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 07-01-2014, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,674,744 times
Reputation: 26666

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Most West Coast cities except the Bay Area didn't really have a transit system (unless you count buses)
It is a very telling comment about our attitudes about transit that "transit systems =/= to buses."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-01-2014, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,427 posts, read 11,929,235 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
It is a very telling comment about our attitudes about transit that "transit systems =/= to buses."
I definitely call buses transit. Pittsburgh has a light rail system, but it only connects Downtown and a few nearby areas to portions of the southern suburbs. While a few of these suburbs are walkable, and one of them (Mount Lebanon) is one of the most desirable suburbs in the region, there really hasn't been much TOD on the T lines. Also the one major city neighborhood which has good T access (Beechview) is not desirable and still kinda semi-blighted actually.

While everyone would really like more rail lines, it doesn't matter, because there is a fairly robust bus system which is well utilized not only by the poor, but the middle class. Around as many 100,000 downtown workers, for example, take the bus to work as drive. Good access to transit thus mostly means locating in a place with a ton of bus lines which go into Downtown or Oakland (the university hub). And, if you're really lucky, living along the East Busway, the most used BRT line for the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2014, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,674,744 times
Reputation: 26666
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I definitely call buses transit. Pittsburgh has a light rail system, but it only connects Downtown and a few nearby areas to portions of the southern suburbs. While a few of these suburbs are walkable, and one of them (Mount Lebanon) is one of the most desirable suburbs in the region, there really hasn't been much TOD on the T lines. Also the one major city neighborhood which has good T access (Beechview) is not desirable and still kinda semi-blighted actually.

While everyone would really like more rail lines, it doesn't matter, because there is a fairly robust bus system which is well utilized not only by the poor, but the middle class. Around as many 100,000 downtown workers, for example, take the bus to work as drive. Good access to transit thus mostly means locating in a place with a ton of bus lines which go into Downtown or Oakland (the university hub). And, if you're really lucky, living along the East Busway, the most used BRT line for the city.
I was listening to an interview talking about the subway in LA. The interesting idea was, there are plenty of people who live in LA who think LA doesn't have transit. And there are plenty of people who don't think LA has subways. But there is a pretty big gap in the "who" uses transit. In many metro areas, if you are middle class and up, it is entirely feasible you don't know anyone who uses transit on a regular basis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2014, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,762,451 times
Reputation: 1616
Toronto has the first two types.

Type 1: North Toronto, The Beaches, High Park, Cabbagetown, The Annex, Riverdale, Playter Estates, Rosedale, Moore Park, Leaside, Cedarvale, Kingsway

Type 2: Trinity-Bellwoods and Kensington Market

The Type 2 neighbourhoods are still mostly in the "hipster" stage in that they're still relatively low income and not really getting wealthier. You are seeing a lot condos being built nearby though, mainly Liberty Village/Trinity-Niagara/Entertainment District to the South. And occasionally within the neighbourhood, though there's only a couple. I guess some of those condo-ifying areas were somewhat more artsy/hipster like in the past, and to a lesser degree still are. They mostly went from industrial to yuppy condoland pretty fast though. Queen West closer to downtown has become more chain dominated, but further West not too much for now. And Kensington Market is very resistant to chain stores. It's also next to Chinatown which has been avoiding gentrification for a long time. The housing stock is relatively modest, I think it used to be relatively cheap and there were plans in the 40s to demolish the whole area for project housing which fortunately didn't go forward. I think the quality of the housing has still improved, but is generally not on the level of more expensive neighbourhoods.

The Junction and Bloordale Village might be considered early stage Type 1, still relatively working class, though with a fair bit of brownfield sites being redeveloped.

A lot of the Type 1 neighbourhoods were always relatively desirable, or at least around middle class, but then shifted towards upper-middle class to wealthy as demand for homes near Toronto's core increased. In many cases there are clusters/nodes of highrises that are more yuppy oriented, though there's also some new high end condos.

Little Italy and Leslieville might be early stage Type 1. Little Italy is gentrifying at a moderate pace but has been mostly middle class for a while. Leslieville is rapidly getting wealthier and more expensive. I think a lot of what's going on there has to do with the condos on brownfield sites.

You also have a third type, the teardown bungalow belt. The demand for large homes near Toronto has meant a lot of modest bungalows torn down for 3,000+ sf custom homes.
This is where it's happening on the largest scale. To an extent, it's also happening in Willowdale to the North (but more slowly, and with less expensive new homes) as well as in areas with more suburban sized lots, like Sunnybrook/York Mills to the East, Central Etobicoke, parts of Thornhill and Richmond Hill and Southeast Oakville, Southern Mississauga. And to a lesser extent other areas like York and East York, SW Scarborough, South Etobicoke, other areas along Lake Ontario (especially western suburbs).
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7245...UYShIFjb2w!2e0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2014, 05:00 PM
 
Location: South Park, San Diego
4,943 posts, read 7,598,673 times
Reputation: 9263
San Diego like Oakland has more Type I neighborhoods although some of the immediate core neighborhoods circling Balboa Park have areas of density and convenient transit options that they have elements of a Type II. I just don't think most western cities have the historic density and extensive transit of East coast cities to have much of the pure Type II.

Interestingly those neighborhoods that more reflect a Type II density and convenience- in or directly adjacent downtown, part of the Trolly and Bus transit infrastructure- have generally lagged the gentrification of those once removed which more reflect a streetcar suburb. The mid and high rise towers built and still being built in East Village (ballpark district) and Little Italy and vibrant supporting commercial districts are contrasted with the lackluster development and lower property values of Sherman Heights and Logan Heights, still, I think those areas are ripe for being the next neighborhoods that continue the renaissance of the city.

The uptown neighborhoods of Hillcrest and North Park (denser more urban, Type I/II ) and South Park/Golden Hill (less dense, more residential, Type I)- those neighborhoods that encircle Balboa Park- have effectively fully gentrified. The extensive historic housing stock, adjacency to downtown and pleasant sylvan edges on the canyons/park brought out the urban pioneers 20 years ago (of which we were a part) and the beautiful Craftsman Bungalows and Spanish cottages have been renovated, mid-rise and row home development has filled in the centers along with 100s of new shops, restaurants, and bars (and breweries ).

The transit formula in all of this which generally is the driver in most cities is a bit harder to discern typical, unfortunately, of many Western cities. While the bus system is fairly robust in those core neighborhoods and with Trolly availability downtown and to outlying areas, it is still considered a low class option not often considered by most in higher income brackets. We love the #2 bus line, a 3 minute walk to the stop and new, clean busses running uptown and downtown every 12 minutes but many of our neighbors are blithely unaware or won't consider that option.

As the population densities increase downtown and uptown, parking and driving here has officially become a PITA (a great sign for a city!) I do think more folks in our income bracket will become transit riders. We are building our 2nd BRT line, first in the core/downtown so I do have hope that this gentrification will include the necessary infrastructure/transit improvements that every city needs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2014, 05:38 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,068 posts, read 16,085,690 times
Reputation: 12646
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I was listening to an interview talking about the subway in LA. The interesting idea was, there are plenty of people who live in LA who think LA doesn't have transit. And there are plenty of people who don't think LA has subways. But there is a pretty big gap in the "who" uses transit. In many metro areas, if you are middle class and up, it is entirely feasible you don't know anyone who uses transit on a regular basis.
Yup. Affluence never exempted anyone from ignorance and bigotry. To be fair, in a lot of LA the transit isn't actually very good even if you're not one of those who thinks buses are for Mexicans and lepers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2014, 08:05 PM
 
1,971 posts, read 2,491,966 times
Reputation: 2170
LA has the best transit system in California. It has greatly improved, even in the past 5 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2014, 09:32 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,565,237 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
It is a very telling comment about our attitudes about transit that "transit systems =/= to buses."
Buses are transit--I ride buses quite frequently, although less often than light rail. Been riding them since elementary school, and like them must fine. But I don't consider them equivalent to fixed-rail or heavy-rail transit.

But I don't think the OP is talking about buses when he mentions neighborhoods with transit connections--he's talking about subways or commuter rail, or at least light rail/streetcar. Even BRT, which requires permanent right-of-way and stations, as opposed to a bus running on city street, represents a more structured transit system. East coast cities are more likely to have that kind of transit. Transit (from the pedestrian/walkable city to the streetcar suburb) is what created those cities' original urban form, and in their eastern incarnations, those transit modes became less popular and less available, but they didn't disappear, at least not in the major cities.

On the west coast, during the redevelopment era and preceding what we now call gentrification, all of those transit networks went away. Los Angeles, San Diego, Fresno, Sacramento, Portland, Seattle--all had streetcars, interurbans and heavy rail. So did Salt Lake City and Phoenix and Denver. So did little farming communities, from Fresno and Anaheim to little Eureka. And, aside from San Francisco and the Bay Area, they all went away. The bus wasn't a replacement for those transit networks--it was, at best, a weak substitute for those left stranded because they couldn't afford a car.

Which is why I don't think that the gentrifiers the OP is talking about would select a neighborhood based on the existence of a bus route, visible only because there's a sign on the street every couple of blocks and maybe the occasional bench. They will ride buses, sure, but they prefer more permanent forms of transit.

That's changing on the west coast--Los Angeles has made enormous strides to bring back its once-legendary transit network. I have ridden all over Los Angeles, on subway, light rail and bus, and like it a lot better than driving in LA. The return of transit (beyond buses) on the west coast has also become a herald of the return to the cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 06:44 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
45,990 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Buses are transit--I ride buses quite frequently, although less often than light rail. Been riding them since elementary school, and like them must fine. But I don't consider them equivalent to fixed-rail or heavy-rail transit.

But I don't think the OP is talking about buses when he mentions neighborhoods with transit connections--he's talking about subways or commuter rail, or at least light rail/streetcar. Even BRT, which requires permanent right-of-way and stations, as opposed to a bus running on city street, represents a more structured transit system. East coast cities are more likely to have that kind of transit. Transit (from the pedestrian/walkable city to the streetcar suburb) is what created those cities' original urban form, and in their eastern incarnations, those transit modes became less popular and less available, but they didn't disappear, at least not in the major cities.
I think the OP is talking about buses as explained in his above post. The rail systems that east coast cities kept were more likely to be rapid transit. The biggest exceptions are Philadelphia and Boston, which have streetcar like system that run underground in the downtown area, similar to San Francisco's MUNI

As for gentrifiers focusing on transit lines, Boston's gentrification seems to be connected to their location. In Cambridge/Somerville the spots close to the red line have seen more gentrification than similar locations (see Davis Square). A new Green Line extension will be a lot of those cities will be covered by frequent rail. Charlestown and South Boston have seen gentrification even though a lot of the neighborhoods are from a subway, but bus access to downtown is very quick since they're only 1-2 miles away. Few if any NYC neighborhoods without a subway connection would appeal to gentrifiers, almost any place without a subway connection, but no subway would be a place that has long, painful transit rides to Manhattan and driving many not be an option. Of the "good" parts of Manhattan, the Upper East Side further from the subway is among the cheapest rent parts despite being part of the Upper East Side (or maybe because of it, the Upper East Side isn't exactly hip, while lacking the 1% or masters of the universe many associate the Upper East Side with). That area of the Upper East Side is mostly upper-middle class childless adults now, at one time it was full of families. Here's one child who grew up there who never left her block

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/ny...pagewanted=all

she bought an apartment building on the block, her grandson and great-granddaughter rented it. It's one of the buildings on the left, rather classic looking NYC street.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/50...b37536e8378f59
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2014, 07:02 AM
 
Location: Up North in God's Country
670 posts, read 817,942 times
Reputation: 993
I guess I did notice this when I lived in Minneapolis. It seemed like most of the artistic types lived either in converted apartments or lofts in the Warehouse District...or they lived Uptown. Lots of transportation was available.

The old "historic-type homes" were like you said...chopped up into apartments, mainly for college students...probably because they are close to the Universities, and travel is no problem. I lived in such an apartment part of the time I was in college. I had the turret apartment of an old converted Victorian. The living room had 6 walls!

I have also lived in cities that had areas where all the homes were on the National Registry of Historic Homes. I have toured many of them...beautiful! I currently live across the street from such a home. The people who purchased it restored it to its original look.
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