Is it possible to retrofit ANY suburban area for urbanity, or are some impossible?

[Cirrus]

Is this statement true?

Originally Posted by Centropolis

everything can be retrofitted to be walkable. everywhere.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that the political and economic will to retrofit any given suburban area to become walkably urban does exist. Can it be done, or are there limitations on where?

Obviously some places will be easier than others. Commercial streets in gridded areas are pretty easy, while single-family-home subdivisions on cul-de-sacs are hard. But are the latter impossible?

Discuss.

[Centropolis]

i'll quote myself here:

Originally Posted by Centropolis

"walkable" is a nebulous standard but it stands to reason that (example) buckhead is becoming "walkable" according to a reasonable standard. it really doesn't take all that much, and i think becomes more obvious when you travel outside of the western world.

[JManc]

With enough money...and demand. Anything is possible. As far as SFH homes on a cul-de-sac, all that would entail is a developer with enough money to entice home-owners away and redevelop the entire area.

[Steely Dan]

can enough money be thrown at a place like schaumburg to completely rip out all that currently exists there and rebuild it from scratch in a normal human-scaled fashion?

sure.

is there any plausible scenario where that would actually happen in the real world?

hell no.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by JManc

With enough money...and demand. Anything is possible. As far as SFH homes on a cul-de-sac, all that would entail is a developer with enough money to entice home-owners away and redevelop the entire area.

This literally has happened in the DC area. There was a cul-de-sac subdivision of houses adjacent to Vienna Metro station in Fairfax County, which collectively decided to sell out for a denser redevelopment. The developer literally bulldozed everything and started over from a blank slate.

But this is rare, and isn't likely to work on a large scale.

Can it happen incrementally, without bulldozing everything and starting over completely?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

This literally has happened in the DC area. There was a cul-de-sac subdivision of houses adjacent to Vienna Metro station in Fairfax County, which collectively decided to sell out for a denser redevelopment. The developer literally bulldozed everything and started over from a blank slate.

But this is rare, and isn't likely to work on a large scale.

Can it happen incrementally, without bulldozing everything and starting over completely?

Yes. I see this all over Houston; older ranch style homes snapped up and replaced by 2-3 townhomes on the same plot of land. It's taken 15-20 years and will probably go on for another 15-20 years and then move on to other areas that are becoming ripe for (re)development)

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by JManc

Yes. I see this all over Houston; older ranch style homes snapped up and replaced by 2-3 townhomes on the same plot of land. It's taken 15-20 years and will probably go on for another 15-20 years and then move on to other areas that are becoming ripe for (re)development)

Those are mostly in generally gridded, vaguely-human scale & urban formatted inner-suburban areas though, aren't they?

It's totally possible for something like this to urbanize organically over time, given the necessary regulatory framework and demand: https://goo.gl/maps/s57MDwjpaLK2

But between the lack of a cohesive street grid, arterials with houses backing onto them instead of being fronted with retail, condo ownership/homeowners associations & gated communities, single-ownership power centres, and physical segregation of neighbourhoods, it's simply not possible to retrofit something like this however, short of bulldozing everything and starting over: https://goo.gl/maps/sxkz7yA8zq12

[JManc]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Those are mostly in generally gridded, vaguely-human scale & urban formatted inner-suburban areas though, aren't they?

It's totally possible for something like this to urbanize organically over time: https://goo.gl/maps/s57MDwjpaLK2

Between the lack of a cohesive street grid, arterials with houses backing onto them instead of being fronted with retail, condo ownership/homeowners associations & gated communities, and physical segregation of neighbourhoods, it's simply not possible to retrofit something like this however, short of bulldozing everything and starting over: https://goo.gl/maps/sxkz7yA8zq12

The first neighborhood is right in town and within earshot of existing redevelopment. The second area, Katy, is so far from town and prospects of redevelopment. Even if it was gridded, it likely won't be replaced in our lifetimes..

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Those are mostly in generally gridded, vaguely-human scale & urban formatted inner-suburban areas though, aren't they?

It's totally possible for something like this to urbanize organically over time, given the necessary regulatory framework and demand: https://goo.gl/maps/s57MDwjpaLK2

But between the lack of a cohesive street grid, arterials with houses backing onto them instead of being fronted with retail, condo ownership/homeowners associations & gated communities, single-ownership power centres, and physical segregation of neighbourhoods, it's simply not possible to retrofit something like this however, short of bulldozing everything and starting over: https://goo.gl/maps/sxkz7yA8zq12

Eh, you could turn the latter into something like:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Buc...4!4d26.1025384

but it's not going to happen ever...

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by JManc

Yes. I see this all over Houston; older ranch style homes snapped up and replaced by 2-3 townhomes on the same plot of land.

Houston's Rice-Military neighborhood is famous in YIMBY circles for this. But Rice-Military is happening on a grid, pretty close to downtown Houston. And the townhouses being built are at the low end of walkable, with big garages and driveways.

The garages/driveways are obviously a solvable issue; these could be designed just as easily without them. But are these townhouse conversions happening further out in cul-de-sac areas of Houston? Can you show us?

[muertecaza]

I took a minute to try to find the area in Phoenix-metro that would be hardest to retrofit to be walkable. I'm taking the word "retrofit" to mean that we're not talking about just a mass demolition and starting over.

Exhibit 1:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6207.../data=!3m1!1e3

Sun City area in the west suburbs. Circular pattern of streets that go nowhere. Don't know how you could "retrofit" that to make it walkable--there's nowhere to walk but in a circle.

Exhibit 2:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5279.../data=!3m1!1e3

Paradise Valley. Large lots, random street orientation, no sidewalks. Again, if we're talking an imaginary world, I guess you could bulldoze the entire square mile and lay in a grid, sidewalks, bikelanes, etc. But if we're talking about "retrofitting" something, i.e. adding to and adapting the existing built environment, I don't see how it's possible.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by JManc

Yes. I see this all over Houston; older ranch style homes snapped up and replaced by 2-3 townhomes on the same plot of land. It's taken 15-20 years and will probably go on for another 15-20 years and then move on to other areas that are becoming ripe for (re)development)

As much development/redevelopment that is going on in Houston I see nothing resembling a traditional walkable-urban environment. . . I don't think that this trend you're referring to will make any difference. . .

. . .

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

As much development/redevelopment that is going on in Houston I see nothing resembling a traditional walkable-urban environment. . . I don't think that this trend you're referring to will make any difference. . .

. . .

Certainly not. It's denser than before but still not conducive to creating/ facilitating walkability. People will still get into their cars and drive...

[iheartthed]

Nothing is impossible. But some things are extremely unlikely. It would take a pretty heavy handed government to change the human scale of some places. You can already see how it would play out by looking at places, like the Bay Area, that are having housing shortages.

[Cirrus]

Eh, I don't think walkable is particularly nebulous. You can define it pretty easily by asking something like "For a given area, do the majority of people walk or drive to obtain basic daily necessities like toilet paper and bread?" Of course it's a spectrum so insisting on a simple yes/no dichotomy is problematic, but I think the basic concept of "more walkable compared to less walkable" is easy to identify.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Eh, I don't think walkable is particularly nebulous. You can define it pretty easily by asking something like "For a given area, do the majority of people walk or drive to obtain basic daily necessities like toilet paper and bread?" Of course it's a spectrum so insisting on a simple yes/no dichotomy is problematic, but I think the basic concept of "more walkable compared to less walkable" is easy to identify.

True. However, look at most Japanese cities. Their residential neighborhoods usually feature no sidewalk. Here in the USA we would automatically think that neighborhood is not walkable and in some sense not urban. Its quite the opposite though. This is also true for many third world countries. Seemingly hostile areas for pedestrians are full of them.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

True. However, look at most Japanese cities. Their residential neighborhoods usually feature no sidewalk. Here in the USA we would automatically think that neighborhood is not walkable and in some sense not urban. Its quite the opposite though. This is also true for many third world countries. Seemingly hostile areas for pedestrians are full of them.

The other end of your observation is the many places we do see sidewalks on every single street and not one pedestrian using them.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

The other end of your observation is the many places we do see sidewalks on every single street and not one pedestrian using them.

...or people walk in the streets instead.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by me

Eh, I don't think walkable is particularly nebulous. You can define it pretty easily by asking something like "For a given area, do the majority of people walk or drive to obtain basic daily necessities like toilet paper and bread?"

Originally Posted by jtown,man

look at most Japanese cities. Their residential neighborhoods usually feature no sidewalk. Here in the USA we would automatically think that neighborhood is not walkable

I don't understand how this is a counterexample. The definition I provided would call a Japanese neighborhood walkable and a US suburb not walkable, regardless of the presence or lack of a sidewalk.

I agree completely that the existence of a sidewalk is not what makes a place walkable.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I don't understand how this is a counterexample. The definition I provided would call a Japanese neighborhood walkable and a US suburb not walkable, regardless of the presence or lack of a sidewalk.

I agree completely that the existence of a sidewalk is not what makes a place walkable.

Oh no, I wasn't debating your point. I was only mentioning the built environment we might expect(or demand here in the states) might not be the same as an actual functioning walkable environment.