Which cities in N.A. are urbanizing and transforming the most?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

I expect Atlanta and Dallas to get more redevelopment of shopping centers into midrise and highrise housing, similar to King of Prussia, Philadelphia or Tysons.

aka

KOP:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0835...7i13312!8i6656

Similar to Harrison NJ

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7408...7i16384!8i8192

Similar to somewhere in Dallas

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0008...7i16384!8i8192

Merrifield, Virginia (fairfax County, right outside of DC)

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8717...7i13312!8i6656

national harbor, DC

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7840...!7i8704!8i4352

Columbus OH

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1023...7i16384!8i8192

this is the future of urbanism in this country, and happily, most of the new build units look like these.

Reminds me of here:

https://goo.gl/maps/MSLmkUxrArjyyMhn6

And here:

https://goo.gl/maps/ND4Si6z5M8fuyiPNA

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Labtec

• Video Link

^ I see what the creator of this video did there. Clickbait...

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

I expect Atlanta and Dallas to get more redevelopment of shopping centers into midrise and highrise housing, similar to King of Prussia, Philadelphia or Tysons.

aka

KOP:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0835...7i13312!8i6656

Similar to Harrison NJ

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7408...7i16384!8i8192

Similar to somewhere in Dallas

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0008...7i16384!8i8192

Merrifield, Virginia (fairfax County, right outside of DC)

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8717...7i13312!8i6656

national harbor, DC

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7840...!7i8704!8i4352

Columbus OH

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1023...7i16384!8i8192

this is the future of urbanism in this country, and happily, most of the new build units look like these.

Out of all of those, the Plano example sticks out of how to do it wrong....look at how dead the streets are. No commerical on the ground floor. I'd expect better for such a major looking wide street.

[LA21st]

Yea. The Texas example isn't great. That stuff is everywhere in Irvine btw.

[Stay Stoked Brah]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Out of all of those, the Plano example sticks out of how to do it wrong....look at how dead the streets are. No commerical on the ground floor. I'd expect better for such a major looking wide street.

Ya the stuff fronting the the highway is ugly. it is 20 miles outside of downtown Dallas. the positives are that it looks like it's designed inward for the pedestrian. mixed use quiet streets, train stop, restaurants, bars, hotels. Streetview says it's in Richardson, Texas. Looks like it's a half built masterplanned multi phase development. built out version might be much better.

The street view picture from 2012 looks like it's in the middle of Kansas!
https://goo.gl/maps/g48W8nUs7x6ibhkQ8

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Sigaven

Out of all of those, the Plano example sticks out of how to do it wrong....look at how dead the streets are. No commerical on the ground floor. I'd expect better for such a major looking wide street.

It's essentially a suburb in a box.

[dave8721]

Suburban Orlando is doing the Urban thing with super wide streets as well:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.3724...7i16384!8i8192

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Suburban Orlando is doing the Urban thing with super wide streets as well:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.3724...7i16384!8i8192

Yeah that is a cookie cutter suburban subdivision packaged into a box. It's a more responsible use of land and space but functionally the same. I suppose if you built 10-12 of these around a few intersections with ground floor retail and grocery stores, and reduce the lanes to 1-2, it could function as a small city.

[Stay Stoked Brah]

Originally Posted by dave8721

Suburban Orlando is doing the Urban thing with super wide streets as well:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.3724...7i16384!8i8192

look at the transformation since 2011
https://goo.gl/maps/1kJBgGbetw7cJNZHA

[badrunner]

Those places could have 100% transit share and it would still be shit.

Built form, shared public spaces, high quality amenities and streetlife are much more important to the urban experience.

[Stay Stoked Brah]

Denver Then and Now pictures show quite an urban transformation in the stapleton area and the area between downtown and the south platte river. city proper growth of 21% over the last 9 years is very impressive.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Those places could have 100% transit share and it would still be shit.

Built form, shared public spaces, high quality amenities and streetlife are much more important to the urban experience.

I always find it odd how many people think that transit share or auto-dependency has no effect on built form, or that built form has no effect on transit share or auto-dependency.

Transit is the starting point for urbanity. If a place is not urban enough to support decent transit, if the travel distances are too long to make transit a viable option, then it will not be urban enough to make cycling a viable option, let along walking. Walking is the most demanding of all in terms of urbanity.

Transit requires some degree of walkability. People need to be able to walk to/from the bus stops. Even simple TOD measures can have a huge effect. However you look at it, transit ridership and urbanity are strongly connected.

If Orlando's suburbs make enough effort to get people out of their cars and onto buses, that will have tremendous impact on urbanity, not just for them, but even other parts of the Orlando area. If they can reduce parking demand in downtown Orlando, that could have a huge impact on development and streetlife there too. Again, transit is the starting point for urbanity. Getting suburbanites onto buses is the key to everything. Orlando's suburbs should be applauded for their efforts, not derided.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Doady

I always find it odd how many people think that transit share or auto-dependency has no effect on built form, or that built form has no effect on transit share or auto-dependency.

Transit is the starting point for urbanity. If a place is not urban enough to support decent transit, if the travel distances are too long to make transit a viable option, then it will not be urban enough to make cycling a viable option, let along walking. Walking is the most demanding of all in terms of urbanity.

Transit requires some degree of walkability. People need to be able to walk to/from the bus stops. Even simple TOD measures can have a huge effect. However you look at it, transit ridership and urbanity are strongly connected.

If Orlando's suburbs make enough effort to get people out of their cars and onto buses, that will have tremendous impact on urbanity, not just for them, but even other parts of the Orlando area. If they can reduce parking demand in downtown Orlando, that could have a huge impact on development and streetlife there too. Again, transit is the starting point for urbanity. Getting suburbanites onto buses is the key to everything. Orlando's suburbs should be applauded for their efforts, not derided.

Obviously, there is going to be a correlation between urbanity and transit use, but my point is that it's entirely inappropriate to simply use transit share as a proxy for urbanity, as some of our less discerning forumers like to do.

A random sleepy bedroom community doesn't become more urban just because 8% of its commuters park and ride to work. It does not change the essential character of a place. Far more important factors are things like streetlife, vibrancy, the activation of public spaces that enable spontaneous social interactions, a strong sense of place. For example, Santa Monica is several tiers higher in urbanity than San Leandro, despite much lower transit share. There are many places with low transit share in the LA area that would put entire cities to shame in terms of streetlife and urban energy.

Look at the ground truth instead of relying on paint-by-numbers urbanism.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Obviously, there is going to be a correlation between urbanity and transit use, but my point is that it's entirely inappropriate to simply use transit share as a proxy for urbanity, as some of our less discerning forumers like to do.

A random sleepy bedroom community doesn't become more urban just because 8% of its commuters park and ride to work. It does not change the essential character of a place. Far more important factors are things like streetlife, vibrancy, the activation of public spaces that enable spontaneous social interactions, a strong sense of place. For example, Santa Monica is several tiers higher in urbanity than San Leandro, despite much lower transit share. There are many places with low transit share in the LA area that would put entire cities to shame in terms of streetlife and urban energy.

Look at the ground truth instead of relying on paint-by-numbers urbanism.

Pre covid, Santa monica alone could blow out alot
Of these mentioned places for street life.
There was a video for the belt line, as if la an its suburbs doesn't have crazy popular beachfront bike path and very popular hiking trails lol. Its only been a thing for decades.

[Stay Stoked Brah]

Very close to downtown Denver 2011
https://goo.gl/maps/y4hnp4DT2A5gcdE6A

compared to this in 2019

https://goo.gl/maps/PYbXTw2DmZrTYRM49

Yo....

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Nite

I know topic isn't only about skyscrapers, but Calgary has built a ton in the last 10 years here is a comparison using SSP data
completed and currently under construction from 2010 to 2020

Calgary
200m+ 4 (247m, 236m, 222m, 212m)
100m+ 28
50m+ 61

Austin
200m+ 2 (210m, 208m)
100m+ 17
50m+ 48

Charlotte
200m+ 1 (240m)
100m+ 8
50m+ 20

Seattle
200m+ 1 (201m)
100m+ 23
50m+ 43

Atlanta
200m+ 0
100m+ 9
50m+ 34

Nashville
200m+ 0
100m+ 8
50m+ 23

Denver
200m+ 0
100m+ 5
50m+ 27

Minneapolis
200m+ 0
100m+ 2
50m+ 14

Dallas
200m+ 0
100m+ 9
50m+ 43

Houston
200m+ 1 (230m)
100m+ 28
50m+ 89

looking at this numbers i don't see how anyone can not include Calgary as the top transforming city in North America
Also, during these 10 years Calgary's population was most likely the fastest growing city over 1 million in the continent

I’d like to see the stats for NY.

[badrunner]

Denver is doing it right. It has a nice, clean and active downtown. Reminds me of San Diego. Small skyline, but nice urban bones and it's actually comparable to downtown Atlanta despite having half the metro population.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

You are basically describing all of LAs construction boom to date. Virtually none of the added density is of any urban substance (eg fine-grained, walkable, transit oriented). This is because LA has little backbone of transit to build upon.

This will of course change with the number of more consequential transit projects in the works, but the turnaround time for these new lines opening, then being fleshed out in zoning changes (after years of guaranteed litigation by suburban-minded folk who constitute a majority of LAs population), followed by convincing developers to build Fine-grained and car-free, will take a couple of decades at minimum.

The key to genuinely urbanizing is having a usable backbone of transit. Without that all-important framework, any “urban boom” is just more vertical suburbia masquerading as urban. Seeing a bunch of skyscrapers go up in Denver, LA, or Miami is unimpressive. I’ll even go as far as saying NY and SF, while much much better, are far too auto-oriented and pale compared with cities like Frankfurt or Munich in terms of fine-grainedness. Even in NY there are too many cars driving around, and walking is very stressful. A thousand more podium-scrapers and shitty mega-block apartment buildings in LA or Atlanta won’t make these cities any less horrible to live on foot.

You agreed with the post, but what the poster actually wrote was that those cities had no transit upgrades of substance. LA has had poor rail transit for decades, but I don't think that anyone can reasonably argue that it's not adding transit upgrades of substance. And this thread is about what's being added.

LA went nearly three decades with no rail transit at all and then two more decades building rail through poorer communities (path of least resistance) serving secondary job centers. It's really only the last decade that lines started being built to where the jobs are and yet LA still has the busiest heavy rail line in the US outside of NYC in terms of boardings per mile.

Additionally, most of LA's new residential is in the city of LA and near transit. It's still auto-oriented with lots of parking, but that's due to outdated planning/CEQA requirements. Developers are forced to build far more parking than they would ever need and most of the large podiums are in fact a reduction from actual requirements. They never fill the spaces and many get used as day parking for visitors.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by homebucket

LA ridership was already trending down even before COVID.

True. And it was disappointing, but wasn't this true in many cities?

BART ridership peaked in 2016 and was down every year since.
https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/f...FY73_FY20.xlsx

In 2018 WMATA has it's lowest ridership in 20 years!
https://wamu.org/story/19/03/11/metr...hats-going-on/

NYCt ridership peaked in 2014. Chicago was similar.

[jd3189]

Honestly, LA has a lot of potential for future growth. The city already has the grid density to achieve that within the next 50 years or so.