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.
You can, but 99.9% American cities aren't doing that though.
NYC
LA
SF
Boston
DC
Philly
Seattle
Baltimore
Are the only cities (to my knowledge) that have areas outside of downtown were parking minimums are not required.
Sure streets themselves weren't organized for walking specifically, but the development that went on said street was. Thats the point.
I believe the Twin Cities also abolished parking requirements. But even still, a city can be more walkable and transit oriented with parking requirements.
I agree that they tend to be more urban but in my way of thinking, not by default. It’s people plus amenities that make an area urban. If someone built a new neighborhood that had multi-family housing with little or no parking but lacked a similar concentration of amenities, then that isn’t especially urban imo.
And I disagree with the premise that cars necessarily make a place less urban, assuming all other variables remain the same. If a neighborhood with parking has walking access to the same amenities as one without, then I’d say that they are technically equally urban although the one without parking will likely be a much better pedestrian experience.
"Urban" might be the most subjective term on CD, chief among a constellation of subjective terms.
But by my personal definitions, I agree that a mix of uses including a lot of retail makes a place feel more urban than a single use. That would go for offices, event spaces, and even university districts as well, as they're generally either busy or not depending on time of day/week/year.
Further, the mix of uses will help businesses and retail vibrancy. Rather than a single busy time per day/week (like weekday lunch) you can have multiple types of customers peaking at multiple times (dinner, evening, weekend mornings, summer tourists offsetting three-season student pops...).
"Urban" might be the most subjective term on CD, chief among a constellation of subjective terms.
But by my personal definitions, I agree that a mix of uses including a lot of retail makes a place feel more urban than a single use. That would go for offices, event spaces, and even university districts as well, as they're generally either busy or not depending on time of day/week/year.
Further, the mix of uses will help businesses and retail vibrancy. Rather than a single busy time per day/week (like weekday lunch) you can have multiple types of customers peaking at multiple times (dinner, evening, weekend mornings, summer tourists offsetting three-season student pops...).
I agree with everything you posted. The only reason that I don’t include non-amenity businesses in my personal definition of urban is that businesses can be iffy in contributing to vibrancy. Ideally they do, but it’s not as much of a certainty as residential, especially if not balanced.
I agree that they tend to be more urban but in my way of thinking, not by default. It’s people plus amenities that make an area urban. If someone built a new neighborhood that had multi-family housing with little or no parking but lacked a similar concentration of amenities, then that isn’t especially urban imo.
And I disagree with the premise that cars necessarily make a place less urban, assuming all other variables remain the same. If a neighborhood with parking has walking access to the same amenities as one without, then I’d say that they are technically equally urban although the one without parking will likely be a much better pedestrian experience.
Do you consider these new urban styled developments like Atlantic Station in Atlanta or City Centre in Houston to be urban neighborhoods?
Atlantic station has its positives, but is just a little too far from good transit and pretty hemmed in by a freeway and a freight railway. There are apartments around it but they're mostly suburbanish. Most people seem to drive to it. I wish it was mostly housing and offices, and 2/3 of the retail was six blocks away in Midtown.
City Centre Houston I haven't been to, but it looks like the same type of thing, but dropped next to a massive freeway interchange farther from the core with less outside it to walk to.
Do you consider these new urban styled developments like Atlantic Station in Atlanta or City Centre in Houston to be urban neighborhoods?
I haven't been to either. Are they similar to places in LA like the Grove and Glendale Galleria? If so I think of them as destination shopping/malls with some housing. Not balanced with a dense concentration of residents and a dense concentration of amenities geared towards those residents.
Technically that's still urban, but as urban as any shopping mall with housing. Not all urban areas are equal and some are better than others. I'd rate them higher than some places but much lower than what most of us consider to be ideal.
If they aren't shopping malls with housing, then I'd have to reconsider.
Atlantic station has its positives, but is just a little too far from good transit and pretty hemmed in by a freeway and a freight railway. There are apartments around it but they're mostly suburbanish. Most people seem to drive to it. I wish it was mostly housing and offices, and 2/3 of the retail was six blocks away in Midtown.
City Centre Houston I haven't been to, but it looks like the same type of thing, but dropped next to a massive freeway interchange farther from the core with less outside it to walk to.
I've never been to AS but that's my argument. And yes City Centre is basically the same but much deeper into the suburbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy
I haven't been to either. Are they similar to places in LA like the Grove and Glendale Galleria? If so I think of them as destination shopping/malls with some housing. Not balanced with a dense concentration of residents and a dense concentration of amenities geared towards those residents.
Technically that's still urban, but as urban as any shopping mall with housing. Not all urban areas are equal and some are better than others. I'd rate them higher than some places but much lower than what most of us consider to be ideal.
If they aren't shopping malls with housing, then I'd have to reconsider.
I haven't been to either of those but I think you're spot on. What kind of area would you rate them above?
I haven't been to either. Are they similar to places in LA like the Grove and Glendale Galleria? If so I think of them as destination shopping/malls with some housing. Not balanced with a dense concentration of residents and a dense concentration of amenities geared towards those residents.
Technically that's still urban, but as urban as any shopping mall with housing. Not all urban areas are equal and some are better than others. I'd rate them higher than some places but much lower than what most of us consider to be ideal.
If they aren't shopping malls with housing, then I'd have to reconsider.
Neither are shopping malls. Both are mixed use, self contained developments with the live, play, work setup.
Office
Residential & Hotel
Retail/ dining/ entertainment
Neither are shopping malls. Both are mixed use, self contained developments with the live, play, work setup.
Office
Residential & Hotel
Retail/ dining/ entertainment
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.
