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 05-01-2013, 04:56 PM
 
1,682 posts, read 2,720,241 times
Reputation: 713

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bentobox34 View Post
If you want to restrict the question to the specific 1970s architectural idea in a few NYC housing projects, the answer is no. If you are asking more generally about low-rise high-density housing, this is a pretty apt description of practically all non-rural housing in existence prior to mid-20th Century and is almost certainly still the vast majority of housing in the world to this day. So the answer in that case would be a resounding "Yes."
Well I didn't know what direction I was going with this thread. It's open to interpretation. I thought the subject would strike some interest. I don't think this housing reflects the vast majority of housing though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
I like the idea of mid-rise development and what you might call traditional neighborhood design in general, but this just looks like really poor execution of it. And its not TND either. I guess the only thing the Marcus Harvey place has in common with the suburbs is being a residential development that appears to be zoned exclusively for housing. There's no mixed uses. You're still dependent on your car to get to the store. Which makes it no better than living in a single-family housing suburb, except just denser. So you sort of have the worst of both worlds, urban and suburban, but none of the benefits of either.

Besides that the architecture leaves something to desired. why do the buildings have to be so monotone and depressing? Are the designers allergic to color? They have a very cheap, stark prison-like quality to them. And could be mistaken for one.

I mean what the heck is this supposed to be? Did the designers of this thing use Riker's island for their inspiration when coming up with this brilliant design? It has to be someone's idea of an April Fools joke right? But the sad thing is it probably wasn't lol.
Marcus Garvey Village is indeed mixed use. Not every building, but those facing the main street are. The neighborhood isn't car depend either, the subway is down the street, the streets are walkable, lots of small business, I would be surprised if car ownership was greater then 25%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
I actually really like this one. I'd live there.
I think the public space is what kills the desirability of that development. The grounds need landscaping.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
The OP's example of Brownsville, Brooklyn for low-rise high-density housing is a bit strange. From what I've heard, it's one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the city, if not the most. Marcus Garvey Village is near blocks of high rise housing projects (one of the largest in the country) and itself probably isn't safe. The OP would know more, but I think I'm correct.
The neighborhood does indeed have a lot more social issues then most communities, but this complex is noted as a successful development with a tight knit community, low auto ownership, and a high number of affordable units.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2013, 12:45 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,264,546 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by nykiddo718718 View Post
Marcus Garvey Village is indeed mixed use. Not every building, but those facing the main street are. The neighborhood isn't car depend either, the subway is down the street, the streets are walkable, lots of small business, I would be surprised if car ownership was greater then 25%.
But who would want to walk around in that place? Except maybe drug dealers and prostitutes? It looks like the ghetto and the kind of place you don't want to be outside, especially when the sun goes down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn New York
15,581 posts, read 24,992,689 times
Reputation: 20834
I think all public housing is a complete blight on the aesthedics of any area. The are all ugly to look at. I know if there are children under children under 10 living in the apartment they must have child guards on the windows, which totally makes the buildings that are all ready ugly, look like prison cells.


i hate they way all public housing does not form to the grid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 01:17 PM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,143,293 times
Reputation: 7737
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightcrawler View Post
I think all public housing is a complete blight on the aesthedics of any area. The are all ugly to look at. I know if there are children under children under 10 living in the apartment they must have child guards on the windows, which totally makes the buildings that are all ready ugly, look like prison cells.


i hate they way all public housing does not form to the grid.
Some recent incarnations are more intertwined into a neighborhood

Some examples


Update: JBJ Soul Homes Continue to Progress | NakedPhilly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2013, 01:50 PM
 
6,056 posts, read 10,839,435 times
Reputation: 3063
There is a bright future in this type of urban planning development in low rise high density housing for plenty of reasons, and offers a balanced living environment. A prominent trend is realistic and possible in this form of urban planning architecture projects in any city/town anywhere in the world.

My favorite well organized words, and ideas in this article: Architizer - Goodbye, Micro-Apartments: 'Low Rise High Density' Presents An Alternative Housing Solution “When the need for space and better living conditions led to alternatives to high-rise public housing.” “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.” “These homes offered all the amenities of urban living—access to public transportation and cultural amenities—with a more open, less claustrophobic environment.”

I believe I live in a low rise high density building, and neighborhood region of Seattle right now and I love living in my new home. There is around 2 blocks to 3 blocks of low rise high density buildings in Lake City neighborhood of Seattle. I am less than 5 blocks away from actual suburbs, very peaceful, quiet area of Lake City, and affordable. I am less than 40 minutes away from Downtown Seattle/Capitol Hill with express bus, and less than 1 hour away from University District/Wallingford. I live in a giant golden yellow looking house that is actually a 2 floors apartment building, 10 apartments total. I live on the highest floor, and a large balcony right next to a giant redwood conifer evergreen tree. I plan to live in San Francisco-Berkeley California within 2 years, and expect to find the same version of low rise high density home in Napa California, less than 1 hour away from San Francisco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2013, 03:06 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,958 posts, read 3,816,840 times
Reputation: 3281
In Seattle and in surrounding suburbs, "low rise high density" is pretty much the only form of single family homes being constructed at the moment.

A popular method is with 3-story houses built so close together that they're practically rowhouses, and on the bottom floor of the houses are studio apartments that the developer rents out, with the top 2 floors being one single family home unit. This way families have their typical 2-story house and that sense of privacy by not having to hear anybody walking on the floors above them or through the walls adjacent to them, while at the same time packing in a lot of people together within a small surface area. These houses also typically don't have front or back yards, so developers really pack in a lot of units within a small lot of land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2013, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,759,792 times
Reputation: 1616
The densest example of lowrise housing in Toronto is probably these: http://goo.gl/maps/xhepD

They're at 255 residents and 156 units per acre*, including the associated street ROW. They have 4 floors of living space in the form of stacked townhouse units that are back to back. The parking it all underground and they have narrow walkways that are about 1/3 of the width of a typical street contributing to increased density.

The advantages are that no room is more than about 20ft from an exterior wall, and the townhouses face a nice and quiet landscaped walkway. All units have a bit of private outdoor space: a small patio for the basement units and rooftop patios for the upper units. The middle of the development has a small private square/courtyard.

Townhomes on Everson | North York Condos | Toronto Condos | North York Town Homes

One downside is that from what I can tell, is a lot of stairs. In that sense apartments on a single floor might be preferable to some people and it might be a bit denser since there would be less space dedicated to stairs.

I think this kind of housing or courtyard apartments is about the highest density you can go and still be low rise (4 stories or less). The main advantage of courtyard apartments is the private courtyard and the ability to have high floor coverage while still good lighting and windows in most rooms.


http://eladolakasbudapest.hu/lakas/5...-38-m2-1-szoba

*The units are small, hence the average household size of 1.8. If you had the more typical household size of 2.5 with the same amount of living space per capita, this development would have 117 units per acre.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2013, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,248 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11701
Is there a future for low-rise, high density development in Manhattan? No. Hong Kong? No. Tokyo? Probably not. Every other place in the U.S. that's not called Manhattan? Yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2013, 12:07 PM
 
6,056 posts, read 10,839,435 times
Reputation: 3063
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz View Post
In Seattle and in surrounding suburbs, "low rise high density" is pretty much the only form of single family homes being constructed at the moment.

A popular method is with 3-story houses built so close together that they're practically rowhouses, and on the bottom floor of the houses are studio apartments that the developer rents out, with the top 2 floors being one single family home unit. This way families have their typical 2-story house and that sense of privacy by not having to hear anybody walking on the floors above them or through the walls adjacent to them, while at the same time packing in a lot of people together within a small surface area. These houses also typically don't have front or back yards, so developers really pack in a lot of units within a small lot of land.
Well, there is more high density architecture urban planning projects happening in the more central neighborhoods of Seattle such as in Capitol Hill, Downtown, Ballard, Fremont, University District, Queen Anne, and Belltown.

The most successful low rise high density projects are in the more outer neighborhoods of Seattle such as in Lake City, and suburbs such as Bellevue, Redmond, and Issaquah. I live in one of those amazing, and pleasant low rise high density buildings in Lake City 5 blocks away from suburbs, and I love living over there. I prefer living in a more affordable, quiet area of Seattle with close proximity to all of my favorite neighborhoods rather than in places such as Capitol Hill. I am less than 40 minutes away from Downtown Seattle, and Capitol Hill based on express bus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2013, 12:08 PM
 
6,056 posts, read 10,839,435 times
Reputation: 3063
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Is there a future for low-rise, high density development in Manhattan? No. Hong Kong? No. Tokyo? Probably not. Every other place in the U.S. that's not called Manhattan? Yes.
Yeah, there is a bright future in low rise high density buildings in most places of the world in cities/towns of all population sizes anywhere in the world.

The main exception is in the most heavily populated of cities in the most congested, and dense neighborhoods. This is including places such as Manhattan, Tokyo, and some of London.

However, there is plenty of room left in places such as neighborhoods of Staten Island, Eastern Queens, Southeastern Brooklyn of NYC in relevance to new low rise high density architecture urban planning buildings.
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