High rise project north of downtown gets approval (Houston, Dallas: house, neighborhoods)

[Exult.Q36]

Originally Posted by michaeltx9412

That's very true about Dallas' lack of efforts in preserving historic buildings.

I remember watching this old footage of downtown Dallas from 1939 on Youtube.

Here's the link of the footage: https://youtu.be/fO9J91V_ETE

It surprised me how dense and busy Dallas looked like back then. The city could've been San Francisco of the South if they hadn't turned all those historic buildings into parking lots.

Those older buildings were gorgeous. Dallas skyline was so classy.

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by Exult.Q36

You would think because they’re already cutting cost by using precast panels that they would have put them all over the building without a problem.

My thoughts exactly! How cheap can you be…lol!

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by michaeltx9412

That's very true about Dallas' lack of efforts in preserving historic buildings.

I remember watching this old footage of downtown Dallas from 1939 on Youtube.

Here's the link of the footage: https://youtu.be/fO9J91V_ETE

It surprised me how dense and busy Dallas looked like back then. The city could've been San Francisco of the South if they hadn't turned all those historic buildings into parking lots.

SMH. I remember seeing that years ago. The suburban craze really killed Downtown. The destruction that was done to make Dallas more suburban was probably the dumbest thing ever.

[turf3]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

SMH. I remember seeing that years ago. The suburban craze really killed Downtown. The destruction that was done to make Dallas more suburban was probably the dumbest thing ever.

Have you ever looked at the housing that was close in to town and easily accessed by the streetcar in 1947-1950? Boarding houses, fourplexes, etc., etc. That's what was (and is) in that part of town.

Now put yourself in the shoes of an ex-GI and his family who find themselves looking for housing in 1947. Option one: you can go back to the boarding house, apartment with bathroom down the hall, or fourplex with a two burner stove and an icebox. Option two: you can buy a 2-1 or 3-1 house with a 1/4 acre lot, your very own new tiled bathroom, your very own brand new kitchen with an electric refrigerator, your very own phone (no party line or going down the hall), etc.

Consider that you, the ex-GI of 1947 and your family, were probably born on a farm without electricity or indoor plumbing; then came the Great Depression where you traveled all over trying to find work; then you joined the Army for three hots and a cot, or you were drafted and spent the next four years either sleeping in a barracks room with 150 of your closest friends, that is when you weren't crouching in a foxhole in the Southeast Asian jungle; and then when you got out of the Army and got married, there were no apartments or houses to be found anywhere so you were probably doing the 1945 equivalent of "couch surfing". And your wife probably had to spend the war years staying with her mother-in-law, or sharing a crappy apartment with five other girls, or go back to the farm and try to keep it running with her mother and elderly father after all the draft-age men were gone to the war.

And you expect this guy and his family to cheerfully move back into tenement housing? No damn way.

What you "new urbanists" miss, in your highly-educated architecture-school disdain for "sterile vapid suburbia" is that PEOPLE WANTED TO LIVE THERE - AND THEY STILL DO.

I don't want to live in exurbia, either. But I understand how it got created, and it got created in large part to satisfy demand from people who wanted and still want to live in nice houses, not share walls, not have bums sleeping in the doorways, etc.

[TheOverdog]

If this was all due to market dynamics (giving the customer what they want) we'd have no quarrel. But that's not even close to true. It wasn't back then, it's not now. You're just making it up and we are not required to believe your made up version of history when people can easily find the actual truth of what happened.

[Dallaz]

Originally Posted by turf3

Have you ever looked at the housing that was close in to town and easily accessed by the streetcar in 1947-1950? Boarding houses, fourplexes, etc., etc. That's what was (and is) in that part of town.

Now put yourself in the shoes of an ex-GI and his family who find themselves looking for housing in 1947. Option one: you can go back to the boarding house, apartment with bathroom down the hall, or fourplex with a two burner stove and an icebox. Option two: you can buy a 2-1 or 3-1 house with a 1/4 acre lot, your very own new tiled bathroom, your very own brand new kitchen with an electric refrigerator, your very own phone (no party line or going down the hall), etc.

Consider that you, the ex-GI of 1947 and your family, were probably born on a farm without electricity or indoor plumbing; then came the Great Depression where you traveled all over trying to find work; then you joined the Army for three hots and a cot, or you were drafted and spent the next four years either sleeping in a barracks room with 150 of your closest friends, that is when you weren't crouching in a foxhole in the Southeast Asian jungle; and then when you got out of the Army and got married, there were no apartments or houses to be found anywhere so you were probably doing the 1945 equivalent of "couch surfing". And your wife probably had to spend the war years staying with her mother-in-law, or sharing a crappy apartment with five other girls, or go back to the farm and try to keep it running with her mother and elderly father after all the draft-age men were gone to the war.

And you expect this guy and his family to cheerfully move back into tenement housing? No damn way.

What you "new urbanists" miss, in your highly-educated architecture-school disdain for "sterile vapid suburbia" is that PEOPLE WANTED TO LIVE THERE - AND THEY STILL DO.

I don't want to live in exurbia, either. But I understand how it got created, and it got created in large part to satisfy demand from people who wanted and still want to live in nice houses, not share walls, not have bums sleeping in the doorways, etc.

What does that have to do with bad development? Adequate housing can be built without destroying everything and creating track housing suburbia. Dallas wasn’t the only city that boomed after WW2. They rebuilt cities around the car and it killed cities across the Country. Cities who decided to follow that development plan killed their downtowns in result. One of the reasons Downtown Dallas fell off is due to suburban regulations like mandatory parking minimums. That’s why there are so many parking garages and parking lots in Downtown Dallas. They’re required to have parking set aside in an area that’s suppose to be urban.

Did they really want to live in suburbia? That’s all that they were building at the time. They went from actual urban/pedestrian friendly design to straight up suburbia without any alternatives. If people were actually given an alternative, I bet people would much rather live in a city where they can walk/bike to places. Dumb ideas like widening downtown streets, removing the streetcar systems, and making downtown streets one way was done to speed up traffic for cars. Car companies were lobbying for things like this. That made cities across the country impossible to really walk around in. They literally built suburban cities only to be accessed by car. Some areas around Dallas don’t have sidewalks. That was intentional. They are expecting everyone to drive to every destination. That includes driving to your local coffee stop (which is probably around the corner)…instead of walking or biking. That’s what creates more traffic on roadways. We build and widen freeways and then wonder why traffic congestion isn’t solved.

[LocalPlanner]

What is "track" housing? I've heard of "tract" housing, but not "track" housing.

[turf3]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

What is "track" housing? I've heard of "tract" housing, but not "track" housing.

https://railroadstrains.blogspot.com...east-erie.html

Also known as a "side door Pullman".

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by Dallaz

What does that have to do with bad development? Adequate housing can be built without destroying everything and creating track housing suburbia. Dallas wasn’t the only city that boomed after WW2. They rebuilt cities around the car and it killed cities across the Country. Cities who decided to follow that development plan killed their downtowns in result. One of the reasons Downtown Dallas fell off is due to suburban regulations like mandatory parking minimums. That’s why there are so many parking garages and parking lots in Downtown Dallas. They’re required to have parking set aside in an area that’s suppose to be urban.

Did they really want to live in suburbia? That’s all that they were building at the time. They went from actual urban/pedestrian friendly design to straight up suburbia without any alternatives. If people were actually given an alternative, I bet people would much rather live in a city where they can walk/bike to places. Dumb ideas like widening downtown streets, removing the streetcar systems, and making downtown streets one way was done to speed up traffic for cars. Car companies were lobbying for things like this. That made cities across the country impossible to really walk around in. They literally built suburban cities only to be accessed by car. Some areas around Dallas don’t have sidewalks. That was intentional. They are expecting everyone to drive to every destination. That includes driving to your local coffee stop (which is probably around the corner)…instead of walking or biking. That’s what creates more traffic on roadways. We build and widen freeways and then wonder why traffic congestion isn’t solved.

What the other poster was saying (and what you're still apparently missing) is that was what they were building because that's what demand dictated. People still want to live in suburban style housing by and large, particularly when they have a family. It's funny because I remember when I was in a grad planning program about a decade ago, literally everyone there was stuck on this idea that "if Americans just had choices to live in dense housing, they would live in dense housing!"

That's the biggest myth ever. What they always miss is that more times than not, people choose the housing they want and compromise on the location as necessary, whether its based on schools, job commute, proximity to family, etc. It's generally about the actual living space. Yes, its true that most people don't want to live in exurbs if they don't have to, but if that's where their ideal house is located and that's what they can afford, there's a very good chance they will live there over living in a smaller/worse house that's located more ideally. Most people don't actually *want* to live in dense housing, but they do want to live in cities/neighborhoods. The disconnect between "people want to live where they can walk/bike places and people want to live where they don't have to share walls" is that the latter outweights the former in most people's minds.

There's a reason millennials flocked to the same type of housing our parents did once we had money and kids - because that's where the demand is. If you give an average person a choice of a free standing house and multi-family housing in the same physical location we all know which one most people are going to pick. The lack of available land in cities is and has been the primary reason in the automotive era that development sprawls outward - if demand were low enough that everyone could have their own centrally located single-family home most people would make that choice (and regularly do in rural areas).

[turf3]

I can guarantee you that if people had wanted to live in apartments and row houses in 1946 through 1970, the period when the Dallas suburbs grew and became established as the pattern for housing here, lots and lots of that kind of housing would have been built. News flash for architecture and urban planning grad students: in this country, people decide what kind of housing they want, builders build it, and the people pay for it. All your theories will not change what people want. It's like the Bauhaus buildings where curtains were forbidden and you were only allowed window shades in one of three positions (up, half way, or down). Didn't work then, not going to work now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a lover of suburbs and I do like cities. But the new urbanist fad is based on fantasies about what people ”should” want and about what it would be like to live where the ”new urbanists” think people should want to live.