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 05-07-2013, 11:40 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
3,111 posts, read 4,903,810 times
Reputation: 5429

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
The "traditional" way they're trying to add density to suburbs now is to create pseudo new urbanist areas on the sites of former shopping malls. Shopping malls are ideal, because they have huge acreage, most of which is only taken up by parking now. Better yet, many are failing, need to be redeveloped, and they are found all across suburbia. The new construction is usually a much smaller "lifestyle center," coupled with townhouses and rental apartments within walking distance. Thus it can, if done right, create a small walkable pseudo-urban environment.
This has been done quite successfully in the Denver area. The Belmar area of Lakewood, CO, was, at one time, a shopping mall. The developer here created the new lifestyle center and recreated city grid with mixed use development.

Belmar - Google Maps

It has also been done at the Streets at Southglenn on the site of the former Southglenn Mall in Centennial, CO. This development is less urban than Belmar though.

Streets at Southglenn - Google Maps

Quote:
Originally Posted by caphillsea77 View Post
I think DC suburbs could serve as a template to how suburbs can evolve (Tysons Corner, VA/Bethesda, MD ect.) with public transit rail lines and modern density. Which ones will follow that model, not sure. Bellevue and Kirkland, WA are some other examples. The demand for Houston & Atlanta suburbs like the ones the OP pointed out maybe less so in the near future because they have so many urban infill possibilities within their city limits and seem to be currently underway.
The Denver area is also seeing dense transit oriented development pop up in many of the suburban light rail stops. Most of these stops are less than 10 years old, so I expect to see more changes.

Englewood Station - built on the site of a former mall.

Belleview Station - planned for the site of a former golf course.

 
Old 05-08-2013, 03:08 AM
 
Location: Hong Kong
1,329 posts, read 872,602 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
The "traditional" way they're trying to add density to suburbs now is to create pseudo new urbanist areas on the sites of former shopping malls. Shopping malls are ideal, because they have huge acreage, most of which is only taken up by parking now. Better yet, many are failing, need to be redeveloped, and they are found all across suburbia. The new construction is usually a much smaller "lifestyle center," coupled with townhouses and rental apartments within walking distance. Thus it can, if done right, create a small walkable pseudo-urban environment.
Exactly right, E.

Then the areas around the malls will become worth more, if developed.

But some zoning laws may need to be changed to allow that to happen. If people see clearly, that the alternative is a slow death of their economy, they may swing in favor of it. And if the development then progresses in a positive way, then Public Support would grow.
 
Old 05-08-2013, 03:54 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,732,288 times
Reputation: 32304
Default Tell us about that building, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
I liked DC when I was there. I would like to go back and see more. We only did a weekend trip and saw a few things, but not all that I had hoped to see. I still need a photo of me flipping off the FCC building.
Assuming that FCC stands for Federal Communications Commission, what is it about the building that provokes your anger? I have never knowingly seen the building, or even a picture of it, although I visited the sights/museums in Washington DC for four days in 2006.
 
Old 05-08-2013, 06:46 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,416 posts, read 11,920,328 times
Reputation: 10536
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post
This has been done quite successfully in the Denver area. The Belmar area of Lakewood, CO, was, at one time, a shopping mall. The developer here created the new lifestyle center and recreated city grid with mixed use development.
I've heard Denver is a national leader in this sort of development, but I called it pseudo New Urbanist for a reason.

I almost don't mind the Belmar development. The grid is nice, and I think the townhouses are well done for what they are. It looks fairly walkable in some areas. That said, there's still far too much surface parking, despite having a few garages as well. I can understand the sea of parking on the northern street - it faces a major commercial thoroughfare, and is for the people passing by, not the residents. They hide it pretty well from the inward facing streets. But it was a bad idea to set the Target back and have the lot in front of it. Worse, it looks like there's no way to access the Whole Foods from Alaska Drive, meaning someone walking from one of the townhouses has to walk all the way around it. Not pedestrian-friendly at all.

Last edited by eschaton; 05-08-2013 at 08:11 AM..
 
Old 05-08-2013, 08:05 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
^^I'm no fan of Belmar myself. It's mostly just a shopping center with apartments around it. The grid was already there; most of the Denver metro is on the grid. The housing around it is immediate post-war style.
 
Old 05-08-2013, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,416 posts, read 11,920,328 times
Reputation: 10536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
^^I'm no fan of Belmar myself. It's mostly just a shopping center with apartments around it. The grid was already there; most of the Denver metro is on the grid. The housing around it is immediate post-war style.
I read a book on urban planning last year (The Great Inversion) which had a whole chapter focusing on half-assed new urbanist plans around Denver and in Northern Virginia. It said that none of these developments has combined all the elements New Urbanism calls for (residential, retail, offices, and transit). One of the biggest flaws is that retailers continue to face the storefronts outward, facing multi-lane major arteries, and not inward, facing the residents. or aligning with the local transit station.

The author notes, however, despite not even coming close to real urban environments, people flock to live in them, to the point rents are at a premium over the classic suburbs surrounding them.
 
Old 05-08-2013, 08:32 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Well, nothing ever will combine all the New Urbanism elements. NU is a fantasy, based on the idea of a New England or midwestern farm town, where everyone lives close enough to work to walk, can walk to the grocery store, shopping, etc. That's just not how our society works, and hasn't worked for a long time.
 
Old 05-08-2013, 08:45 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,416 posts, read 11,920,328 times
Reputation: 10536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Well, nothing ever will combine all the New Urbanism elements. NU is a fantasy, based on the idea of a New England or midwestern farm town, where everyone lives close enough to work to walk, can walk to the grocery store, shopping, etc. That's just not how our society works, and hasn't worked for a long time.
I don't think the New Urbanist ideal is that everyone who lives there walks to work. But if a New Urbanist development was placed on a transit line, a substantial number of people could use the transit to get to work (and a few would walk), and use the local business district for shopping purposes. Basically, the idea is to create a streetcar suburb (or busway suburb, or what have you) with modern construction.
 
Old 05-08-2013, 09:31 AM
 
28,441 posts, read 71,029,142 times
Reputation: 18396
Default And that is out of step with reality...

The folks that dream up these fantasies typically have "lifetime employment" at a university or government agency. They do not have to deal with the real world where employers "restructure" every couple of years to flush out hordes of workers. They don't have to deal with relocating for a new job. The often have higher net incomes that normal people that need two or more earners to cover the costs of things like healthcare and private retirement savings.

Honestly taking advice from these "Ivory Tower" types is not productive...


Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I don't think the New Urbanist ideal is that everyone who lives there walks to work. But if a New Urbanist development was placed on a transit line, a substantial number of people could use the transit to get to work (and a few would walk), and use the local business district for shopping purposes. Basically, the idea is to create a streetcar suburb (or busway suburb, or what have you) with modern construction.
 
Old 05-08-2013, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Canada
4,698 posts, read 8,488,284 times
Reputation: 4880
I think most suburbs won't evolve, but some will. Look at Burnaby British Columbia for an example of how a large, autocentric suburb of several hundred thousand with highways and big box stores has transformed itself. It's still pretty ugly, but certainly more dense, and transit oriented. Still functions as a suburb in the urban hierarchy though, just a dense and less car focused one.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Burnab...24.84,,0,-4.53

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Burnab...+Columbia&z=18

Or like the neighbouring suburb of Richmond, which is building a great new urban, walkable downtown core along a rapid transit line that passed though an area of mall, strip malls, warehouses, and some single family homes that were bought up in the upzoned area and redeveloped.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Burnab...,186.8,,0,1.13

Even the far out and really autocentric suburb of Coquitlam at the edge of the wilderness has made impressive progress on a dense town centre in anticipation of better transit that's being built for them:

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=COQUIT...7.23,,0,-11.68

This is roughly the path I see some American suburbs going down if real efforts are made towards the goal. This wouldn't have happened in greater Vancouver without a measure of political unity and consensus.
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
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