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.
Or the Pittsburgh Civic Arena (now torn down). It supposedly caused the ruination of Pittsburgh's Hill District. Or some other arena they don't like.
Arenas are better placed in commercial districts where they can take advantage of other amenities like hotels and restaurants. Plopping one in the middle of a residential creates problems because it’s hard to integrate it into the neighborhood.
The main reason the Barclays Center was/is so controversial is that it’s on the absolute edge of downtown Brooklyn and (literally) across the street from Park Slope—one of the most gentrified neighborhoods in the city.
Arenas are better placed in commercial districts where they can take advantage of other amenities like hotels and restaurants. Plopping one in the middle of a residential creates problems because it’s hard to integrate it into the neighborhood.
The main reason the Barclays Center was/is so controversial is that it’s on the absolute edge of downtown Brooklyn and (literally) across the street from Park Slope—one of the most gentrified neighborhoods in the city.
The Pittsburgh Civic Arena was located on the edge of downtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Yes, many are interested in denser neighborhoods (including myself), not necessarily isolated high rises. Not all high density neighborhoods are built the same, and neither are all low density ones. Something like this rather than this. Both high density, extremely different form. I meant isolated high rises, whether by park or pavement.
I would definitely say mistakes were made with that project. But some people, many of whom were not even alive at the time, talk about "The Hill" like it was some wonderful middle to upper class African American community before the Arena went in, which was not the case. You will also note that Bedford Dwellings, one of the housing projects, is only three stories high.
I would definitely say mistakes were made with that project. But some people, many of whom were not even alive at the time, talk about "The Hill" like it was some wonderful middle to upper class African American community before the Arena went in, which was not the case. You will also note that Bedford Dwellings, one of the housing projects, is only three stories high.
The area around it looks a bit on the empty side, especially considering how close it is to downtown. Yea, when I heard "urban renewal" I assumed high rises, which I guess isn't a good assumption for Pittsburgh. My point earlier was that not all dense neighborhoods are built similarly (see my examples) but I assumed you were talking about high rises. Is this similar to what was demolished:
It appears even without demolision, the area would have destroyed its old housing stock on its own. Perhaps many people who complain about the loss assume that the neighborhood lost was something in better shape and with more character, similar to Lawrenceville?
The area around it looks a bit on the empty side, especially considering how close it is to downtown. Yea, when I heard "urban renewal" I assumed high rises, which I guess isn't a good assumption for Pittsburgh. My point earlier was that not all dense neighborhoods are built similarly (see my examples) but I assumed you were talking about high rises. Is this similar to what was demolished:
It appears even without demolision, the area would have destroyed its old housing stock on its own. Perhaps many people who complain about the loss assume that the neighborhood lost was something in better shape and with more character, similar to Lawrenceville?
B#1: I have no direct knowledge of what that area looked like before demolition (was just a kid then and didn't live there), but yes, I believe what was demolished was similar or worse than what you found left standing in 2013. When I was a student nurse in the late 60s/early 70s, what was left looked about like that.
I think if done well, they could be appealing, but otherwise they could be too isolating to gain many of the advantages of city life and feel while still having all the negatives (packed on top of each other). If for some reason low density detached housing was impractical, I suspect we would have seen more of them.
Like anything it needs to be done well to work well; enough park to get the nature and greenery but not enough to isolate the towers from city life.
Quote:
What do you think of these examples that I took photos of? Too close together for lots of park, at least on one side, but on the other there is.
The side with more park is the sort of image I have in my mind with regards to the ratio of tower space to parkland, and I find the layout appealing. The buildings look older and more decayed than what I have in mind, which would be more like Dubai's buildings, but the layout is appealing.
I can only speak for myself, but the complaint here is about the loss of the concept of a cohesive neighborhood, NOT necessarily the specific neighborhood of the Lower Hill with its specific poor conditions. Of course, this is just getting into stuff that's been rehashed time and time again - we all know that the urban renewal projects of that era were by and large mistakes already, etc etc. The only reason I brought it up was because I just don't think it's accurate to say that what happened there wasn't a bad idea just because "they thought it was a good idea at the time" or "it wasn't exactly utopia before that," and it seemed like that's what you were saying.
Atlanta is infamous for traffic congestion and sprawl. Building a big new sports stadium isn't going to help them with those problems, it will just make it worse.
How so? By building in the city and not the suburbs/exurbs, it won't contribute to sprawl. And the stadium will be accessibly by train whereas it wouldn't be in the suburbs. A new football arena close to the current GA Dome may not be a good idea for a few reasons, but contributing to more traffic and sprawl isn't among them at all.
That said, I tend to think that ballparks and arenas hosting NBA/NHL can be much better integrated into the urban fabric of a downtown than a football stadium.
A stadium certainly contributes to traffic congestion, wherever it is built. Just drive down I-25 in Denver when there is a Broncos, Rockies, Nuggets or Avalanche game, esp. the first two. The presence of Coors Field downtown also contributes to traffic congestion there. Mile High is in more of a residential neighborhood; congestion there is not quite so bad.
Bloomberg tried to build the West Side Stadium—which would have been fully integrated into the Manhattan grid and have had no tailgating space. You can get away with that sort of thing in New York and San Francisco, but Atlanta? Not so much.
I wasn't advocating for no parking.
Instead, I think an NFL stadium could get away with less parking overall, with it being distributed as smaller lots across an area and offsetting the decreased volume with PT.
Not everyone is going to tailgate. Those who would host it need a car (or, really, a truck or SUV [how many SUVs have tailgates anymore?]). But, does that mean we should, to cater to that one group, build a massive contiguous parking lot? I think a stadium can provide space for tailgaters, yet decrease the overall need for on-site parking via public transit without harming the sporting experience.
So, maybe you have a large lot next to the stadium, but you also have a rail line or BRT, whatever the context may be--not a spur line, but a main line--within a quarter mile and several parking garages, publicly or privately operated, within a half mile, or father if free shuttles are provided.
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.
