Dense in the future?

[Dariusb]

What are some cities that are sprawlsville today that you think stand a good chance of being either dense or at least a lot more dense than today? I'll say in about 20-40 years. Hopefully this hasn't been discussed too often and isn't closed, lol.

[iheartthed]

L.A. is obviously going to continue to grow up, since it doesn't have much room to grow out anymore.

I could see Austin grow dense but I'm not familiar enough with it.

Charlotte is already investing in rail transit, and will likely densify.

Lastly, I would bank on the big Rust Belt cities recovering density over the next half century.

[Obadno]

The longest commutes most people seem to tolerate are about 45 minutes to an hour.

The mode of transportation does not matter and density does not matter thats about the limit people land on. So until a faster mode of transportation than trains and cars can get you from the farthest Exurb to your job they are about as spread out as they are going to get.

Now this does get a little warped as major Metro areas have multiple employment hubs and of course outliers of people willing to travel outrageous lengths to get their little slice of suburban (or rural) bliss. But unless its a smaller city with lots of room to expand outward like Boise or Odessa-Midland, id expect most of the top cities in america to continue their current trend towards more density.

Of course there is a cultural component too, from 1940-(even now in many places) getting your own little house in the suburbs was a big cultural push, id never discount a turn against urbanism like we saw after WW2 happening again sometime in the future.

But, things will still change a lot with the growing prevalence of working from home with modern communication tech which could see really odd changes in living patterns. There is no reason why you cant be a day trader or independent tech contractor working from a small town in Montana as long as you have a good internet connection and are willing to be up early. etc.

And of course if we get Jetsons flying cars, Futurama people tubes or teleporters then all bets on built form are off.

[mrnyc]

i always feel like columbus is due for some sister city austin-style densifying downtown some day.

and speaking of ohio downtown's, cleveland is on deck for a huge downtown densification office project, but as with everything clevelandy there is also a chance it could all fall apart (new sherwin-williams hq). we'll see.

[pdxtex]

Portland is about to go crazy. I think were going to see a completely new east side skyline in 10 years. Downtown is getting some tower infill too.

[Nite]

The Greater Toronto Area greenbelt means the cities around Toronto can only grow upward as we are seeing now.
So places like Vaughan and Mississauga, which both have 3 x 500 footers under construction, will continue to get denser.

[MonkeyRonin]

I was going to mention Toronto's post-war sprawlburbs as a good example. Most of them are fully built out at this point, but still rapidly growing - and as a result almost all of them are creating new high-rise city centres, building LRT & BRT, redeveloping shopping malls, and building TODs around new high-frequency commuter rail stations.



Mississauga is the most notable - in the 60s/70 its city centre looked like this:


http://www.mississauga.ca/portal/res...%3Fstart%3D181


Now:


https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...20755/page-103


And here's the longer term plan to continue filling it in, including upgrading the current BRT to LRT:







Also in Mississauga is the Lakeview Village redevelopment, which will add 8,000 residential units & 4,000 jobs:














Here's the long-term vision for Brampton. What's currently a sprawling industrial estate:




Is planned to transform into this over the next few decades:




https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...sion-1.4651520




Vaughan's city centre, which is in the process of developing a post-war industrial / big box wasteland around a new subway extension & BRT:




https://www.century21.ca/roger.towns...politan_Centre




Langstaff Gateway redevelopment in Markham, which would add 15,000 residential units (plus commercial) around a commuter rail station:








It's also art of the larger Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway Urban Growth Centre, congruent with Richmond Hill's new city centre:




http://mshplan.ca/Project%20Sheet_Ri...%20Gateway.pdf




Markham's other city centre:






Still suburban, but at least they'll be dense.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Still suburban, but at least they'll be dense.

The high rises mixed in with fields just screams CHINA to me.

[memph]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I was going to mention Toronto's post-war sprawlburbs as a good example. Most of them are fully built out at this point, but still rapidly growing - and as a result almost all of them are creating new high-rise city centres, building LRT & BRT, redeveloping shopping malls, and building TODs around new high-frequency commuter rail stations.



Mississauga is the most notable - in the 60s/70 its city centre looked like this:


Now:


And here's the longer term plan to continue filling it in, including upgrading the current BRT to LRT:




Also in Mississauga is the Lakeview Village redevelopment, which will add 8,000 residential units & 4,000 jobs:


Here's the long-term vision for Brampton. What's currently a sprawling industrial estate:

Is planned to transform into this over the next few decades:



Vaughan's city centre, which is in the process of developing a post-war industrial / big box wasteland around a new subway extension & BRT:


Langstaff Gateway redevelopment in Markham, which would add 15,000 residential units (plus commercial) around a commuter rail station:


It's also art of the larger Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway Urban Growth Centre, congruent with Richmond Hill's new city centre:


Markham's other city centre:


Still suburban, but at least they'll be dense.

The Brampton redevelopment isn't of an industrial estate though, it's of a golf course and sports complex west of Highway 410.

I wouldn't say that most Toronto's post-war suburbs are fully built out. A lot of them are still building subdivisions, it's mostly just Burlington, Mississauga and Newmarket that are built out, and Mississauga's growth has slowed significantly (Burlington and Newmarket were slower growing for a while). Vaughan is still building a lot of subdivisions around Kleinburg; Brampton and Milton all over the place; North Oakville; East Gwilimbury... even Markham, Ajax, Pickering, Aurora and Richmond Hill on a smaller scale.

The subdivisions are getting denser and denser though. I check them out every now and then and the playgrounds are often quite bustling whereas if you take your kid to your typical suburban playground it'll be pretty empty. And of course even though most suburbs are seeing greenfield development, it's not as much as before and that's because of the shift to highrises. Toronto should have a weighted density of around 20,000 ppsm in 2050 at this rate, which would put it roughly in between the current weighted densities of the Boston and New York urban areas.

[dc_denizen]

That’s who’s funding it lol

It’s the Vancouver/Miami model of growth

In the us, I would say Houston, Dallas will show the greatest densification. Not with high rises, more like big 6-7 story midrises wrapped around parking, with the odd inner loop high rise

High rises nodes in currently low rise edge cities would include Tyson’s, new Rochelle, Bellevue, maybe north Austin, east Portland downtown (Lloyd center) , parts of queens, jersey city. Nimbyism will probably keep more redevelopment core focused and brownfield elsewhere (ie Chicago and sf)

[IrishIllini]

Houston and Dallas??? What?

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Houston and Dallas??? What?

Probably given 20-40 years per the OP. They present two different versions of future density: DFW has a midwestern feeling with it's orderly development and clean look and Houston's libertarian roots come out in it's haphazard, a "mother's type of love" look. Both cities have the bones to support a dense multi nodal metropolis.

However, Houston does need to figure out it's future in order to densify... Are they going to get very serious about flooding and are they going to get very serious about investing in a plan to development new industries. Houston has been getting more involved in its local public university which is not among the state's flagship.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Probably given 20-40 years per the OP. They present two different versions of future density: DFW has a midwestern feeling with it's orderly development and clean look and Houston's libertarian roots come out in it's haphazard, a "mother's type of love" look. Both cities have the bones to support a dense multi nodal metropolis.

However, Houston does need to figure out it's future in order to densify... Are they going to get very serious about flooding and are they going to get very serious about investing in a plan to development new industries. Houston has been getting more involved in its local public university which is not among the state's flagship.

At a certain point, Houston (and its suburbs) can't build out like they have in the past. You have to build up with more connected mass transit.

The huge addition of so much concrete means less places for water to soak into the soil and/or drain into the Gulf directly or indirectly. Minor tropical cyclones and seasonal rainstorms shouldn't paralyze any place so consistently.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Houston and Dallas??? What?

Yeah Houston and Dallas. See post above. Both densifying pretty rapidly and both were heavily low density sleepy neighborhoods well into city centers. There's parts of them that will remain sprawling and low density but mostly outside the loop in Houston's case. For now.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by JManc

Yeah Houston and Dallas. See post above. Both densifying pretty rapidly and both were heavily low density sleepy neighborhoods well into city centers. There's parts of them that will remain sprawling and low density but mostly outside the loop in Houston's case. For now.

More than Seattle, Portland, or Denver? I read an article a while ago that said most (if not all) of the growth in metro Houston was outside of Harris County. I’ve read similar article about Dallas. The largest share of the growth is outside of Dallas County.

[N90]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

More than Seattle, Portland, or Denver? I read an article a while ago that said most (if not all) of the growth in metro Houston was outside of Harris County. I’ve read similar article about Dallas. The largest share of the growth is outside of Dallas County.

False. Since 2010 Harris County has added 606k people. That's more people in that county than the entire Seattle CSA has added since 2010. And btw, that's more people than all of the suburban Houston counties put together (~ 480k in the suburban counties).

I don't know if Houston is densifying at Seattle rates because Seattle is seeing a massive uptick right in the core whereas for Houston it is spread throughout the inner loop and areas west of there but your statement about most (if not all) the growth outside Harris County is wrong. For 2 years during the oil bust the suburban counties grew faster and that's it. DT Houston has quadrupled its population and housing in just this decade and it still pales in comparison to the changes made in Midtown, Montrose, Museum district, upper kirby, greenway, uptown, etc inside the loop. But for this thread, Seattle probably is the fastest urbanizing city in the US this decade.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

That’s who’s funding it lol

It’s the Vancouver/Miami model of growth

Where are you getting this from exactly?

[LA21st]

LA will have the most and it's been happening with large 5-7 story mixed use buildings everywhere.

I think it's going to start adding 15-20 story buildings in the same fashion, as well as keep adding the 5-7 mixed use stuff.
Even parts of south los angeles and the Valley are adding these buildings all over the place.

Downtown will continue adding 40-60 story buildings. Century City, Hollywood and Koreatown, Wilshire, will likely add a ton of 30-40 story buildings (already planned/u/c)

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by LA21st

LA will have the most and it's been happening with large 5-7 story mixed use buildings everywhere.

I think it's going to start adding 15-20 story buildings in the same fashion, as well as keep adding the 5-7 mixed use stuff.
Even parts of south los angeles and the Valley are adding these buildings all over the place.

Downtown will continue adding 40-60 story buildings. Century City, Hollywood and Koreatown, Wilshire, will likely add a ton of 30-40 story buildings (already planned/u/c)

I know when I went to LA in 2013 I didn't recognize it. Previous to that the last time I was there was in 1994! Nearly 7 years later I'm sure the city has changed yet some more.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

I know when I went to LA in 2013 I didn't recognize it. Previous to that the last time I was there was in 1994! Nearly 7 years later I'm sure the city has changed yet some more.

Yea, the city's mixed use developments have exploded in the past 5 years or so. And there's more foot traffic as a result. And it's still in the early stages of what it's going to be. Even the "sleepy" areas like Palms and Mar Vista are changing fast. West Holllywood, North Hollywood, arts district, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Koreatown South park, Historic core have probably seen the biggest changes for development in last 7 years. I lived in North Hollywood 3 years ago and its changed alot since then.