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 05-18-2014, 09:35 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,002 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkSide View Post
Something I left-out (somehow did not get posted in my previously numbered comment)
is that if the City (or cities) want to make their downtown(s) livelier again,
then they have to bring in CHILDREN.

Everyone wants more "walkability" so that the shops don't die.
And the Planners have almost got it figured-out,
but what's missing is the catering to KIDS.

If you want people to spend money, or treat downtown as a "destination"....
then Downtown has to Bicycle friendly (which brings in more walkers)
and the MEDIA (news agencies) have to announce the Free Activities
that are geared around kids to enjoy being downtown.

Schools need to get involved by giving flyers with a list of the places that Parents
can take their children. (Kids eat free; kids half-price)
that sort of thing.

Society's #1 goal is to protect and keep their families happy.
And if the kids want to go downtown, then parents will take them.

Arcades have to be re-established.

Machines that link to the internet and allow for game play
ONLINE. (This is worth money to anyone who has the brains to make it work)

Dallas has an old HighSchool downtown that needs to be reopened.
And so do other cities.
Most school districts have policies against advertising for businesses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-18-2014, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,168 posts, read 29,669,595 times
Reputation: 26656
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDarkSide View Post
1 The City of Dallas, as well as many other cities in the country
need to eliminate at least 1 freeway that cuts their downtown from
their neighborhood(s) .

2 Parking needs to be CHEAPER.
(yes, there will be some profit loss, but more people will be
willing to Park ! Thus an actual PROFIT)
I'd say parking needs to be priced appropriately. And well signed. You don't have to have cheap parking. I think prices should be variable, and you should know where to go to get cheaper spaces due to signage. But too much parking kills the dynamism of a neighborhood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2014, 10:51 PM
 
Location: Austin
52 posts, read 87,215 times
Reputation: 36
Affordable living, most likely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2014, 11:07 PM
 
2,970 posts, read 2,749,954 times
Reputation: 6563
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebb_12 View Post
There are no downtowns in the US. (with the exception of NYC). What we call downtowns are just business parks, hyper-zoned and so removed from their original purpose that they're just gimmicky shells of what they used to be and what most people in the world would consider a 'downtown.' As others have alluded to, all you'll most likely find are sad aging condos, hipster haunts and expensive retailers, homeless shelters, dangerous parks, and maybe a 'nightlife' street or two carefully delineated by the wise city planners. Those areas of downtowns which are not consciously and artificially kept nice are in some state of decay, since the property is basically just a playground for investors to flip or hold, having no incentive to maintain.



Exactly. The urban planners out there can spend eternity arguing about walkability, services, housing size, etc... but it's all for naught when most Americans don't and never will live in dense areas. If you want to live in a downtown you need to go to Asia or Europe.
An apt point, in that you touched upon the key differentiator in US cities (with exception of NYC) and that is for the most part foreign cities have a valuation of property that diminishes outward from the main core while US cities are virtually all inverted mushrooms. That is, the central core has high valuation, and then it diminishes rapidly to very little value - being surrounded mostly by hollowed out former working class neighborhoods or areas long ago vacated by the affluent in generational waves to exurban areas, and then gradually rising valuations further out in higher net worth suburbs and exurbs before diminishing again in rural lesser developed lands.

Most of the real estate valuation pattern in US was enabled by: vaster land resources surrounding respective CBD areas, the compressed timeline of its development (i.e. short time of high population before advent of better and more personal transport, thus long term familiarity and adaption to density is limited), the quality of the built environment (housing typology in particular, as it went rapidly to functional and style obsolescence to valuation of the land for other purposes) , and the prevalence of faster mobility via personal transportation options since development of automobile to the affluent enabling higher socioeconomic standing population to move out from the perceived and real problems of the CBD / urban core.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 06:16 AM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,674,850 times
Reputation: 1838
I would also argue WWII was a factor in killing downtowns in the US but not Europe. Europeans were too devastated by war and had to rebuild their own communities rather than create new ones. Plus they couldn't afford to take their affluence to the suburbs-there was no affluence there, it has been taken by the war. Whereas in the US, the war kickstarted the economy, givjng many Americans jobs and a source of income. The US also concentrated production resources towards automobiles and other vehicles for the military, which after the war continued for civilian vehicles. And vets returning home needed housing fast, which only the suburbs could provide.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,419 posts, read 11,926,143 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by ciceropolo View Post
An apt point, in that you touched upon the key differentiator in US cities (with exception of NYC) and that is for the most part foreign cities have a valuation of property that diminishes outward from the main core while US cities are virtually all inverted mushrooms. That is, the central core has high valuation, and then it diminishes rapidly to very little value - being surrounded mostly by hollowed out former working class neighborhoods or areas long ago vacated by the affluent in generational waves to exurban areas, and then gradually rising valuations further out in higher net worth suburbs and exurbs before diminishing again in rural lesser developed lands.
I think you're wrong that the "donut" is evident everywhere but New York. Just as common has been the "favored quarter" system where one side of a city is desirable and higher income, and the other side is ghetto. Look at Chicago, or DC, or Saint Louis, or Boston as examples to various degrees.

About the only example I can think of where the affluent core is mostly surrounded by low-valued neighborhoods is Philadelphia. Even there, however, the core has expanded outwards enough, and now touches some stable lower-middle class areas (South Philly, the River Wards).

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
I would also argue WWII was a factor in killing downtowns in the US but not Europe. Europeans were too devastated by war and had to rebuild their own communities rather than create new ones. Plus they couldn't afford to take their affluence to the suburbs-there was no affluence there, it has been taken by the war. Whereas in the US, the war kickstarted the economy, giving many Americans jobs and a source of income. The US also concentrated production resources towards automobiles and other vehicles for the military, which after the war continued for civilian vehicles. And vets returning home needed housing fast, which only the suburbs could provide.
This is veering off topic, because the question of why the U.S. suburbanized has been debated numerous times in other threads, and has little to do with the failing of the CBD per se.

Still, I think your premise is false. Canada didn't have any damage to its cities during WW2 either, and while it's more suburbanized than most European counties, cities there never went through a heavily undesirable era.

As I've said in the past, two different eras of U.S. suburbanization are sort of equated together, since they happened in close succession, but they were for very different reasons.

1. The movement of people to the suburbs from 1945 to 1960 was largely a "positive movement." People were moving to suburbs because they were attractive and housing was affordable, but the city itself wasn't seen as that bad. Although the U.S. offered special incentives to get people to move out of the cities and into the suburbs, and began some horrible urban renewal practices, what the U.S. did wasn't that different from other western countries during this period overall.

2. As the 60s and 70s wore on, school integration, rising crime, and urban riots caused many more (white) families to actively flee the city. There is nothing comparable to this in other western countries because during that time period they were still relatively ethnically homogeneous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 07:36 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I think you're wrong that the "donut" is evident everywhere but New York. Just as common has been the "favored quarter" system where one side of a city is desirable and higher income, and the other side is ghetto. Look at Chicago, or DC, or Saint Louis, or Boston as examples to various degrees.
Actually New York is one of the better examples of a donut pattern, though it's a bit of an oversimplification.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,419 posts, read 11,926,143 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Actually New York is one of the better examples of a donut pattern, though it's a bit of an oversimplification.
True. The rivers kinda obscure it, but the UWS and UES, Astoria, the gentrified portions of Brooklyn, Lower Manhattan, and Hoboken kinda make a ring around Midtown, which is in turn surrounded by "transitional" and then "unfashionable" areas.

Of course, one could argue that since probably 1-2 million people live within the "donut hole" it's far different from virtually any other "neartown" zone in the country.

Last edited by eschaton; 05-19-2014 at 08:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 08:10 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,350,485 times
Reputation: 3030
Cost without value.
Downtown has thugs, drug problems, DUI problems, homeless, congestion problems, underperforming schools, no private space, parking problems, etc., etc. generally too much of what people don't want and yet they are expected to pay a premium for it.
Downtown is missing value for the cost imposed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2014, 08:21 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,988 posts, read 41,967,271 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
True. The rivers kinda obscure it, but the UWS and UES, Astoria, the gentrified portions of Brooklyn, Lower Manhattan, and Hoboken kinda make a ring around Midtown, which is in turn surrounded by "transitional" and then "unfashionable" areas.

Of course, one could argue that since probably 1-2 million people live within the "donut hole" it's far different from virtually any other "neartown" zone in the country.
Hmm. I was thinking of most of Manhattan as one similar core with extensions outward, rather than a single core as Midtown. Transitional is generous, much of the ring is rather low income. And unfashionable can be subjective.
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