Can a neighborhood infill without losing its bohemian character?

[turf3]

It's about money.


"Bohemian" areas are that way because the people who live there, have little money, so they live there because it's cheap (artists, musicians, etc.) When those neighborhoods become popular, people with more money start moving in, tearing down the worst old buildings, building new, etc. Regardless of the architectural style of the new buildings, people with 9-5 jobs who want parking places for their new cars, decent public schools for their children, and all the middle and upper middle class amenities, are by nature going to be less "Bohemian" than their predecessors. Finally, the rents all go up, and the artists, musicians, etc., can't afford to keep living there and they move somewhere else.


I think this is a largely inevitable progression.

[boomtown boi]

Originally Posted by turf3

It's about money.


"Bohemian" areas are that way because the people who live there, have little money, so they live there because it's cheap (artists, musicians, etc.) When those neighborhoods become popular, people with more money start moving in, tearing down the worst old buildings, building new, etc. Regardless of the architectural style of the new buildings, people with 9-5 jobs who want parking places for their new cars, decent public schools for their children, and all the middle and upper middle class amenities, are by nature going to be less "Bohemian" than their predecessors. Finally, the rents all go up, and the artists, musicians, etc., can't afford to keep living there and they move somewhere else.


I think this is a largely inevitable progression.

Right, sadly this was the conclusion I had come to. It seems to be more about a group on the way out and another (monied) group on the way in, and any seeming sense of equilibrium is really just the peak moment of gentrification.

I will say the one place I have visited that is clearly gentrified yet has strong local character is Santa Fe, but I think that is an isolated case because of strict development constraints and a reverence for the Spanish/native history.

[SunGrins]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

SunGrins, could you name some cities that work particularly well? San Diego gave some lip-service to the conservation district idea, but in the end never implemented it. It was beyond the capabilities of the development services and planning departments and exceeded the political will of our representatives in the face of development industry opposition.

My experience is mostly with small towns and they sometimes opt for full historic district status. Conservation districts preserve the streetscape and facades in a neighborhood. One problem we had was getting property owners to endorse the idea of a conservation district. We needed 70% of the properties to agree. Owners with multiple properties had multiple votes. One owner with a lot of property can veto the plan.

In both instances the issue came to a head because one owner wanted to demolish or drastically change one of the more outstanding neighborhood residences. In the first case the neighbors were too late to save the demolished homes but they went ahead and created the district anyway for future protection. That was a lot of work but worth it when another hone was destroyed by fire. The infill that replaced it was nicely designed to conform to the district standards. The second instance was triggered by a sole heir wanting to make drastic changes on a property on the cheap and as he had time to do it. He lived in a different town. the house was vacant and it was taking forever. His final plan was always changing over time and he was trying to be sly with required permits. I was part of city planning and worked with the neighbors to document structures and develop standards. It was never going to be a large district - only one street. In the end the offending property owner relented and reconciled with the neighborhood made only minor changes so the district plan was tabled and never created. It is an involved process and usually requires professional architect or design input. The neighbors did much of the organizing and leg work as it was a grass roots effort, not city imposed. I took nearly 1,000 photos of structures in the first district. Historic districts require more work and documentation. If you Google Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts you will see a number of examples and different ordinances. As a city planner, I thought that the concept worked pretty well but both cases were initiated by the neighborhood. As I recall, the city's Historic Preservation Commission was not even involved.

[ilovelondon]

I don't think it has to do with historic districts or conservation areas, but with the inhabitants of that place. It has to do less with architecture, but more with people. London is littered with conservation areas and if you look at the history of some of them, there is a stark comparison between what they were like in the 60s/70s to today.

A good example of this would be Covent Garden.

As far back as the 1960s and 70s, it was a working-class neighbourhood with a proper working-class market. It wasn't the shopping and dining paradise as it is today. Below is an old video of Covent Garden during the 1970's:



Compare that video to today's Covent Garden below:



The buildings remain the same, but the establishments are very different. And because of that, the vibe is different. The people who live and visit that area are different.


You can see this all over London. Another good example is Notting Hill, which you can see an old video of it below:



Today, the terraced houses have been renovated and the streets are more genteel. The buildings are the same though, but they have been renovated and cleaned up. The vibe is totally different and Notting Hill has been gentrified so much since then.




There is actually an excellent documentary series on the changes of some of the streets in London. Below is an episode depicting Portland Road in Notting Hill. It's an hour long but worth the watch if you are interested in this topic:




So to answer the original question, instead of being concerned with "infill developments" on changing the "bohemian" atmosphere of a neighbourhood, you should be more concerned about the changing establishment that cater to the residents of that neighbourhood. You should be more concerned with local mom-and-pop shops being replaced by Target or Walmart, or family-run cafes being replaced by Starbucks.

If residentials are readily applicable, please avoid the construction noises at the wrong hours. Almost had the problem twice with a close call. And very annoying when that is done during the early morning hours. Why isn't that in the mid to late afternoon to earliest evening. What if people have some night jobs? We really aren't wired for the early only.

Although, the really cool neighborhoods are quite loud already. At least in some zones. Neighborhood infill might negatively affect what is naturally there. Careful sustainable methods with a later work program is able to minimize the issues or complication.