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.
No; market forces work against it. It's not just about denser, more pedestrian-friendly development but the type of development. Older cities have lots of small-scale density that just isn't as economically feasible to build today.
Sounds like an argument for historical preservation!
Which brings up a question.
What sort of urbanism would be feasible to build today?
Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 02-22-2016 at 09:40 AM..
Well it's obvious as to why some people around here would certainly want them to, to boast about how urban these cities are on top of having mild/sunny weather.
You would at least hope the people running the cities will be more mature than that, killing a city's identity over boasting purposes of a certain group
It's the only part of the city that can build an urban and dense cohesive environment. Chicago is 227 sq miles. The inner loop is only 95 sq miles. We are still in the car era too.
It's actually huge to me at that size. New Orleans city is about that size (minus the undevelopable marsh in NO East).
I think one of the problems is pricing people out of neighborhoods that were once affordable. Areas like Second Ward or EaDo are now full of expensive housing units. Why aren't there any cheaper units available? I think that would do more to get people in those areas, specifically people interested in an urban lifestyle. The well-paid 30 year old yuppie doesn't seem to do much for those kinds of neighborhoods (in reference to NOLA), it's always the 22 year old bartender and aspiring artist. Who pays $700 for a studio apartment. Can't find that in downtown or Midtown or Montrose.
It's actually huge to me at that size. New Orleans city is about that size (minus the undevelopable marsh in NO East).
I think one of the problems is pricing people out of neighborhoods that were once affordable. Areas like Second Ward or EaDo are now full of expensive housing units. Why aren't there any cheaper units available? I think that would do more to get people in those areas, specifically people interested in an urban lifestyle. The well-paid 30 year old yuppie doesn't seem to do much for those kinds of neighborhoods (in reference to NOLA), it's always the 22 year old bartender and aspiring artist. Who pays $700 for a studio apartment. Can't find that in downtown or Midtown or Montrose.
Heh. That's cheap compared to most urban cities lol.
As in it is unlikely to be built with many narrow streets and low-rise buildings to be dense, but rather mid-rise to high-rise buildings with a bit more setback. It also won't really look exactly like they were built in the 1800s or early 1900s because architectural tastes and technologies have changed. You know, the usual.
If they truly want to be urban, they could retrofit their street grid network also. They just need to make their grid smaller with streets closer together. Many suburbs are doing this right now that were also built around the automobile. It's never too late:
No, most US cities already have their basic urban vernacular already built out. The traditional urban cities are just so much denser, there will never be that kind of cohesive urban density across miles and miles that you see in SF, Bos, etc. There is obviously lots of room for building on empty lots, parking lots, and along commerical corridors. But, at the end of the day, most sunbelt cities quickly transition to vast swaths of SFHs which are almost certianlly never going to be wholesale knocked down and replaced with Bos/SF/Philly style dense urban housing.
I think the better models for the sunbelt cities is Seattle which is building a living urban core and encouraging smart growth in its outter nodes.
Houston will never have the vast rowhouse of Philly or dense apartment district areas like Nobb Hill. But, it could build up its downtown/midtown neighbrhoods with DT Seattle style apartments and transition Montrose into more of a walkable Capitol Hill type urban district. Basically, Houston could redevelop an inner 5 sq miles into a central core to rival central Seattle. It would give Houston more of a sense of place, promote tourism, and provide those seeking walkable urban living a option. A few of more disconected districts could gradaully be urbanized and turned into DC-style walkable urban nodes. Maybe not car free living, but maybe car lite. A lot of this is already happening. Of course, the vast majority of the city would remain an auto-centric suburban zone as it is today. Which is prefectly fine, not every city needs to be SF or Chicago.
most sunbelt cities quickly transition to vast swaths of SFHs which are almost certianlly never going to be wholesale knocked down and replaced with Bos/SF/Philly style dense urban housing.
Both in most aspects, they are only knocking down the homes that haven't been occupied in a while or if a develop buys the home or lot.
To be fair, you do have areas that turned from this: https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7700...7i13312!8i6656
Well it's obvious as to why some people around here would certainly want them to, to boast about how urban these cities are on top of having mild/sunny weather.
You would at least hope the people running the cities will be more mature than that, killing a city's identity over boasting purposes of a certain group
It's also obvious that some people are delusional and would rather ignore the fact that the population is growing and the city can no longer expand outwards. We're beyond the point of wanting to urbanize, places like San Diego NEED to urbanize. There is no more room for sprawl and I'll be damned if they start building in national forests, military bases and state parks.
These types of comments/posters like to spout "no density", but have yet to offer an alternative to accommodating a growing population.
If they truly want to be urban, they could retrofit their street grid network also. They just need to make their grid smaller with streets closer together. Many suburbs are doing this right now that were also built around the automobile. It's never too late:
That's one way to do it. There are certainly large megacities around the world with large grids, and even expanding grids where streets have become wider and blocks larger that are definitely urban. Beijing, and to some extent Moscow, come to mind.
Sounds like an argument for historical preservation!
Which brings up a question.
What sort of urbanism would be feasible to build today?
Probably the Portland/Seattle model.
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.
