Most underdeveloped areas of your city

[memph]

Relative to demand?

So basically if you had no zoning, what areas would see the most growth?

Some areas are low density, but there's also less demand to live there due to having lower quality amenities, or greater distance from transportation and job centres.

The differences can be pretty sharp at time. Like downtowns are often going to have dozens of transit lines converging onto them, while neighbourhoods just 1-2 miles away will only have 1-2 transit lines going through them, which can make a big difference in how desirable they are.

[10023]

I'm a bit confused by the premise. Wouldn't the most underdeveloped areas include those that are centrally located but currently lacking transit? It doesn't make sense to assume that transit infrastructure is fixed and it's just about what private developers would do without zoning (even if that is the way many Americans might look at it).

[Cirrus]

Washington, DC:

Most underdeveloped in total: East of the River neighborhoods.

Most underdeveloped relative to demand: Downtown, particularly Metro Center, Farragut Square, and Gallery Place. There would be 100-story skyscrapers there if not for the height limit. Downtown DC has more office space than any other downtown in America outside NY or Chicago. That's how much demand there is.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Well, there are areas in Kansas City that are still farmland, so I guess that counts as underdeveloped!

[ChargerCarl]

Santa Monica

[memph]

Originally Posted by 10023

I'm a bit confused by the premise. Wouldn't the most underdeveloped areas include those that are centrally located but currently lacking transit? It doesn't make sense to assume that transit infrastructure is fixed and it's just about what private developers would do without zoning (even if that is the way many Americans might look at it).

I think they're ways of looking at it have value.

Although I think centrally located areas lacking transit will probably still be relatively heavily developed (if zoning allows it) even if not to the same extent as those that do have transit.

In Vancouver, the Fairview-Kitsilano area and Downtown West End don't really have any rail transit, but they're centrally located so they're still some of the city's densest neighbourhoods. The Beltline/Mission area of Calgary is similar.

In Vancouver, it seems to be

Western Vancouver - very expensive, low-ish density
Eastern Vancouver - quite expensive, high-ish density
Older neighbourhoods of Surrey - fairly affordable, least dense parts of Metro Vancouver
Newer neighbourhoods of Surrey/Langley - very affordable (considering it's new construction, not much more expensive than Ottawa or Calgary suburbs), high-ish density... probably denser than the densest SFH areas of Metro Vancouver, but those have more apartments nearby. Redevelopment is highly unlikely to be feasible here even if you allowed it.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Washington, DC:

Most underdeveloped in total: East of the River neighborhoods.

Most underdeveloped relative to demand: Downtown, particularly Metro Center, Farragut Square, and Gallery Place. There would be 100-story skyscrapers there if not for the height limit. Downtown DC has more office space than any other downtown in America outside NY or Chicago. That's how much demand there is.

Wouldn't NW DC (or SFH areas of Arlington/Alexandria) be more underdeveloped since they're similarly low density but more desirable? Although I get that people would rather see DC East of the River redeveloped since the housing stock that would get replaced is not as nice and new development would be more likely to be seen as improving the area.

[mhays]

2/3 of the city of Seattle is single-family-only zones, and demand is booming with almost no change in supply. Our "liberal and inclusive" city is heavily weighted to keeping that 2/3 as exclusive and expensive as possible. The most extreme cases are anything with houses close to transit and jobs....parts of Queen Anne Hill, Capitol Hill, etc.

[10023]

Anyway, my answer would be much of east London between the City and Canary Wharf (Shadwell, Stepney, Limehouse).

One problem is that transit isn't great (the DLR is there, but capacity doesn't match heavy rail). But it's located between two of London's main office/skyscraper districts, and the building stock is largely 1950s/60s council estates (the area was heavily bombed in the Blitz) which could be redeveloped en masse without losing historical structures.

The other area is right across the river in Rotherhithe and the old Surrey Docks. This is another area that lacks historical neighborhoods, but was redeveloped in the 1980s when London didn't have the housing demand that it has now. The transit is good (Jubilee line and overground), and proximity to Canary Wharf, Southwark and the City should make it a prime residential and entertainment area. Instead, its full of underscaled housing developments on cul-de-sacs (like subdivisions) and an actual shopping mall with surface parking.

This is an old map showing both sides of the river. The City and Southwark are to the left, the Isle of Dogs on the right is now Canary Wharf and other housing. In between is a poorly planned area developed between the 1950s (north of river) and 1980s (south of river), which is all totally out of place given its central location:


Both of these areas should be torn down and rebuilt from scratch if one wants to address London's housing shortage. It would have to be done in phases, but at massive scale, because the roads would need to be rearranged as well.

[AFW523]

Pittsburgh, PA: The Strip District

It's all relative, as it's actually seeing an unfathomable amount of new development, but it's still yet to scratch the surface of it forward-facing potential. The most ambitious proposals get NIMBY'd out due to the century-old industrial zoning codes.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by memph

Relative to demand?

So basically if you had no zoning, what areas would see the most growth?

That's an easy question.

Basically everything along the coastal zone would experience a massive boom. San Diego would double in population. The 30 foot cap would end and the region would be able to build enough units to meet demand. South Florida 2.0

We still have surface parking lots across the street from the beach alongside mid century garden style apt buildings that are not aging gracefully. It's difficult to pencil out a profit when you can't exceed 30 feet unless you build ultra luxury/expensive units.

[emathias]

Chicago has several manufacturing or service districts very close to the Loop. Those would likely have been developed very differently if they didn't have the zoning they do.

[mhays]

All cities have industrial districts, and in all high-demand cities this land would be worth more if other uses and higher densities were allowed. But that's kind of like wishing your lungs were made of muscle...muscle is good, but you kinda need lungs.

Many downtown fringe areas are going from light industry and warehouses to mixed uses and higher density. But these tend to be the lower-value districts, and the change has been on a smaller scale. The big industrial districts and the key places like alongside modern port areas have generally stayed industrial.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by mhays

All cities have industrial districts, and in all high-demand cities this land would be worth more if other uses and higher densities were allowed. But that's kind of like wishing your lungs were made of muscle...muscle is good, but you kinda need lungs.

Good analogy. But industrial districts don't usually need to be in the immediate core of the city, so moving them out a couple of miles to redevelop can make sense.

[PhilliesPhan]

Philadelphia is an unusual case, as many of the major undeveloped areas in our city now have solid plans for development. In our city, our undeveloped areas are limited to stretches of roadway and a few surface parking lots.

Our most underdeveloped area relative to demand--the surface lots and rail yards near 30th Street Station in University City--already has multiple plans for it. Schuylkill Yards and the 30th Street Station District Plan are going to fundamentally transform the easternmost section of West Philly, and essentially plop a second "Center City" in University City. Adding to this will be "uCity Square", a major expansion of the University City Science Center at the former site of University City High School. Another hugely undeveloped area is the North Chinatown/Callowhill/Eraserhood neighborhood, immediately north of Center City between Broad, Vine, Spring Garden, and 10th Street. This neighborhood is starting to see early signs of development as the Reading Viaduct elevated railpark is finally starting to undergo construction. Once the railpark vision comes to fruition, many of the open lots in this district will eventually be developed due to the anticipated spike in demand.

A few surface lots that immediately come to mind are those that line Market Street in Center City. 23rd (on either side of Market), 22nd, and 8th all have huge surface parking lots. 21st and 13th are currently surface parking lots (at 21st and Market, a parking garage is being demolished to expand a temporary surface lot), but have proposals for towers. Also along Market, there are several low-rise structures that have the potential for development. PREIT recently acquired a block-long parcel on 10th and Market (across from the new development at 11th and Market), so that may be developed in the near future. The Gallery, a suburban-style shopping mall spanning from 11th to 8th Street, was constructed with concrete bases to support mid-rise towers. With the current renaissance of Market East, I am hopeful that a lot of the empty lots east of City Hall--along with proposals that have been floated around--will be realized soon. Outside of Center City, a large lot at the NE corner of Broad and Washington has a proposal that is unlikely to be realized.

As for stretches of roadway, North Broad Street is underdeveloped. Many Philadelphians are hopeful for continuous urbanity between Center City and the main campus of Temple University, but I would like to see it stretch to either Lehigh or Glenwood Avenue. Those two intersections are major transit nodes, with a Broad Street Line and two Regional Rail stations.

There are major areas in Philly that are underdeveloped, but lack the demand to have anything immediately built. Out of these areas, Logan Triangle--near Broad and Roosevelt Boulevard--has been a huge swath of open land since the 80s. That land is mostly unstable, as unstable fill was used when the Wingohocken Creek was converted to a sewer to keep development spreading north in the late 19th/early 20th Century. Columbus Boulevard/Delaware Avenue along the Delaware River is also noticeably underdeveloped. It was a formerly industrial stretch until I-95 was constructed and separated the Delaware River from the rest of Philly. Finally, I see potential with many of the surface parking lots in the Sports Complex. I think that many of parking lots could be built upon (a hotel would be great at Broad and Pattison), but an entertainment district in the Sports Complex isn't something that many people are pushing for.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by memph

Wouldn't NW DC (or SFH areas of Arlington/Alexandria) be more underdeveloped since they're similarly low density but more desirable?

Hm. Those areas would definitely density a lot if they could, but I don't think we'd see 100-story skyscrapers there like we would at Farragut Square.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Good analogy. But industrial districts don't usually need to be in the immediate core of the city, so moving them out a couple of miles to redevelop can make sense.

That's what I'm wondering too. A lot of the close in industrial areas of Toronto have converted to office and residential. The somewhat more inner suburban ones often are zoned "employment" and are just redeveloping into low density office space and big box stores... There's still plenty of land for industry in the more outlying suburbs though.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Good analogy. But industrial districts don't usually need to be in the immediate core of the city, so moving them out a couple of miles to redevelop can make sense.

Agreed in general, but anecdotally it seems pretty common for the rail, seaports, road networks, and flat land to be in core areas. The factors that influenced the location of the city center often influenced where the industry went also.

Another issue is that in high-demand cities, there's no "easy" nearby alternative to move to. So as pressures increase, some companies move to the outer suburbs, some leave the region entirely, some find ways to operate with less land (impressive but expensive and limiting), etc.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by mhays

Another issue is that in high-demand cities, there's no "easy" nearby alternative to move to.

Totally. The only reason the industrial areas are in demand at all is because they're the only places we're willing to rezone. If we were willing to rezone nearby residential neighborhoods to higher density, development would flock there and leave the industrial areas alone.

[memph]

Originally Posted by mhays

Agreed in general, but anecdotally it seems pretty common for the rail, seaports, road networks, and flat land to be in core areas. The factors that influenced the location of the city center often influenced where the industry went also.

Another issue is that in high-demand cities, there's no "easy" nearby alternative to move to. So as pressures increase, some companies move to the outer suburbs, some leave the region entirely, some find ways to operate with less land (impressive but expensive and limiting), etc.

It would be interesting to compare how the transportation infrastructure and geography influences what areas are most desirable for industry.

In Toronto the industry used to be concentrated around the railways that converged on downtown and around the harbour. However, as industry in Toronto experienced a lot of expansion post-WWII, there was little room for expansion in the core, and new industrial areas with associated infrastructure was developed in the suburbs.

Toronto's downtown railyards were redeveloped into housing. The freight rail corridors were converted to passenger rail. Great Lakes ports aren't what they used to be. The urban core highway network never got very developed. Meanwhile, there are many major highways and railyards in the "suburbs", and the airport is also in the suburbs.

Chicago seems similar to Toronto. Most of the industry and related infrastructure seems to be in the outer city limits and inner suburbs and satellite cities (ex Gary). Seattle's freight transportation seems a lot more geared towards ports, like other coastal cities.