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.
The poll results do not reflect reality at all. Nashville and Denver had more infill than Dallas or Houston? Really??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade
Not just about quantity but quality.
Is that to infer more density infill vs less dense as lower quality and Mcmansions and say - Houston's inner-loop infill as mostly multi-residential infill means moot too in quality?
I'm guessing you would rate DC's as highest. I know you know Houston. But guess - The boom in the inner-loop lacks the quality? Not highrises maybe?
Just odd without stats. Guess lil Nashville rocks Houston? Surprises me.
Is that to infer more density infill vs less dense as lower quality and Mcmansions and say - Houston's inner-loop infill as mostly multi-residential infill means moot too in quality?
I'm guessing you would rate DC's as highest. I know you know Houston. But guess agsin, The boom in the inner-loop lacks he quality? Not highries maybe?
Just odd without stats. Guess lil Nashville rocks Houston? Surprises me.
Just saying he was remarking on the quantity while the OP I’m guessing is looking for quality by using words such as impact.
Yes Houston’s inner loop infill has been mostly multi family with shared driveway townhomes scattered around. No more ranch style homes or any homes with large yards. I believe the same is true for inner loop 12 in Dallas. I don’t know if Nashville has built more (kind of doubt that) but has what Nashville, Seattle, Austin built been more impactful than what Houston’s infill has done. I think some will say yes especially regarding Seattle.
The poll results do not reflect reality at all. Nashville and Denver had more infill than Dallas or Houston? Really??
Idk about more, but Denver's had a lot of infill within the last 10 years. I think the city deserves some credit. Here's a nice before and after look at how much infill has happened from 2010-2019 https://denverinfill.com/2020/01/a-d...and-after.html
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,819,647 times
Reputation: 14665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mezter
Idk about more, but Denver's had a lot of infill within the last 10 years. I think the city deserves some credit. Here's a nice before and after look at how much infill has happened from 2010-2019 https://denverinfill.com/2020/01/a-d...and-after.html
I'd agree, I'm impressed with all the brownfield development Denver has done around the Union Station and the new transportation hub along with the adjacent Highlands and RiNo areas. All those new urban blocks, it feels like a seemless continuation of the downtown core.
Phoenix is a city I'd add which was long scorned for having a deserted downtown with very little to offer beyond the usual 9-5 and government variety, and not much residential to actually having new urban blocks in place with something fairly interesting, particularly around Roosevelt Street. They even gave the street a road diet and made it more accommodating for pedestrians. They've also added a whole bunch of awesome murals in the area. Still lots of vacant blocks to fill in but they have done well with it so far. It's a nice transformation to see.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 04-19-2020 at 05:43 AM..
Well, given that some of these cities- Seattle, Miami, Atlanta- were essentially already built out (so all development was infill) and experienced impressive growth rates of ~18%, I'd say that these three are my choice.
Austin and Nashville definitely qualify as two of the most transformed...even though infill is pretty limited to a small portion of the city.
You forgot San Diego on your list, which has had more impressive, citywide infill development than most of these options.
Last edited by newgensandiego; 04-19-2020 at 11:04 AM..
Parking podiums tend to represent (in the Sunbelt) huge parking volumes that wouldn't be needed or expected in a more urban city, or even allowed in many cases. They deaden the street even if they're pretty, by wasting the opportunity to put other uses in the same massing. The volume of cars can mean more auto traffic than people traffic coming in and out.
Single-use above-ground garages aren't feasible in high-demand, highly-urban cores because the economics don't work when a two-acre site costs nine figures, and they're generally not allowed anyway.
I'd give cities credit for the quality of their infill over the volume. A big part of that is simply focusing development into urban, transit-served districts rather than across the landscape, and typically building right to the street. Portland, Denver, San Diego, LA, Atlanta, and Minneapolis are good examples. However Portland has a big advantage over the others...less parking, based on requirements and market expectations. The others (I've looked into a few) have liberalized their parking rules to varying degrees, but my understanding is they've mostly built with large parking volumes so far, and mostly it's in podiums.
A word about retail: We need to get away from the idea that it belongs with every project on every street. Even pre-internet and pre-virus, there simply wasn't enough demand for it. Even a fairly large building doesn't bring enough customers to justify a block of storefronts. With the internet and virus, the problem will be much worse. We need to require retail on key streets, but allow other street frontages to be semi-active (doorways, windows) and attractive (vines, artwork, trees on sidewalks) rather than attempting high activity that won't happen. A good middle ground could be to allow offices on the ground floor.
Why isn't Cleveland on this list? I'm not saying it's the best under this topic, but it's been pretty darn strong particularly compared to several other cities on this list.. From Ohio City to E. 4th Street, to University Circle/Uptown: literally a highly urban, mixed use, dense, walkable area that rose from a tine strip shopping center and seas of surface parking. And Uptown is an excellent example of TOD as it sprung up based the Red Line HRT train station that was relocated nearby.
And since the OP noted TOD as an infill catalyst, Cleveland is one of the minority of cities on this list that even has rapid transit (and even among those that have it, Cleveland's is better than several). Cleveland should be on this list, and if it was, it would rank very high.
It is mostly the same developers doing the infill projects in every city. I've seen a lot of the infill and really there is almost no difference from one city to the next. Its kind of like chain restaurants and chain stores. Now we have chain infill projects. Hanover has several projects in most of these cities. They even have multiple locations in each city. So does Alta, Pearl, and many others. Iys like having fast food chains popping up everywhere. So the projects are not much different from city to city.
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.
It's all the same developers in every City
