traditional neighborhood?

[nec209]

Anyone know what is traditional neighborhood than the new urban city?I Thought the new urban city makes use of shopping centers or big-box stores where they are for retail space and automobile parking. And the store is pulled back far from the street and a big parking lot? They make use of Strip Mall and power centers for automobile parking and the store is pulled back and big parking lot.


Okay is this new urban city or old urban city? They seem to use many of those strip malls with big parking for cars now.

See box in red for photo credits.

by thakrazyg
e-mail thakrazyg@sbcglobal.net
website http://www.streetsandsoul.com/
web site http://www.streetsandsoul.com/edited/
http://www.streetsandsoul.com/edited/index3.html

http://www.streetsandsoul.com/edited/lae071.jpg

http://www.streetsandsoul.com/edited/lae065.jpg

You can see the store at the street and the side-walk.

http://www.streetsandsoul.com/edited/lae040.jpg

http://www.streetsandsoul.com/edited/lae027.jpg

http://www.streetsandsoul.com/edited/lae008.jpg

-----

Okay are some strip malls by ALLC-constrution
web site http://www.allcconstruction.com/commercial.htm


http://www.allcconstruction.com/commercial/Strip-Mall-Dirksen.jpg

http://www.allcconstruction.com/commercial/Strip.jpg

Well you can see the parking lot and all the cars that are park every where!!


holden tomorrow planning Our Future Together
website http://www.holdentomorrow.net/Photos/Photos.htm

http://www.holdentomorrow.net/Photos/Landmarks/strip%20mall.jpg

A strip mall
http://www.dkolb.org/sprawlingplaces/images/fullsize/restn.strip.mall.jpg

by David Kolb
anti-city
http://www.dkolb.org/
web site http://www.dkolb.org/sprawlingplaces/index/sprawlno/restonat/downgrad.html

The problem with success is that everyone wants a piece of it. Hence the runaway development in Reston, Virginia. The original neighborhoods remain inviting environments: Modernist apartments crown inward-facing retail stores and there's plenty of greenery integrated into a comfortably high-density community. They're instead building bland strip malls, office parks, and housing -- all designed for volume rather than quality of life. While older neighborhoods feature closely spaced houses, high trees, and de-emphasized roads, the rest are standard suburban fare: wide streets, abundant acreage between properties, pastel-colored garden apartments, enormous single-family houses, and assorted "historic-looking" townhouses. Many residents oppose the apparent break from Reston's original patterns. Others find Barnes & Noble and Best Buy superstores hard to resist.

Well they seem to have stop using the city classic shopping now !! Look how the stores in the old days are on the street no car parking and no green space so city classic is this traditional neighborhood than new urban city that is using big-box stores and strip malls? Also reading some books after 1940 all cities stop using the grid system because use of automobiles and the use of strip malls started in late 1940’s with big parking for cars and the store pulled back far from the street well easy for cars very hard going anywhere on foot besuse of the parkin lot and the strip mall pulled back far from the street.

I'm still editing this post.

[Chicago103]

Some of the urban shopping strips you posted are in the grittier neighborhoods or more politically incorrect more ghetto neighborhoods. The forth picture from the bottom is the closest to what I would consider a traditional neighborhood shopping strip. However what I consider to be gritty or verging on ghetto with caution is something that the people who frequent the first half of pictures would avoid like a medieval town infected with the black death. I find a certain beauty in grittiness but honestly if we are to attract the average person back to traditional neighborhoods it had better be as close to the original look of the pre-war pre-autocentric style as possible, like traditional small town america or old style Chicago neighborhoods.

[nec209]

Well sure some of the buildings look dirty but most can be fixed up look at the new stores today in 40 years from now a new store will look ghetto .

http://www.streetsandsoul.com/edited/lae040.jpg

Well look at this store it looks so old if old is what makes it look so dirty a new store or a store in the 90's will look dirty .

Look at the box stores they are using the same very old look big box look or dirty look and putting many of them in big parking lot now they don't look dirty why because it is new and different:eek:

Well dirty is perception well run-down building that needs paint or graffiti is other thing or trash on the street or side-walk.


Anyways back on topic no way someone that have car will go for it . Well look at it this way people want to drive and want parking in front of store not search for parking like in down-town cities.

[Chicago103]

Well sure some of the buildings look dirty but most can be fixed up look at the new stores today in 40 years from now a new store will look ghetto .

http://www.streetsandsoul.com/edited/lae040.jpg

Well look at this store it looks so old if old is what makes it look so dirty a new store or a store in the 90's will look dirty .

Look at the box stores they are using the same very old look big box look or dirty look and putting many of them in big parking lot now they don't look dirty why because it is new and different:eek:

Well dirty is perception well run-down building that needs paint or graffiti is other thing or trash on the street or side-walk.


Anyways back on topic no way someone that have car will go for it . Well look at it this way people want to drive and want parking in front of store not search for parking like in down-town cities.

I agree that the auto-centric crap will not age well at all in fact the traditionally built areas will last much longer, the street fronting retail only looks bad because it is not taken care of and not because its built of poor materials.

In terms of the parking issue you are also correct unfortuantly when it comes to a certain segment of society. What people need to understand about downtown parking is that if you do drive downtown at all (preferably use transit) then just park in one place (on the periphery of downtown if its really expensive) and just walk from store to store for your entire stay. Thats a difficult concept for suburban mindeds to understand, the notion that you can actually do something besides park as close as fucking possible to every establishment you visit and actually travel on foot to get places.

[nec209]

Other thing I should say I got those pictures in the LA section of this group .And sure some of the areas look dirty or rown-down the bigger the city the harder it is to make it look clean just give it time the suburbs in Toronto area will look just as bad .

A big city over 900,000 people is harder than city of 300,000 people to clean .And sure LA has some bad areas or dirty or rown-down areas but city is very big and it harder than small suburb with 200,000 or 300,000
people.

And when the suburbs get big over 950,000 people they will have the same problem.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Wow those 2 pictures have big and I mean big parking lot you will not find this in LA.
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5716/01fq9.jpg


If you're saying what I think you're saying, then surely, you jest.

[nec209]

Well may be in the suburbs of LA but not LA city;)

[nec209]

I was looking at Calgary and its new urban sprawl has to be 100 times terrible than Toronto just look how spread out every thing is and how the streets are like a crazy cartoon from the simpsons.

Here is some pictures , I will post more later on. I use the screen shot to save pictures to by computer than upload the pictures the pictures are a area view wikimapia uses like google maps.

Images from http://www.wikimapia.org/#y=51133504&x=-114138980&z=15&l=0&m=a&v=1

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/2961/01kb4.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/9239/02nf2.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8527/03of6.jpg

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5489/04uv6.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9899/05qw2.jpg

[nec209]

Okay here are some more pictures.:)

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/2820/01jt2.jpg

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/5159/02yr2.jpg

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/5968/03ih4.jpg

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1988/04yq9.jpg

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7976/05as6.jpg

[raggedy13]

Okay here are some more pictures.:)

I think we get the idea...

[nec209]

Well even in Toronto it is NOT so wild like this.What is going on with calgary and what do you think?

And find all thos city planning ligo like old urban.new urban,traditional neighborhood so on so confusing..

Hay fflint any other photos that need to be credited ?

[zilfondel]

Anyone know what is traditional neighborhood than the new urban city?


Here we go again... this thread will almost need to be stickied or something, as this is probably the 20th time it's been gone over (200th?). There are two main classifications of urbanism:

Suburban
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/2667/05kp6.jpg

and

Urban
http://www.streetsandsoul.com/edited/lae065.jpg


The term "traditional neighborhood" and "new urbanism" are terms that have been invented in the past 20 years, as part of the postmodern architectural and planning movement, that gained traction in England (UK) by the Princes of Wales (Prince Charles) and his buddies in response to Modernism in architecture.

In the United States this historicism was popularized (separately from the movement in England) early on by Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, who are mainly urban planners - their main claim to fame is Seaside, a "traditional" town in Florida, and helping to found the Congress of the New Urbanism (http://www.cnu.org/) (1993).

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t025/T025904A.jpg
image of Seaside, Florida - courtesy of encarta

The term "new urban city" would seem to indicate that there is a distinct difference from the old urban city - or just Urban. The older core cities, such as NYC, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, etc. These places are typified by having history, a varied mix of uses, a mix of landowners, residents, and generally a public realm that is (mostly) devoted to the pedestrian, or citizen. The architecture can be any style, but as it gains history, usually ends up with a mix of styles. Many buildings tend to crowd together along the street, creating a 'street wall' of private buildings that contrast with the public street.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/423545628_a2e37de52a_o.jpg
Malaga, Spain (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=127554)
"Kilgore Trout's" photos from Europe


However, the Suburban generally trends in the opposite direction, as can be seen by strip development: single-pod cluster developments (owned by a single company) that are arranged at the outskirts of a larger, older city (not always, but common in the US and known sometimes as 'edge cities'), lack of a public realm for people to walk, particularly parks and plazas, large amounts of land dedicated towards automobiles in the forms of roads and parking lots. You can generalize this up by saying the new urban city is geared towards homogenization and making money. Perhaps it should be called the corporate city.

[Improperly credited image removed by moderation]

This isn't always the case, however, as cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Dubai have all embraced a Modernist planning system of 'towers in the park' - suburban style development - on an urban scale (big, huge tall buildings with lots of roads. Perhaps this, then should be called the new urban city. It was originally devised and promoted by Le Corbusier, a French Architect. However, it is still typified by large public realms punctuated by private developments... but they would be considered suburban, not really urban.

To complicate matters, some suburban areas are now adopting urban development plans and are converting parking lots to tall buildings and parks, adding public transportation infrastructure and adding a mixture of uses (retail, office, residential). So in reality, nothing ever really stays the same - and classifications operate on a sliding scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Citt%C3%A0_per_tre_milioni_di_abitanti.jpg

[JivecitySTL]

^Le Corbusier was Swiss, not French. :)

[fflint]

zilfondel, you'll want to credit the photos.

[LostInTheZone]

some people like being as isolated as possible, for as much of the day as they can manage. I don't understand it and I think they're fighting millions of years of evolution to do it en masse, but what do I know.

[nec209]

The term "traditional neighborhood" and "new urbanism" are terms that have been invented in the past 20 years, as part of the postmodern architectural and planning movement, that gained traction in England (UK) by the Princes of Wales (Prince Charles) and his buddies in response to Modernism in architecture.


So traditional neighborhood is how cities where in the old days and new urbanism are how cities are now.


In the United States this historicism was popularized (separately from the movement in England) early on by Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, who are mainly urban planners - their main claim to fame is Seaside, a "traditional" town in Florida, and helping to found the Congress of the New Urbanism (1993


What was popularized ? The US cities have much more history than Canadian cities.


The term "new urban city" would seem to indicate that there is a distinct difference from the old urban city - or just Urban. The older core cities, such as NYC, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, etc. These places are typified by having history, a varied mix of uses, a mix of landowners, residents, and generally a public realm that is (mostly) devoted to the pedestrian, or citizen. The architecture can be any style, but as it gains history, usually ends up with a mix of styles. Many buildings tend to crowd together along the street, creating a 'street wall' of private buildings that contrast with the public street.


All I know of today no new city in Canada or the US are building a down-town core anymore like Toronto or New York. What I must say is LA and New York are build on a human scale not a automobile scale like today cities with big parking lots and the way the street are anti-grid and the way the building are that are anti-walking but pro- automobile.

Why is New York city so density packed than LA it it is because of the office-districts in the down-town and no city can build like that for whole city and the office-districts is only good fore stores and offices .

Mote see below for credits for photos.


This part of the city is the city core and have office and stores and no new city in Canada or the US is build like this. 

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5695/img1792ln4.jpg

This part of the city is the office and stores part and you see there is no homes and no apartments...I should also say no townhouses or factories all office and stores.

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/6027/img1768ie6.jpg

Here is LA you see no stores or office only homes this is why it is less density packed because it is away from the down-town where the office and stores are like the above pictures.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g189/FROMLOSANGELES/enero019.jpg

Here is the stores in LA you see there is no office like the above 2 pictures this is because most offices are going to New York not LA and that is why there is no offices with the stores like the above 2 New York pictures

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g189/FROMLOSANGELES/wilshirepics157.jpg


However, the Suburban generally trends in the opposite direction, as can be seen by strip development: single-pod cluster developments (owned by a single company) that are arranged at the outskirts of a larger, older city (not always, but common in the US and known sometimes as 'edge cities'),

But a shop owner does not own the box store or the strip mall like the old traditional neighborhood. Same like mall or any strip mall the shop owner does not own it he will have to pay for space for his or her shop. Now the stores in all the above pictures the shop owner owns the store or office.


This isn't always the case, however, as cities such as Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Dubai have all embraced a Modernist planning system of 'towers in the park' - suburban style development - on an urban scale (big, huge tall buildings with lots of roads.

I think this is do to lack of space in the country .If Canada was cut in 14 areas they would not build like they do today so spread out and like Calgary that is waste of space that really is no good for no one. I can see saving parks or green belts for going by bike or walking but no one is going to use green space less than 20 feet.

However, it is still typified by large public realms punctuated by private developments... but they would be considered suburban, not really urban


I don't know who own the store or office but I would say they pay rent and they don't own the store or office like the old urban cities.

=====
The 2 New York Photos are from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=449587
By Folk
==========

The 2 LA pictures are from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=451599
Note over 180 pictures if any one will like to see more LA pictures.. There some thing wrong with form so I can't get the user name. Bu I got this info if its okay..

Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Pico Rivera [LA]
Posts: 1,796

I took a tour around Los Angeles county in January but I never got the chance to post the pics in this forum untill now, so ENJOY!
Pics, pics, pics.....

==========

[Chicago103]

The suburban/auto-centric/corpratist city is one that is a-architectural, a-cultural and a-social. Auto-centric suburban sprawl is basically the apocolypse of architecture and urban planning.

[nec209]

Sorry what do you maen by a corpratist city? if any thing it is suburbs who more close to a plan economy.

And more so with the box stores or power centers because the shop owner does not own them like the old classic urban city..

[Xelebes]

I should note that Calgary went spagghetti noodly before a lot of other cities did. I can only think of a handful of neighbourhoods in Calgary that use the grid system (Inglewood) but Crescent Heights just across the river from downtown starts deviating really quickly. I think that community was built in the 40's. Not exactly sure.

[ChrisLA]

Here is LA you see no stores or office only homes this is why it is less density packed because it is away from the down-town where the office and stores are like the above pictures.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g189/FROMLOSANGELES/enero019.jpg

Here is the stores in LA you see there is no office like the above 2 pictures this is because most offices are going to New York not LA and that is why there is no offices with the stores like the above 2 New York pictures

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g189/FROMLOSANGELES/wilshirepics157.jpg


Actually the 1st photo is in a very small suburb of Los Angeles some 20 miles from downtown LA in the city of Signal Hill. The street is Cherry Avenue, and not there wouldn't be any retail in such a hilly section, it way too steep. Trust me its much steeper than it appears in the photo. Now as you head down the hill towards PCH it gets a little better, and Cherry Avenue narrows to two lanes (one north and south) as it enters the city of Long Beach. Its still mostly residental with most intersection with buildings that come up to the sidewalks and many of them have apartments about the stores. Cherry Avenue in no way is anything like Manhattan, but at the same time its dense and quite walkble thoughtout most of the street in the city of Long Beach.
The 2nd I'm not sure where this is, but I don't reconize it as being within the city of LA.

[Coriander]

[QUOTE=zilfondel;2703072] The older core cities, such as NYC, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, etc.

Ummm, Seattle?!? Not to nitpick but Seattle is not "older," feels like one of the US' newer cities, and at 6,901/sq mi (2,665/km²) looks and feels nothing like a "core" city--more like a suburb of a core city for the most part.

[Symi81]

While differnet from Boston, NYC and CHitown, Seattle incorporates many of the principles of proper "classic" urban design.

Seattle was laid-out and built before WW2. Its a neighborhood-oriented city, the official term for major neighborhoods is urban village or urban hub. It has a traditional street greed, mostly 2 lane (1 each way) arterials with paralell parking. Sidestreets are "yeild streets" (paraleel parking on each side with room for 1 car to drive between). Every neighborhood has its own small business district. This allows for neighborhood oriented businesses (locally owned restaurants, bars, hardware, market, etc) within walking distance of the single family homes that makeup much of Seattle's neighrboods. Additionally, multifamily housing is mixed into the neighborhood business distrcit areas. Neighborhoods closer to downtown (much of Capitol hill, First Hill, parts of Queen Anne, Belltown, etc) are very dense and have mostly multifamily housing. Depending on the neighrhood, finding street parking ranges from fairly easy to a pain in the ass, usually somewhere inbetween; definetly no suburban style parking lots! Due to proper street/sidewalk design, walking is a usually a pleasure.

[Atomic Glee]

So traditional neighborhood is how cities where in the old days and new urbanism are how cities are now.

No - New Urbanism is a school of urban design and planning. New Urbanism, traditional neighborhoods, that sort of thing - they are all facets of the same basic principle, that of denser, more walkable and transit-oriented development. New Urbanism is very similar in many ways to "the old days."

The opposite is, of course, suburban development.

[zilfondel]

^Le Corbusier was Swiss, not French. :)

Swiss-born French. See wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier):
"Charles-Edouard Jeanneret, who chose to be known as Le Corbusier (October 6, 1887 – August 27, 1965), was a French Swiss-born architect and writer, who is famous for his contributions to what now is called modernism, or the International Style."

The older core cities, such as NYC, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, etc.
Ummm, Seattle?!? Not to nitpick but Seattle is not "older," feels like one of the US' newer cities, and at 6,901/sq mi (2,665/km²) looks and feels nothing like a "core" city--more like a suburb of a core city for the most part.

Seattle is a city over 100 years old. The downtown was the first part settled - I've been to Seattle many times, I know the history, have done the underground tours. It counts. Boston and NY are less than 400 years old themselves - but all of these cities have large numbers of mid-sized buildings created around 100 years ago, so it's considered 'historic' by American standards. Even Portland (who I purposely decided not to plug) has the second-largest collection of cast-iron lowrise buildings in North America.

No - New Urbanism is a school of urban design and planning. New Urbanism, traditional neighborhoods, that sort of thing - they are all facets of the same basic principle, that of denser, more walkable and transit-oriented development. New Urbanism is very similar in many ways to "the old days."

The opposite is, of course, suburban development.

Yes. It takes academia to identify and give definition to 'historic.'

So traditional neighborhood is how cities where in the old days and new urbanism are how cities are now.

"new urbanism" - see above. It is an approach to urban planning that is based off of 'traditional' neighborhood cities. It is probably the closest model to actually promoting urbanism, but it should be noted it is only an urban planning strategy; no more, no less.

The US cities have much more history than Canadian cities.

All I know of today no new city in Canada or the US are building a down-town core anymore like Toronto or New York. What I must say is LA and New York are build on a human scale not a automobile scale like today cities with big parking lots and the way the street are anti-grid and the way the building are that are anti-walking but pro- automobile.

Toronto was founded in 1793. Montreal was founded in 1642. Considering these are some of the oldest large cities in North America, I doubt that. Anyways, there are many more cities in the US than Canada, since we have 10x your population. Everything is relative.

Anyways, noone is building new cities in North America. All you see are the expansion of satellite towns into suburbs and the main cities are getting a bit larger and are seeing much more investment and construction in their cores.

Scale of development is largely based on how much land is available, the zoning, and the market. In Arizona you can see subdivisions of 40,000+ single family houses.
There are lots of cities that have a pedestrian-oriented environment; and LA would not even be on the list!
Savannah, GA
Portland, OR
Boston, MA
Seattle, WA
San Fran, CA

plus many others. Note that these ped-oriented environments are typically in the older, central part of the city. Few developers are building parking lots in the central city anymore, unlike the 50s, 60s, and 70s.


But a shop owner does not own the box store or the strip mall like the old traditional neighborhood. Same like mall or any strip mall the shop owner does not own it he will have to pay for space for his or her shop. Now the stores in all the above pictures the shop owner owns the store or office.


This doesn't exactly seem related to me. Are you referring to the historic trend in cities for shop owners to live above their store? Yea, that doesn't happen anymore.

However, many big-box stores are owned by the parent company (or franchisee): ie, Fred Meyer, Wal-Mart, etc. Larger shopping centers, it is true, lease out pieces of their property to a retailer or do 'build-to-suit' - but so do retailers rent spaces at the bottom of skyscrapers!

In fact, I doubt many businesses at all own their spaces in a mixed-use building.

[Segun]

While differnet from Boston, NYC and CHitown, Seattle incorporates many of the principles of proper "classic" urban design.

Seattle was laid-out and built before WW2. Its a neighborhood-oriented city, the official term for major neighborhoods is urban village or urban hub. It has a traditional street greed, mostly 2 lane (1 each way) arterials with paralell parking. Sidestreets are "yeild streets" (paraleel parking on each side with room for 1 car to drive between). Every neighborhood has its own small business district. This allows for neighborhood oriented businesses (locally owned restaurants, bars, hardware, market, etc) within walking distance of the single family homes that makeup much of Seattle's neighrboods. Additionally, multifamily housing is mixed into the neighborhood business distrcit areas. Neighborhoods closer to downtown (much of Capitol hill, First Hill, parts of Queen Anne, Belltown, etc) are very dense and have mostly multifamily housing. Depending on the neighrhood, finding street parking ranges from fairly easy to a pain in the ass, usually somewhere inbetween; definetly no suburban style parking lots! Due to proper street/sidewalk design, walking is a usually a pleasure.

Dense housing aside, one of the things you'll find similar with NYC,Chicago, Boston, SF, Philly, DC, and even Cincinnati or Pittsburgh are the commercial streets, which serve as the lifeblood for pedestrian activity. Seattle streets didn't seem to have the same intensity and density of commercial activity to be grouped into the same category. I found Minneapolis to be similar in this regard. They seemed to reminiscent of bungalow belt neighborhoods in large cities.


There are lots of cities that have a pedestrian-oriented environment; and LA would not even be on the list!
Savannah, GA
Portland, OR
Boston, MA
Seattle, WA
San Fran, CA

^ And this is where this becomes a problem, nothing in Seattle or Portland can match the intensity of Broadway or the Fashion District, or Hollywood, nor the density of Koreatown or a number of LA nodes, but yet, because of good planning primarily located downtown, you consider Seattle, Savannah, and Portland urban, but LA not?

[nec209]

Dense housing aside, one of the things you'll find similar with NYC,Chicago, Boston, SF, Philly, DC, and even Cincinnati or Pittsburgh are the commercial streets, which serve as the lifeblood for pedestrian activity

So does LA and Miami have a commercial streets and you find many people that walk . This is called storefronts you will find this in old urban city and new urban city but not in suburbs they do not use storefronts like this.

http://www.streetsandsoul.com/losangeles/la005.jpg

http://www.streetsandsoul.com/losangeles/la027.jpg

by thakrazyg
website http://www.streetsandsoul.com/
Photos from http://www.streetsandsoul.com/losangeles/

Seattle was laid-out and built before WW2. Its a neighborhood-oriented city, the official term for major neighborhoods is urban village or urban hub. It has a traditional street greed, mostly 2 lane (1 each way) arterials with paralell parking.

So old urban city and new urban city both use a traditional street grid and and the roads are mostly 2 lane ?Well it is the suburbs that are anti-grid and have more than 2 lane.Well because most old cities call it classic urban cities are on a grid-system and have 2 or 2 lane not 3 or 4 lane but 2 or 3 lane.

I think it would be hard to have paralell parking on a big arterial roads , that is why many of them are going to the power centers, where there is a big parking lot and many stores in the parking lot.

And where there is many stores on both side of the road it would be hard going from store to store on a big arterial roads .


Sidestreets are "yeild streets" (paraleel parking on each side with room for 1 car to drive between).

Sorry I don't understand what you mean here..


However, the Suburban generally trends in the opposite direction, as can be seen by strip development: single-pod cluster developments (owned by a single company)

Here is a strip development


A strip mall big parking lot.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/Strip_Mall.jpg

I took some screen shots using wikimapia maps at http://www.wikimapia.org/#y=43826447&x=-79555542&z=17&l=0&m=a&v=1

Well you scan see the big parking lot and all the stores in the parking lot.
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/2248/011ip0.jpg

Well 4 pod clusters by a arterial roads many of the new suburbs in the Toronto area are doing this now they have pod clusters of stores by a arterial .
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/1889/012xd1.jpg

[nec209]

Note the above strip mall photo is from wikipedia web site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Strip_Mall.jpg

This is a strip mall.Also note that some can be straight or a L shape the strip malls.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/Strip_Mall.jpg

Many new areas in Toronto are into this look now.You will NOT find this in new urban city or old urban city but only in suburbs.

[SLO]

http://www.newurbanism.org/

http://www.cnu.org/

http://www.newurbannews.com/

[204]

So traditional neighborhood is how cities where in the old days and new urbanism are how cities are now.

Ummm, no. Re-read....



What was popularized ? The US cities have much more history than Canadian cities.

Dude! WTF are you talking about? Montreal goes back to 1611, Quebec to 1608, Toronto to 1793, Halifax to 1749, etc...

I don't supposed you've ever taken a Canadian History course huh? Here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_canada





All I know of today no new city in Canada or the US are building a down-town core anymore like Toronto or New York.

Go see some Vancouver pics in a number of threads....

Do you know the term "flogging a dead horse"?

[LMich]

I'm surprised you all are still arguing with him, and that anyone has been able to decipher the rants, or whatever these are.

[nec209]

I'm surprised you all are still arguing with him, and that anyone has been able to decipher the rants, or whatever these are.

LOL you should go to MSN chat room or come to the stores in Toronto and talk to people who work at the store most can't talk:D

I will keep my post short to make it better for reading .


Go see some Vancouver pics in a number of threads....

Do you know the term "flogging a dead horse"?

Well yes in the old sections zone for this, but they do not build this in new sections or new cities.