Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown
Ok, but why should we artificially try and keep the city center as the focus when there seems to be a clear preference for the suburbs? Let the cities grow organically, don't try and put a square peg in a round hole just because of some outdated notion of a single city center.
|
In this era of needed emphasis on efficiency, rebuilding infrastructure somewhere else, particularly infrastructure that has required , and continues to require, the most inefficient form of transportation on a population level is absurdly foolish. Cities have infrastructure that taxpayers spent billions building. It would be really myopic to abandon that. So it's not really putting a square peg anywhere a square peg doesn't already belong.
Besides "organically," doesn't really exist. Cities are either planned or they are chaos. Since planning is a requirement, planners may as well provide something that is efficient for energy, efficient for travel flexibility, efficient for space, and built to last. Many late 20th century suburbs meet none of those ideals.
Now, in new cities, they should still keep an eye on efficiency, but should also look at what people *actually* want. Most people don't want to live downtown, but I suspect a great many people would enjoy living in any of Chicago's moderately-dense North Side neighborhoods that have a nice mix of transit, walkability, and drivability. Recreating that in a new city might be difficult, but if starting truly new it should be easier than retrofiting a cul-de-sac neighborhood to that spec.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centropolis
people also seem to generally prefer to be in the suburbs of something, they desire that context. i've had this conversation a million times. in fact it seems even most people who have historical ties to an urban core would in fact prefer a situation more urban than they are in, wherever that may fall on the continuum. theres a great nostalgia for the city as a kind of geographical soul, at least in the midwest.
|
Exactly. If people actually prefer a suburb, there needs to be an "urb" or they simply end up being in a sub. Nobody wants to actually live in a sub, isolated from the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady
What? There are offices in the suburbs? No way. That's crazy. I had no idea.
|
I know you're being snarky, but I honestly don't understand people who prefer suburban office parks if given an honest choice. Sure, I get wanting a short commute if you happen to live by one, or if the best-paid jobs are all in them. But if given a direct, all things equal choice, I don't get preferring an office park. Even if you take a lunch 80% of the time, most office parks I've worked in have had very limited lunch options for that other 20%. And unless you happen to live very close, you can only realistically drive - I know most parks do have some commuter transit, but I know of very few that don't suck in that regard - and for good reason, you can't realistically provide excellent transit to a broad, low-density area. Centralization and/or density enable all sorts of conveniences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One
Poor Chicago and Toronto, the worst offenders.
|
The South Lakefront, south of Roosevelt Road until around 51st is quite bad because South Lake Shore Drive is even more expressway-like than the North Side, and the Field Museum, Soldier Field, and McCormick Place all either block lakefront access completely or obstruct it. And then there are the Metra Electric tracks in addition. Once past the Drive and the ME Tracks, the actual park on the lakefront is quite nice, though. And there is the unbroken jogging/biking path between Hollywood on the North Side (about 5800 North) and 71st Street (7100 South) on the South Side. Parts of it are jogger/biker separated, too, and the entire length is well-utilized and popular. And you can continue north and south from the main part via bike lanes on surface streets. You can ride a bike from Chicago's northern neighbor, Evanston, all the way to Chicago's southeast neighbor, Hammond, Indiana. I've ridden the entire length multiple times. The entire ride is 26 miles. The part on dedicated lakefront path is 18 miles. That's not bad by any measure.
And the rest of Chicago's Lakefront is actually quite nice. South of 51st there's good access most of the way except for the old US Steel area. North of Roosevelt varies from wonderful to acceptable, but much of it is easy to get to and nice to use. There is access averaging less than 1/2 mile apart, frequently with transit access, sometime buffered with parkland. There are a few dedicated pedestrian tunnels, and the rest are multi-use underpasses. All are well-used and much less intimidating that Toronto's setup.
Prev
Linear Mode
