Is it time to rethink Britain's green belt?

[chris08876]

In terms of sprawl, thats the whole idea that the Netherlands has to heavily plan its sprawl given its small size, and that any such expansion is very compact. Compared to the sprawl patterns that you may find in North Carolina, Connecticut, Virginia or even New Jersey where it spans for miles upon miles, and at times, can be very sparsely populated in comparison to the Netherlands. Essentially the whole state is a giant fiesta of speghiti roads and stripmalls.

Places like California have very dense sprawl, but if we look at the nation as a whole, its still pretty provincial in comparison to the sprawl patterns within Europe. The suburbs in Europe almost feel like tiny cities; well based on my experience. Even if we look at Spain for example, lets say Madrid, given all of the land within the center of Spain, the suburbs are very dense. There is room to have a sprawl pattern similar to what we see in the U.S. South if I may list an example, but they don't do it because its not efficient.

One reason for this I would imagine is the high price of petrol in Europe.

[Qubert]

Manhattan south of 59th st doesn't really need a massive park. It's a mixed use zone of part CBD/part luxury housing similar to the West End. Just like NYC, Londons larger parks are outside zone 1 where it's virtually all residential and parks are far more valued and needed.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by chris08876

The suburbs in Europe almost feel like tiny cities;

That's because often times they are. One of the things that get to me the most about North American planning is everything is this one big mass. Even if we put aside things like density, American suburbs would be so much better if they had some kind of orientation around a town center and space between each town where there could be some green. What's amazing is people talk about the suburbs as being a place where they can have fresh air but in reality many US urban areas go on upwards of 40-50 miles across of unbroken development. Cities like Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver, Dallas, Atlanta, etc often feel like massive horizontial hives of humanity with very little undisrupted pastorality/nature. Having more "towns" with rural land in between would do a world of good.

[chris08876]

^^^^

That would be nice, but sadly the damage is done.

Its a shame that we f'd it up so badly. It really looks terrible though. Just ravages the land. Well, I guess overtime nature will swallow up the ugly developments and restore them to their pristine beauty once society breaks down. For now though, the best thing for the U.S. is continued densification of urban cores. This has been happening, and its a positive step forward. Not to say that the sprawl hasn't stopped. Its still expanding outwards. We can only hope that it will decelerate, but as long as we have those people who like to live 60 miles away from the nearest city or work area, then the sprawl orgy will continue.

Its also super expensive to maintain all of this infrastructure.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Qubert

Manhattan south of 59th st doesn't really need a massive park. It's a mixed use zone of part CBD/part luxury housing similar to the West End. Just like NYC, Londons larger parks are outside zone 1 where it's virtually all residential and parks are far more valued and needed.

First of all - Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park, Green Park, St James Park and arguably Regent's Park are all in Zone 1 (the last basically being on the border, e.g., Baker Street is Zone 1 and St John's Wood is Zone 2).

The areas surrounding these Royal Parks are also mixed use (or even predominantly commercial areas in the case of Westminster, Mayfair, St James and Knightsbridge). And Manhattan south of 59th Street has large swaths of predominantly residential areas - at least as much as Manhattan between 59th and 110th.

This post really couldn't have been more off point.

Originally Posted by mrnyc

oh for pete's sake. if you wanted big greenswards so badly, you should have had the sense to live next to central park, prospect park, riverdale or city island where you could have had the same.

These are very different neighborhoods, and the fact that there are large parks elsewhere has nothing to do with the fact that lower Manhattan (the part of the city that has most of what I like about NYC) lacks a major park. The reasons for this are obvious, but it is what it is.

[10023]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Much of the Netherlands is covered in mid-density sprawl? Not really.

Originally Posted by chris08876

Although the topic of sprawl has been debated amongst urbanists when it comes to the Netherlands. Are the areas that tend to sprawl as bad as the ones in the U.S.? Of course not. Nothing beats U.S. sprawl when it comes to the frequency, the mundane nature, and poorly planned. At least the Netherlands tends to design such places with smart growth concepts versus in the U.S. where its just a nightmare.

Basically this. I'm using "sprawl" as a general term for recent, ugly, characterless development. Of course Holland doesn't have the cul-de-sac subdivisions that one finds in much of North America. There isn't space for it. But flying over the western part of the country you see a lot of this:

https://goo.gl/maps/dQBTw


Of course it's more efficient from a land-use perspective than the US equivalent, but it's still a pretty ugly alternative to the kind of "organic" development that characterizes older cities/towns/villages.

[dc_denizen]

this is a bit ludicrous, Manhattan absolutely lacks parks and central london has tons (and better kept) by comparison.

a chain-link basketball court "park" is all too common in Manhattan.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by 10023

Basically this. I'm using "sprawl" as a general term for recent, ugly, characterless development. Of course Holland doesn't have the cul-de-sac subdivisions that one finds in much of North America. There isn't space for it. But flying over the western part of the country you see a lot of this:

https://goo.gl/maps/dQBTw


Of course it's more efficient from a land-use perspective than the US equivalent, but it's still a pretty ugly alternative to the kind of "organic" development that characterizes older cities/towns/villages.

They even have baseball fields

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

this is a bit ludicrous, Manhattan absolutely lacks parks and central london has tons (and better kept) by comparison.

a chain-link basketball court "park" is all too common in Manhattan.

The original planning of Manhattan envisioned a whole gridded island past Lower Manhattan. It was only until the early 1800's that the city realized that it needed a sort of recreational, get away from the hustle-and-bustle type of place and thus Central Park was conceived. Manhattan tends to have more plazas then actual parks; exception of Central Park and maybe the mini-parks along the Hudson/East River. But then again, it depends on the definition of a park. A plaza could be considered one, likewise, a tree filled, field like area such as Central Park.

Although if we look at the bigger picture, Queens has plenty of parks. Likewise, Brooklyn as well. Something like 27000-29000 acres of it citywide if my memory serves right.

[dc_denizen]

^ yup, in terms of acreage brooklyn and queens are where the parks are, comparable to central london in square mileage and frequency

difference is, central london's "outer boroughs" are a lot more affluent than queens or brooklyn. Also, they're more on the tourist track than any part of Queens. this is reflected in how the parts are used and maintained.

[10023]

So the outer boroughs of NY have as much parkland as in inner boroughs of London. That's kind of my point.

[chris08876]

Right now its not very economically viable to introduce new parks in Manhattan. Developers would rather build towers and if they are forced to have green space, it often means a loss on their part. Also, land is highly scarce. For the rest of the 4 boroughs its okay, but in a land area of 22 sq miles, lets be happy with the parkland that we have. Besides, this is Manhattan. Skyscraper land. If you want parks, go to NJ or take the subway to Prospect Park or Central Park and do some Yoga with hot chicks. Plenty of them here (Got to love Summer).

Prospect Park is a little better as its less crowded. Especially in the Summer where Central Park is wall to wall people.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Especially in the Summer where Central Park is wall to wall people.

That's what I find ridiculous in 10023's arguments.

You can't "escape urbanity" in a super crowded park...

[chris08876]

In NYC, its really dependent on location. Given Central Park, it is possible to feel like you're away from a city, but it depends on the location. Even in the Summer, if you travel anywhere between the 79 Street Traverse, and North to 110th Street (Park wise), it will be a little emptier than anything below 79th. Anything below the Lake (right near the Bethesda fountain) is horribly overcrowded. More so in the Summer, but you will find crowds even in the fall.

Even though I said location, also if thiers events. Depending on the schedule of events, certain parts of the park can feel very busy (even north of the Kennedy Reservoir).

But the cities huge, and plenty of parks can offer an escape from the concrete jungle. Outer Boroughs more than Manhattan. Bryant Park will not feel like an escape.

In fact, if anybody wants to escape the crowds, its amazing the transition that you will feel being in Jersey City, Hoboken, or even Newark. Even though they are big cities, they often feel empty and provincial compared to the crowds and traffic of Manhattan. Which is the amazing part about this place. You can easily go from an area of 10,000 ppsq-mile to a density of over 130,000 plus. Daytime population is over 4 million on any given workday (Manhattan) and only rising.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Right now its not very economically viable to introduce new parks in Manhattan.

apparently that is about as true as the completely fallacy put forth above about the rest of this park being merely only a running track or esplanade :roll eyes:

http://nypost.com/2014/11/17/pier-55...-island-oasis/

[mhays]

It's easier to be economically viable when someone donates $100,000,000!

That's still cheaper than the equivalent on land though. Around 13th isn't the most expensive part of Manhattan, but this translates to $1,000 per square foot, and that would be dirt cheap in much of Manhattan.

Of course nobody knows what it'll cost. I'm speaking as a contractor here. The variables that come with over-water construction, not to mention nothing being designed yet, as well as the major variables in material prices and everything else....

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

difference is, central london's "outer boroughs" are a lot more affluent than queens or brooklyn. Also, they're more on the tourist track than any part of Queens. this is reflected in how the parts are used and maintained.

That's not true.

Median Household Income:
Staten Island, NY: $70,963
Queens, NY: $55,373
Brooklyn, NY: $45,230
Bronx, NY: $32,460

Outer boroughs of London: £29,665 ($46,401)

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandc...smentpart1.pdf

The outer-boroughs of New York and London are quite similar, economically speaking.

[10023]

Originally Posted by lio45

That's what I find ridiculous in 10023's arguments.

You can't "escape urbanity" in a super crowded park...

Not if it's "super crowded". But that's the Sheep Meadow on the weekends. There are uncrowded areas and uncrowded times of day even in Central Park. There certainly are in Hyde Park here in London. That's nice to have.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by 10023

Not if it's "super crowded". But that's the Sheep Meadow on the weekends. There are uncrowded areas and uncrowded times of day even in Central Park. There certainly are in Hyde Park here in London. That's nice to have.

yeah, timing the crowds. you can often find those uncrowded lazy summer days in the 172 acre national park and trust work in progress in downtown manhattan as well, which is also nice to have.

[nito]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

I would put the hudson/east river parks ahead of Battersea park, though or the south bank (although it has nice cultural attractions). the thames waterfront is a bit less interesting than the NYC waterfront, mostly because its a smaller river.

The Hudson & East River Parks are more like less grand (calling long stretches of tarmac a ‘park’ are stretching things) & green (patches of trees in-between sport pitches and courts) versions of Victoria Embankment in that they are linear and narrow, rather than ‘broad’ parks like Battersea/Hyde or Central/Prospect. Another major difference is that the two New York river parks are cut-off from the city by major roads.

The South Bank has trees, various gardens and green spaces dotted along its route, but I wouldn’t classify it as a park, merely a pedestrian waterfront thoroughfare.