HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2015, 5:12 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
Hilarious.

Seattle is per capita as vibrant as the Scandinavian cities I'm most familiar with - Oslo, Helsinki, Stockholm.

CBC News flash: not all US cities look like Gary, Indiana.

No need for this hyperbole...
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2015, 7:38 PM
Ryanrule Ryanrule is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 772
sorry you are butt hurt about your recession europeans...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2015, 8:23 PM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
ugh...
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2015, 8:55 PM
Minato Ku's Avatar
Minato Ku Minato Ku is offline
Tokyo and Paris fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Paris, Montrouge
Posts: 4,168
Is this kind of comments is really necessary? I don't think so.
Keep calm, please.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2015, 9:09 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick View Post
Essen is a magnificent city... [even] a city of barely 50,000 in the most economically depressed part of Germany that has more street life than Seattle.

Speaking of Seattle- anybody who says it doesn't have exurban growth is wilfully ignorant. Seattle sprawls FOREVER.
Whether Essen has more street life than Seattle is open to debate.

However, "street life" is not the main arbiter of what a good city should be. It's important, but not overarching.

I think it's fair to say that Seattle has made much more lasting cultural influence on both Americans and even Germans than Essen has in recent decades. Seattle's indigenous culture is much more recognizable than Essen's, and I think Seattlites have a much better sense of who they are than people from Essen. Maybe Essen pioneered some kind of pork sausage in the 16th century that Seattle hasn't but in contemporary times, I'm fairly confident that Seattle has contributed more to the world.

There are even better examples of cities that are not exactly head and shoulders above other cities in terms of their street level vibrancy, but which are nonetheless internationally renowned for their cultural contribution and have a pretty recognizable identity seared into a lot of people's consciousness. Austin is one. Los Angeles is perhaps the best example.

Conversely, there are many middling cities across Europe where people flock downtown to shop, but are virtually indistinguishable from each other. What's the difference, really, between Braunschweig and Kassel?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Mar 30, 2015, 10:19 PM
jpdivola jpdivola is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 335
Ok, European cities are more dense, walkable and vibrant on a per capital basis. Everyone knows that, we don't need 50 pages stating the obvious.

A more productive line of inquiry is how can we strengthen and build upon the progress that has been made in the past 10-15years.

I'm obviously simplifying, but it seems the US has 4 types of cities:
1) Well rounded urban cities: NYC, SF, CHI, BOS, PHILLY, DC and maybe Sea as an up and comer. The main challenge in these cities is reforming zoning to allow more infill in the desirable, walkable core neighborhoods. This can ideally be combined with some funding for affordable housing.

2) New urban cities: Portland, Minneapolis, Denver, and maybe SD. These are somewhat similar to Canadian or Australian cities. They aren't super dense, but have nice downtowns and have succeeded at attracting the middle class downtown to shop and increasingly to live. Basically, they need to do more of the same. Follow Seattle's lead. Scale up their core residential populations, develop some urban village across the lower density residential neighborhoods and create walkable town centers in the suburbs.

3) The rust belt cities: These cities probably have the toughest challenge. These cities generally have less robust economies and significant social problems. For now these cities need some triage. Focus on strengthening their downtowns and a couple key "yuppie neighborhoods". This will provide a base on which to revitalize the city. This maybe "classist" and strike many as tone deaf, but ultimately cities can't thrive without the middle and upper classes. In the short term, these cities need to improve their poverty to middle class ratios. Baltimore is a good example, they turned around a couple close in areas (Fell's Point and Federal Hill) and now the growth is starting to spread to the surrounding neighborhoods. It is going to be patchy. City wide population growth and vibrant downtown shopping is probably going to have to wait a while. But, no reason the city can't start attracting eat and drinking places along a couple walkable commercial strips that serve both residents and suburbanites.

3) The sun belt sprawl cities: These cities have it a little better than the rust belt in that it is easier to revitalize a city center when the wind is at your back. Focus on developing a few key areas. Build up the Midtown and Uptown districts. Turn them into vibrant zones to showcase the benefits of walkable urbanism in regions not used to it. Longer term this should be combined with a strategy to density the regional core and limit sprawl. No reason Dallas, Hou and Atl shouldn't have urban cores to rival Seattle, even as they still have massive auto-centric sprawl in the outer areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 1:02 AM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is offline
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New York Suburbs
Posts: 10,999
^ good summary! although I think there is a huge difference between Houston and say Phoenix when it comes to infill and multifamily..
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 6:10 AM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,871
Good list JP, and the recommendations are certainly agreeable. Same general idea here, but I'd expand that idea a bit to divide the US & Canada's major cities into 5 defined tiers & sub-tiers.

1. New York. It's really in a league of its own - whether in size, in density, transit usage, housing types, pedestrian traffic, or vibrancy. An urban lifestyle is not only common, its the norm here. It's the only city comparable in form & function to the cities of the Old World.

2. Urban cities. Here, living in an urban format is effortless and normal, with a significant portion of the population of all types (but not the majority) doing so. In these cities, most people are apartment dwellers, transit service is extensive & widely used, urban amenities are plentiful, streets are vibrant, density is moderately high, and downtowns still function as the economic & cultural core of the region. Some reached their urban peak in the mid 20th century while others have more urban stock now than ever, but all have seen continued development and are still desirable, prosperous places.

3. New Urban cities. Having seen most of their development in the 20th century, they don't have as much of a legacy urban core to draw upon as the second tier cities (nor have they been as intensely developed as some of the others in recent years), but have nonetheless managed to avoid having their cores hollowed and have made great strides in recent decades to build up. Suburban living still dominates, but the urban cores and TODs are substantial - and growing.

4. Rustbelt. These cities benefit from a legacy urban core that peaked in the prewar era, many of them with more solid bones than third tier and even some second tier cities, but have since declined with most growth not only occurring in the suburbs, but happening at the expense of the city - which now suffer from high crime, low growth, low desirability, and poor economies, and in turn, struggle to attract development and the ability to re-urbanize. Those in the 4A category prominently feature things like rowhouses & apartments on the cityscape, and along with rapid transit systems make an urban lifestyle possible, but not as many people are doing so as could be, especially compared to what once was. Those in the 4B category however have always been a bit less intensely urban in form, which coupled with the post-war decline, make urban living unlikely or at least difficult today.

5. Sprawlers. These cities are defined by their post-war suburban sprawl, but those in the 5A category at least have seen a fair bit of modern infill and rapid transit development, and now generally offer greater urban amenities than the 4B cities - and may eventually eclipse even the 4A cities. Urban living is a bit niche and doesn't hold widespread appeal, but is still possible, and the downtowns at least are still major employment centres. The 5B cities however are little more than monolithic suburbs and show little sign of being able to change that. A bit of an outlier, but I would also include Detroit in this category, despite being quintessentially "rust belt", as its urban core is just so far gone that most of what exists is firmly suburban in form & use.



A list of all metro areas over 1 million would come out looking something like this, to the best of my knowledge:


1. New York

2. Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, DC, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver

3A. Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Miami, San Diego, Ottawa
3B. Minneapolis, Denver, Calgary

4A. Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Providence, Milwaukee, Louisville, New Orleans, Richmond
4B. Indianapolis, Memphis, Buffalo, Rochester, Hartford, Columbus, Grand Rapids, Birmingham

5A. Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, San Antonio, Nashville, Virginia Beach, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Edmonton
5B. Phoenix, Riverside, Orlando, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Detroit
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 7:31 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Seattle is in that wierd gap between the truly urban cities and the new-urban cities to borrow that term. Whether it's in one or the other is almost semantics. Putting it in the higher group is easier now than it was a couple years ago, and will be easier still in 2017, but by some measures it'll still lag...not enough rail transit, too many parking lots in commercial and mixed-use districts, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 7:36 PM
destroycreate's Avatar
destroycreate destroycreate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Seattle is in that wierd gap between the truly urban cities and the new-urban cities to borrow that term. Whether it's in one or the other is almost semantics. Putting it in the higher group is easier now than it was a couple years ago, and will be easier still in 2017, but by some measures it'll still lag...not enough rail transit, too many parking lots in commercial and mixed-use districts, etc.
Rail to Northgate and then Bellevue will definitely place it in the league of big players when those lines are completed, though.
__________________
**23 years on SSP!**
Previously known as LaJollaCA
https://www.instagram.com/itspeterchristian/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 8:32 PM
Ant131531 Ant131531 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by destroycreate View Post
Rail to Northgate and then Bellevue will definitely place it in the league of big players when those lines are completed, though.
Not really, considering even Atlanta is not considered a big player and it hits almost all the major points of the entire metro area, the airport and it's heavy rail subway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 8:54 PM
jpdivola jpdivola is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Seattle is in that wierd gap between the truly urban cities and the new-urban cities to borrow that term. Whether it's in one or the other is almost semantics. Putting it in the higher group is easier now than it was a couple years ago, and will be easier still in 2017, but by some measures it'll still lag...not enough rail transit, too many parking lots in commercial and mixed-use districts, etc.
Yeah, Seattle is an interesting case. Assuming there are 6 truly urban US cities, Seattle can really only be rivaled by Baltimore, LA and Miami. LA and Miami have density, but are just too poly-centric to be classically urban cities.

Baltimore is probably Seattle's closest competitor for the 7 spot. Both are either the premier example of their tier (Old industrial or New urban) or the lower levels of the truly urban cities.

In 2000, I would say Baltimore was ahead. By 2010, they were pretty even. But, Seattle has been on a tear since then, while Baltimore has been a mixed bag. By 2020, I think Seattle will clearly be a noch above Baltimore. Baltimore will still have a more cohesive urban feel with its miles of tightly built row houses. But, Seattle will have a much more vibrant big city core. Plus, Seattle's more affluent population will support a wider array of urban amenities.

Long term, it will be interesting to see how far Seattle rises. Seattle large number of SFHs will always hold it back (from an urban perspective). It will never be tightly built the way SF, Philly, Boston are.
Little by little, Seattle has been replacing it's SFS with row houses or other more tightly built housing. But, it is unclear it can ever be enough to define Seattle the way row houses or 3 story flats define the traditional urban cities. I think Vancouver is somewhat similar in this regard. A great central core, but nowhere near the consistent density of Montreal or Toronto.

Last edited by jpdivola; Mar 31, 2015 at 9:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 8:55 PM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Seattle is in that wierd gap between the truly urban cities and the new-urban cities to borrow that term. Whether it's in one or the other is almost semantics. Putting it in the higher group is easier now than it was a couple years ago, and will be easier still in 2017, but by some measures it'll still lag...not enough rail transit, too many parking lots in commercial and mixed-use districts, etc.

Seattle will need a lot more rail transit to move up to the well-rounded urban city category I think. And not just LRT, but grade-separated heavy rail. Even just within the new urban cities, it's actually kind of an outlier for its lack of rail transit as is. Which is kind of odd, considering that it's otherwise probably the most urban of the bunch.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 9:23 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Seattle might never score in every category with the Phillys and Bostons due to rail and houses. But our downtown's (or greater downtown's) scale puts it higher on the list, and the pace of improvement is enormous.

Also we have significant urban nodes dotted around that don't have parallels in some cities, which might have denser vernaculars but don't have nodes in the same way.

As for transit, one point is that buses can do a lot if there are enough of them, and they have their own lanes in many places.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 9:54 PM
Ant131531 Ant131531 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
Seattle will need a lot more rail transit to move up to the well-rounded urban city category I think. And not just LRT, but grade-separated heavy rail. Even just within the new urban cities, it's actually kind of an outlier for its lack of rail transit as is. Which is kind of odd, considering that it's otherwise probably the most urban of the bunch.
It's too bad it denied the chance of getting heavy rail in the late 60s/early 70s and gave it to Atlanta. Imagine the city with heavy rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2015, 11:47 PM
hipster duck's Avatar
hipster duck hipster duck is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin View Post
Good list JP, and the recommendations are certainly agreeable. Same general idea here, but I'd expand that idea a bit to divide the US & Canada's major cities into 5 defined tiers & sub-tiers.

1. New York. It's really in a league of its own - whether in size, in density, transit usage, housing types, pedestrian traffic, or vibrancy. An urban lifestyle is not only common, its the norm here. It's the only city comparable in form & function to the cities of the Old World.

2. Urban cities. Here, living in an urban format is effortless and normal, with a significant portion of the population of all types (but not the majority) doing so. In these cities, most people are apartment dwellers, transit service is extensive & widely used, urban amenities are plentiful, streets are vibrant, density is moderately high, and downtowns still function as the economic & cultural core of the region. Some reached their urban peak in the mid 20th century while others have more urban stock now than ever, but all have seen continued development and are still desirable, prosperous places.

3. New Urban cities. Having seen most of their development in the 20th century, they don't have as much of a legacy urban core to draw upon as the second tier cities (nor have they been as intensely developed as some of the others in recent years), but have nonetheless managed to avoid having their cores hollowed and have made great strides in recent decades to build up. Suburban living still dominates, but the urban cores and TODs are substantial - and growing.

4. Rustbelt. These cities benefit from a legacy urban core that peaked in the prewar era, many of them with more solid bones than third tier and even some second tier cities, but have since declined with most growth not only occurring in the suburbs, but happening at the expense of the city - which now suffer from high crime, low growth, low desirability, and poor economies, and in turn, struggle to attract development and the ability to re-urbanize. Those in the 4A category prominently feature things like rowhouses & apartments on the cityscape, and along with rapid transit systems make an urban lifestyle possible, but not as many people are doing so as could be, especially compared to what once was. Those in the 4B category however have always been a bit less intensely urban in form, which coupled with the post-war decline, make urban living unlikely or at least difficult today.

5. Sprawlers. These cities are defined by their post-war suburban sprawl, but those in the 5A category at least have seen a fair bit of modern infill and rapid transit development, and now generally offer greater urban amenities than the 4B cities - and may eventually eclipse even the 4A cities. Urban living is a bit niche and doesn't hold widespread appeal, but is still possible, and the downtowns at least are still major employment centres. The 5B cities however are little more than monolithic suburbs and show little sign of being able to change that. A bit of an outlier, but I would also include Detroit in this category, despite being quintessentially "rust belt", as its urban core is just so far gone that most of what exists is firmly suburban in form & use.



A list of all metro areas over 1 million would come out looking something like this, to the best of my knowledge:


1. New York

2. Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, DC, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver

3A. Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles, Miami, San Diego, Ottawa
3B. Minneapolis, Denver, Calgary

4A. Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Providence, Milwaukee, Louisville, New Orleans, Richmond
4B. Indianapolis, Memphis, Buffalo, Rochester, Hartford, Columbus, Grand Rapids, Birmingham

5A. Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Charlotte, San Antonio, Nashville, Virginia Beach, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Edmonton
5B. Phoenix, Riverside, Orlando, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Detroit
Good list.

It's of course, entirely subjective, but I would drop Vancouver and DC out of list 2. Maybe make them 2B? And bring Seattle into that list while you're at it.

I think DC, Seattle and Vancouver all have more urban bones than already good, urban cities like Minneapolis and Denver, but definitively less than SF, Chicago and Boston, Philly, etc. Vancouver is certainly not in the same class as Toronto or Montreal, even accounting for size difference.

LA is, of course, the big anomaly that you can't really fit anywhere. Sure, it is a sunbelt sprawler built on speculative, automobile-oriented real estate during the 20th century. Still, it came of age so early on that it still has a mammoth prewar downtown with tremendous potential. You have to overlook the fact that it is the downtown of a megacity, but I think that it's definitely in the top 10, if not top 5.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 2:00 AM
Ant131531 Ant131531 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,981
D.C. has an average density of over 10.5k and rising...why shouldn't it be up there with Boston, Philly, and Chicago? It has plenty of rowhouse urban neighborhoods outside of the main urban core. Seattle is not as urban as D.C. by a long shot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 3:06 AM
jpdivola jpdivola is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 335
I can see an argument for DC being maybe a half tier behind the rest.

It is a lot smaller than Philly or Chicago and a lot less dense than SF. Boston is it's closest competitor. But, even there Boston is about 30% denser, with about the same population in a much smaller land mass. Plus, Boston has urban suburbs like Cambridge, Somerville and Chelsea with pop densities of 16kppsm and several with pops densities about 10k ppsm (Everett, Malden, Winthrop). Granted DC has some impressive urban zones around its suburbs. But, they don't sustain there densities like Boston's suburbs.

But, yeah, I would still say Seattle remains a full tier below them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 3:49 AM
Leo the Dog Leo the Dog is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Lower-48
Posts: 4,789
Isn't this thread about American exurban growth?

Not sure why so many Euro cities are being discussed.

I'd say that most cities continued to sprawl during the recession. The collapse in housing presented a huge opportunity for investors to buy and flip, driving the prices back up. The big homebuilders continue to build master planned communities.

Inner cities continue to develop with pleasant/pricey in-fill, but will never be able to meet the demand of housing. Outer suburbs are still cheap and attractive to young families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2015, 4:15 AM
599GTO 599GTO is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo the Dog View Post
Isn't this thread about American exurban growth?

Not sure why so many Euro cities are being discussed.

I'd say that most cities continued to sprawl during the recession. The collapse in housing presented a huge opportunity for investors to buy and flip, driving the prices back up. The big homebuilders continue to build master planned communities.

Inner cities continue to develop with pleasant/pricey in-fill, but will never be able to meet the demand of housing. Outer suburbs are still cheap and attractive to young families.
But no one cares about exurban growth. The American masse likes a lot of things, like McDonald's and growing out their waistlines, but it's such a boring thing to talk about, no?

European cities are being mentioned because European cities are generally more desirable model-cities, but unfortunately, euro-like cities aren't really a thing in the United States. That ship has sailed long ago, I'm afraid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:42 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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