The conservative case for denser cities

[memphis]

Treasure Island and West Oakland are some good places for lots of new apartment buildings.

I understand things are headed in the right direction over there, but I still wouldn't call West Oakland a "good" place for lots of new apartment buildings. Most people with any sort of alternative wouldn't even consider living there. Legal issues notwithstanding, from my point of view, most of the Presidio is an enormous waste of space in a city that is starved for real estate. If I were emperor, that's where I'd start in creating new housing for San Francisco.

[MaxQue]

Treasure Island and West Oakland are some good places for lots of new apartment buildings.

I understand things are headed in the right direction over there, but I still wouldn't call West Oakland a "good" place for lots of new apartment buildings. Most people with any sort of alternative wouldn't even consider living there. Legal issues notwithstanding, from my point of view, most of the Presidio is an enormous waste of space in a city that is starved for real estate. If I were emperor, that's where I'd start in creating new housing for San Francisco.

Well, we need to keep parks. Should we replace Central Park by housing?

[traininthedistance]

This issue comes up a lot in the DC area.  People say the character would be the same if the buildings were 20-30 stories rather than 10-12.  People also say there is too much historic preservation of crappy buildings that could at least be turned into 10-12 story buildings.  However, there are a lot of issues that come with increasing density... pollution, noise, street parking.  It's a huge undertaking.  It seems like the better thing is to just build more large nearby cities that compete with the inner city.  This is essentially what is happening in NOVA where there are lots of mini-cities within 40 minutes of DC.

Maybe if DC allowed its central business district to exceed 12-13 stories, it might actually have character for once.  Because it certainly ain't got none right now.

Also lol @ the idea that "just building more large nearby cities" will reduce pollution, parking demand, and all that.  It'll inexorably and obviously make those problems much worse, and add new ones besides.  (To be fair, at this point the cat is sufficiently out of the bag that obviously doing things like urbanizing Arlington and other already-developed areas will do more good than harm.  That's fine. But it's just such a band-aid- there is no substitute for building up the core itself.)

[traininthedistance]

Treasure Island and West Oakland are some good places for lots of new apartment buildings.

I understand things are headed in the right direction over there, but I still wouldn't call West Oakland a "good" place for lots of new apartment buildings. Most people with any sort of alternative wouldn't even consider living there. Legal issues notwithstanding, from my point of view, most of the Presidio is an enormous waste of space in a city that is starved for real estate. If I were emperor, that's where I'd start in creating new housing for San Francisco.

Well, we need to keep parks. Should we replace Central Park by housing?

No, but we should look into this visionary proposal.

...

To be serious for a moment, Jane Jacobs was actually kind of scornful of parks (or at least skeptical of their universal acclaim), as she thought they interrupted the urban fabric, and served as underused boundaries and poorly-lit havens for crime and unsavory characters.  And some parks are probably sufficiently poorly designed, maintained, or sited such they may as well be empty lots and could be used better in other ways.   But she was also writing at a time when urban crime was on the rise, and it's likely that some of the problems she identified were a product of her time rather than universal.  In any case, developing parkland is going to be considered a bridge too far by just about everybody, and I am not going to be the person to take a brave stand against trees.

[Simfan34]

LOL you've seen that.

Personally, I like the DC height limit. It defines the character of the city. The city seems pretty dense as is, the 7-8 stories it allows is more than reasonable as far as density is concerned. The average American city is pretty dull, I don't see any reason to make DC more like it.

[bedstuy]

Treasure Island and West Oakland are some good places for lots of new apartment buildings.

I understand things are headed in the right direction over there, but I still wouldn't call West Oakland a "good" place for lots of new apartment buildings. Most people with any sort of alternative wouldn't even consider living there. Legal issues notwithstanding, from my point of view, most of the Presidio is an enormous waste of space in a city that is starved for real estate. If I were emperor, that's where I'd start in creating new housing for San Francisco.

Well, we need to keep parks. Should we replace Central Park by housing?

No, but we should look into this visionary proposal.

...

To be serious for a moment, Jane Jacobs was actually kind of scornful of parks (or at least skeptical of their universal acclaim), as she thought they interrupted the urban fabric, and served as underused boundaries and poorly-lit havens for crime and unsavory characters.  And some parks are probably sufficiently poorly designed, maintained, or sited such they may as well be empty lots and could be used better in other ways.   But she was also writing at a time when urban crime was on the rise, and it's likely that some of the problems she identified were a product of her time rather than universal.  In any case, developing parkland is going to be considered a bridge too far by just about everybody, and I am not going to be the person to take a brave stand against trees.

We should really just build over our big cemeteries like Greenwood and The Evergreens. 

[Simfan34]

Trinity Cemetery (in Audubon Park) needs to be dug up and turned into a public park, yes. Over a century after its construction, Audubon Terrace, a magnificent public space, hasn't reached a fraction of its potential. I mean, that has the capacity to be a great neighborhood.

[bedstuy]

These would make great micro-studio apartments!

[Storebought]

These would make great micro-studio apartments!

The poltergeists deserve to torment the future tenants of those buildings.

[traininthedistance]

I'm sure at least some of you are aware of how, in the olden days, those big cemeteries basically were their cities' marquee public parks, and people would go on their Sundays off to picnic among the gravestones and the grass and trees. 

[Simfan34]

I'm sure at least some of you are aware of how, in the olden days, those big cemeteries basically were their cities' marquee public parks, and people would go on their Sundays off to picnic among the gravestones and the grass and trees. 

Of course we know. But it isn't the olden days.

[memphis]

Treasure Island and West Oakland are some good places for lots of new apartment buildings.

I understand things are headed in the right direction over there, but I still wouldn't call West Oakland a "good" place for lots of new apartment buildings. Most people with any sort of alternative wouldn't even consider living there. Legal issues notwithstanding, from my point of view, most of the Presidio is an enormous waste of space in a city that is starved for real estate. If I were emperor, that's where I'd start in creating new housing for San Francisco.

Well, we need to keep parks. Should we replace Central Park by housing?

Golden Gate Park is San Fran's Central Park, and I wouldn't touch either one.. The Presidio is very different. It's an old military installation and devotes an enormous amount of land to preserving very small early 20th century wooden buildings. I don't really get what it's all about. Many are just old shacks. In a parallel universe where the old Defense Depot here in Memphis were sitting on insanely valuable real estate, I would definitely want it put to good use.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The temptation to run amok in this thread is... overwhelming. Shall I resist?

[Paul Kemp]

The temptation to run amok in this thread is... overwhelming. Shall I resist?

No, please post. I would appreciate your insight.

I have nothing of my own to add to this thread (as usual, one could say) but I am fascinated by this conversation. Please keep it up.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I agree with the demolition of project housing that only warehouses people and concentrates crime and ameliorating urban abandonment and squalor.

The extent to which the American attempt to do social housing was so... well... Soviet... remains an amazing and horrifying thing. And the use of the word 'project' remains telling. But social housing is certainly not a bad idea in principle - nor is it usually even a bad idea in practice - and posters are wrong to dismiss the idea out of hand just because of the grotesque incompetence of the American experiment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

And, I never said, only black people.

Yeah, but you didn't need to. Meaning was quite clear enough.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Let me explain myself, I think NYC has a certain class of poor people who are entirely stuck in poverty.

Most poor people are 'entirely stuck' in poverty. This is the classic problem with poverty in general. It is no better outside NYC or outside cities in general. Rural poverty is pretty awful. Suburban poverty - which is mostly what you seem to be advocating - is genuinely grim. Poverty cycles and the classic 'poverty trap' are certainly not unique to big cities and operate in all places where there is poverty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does dumping them elsewhere solve the problem? The specific difficulties of being poor in NYC would just be replaced by the specific difficulties of being poor Somewhere Else. You don't solve a city's social problems by deportation. Besides, it is their city too.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To be serious for a moment, Jane Jacobs was actually kind of scornful of parks (or at least skeptical of their universal acclaim), as she thought they interrupted the urban fabric, and served as underused boundaries and poorly-lit havens for crime and unsavory characters.

She tended to go crazy as soon as anything vaguely resembling the Garden Cities ideal came into view. Parks are good. Cities need more public space in general, not less.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This issue comes up a lot in the DC area.  People say the character would be the same if the buildings were 20-30 stories rather than 10-12.  People also say there is too much historic preservation of crappy buildings that could at least be turned into 10-12 story buildings.  However, there are a lot of issues that come with increasing density... pollution, noise, street parking.  It's a huge undertaking.  It seems like the better thing is to just build more large nearby cities that compete with the inner city.  This is essentially what is happening in NOVA where there are lots of mini-cities within 40 minutes of DC.

The correct solution to planning problems in the DC metropolitan area is to burn the whole disaster to the ground and start over.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Heavy industry does not belong in modern cities.

Well that really depends on the city. And on the industry, actually. NYC is less suited to it than most, needless to say. But the idea of having heavy industry in big cities for (deranged) aesthetic reasons is obviously insane

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Fun fact: many of the Georgian terraces in the London Borough of Islington are owned by the council and let out as social housing.

[bgwah]

Lack of new development in desirable neighborhoods is a cause of gentrification in others.

[Simfan34]

My fixation with the banlieue is well documented, and I openly acknowledge my approach to social housing is not much beyond "out of sight and out of mind". But I do maintain that the idea of "mixity" is overrated whereas it compromises character, security, aesthetics, and quality of life for a neighborhood's residents.

I am not opposed to building more of these in the Bronx:

[bedstuy]

Let me explain myself, I think NYC has a certain class of poor people who are entirely stuck in poverty.

Most poor people are 'entirely stuck' in poverty. This is the classic problem with poverty in general. It is no better outside NYC or outside cities in general. Rural poverty is pretty awful. Suburban poverty - which is mostly what you seem to be advocating - is genuinely grim. Poverty cycles and the classic 'poverty trap' are certainly not unique to big cities and operate in all places where there is poverty.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does dumping them elsewhere solve the problem? The specific difficulties of being poor in NYC would just be replaced by the specific difficulties of being poor Somewhere Else. You don't solve a city's social problems by deportation. Besides, it is their city too.

You're putting words in my mouth and calling me racist which I don't appreciate.

Let's say you're a indigent uneducated person in Chelsea in Manhattan.  The cheapest apartment you could get is $2700 a month and you make $1000 a month working part time.  On top of that, the general cost of living is high in your neighborhood and amenities are geared towards the upper 1%.  It's your contention that it's in your best interest to stay living in that neighborhood at all costs.  I would say there are economic realities that make it beneficial to move somewhere with a lower cost of living. 

The fact is that making a living off of a low income job is far easier elsewhere in the country.  There are plenty of major cities where you can find an apartment for $500 a month.  That type  of cost of living is more livable for people at the low end of incomes.  I don't see how that's a racist or ridiculous assertion. 

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

One thing that could be done is to move project housing out into the suburbs. That would allow an increase in property values in the city andmake the suburbs more democratic.