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.
1. Attracting new residents
2. Attracting new businesses
3. Attracting commercial amenities
4. Retaining population
5. Gaining positive recognition
Assume you are in charge of city development, and you can choose to either (a) build a vibrant, urban core, or (b) build lush, sprawling suburbs, but not both. Additionally, you are told to ignore your personal preferences, but only consider the above 5 factors. Also, assume that your resources are limited only by what is objectively feasible in a major U.S. metro.
The idea behind this thread to flesh out what underlies the planning and resource use of many U.S. cities. This is not a debate over which design offers a higher quality of life; that is a subjective question and cannot be answered.
To get you started, you may consider Chicago, Portland, and New York as examples of cities that have embraced the vibrant urban core approach, but pretend as though they have no suburbs. Conversely, you may consider Houston, Jacksonville, and Los Angeles as cities that have taken the lush, sprawling suburbs approach, but pretend as though they do not have urban downtowns.
Clearly, some large issues that may come up are population density and form of transit, but do not let them drive the entire discussion. Try to focus your analysis on the above factors.
Last edited by ForStarters; 07-23-2011 at 08:52 PM..
Reason: For clarity
Positive recognition would clearly come from having a strong urban core.
Looking at your other factors, I'd say a strong and affordable suburban area (lush isn't really relevant, you wouldn't have those in some areas of the country) would be primary in attracting new residents, with the focus on schools and recreation for the kids, and retaining population (migration towards nicer or more desirable suburbs). Urban core also helps with attracting new residents, and retaining existing folks too, but based on volume of folks the suburbs would seem to have greater impact.
New businesses and commercial amenities can go either way, in my view it isn't oriented towards either urban core areas or suburban areas.
Frankly though, I don't think clear distinctions would exist, generally you have both to some degree. An example would be the contrast between Cincinnati and Columbus in Ohio, Cinci has a stronger core area and Columbus better suburbs. Both attract decent growth and are doing a better job than most areas in weathering this downturn, but both also have decent positive direction in their weaker areas (such as the Arena District and Scioto Mile Park in Columbus).
Positive recognition would clearly come from having a strong urban core.
Looking at your other factors, I'd say a strong and affordable suburban area (lush isn't really relevant, you wouldn't have those in some areas of the country) would be primary in attracting new residents, with the focus on schools and recreation for the kids, and retaining population (migration towards nicer or more desirable suburbs). Urban core also helps with attracting new residents, and retaining existing folks too, but based on volume of folks the suburbs would seem to have greater impact.
New businesses and commercial amenities can go either way, in my view it isn't oriented towards either urban core areas or suburban areas.
Frankly though, I don't think clear distinctions would exist, generally you have both to some degree. An example would be the contrast between Cincinnati and Columbus in Ohio, Cinci has a stronger core area and Columbus better suburbs. Both attract decent growth and are doing a better job than most areas in weathering this downturn, but both also have decent positive direction in their weaker areas (such as the Arena District and Scioto Mile Park in Columbus).
Hmmm... Good point with the comparison between Columbus and Cinci.
What I am trying to get at is what is the best infrastructure investment and development pattern for cities? If the above 5 goals are better achieved by encouraging suburban-style growth, then it seems that cities should continue to focus their attention on building road infrastructure and pushing development outward. If, on the other hand, the goals are better achieved by encouraging urban growth/renewal, then cities should invest in better mass transit and support denser developments near the core.
One form must be superior to the other. I don't necessarily think that a city should try to "be all things to all people." Right now, most cities either elect to compromise their urban core for the benefit of suburban expansion (think Houston), or they attempt to limit suburban growth to bolster the urban core (think Portland).
In Europe, for instance, most cities are very urban in nature, while in the U.S., most have grown more suburban. I don't think this conflict can exist forever, because eventually one will win out leading to the destruction of the other. By example, my home region of Detroit has focused on suburban expansion for 60 years, leading to severe neglect in the urban core. There doesn't seem to be a good way to balance the resources; eventually, one form must be dominate.
How does a city control the expansion of suburbs outside its city limit? Neither Los Angeles nor Chicago have much say in how their surrounding suburban counties develop, but the end result has a strong effect on urban form. Or are you talking about other authorities at the state or regional level, above that of the city?
They bascially have for years annex the burbs to keep a tax base. But now they have the burb more and more incorporating .Cities have just taken on too much thinking it can pay for decayong core. Urban renewal has been a waste of money with cities spending much of it on pipe dreams.There now looking at a future with steep decines i fedral money coming to state and local governments.
How does a city control the expansion of suburbs outside its city limit? Neither Los Angeles nor Chicago have much say in how their surrounding suburban counties develop, but the end result has a strong effect on urban form. Or are you talking about other authorities at the state or regional level, above that of the city?
I'm talking more in the abstract, rather than being practical.
I suppose for this discussion, just assume the hypothetical region organized a Regional Development Authority that had the power to approve infrastructure spending and set guidelines for developments. In reality, I don't think any region currently has such an authority, but suspend disbelief for a moment. Assume the local government has complete control over the form of development.
They bascially have for years annex the burbs to keep a tax base. But now they have the burb more and more incorporating .Cities have just taken on too much thinking it can pay for decayong core. Urban renewal has been a waste of money with cities spending much of it on pipe dreams.There now looking at a future with steep decines i fedral money coming to state and local governments.
After reading your post, I think of cities like Indianapolis, which still has a small urban core but has expanded exponentially its suburban footprint through annexation. My instinct is that Indy's urban core is going to suffer because of this, or may have already in that the suburban growth came at the expense of the city.
If suburban-style development proves to be the superior form, then urban decay/decline should have no effect on Indianapolis' overall health as a city. In theory, Indy could completely shutter it's urban core and focus its entire effort on outward development and still thrive. If, however, suburban development is inferior, Indy and other cities that neglected to fund their urban core may experience significant loss to cities that made infrastructure investments in their urban core.
I am of the opinion that one of two things will happen to sprawling cities. They will either continue to boom and become dominate, sprawling in low density growth for thousands of square miles, or they will effectively fold, becoming ghost towns as people systematically return to more urban living environments. I really don't know which will occur, but if I had to bet money on it, I'd say that Americans will eventually return to more urban environments. History weighs heavily in favor of that outcome.
On the other hand, the outcome may turn heavily on what comes out of my hometown in next several decades. If automakers are able to develop alternative energy vehicles, sprawl may completely take control, and dense, urban environments may cease to exist in all but token form.
EDIT:
In an absolute world, there is no reason for both suburban and urban areas to exist simultaneously in the same region, despite being the most desirable. They act completely contrary to the interest of the other. Urban areas rely on mass transit infrastructure and high density. Sprawl areas rely on personal vehicles for transportation and low density. Suburban areas do not have the density to be effectively served by mass transit. Urban areas do not have the space to accommodate personal vehicles. This is merely one example of how they clash and why they cannot coexist. Right now, many American cities attempt to offer the "best of both worlds," but eventually, they will cease to maintain one in order to support the other.
Last edited by ForStarters; 07-23-2011 at 10:36 PM..
It isn't about cars, "alternative energy" or not--it is about transportation infrastructure. It is roads and parking lots that are the generators of sprawl, not cars themselves, and cars can work just fine in a dense urban environment, just not in the dominant role.
Meanwhile, dense cities are just as dependent on energy, fossil or otherwise. High-rise buildings are very energy-intensive to build and maintain, even if the average energy use per capita is less.
It really isn't a "one or the other" decision--it is about balance. It is a very typical conceit to assume that there is one "all bad" choice and one "all good" choice, and we must select one over the other. In the case of cities, I think this is nonsense--it has more to do with balance between extremes than choosing one over the other. Cities that are succeeding do so by taking on some of the lessons we learned in the suburbs: people like clean air and water, good schools, and street trees. Meanwhile, suburbs are starting to adopt some aspects of cities, or at least of pre-highway-era suburbs: walkable sidewalks, public transit infrastructure, mixed use.
The efforts of most RDAs or other regional-blueprint schemes are intended, not to constrain growth entirely to the central city, but rather to normalize infill through a region. But even then, they still promote a variety of densities and environments, not an all-or-nothing absolute choice.
Unlimited suburban growth (only possible via subsidy, it is not a "natural" or market-driven economic process) does not just harm the urban core, it also harms the older suburbs. Suburban neighborhoods generally have a predictable economic cycle. When they are first built out they draw people specifically because they are on the far edge of the urban region. Traffic is light because not many people have moved there yet, density is low because it isn't built out, and the houses are all new. But once the project is complete, developers move on to a new project just down the road. Then, instead of being on the edge of development, the original suburb is now in the middle. Traffic gets worse because there are more cars going through the suburb from the new suburb into downtown. Density gets higher because all the lots are sold and apartment complexes fill, making traffic worse. Over time, the houses start to look a little shabby, and the new development down the road (with new buildings, smooth traffic, and views of open country) starts to draw people away. The cycle repeats again and again--leaving progressively poorer suburbs in their wake. Eventually, people decide that the inner suburbs are actually an "urban" neighborhood, not because of physical form, but because the people there are poor and/or nonwhite. Typically by this time the physical infrastructure is in very rough shape, and the city can't afford to maintain or replace it anymore because the tax base is long gone and the initial bump in property values and developer fees was used to keep taxes low and re-elect the electeds, instead of being reinvested in infrastructure.
Returning to a more market-based approach to suburban development will actually make suburbs healthier, because it will remove incentives to build these disposable, leapfrog developments and encourage growth that is healthier in the long term. In turn, this also helps city cores by reducing overall growth and less transportation/utility infrastructure that governments must pay to maintain.
I would say that Chicago has both. It is largely made possible by a good transit system that allows those who prefer suburban living to work downtown, as well as many urban dwellers to work in the suburbs. When you are young and childless you want the nightlife of the city and couldn't care less about the schools. With children you usually move to the suburbs with the safety and good schools. Some empty nesters move back.
I would say that Chicago has both. It is largely made possible by a good transit system that allows those who prefer suburban living to work downtown, as well as many urban dwellers to work in the suburbs. When you are young and childless you want the nightlife of the city and couldn't care less about the schools. With children you usually move to the suburbs with the safety and good schools. Some empty nesters move back.
Yes, I agree that is the current pattern: cities are for the young and suburbs are for families. However, that situation will not continue indefinitely. There is no point to living in the suburbs and having a long commute to the city for work. The whole process is incredibly inefficient. It is far more likely that over time, employers will move to suburban office parks. Perhaps they will form small office "clusters," perhaps not.
A city doesn't make any sense unless the majority of people live in it. The whole idea is to build things on a human scale. Cities are designed to be efficient and convenient. When people simply drive there to work and then drive home, it makes absolutely no sense.
I understand that people don't want to hear this, but eventually either the city must return to being the dominate place to live and do business, or it must give way to suburban-style growth. Right now in almost every region outside New York, cities and suburbs are battling for their spot, trying to remain relevant.
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.
