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 never heard this "savannah hypothesis" and most of my ancestors from the last few millenia anyway came from Europe, particularly parts of Germany that are heavily forested. I kinda think the savannah thing is a crock; it certainly seems not to have gained any traction. Who says all people "love" savannah? Can you provide a link?
If you look back, I provided a link upthread. Here's another link. As this one notes, the inherent enjoyment of savanna-type environments is greatest in childhood, and tends to drift towards the social norms of landscape beauty in adolescence. Here's another link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
We get it that you don't like trees. You also don't like grass, from your posts on Urban Planning. You seem to be in the minority on both issues.
It's fine in a park. I don't see why I have to maintain it.
Seriously though, my wife is even more anti-yard than I am. We've gone to see houses set six feet back from the street and she's complained about too much front lawn. I always tell her it's small enough we could just replace it with a flower bed or something.
^^You can post 200 links and I'll still not be convinced entirely. You are the only one on this thread supporting this POV. Your wife is not a participant, AFAIK.
You know very little about flower-growing if you think a flower garden would be easier to maintain than a lawn. In Pittsburgh, you don't have to do a lot to grow grass. Since your aversion to lawn-mowing is well known, you could hire a local kid to mow it for you, and do the local economy a favor. Flowers require planting (yearly if you use annuals), weeding and sometimes cutting. Likewise, a tree requires virtually NO maintenance in Pittsburgh. You have to beat them back to keep them from taking over!
As to all of your other issues, it just comes down to how friendly a city is for walking. There is something of a zero-sum game here, as the more friendly a city is to driving, the less friendly it becomes for pedestrians. Ultimately no American city touches on European cities, because aside from a road here and there we are loathe to make city streets pedestrian only - let alone having the whole downtown have limited automobile access.
I never brought up the grid. I just said cities need tight streets.
Okay but aside from streets none of that was "planned" was it? You keep talking about zero lot development as if cities "planned" that 100+ years ago, which they really didn't.
You do realize that anything made then and now has to be planned right? You have to see a field, and think, I want to build something there. That is a plan. You're planning to build something. When someone has a house built, it's planned. They plan what it will look like and where it will be. How big it will be etc. Everything is planned. Always has been and always will be.
You do realize that anything made then and now has to be planned right? You have to see a field, and think, I want to build something there. That is a plan. You're planning to build something. When someone has a house built, it's planned. They plan what it will look like and where it will be. How big it will be etc. Everything is planned. Always has been and always will be.
Ok, and before you were saying Seattle is the way it is because it wasn't "planned" like other cities. Yes a developer/builder needs a "plan" to build something but weren't you talking about city/urban planning? Weren't you inferring that zero lot development in older cities were the result of "planning" as in city/urban planning?
Everything isn't planned the same way it always been at all. As a supposed "professional" in the field I would think you would know that. Cities weren't planned a 100 years ago like the are today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Well, I guess that is the problem. Without planning 100 years ago, the city couldn't grow in an urban way. If you look at the most urban cities in the nation and world, Seattle doesn't look like them. I showed Philly, Boston, D.C., NYC, London, and Paris and they all had streets that looked similar. Pittsburgh also had streets that looked similar. Seattle doesn't mainly because of the reason you just pointed out. Street width and setbacks are the two most important factors for urbanism.
This is the quote I'm referring to, what are you even saying here? It sounds like you're saying Seattle isn't as urban because it wasn't "planned" to be as in there wasn't any city/urban planning back then and that is the reason it's built like it is.
Ok, and before you were saying Seattle is the way it is because it wasn't "planned" like other cities. Yes a developer/builder needs a "plan" to build something but weren't you talking about city/urban planning? Weren't you inferring that zero lot development in older cities were the result of "planning" as in city/urban planning?
Everything isn't planned the same way it always been at all. As a supposed "professional" in the field I would think you would know that. Cities weren't planned a 100 years ago like the are today.
This is the quote I'm referring to, what are you even saying here? It sounds like you're saying Seattle isn't as urban because it wasn't "planned" to be as in there wasn't any city/urban planning back then and that is the reason it's built like it is.
The street width in older Seattle neighborhoods like Capitol Hill is very comparable to that in east coast cities with different forms of housing. You could in theory create rowhouse neighborhoods without having to rework the street grid. The reasons why Seattle doesn't have them are the same mixture of cost/changing fashions in house design etc. that meant they stopped being built everywhere. Neighborhoods from the 1910's/1920's encapsulate a different value system. When zero-lot building are built today, they are apartment buildings (and Capitol Hill contains tons of them and has tons being constructed currently - That's how it achieves its relatively high density)
If you and several other commentators think Urbanism = "rowhouses" we're talking past each other. I completely grant you that Seattle has a different urban form. However, for me urbanism is not measured solely by a particular building form and I haven't seen any evidence presented for why 2 story rowhouses are substantially "more urban" than 4-6 story apartments etc. I think the row houses are beautiful and we could have a completely different (and mostly subjective) discussion on which city's building look better. Personally, I'm a big fan of almost all the 19th century vernacular buildings.
The street width in older Seattle neighborhoods like Capitol Hill is very comparable to that in east coast cities with different forms of housing. You could in theory create rowhouse neighborhoods without having to rework the street grid. The reasons why Seattle doesn't have them are the same mixture of cost/changing fashions in house design etc. that meant they stopped being built everywhere. Neighborhoods from the 1910's/1920's encapsulate a different value system. When zero-lot building are built today, they are apartment buildings (and Capitol Hill contains tons of them and has tons being constructed currently - That's how it achieves its relatively high density)
If you and several other commentators think Urbanism = "rowhouses" we're talking past each other. I completely grant you that Seattle has a different urban form. However, for me urbanism is not measured solely by a particular building form and I haven't seen any evidence presented for why 2 story rowhouses are substantially "more urban" than 4-6 story apartments etc. I think the row houses are beautiful and we could have a completely different (and mostly subjective) discussion on which city's building look better. Personally, I'm a big fan of almost all the 19th century vernacular buildings.
Ben
I was simply just challenging the notion that Seattle isn't as traditionally urban because it wasn't "planned" that way. It really has little to do with planning. I really don't know why you're talking to me about street widths and rowhouses honestly.
1. mixing in row houses is ugly and non-desirable enough that it seldom happens.
2. Row houses no longer make sense financially for multi-family house. Any new construction is going to be
I agree on point one - there's no point in putting rowhouses in an existing non-rowhouse neighborhood, unless you have literal blocks of empty space to fill. Putting a street-fronting building in a setback neighborhood looks as bad as putting a setback house in a street fronting neighborhood.
I don't think you finished your second point, but rowhouses (which are called townhouses in new construction) are in fact cheaper for builders to make than detached houses. They apparently sell quite well, considering most suburban apartment complexes/condos these days are essentially townhouses (e.g. separate entry, multi-story, semi-private yard). The main issue with such complexes regarding urbanity is developers like to build the parking in front because it's cheaper, but in a classic urban grid you can have access off an already-built rear alley.
Of course, if zoning allows higher density, developers are going to favor even denser development (e.g., apartment buildings) as that gives even more returns per square foot. But the market for rowhouses is still there.
There's some serious cherry-picking there. The majority of Seattle's population lives in multi-family housing, and there are a wide variety of types of residential areas outside of Downtown.
Some look like this as well. And keep in mind, none of these are directly Downtown and most are at least several miles from Downtown:
Although the focus here is outside of Downtown, it's also worth noting that Seattle provides a substantially greater quantity and variety of urban living opportunities Downtown than any of the other cities.
There's some serious cherry-picking there. The majority of Seattle's population lives in multi-family housing, and there are a wide variety of types of residential areas outside of Downtown.
Some look like this as well. And keep in mind, none of these are directly Downtown and most are at least several miles from Downtown:
Although the focus here is outside of Downtown, it's also worth noting that Seattle provides a substantially greater quantity and variety of urban living opportunities Downtown than any of the other cities.
Bahaha. I'm "seriously cherrypicking" but you send me links to areas with smalls strips of urban developments. The good majority of Seattle is suburban. Let's not try to kid ourselves.
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.
