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.
LOL at comments to the effect of "who wouldn't love suburban office parks"? Suburban office parks are so depressing to me. Most of them look exactly the same and have all the charm of an Applebee's parking lot. I hate having to get back in the car and drive just to get a sandwich when on lunch break. The Google and Apple campuses aren't that bad because they spend the money to have interesting architecture and seem to have good food on site. But they are definitely the exception compared to most suburban office parks.
Also LOL at "CBDs aren't feasible." Really, how naive do you have to be about how the real world works to actually believe that? Businesses have been thriving in CBDs for years and they aren't going away.
Here is Foster's other project (Apple and CTIC were his two recent babies juxtaposed in setting with the intent to foster innovation) to develop innovative space, this in an urban form
LOL at comments to the effect of "who wouldn't love suburban office parks"? Suburban office parks are so depressing to me. Most of them look exactly the same and have all the charm of an Applebee's parking lot. I hate having to get back in the car and drive just to get a sandwich when on lunch break. The Google and Apple campuses aren't that bad because they spend the money to have interesting architecture and seem to have good food on site. But they are definitely the exception compared to most suburban office parks.
Surprise, surprise - the world wasn't designed to impress you. This has all the "me-ism" associated with urbanophiles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Also LOL at "CBDs aren't feasible." Really, how naive do you have to be about how the real world works to actually believe that? Businesses have been thriving in CBDs for years and they aren't going away.
They aren't. The fact that you are complaining about suburban office parks shows that CBDs really aren't particularly feasible. It may depend on what city you are in but what does your CBD offer? In some places the CBD is dominated by law firms and the like but the worker and the clients don't particularly like fighting the congestion to meet with clients "downtown". Shopping downtown is not particularly pleasant due to congestion and parking constraints - especially when there are alternatives and plenty of them elsewhere. To add insult to injury office space downtown costs more than elsewhere. Unless you are in a business where money is virtually handed to you, why choose to locate "downtown" when locating away from downtown is more cost effective for the company, more efficient for employees to get to and from, and a higher quality of life?
Have you ever heard of induced demand? Basically, if more roads are built, they quickly fill up and become congested. Building new roads doesn't relieve congestion in the long run.
Do you think expanding roads in Detroit is going to suddenly increase the population there?
People aren't running out to drive on a wider road just 'cause.
Seems like you make this argument really because you believe the converse is that by shrinking roads you will reduce demand.
If widening roads induces demand then it should be apparent that a CBD is a poor design - like a black whole for congestion. An improved design would be multiple BDs as previously analogized with the multi-core processor example.
Surprise, surprise - the world wasn't designed to impress you. This has all the "me-ism" associated with urbanophiles.
They aren't. The fact that you are complaining about suburban office parks shows that CBDs really aren't particularly feasible. It may depend on what city you are in but what does your CBD offer? In some places the CBD is dominated by law firms and the like but the worker and the clients don't particularly like fighting the congestion to meet with clients "downtown". Shopping downtown is not particularly pleasant due to congestion and parking constraints - especially when there are alternatives and plenty of them elsewhere. To add insult to injury office space downtown costs more than elsewhere. Unless you are in a business where money is virtually handed to you, why choose to locate "downtown" when locating away from downtown is more cost effective for the company, more efficient for employees to get to and from, and a higher quality of life?
Me stating my own personal opinion about the aesthetics of suburban office parks does not imply that I think the world "should be designed to impress" me. It's an opinion. I don't like suburban office parks and choose to avoid them. That doesn't mean I don't think those that do like them shouldn't have access to that mode of development if they wish. You leapt to the conclusion that I think my opinion should apply to the whole world because you have a simplistic "either/or" mentality to these issues. I think cities and suburbs should coexist so those that prefer suburbs have access to the way they like to live and those who prefer cities can live how they want to live.
Your nonsensical argument about feasibility is like Yogi Berra's famous quote "nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded." The reason CBDs are congested is because thousands of businesses are based in big dense CBDs in major cities all around the country, have been for decades, and aren't going anywhere. Clearly CBDs are feasible for those businesses. The fact that many other businesses might not want to locate in a CBD and instead prefer office parks doesn't show that the CBD is infeasible. It just shows that there is more than one model for a business to choose from. The fact that you seem to (wrongly) think that no business would prefer a downtown core to the suburbs can only come from a deep naivete about how the world works and a complete unfamiliarity with actual, real-world cities.
The next time you visit a corporate headquarters located in a CBD, ask the people that run the business why they choose to stay there rather than decamp to the suburbs. You'll hear tons of benefits that counterbalance against the costs you list. Yes, for many businesses the costs outweigh the benefits. But not all, which is why many businesses stay in the CBD.
But this will never happen because it sounds like you have never visited a city before and would never do so. That's the only explanation I can see for why you need these obvious points spelled out for you.
Last edited by stateofnature; 04-20-2016 at 11:07 AM..
Surprise, surprise - the world wasn't designed to impress you. This has all the "me-ism" associated with urbanophiles.
They aren't. The fact that you are complaining about suburban office parks shows that CBDs really aren't particularly feasible. It may depend on what city you are in but what does your CBD offer? In some places the CBD is dominated by law firms and the like but the worker and the clients don't particularly like fighting the congestion to meet with clients "downtown". Shopping downtown is not particularly pleasant due to congestion and parking constraints - especially when there are alternatives and plenty of them elsewhere. To add insult to injury office space downtown costs more than elsewhere. Unless you are in a business where money is virtually handed to you, why choose to locate "downtown" when locating away from downtown is more cost effective for the company, more efficient for employees to get to and from, and a higher quality of life?
CBD office space costs more for a reason. It's just supply and demand. The demand is really high for centrally located office space. And locating the company in the suburbs is not more efficient for employees who live in the city.
The full article definitely takes an interesting perspective on how new office parks--excluding CBD offices--continue the trend of exclusion of uses by looking at how the suburban office park developed in the US and how new developments, like Apple's spaceship, continue that trend.
But fails to make any real coherent arguments about why locating in the city is different. If you put a big company like Apple in New York City, what's different other than employees taking more public transportation?
If you cleared out the interior of the office I work in and installed linoleum and drafting tables, then it would pretty much look like that Bell Labs drafting studio, except with a view of Midtown instead of suburban NJ.
Me stating my own personal opinion about the aesthetics of suburban office parks does not imply that I think the world "should be designed to impress" me. It's an opinion. I don't like suburban office parks and choose to avoid them. That doesn't mean I don't think those that do like them shouldn't have access to that mode of development if they wish. You leapt to the conclusion that I think my opinion should apply to the whole world because you have a simplistic "either/or" mentality to these issues. I think cities and suburbs should coexist so those that prefer suburbs have access to the way they like to live and those who prefer cities can live how they want to live.
Well now we are about to get into "what is a city and what is a suburb"? I strongly suspect that what you are calling "suburb" is actually located within the city. So exactly what is it you do not like - i) whether the location is actually within a city, ii) whether the location is "downtown", or iii) the appearance of the building/structure?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Your nonsensical argument about feasibility is like Yogi Berra's famous quote "nobody goes there anymore - it's too crowded." The reason CBDs are congested is because thousands of businesses are based in big dense CBDs in major cities all around the country, have been for decades, and aren't going anywhere.
What kinds of businesses? Look at a city like Houston - what would you call the CBD? Look at how much of the commerce and activity is located somewhere else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
Clearly CBDs are feasible for those businesses. The fact that many other businesses might not want to locate in a CBD and instead prefer office parks doesn't show that the CBD is infeasible. It just shows that there is more than one model for a business to choose from. The fact that you seem to (wrongly) think that no business would prefer a downtown core to the suburbs can only come from a deep naivete about how the world works and a complete unfamiliarity with actual, real-world cities.
Haha. So my statements are to be discounted because I'm stupid, inexperienced, and unsophisticated according to an anonymous commentator on a social forum. Ad hominem type attacks really don't give any credibility to your claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
The next time you visit a corporate headquarters located in a CBD, ask the people that run the business why they choose to stay there rather than decamp to the suburbs. You'll hear tons of benefits that counterbalance against the costs you list. Yes, for many businesses the costs outweigh the benefits. But not all, which is why many businesses stay in the CBD.
Many of the really big ones have. However they already have a significant investment downtown and a "comfort zone" of remaining where they are. They are not located there for convenience of employees.
Locating downtown is unnecessary for many of these places. Some (like the examples given in the article) are due to history, unavailability of alternatives, and the fact that the company already has a significant presence where it is. I wouldn't say any of them are in a "CBD" nor do they have any reason to move to a CBD. While daydreaming urbanophiles are concerned with form over substance as to why businesses aren't locating in some high density "CBD", finding ways to attract businesses downtown, or putting out hype material about non-existent trends ... what I've seen is companies streaming not just away from "downtown" or the "city" but completely out of one state and into another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
But this will never happen because it sounds like you have never visited a city before and would never do so. That's the only explanation I can see for why you need these obvious points spelled out for you.
I'll continue to watch businesses where you are exit the area because the costs and talent pool are more attractive in the areas the businesses are moving to.
Ah not all office parks can or should be located in an CBD. The CBD is good for an headquarters maybe but there are all sorts of functions and business needs that an CBD can't address. Some locations handle R/D which may not be suitable for an location. Other are so large that the cost of locating in the CBD would be high. And cities are more than the CBD!
Airports for instance are often not found near the CBD which is important for people who travel. The headquaters may be somewhere near an factory(which again) isn't very suitable for the CBD.
Have you ever heard of induced demand? Basically, if more roads are built, they quickly fill up and become congested. Building new roads doesn't relieve congestion in the long run.
The road will get congested regardless. More development brings in a larger population who drives.
Traffic volume will continue to be congested whether new roads are built or not for different reasons. People complain about not building certain roads because they didn't want the development. The development occurred anyway and now the existing roads can't handle the additional traffic that resulted from the new development. Then those very people who didn't want the road are now complaining about how it takes them 20 minutes to drive 2 miles.
On the other hand, engineers incorrectly assume that their roads will last 30-40 years before needing to be address. However, some states are slow when it comes to road construction with their useless studies and having money for everything but roads. By the time they complete their study of a construction they intend on doing anyway, traffic has already increased and continues to increase during construction.
"We have to get people out of their cars" "They should move closer to their jobs"
No job is secure. People can get let go tomorrow for any reason. Some people simply aren't able to live close to home. Some people don't want to. People are driving because public transportation doesn't take them where they want to go. Public transportation doesn't stop at every doorstep. It doesn't stop at every job. Some people require to be at various location during the day.
They live 20 miles away from the city center because the city isn't affordable to everyone. Everyone can't live in the city. Everyone doesn't want to live in the city. People prefer to shop at a store that isn't located around the corner. People are going to do what best for them.
Transit and being able to walk from point A to point B isn't always available. TOD appeal to a small group of people who prefer not to drive. If transit isn't along a place people want to go i.e. their jobs, then it's not useful.
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.
