HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Aug 16, 2018, 11:47 PM
montréaliste montréaliste is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chambly, Quebec
Posts: 1,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
And places like Elgin, about 40 miles from downtown Chicago, which have commuter rail stations and at least one 15-story Art Deco highrise:

https://goo.gl/maps/BVJD8yFeMEx

I mean, Elgin sucks, but it’s got better bones and more of a walkable downtown than Plano.
It may be more walkable, but I haven’t seen one soul, living or dead walking for blocks on the streetview link.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 12:21 AM
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,571
Honestly, like I said before, a dense built mixed use environment is all it takes to make walking viable to residents, especially if they were already used to walking before. You just need a good grid within a streetcar suburb or something very close to it in the new urbanism style. Just look at core neighborhoods in LA, Miami, New Orleans, and a few other exceptions in the Sunbelt.

Heck, look at much of Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx that are opposite from Manhattan in NYC. Very dense suburbia built on a grid, sidewalks here and there, and commercial streets every other street. That's where I lived as a kid, and even though it wasn't prewar urban like TriBeCa, UES, or Brownstone Brooklyn, it was still functionally walkable because you could walk or drive a short distance to whatever you needed.


It looks like much of the Western Sunbelt is like that. LA, along with the part of the IE where I am now, reminds me of Eastern Queens. It's built for the car, but I can still walk or bike amongst drivers to wherever I need to go in my neighborhood. That has good potential of becoming denser if growth continues from within. It won't be legacy prewar, but honestly, who cares at this point? If I can afford it and it's close enough, that's all that matters.
__________________
Working towards making American cities walkable again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 12:30 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
Heck, look at much of Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx that are opposite from Manhattan in NYC. Very dense suburbia built on a grid, sidewalks here and there, and commercial streets every other street.
There is absolutely no "dense suburbia opposite from Manhattan" in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, and certaintly no "sidewalks here and there".

Those neighborhoods are significantly denser/more urban than anywhere else in North America excepting Manhattan. There are millions of people living in extreme density in those neighborhoods, while no other metro in U.S./Canada has more than about 100k residents living at such densities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 12:34 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
Not picking on Chicago, but just using it as an example.

Chicago MSA [city + suburbs]:
1950: 5,495,364
2010: 9,461,105
Net Gain: +3,965,741

Chicago City:
1950: 3,620,962
2010: 2,695,598
Net Loss: -925,364

Nearly all of our established American cities emptied out in favor of the suburbs and today some cities have bounced back and have begun to fill back in along with exurban and suburban growth.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic, but thanks for informing us that U.S. suburbs grew and inner cities declined following WW2.

We were all obviously completely in the dark re. postwar migration trends...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 12:40 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
I have no idea how we even started talking about Norwalk, either. It’s a pretty down on its luck place and there are better examples everywhere.
I wasn't referring to Norwalk per se, but rather the pre-auto landscape near the South Norwalk station, which is especially historic. I wasn't even showing the city center, just an example of organic TOD. There are actually three other historic centers within Norwalk.

I wouldn't call Norwalk "down on it's luck", it's just an mixed-income, mixed-housing typology-type area, like a lot of older towns in the NE. Norwalk has Bloomingdales/Nordstrom and housing projects.

And there's a decent amount of higher end/dense/TOD redevelopment, though it has a long ways to go to match a Stamford, White Plains or New Rochelle.

Waypointe neighborhood in Norwalk:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1124...7i13312!8i6656
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 12:54 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
as far as blanket statements go, it's pretty good.

it's just not true.



zip codes over 10,000 ppsm in chicagoland:

60619
60649
60637
60615
60653
60629
60632
60616
60608
60623
60644
60624
60651
60622
60642
60607
60605
60661
60606
60602
60601
60611
60654
60610
60614
60647
60639
60634
60641
60618
60657
60613
60640
60625
60630
60660
60659
60645
60626
60202
60804
60402
60304
60302
60301
60165
60707


zip codes over 10,000 ppsm in texas:

78705 (austin)
75204 (dallas)
75219 (dallas)
77036 (houston)
77081 (houston
I am all for Dallas or anywhere else to make their suburbs more dense. Even a subway restaurant and a 7 eleven in a 'town center' surrounded by 4 story stick apartments is light-years better than the typical shopping center and SFH.

With that being said, the quoted post pretty much ends whatever debate was going on. Thats crazy!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 1:13 AM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
There is absolutely no "dense suburbia opposite from Manhattan" in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, and certaintly no "sidewalks here and there".

Those neighborhoods are significantly denser/more urban than anywhere else in North America excepting Manhattan. There are millions of people living in extreme density in those neighborhoods, while no other metro in U.S./Canada has more than about 100k residents living at such densities.
There are some areas of SoCal that are as dense as parts of the outer boroughs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 1:22 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
There are some areas of SoCal that are as dense as parts of the outer boroughs.
There are no sizable geographies anywhere in U.S./Canada outside NYC with comparable density. Of course there are nodes, like Koreatown, that have comparably high density (but not comparable urbanity).

Again, like 100k people live in extreme densities in the next densest metros (I think Toronto and SF). Then LA and Chi have like 70k in extreme densities. There are millions of people living in such densities in Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 1:37 AM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,870
I still think you're underestimating LA's density. It's not necessarily as dense as outer New York but has comparable density in places, besides, I bet in practice it's not as dense as it seems on paper, as many in the outer boroughs spend half as much time in or going to Manhattan as they do in their own residence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 5:07 AM
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
There is absolutely no "dense suburbia opposite from Manhattan" in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, and certaintly no "sidewalks here and there".

Those neighborhoods are significantly denser/more urban than anywhere else in North America excepting Manhattan. There are millions of people living in extreme density in those neighborhoods, while no other metro in U.S./Canada has more than about 100k residents living at such densities.

Let me rephrase that since I knew deep down it would be taken like that. Opposite to Manhattan meant farther away. For example, the "suburban" parts of Brooklyn and Queens that are closer to the Atlantic than to the East River and the newer parts of the Bronx. The places with a lot of duplexes and single family homes on a dense grid with commercial streets here and there. Areas right outside Coney Island. Those parts of NYC aren't Manhattan or even adjacent Brooklyn/ Queens type density, but they are still pretty dense and walkable and the core neighborhoods of quite a few other cities in this country still growing can aspire to those heights and be relatively fine.


This isn't degrading NYC. In fact, it's showing that the city isn't just an extremely dense place with skyscrapers and tall apartments everywhere. Much of New York is like that, but much of the relatively new parts are great dense lower-scale urban layouts for people who did not want to stay couped up in tentaments and projects all their lives if they couldn't afford a penthouse or brownstone.
__________________
Working towards making American cities walkable again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 5:22 AM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,700
Queens population was 1.5 million in 1950, now 2.2 million, so there must be some post-war neighbourhoods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 5:23 AM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 21,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by montréaliste View Post
It may be more walkable, but I haven’t seen one soul, living or dead walking for blocks on the streetview link.
Yeah well maybe it’s winter.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 10:43 AM
jonspx jonspx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 8
Guys you need to look at these maps http://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#7/51.179/3.406, way, way , more accurate in showing urbanity around the world. The ones posted earlier in this thread just block fill in low density areas in the "new world" while leaving out small dense areas in the "old world "

Really they are suburban maps not urban maps.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 12:09 PM
montréaliste montréaliste is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chambly, Quebec
Posts: 1,996
We all need to take a break and reevaluate our thinking on the subject of density. Why not focus on how many more people or extra families we can cram into SFH's to blow up the stats on density. Then, we can devise appropriate schemes for furthering transit in suburbs like Godforsakiana or Boredham.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 3:03 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonspx View Post
Guys you need to look at these maps http://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#7/51.179/3.406, way, way , more accurate in showing urbanity around the world. The ones posted earlier in this thread just block fill in low density areas in the "new world" while leaving out small dense areas in the "old world "

This is amazing, thanks for sharing - I've been looking at this all morning.

Even went and screenshotted a bunch of places (presumably at the same scale, though I may have slipped on the wheel a few times, and I'm not sure how much projection distortion may be affecting some of these):






These seem pretty accurate for the cities I'm most familiar with, but the data used on some looks like it could be a little off - or is at least being sourced at different scales (ie. census tract vs larger city boroughs). For example, it seems unlikely to me that Rome & Berlin of all places wouldn't have a single "red" area, while even a place like Houston does. Nonetheless, super interesting to see the different development patterns across the world.
__________________

Last edited by MonkeyRonin; Aug 17, 2018 at 3:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 5:16 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
This is amazing, thanks for sharing - I've been looking at this all morning.

Even went and screenshotted a bunch of places (presumably at the same scale, though I may have slipped on the wheel a few times, and I'm not sure how much projection distortion may be affecting some of these):


These seem pretty accurate for the cities I'm most familiar with, but the data used on some looks like it could be a little off - or is at least being sourced at different scales (ie. census tract vs larger city boroughs). For example, it seems unlikely to me that Rome & Berlin of all places wouldn't have a single "red" area, while even a place like Houston does. Nonetheless, super interesting to see the different development patterns across the world.
Seems right to me, It really shows just how empty North America is, many people never really leave NYC LA or San Francisco and get the impression that the US is crowded.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 7:57 PM
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,571
Those maps were pretty interesting. NYC and parts of Chicago, SF, DC, and Boston were expected.

But some of the red parts of LA, Miami, and Houston may not be as expected as most people think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by montréaliste View Post
We all need to take a break and reevaluate our thinking on the subject of density. Why not focus on how many more people or extra families we can cram into SFH's to blow up the stats on density. Then, we can devise appropriate schemes for furthering transit in suburbs like Godforsakiana or Boredham.
Well, it's pretty much a fact that we all have to consider. If multi-family units or apartments aren't largerly present in a growing metro that has reach it's geographic limits, the housing environment that exists will gain more people per square mile than it had before. Whole extended families will be forced to live under one house and singles will have to pay rent to live in a master bedroom with another family in the area or even consider the basement or garage. This type of stuff is common where I live now in Southern California.


I believe that many older or gridded suburbs, when they aren't growing geographically but still growing population wise, will reach a critical mass in which they will become more walkable and urban because of necessity. Traffic will get too bad and many people will realize the usefulness of mass transit to overcome that.
__________________
Working towards making American cities walkable again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 8:12 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
Those maps were pretty interesting. NYC and parts of Chicago, SF, DC, and Boston were expected.

But some of the red parts of LA, Miami, and Houston may not be as expected as most people think.




Well, it's pretty much a fact that we all have to consider. If multi-family units or apartments aren't largerly present in a growing metro that has reach it's geographic limits, the housing environment that exists will gain more people per square mile than it had before. Whole extended families will be forced to live under one house and singles will have to pay rent to live in a master bedroom with another family in the area or even consider the basement or garage. This type of stuff is common where I live now in Southern California.


I believe that many older or gridded suburbs, when they aren't growing geographically but still growing population wise, will reach a critical mass in which they will become more walkable and urban because of necessity. Traffic will get too bad and many people will realize the usefulness of mass transit to overcome that.
I think people on often forget just how new almost all of the united states is other than the eastern seabord the USA was basically a farming country of small towns or wilderness until less than 100 years ago. It takes time to develop the cities you see in Europe and Asia, these places have been around for thousands of years in most casses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 8:18 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
Like Shenzhen?
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2018, 8:18 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
other than the eastern seabord the USA was basically a farming country of small towns or wilderness until less than 100 years ago.
not quite, there were a lot of major cities outside of the eastern seaboard 100 years ago.


Largest US Metropolitan Areas - 1920

1. New York -- 8,490,694
2. Chicago -- 3,521,789
3. Philadelphia -- 2,714,271
4. Boston -- 2,315,111
5. Pittsburgh -- 1,759,989
6. Detroit -- 1,305,798
7. St. Louis -- 1,139,877
8. San Francisco -- 1,009,467
9. Los Angeles -- 997,830
10. Cleveland -- 972,162

11. Baltimore -- 852,051
12. Buffalo -- 753,393
13. Minneapolis -- 704,566
14. Cincinnati -- 628,999

15. Washington -- 571,882
16. Milwaukee -- 539,449
17. Providence -- 536,572
18. Kansas City -- 528,833
19. Worcester -- 455,135
20. New Haven -- 415,214

source: https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=913696
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:46 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.