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.
I prefer a more distributed use of the surface area by volume.
I am not sure that I understand what that sentence means.
But in general "high density" should not be completely associated with the skyscraper. The tallest residential skyscrapers are residences for the very rich, and actually have comparatively few people per square foot of space (counting all the floors).
Over an area of thousands of acres, high density is associated with row homes, small apartment buildings and families and related people living together.
The population of tenements in Manhattan in 1888 was estimated 1,093,701 of which 143,243 under five years of age. In 1888 there were no residential tall buildings, or automobiles and the tenements covered a small fraction of the land area of the island. The density exceeded that of the slum cities in India today, and was several times the Upper East side today with all the tall apartment buildings.
Are you referring to my views in particular or some image you have of urbanist views? I've never been in a lifestyle center (can't think of any), may not have seen one before, so I have little to say about them. If they are just an outdoor mall, my complaint wouldn't be that people drive there, but (probably) the surrounding environment isn't particularly pedestrian friendly. It's also private space. A small town or suburban downtown often has most people who got there on car but the surrounding area is a neighborhood with its own history and more of a mix. For the small downtowns where few walk, it's partly because the surrounding residential density is low.
I actually like a few tower in the park developments, but they often feel unappealing, and often do feel emptier. I'm actually don't think I'd like high rises much, I'd prefer to live in moderate height buildings. And yes, I know Outer Sunset (if that's the neighborhood you had in mind) isn't much different from Daly City. Both are much denser than almost any postwar eastern suburbia.
I would say they're generally accepted views among many posters here. For example, your views seem to mirror what I was saying that it doesn't really have anything to do with the amount of "activity" or hustle and bustle. Many small down towns aren't pedestrian friendly either, so I'm curious if that's a complaint you have about them as well. Take Walnut Creek. Lots of auto dealers, strip malls, parking lots, parking garages. It's definitely a mix of TOD and auto-oriented development, more heavy on the auto-oriented. Neighborhoods just a few blocks outside of downtown have poor connectivity requiring long detours, no sidewalks, bigger lots. Mixed-use is non existent. Heck, there isn't even mixed zoning. Population of downtown, 0. Some of the new apartments on the edge have mixed-use. Despite that, especially on a weekend, there's quite a bit of activity. It's not San Francisco or Oakland by any stretch, but for a small city of 60,000 it's very busy.
With Little Boxes it's not so much that the density is higher than post-war suburbs, it's that it has a higher density than Boston, Chicago, or Philadelphia. Obviously not the downtown areas, but overall. Nor is Little boxes a residential-only bedroom. Definitely leans that way, but not as much as many residential neighborhoods in cities. There's a very large hospital, large tech presence, USPS facility. Again, it's not that Little Boxes is better than Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, to name a few. Little Boxes has the wrong density. It's large uninterrupted neighborhoods over very small lot houses and then strip mall shopping. I don't think any pro-urbanist is going to start putting Little Boxes above Boston simply because of the fact that it has higher density.
And while Jet graphics might say he likes his development more uniformly sprawled across an area, of which Daly City could well be a poster child, I seriously doubt it's what he has in mind by uniform density, even if it's denser than most cities are and way, way more uniform.
I am not sure that I understand what that sentence means.
But in general "high density" should not be completely associated with the skyscraper. The tallest residential skyscrapers are residences for the very rich, and actually have comparatively few people per square foot of space (counting all the floors).
Over an area of thousands of acres, high density is associated with row homes, small apartment buildings and families and related people living together.
The population of tenements in Manhattan in 1888 was estimated 1,093,701 of which 143,243 under five years of age. In 1888 there were no residential tall buildings, or automobiles and the tenements covered a small fraction of the land area of the island. The density exceeded that of the slum cities in India today, and was several times the Upper East side today with all the tall apartment buildings.
India's slums are up around 1,00,000 per square mile while the LES topped out at around 400,000. But yeah, in general the densest places in earth have always been slums, which is exactly what the tenements in NYC were. Put in some modern conveniences and reduce the population by 75% while building more housing stock and they're not so bad. But back when you had one or two bath rooms per floor with families of 8 living in 300-400 square feet...
I think it is true that the extremely low level of density that exists today in the USA is understood by all urban planners to be undesirable. It is bad on almost every single level, economically, environmentally, personal interactions, etc.
High density is associated with both the very rich (Upper East Side of Manhattan) or the very poor (several ghettos).
It is 1/2 mile and an very unfriendly walk to the nearest business (other than apples) to my parent's home, a Panera restaurant. There is a bus stop with 4 buses per day a little closer, of which no one has ever even considered using. They are literally helpless without an automobile. As they enter their 80's, shakiness and cataracts are limiting their mobility.
That is a major concern older people driving
Here in the SE people love to be trashy and treat their rental units as dumpsters. Unless you pay at least $1,500 for a condo in a walkable area, you will be surrounded by urinated halls, bugs and possibly crime. People have no other choice than to live in suburbs because life in the affordable condos is unbearable.
I haven't seen this trashy behavior in other parts of the world. I don't know why the richest people in the world have to behave like savages.
This is a sincere, genuine question on the part of someone who has no academic credentials in urban planning. Is there a tacit understanding in urban planning circles that density is desirable? I do get that impression from the admittedly limited reading I have done in this forum.
[...]
I believe that such mis-understanding is particularly rife in the case of rabid and zealous anit-car posters, whose user names I am purposefully omitting. For them, it seems cars are the eipitomy of evil, a root cause of most human problems. Perhaps we are just condemned to talk past each other in such cases. [/quote]
The vibe here is definitely "density is good and cars are evil" (or some variant thereof) and it's fashionable in urban planning circles to say suburbs are finished and urbanity is the future. Most people take a more moderate view than this, but there are a few anti-car zealots here that (seem to) want to pack people in like sardines and plug them into the global control grid for the sake of the environment. I assure you that that is not the consensus - to the extent there is a consensus it leans towards higher density being better, but you will see people from all sides of the debate, both here and in academic circles.
As far as I'm concerned urban, suburban, or rural is a lifestyle choice, with none being inherently superior for everyone.
The thing about water usage is hard to compare. We can't say it's just because the east has more density/smaller lots. Weather is a factor as well, it's wetter in the east than in much of the plains or the west, so they simply don't need to do as much watering, big or small lots. (And yes there are lots of small lots in the west, too)
The thing about water usage is hard to compare. We can't say it's just because the east has more density/smaller lots. Weather is a factor as well, it's wetter in the east than in much of the plains or the west, so they simply don't need to do as much watering, big or small lots. (And yes there are lots of small lots in the west, too)
Also regionalism.
Tell a Texan he has to let his lawn die in the summer because there's a drought and he'll kick and scream. Institute an HOA rule in in the PNW that home owners have to water their lawns to keep them lush and green looking during the summer or they'll be fined for having an unsightly lawn and you'll probably get the same reaction.
I mean, it's slightly different. Seattle rarely goes long enough without rain that the lawn's roots are going to die, but mostly people are just okay with having their lawn look a little brown there. In Texas, that's a horrible though.
The thing about water usage is hard to compare. We can't say it's just because the east has more density/smaller lots. Weather is a factor as well, it's wetter in the east than in much of the plains or the west, so they simply don't need to do as much watering, big or small lots. (And yes there are lots of small lots in the west, too)
This is about the 100th time I've said this, but. . .
Lots in the west tend to be much smaller than lots in the east. Even in Omaha and Minneapolis, lots tend to be small.
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.
