Walkable Neighborhoods Attracting Investments While Burbs Die

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That's probably not massively off, actually, but you have it reversed. It's the sprawl fringe that's a tiny proportion of the overall metro population. No more than a few million out of 24 million in the CSA.

Established suburbs, those with transit, amenities and city water/sewer are doing fine.

We're not talking about "sprawl fringe". We are talking about 'burbs overall -- where 80-90% of Americans live and where most of the future growth is going to occur.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

We're not talking about "sprawl fringe". We are talking about 'burbs overall -- where 80-90% of Americans live and where most of the future growth is going to occur.

The "burbs" is a meaningless term. It means Newark and it means deep woods. If you're talking auto-oriented development of the last 20 years, that barely exists here, because those areas are declining.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I don't think that's true. It was true in 2008-2012 but I think the exurbs are growing again. Even in the DC metro, they are building big houses out in places Fredericksburg and Manassas.

I think the national trend towards more urban environments is good as I find them to be the best neighborhoods. Literally sub-urban rather than crowded-rural that we think of as suburbs today.

However as sun belt is saying true urban living is still a very small portion of the population with most Americans living in "suburban" environments.

Calling one "good" or "bad" really is pointless, it just is.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Calling one "good" or "bad" really is pointless, it just is.

it's not so much about calling things good or bad.

it's just the recognition that our society has wasted FAR too much time, effort, and resources building unbelievable shit-tons of this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9373...7i16384!8i8192

when we could have continued right on building more of this like we used to a century ago: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9773...thumbfov%3D100

given how extremely in demand the latter is now becoming with so precious little of it to go around.

[Pedestrian]

What do you think of this (because it's like a lot of what we are building today when building neighborhoods from whole cloth--this one in SF's Mission Bay):


https://www.instantstreetview.com/@3....77h,16.11p,1z

[Steely Dan]

^ i'm talking about suburban greenfield development, not urban brownfield redevelopment.

mission bay hasn't been greenfield for nearly 2 centuries.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

What do you think of this (because it's like a lot of what we are building today when building neighborhoods from whole cloth--this one in SF's Mission Bay):


https://www.instantstreetview.com/@3....77h,16.11p,1z

Its not real urbanisim until 100 years from now, or if we can create a temporal bubble around Mission bay and transport the entire neighborhood back to before ww2. Then it would be urban.

Or at least that's the impression i get from many people on this forum.

[Crawford]

Mission Bay and the like aren't really comparable to prewar urbanism The biggest issues are the giant building footprints, the parking provisions and lack of use diversity. Time won't fix this.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it's not so much about calling things good or bad.

it's just the recognition that our society has wasted FAR too much time, effort, and resources building unbelievable shit-tons of this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9373...7i16384!8i8192

when we could have continued right on building more of this like we used to a century ago: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9773...thumbfov%3D100

given how extremely in demand the latter is now becoming with so precious little of it to go around.

Well here is the deal though, most people live in urban environments when they are young and single. Many of those same people once they get older and have kids dont want to live in the city, and the VAST majority of them will move to single family homes, as unlike Europe or before ww2, living in a single family home and driving to work is still cheap to do.

in fact the very reality you stated, Urban neighborhoods being in demand, makes suburbs and a 20-30 minute commute via car or 45 minute commute via train even MORE desirable because its not only a "better environment" for families but cheaper too.

People who live in urban environments dont live there because they have to a la pre WW2 and they dont live there because its cheap, they live in urban environments because it is an active lifestyle choice just like its an active choice to move to a 55 and older community in suburban Florida or Arizona.

People in Europe dont live the way they do because they en mass want too, they live that way because owning property in Europe is expensive and hard to do, securing a mortgage in Germany or France is much harder than in America, owning a car is prohibitively expensive. And even in these places you get suburban growth because a small patch of land and a single family detached home is largely desirable. Even the hyper rich in urban areas have get away outside of the city and extremely private penthouse condos with their own elevator soaring 500 feet above the rabble on the streets. Spending obscene money to be in the middle of the city but still separated from that city.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Mission Bay and the like aren't really comparable to prewar urbanism The biggest issues are the giant building footprints, the parking provisions and lack of use diversity. Time won't fix this.

Those neighborhoods became diverse in use over time through a natural process, that will happen here too.



I dont think the people living in this little colonial outpost would have expected it to be what it is today. And you'd be there in your tri-corn hat talking about how this shitty town would never live up to the greatness of London and Paris.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Its not real urbanisim until 100 years from now, or if we can create a temporal bubble around Mission bay and transport the entire neighborhood back to before ww2. Then it would be urban.

Or at least that's the impression i get from many people on this forum.

I'm not advocating for it. I personally dislike it a lot. I'm one of its bigger detractors. But it has no highways or strip malls. It's an effort to recreate organic, walkable neighborhoods (although for me it fails because the architecture is too "cookie-cutter" and the height restrictions in a city so short of housing are absurd in spite of the political reasons for them: Potrero Hill dwellers fought for their views and won). What makes older neighborhoods interesting is the mix of old and new with various styles from various periods.

But I am willing to admit that it may be tough to do too much better than Mission Bay when you put up something that large all within a few years. At least they didn't let one developer do it all--each lot has a different developer except the UC campus. But IMHO that failed to do what it should have done and give us buildings that look quite different from one another.

[Steely Dan]

I'm not saying that the amount of suburbia in our metro areas should be zero.

i'm saying our society got the balance between the two EXTREMELY fucking wrong.

hence why urban walkable places are getting so expensive. demand >>>>>>>>>> supply.

we simply don't have enough of them because we made it illegal to build them for the past 75 years.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Those neighborhoods became diverse in use over time through a natural process, that will happen here too.

How are you gonna chop up blocklong buildings with a single foundation? When did such a thing happen in the past?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Obadno

it is an active lifestyle choice just like its an active choice to move to a 55 and older community in suburban Florida or Arizona.

What do you have to say about someone who lives half the time in one of America's most walkable/urban 'hoods and half the time in an Arizona 55+ community (me)?

They both have attractions. One has the benefits of walkability, easy access to everything, things of interest everywhere you look.

The other lacks crime, grime, shit-covered sidewalks, muggings. It's just generally relaxing (grading into, yes, boring if you can't entertain yourself with reading/TV/movies and hobbies)--a true vacation from the urban thing.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

What do you have to say about someone who lives half the time in one of America's most walkable/urban 'hoods and half the time in an Arizona 55+ community (me)?

They both have attractions. One has the benefits of walkability, easy access to everything, things of interest everywhere you look.

The other lacks crime, grime, shit-covered sidewalks, muggings. It's just generally relaxing (grading into, yes, boring if you can't entertain yourself with reading/TV/movies and hobbies)--a true vacation from the urban thing.

What do I think about it? I dont think anything about it lots of people do the same thing. Are you going to deny that you dont actively choose to split your time between those places?

The average person unfortunately does not have that sort of luxury

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Crawford

How are you gonna chop up blocklong buildings with a single foundation? When did such a thing happen in the past?

When have buildings been torn down and replaced? when have roads been laid and old roads torn up?

Well I dont have a specific example for you but it is very possible and has occurred constantly since the dawn of human civilization.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

When have buildings been torn down and replaced? when have roads been laid and old roads torn up?

Well I dont have a specific example for you but it is very possible and has occurred constantly since the dawn of human civilization.

I believe the lots in lower Manhattan are largely the same today as they were several centuries ago. Lower Manhattan's road network was created by the native Americans and early Dutch settlers (hence why it's so confusing). There are likely many examples of lots being combined to build large buildings, but there probably wasn't much subdividing done to create smaller lots.

The rest of Manhattan was developed by acquiring farmland, so it was easier to master plan. And none of that has really changed, either.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I believe the lots in lower Manhattan are largely the same today as they were several centuries ago. Lower Manhattan's road network was created by the native Americans and early Dutch settlers (hence why it's so confusing). There are likely many examples of lots being combined to build large buildings, but there probably wasn't much subdividing done to create smaller lots.

The rest of Manhattan was developed by acquiring farmland, so it was easier to master plan. And none of that has really changed, either.

Except near every single log and stone building from the 1600's was replaced by brick and then replaced by concrete, glass and steel, ....multiple times.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Except near every single log and stone building from the 1600's was replaced by brick and then replaced by concrete, glass and steel, ....multiple times.

But, in many cases, the physical lot is the same today as it was in the 1700s. That's why it has remained pedestrian friendly.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The "burbs" is a meaningless term.

Right, however it's found in the title of the article -- which should indicate how meaningless the rest of the article is.