HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2013, 10:43 PM
HooverDam's Avatar
HooverDam HooverDam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Country Club Park, Greater Coronado, Midtown, Phoenix, Az
Posts: 4,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by HX_Guy View Post
Can you do all that stuff though and still compete in price with the builders that will still pump out the same old cookie cutter houses though? I mean I could see it on a more custom level or smaller speciality builder, which of course would mean higher costs.
.
If Haver could design efficient, affordable, yet unique, flexible and modern homes in the 60s, it can be done today.

Like Plinko said, the big issue is the risk of building a truly modern neighborhood as the banks would be warry of it.

But once I win one of those $500M powerballs I'll buy up a square mile somewhere and lay out a 'hood with New Urbanist streets, and affordable Joy/Bruder/Jones homes
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2013, 4:03 AM
nbrindley's Avatar
nbrindley nbrindley is offline
-_-
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PHX->IC,IA->ATL
Posts: 254
It's an interesting development, in that it is quite different from the norm in Phoenix. While having the garages in the rear make the houses more approachable and less auto-centric, it violates one of the main tenets of New Urbanism. Having to run the driveways between houses actually decreases the density compared to what is typically built in Phoenix. My in-laws live in far-north Phoenix (I-17 & Carefree Highway) and even that far out, the houses are much closer together (and fill a much larger percentage of the property) then what is shown here. Now, in other cities, this might represent an increased density compared to typical suburban development; in Phoenix it is actually reducing the density.

As for the faux-historic styles, the fact of the matter is that people typically crave the familiar. Evolutions of existing styles satisfy the desire for both novelty and familiarity. Only a relatively small percentage of people are going to go for truly new designs. It's a shame, I'd like to see more exciting and more radical varieties of styles, but we are stuck with the glacial pace of evolution because that is what the market wants.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2013, 10:57 PM
KEVINphx's Avatar
KEVINphx KEVINphx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbrindley View Post
It's an interesting development, in that it is quite different from the norm in Phoenix. While having the garages in the rear make the houses more approachable and less auto-centric, it violates one of the main tenets of New Urbanism. Having to run the driveways between houses actually decreases the density compared to what is typically built in Phoenix. My in-laws live in far-north Phoenix (I-17 & Carefree Highway) and even that far out, the houses are much closer together (and fill a much larger percentage of the property) then what is shown here. Now, in other cities, this might represent an increased density compared to typical suburban development; in Phoenix it is actually reducing the density.

As for the faux-historic styles, the fact of the matter is that people typically crave the familiar. Evolutions of existing styles satisfy the desire for both novelty and familiarity. Only a relatively small percentage of people are going to go for truly new designs. It's a shame, I'd like to see more exciting and more radical varieties of styles, but we are stuck with the glacial pace of evolution because that is what the market wants.
Even back in the 1920s and 1930s people across the USA were building various revival styles etc IE: Cape Cods, Tudor style, Colonial Revivals etc

nothing new, but I do agree with you in that this is what the market dictates and not many desire the truly NEW designs you speak of . . . probably that most can not afford it either!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2013, 4:16 PM
dtnphx dtnphx is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,057
Before WW2, most homes were custom built. A developer may have a few lots on a street with several styles to choose from that were unique. Another developer had different plans and so on. Nowadays, giant developers streamline their styles so they can use the same materials and tweak the final look to give it some difference. The need for more housing after the war created the cookie-cutter concept that's still in effect today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 21, 2013, 4:58 PM
PHX31's Avatar
PHX31 PHX31 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: PHX
Posts: 7,159
You used to be able to order an entire house from catalogs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 13, 2014, 4:27 AM
Jjs5056 Jjs5056 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,724
Sorry for resurrecting such an older thread, but I had some thoughts after looking through photos of Verrado/Agritopia and reading some of the commentary.

1) It's really too bad that the New Urbanism model was adopted so late in the game in Arizona, with places like Tempe and Chandler fully built out. Obviously, developers were going to head back to the far suburbs at some point, and at least there's hope it will be done in this fashion, but it's too bad there isn't a "New Urbanism 1.2: Adapting Communities for Economic Prosperity" that focuses on how developers can adapt projects to be more in line with New Urbanism with the idea being the creation of a more viable and sellable product in the market.

It would be great to see shopping centers converted to mixed use, or turned inside out with parking behind and shaded walkways placed in front. It seems like getting developers to buy into that kind of renovation model could be one of the only ways for areas like Midtown to revitalize. It might never be economically feasibly to tear down Park Central and build 4 mixed use high rises with underground parking, but what about simply creating a system of streets that make the original mall the economic center of a mixed use community?

It's just kind of overwhelming to look at Central Phoenix, let alone the Valley altogether, and think of having to start from scratch on top of the crap built post-WW2 that it would be almost comforting to know that at least some of it is salvageable.

2) The problem with saying the craftsman designed houses in Verrado, for example, are creepy because they're simply recreations of a style from s different era is that there isn't really a style dominating the 2000s in residential architecture when it comes to single family homes.

I live in New Jersey and you could pick up the Roosevelt district and place it next door and it would fit in. Similarly, several midcentury homes wouldn't cause anyone to look twice. And, now, just like in Arizona, new homes are constructed either as recreations of Victorian or Colonial, or done in our version of the "faux Tucson" which are these monstrous bi-level homes with attached garages (rare in older neighborhoods here) and fake brick or stone facades (usually 2-3 per 1 torn down original home).

I think the difference is that here, our recreations are done with quality materials and the interiors include high-end finishes, like moldings, fireplaces, and period touches like wainscoting and built-ins. Whereas in Verrado, from what I understand, the interiors are essentially identical to your faux Tucson homes, giving the exterior a faux feel.

3) So, It seems then that the ideal New Urbanism town would include a mix of architectural styles with interiors that are consistent with the period and quality of the exterior architecture. Seeing a 2-story Colonial next to a midcentury ranch would give off less of a creepy feel and also allow a mix of incomes and age groups to purchase within the community- obviously, the ranch would be less expensive. All of this would make the community seem more authentic, IMO.

There still seem to be some issues:
1) Because of financing, there won't ever be a fully developed town center, and so residents will need to leave and drive quite far for certain goods.

Should developers leave room for expansion in the future in the commercial center? Or, create smaller communities, with each phase getting it's own center, so that eventually, a built-out development would have 6, 1-square mile "towns" with CBD's that all complemented each other's?

2) The heat of Arizona's summers make this impossible, but ideally, the garages would be detached IMO. Living and growing up in an older neighborhood, you really get to know those around you when you are outside of the home, and the #1 deterrent to that happening nowadays is the garage, whether you put it in the back or the front. As long as it's attached, you'll still pull in and head right in your secluded home.

Were many people actually outside using their porches and outdoor spaces? Otherwise, New Urbanism isn't working from a social perspective, only from a sustainable community perspective, because it wouldn't be fostering interaction any more than other communities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Southwest
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:16 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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