"Sprawl vs. Smart Growth" from Nat'l. Geographic

[perspicuity85]

An interesting interactive web site that illustrates sustainability and New Urbanism concepts.

[cannon_fodder]

Very nice.  

However, without a major employer willing to buy into the plan the new-urban suburb would really be a glorified bedroom community.  With everyone still having to hop on the freeway to go to work and play.  But I like the concept and it is certainly an improvement over sprawling subdivisions.

[rwarn17588]

In general, I am in support of the *concept* of New Urbanism. However ...

-- When will walkable neighborhoods become attractive enough that people will actually move into them? What will it take?

-- What do we do with the sprawling neighborhoods in the meantime? Do they become ghost towns?

-- How do we convert the old neighborhoods into more walkable places? Won't tax dollars be inevitably involved?

The latter is a particularly tricky problem for Tulsa and many towns west of the Mississippi River. You've got a lot of cities there that came of age during the era of the automobile, and city planners had the automobile in mind, not walking. Older cities in the East are more walkable because they were established during walking and horse-and-buggy days.

And I get the strong impression that a lot of people *say* they like walkable neighborhoods, but few actually want to *live* in them or participate in the concept.

Thoughts?

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

In general, I am in support of the *concept* of New Urbanism. However ...

-- When will walkable neighborhoods become attractive enough that people will actually move into them? What will it take?

-- What do we do with the sprawling neighborhoods in the meantime? Do they become ghost towns?

-- How do we convert the old neighborhoods into more walkable places? Won't tax dollars be inevitably involved?

The latter is a particularly tricky problem for Tulsa and many towns west of the Mississippi River. You've got a lot of cities there that came of age during the era of the automobile, and city planners had the automobile in mind, not walking. Older cities in the East are more walkable because they were established during walking and horse-and-buggy days.

And I get the strong impression that a lot of people *say* they like walkable neighborhoods, but few actually want to *live* in them or participate in the concept.

Thoughts?

I'm only on for a tick so this is brief, but I would recommend looking at the work of Dolores Hayden. She has done alot of work in how to retrofit the built environment of the suburb into a more sustainable place.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

In general, I am in support of the *concept* of New Urbanism. However ...

-- When will walkable neighborhoods become attractive enough that people will actually move into them? What will it take?

-- What do we do with the sprawling neighborhoods in the meantime? Do they become ghost towns?

-- How do we convert the old neighborhoods into more walkable places? Won't tax dollars be inevitably involved?

Answers for questions 1 & 2:


Question 1-
Throughout the US walkable communities are becoming more and more attractive.  However, they're not necessarily more attractive for everyone.  The target market for most urban loft-type projects is 20-somethings that do not have children.  I myself fit into that target market category, and would love move into a walkable urban community setting.  My only restriction right now from moving into that setting is the stage of my career and income level- which are in infancy.

Question 2-
No, the sprawling communities do not become ghost towns at all.  Again, not every living situation is attractive to all home consumers.  A lot of people enjoy their cookie-cutter neighborhood and prefer the suburban lifestyle.  So in my opinion, real estate developers and community planners should focus on offering both types of products.  Another key here is that a walkable community doesn't necessarily have to be in an urban area.  Walkable communities can be developed in the suburbs as well.  The differences between the suburban and urban walkable communities may lie in the building density.  For instance, in an urban area you may see a mid or high rise building with lofts on the upper floors and shops/restaurants/bars on the bottom floors.  In a suburban area you might see a park in the middle of a square block.  On two sides of the block there might be single family houses with front yards and garages.  On the other two sides might be small botiques and restauarants, or maybe a church or a school.  The entire square block should be connected with sidewalks.

[inteller]

the only way lofts and flats will succeed dt is if ownership is a possiblity.  no one wants to rent if they can help it.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

the only way lofts and flats will succeed dt is if ownership is a possiblity.  no one wants to rent if they can help it.

Agreed.  The dt housing market must serve renters as well as owners.

[Transport_Oklahoma]

OKLAHOMA CITY – City leaders should be looking at incorporating mass transit into their development plans not primarily to alleviate traffic congestion, but to drive economic and community development, real estate and transit consultant Marilee Utter said Monday.

//www.journalrecord.com May 15, 2007