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 04-28-2013, 09:07 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,672,514 times
Reputation: 6288

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Is this Marcus Garvey Park Village? Brownsville, Brooklyn, NY - Google Maps
Looks like section 8 housing.

When I read the topic, I immediately thought of Miracle Mile area:

https://maps.gstatic.com/m/streetvie...371579453,,0,0

Multi-unit dwellings, all of them. Those types of dwellings are virtually an L.A. trademark.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2013, 09:33 PM
 
1,682 posts, read 2,720,241 times
Reputation: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Is this Marcus Garvey Park Village? Brownsville, Brooklyn, NY - Google Maps
Nope, those are just some 80-90s era cheap, multi-unit rowhouse infill.

Try: 353 Chester Street Brooklyn, NY 11212 for Marcus Garvey Village.





Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Looks like section 8 housing.

When I read the topic, I immediately thought of Miracle Mile area:

https://maps.gstatic.com/m/streetvie...371579453,,0,0

Multi-unit dwellings, all of them. Those types of dwellings are virtually an L.A. trademark.
The density there is too low compared to those described in the article, they also fail utilize public spaces and encourage mass transit use.

What matters most here is maximum land area usage, density, and public spaces. The modern low-rise, high density residential construction.

Here are a few more examples managed by the NYCHA:

Quote:
•Clason Point Gardens



Clason Point Gardens consists of forty-six buildings, 2-stories tall with 400 apartments. Completed December 20, 1941, the 17.03-acre Bronx development is bordered by Story, Seward, Noble and Metcalf Avenues.
Quote:
•East NY/Cityline Houses



East New York City Line Houses has thirty-three, 3-story buildings with 63 apartments housing some 333 residents. Completed on 1.94-acres on March 31, 1976, it is bordered by Logan Street, Fountain and Hegeman Avenues in Brooklyn.
The NYCHA has definitely been a pioneer, experimenting with various forms of residential construction. Quite a portfolio.

Last edited by nykiddo718718; 04-28-2013 at 09:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2013, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Florida
862 posts, read 1,215,141 times
Reputation: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hickory patrick View Post
Ahh'' Good to see Agenda 21 at work''
Yep, this person pretty much said it.

I guess these pro-density people want to try to force everyone to live like cramped sardines in outrageously expensive high-rises with no yard, space or privacy, give up their cars, walk everywhere, take "public transportation" with strange people and have everyone lived by a controlled schedule by the govt just to "save the earth".

Maybe that's why the "green activist" people hate "low density" suburbs and cars so much, because these things give people the freedom to do whatever they want when they want without the government controlling what they do.

I have to say that those apartment row houses or whatever they're called are ugly and cold looking as hell. They look like communist jail cells. Seems depressing to live in those kinds of places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 02:01 AM
 
2,880 posts, read 4,614,582 times
Reputation: 3584
Quote:
Originally Posted by nykiddo718718 View Post
The density there is too low compared to those described in the article, they also fail utilize public spaces and encourage mass transit use.
Those pictures are of Mid-Wilshire, pop 47K/sq mile. Transit's not too bad and there's lots of good stuff around there. I love those apartment buildings. And the density is about the limit of what I personally could tolerate for lifetime residency. There could be trains--the Expo Line is south of there--but the area doesn't really discourage walkability at all. It's really nice. Lowrises are pleasant to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 05:47 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,096,962 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountryFisher View Post
Yep, this person pretty much said it.

I guess these pro-density people want to try to force everyone to live like cramped sardines in outrageously expensive high-rises with no yard, space or privacy, give up their cars, walk everywhere, take "public transportation" with strange people and have everyone lived by a controlled schedule by the govt just to "save the earth".

Maybe that's why the "green activist" people hate "low density" suburbs and cars so much, because these things give people the freedom to do whatever they want when they want without the government controlling what they do.

I have to say that those apartment row houses or whatever they're called are ugly and cold looking as hell. They look like communist jail cells. Seems depressing to live in those kinds of places.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 06:10 AM
 
6,635 posts, read 4,593,253 times
Reputation: 13346
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountryFisher View Post
I have to say that those apartment row houses or whatever they're called are ugly and cold looking as hell. They look like communist jail cells. Seems depressing to live in those kinds of places.
Don't agree with most of your post, but this part is spot on. Surely if Low-Rise High-Density housing is needed, someone can design it without it looking like that example. Depressing is an understatement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 07:21 AM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,264,546 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Modeled a bit after suburban homes, these low-rise high-density buildings reached prominence in the 1970s. This type of housing serves two functions: 1) to intensify land use as urban growth escalates by providing higher density; and 2) to improve living conditions by using suburban housing characteristics such as more open space, more light, and a closer connection to the ground. These homes offered all the amenities of urban living—access to public transportation and cultural amenities—with a more open, less claustrophobic environment. The most celebrated example of this model in the US is Brooklyn’s Marcus Garvey Park Village, from 1973. (Indeed, the year Marcus Garvey opened to the public, the Museum of Modern Art launched an exhibition hailing its achievement called “Another Chance for Housing.”
Modeled after suburban homes? Funny because the housing units at Marcus Garvey Park Village look nothing like 'suburban homes.' The idea came to prominence in the 1970s? No wonder it was so bad. This is one of those terrible ideas from the 1970s and one of the worst decades of the 20th century. And hopefully stays forever buried in the 1970s along with brutalist architecture, low riders and Ford Pintos. And leisure suits.
Marcus Garvey Park Village

This is supposed to be the 'most celebrated' example?
It looks like public housing projects built for crack addicts.
(The architect of this place must have been high on something).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,414 posts, read 11,913,851 times
Reputation: 10533
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
This is supposed to be the 'most celebrated' example?
It looks like public housing projects built for crack addicts.
(The architect of this place must have been high on something).
Arguably virtually nothing good came out of U.S. architecture in the 1970s, so I'm not surprised.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 11:09 AM
 
1,682 posts, read 2,720,241 times
Reputation: 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunjee View Post
Those pictures are of Mid-Wilshire, pop 47K/sq mile. Transit's not too bad and there's lots of good stuff around there. I love those apartment buildings. And the density is about the limit of what I personally could tolerate for lifetime residency. There could be trains--the Expo Line is south of there--but the area doesn't really discourage walkability at all. It's really nice. Lowrises are pleasant to me.
I cruised around a little on Google maps. Are there public spaces somewhere on the property?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
Don't agree with most of your post, but this part is spot on. Surely if Low-Rise High-Density housing is needed, someone can design it without it looking like that example. Depressing is an understatement.
That's the NYC affordable housing architecture of the time. I actually think they look pretty cool. In fact, I think a lot of NYCHA buildings of the 1970s were very innovative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
Modeled after suburban homes? Funny because the housing units at Marcus Garvey Park Village look nothing like 'suburban homes.' The idea came to prominence in the 1970s? No wonder it was so bad. This is one of those terrible ideas from the 1970s and one of the worst decades of the 20th century. And hopefully stays forever buried in the 1970s along with brutalist architecture, low riders and Ford Pintos. And leisure suits.
Marcus Garvey Park Village

This is supposed to be the 'most celebrated' example?
It looks like public housing projects built for crack addicts.
(The architect of this place must have been high on something).
To be fair, a lot of New Yorkers consider anything low rise = suburban, lol.

Well, Marcus Garvey Village is quite the contrast compared to the surrounding NYCHA high rises. Though less dense, it was built to the street wall. It also houses more people per acre then the typical area rowhouse, all the while providing walkable semi-private spaces and even commercial storefronts on a nearby primary street. Smarter, more efficient, urban land use.

I'll tell you what, I like it a lot more then the cheap crap infill that surrounds it. Subsidized multi unit row houses with driveways.The 1990s were worse. Totally out of character and inefficient considering demand and the neighborhoods density. These are so horrible, I hate them.

I think this sort of construction has a place in the future in certain types of neighborhoods. Like Marcus Garvey Village, high density walkable primarily residential streets and mixed use apartments on the major arteries. Too low density for NYC at this time though.

Last edited by nykiddo718718; 04-30-2013 at 12:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,103,705 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunjee View Post
Those pictures are of Mid-Wilshire, pop 47K/sq mile. Transit's not too bad and there's lots of good stuff around there. I love those apartment buildings. And the density is about the limit of what I personally could tolerate for lifetime residency. There could be trains--the Expo Line is south of there--but the area doesn't really discourage walkability at all. It's really nice. Lowrises are pleasant to me.
Looks like the density near that Marcus Garvey Village is between 25-35k ppsm. The Miracle Mile view RCL posted is about 10k - the Miracle Mile is not particularly dense but I would say it has decent/average public transit and is on the high side of walkability.

I was thinking more along the lines of this: east hollywood, ca - Google Maps

It may look nearly identical to the duplexes and small apartment buildings of the Miracle Mile, but the difference is the building takes up nearly the entire lot - the difference in density is noticeable, as that area I posted is around 40k+ ppsm. Household sizes in East Hollywood / Central LA are larger than on the Westside / Miracle Mile, which also plays a small part (not as much as the increases structural density though).

Another example from Central Hollywood: miracle mile, los angeles - Google Maps

This is higher-rise, around 3-5 stories per building. This area has a density of 35k ppsm.

This is pretty typical of the new development going up in Los Angeles - 3-7 stories tall, ground floor retail, underground parking: Currywurst, North Fairfax Avenue, Los Angeles, CA - Google Maps
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