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.
D.C.'s street grid across 50% of the core is nothing like it was. Have you seen downtown D.C. and SW D.C. blocks in 2050 in comparison to 1915?
I'm assuming that's a typo and that you meant 2015 since none of us will see what DC looks like in 2050 for 35 more years.
Yes, S.W. DC changed mid 20th century during the urban renewal period- it got worse. They bulldozed human scale neighborhoods, broke up the street grid, removed a ton of alleys, and built a bunch of far less urban housing projects. Its only in this century that those issues are finally being addressed and the wrongs of the past righted.
Regarding your assertion that 50% of DC's core street grid changed from 1915 to 2015, you're going to have to provide some maps to back that up. You have the aforementioned disastrous urban renewal in the (tiny) SW quadrant and monstrosities like L'Enfant Plaza and the the freeways, all of which broke up the grid and made it worse (are you seeing a pattern yet?) But as far as I know the letter, number, and state avenue grid as we know it today was already in place in 1915. 100 years ago you could navigate through DC in nearly the same way you can today, it just had far fewer buildings.
Last edited by DistrictDirt; 04-01-2015 at 11:53 AM..
You just hit the nail on the head in regard to the problem with a discussion like this on a website like city-data.com.
People who create cities and plan and build development have long term plans that many times are built in phases. It's about making sure plans are seen through till the end by you or your successor. If the world was left up to people who frequent this website, we would always be unprepared for any and everything because of a lack of foresight. You guys have to stop living in the moment and start creating things for people in 2100.
and where am I even remotely saying this is not a great plan My sole issue is claiming that Tysons any time in the foreseeable future will be like DT Atlanta or Houston etc.
my issue was with your assertion that it would and zero to do with the plan or forethought
-It doesn't matter if there are more people in the streets in Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston, this isn't a competition. It's about redevelopment of the built form and using cities as a model.
That's the point. You brought up Atlanta, Dallas and Houston. Those cities already have better urban bones than Tyson's corner and are continuing to improve. They already have higher density. They are entirely different animals than Tyson's corner. You're comparing what functions as a suburban office park to what are three of the nation's major downtown areas. A grid is wonderful, but you're still talking about a suburban area that's entirely geared around the automobile, suburban lifestyle and low density residential development. Simply building new streets in grid form won't change that. However, Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston are seeing improvement in their cores because they already have urban bones. It's hard to believe that even with the grid Tyson's Corner will ever achieve anything close to what already exists in those other cities; let alone be comparable to what those cities will be in the future.
Quote:
Why do you keep referring to existing development? What does that have to do with building new infrastructure and changing the current development that exists in Tyson's?
This should be obvious. because Tyson's Corner is chalk full of existing suburban offices, surface lots, suburban malls, and suburban residential development. Most importantly, perhaps, is that the culture there is suburban. A grid will not change any of those things. You have to change the culture (much easier said than done), then you have to make changes to the existing development (easier said than done when you're talking about millions and millions of square feet of existing suburban development) AND hope that all new development is urban.
On the other hand, Atlanta, Houston and Dallas all have existing urban cores. They will grown and redevelop in an urban fashion. You don't have to change culture, infrastructure, or development patterns in those areas to improve the urban center. You just have to continue the trend of urban growth.
My issue is not the plan to redevelop Tyson's Corner (which is ambitious and should be applauded). My issue is with your comparisons to the downtown areas of three of America's most important cities. It's apples to oranges.
Will the over 10,000 parking spaces at Tyson's Corner Center and the over 5000 spaces at Tyson's Galleria remain? Good chance they will. The area is quite affluent, very suburban and the malls are very successful. The downtowns of Dallas, Atlanta and Houston are just not good comparisons. As the area grows I still don't see it looking or feeling like any major downtown.
And how do you propose they should "grid that entire middle" when there are already massive retail, office, and residential structures laid out haphazardly throughout the area?
Its not like Fairfax County can eminent domain and demolish what's there. This was the best-case-scenario pie-in-the-sky scenario they could come up with:
...which is still not even in the same ballpark as the downtown's of the cities you mentioned. And even implementing that is proving to be a challenge as it depends on developers playing ball and following good urban design principles, something that so far many of them are not doing.
KidPhilly has it right- Tysons plan is far better than doing nothing and could serve as an example of how to improve upon other suburban style edge cities such as King of Prussia in PA. But your earlier assertion that Tysons could someday be as urban as the downtowns of real cities like Houston, Dallas, or Atlanta is absolutely silly and undermines any actual valid positive points you could say about the plan.
You forgot the part at the end that said they aren't doing what you claim:
"Update: Brian Worthy from Fairfax County pointed out that this plan was approved under Tysons' previous land use plan, which permitted this type of design. It would be prescient of the county to try to convince Lerner to move toward a more urban solution, which could increase their profits as well as creating a development that better fits into the future of Tysons."
And also, what makes you think those will not be redeveloped? You think those structures will last the next 100 years? Doubt it! They aren't built close to strong enough to last 100 years. The demand will warrant a way more intense use over the next 100 years through development pressure happening around it.
I guess the main problem here is you're looking at this through your eyes based on your own thought process which will never allow you to see things through the eyes of those trying to plan for the next 100 years. This is evident in your thinking that development pressure won't push the sale of those low intensity, poorly built, structures over the next 100 years.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 04-01-2015 at 01:11 PM..
That's the point. You brought up Atlanta, Dallas and Houston. Those cities already have better urban bones than Tyson's corner and are continuing to improve. They already have higher density. They are entirely different animals than Tyson's corner. You're comparing what functions as a suburban office park to what are three of the nation's major downtown areas. A grid is wonderful, but you're still talking about a suburban area that's entirely geared around the automobile, suburban lifestyle and low density residential development. Simply building new streets in grid form won't change that. However, Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston are seeing improvement in their cores because they already have urban bones. It's hard to believe that even with the grid Tyson's Corner will ever achieve anything close to what already exists in those other cities; let alone be comparable to what those cities will be in the future.
This should be obvious. because Tyson's Corner is chalk full of existing suburban offices, surface lots, suburban malls, and suburban residential development. Most importantly, perhaps, is that the culture there is suburban. A grid will not change any of those things. You have to change the culture (much easier said than done), then you have to make changes to the existing development (easier said than done when you're talking about millions and millions of square feet of existing suburban development) AND hope that all new development is urban.
On the other hand, Atlanta, Houston and Dallas all have existing urban cores. They will grown and redevelop in an urban fashion. You don't have to change culture, infrastructure, or development patterns in those areas to improve the urban center. You just have to continue the trend of urban growth.
My issue is not the plan to redevelop Tyson's Corner (which is ambitious and should be applauded). My issue is with your comparisons to the downtown areas of three of America's most important cities. It's apples to oranges.
Couple things:
-How do you change something that is suburban to something that is urban? Raze the whole thing and start over. (check!)
-How do you add density and vibrancy? Build housing for 100,000 people in 4.3 mile's. (Check!)
-How do you change the culture of driving in the suburbs? Restrict parking. (Check!)
-Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta may be economically important cities and historically important cities in the U.S., but culturally they are suburban with suburban principals so that whole city comparison can be thrown out the window. People like their cars there period!
I guess the main problem here is you're looking at this through your eyes based on your own thought process which will never allow you to see things through the eyes of those trying to plan for the next 100 years. This is evident in your thinking that development pressure won't push the sale of those low intensity, poorly built, structures over the next 100 years.
You're right, my vision is the main problem here.
Tyson's is America's next great downtown...you're a true visionary for seeing what no one else does.
Tyson's is America's next great downtown...you're a true visionary for seeing what no one else does.
I never said that. I was saying you have your mind set that things can't be razed. You seem absolutely sure that what exists now will always remain. Why is that?
Just an FYI for everyone by the way:
Because of the landmark case Berman v. Parker, Fairfax could take the residential property through eminent domain sometime in the future if they want to. Just an FYI. In fact, your property doesn't even have to be blighted. It just has to be part of a comprehensive plan for redevelopment and the government can seize it, pay fair market value, and give it to another private developer. And the New London case even allows the government to take your land for economic development.
-Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta may be economically important cities and historically important cities in the U.S., but culturally they are suburban with suburban principals so that whole city comparison can be thrown out the window. People like their cars there period!
That's not the point. The only way this new Tyson's that you're talking about can compare with these three cities is if Tyson's explodes even more and these three cities do nothing to their downtown areas in a given amount of time. That will simply not be the case. These downtown areas can become livable areas without the car because at one time, they were. Tyson's does not have the history of these three like that. Also, you're trying to justify your argument by comparing Tyson's Corner to the entire cities of Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta which is a disingenuous. This discussion is between the immediate cores of these three cities and Tyson's Corner and Tyson's Corner will likely never become as urban as these three.
That's not the point. The only way this new Tyson's that you're talking about can compare with these three cities is if Tyson's explodes even more and these three cities do nothing to their downtown areas in a given amount of time. That will simply not be the case. These downtown areas can become livable areas without the car because at one time, they were. Tyson's does not have the history of these three like that. Also, you're trying to justify your argument by comparing Tyson's Corner to the entire cities of Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta which is a disingenuous. This discussion is between the immediate cores of these three cities and Tyson's Corner and Tyson's Corner will likely never become as urban as these three.
No, I'm only talking about the downtown area's which people in those cities drive still.
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.
