[meme] How would you rather see this land developed?
[meme] How would you rather see this land developed?
You're viewing a single thread.
Might be a silly question, but would it be better if we somehow turned suburbs into being more akin to rural towns? Like the suburbs could maybe have nearby town centers that they could walk to in 10-15 minutes that would allow small businesses to operate in.
I don’t live on the mainland, so no idea how it actually works.
Absolutely. Back in the day before the car, even rural towns were built fairly densely, typically around a train station. They had to be, because you had to be able to walk everywhere in town, and the train was the main way to get in and out of town. Even to this day, many streetcar suburbs exist, where they had lain out a streetcar line radiating from the city center into the countryside and built mid-density along it. Many of these suburbs exist to this day, and they are often dense, walkable, transit-oriented, highly desirable, while not being anything so dense as Manhattan.
This style of development has been made literally illegal in most of North America through restrictive zoning codes, parking minimums, setback requirements, and other local regulations.
If we just made a return to traditional ways of building communities, our cities and towns and suburbs would all be vastly more human-centric than they are today.
I can't see the NYT article, it's behind a paywall, or maybe just an email wall, I dunno, but I find it hard to believe that "most" of America restricts density. I live in NJ and density is almost a must these days, we've essentially developed everywhere. Even the towns with multimillion dollar homes are being forced to accept density.
Personally, the solution needs to be tax land higher. You want your 2 acre property? You're gonna pay for it. And that money will be used to help keep housing affordable.
You live in one of the most dense parts of the country. Go West and you'll see more single family homes and WAY WAY WAY less density
For sure, agreed. But there's so much goddamn land and so few people. It's not like the sprawling suburbia of NJ. I just don't know that we can apply the same standard, or what the value would be for doing so. It makes sense along the northeast corridor. Land is valuable, and it's a great place to live, and in an effort to keep things affordable we can apply density. Out west, in states that, when I look at a map, I need to really think about what state it is, I don't know that the density is as necessary. And where it is necessary, cities exist. But I'll admit, I've been to St. Louis once, but probably nowhere else within maybe 250 miles of it, so it's a mystery to me.
I'm not even sure what I'm talking about anymore, I've lost the point.
Unfortunately it is actually true (pink = detached SFH zoning):
Non-paywall version of the article [here](https://archive.ph/eZZWw
It's also true in Canada:
https://www.datalabto.ca/a-visual-guide-to-detached-houses-in-5-canadian-cities/
But yes, definitely [email protected]
I look to my own state because it's what I know. A city like Jersey City has an R-1 zone for it's least dense zone. At a minimum, you're talking two family housing. Replacing old housing stock is a process, and so while the zoning has changed to allow for greater density, it's just taking time.
New York looks pretty good to me, and I think could be a model. I think even 65/35 would be a good mix of high and medium density to single and two family housing.
In regards to all these cities, zoning may be in place for SFH, but how old is that zoning? Some places just don't update their master plans. And like I said, I can't really speak outside of NJ because the law is going to be different anywhere. I like to think it's just a matter of time before things get modernized, but I don't know.
Yes, absolutely. You can also combine both proposals, and have apartment blocks near those neighborhood shopping centers. The people who want their yards and lawns can have them, there's room for more people who don't mind living in an apartment, and the businesses that open in those town/neighborhood centers have more customers living close by. I live in a city in the Netherlands that has put this concept into practice, and it's really great.
I mean, that's kind how it is where I live. I live in a 1400sf home on .23 acres of land. I'm five blocks from downtown, where there's businesses, a courthouse, a train station, thousands of apartments. All the schools are walkable. Parks are walkable, with amenities like pools/splash parks, playgrounds, a paved trail network. We fit about 6,000 people per square mile, which is pretty dense.
I don't think it exactly fits the 15m city concept, because I don't think there are enough jobs in town to support everyone, but it's a pretty good mix. A variety of housing types is important, simply because people want what they want, and I think it makes a more cohesive society to try to have something for everyone.
"Streetcar suburbs" were a thing in this country for a long time. Towns would get built up along streetcar lines, and people would walk to the streetcar to commute into the city. Because there weren't huge numbers of cars density was a lot higher and it was very walkable.
Which country?
The US. Denver used to have 160 miles of streetcars. The Streetcar Conspiracy that they make fun of in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Straight up what happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Yeah low density housing with lots of green space, local stores public transport links is a far better environment to live in
Low rises (<5 stories) is actually the best of all worlds. Allows for more density but doesn't feel crowded.
I like the idea of a villiage square type plan. You have a bunch of 2-5 story buildings around a central green area. Each square is essentially a little community and you can allocate some of the ground level space to retail.
I live in an area with great green space and great neighbours, I just wish I didn't have to leave my area to get to literally any shop.