The Only Thing Worse Than A NIMBY Is A Preservationist

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by 10023

I don’t care if it’s popular. McDonald’s is the world’s most popular restaurant. Americans love McMansions, subdivisions and suburban shopping malls. Popularity is no indicator of quality. Maybe it’s popular because it is essentially suburban, but it is certainly not a good urban neighborhood.

so if you could stop kneejerking for a minute and relax -- you literally ignored the "spurred some of the densest development in the city and leads to a park" part. that's why it's popular. loring is a proto-promanade plantee or highline and their clones. might as well tear down the highline then per your illogic, after all its just an ugly old rail trestle.

again, the point is there were plenty of plenty of excellent mid-century suburban developments, you dont have to go back to medieval times or streetcar suburbs to find them.

these days tod is very popular and even the mcmansion era suburbs, which btw is from the 80s-90s and is over, are building up. suburban columbus dublin, for a modest example, which was a cornfield in the 80s, then a mcmansion sprawl, has lately built up a very popular downtown around its handful of historic buildings. shaker heights is building up tod around van aken at the end of its cleveland rta lightrail line, etc.. so the fact is suburbs are changing and adding urbanity features too.

[10023]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

so if you could stop kneejerking for a minute and relax -- you literally ignored the "spurred some of the densest development in the city and leads to a park" part. that's why it's popular. loring is a proto-promanade plantee or highline and their clones. might as well tear down the highline then per your illogic, after all its just an ugly old rail trestle.

again, the point is there were plenty of plenty of excellent mid-century suburban developments, you dont have to go back to medieval times or streetcar suburbs to find them.

these days tod is very popular and even the mcmansion era suburbs, which btw is from the 80s-90s and is over, are building up. suburban columbus dublin, for a modest example, which was a cornfield in the 80s, then a mcmansion sprawl, has lately built up a very popular downtown around its handful of historic buildings. shaker heights is building up tod around van aken at the end of its cleveland rta lightrail line, etc.. so the fact is suburbs are changing and adding urbanity features too.

If you could realise that I can see, and understand, exactly what this development is and still think it’s poor urbanism…

I didn’t ignore anything. I don’t care that it “leads to a park”. This is a “towers in a park” type development. If there were some ground level retail or anything mixed-used, perhaps it would be better, but there is not. It is nothing like the Highline (which isn’t comparable anyway as it’s an adaptive re-use of existing infrastructure).

I disagree with you. What was popular then - the ideal they were trying to promote - was misguided. The most lauded architects of the time, like the aforementioned Le Corbusier, were designing absolute garbage when they tried to be urban planners and not merely architects of individual buildings (or furniture, which he was better at).

[C.]

I was really curious about the discussion between mrnyc and 10023.



I think this is the neighborhood in question when referencing the Loring Park Greenway in Minneapolis. I spent some time on Google streetview going through the neighborhood. First and foremost, it's very silly to relate this to NYC's Highline. It's not even close! I noticed the lack uses as it's mainly residential (the highlight has a mix of retail and entrances to commercial and residential buildings along with the beautiful views).

The Loring Park area circulated in red gave me very strong towers in the park vibes. In other words, it has the density with none of the benefits. I feel most people would use a car to get around unless they're just walking or jogging for recreation and not going to any destination in particular. I also wonder how women would perceive the safety of the area at night. This is normally not an issue for men, but these towers in the park type developments reduce visibility and women feel less safe at night walking around alone. Having retail and "eyes on the street" help lessen that impact.

Not the worst development I've seen. That remains the public housing developments of the 1960s, which just created concentrations of poverty with no economic opportunity followed by single-family sprawl over farmland. But I would activity be protesting if this was development being proposed in my city. I would instead favor something connected to the street grid with mixed uses and incomes. These large master plan developments built by a single developer almost always get it wrong.

Anyway, never been to Minneapolis. Just curious about the debate and wanted to see the neighborhood in Google streetview to get a better understand. I might have it all wrong.

[mhays]

I don't mind it in limited quantity.

The US has next to zero places that are dense enough or destinations enough to require retail on every street. Maybe 100 square miles total? Even Manhattan with its giant blocks (less street frontage) can't sustain retail everywhere. Most places should concentrate retail onto fewer streets. A development like this can strengthen the nearby streets instead of worsening the retail dispersal problem. Meanwhile it's green and connected to the grid.

I've been to Minneapolis but have only visited the neighborhood briefly. So mostly speaking generally.

[10023]

C., those were essentially my thoughts on it. Of course it’s nicer than a public housing project, but that’s because it has middle or upper middle class residents and not people reliant on government housing. Stuyvesant Town in NYC is nicer for the same reason, but it is still, in my view, horrible urbanism compared to the actual historical fabric of the city.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by 10023

If you could realise that I can see, and understand, exactly what this development is and still think it’s poor urbanism…

I didn’t ignore anything. I don’t care that it “leads to a park”. This is a “towers in a park” type development. If there were some ground level retail or anything mixed-used, perhaps it would be better, but there is not. It is nothing like the Highline (which isn’t comparable anyway as it’s an adaptive re-use of existing infrastructure).

I disagree with you. What was popular then - the ideal they were trying to promote - was misguided. The most lauded architects of the time, like the aforementioned Le Corbusier, were designing absolute garbage when they tried to be urban planners and not merely architects of individual buildings (or furniture, which he was better at).

nonsense. you are just throwing mud, not to mention conflating the greenway with the neighborhood. the entire neighborhood exploded with growth and is the or one of the densest parts of the city because of the greenway idea, just as the neighborhoods around the highline did. that's hardly unsuccessful. there is plenty of roadway, transit and typical street nearby on the high streets. and its still a very nice and popular neighborhood to live in today. it is 100% comparable to the highline because that is exactly what the loring greenway is, an early version of it.

[Chef]

The Loring Greenway is literally right next to the Nicollet Mall which is Minneapolis' main commercial street downtown and abuts Loring Park which has a commercial strip on its north end. If you are calling it a tower in the park you are zooming in much too narrowly. Within the greenway itself there isn't any retail but there is plenty within a couple of blocks. There are commercial areas within a three to five minute walk and most of downtown Minneapolis is within a 15 minute walk. If you lived there you wouldn't need a car to do your daily shopping. It may not check the specific boxes some posters here want it to check but in real life it works really well. It is basically a walkway that connects the Nicollet Mall to one of the most popular parks in the city. It is a pretty cool area and very pedestrian friendly.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by benp

A speculator is way worse than a preservationist.

Can we add house-flipper to this? Pretty much a variant of the sit-and-hold. Buy a house in a middle-class neighborhood for 600K, knock out the wall to open the kitchen, paint the whole house black, and then sell for $1M screwing over those rare specimens who actually just want a buy a house to live in.

[10023]

Originally Posted by ocman

Can we add house-flipper to this? Pretty much a variant of the sit-and-hold. Buy a house in a middle-class neighborhood for 600K, knock out the wall to open the kitchen, paint the whole house black, and then sell for $1M screwing over those rare specimens who actually just want a buy a house to live in.

What’s wrong with that? They’re just a small scale developer.

A person with vision and the willingness to go to the trouble of taking an under-utilised asset (eg, a house that’s been occupied by some old lady who last renovated in the 80s), and they make it suitable for a young couple who, as you say( just want to buy a house to live in. They just don’t want to buy an outdated house in need of work, or go to the trouble of doing the work themselves.

The fact is that most houses that have been owned by the same owner for a long time, especially an old person or couple, are not ready for occupancy. And not everyone has the time or interest in doing the work.