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.
*I used 21st century so as to not confuse people by using a term such as "new urbanism" or something that already has a loose definition*
I was reading this and the author made a good point that I've never, but have never really thought about it when it comes to how plan and build urban centers:
Quote:
And of course the two malls themselves, once you get inside, are great places to walk. Here's where Tysons gets interesting. In the United States, urban places are almost always old places — places where the built environment predates the automobile and the streetscape is oriented old mass transit lines, often ones that no longer exist. And when people think of new urban places, they often have in mind the idea of nostalgically recreating those old kind of places. But the parts of Tysons that work as a city aren't throwbacks at all. They more closely resemble an urban form you might see in Asia where urban density and newness aren't necessarily seen as enemies.
The author has a point. Here, whenever we talk about urbanism, we tend to make urban policy zero in on trends from centuries past(Europeanizing). Cities such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Tokyo show that you can have really advanced cities that are dense, contain affordable housing, don't necessarily rely on old pre-automobile trends
What do you guys think when it comes to developing American cities, especially growing ones in places down in the south like Atlanta or west coast such as Los Angeles and Seattle? Tyson's seems to be developing that way and parts of Arlington were planned out that way as well.
It sounds so new, yet when I think about it, Tyson's Corner sounds awfully like Metropolis (Superman's or of the movie of the same name); we see wide roads, vertical separation of travel modes, and mid-high density.
Focuses on office buildings, but the majority of housing stock in Hong Kong (especially HK Island, although increasingly the New Territories are seeing the same thing) is also very new. Of course, there's the opposite end of that as well. What was appropriate 50+ years ago maybe isn't today the best use of land today. Cities are dynamic and ever changing. Europe especially is infatuated with old stuff. Eg, Paris the most prominent business district isn't even in Paris. It's in a suburb.
Europe especially is infatuated with old stuff. Eg, Paris the most prominent business district isn't even in Paris. It's in a suburb.
No, it's not. The business district in Paris is several times larger by employment-wise and office space than any other. Just because it lacks skyscrapers doesn't mean it's not a business district. Old numbers, but Paris has 1.1 million workers in its "downtown", spread out over 11 square miles.
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.
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.
