Urbanizing Suburbs and Towns

[Sol]

What suburbs have begun to retrofit? I'm aware of some of those developments in Montco and NoVa, but where else? Do all of these increasingly urban places vote D?

What towns (i.e., not suburbs, but independent towns) are densifying? How do they vote?

[traininthedistance]

In North Jersey, you don't really have any concerted efforts on the county scale, or even the whole-township scale... but there are drips and drabs here and there of (re)development projects that are at least urbanist if not wholly urban.  Really mostly just on a site-by-site basis, especially on downtowns that need sprucing up or old long-vacant industrial sites. Eh... it's a start.  You're not gonna be bulldozing wholesale tracts of single-family homes anyway, and at least in the inner suburbs that I'm familiar with, there's at least a skeleton of a bus/commuter rail network and a non-atrocious street pattern, so that's something at least.  It's something pretty good by US standards!

Obviously it would be better to have something more comprehensive and concerted in that direction, but just as obviously the hyper-balkanized nature of NJ townships and boroughs will mean that this is just a pipe dream.

Probably the most noteworthy project I can think of is Wesmont in Wood-Ridge, for the simple reason that NJ Transit is actually adding a new infill commuter rail station there.  

[Nhoj]

Bloomington MN might fit, the area around the airport and MoA has been getting denser[mostly hotels] and also has light rail service.

[bgwah]

A lot of suburbs around Seattle have growing downtowns. State basically law requires it.

Bellevue is obviously the biggest:

[KingSweden]

A lot of suburbs around Seattle have growing downtowns. State basically law requires it.

Bellevue is obviously the biggest:

And what's incredible, for those of you unfamiliar with Bellevue, WA, is that this city "only" has 130,000 people within city limits and still has a skyline that looks like that.

[Citizen Hats]

Must be a pacific north west thing


Burnaby, BC (202,800)

Here's the plans for the middle-ring suburb of Surrey

[ilikeverin]

It is, yeah.  Smart growth people are in love with the Pacific Northwest.  MontCo and NoVa are, as mentioned, also excellent examples.  Maryland's been lagging behind a bit (thanks, PG), but I think the Purple Line should help improve on what's already been done.

I don't think Bloomington, MN is doing anything like this right now, but for various reasons they're not a bad candidate for doing so in the future, if the municipality can be convinced it's a good idea.  The only worry is really that there are still stretches of Minneapolis and St. Paul that aren't really urban, and with the Green Line just opening I think St. Paul is going to be in for a fun time in the near future.

[Sol]

It is, yeah.  Smart growth people are in love with the Pacific Northwest.  MontCo and NoVa are, as mentioned, also excellent examples.  Maryland's been lagging behind a bit (thanks, PG), but I think the Purple Line should help improve on what's already been done.

I don't think Bloomington, MN is doing anything like this right now, but for various reasons they're not a bad candidate for doing so in the future, if the municipality can be convinced it's a good idea.  The only worry is really that there are still stretches of Minneapolis and St. Paul that aren't really urban, and with the Green Line just opening I think St. Paul is going to be in for a fun time in the near future.

Why is PG less friendly to such stuff? Is it a legacy of white flight?

[ilikeverin]

It is, yeah.  Smart growth people are in love with the Pacific Northwest.  MontCo and NoVa are, as mentioned, also excellent examples.  Maryland's been lagging behind a bit (thanks, PG), but I think the Purple Line should help improve on what's already been done.

I don't think Bloomington, MN is doing anything like this right now, but for various reasons they're not a bad candidate for doing so in the future, if the municipality can be convinced it's a good idea.  The only worry is really that there are still stretches of Minneapolis and St. Paul that aren't really urban, and with the Green Line just opening I think St. Paul is going to be in for a fun time in the near future.

Why is PG less friendly to such stuff? Is it a legacy of white flight?

Er, PG is about 65% black, so...

Rather, it's just that the county government is incompetent, and has been for many decades.  (That might be indirectly the result of white-flight; like many majority-minority locations, PG has hardly seen any investment over the years from higher levels.)  It absolutely refuses to invest in intelligent growth, instead preferring the same large tracts of single-family homes far from transit that used to be the norm.  Single-family subdivisions don't sustain urbanization.   In a way, PG is more like everywhere else in the country; what needs to be explained is why Arlington (more than anywhere near DC), Montgomery (quite a bit), and Fairfax (to a surprising extent in recent times) have all been so good at investing in responsible growth.

[Hatman 🍁]

Must be a pacific north west thing


Burnaby, BC (202,800)

Here's the plans for the middle-ring suburb of Surrey

Well, there's no room in the Lower Mainland to build more suburbs. You can only go up. Unless you want to live in Langley or Abbotsford, but no one wants that.

[Citizen Hats]

Well, there's no room in the Lower Mainland to build more suburbs. You can only go up. Unless you want to live in Langley or Abbotsford, but no one wants that.

There is. A lot of the bottom lands are still undeveloped (by law) like East Richmond, Most of Delta, Central Surrey, and Pitt Meadows. There's still a fair amount of less fertile Glacial Upland areas which can be tracted. You can still go up the hillsides. Public policy is largely opposed to this, but it's not impossible

As for no one wanting to live in Langley or Abbotsford, someone has to vote for Warawa

[Kushahontas]

A lot of suburbs around Seattle have growing downtowns. State basically law requires it.

Bellevue is obviously the biggest:

Could you (or anyone else) elaborate?

[Hatman 🍁]

Well, there's no room in the Lower Mainland to build more suburbs. You can only go up. Unless you want to live in Langley or Abbotsford, but no one wants that.

There is. A lot of the bottom lands are still undeveloped (by law) like East Richmond, Most of Delta, Central Surrey, and Pitt Meadows. There's still a fair amount of less fertile Glacial Upland areas which can be tracted. You can still go up the hillsides. Public policy is largely opposed to this, but it's not impossible

As for no one wanting to live in Langley or Abbotsford, someone has to vote for Warawa

OK, there's land available. But even if public policy wasn't against developing it, it would be ridiculously expensive to live there.

[Sol]

It is, yeah.  Smart growth people are in love with the Pacific Northwest.  MontCo and NoVa are, as mentioned, also excellent examples.  Maryland's been lagging behind a bit (thanks, PG), but I think the Purple Line should help improve on what's already been done.

I don't think Bloomington, MN is doing anything like this right now, but for various reasons they're not a bad candidate for doing so in the future, if the municipality can be convinced it's a good idea.  The only worry is really that there are still stretches of Minneapolis and St. Paul that aren't really urban, and with the Green Line just opening I think St. Paul is going to be in for a fun time in the near future.

Why is PG less friendly to such stuff? Is it a legacy of white flight?

Er, PG is about 65% black, so...

Rather, it's just that the county government is incompetent, and has been for many decades.  (That might be indirectly the result of white-flight; like many majority-minority locations, PG has hardly seen any investment over the years from higher levels.)  It absolutely refuses to invest in intelligent growth, instead preferring the same large tracts of single-family homes far from transit that used to be the norm.  Single-family subdivisions don't sustain urbanization.   In a way, PG is more like everywhere else in the country; what needs to be explained is why Arlington (more than anywhere near DC), Montgomery (quite a bit), and Fairfax (to a surprising extent in recent times) have all been so good at investing in responsible growth.

What I meant was that it might have tried to stop white flight by discouraging urbanization and transit back in the late 20th century, unsuccessfully of course.

[pbrower2a]

America's suburbs are aging.  Suburbs that grew up fast in the years immediately after WWII are now 60 or more years old. So are the streets, the water lines, the sewers, and the schools. Has that infrastructure since become obsolete or worn out?

Much of it will have to be rebuilt, lest such places begin to bear an uncanny resemblance to Detroit.

[jimrtex]

Well, there's no room in the Lower Mainland to build more suburbs. You can only go up. Unless you want to live in Langley or Abbotsford, but no one wants that.

There is. A lot of the bottom lands are still undeveloped (by law) like East Richmond, Most of Delta, Central Surrey, and Pitt Meadows. There's still a fair amount of less fertile Glacial Upland areas which can be tracted. You can still go up the hillsides. Public policy is largely opposed to this, but it's not impossible

As for no one wanting to live in Langley or Abbotsford, someone has to vote for Warawa

OK, there's land available. But even if public policy wasn't against developing it, it would be ridiculously expensive to live there.

Does anyone commute from beyond Hope?

[Citizen Hats]

Well, there's no room in the Lower Mainland to build more suburbs. You can only go up. Unless you want to live in Langley or Abbotsford, but no one wants that.

There is. A lot of the bottom lands are still undeveloped (by law) like East Richmond, Most of Delta, Central Surrey, and Pitt Meadows. There's still a fair amount of less fertile Glacial Upland areas which can be tracted. You can still go up the hillsides. Public policy is largely opposed to this, but it's not impossible

As for no one wanting to live in Langley or Abbotsford, someone has to vote for Warawa

OK, there's land available. But even if public policy wasn't against developing it, it would be ridiculously expensive to live there.

Does anyone commute from beyond Hope?

I can't imagine more than a few. Some people commute from Whistler though

[bgwah]

A lot of suburbs around Seattle have growing downtowns. State basically law requires it.

Bellevue is obviously the biggest:

Could you (or anyone else) elaborate?

I'm referring to the Growth Management Act. In addition to regulating new sprawl, it requires existing cities to accomodate a certain amount of growth. Since many are already built out, they have to build denser. In the suburbs (and Seattle, for that matter) it is politically popular for municipalities to focus growth in their "downtowns" and town centers, usually replacing light commercial or light industrial uses with higher density mixed use developments, while preserving existing single family neighborhoods.