Skyline w/limited activity or no skyline and more vibrant?

[mhays]

I love vibrant streets. Shady ones ideally.

What makes a street vibrant is the same thing that makes a district or city vibrant -- lots of people doing lots of different things at all times of the day and into the night: office workers, shoppers, tourists, students, event crowds, bar crowds, and so on.

Crowds inside will mean crowds outside, assuming most people walk there (from transit, generally), which is the case in urban cities.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Razor

You would think that by default of having a decent skyline, a city would also by vibrant at street level, just because a large skyline denotes a decent sized city with a diverse population. Does anyone have any examples of a city that does well with their skyline, but needs work on the vibrancy front?

With the case of Houston, most of the skyscrapers did not have ground level retail and a significant downtown population. That's changing; new high-rises are being built with ground level retail, existing ones are being retrofitted and we had a boom in residential construction.

[Jasoncw]

Originally Posted by 10023

Street life is what creates the spontaneous interactions and serendipity that make urban life both interesting and the source of most human culture and advancement.

For example, where you have foot traffic you have pop-ups and independents. Where you have to drive to the place (with the destination in mind) and go inside, you get chains. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule in both cases but the idea generally holds. This doesn’t mean food trucks vs actual restaurants - people walking in and out of shops provide vibrancy and street life too. It’s shopping malls that don’t.

That’s to say nothing of the more intangible benefits of different people interacting in unplanned ways, in a less controlled environment.

Frankly I find it odd that someone on this forum would even question the idea. If you have the chance to live in a place with an active city center at some point in life, you’ll come to understand the difference.

Well my ideal version of urbanism is a complete urbanism which encompasses all of everyday normal life, rather than the affluent young hipster version of urbanism where everything is farmers markets and boutiques. I don't think urbanism is about creating yuppie playgrounds or creating expressions of bohemian identity politics (and occasionally conservative identity politics).

I took the discussion here to be the typical complaint that skyscraper financial districts are anti-urban, because you don't have crowds of people milling around and vegetable stands and ye olde storefronts.

But you look at a place like Japan, where urbanism is the standard, and all of that Jane Jacobs stuff doesn't exist. Their financial districts are professional and boring. Their residential streets are sleepy and single use, even blank walls are common. Their entertainment/shopping/tourism/recreation areas are lively.

[mhays]

Most of that is unrelated to what we've been saying. Certainly to my point.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Jasoncw

Well my ideal version of urbanism is a complete urbanism which encompasses all of everyday normal life, rather than the affluent young hipster version of urbanism where everything is farmers markets and boutiques. I don't think urbanism is about creating yuppie playgrounds or creating expressions of bohemian identity politics (and occasionally conservative identity politics).

None of this has anything to do with your previous points. Streetlife obviously isn't limited to "bohemian identity politics" as if Fordham Rd. in the Bronx (probably the busiest retail street outside of any American city center) is all about "creating expressions of identity politics" rather than abuelas doing their shopping and working stiffs taking transit.

Originally Posted by Jasoncw

I took the discussion here to be the typical complaint that skyscraper financial districts are anti-urban, because you don't have crowds of people milling around and vegetable stands and ye olde storefronts.

No was was talking about financial districts, per se. Financial districts have plenty of "vegetable stands and ye old storefronts", obviously, they tend to be the oldest sections of cores, with vintage building stock and busy lunch scenes.

Originally Posted by Jasoncw

But you look at a place like Japan, where urbanism is the standard, and all of that Jane Jacobs stuff doesn't exist. Their financial districts are professional and boring. Their residential streets are sleepy and single use, even blank walls are common. Their entertainment/shopping/tourism/recreation areas are lively.

I have no idea what you're talking about re. Japan, and Jacobs. Japan perfectly encapsulates Jacobs' writings on mixed uses, and street vitality isn't constrained around her theories. No one expects vitality on minor arterials distant from transit or commercial hubs.

[BillM]

Originally Posted by 10023

Frankly I find it odd that someone on this forum would even question the idea. .

From what I see, there are at least a few people on this forum that put a lot of importance on statistics regarding skyscrapers. But, I suspect for the the vast majority who are interested in skyscrapers, there is an underlying interest that involves urban dynamics.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by BillM

From what I see, there are at least a few people on this forum that put a lot of importance on statistics regarding skyscrapers. But, I suspect for the the vast majority who are interested in skyscrapers, there is an underlying interest that involves urban dynamics.

It's the difference between experiencing a city through a computer screen vs. actually living it.

[skysoar]

Originally Posted by 10023

Most American cities.

I believe quite a few American cities lack street vibrancy because of Urban Renewal projects during the 60s and 70s. Cities like my hometown of Akron, destroyed many lower- rise buildings in vast sections of downtown that were vibrant with old stores, offices, older hotels, dentist offices, bars etc,, And they were replaced with five or six new buildings with very little street activity. That is why Chrissie Hynde who is from Akron, and the Pretenders wrote " My City Was Gone". I appreciate cities like Denver, Nashville, and some others that have done a great job of preserving much of their older vibrant low-rise urban core neighborhoods.

[10023]

Originally Posted by skysoar

I believe quite a few American cities lack street vibrancy because of Urban Renewal projects during the 60s and 70s. Cities like my hometown of Akron, destroyed many lower- rise buildings in vast sections of downtown that were vibrant with old stores, offices, older hotels, dentist offices, bars etc,, And they were replaced with five or six new buildings with very little street activity. That is why Chrissie Hynde who is from Akron, and the Pretenders wrote " My City Was Gone". I appreciate cities like Denver, Nashville, and some others that have done a great job of preserving much of their older vibrant low-rise urban core neighborhoods.

Most American cities didn’t have much to begin with because of the time period in which they were built.

People on this forum talk about “pre-war” (meaning prior to WW2) as if that is the dividing line between vibrant walkable urbanity and suburbs, but really things started to go downhill earlier.

The interwar period was already reflecting the growing popularity of the automobile, and streetcars didn’t really encourage great urbanity frankly. Even prior to WW1 you had cookie cutter suburbs being developed, because of cheaply mass produced building components.

In a British context, that was the last of the “period” styles architecturally (Edwardian, from 1901 to WW1). But late Victorian suburbs are already pretty boring in terms of pedestrian street experience (albeit transit-friendly). To get what I consider a great urban streetscape for the UK, you need to be in an area that was developed in the early Victorian or Georgian periods (from the early part of the 18th century, up until the mid/late 19th c.).

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

What you're asking is, basically, would you prefer Charlotte or Charleston?

Or Atlanta or Savannah?

[Jasoncw]

I'll ask a different question which I think does a better job of getting to the heart of my point.

Is Singapore urban?

To me the answer is obviously yes. But it's almost entirely large, single use buildings, in single use districts, very very little ground level activation. You could go on and on, in terms of urban design and land use planning, all of the things that urbanists here think is needed for urbanism, those things barely exist in Singapore.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by Jasoncw

I'll ask a different question which I think does a better job of getting to the heart of my point.

Is Singapore urban?

To me the answer is obviously yes. But it's almost entirely large, single use buildings, in single use districts, very very little ground level activation. You could go on and on, in terms of urban design and land use planning, all of the things that urbanists here think is needed for urbanism, those things barely exist in Singapore.

I mean apart from certain small pockets, it's not really that urban in the traditional sense. The most common criticism is that it's probably the most sterile Alpha city in the world for all the reasons you listed. For most people here, density by itself =/= urban, or you could say a commie block in Siberia is more urban than a small town in France simply because people exist in tight quarters. Urbanity is about how people operate and interact with their city, and if you don't have things like street interaction, public spaces, accessibility via transit or walking, it might as well be a suburb in the sky.

[jd3189]

Honestly, it’s a continuum. Density can lead to urbanity but it doesn’t have to be all traditional. If it’s traditional like a European city with wall to wall buildings with street level activity with people meeting one another, fine. That’s probably the gold standard and what is subjectively/aesthetically pleasing to most people in this forum. But what if a place doesn’t have that exact aesthetic, but still functions with urban activity. For example, some of the core neighborhoods in LA are pre-war/ interwar/ early post war with single family homes built closely side by side with one story mixed used buildings but there is still street activity, people are still walking around and interacting with one another with cars around, etc. It may not be ideal but that’s functionally urban and to say otherwise is blissful ignorance.