Seattle Climbs but Austin Sprawls: The Myth of the Return to Cities

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Crawford

While I don't disagree with the conclusions, I bet their data is crap.

The population density figures come from census tract-level data from the ACS. I wouldn't exactly say that that data is "crap".

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The population density figures come from census tract-level data from the ACS. I wouldn't exactly say that that data is "crap".

I think it's crap. Census-level data can be misused.

Just taking a cursory look at the rankings, cities with large increases in core urban population are often ranked low, and cities, with large increases in sprawl are often ranked high. There are exceptions, but the rankings look very messy.

I'd like to see which tracts are being used, whether the tracts are weighted according to population and how % increase is figured. I'd also like to know why sampled ACS estimates are being used instead of actual Census counts.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by The North One

No shit, everyone with the slightest interest in urban planning knows that sunbelt cities aren't building walkable urban cores.

Nobody is building new "walkable" "urban cores".

They are building walkable projects in existing urban cores. But nobody builds pre-war style urban cores anymore from scratch. It's not that developers wouldn't, or that consumers don't want them, but that they have effectively been outlawed almost everywhere per parking requirements, setback lines, ROW easements, and health and safety stuff.

It's possible but developers effectively need total control of infrastructure and utility design, and a massive war chest and time horizon to get something done, meaning there are only a handful of people that can make that happen.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I hope this isn't seen as a slam to Miami, but there's a difference between raw density and true walkable neighborhoods. You can have thousands of residential units in a single square mile, but if the street interaction sucks or the sidewalks haven't been updated then those density numbers don't mean much. High rises also don't necessarily or automatically equal urban. Even a 5-story building with mixed uses and wrapped with retail will be far more beneficial to the urban landscape than 50-story residential building that has very little or no retail. Some of the residential towers that Miami has gotten seem to be gated communities in the sky, and I'm just not sure that's legit when they're being included in the perception of a place being urban. In the Austin section on the forum, we pick apart developing projects every day and critique them based on what kind of uses they have. The ones with little or no retail get booed.

Agreed that density doesn't equal urbanity. I've made similar points about Miami. However my beef is more about the parking podiums and quantity of parking.

Retail is important but the really good cities focus retail on key streets while back streets are allowed to be quiet, except in their actual main retail districts -- London, Hong Kong, Manhattan's Upper East/West Sides, Paris, etc. And some of those places have six-figure residential densities. I have the same argument in Seattle where our densities top out at half that.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

Nobody is building new "walkable" "urban cores".

They are building walkable projects in existing urban cores. But nobody builds pre-war style urban cores anymore from scratch. It's not that developers wouldn't, or that consumers don't want them, but that they have effectively been outlawed almost everywhere per parking requirements, setback lines, ROW easements, and health and safety stuff.

It's possible but developers effectively need total control of infrastructure and utility design, and a massive war chest and time horizon to get something done, meaning there are only a handful of people that can make that happen.

Of course some cities are building stuff like that...apartments on small lots, no parking, etc. Mine included. It's not just the NY/SF types.

[the urban politician]

^ You are missing his point. NY and SF are building projects in an existing, already dense and walkable cityscape.

But nobody is really building a brand new prewar style urban downtown from scratch.

[maru2501]

one of the headlines is the chicago figure, because densification of the core is so strong it is now offsetting black flight and the city's subsequent small losses in total population..

tale of two cities again. shouldn't be densifying to that degree AND losing population

[mhays]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You are missing his point. NY and SF are building projects in an existing, already dense and walkable cityscape.

But nobody is really building a brand new prewar style urban downtown from scratch.

I can't think of any greenfield sites that are building on the scale and type of an old downtown, but numerous neighborhood main streets and older downtowns are building a lot of old-school urbanity, including buildings with little or no parking in some cases. Even a lot of suburban nodes are doing low parking ratios.

[the urban politician]

^ Yes, that's called infill. Not even close to the same thing

[Pavlov's Dog]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

Nobody is building new "walkable" "urban cores".

They are building walkable projects in existing urban cores. But nobody builds pre-war style urban cores anymore from scratch. It's not that developers wouldn't, or that consumers don't want them, but that they have effectively been outlawed almost everywhere per parking requirements, setback lines, ROW easements, and health and safety stuff.

It's possible but developers effectively need total control of infrastructure and utility design, and a massive war chest and time horizon to get something done, meaning there are only a handful of people that can make that happen.

Speaking for Portland, Oregon I would definitely say the walk-able area of the urban core has been substantially expanded. Really only new streets have been in the Pearl District but 20 years ago there were only scattered warehouses there. The number of people walking, biking and taking the streetcar in the city of Portland have exploded. The population of the district has gone from 460 in 1990 to about 8000 today.


1996 - credit AP



http://energyinnovation.org/wp-conte...Case-Study.pdf

By the same token many other Portland streets, that have in theory always been walk-able, are now fairly densely populated and have a lot of street life where before people drove everywhere and expected to have easy parking in front of wherever it was they were going.

[urbanadvocate]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Yes, that's called infill. Not even close to the same thing

Are there any good examples of brownfields being converted at a substantial enough extend that the development would be considered more than just infill? I know Portland early 2000s and their railyards comes to mind. How about Philly? Sacramento railyards?

[Tuckerman]

Originally Posted by urbanadvocate

Are there any good examples of brownfields being converted at a substantial enough extend that the development would be considered more than just infill? I know Portland early 2000s and their railyards comes to mind. How about Philly? Sacramento railyards?

A reasonably good example is the conversion of the Atlantic Steel Works to Atlantic Station in Atlanta near the Midtown area; the impact of this development is still unfolding, but it converted a large brownfield area into a fairly walkable area, but more importantly began to link the Westside of the city to the Midtown area that was cut off by the enormous I-85/70 corridor connector.

[mhays]

There are many examples of transformed neighborhoods in the tens of acres or even hundreds of acres. In my area South Lake Union and the adjacent Denny Triangle are a good example. Boston has its Seaport area. Chicago has big chunks in the South Loop. Denver has the Union Station and Central Platte Valley areas. San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Miami, Uptown Dallas... Some of these are turning out like old-style urbanity.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by mhays

There are many examples of transformed neighborhoods in the tens of acres or even hundreds of acres. In my area South Lake Union and the adjacent Denny Triangle are a good example. Boston has its Seaport area. Chicago has big chunks in the South Loop. Denver has the Union Station and Central Platte Valley areas. San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Miami, Uptown Dallas... Some of these are turning out like old-style urbanity.

For Denver, though it might be a stretch to say the city has built a new pre-war like downtown, the scale and density of "infill" in areas that were previously undeveloped is so substantial its hard to characterize as mere infill. From Union Station, to Riverfront, RiNO to Ballpark, the scale of "infill" and urbanization in areas which never had it before looks a lot like old style urbanization.

This pic from the Denver Infill http://denverinfill.com/blog/site give gives a flavor of the scale.

[Reverberation]

Originally Posted by mhays

There are many examples of transformed neighborhoods in the tens of acres or even hundreds of acres. In my area South Lake Union and the adjacent Denny Triangle are a good example. Boston has its Seaport area. Chicago has big chunks in the South Loop. Denver has the Union Station and Central Platte Valley areas. San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Miami, Uptown Dallas... Some of these are turning out like old-style urbanity.

That's also infill.

[subterranean]

Originally Posted by Pavlov's Dog

Speaking for Portland, Oregon I would definitely say the walk-able area of the urban core has been substantially expanded. Really only new streets have been in the Pearl District but 20 years ago there were only scattered warehouses there. The number of people walking, biking and taking the streetcar in the city of Portland have exploded. The population of the district has gone from 460 in 1990 to about 8000 today.

http://energyinnovation.org/wp-conte...Case-Study.pdf

By the same token many other Portland streets, that have in theory always been walk-able, are now fairly densely populated and have a lot of street life where before people drove everywhere and expected to have easy parking in front of wherever it was they were going.

Development Map from Next Portland:

[chris08876]

I'm quite a fan of the developments going up in seattle. The mid rises are just the right amount of units (50-200 units), little parking if any, and efficient.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

That's also infill.

Isn't that how cities always developed? Sporadic development or "infill" that eventually stitched together to create a cohesive city?

For example, here's a picture of "The Dakota" in Manhattan's Upper West Side in 1890: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...kota_1890b.jpg

As you can see, there was very little around it...obviously today it's a fully built out walkable neighborhood around it.

I'd imagine this is the same way many cities are developing today. Rome wasn't built in a day. Same as NYC, Philly, etc. The problem comes from the fact that cities will need a continuous flow of new residents to continue building out or they will stall like many did between 1950-2000.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by urbanadvocate

Are there any good examples of brownfields being converted at a substantial enough extend that the development would be considered more than just infill? I know Portland early 2000s and their railyards comes to mind. How about Philly? Sacramento railyards?

St Paul is looking to build a new urban neighborhood on the site of a massive shuttered Ford plant (122 acres). The most recent iteration of the plan calls for 37 new blocks of multifamily residential and mixed use. It won't be Manhattan density but it will likely end up around 20,000 ppsm or higher. The project hasn't begun though and is receiving some push back from neighbors.

http://finance-commerce.com/2016/11/...for-ford-site/

[maru2501]

denver looking good