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.
The bicycle ratio going down at the highest densities might be realistic. Walking or transit become easy options relative to bicycling and roads are often too congested.
Give people choices, like high density? move to the city... like low density? move to the suburbs.
I think choice is good. The problem is that the supply of those choices doesn't reflect the demand for those choices. Medium and high are definitely underrepresented. Then why do many of them sit vacant or why aren't more built? Because of location and other amenities outside of the built environment. There is a spatial/neighborhood characterstic mismatch. Many people would love to live in a more dense neighborhood, but there are other factors disconnecting them from supply: safety, economic conditions, and school district performance in those neighborhoods. For a big chunk of the population, those areas are non-starters for these reasons. Different options need to be placed in different areas at different price points and social conditions. In a lot of metros, many of these types of neighborhoods are found in one of two areas: economically challenged areas where crime and safety is an issue and schools underperform (which scares off many families, older households, and female households in particular) or "posh" areas where money is no object. They basically consist of professional households where the kids go to private schools, the area is generally safe, and it is economically segregated. Some of the pictures featured St. Louis and its a poster child for these reasons. Webster and Kirkwood neighborhoods have good school and family presence, but they're pretty expensive by metro standards. Then there are areas that are reasonably safe, but with underperforming schools like Maplewood that turn off a lot of buyers. There isn't a middle ground. The choices shouldn't be:
a-households with 0.5-0.7x the metro income, poor schools, poor safety (many parts of the St. Louis city, older suburbs). Basically working poor status to a notch above that.
b-households with 0.8x metro income, below average schools, below average to average safety (Maplewood)
c-2-3x metro income, almost exclusively professionals, highly rated schools, very safe. Very expensive housing.
There is a big gap between b and c that needs to be filled.
The bicycle ratio going down at the highest densities might be realistic. Walking or transit become easy options relative to bicycling and roads are often too congested.
As to the OP, some of the moderate density examples look rather nice. However, in most cases the density is low enough that cars have a big advantage over transit for out of neighborhood trips and over walking for within neighborhood trips. With that, transit ridership will be rather low resulting in lowered transit frequency and coverage and local business placement will be less pedestrian oriented. I'm more interested in a "walking city" where getting around without a car doesn't have as much of a convenience advantage and the larger streets are full of pedestrians. So I don't bring up these compromise neighborhoods that much as I'm interested in them as much. Not saying they're bad, though I think sometimes posters overstate their walkability and how different they are from modern suburbia (in particular, newer California burbs are similar in density)
I owned a house for six years in Richmond VA that was so similar in style that a couple of the OP's examples briefly fooled me into thinking it was the same neighborhood. While it was a 1920s streetcar suburb with a few shops/restaurants nestled in, what you've stated above is absolutely true. Nearly everyone drove for most things. There were even people who would drive within the neighborhood to go to the store or to eat. Three bus lines existed, but primarily because there were lower income individuals along the line that supported it enough to keep it going. People like myself would take the bus, but not in enough numbers to keep any kind of decent headways to make it convenient. Also, walking distances were far from ideal.
IME, those neighborhoods are truly excellent for biking. But in terms of walkability and transit, I don't think it's ideal (JMO). Partly because the number of individuals per household make for pretty low densities and it accommodates the car enough to eliminate transit options.
That is true, when living in the NYC metro, I never rode my bike because I never really felt safe on it there.
I've almost always found higher densities to be safer and more comfortable feeling on a bike than not, except for maybe complete gridlock. When the traffic densities get to a certain level and lower speed because of it, then a bike just feels like part of the overall matrix of cars, trucks, scooters, busses and the like, all going at a very modest speed- one which a bike can easily keep up with and therefore feel more comfortable taking the center of the lane if necessary for safety.
In that San Francisco would seem to be a extremely un-bike friendly city with the high densities including a complex traffic matrix within a challenging topography but in reality everything is often going about as fast as a cable car, 12 mph, and therefore a bike fits right in. Same in NYC.
In low density areas the traffic speeds are much higher and you get suburban drivers who absolutely hate sharing the road with bicyclists because they think they are in the way and slow them down (as if other vehicles don't often do exactly the same thing).
I think the OP's question has been answered - the urbanists do want us packed in like rats . As for the medium density, at a micro level I don't see the point of owning my own home on a lot small enough to see and hear everything my neighbors do (and vice versa) and too small and exposed to do much of anything with it without bothering other people (and vice versa); it offers little privacy or usability advantage over a rowhouse or a townhouse. If you ask me the same logic applies to anything less than 1/4 acre, with 1/4-1/2 acre being borderline; then again, as a rule I like out-of-town housing rather than in-town, so perhaps I'm not the best person to comment on city density .
I don't know- I have a mere 1/8 acre lot and while I can sometimes hear my neighbors (who are almost without exception also great friends and upon hearing them I just might go on over to join whatever fun they might be up to) my garden certainly seems plenty big enough for the two of us, offers plenty of privacy (I can just barely make out a couple of houses through the trees even though there are several quite close by) and I am just as likely to hear owls, a flock of wild parrots or coyotes as I am a human. The fact that a family of seven lived here before for decades speaks to a smaller house on a urban lot functioning just fine.
I can definitely see the point of a urban sized lot right in the heart of the city, especially a street car suburb as the OP suggests and as mine is defined as. Our neighborhood density is about 11,000/mile with a vibrant shopping and entertainment district a three minute walk from my house. A bus line going uptown and downtown every 12 minutes the same three minute walk away and all the amenities of a large downtown and the bay a 15 minute bus ride, 5 minutes by car or a 35 minute walk. It's a perfect density and lifestyle for us-garden and woods in the back, village and downtown mere minutes out your door- you couldn't give us a Mcmansion in the suburbs.
If I'm packed in like a rat call me a joyously contented one with lots of friends close by.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,278,425 times
Reputation: 1483
I Love these Victorians in a Big city. Mostly singles though close.... I'm not a fan of Rows.... but you have to love Victorians any way you see them. ESPECIALLY THE GORGEOUS GREEN SPACE IN FRONT OF THE GORGEOUS HOMES and I can see the ABOVE GARDEN IN THE PREVIOUS POST IN ITS BACK YARD Sure has the density but yet it's nice....
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,278,425 times
Reputation: 1483
I am fine with the main streets among a cities neighborhoods that have all the retail, businesses and eateries.
But I would rather see a quite residential block to go home too?
Why somewhere between higher-density and moderate.... including moderate is not a bad thing?
Of course I have examples I would rather this off main streets then all mixed in ultra-high density that has off busy main street with retail, businesses and eateries. Not all mixed in the neighborhoods.
Most midwestern and rust belt cities were built at "streetcar density", like in the photos.
To many, rather than being a compromise, they just represent the worse of both worlds. Too spread out to be "walkable" but also too close to your neighbors, and annoying to drive and park.
I think it depends on the city. For instance, this streetcar suburb neighborhood is in a pretty popular area of Syracuse: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0416...UO6g!2e0?hl=en If you go a couple of blocks west of there, you run into a nice, but fairly dense business district as well.
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.
. As for the medium density, at a micro level I don't see the point of owning my own home on a lot small enough to see and hear everything my neighbors do (and vice versa) and too small and exposed to do much of anything with it without bothering other people (and vice versa); it offers little privacy or usability advantage over a rowhouse or a townhouse. If you ask me the same logic applies to anything less than 1/4 acre, with 1/4-1/2 acre being borderline; then again, as a rule I like out-of-town housing rather than in-town, so perhaps I'm not the best person to comment on city density 
.
Sure has the density but yet it's nice....
I would rather this off main streets then all mixed in ultra-high density that has off busy main street with retail, businesses and eateries. Not all mixed in the neighborhoods.
