If New Urbanist Communities Are Being Built in the Suburbs is it Sprawl? (largest, Detroit)
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.
So Interrobang2rd, if they had to start somewhere in this quest for walkability - WHY NOT START WITH WHAT EXISTS???
because for reasons ranging from a disinclination to deal with transitioning nabes, to concerns about school systems, to need for location near jobs outside the central cities, some people who want a nonsprawl lifestyle are going to want or need a location outside of an existing center city. If you dont build any NU outside the center cities, many of those people will pick sprawl rather than center city locations.
if you ban ALL non center city development (not that thats politically feasible anyway) you would quickly send Central city real estate prices soaring, making housing unaffordable for many, aggravating race and class conflicts, etc, etc. Look at conflicts happening in places like NYC and DC even WITH suburban development going on.
It may be different in places like, say Detroit. I cant speak to that.
I do not understand New Urbanism. So you are admitting that perfectly good, historc American cities are being left to crumble because of The Profit Motive?
And this is a good thing?
You live in WilkesBarre. That may be crumbling, and the logical focus in NE PA may be to save it. If you drive to NYC or DC, you will see some good historic American cities that not only are not crumbling, but where soaring RE prices are increasingly making central city living unaffordable for poor and moderate income folks.
New Urbanism is designed mostly to make money for the developer. We had a family discussion about this last night, on our way to the fireworks. Stapleton, that highly vaunted NU development in Denver, built over the old Denver Stapleton airport, is full of cookie cutter houses and has lots of internal traffic.
At least at Wal Mart, you can buy something practical. Stapleton actually has a Wal Mart, so NU is no preventive for the chain. Most smaller NU developments have yoga studios, restaurnats, bakeries, bars, dry cleaners and the like; businesses you would find in a strip mall. You have to leave the compound to buy your clothes and food.
Cookie cutter? It's about as non cookie cutter as is possible today. Yes, there are repeats, but not like typical suburbs where you have the same builder on street after street and the same housing style and monotone colors. Take my house for instance. There is no other house in Stapleton exactly like mine. Meaning the same floorplan, exterior style, brick work and paint color.
And I don't now what you mean about internal traffic. Where can anyone live with no traffic? I don't see any worse traffic in Stapleton than I do in Park Hill, Cap Hill, Uptown, Wash Park, etc.
They are building these NU communities because there is a real demand in the US for high quality walkable communities because people are sick and tired of endless sprawl. What do you think the developers of sprawl are trying to do if not make money? They're just doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? How do you pretend to know the motives of the developers anyway? For some developers their motives are more than financial. They want to make money but they also want to contribute something more meaningful to society than just cranking out more ugly and wasteful suburban development. Any monkey can do that. To build a quality NU community actually requires some talent and skill in the civic arts, something this country has forgotten how to do.
Some of the same builders are building both NU developments and regualr suburban developments. They're not saints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
New urbanist communities have their utility in cities where there isn't enough existing urban fabric left (or wasn't built in the first place in sufficient quantity) to justify the kind of urban repair that is a lot easier, a lot greener, and probably more economical in old-core cities. In some cases, miniature versions of "new urbanist" communities get built on infill sites in existing cities. These can actually be very beneficial, as they help connect neighborhoods where urban renewal cleared out buildings for parking lots etcetera. There are a few examples where I live that have worked really well, others that kind of faltered after the boom but still at least fill formerly blank spaces.
Adaptive reuse of historic buildings and historic neighborhoods is a far better idea than continued greenfield development, and is a component of New Urbanist thinking that kind of gets forgotten sometimes--perhaps because it isn't as "sexy" (profitable) to traditional home builders. In the same way, rehabbing an existing house is "greener" than a new "green" construction house, since it requires far less materials, construction energy, and landfill waste.
Well, a lot of NU developments are brand-new and built on vacant land in the suburbs. They stick in a few stores and call it NU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian
Cookie cutter? It's about as non cookie cutter as is possible today. Yes, there are repeats, but not like typical suburbs where you have the same builder on street after street and the same housing style and monotone colors. Take my house for instance. There is no other house in Stapleton exactly like mine. Meaning the same floorplan, exterior style, brick work and paint color.
And I don't now what you mean about internal traffic. Where can anyone live with no traffic? I don't see any worse traffic in Stapleton than I do in Park Hill, Cap Hill, Uptown, Wash Park, etc.
I can, and have, in fact, said the same about my house in Louisville. Even when I lived in a subdivision of "entry-level" houses, with four home styles, there were so many variations that there were no two houses exactly the same. The houses in a new development will be default all look very similar. It takes decades of landscaping, changing paint jobs and other exterior elements, additions built, etc for a neighborhood to look unique.
I agree that there is plenty of traffic in every area of Denver. However, the point of NU is supposed to be to have a "walkable" neighborhood, which, taken to the extreme, means even walking to one's job.
Some of the same builders are building both NU developments and regualr suburban developments. They're not saints.
Well, a lot of NU developments are brand-new and built on vacant land in the suburbs. They stick in a few stores and call it NU.
I can, and have, in fact, said the same about my house in Louisville. Even when I lived in a subdivision of "entry-level" houses, with four home styles, there were so many variations that there were no two houses exactly the same. The houses in a new development will be default all look very similar. It takes decades of landscaping, changing paint jobs and other exterior elements, additions built, etc for a neighborhood to look unique.
I agree that there is plenty of traffic in every area of Denver. However, the point of NU is supposed to be to have a "walkable" neighborhood, which, taken to the extreme, means even walking to one's job.
I can already see Stapleton changing as people begin to paint their houses and do different things with the landscaping. I'm sure hundred year old neighborhoods may have looked a bit "cookie cutter" when they were new. I often take lunch break walks through Cap. Hill and notice over and over where if you pay attention, you realize four old houses are the exact same floor plan and they just have slightly different detailing on the outside.
Originally Stapleton was supposed to have office buildings near the old tower, which would have provided more jobs within Stapleton, but with the economy, that never happened. On the positive side, it does attract a lot of people who work at the Anschutz campus, so they aren't driving much, or bike to work. I'm 7 mi. from my house to job downtown, and I know a few people who bike to work downtown. I would imagine that the average commute in miles for Stapleton people lower than many far out 'burbs. If the east line train were in place today, I'd take that downtown to work.
I agree that there is plenty of traffic in every area of Denver. However, the point of NU is supposed to be to have a "walkable" neighborhood, which, taken to the extreme, means even walking to one's job.
Thats one point, its not the only one. And I dont think the elimination of all auto traffic is a goal. duany plater-zyberk I think were pretty explicit that the neo traditional/neo urbanist developments should have a place for the auto, and by utilizing grids, could in some ways be more friendly to some kinds of auto usage than traditional suburbs. The goal is to make walking an option, and have more walking.
And of course I think a considerable expectation is that many or most would use transit to get to jobs, not just walking.
I can already see Stapleton changing as people begin to paint their houses and do different things with the landscaping. I'm sure hundred year old neighborhoods may have looked a bit "cookie cutter" when they were new. I often take lunch break walks through Cap. Hill and notice over and over where if you pay attention, you realize four old houses are the exact same floor plan and they just have slightly different detailing on the outside.
Originally Stapleton was supposed to have office buildings near the old tower, which would have provided more jobs within Stapleton, but with the economy, that never happened. On the positive side, it does attract a lot of people who work at the Anschutz campus, so they aren't driving much, or bike to work. I'm 7 mi. from my house to job downtown, and I know a few people who bike to work downtown. I would imagine that the average commute in miles for Stapleton people lower than many far out 'burbs. If the east line train were in place today, I'd take that downtown to work.
If you look through my posts, you'd see that I've said the bold many times over. Yes, not just in Denver, but in many cities, there are blocks upon blocks of "rows of houses that are all the same". I've been a visiting nurse and been inside a lot of these houses; they all have the same floor plans, too, unless they have been added onto in some fashion.
I am 4 1/2 miles from my job in Louisville. If it weren't uphill both ways (it's a hilly area), I'd ride my bike occasionally. One of the docs who lives close to me, and has to deal with the same hills, does ride his bike to work at times. Of course, he's about 12 years younger than me!
Even the densest of cities have areas in which every house has similar designs, down to the exact floor plan. However, walkable neighborhoods and residential areas create a certain vibe, a certain sense, a certain character that an auto-dependent and isolated subdivision cannot. Thus, when there's a community, houses looking the same doesn't matter quite so much. I don't notice similar homes as much when walking down a city neighborhood versus Lakewood Fall Oak Estates in Plain Field, Fringe County.
Even the densest of cities have areas in which every house has similar designs, down to the exact floor plan. However, walkable neighborhoods and residential areas create a certain vibe, a certain sense, a certain character that an auto-dependent and isolated subdivision cannot. Thus, when there's a community, houses looking the same doesn't matter quite so much. I don't notice similar homes as much when walking down a city neighborhood versus Lakewood Fall Oak Estates in Plain Field, Fringe County.
Are you sure it's not because the walkable neighbourhoods are older and have more mature trees, bushes, etc?
Older neighborhoods weren't built the same way they are now. Up until the early 20th century, typically when you bought a suburban subdivision you bought a plot of land, and the design of the house you put on it was up to you. Some built pre-cut kits, some hired local architects, some designed their own. So a neighborhood may have started out far more eclectic from the very beginning. Generally there were common patterns of construction and building style, setbacks, etcetera, but not always. Social forces came into play more often than externally applied design restrictions.
Mature landscaping makes a big difference too--but to some extent it is the visual depth of an older building, either due to greater levels of detail, multiple modifications added up over time, older plants, or just the patina of age, that makes older neighborhoods often more visually interesting than newer neighborhoods. "Cookie-cutter" doesn't enter into it.
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.
