25 Years of Urban Growth and Density Change in 66 Global Cities

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Trae

They are getting denser every year. Of course, you didn't even click on the Plano link that shows exactly that (okay...20th century street). They may not have the historic feel but it'll serve the exact same purpose.

Yes, I did click on the photos and they show a suburban office park and mall without a roof, all surrounded by parking fields. No, making such sprawl denser does nothing to foster urbanity; it just means people have less space and developers make more money.

You cannot recreate pre-auto streetscapes under modern code. Can't be done. Plano can build 100 floor buildings and it won't be urban.

Older suburbs in places like the NE Corridor were built around railroads and streetcars. You cannot recreate somewhere like Norwalk, CT on a blank slate:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0989...7i13312!8i6656

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by 10023

The question of density in urban environments is to some extent a binary one (is it a walkable urban neighborhood, or is it not?) rather than a continuum in which more density is better than less density.

I'd argue that dense suburbia is preferable to less dense suburbia for a number of reasons:

1. It means metros will sprawl less, because more homes can get packed into each suburb. This in turn means more open land closer to the metro. It may also mean shorter commute times.

2. Dense suburbia holds more opportunity to retrofit into urbanity at a future time. Just add some sidewalks, create a more interconnected road pattern, and allow for mixed-use. In contrast, large-lot suburbia could never be urbanized without being upzoned as well.

3. All other things considered, dense surburbia should be a bit more affordable due to square footage being smaller.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ Beyond the immediate foreground of that picture, yes. At least in terms of urbanity.

Whether the suburban homes are on quarter acre lots or acre lots, one still has to get in the car and drive to do anything. At least the more sparse development provides some recreational open space and privacy (and it’s prettier, at least in a part of the country with greenery).

Functionally that may be true, but they LOOK different and the houses in the foothills, which the "suburban" picture is, have lots more vacant land around them. And, incidentally, it's very wrong to say there's "no vegetation" but I won't digress here into desert gardening.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Older suburbs in places like the NE Corridor were built around railroads and streetcars. You cannot recreate somewhere like Norwalk, CT on a blank slate:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0989...7i13312!8i6656

Norwalk is a bad example, because it was (and still is, to some degree) a separate small city with a blue-collar history which was swallowed up by metro NYC suburbia.

Now, if you said Greenwich, New Canaan, or Westport I'd be more likely to agree.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Norwalk is a bad example, because it was (and still is, to some degree) a separate small city with a blue-collar history which was swallowed up by metro NYC suburbia.

Most of NYC suburbia consists of various types of small cities that were swallowed up by sprawl.

Places like Greenwich are about as old as NYC and have multiple town centers, with the same pre-auto orientation.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Most of NYC suburbia consists of various types of small cities that were swallowed up by sprawl.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there was anything notable in Long Island prior to the railroad suburbs. I mean, the whole of it only had about 133,000 people in 1900. Nassau really only started booming in the 1920s.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, I did click on the photos and they show a suburban office park and mall without a roof, all surrounded by parking fields. No, making such sprawl denser does nothing to foster urbanity; it just means people have less space and developers make more money.

You cannot recreate pre-auto streetscapes under modern code. Can't be done. Plano can build 100 floor buildings and it won't be urban.

Older suburbs in places like the NE Corridor were built around railroads and streetcars. You cannot recreate somewhere like Norwalk, CT on a blank slate:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0989...7i13312!8i6656

What mall without a roof? And yes you can replicate. It's really not that hard at all to change code for certain areas/developments to be close to those standards. 100 floor buildings is not the goal for places like Plano. Instead clustering mixed-use developments together that reach no more than 7 floors or so has created a very nice pedestrian experience that previously wasn't there. You see this in suburbs throughout the Sunbelt.

Aside from the head-in parking, how is that second Plano link much different than the one you posted? Is it because there's parallel parking instead or that the buildings are a little taller?

Plano: https://goo.gl/maps/YEXCcK2vuYp

Your link: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0989...7i13312!8i6656

And another Plano link: https://goo.gl/maps/ZesgRbwAoqC2

Aside from the facade of the buildings, how is this much different from the one you posted (aside from the BMW parking incorrectly)? It functions the exact same. I agree that once you leave these areas, it goes to your typical suburban format but it's the same on the EC.

[Steely Dan]

^ it's still so manufactured, disjointed, and disconnected.

outside of a cute little retail street (open air mall) here or there, it's never going to feel like an actual, cohesive urban burb.

from the air the stark differences in form, street-scale, organization, and interconnectedness are crystal clear.

plano: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pl...!4d-96.6988856

evanston: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ev...!4d-87.6876969

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Trae

Aside from the head-in parking, how is that second Plano link much different than the one you posted? Is it because there's parallel parking instead or that the buildings are a little taller?

No, it's the complete opposite environment. The Plano development is just a mall/suburban office park. If you can't distinguish between a civil-war-era streetscape and a suburban office park, I'm not sure what to say.

Just because you squeeze all the sprawl together and hide the vast parking fields doesn't mean it isn't the same sprawl. Just because you build a mall without a roof doesn't mean it's urban. It's the same autocentric mess just with Disney facades.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, it's the complete opposite environment. The Plano development is just a mall/suburban office park. If you can't distinguish between a civil-war-era streetscape and a suburban office park, I'm not sure what to say.

Just because you squeeze all the sprawl together and hide the vast parking fields doesn't mean it isn't the same sprawl. Just because you build a mall without a roof doesn't mean it's urban. It's the same autocentric mess just with Disney facades.

To be fair, the satellite view makes it clear the historic urbanism is not continuous. For example, the rear of the southern side of the block has a large parking deck. The 19th century built vernacular is basically detached single-family homes (though they may be chopped up now). Regardless, while I am sure there are more people who walk to the business district than in Plano (since there's a few large apartment complexes nearby) I'm also sure the area is only as vibrant as it is because people drive there from outside the neighborhood and park. Meaning it's fundamentally a suburban business district, just as is the case in Plano.

[Crawford]

Eschaton, those are not "fair" criticisms. Plano has no prewar urbanity. Plano has no non-car functionality. The fact that Norwalk has some urban gaps and some auto orientation does not make it remotely comparable to Plano.

[badrunner]

I wouldn't want to live in either place without a car. Norwalk wins on style points but it's only marginally easier to live there without a car. Looking at google maps it looks like every house in town has a driveway and garage, just like Plano.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I wouldn't want to live in either place without a car. Norwalk wins on style points but it's only marginally easier to live there without a car. Looking at google maps it looks like every house in town has a driveway and garage, just like Plano.

What? Where? Almost nowhere near that Google streetview has a "driveway and car". Where are you looking that looks "just like Plano"?

Most of Norwalk is postwar sprawl or semi-rural, but not that neighborhood. And nowhere in Norwalk looks like Plano, with McMansions and gigantic arterials.

The point is that you can live in a walkable, transit oriented neighborhood. But obviously the gaps between urban centers are filled with low-level sprawl.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Crawford

What? Where? Almost nowhere near that Google streetview has a "driveway and car".

I mean most houses in Norwalk, not just that one neighborhood. Just about all of them have at least a driveway, and the city as a whole is quite obviously auto oriented. Probably a lot of super-commuters into NYC. It's a lot closer to Plano than it is to, say, Brooklyn, or some place that's truly urban.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I mean most houses in Norwalk, not just that one neighborhood. Just about all of them have at least a driveway, and the city as a whole is quite obviously auto oriented. Probably a lot of super-commuters into NYC. It's a lot closer to Plano than it is to, say, Brooklyn, or some place that's truly urban.

No. This is pretty much all wrong.

Almost no homes in the urban parts of Norwalk have driveways, and no one is super-commuting into NYC except if you mean by Metro North (in which case it isn't super-commuting). Driving from Norwalk would be basically impossible during normal rush hours.

And yeah, obviously most of Norwalk isn't urban, but that isn't the point. No one claimed "the majority of suburban NE corridor is urban". The point is that the NE Corridor has many hundreds of railroad-streetcar suburban nodes and Plano has none, and they are basically polar opposites of American suburban typologies.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And yeah, obviously most of Norwalk isn't urban, but that isn't the point. No one claimed "the majority of suburban NE corridor is urban". The point is that the NE Corridor has many hundreds of railroad-streetcar suburban nodes and Plano has none, and they are basically polar opposites of American suburban typologies.

Not sure why "railroad-streetcar suburban node" is the sole criteria for comparing these cities.

Sure, prewar urban fabric and authenticity count for something, but I feel like that's mostly an architectural critique. In terms of how they actually function as cities, both are mostly sprawling car oriented suburbs in their respective metros.

[Capsule F]

Lets not forget we are being shown a city of 270k 71sq/mi (Plano). I was showing small towns in the Philly burbs.

But if we are showing the downtowns of small satellite cities:

Plano - https://goo.gl/maps/HY6mU7Yp3u22

Wilmington, DE (73k, 17sq/mi) - https://goo.gl/maps/NJWt3ti55Zm

I think thats more appropriate.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ In short, high density without walkability is actually the worst of both worlds.

I don't think I agree. Higher density is more environmentally friendly land-wise and also even if you wouldn't walk anywhere in a dense suburban area, chances are the places you wanna go(gas station, shopping, groceries, work etc) are closer. So you spend less time in the car but more importantly you use less gas and let out less emissions.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'd argue that dense suburbia is preferable to less dense suburbia for a number of reasons:

1. It means metros will sprawl less, because more homes can get packed into each suburb. This in turn means more open land closer to the metro. It may also mean shorter commute times.

2. Dense suburbia holds more opportunity to retrofit into urbanity at a future time. Just add some sidewalks, create a more interconnected road pattern, and allow for mixed-use. In contrast, large-lot suburbia could never be urbanized without being upzoned as well.

3. All other things considered, dense surburbia should be a bit more affordable due to square footage being smaller.

This.

[JManc]

There are plenty of Dallas older suburbs that started out having noting to do with Dallas that have since been sucked into DFW's orbit with Panera Breads and cookie cutter housing developments but still retain their old downtowns and identities. I was just in one last weekend for my wife's grandmothers's funeral; Forney. Houston has some too. Nothing like the northeast because Texas was much much smaller and more sparsely populated in the turn of the century but Texas is absolutely loaded with small towns that now only recently coalesced into the bigger metros. Not every suburb is a Plano.