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 02-05-2014, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Planet Earth
3,853 posts, read 7,654,594 times
Reputation: 1583

Advertisements

Or for that matter, many housing projects (not just in NYC, but everywhere in the U.S.), at least if they're large enough that they occupy a significant section of a neighborhood)

https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.66...2,7.61,,0,-2.5

https://www.google.com/maps?ll=25.83...2,1.3,,0,-3.48 (different-colored buildings, but the same exact style)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2014, 01:14 PM
 
9,524 posts, read 14,877,980 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
My argument is--and always has been--that typical modern residential construction, despite advances in technology, (which can often be retrofitted to old houses, i.e.: high efficiency furnaces, insulation, modern wiring, etc.) is generally of inferior quality to typical residential construction of 70+ years ago. I'd also like to say that this decline in quality didn't happen all at once, but slowly, between the 50s and 80s/90s. So, IMO, the statement: typical modern residential construction is generally of inferior quality to typical residential construction of 40+ years ago, is also true, but to a lesser extent.
Your argument is meaningless until you define "inferior quality".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 01:38 PM
 
Location: North by Northwest
7,442 posts, read 9,904,604 times
Reputation: 4691
Quote:
Originally Posted by pantin23 View Post
^^ And the suburban ones look rather cheesy, and Kitsch when compared with much in the northeast (yeah I dont know where your getting this Idea of Trash from either).
IE, both are cookies; you just like one variety more than the other. I prefer prewar prefab to postwar prefab; attached prefab to single-family prefab. I do love custom mid-century modern suburban architecture though--quite a few shining examples in the area I grew up. If only they had sidewalks:

Oh well, can't have it all, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
93 posts, read 147,972 times
Reputation: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Around here, if a house is clad in stone, most of the time it's this kind, not sure what it would be called:
http://goo.gl/maps/ZEPP1
It's pretty common for higher end subdivisions.
http://goo.gl/maps/Kppma
http://goo.gl/maps/bJp8G

By the way, I looked at the average lot size in newly built neighbourhoods, and it's about 1/13 acre in the GTA. This includes townhouses and semi-detached (what I think you call duplexes).

The largest lots were in Sonoma Heights (NW Vaughan), Tullamore/Castlemore (NE Brampton) and Springbrook (W Brampton) at around 1/9 acre.
Highest at 1/19 was Boyne-Coates in Milton where there are a lot of back to back townhouses (~1/40 acre) bringing down the average
http://goo.gl/maps/EqamU
New townhouses are typically 1/18-1/24 acre, semi-detached are about 1/12-1/16 acre, detached homes typically 1/8-1/12 acre.

Are there any places in the US that integrate different housing types into a single development in a fairly universal fashion? Aside from detached, semi-detached and townhouses, you'll sometimes have other unit types mixed in. Around the turn of the millenium, a few of these quad-plexes were mixed into subdivisions in Brampton
http://goo.gl/maps/exiwm

Then you have the back to back townhouses, most common in Milton but there's also a few in Oakville.

And sometimes apartments
http://goo.gl/maps/wnvE0

New urbanist developments excepted, I feel like in the US, different housing types would often be fenced off from each other.
Integrating different housing types into a single development is indeed pretty rare in a non-New-Urbanist environment in the U.S., but I did find an example fairly easily in Plainfield, Illinois (an outer suburb of Chicago): http://goo.gl/UKtFFS.

You're right that diversity of housing type in a single development in the U.S. tends to happen more in a New Urbanist setting, like this one near St. Louis: New Town at St. Charles :: PhotoGallery :: Architecture

The stonework you posted above is definitely something I've noticed in Toronto-area new construction. It's different from the stonework used in new construction in Texas, which looks more like this: http://goo.gl/jREIa2.

By the way, I think that Chicago's suburban housing is even more similar to Southern Ontario's than Dallas's is. Look at this street in Naperville, Illinois, for instance: http://goo.gl/ct0XRb. Aside from the walls of vinyl siding on the side of the houses, everything from the brickwork to the driveways and garage doors resembles Southern Ontario housing. I'd always thought that Chicagoland newer housing was more similar to DFW's than anything else in the Midwest, and there's good reason for that—because it's similar to Toronto's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2014, 10:38 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
93 posts, read 147,972 times
Reputation: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastmemphisguy View Post
The poorly built houses from the old days are usually no longer with us. Especially in cities like mine, where widespread demolition in the name of urban renewal was so common a few decades back. Our perception of older housing is skewed because we usually see the nicer homes that were worth maintaining and saving. Again this may be specific to my neck of the woods, but out in the countryside poorly built ruins of the old agriculture based economy are everywhere. Nasty little wood frame shacks that look like the next good windstorm will blow them over. Not everybody can afford a custom architect designed home. And, of course, plenty of people prefer more square feet to quality materials. In many cases, the actual structures are fine, but the lack of mature trees and deliberately disjointed road design make neighborhoods look far shoddier than they should.
The scenario of a poorly-built (at least on appearance) older house seems to be a Southern one. I grew up in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, where there are a lot of the little wood-frame shacks you mention dating from before the 1950s. They're all over Memphis, Houston, and other South Central cities too. The ones in New Orleans are generally a little nicer, but they have their share of shacks too. None of these houses were meant for wealthy folk, and one can easily tell. In the Northern cities, though, most of the older housing was generally of higher quality—multistory and usually brick, with decorative elements even on residences that were meant for more modest incomes. These Northern neighborhoods always have sidewalks too, while the old Southern neighborhoods with the wood-frame shacks often don't even have curbs on the streets, much less sidewalks. Trends seemed to have reversed over time, with newer Northern housing using cheaper materials like vinyl siding, while newer homes in the South Central part of the country are covered in brick.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 06:04 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,897 posts, read 7,673,015 times
Reputation: 4513
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
Your argument is meaningless until you define "inferior quality".
Generally, inferior materials, and inferior workmanship. (though, the latter varies by region, and by builder) I will concede that that modern technology is superior, but much of that can be retrofitted into an older home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenWood View Post
IE, both are cookies; you just like one variety more than the other. I prefer prewar prefab to postwar prefab; attached prefab to single-family prefab. I do love custom mid-century modern suburban architecture though--quite a few shining examples in the area I grew up. If only they had sidewalks:

Oh well, can't have it all, right?
For me, it's the difference between grandma's homemade cookies, and the "bucket o' cookies" for sale at the local bulk foods store.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,472 posts, read 11,970,443 times
Reputation: 10577
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwumavs View Post
The scenario of a poorly-built (at least on appearance) older house seems to be a Southern one. I grew up in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, where there are a lot of the little wood-frame shacks you mention dating from before the 1950s. They're all over Memphis, Houston, and other South Central cities too. The ones in New Orleans are generally a little nicer, but they have their share of shacks too. None of these houses were meant for wealthy folk, and one can easily tell. In the Northern cities, though, most of the older housing was generally of higher quality—multistory and usually brick, with decorative elements even on residences that were meant for more modest incomes. These Northern neighborhoods always have sidewalks too, while the old Southern neighborhoods with the wood-frame shacks often don't even have curbs on the streets, much less sidewalks.
I do think this is a rather unsung portion of why southern cities ended up so much more "urban renewed" than northern cities, and don't have as urban of a feel. While they had small lots, shotgun neighborhoods were not really an urban typology, given roughly the same housing style was used in both urban and rural environments. Wood also doesn't stand up well against the elements without frequent painting. There really isn't all that much of interest to save in many of these neighborhoods, so they were initially cleared out to expand CBDs, and now are being destroyed on large scales to build new construction townhouses/condos.

The exceptions being, of course, those cities which developed early. Shotgun houses were mainly popular from the end of the Civil War to the 1920s. The cities which had a sizable residential area built up prior to this (New Orleans, Charleston, Savanna, Richmond, and Louisville) ended up with a fairly wide selection of attractive vernacular housing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pwumavs View Post
Trends seemed to have reversed over time, with newer Northern housing using cheaper materials like vinyl siding, while newer homes in the South Central part of the country are covered in brick.
My understanding is the reversal has to do with labor costs. While unionized construction work in the north is mainly in commercial construction, residential contractors still have to pay around union rate to attract workers - particularly for the skilled portions of the job. In contrast, in the South they can get away with paying a bricklayer half the rate, meaning it becomes financially feasible to clad an entire house in brick.

In general in the U.S., all materials have gotten cheaper over time, but labor has gotten expensive far more rapidly, which canceled out the labor cost savings. This is why after the building trades started paying good wages you stopped seeing houses built for non wealthy people with things like ornate wood trim, terra cotta inlay, real stone cladding, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 10:31 AM
 
Location: North by Northwest
7,442 posts, read 9,904,604 times
Reputation: 4691
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
For me, it's the difference between grandma's homemade cookies, and the "bucket o' cookies" for sale at the local bulk foods store.
I think a more apropos comparison would be "gourmet brand X" to "everyday fare brand Y" (both were/are built on a massive scale) but I are what you're saying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 04:05 PM
 
Location: New Orleans
797 posts, read 1,162,428 times
Reputation: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I do think this is a rather unsung portion of why southern cities ended up so much more "urban renewed" than northern cities, and don't have as urban of a feel. While they had small lots, shotgun neighborhoods were not really an urban typology, given roughly the same housing style was used in both urban and rural environments. Wood also doesn't stand up well against the elements without frequent painting. There really isn't all that much of interest to save in many of these neighborhoods, so they were initially cleared out to expand CBDs, and now are being destroyed on large scales to build new construction townhouses/condos.

The exceptions being, of course, those cities which developed early. Shotgun houses were mainly popular from the end of the Civil War to the 1920s. The cities which had a sizable residential area built up prior to this (New Orleans, Charleston, Savanna, Richmond, and Louisville) ended up with a fairly wide selection of attractive vernacular housing.
A lot of Northern cities have older wood frame houses with few architectural features (but there probably would have been more features originally), though they tend to be 2+ story houses and many now have aluminum/vinyl siding. The quality of the houses does play a factor into urban renewal but I also think the size of the city plays a factor as well. Since most Southern cities were still small during the pre-war days and did not have that many older structures to begin with when urban renewal picked up speed.

Shotgun houses and neighborhoods can definitely be an urban typology and can be pretty attractive with some ornate features as well but only a few cities seem to have shotguns like that. Mostly New Orleans and to a lesser extent Louisville.

New Orleans examples:
https://maps.google.com/?ll=29.96763...158.72,,0,3.38
https://maps.google.com/?ll=29.97447...30.31,,0,-0.67
https://maps.google.com/?ll=29.92264...22.08,,0,-0.46
https://maps.google.com/?ll=29.97697...41.29,,0,-1.44

These are mostly double shotguns. There's plenty more (some with even more details) but I tried to find some examples of cookie cutter ones to fit the thread topic.

Last edited by Jimbo_1; 02-07-2014 at 04:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 06:58 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,769,303 times
Reputation: 1616
The homes in many inner Toronto neighbourhoods from the mid-19th century were pretty modest and cheaply built, and became run down slums a few decades after they were built. Some of them were redeveloped through urban renewal, some were extensively renovated/upgraded, and others were replaced on an individual basis.
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