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 08-27-2014, 12:08 AM
 
1,129 posts, read 1,528,729 times
Reputation: 1534

Advertisements

I think NYC has some of this going already in Manhattan. I think it's more of something that comes out of circumstances as opposed to necessarily being desired. In NYC, you basically can't expand "out" anymore. Nearly every area of land that could be a reasonable commute and then some is already developed. So you're seeing more density increases.

Singapore, Hong Kong and Tokyo all have tight spatial constraints to work with that were always known, for why they developed that way to start with. Shanghai I think had the "advantage" of booming before there was enough infrastructure and population that could afford personal transport to make that much sprawl possible.

------------------------

So I get that density/newness can be considered ideal, I just can't see them ever happening to a large degree until there isn't the ability to just build one parcel further out and have it still within a reasonable commute.

I think many US cities are ripe for density increasing through taller/newer buildings being erected closer to the city core, as pretty much all the big ones have really hit their "sprawl limits" in my mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-27-2014, 04:33 PM
 
1,266 posts, read 2,157,938 times
Reputation: 1430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
And?

I said prominent, not has the most cafe employees.

But don't take my word for it. According to France, it's the most prominent in Europe. I don't know if I agree with that but, but for France it certainly is.
La Défense, a leading district for European affairs: information and maps - France.fr
There are much more office space in Central Paris than in La Défense.
By example every buildings in this photo are office

DSC55207b by Minato ku, on Flickr

Paris is a very white collar economy (corporate business, hq, banking, finance...), the number of people working in café is very small compared with the huge number of office workers.
La Defense itself is only 7% of total Paris metropolitan office space.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2014, 10:40 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,592,036 times
Reputation: 4048
The kind of density we're talking about here doesn't necessarily depend on tall buildings, or new buildings. It's based on people. You can have plenty of super-tall office buildings and still have a dead streetscape, requiring enormous suburbs surrounding that unpopulated skyscrapery downtown. Meanwhile, a human-scaled downtown of mid-rise/low-rise residential buildings (and even some high-rises) can support a very large population in elegant density. The best models for this kind of city are the sorts of cities we built up until the early 20th century--plus all the swell stuff we have figured out over the past hundred years about paving roads, fire prevention, and social justice, which deals with the issues that encouraged people to pursue the social engineering project to get people out of cities in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 07:17 AM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,640,065 times
Reputation: 1035
Let's try and refrain from talking about Paris, it's CBD, and off topic cities


Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Hi Octa, welcome back! School year starting again?

I'd be careful about including Tokyo in this group as a role model.
Freakonomics » Why Are Japanese Homes Disposable? A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast
https://www.google.com/search?q=hous...x-a&channel=sb
Vacant Japan Homes Show Holes in Abenomics
Yup it is!

I'll get to links when I get the chance. Thanks

I want to drop this here:

Tokyo Takes New York: Astounding Housing Facts – Next City

It's about how housing policy and zoning works in Japan to create affordable housing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The kind of density we're talking about here doesn't necessarily depend on tall buildings, or new buildings. It's based on people. You can have plenty of super-tall office buildings and still have a dead streetscape, requiring enormous suburbs surrounding that unpopulated skyscrapery downtown. Meanwhile, a human-scaled downtown of mid-rise/low-rise residential buildings (and even some high-rises) can support a very large population in elegant density. The best models for this kind of city are the sorts of cities we built up until the early 20th century--plus all the swell stuff we have figured out over the past hundred years about paving roads, fire prevention, and social justice, which deals with the issues that encouraged people to pursue the social engineering project to get people out of cities in the first place.
We're on a western and eurocentric board, so it shouldn't be surprising that we think that the euro-way is the right. This topic wasn't focusing solely on density, but no it's just human density, it's also structural density. It makes sense that older cities were low level because the technology wasn't there to build high rises. If Tokyo had remained the way it was during the Edo period, then it would be extremely crowded and expensive because there isn't a lot of room to expand. Multiple other cities in that part of the world were like that as well. From the 60s onward, east asian countries underwent huge population and economic growth so they really had no choice but to adopt a modern approach to designing their cities. Having a bunch of high rises does not mean you have a bunch of office towers. Those tall buildings are residential and support families in smaller spaces than what Americans would find comfortable, but the goal is to keep prices stable by having a lot of housing units; not just luxury housing either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 07:41 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
45,992 posts, read 42,120,818 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
Let's try and refrain from talking about Paris, it's CBD, and off topic cities
Sorry. Sometimes I can't help myself.


Quote:
We're on a western and eurocentric board, so it shouldn't be surprising that we think that the euro-way is the right. This topic wasn't focusing solely on density, but no it's just human density, it's also structural density. It makes sense that older cities were low level because the technology wasn't there to build high rises. If Tokyo had remained the way it was during the Edo period, then it would be extremely crowded and expensive because there isn't a lot of room to expand. Multiple other cities in that part of the world were like that as well. From the 60s onward, east asian countries underwent huge population and economic growth so they really had no choice but to adopt a modern approach to designing their cities. Having a bunch of high rises does not mean you have a bunch of office towers. Those tall buildings are residential and support families in smaller spaces than what Americans would find comfortable, but the goal is to keep prices stable by having a lot of housing units; not just luxury housing either.
Agreed. And Canadian cities that are densifying (Toronto, Vancouver) use lots of high rises. Urban construction trends change with technology. Lots of small-scale (houses or multi-family 2 stories or less) mixed in with high rises. It's a very different feel than European cities, or even New York City, where you have many neighborhood of blocks of 4-6 story buildings.

However, in IMO, some of the East Asian cities are too extreme. It feels off to have a city where most families live in high rises; there should be more variety. I complain about American cities skewed towards low density living, but East Asian cities are the opposite extreme. And while I disagree with the idea "families need single family detached homes" (outside of the US in many countries, it's common for families to live in high density housing) having some in between, such as a row houses and apartment building with courtyards, could be a good compromise. I prefer the variety of a city with some lower density on the outskirts and more in between. Some northern European cities seem like a good compromise. Leafy, relatively lower density outskirts and suburbs (though still denser than most North American ones) and high density, urban core (yes, I know it has lots of concrete, don't mind). But it seems like East Asian cities have found a practical solution that works for them. I'm sure posters could find plenty of links of things wrong with East Asian cities and society. But you could do the same for the US and Europe.

As for high density = older development, in most of the developed world densities have decreased with better transportation infrastructure and wealth. But outside of the US/Canada/Australia and northern European, lots of newer development is high density, it's not just East Asia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,083 posts, read 102,815,223 times
Reputation: 33147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
Let's try and refrain from talking about Paris, it's CBD, and off topic cities




Yup it is!

I'll get to links when I get the chance. Thanks

I want to drop this here:

Tokyo Takes New York: Astounding Housing Facts – Next City

It's about how housing policy and zoning works in Japan to create affordable housing.



We're on a western and eurocentric board, so it shouldn't be surprising that we think that the euro-way is the right. This topic wasn't focusing solely on density, but no it's just human density, it's also structural density. It makes sense that older cities were low level because the technology wasn't there to build high rises. If Tokyo had remained the way it was during the Edo period, then it would be extremely crowded and expensive because there isn't a lot of room to expand. Multiple other cities in that part of the world were like that as well. From the 60s onward, east asian countries underwent huge population and economic growth so they really had no choice but to adopt a modern approach to designing their cities. Having a bunch of high rises does not mean you have a bunch of office towers. Those tall buildings are residential and support families in smaller spaces than what Americans would find comfortable, but the goal is to keep prices stable by having a lot of housing units; not just luxury housing either.
I recall reading an article some years ago (say 10+) that many Japanese were living in what we would call "substandard housing". Not just small, or dense, but w/o adequate services. I couldn't find that when I did a search, but I did find those links I posted.

Here's a little more:
Housing and Social Transition in Japan - Google Books

Here's some more:
BUSINESS FORUM - WHY A LOW SAVINGS RATE ISN'T ALL BAD - NYTimes.com
*The average Japanese spends 10 times annual family income for housing, compared with an already hefty four times income spent by Americans. *

I'm not trying to be anti-Japan, just saying that we don't always get the story behind the story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 09:19 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
45,992 posts, read 42,120,818 times
Reputation: 14811
Not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but your second link is from the late 80s. The late 80s was at the end of a big housing bubble in Japan. Since then, house prices are almost half of what they were back then while American housing prices have over doubled. Japanese housing prices are still probably higher, but the gap must be much smaller than back then.

Global house prices: Location, location, location | The Economist

And what's wrong the UK?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,083 posts, read 102,815,223 times
Reputation: 33147
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but your second link is from the late 80s. The late 80s was at the end of a big housing bubble in Japan. Since then, house prices are almost half of what they were back then while American housing prices have over doubled. Japanese housing prices are still probably higher, but the gap must be much smaller than back then.

Global house prices: Location, location, location | The Economist

And what's wrong the UK?!
The late 80s may have been when I read about many Japanese living in substandard housing.

What'd I say about the UK?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 09:27 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
45,992 posts, read 42,120,818 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
What'd I say about the UK?
Nothing, that comment wasn't directed at you. Take a look at the UK on the graph from my link.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 09:58 AM
 
48,516 posts, read 84,101,109 times
Reputation: 18054
There are specific reason countries like japan and China have turned to large urban city growth rather than spreading out like US has since WWII. Its about transport; energy and in some cases space like Japan. WWII expanded the ability to move form cities as far as work in US. Its lead to decay caused by lack of taxable population in many areas as cost to urbanize with wanted life style rose. In many urban areas only a portion has any life style wanted by average person and rest do not want to live in slums as they did when their ancestors arrived in USA in 20th century. With 26% of the population retiring; we are even now seeing a movement from sub burbs to smaller towns with little industrial infrastructure. They will bring along with them the jobs needed to service their population that also has a lot of wealth. Times are always changing.
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