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.
Phoenix and Tempe are both adding density at a nice rate, Phoenix has gone from what was literally a ghost town after 5pm 10-15 years ago to a respectable level now. There are something like 5,000 residential units under construction in the downtown area now so the trend is continuing.
Yes, I understand that the recent trend began in Tempe, and is now underway in downtown Phoenix.
Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 12-16-2017 at 11:38 PM..
Most of Seattle's urban villages (the collective name for multiple categories of planning area) are about building upon what was already there. Only a few are really rebuilds like parts of the Northgate area, or rebuilds of public housing.
Some have gelled on a sizable scale. Ballard's core has added 3,500 housing units and is pretty vibrant these days. Capitol Hill was about filling in the gaps in already-dense areas, and turning its commercial streets into mixed-use. West Seattle Junction is hitting a critical mass. The U District has added thousands of beds plus hotels and offices. Roosevelt is getting surpercharged by the coming rail and becoming pretty dense in short order. Columbia City has surged.
Census estimates say Seattle (city of) added 96,000 people from 4/1/10 to 7/1/16. That's remarkable for a city that never had much vacant land. Most of the growth has been in the 15% of the city that allows density. Assuming those areas grew by 70,000, that would be about 5,500 more people per square mile in those areas. By 12/16/17 that would be much higher of course. Since some urban villages have grown more than others, I'd guess many census tracts have grown by more than 10,000/sm.
My computer is not displaying enough information for me to post a link to an article online-"Understanding Phoenix: Not As Sprawled As You Think".
To summarize, the Phoenix area maintains a relatively higher density over a larger area than Northeastern metropolitan areas-except NYC and Chicago.
So the Phoenix metropolitan area looks to be turning into its own beast-several urban centers in a polycentric pattern embedded in a large area of relatively high density. (Relatively high compared to suburbs in the northeast).
Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 12-16-2017 at 11:07 PM..
It's mostly tight sprawl, and sometimes it's fairly urban in small areas.
I guess that downtown Phoenix is urban compared to the rest of Phoenix, but not compared to areas in cities of similar size. Or even most smaller cities really. Phoenix reminds me a lot of the IE and no one calls that urban.
I guess that downtown Phoenix is urban compared to the rest of Phoenix, but not compared to areas in cities of similar size. Or even most smaller cities really. Phoenix reminds me a lot of the IE and no one calls that urban.
Where in the IE has 30 buildings over 250' within a 5 or so mile radius? San Bernardino has 1 building over 250'. Riverside has 0. Phoenix certainly isn't as dense as older cities to the East but it's a lot better than you're giving credit for.
The view of IE reminds me more of Scottsdale than Phoenix, but the economics are completely different.
I think to look at Houston a great comparison with the city would be Istanbul. I don't know if it is to make the city Earthquake proof but most people in urban Turkey live in Apartments, like houses are like a needle in a haystack it seems.
Both are incredibly dense areas, in fact Istanbul is by far the densest metro I have ever been in as it has areas with 30,000 ppsm located 30 miles from the center of the city just because the way they build cities. (Next would likely be Lagos, London, Dubai, Birmingham, New York etcetera)
Now Houston would have to change a lot to actually think about restricting growth maybe at 40 miles (commute to Downtown) people will start infilling the various areas of the city that is basically empty).
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9715...7i13312!8i6656
I don't see why Houston couldn't do this of course building codes would have to change or be modified to allow for higher density (instead of making it a carbon copy).
For example if it became that to live on Buffalo Bayou apartments with a parking garage below was necessary so people weren't flooded, Houston could gain huge density just by building like that to avoid flooding. Cities shouldn't build to just build tall buildings, they should build because it's efficient and necessary.
I'm thinking that you could build new urban areas with a relatively coarse grained structural density. So you could get neighborhoods that would evolve into the lower range of urbanity.
Sure you can get that, but today it's literally illegal to build in the mold of the most historic, urban parts of Northeastern cities. Modern-day zoning and building code regulations will not allow it.
Sure you can get that, but today it's literally illegal to build in the mold of the most historic, urban parts of Northeastern cities. Modern-day zoning and building code regulations will not allow it.
Houston, if I recall correctly, has no zoning rules. So in theory they could.
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.
