Even today, In a lot of these older cities, local businesses and boutiques have filled the empty storefronts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Richmond/Philadelphia/Brooklyn
1,263 posts, read 1,273,699 times
Reputation: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoking66 View Post
I can't tell you how many of these new urban mega-developments I've been to that are the most sterile places on the face of the planet (I'm looking at DC's Navy Yard, Mission Bay and such).
This is a HUGE problem with new urban-ism. I think It would work much better if a city just extended their grid, divided the land into smaller plots, and had single architects come in and fill the spaces randomly (kind of like urban infill).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 01:22 PM
 
134 posts, read 162,238 times
Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by pantin23 View Post
This is a HUGE problem with new urban-ism. I think It would work much better if a city just extended their grid, divided the land into smaller plots, and had single architects come in and fill the spaces randomly (kind of like urban infill).
My thoughts exactly! I hate those giant developments that try to emulate older cities by mixing uses, but miss the point by trying so hard to be cohesive that everything look exactly the same. They're like overpriced strip malls with condos on top. But it's not cost effective for developers to develop a "small" lot or for municipalities to wait for different developers to buy up all their vacant lots. In my own view, there's just a horrible business-culture obsession with economies of scale that hurts people in the same way that the oversized, poorly-scaled modernist buildings of the post-war era did.

"In the long-term, we're all dead." - John Maynard Keynes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Richmond/Philadelphia/Brooklyn
1,263 posts, read 1,273,699 times
Reputation: 741
^^Here in Richmond, much of our recent urban design has been at a smaller scale (done by people who care about more than economic gains), and appears to be more successful too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 02:24 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,014 posts, read 102,634,943 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by pantin23 View Post
(done by people who care about more than economic gains)
I have some beachfront property in Colorado to sell you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2013, 02:26 PM
 
Location: where people are either too stupid to leave or too stuck to move
3,997 posts, read 5,727,900 times
Reputation: 3635
We have more space and less people than them. However I can see that as a reality in nyc
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
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