This week the New York Times ran a peice callsed Slumburbua about our country's struggling ex-urbs. The articles cites that in the western half of the country that:
"...median home prices have fallen from $500,000 to $150,000 — among the most precipitous drops in the nation — and still the houses sit empty, spooky and see-through, waiting on demography and psychology to catch up.
In strip malls where tenants seem to last no longer than the life cycle of a gold fish, the bottom-feeders have moved in. 'Coming soon: Cigarette City,' reads one sign here in Lathrop, near a 'Cash Advance' outlet."
Here in Baltimore the second part of this quote definitely rings true. Many of the inner and outer ring ex-urb communities have been "over-stored." in the suburban commercial corridors there have been too many strip malls, shopping centers and stand alone big box stores. Because of the recession when a strip mall or shopping center loses it's anchor, there is nothing to replace that store and the shopping center becomes an eyesore. What had been somewhat nice shopping centers now become home of junk retail and carry-out stores that you would typically associate with inner-city communities.
It's almost as if the area did not learn it's lesson from the large suburban mall failure from 10-15 years ago. When large area malls failed, the thought was the mall concept was dead and that consumers still wanted endless chocies of stores. Local area malls were then chopped up into walkable "Avenues" or "power centers" that featured four to five different big box stores with twenty or more so smaller stores and restaurants. So instead of redeveloping a commercial property that had died into a mixed use community, developers just extended the life of the commercial center from a 100+ store mall into a 30+ store commerical power center.
Now even these power centers and "avenues" or showing signs of distress not because they may have been a bad design concept but because they are too many stores. Redeveloping a dead mall while still using the same footprint for new stores does not change the character of the development if an anchor fails or goes out of business.
The New York Times article goes on to state that:
"...look at the cities with stable and recovering home markets. On this coast, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and San Diego come to mind. All of these cities have fairly strict development codes, trying to hem in their excess sprawl. Developers, many of them, hate these restrictions. They said the coastal cities would eventually price the middle class out, and start to empty.
It hasn’t happened. Just the opposite. The developers’ favorite role models, the laissez faire free-for-alls — Las Vegas, the Phoenix metro area, South Florida, this valley — are the most troubled, the suburban slums."
When the market comes back, which it will, there should be no more new shopping centers in the Baltimore metropolitan area. Local jurisdictions first must push new development into the dozens of vacant shopping centers that are dotted all around the metro area.
What do you think?
Showing posts with label Sprawl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sprawl. Show all posts
Friday, February 12, 2010
Monday, March 2, 2009
Ex-Urbs - The new American ghetto?
The Las Vegas Sun reported on the economic downtown that has crippled Las Vegas, which was one of America's fastest growing cities. The fuel needed to continue the city's sprawling march through the desert has all but ceased as the city's main industries, construction, tourism and real estate have dried up. With no new buyers in sight, many of the sprawling McMansions built far away from the core now sit empty and deserted. The article quotes:
"All those half-empty neighborhoods on the edge of town become exurban ghettoes. These neighborhoods share the worst aspects of suburban life, specifically long commutes, big gasoline bills and the absence of urban amenities, while not offering some of the traditional benefits of suburbs such as big yards — the houses in many of the neighborhoods are packed closer together.
These structures, which were built cheaply and quickly, will become inexpensive rental housing, a process that seems to have already begun."
This would not be the first time a recently constructed ex-urb has quickly fallen on hard times. The Charlotte area, where banking is the top industry was also one of America's fastest growing cities in the 2000's. When the banking industry first began signs of falter in 2006, the effects on the Charlotte suburbs were immediate. Entire ex-urban housing developments, most likely owned by investors, were abandoned. Vacant houses were stripped down of copper wire and other materials by thieves and other vacants were being used by squatters. Costly infrastructure and utilities were wasted to these unpopulated housing developments. To add insult to injury, crime became another problem for ex-urbs adding onto wasted infrastructure and services costs.
Will this become the fate of Las Vegas? Some Vegas planners are already planning for a post-sprawl city. The article quotes:
"In fact, planning for a future that is more dense, more vertical, more urban and connected by mass transit could solve several problems at once.
...Las Vegas could draw skilled professionals it needs with a more varied development pattern that includes urbanism. If you want to attract really sharp engineers and scientists and creative people, having a city will make it much easier to do that."
Does this mean the city of fantasy will actually have to grow up to become a real city? More importantly though, does our fantasy of the American dream also have to grow up and face the reality that the dream is no longer sustainable?
What are your thoughts?
"All those half-empty neighborhoods on the edge of town become exurban ghettoes. These neighborhoods share the worst aspects of suburban life, specifically long commutes, big gasoline bills and the absence of urban amenities, while not offering some of the traditional benefits of suburbs such as big yards — the houses in many of the neighborhoods are packed closer together.
These structures, which were built cheaply and quickly, will become inexpensive rental housing, a process that seems to have already begun."
This would not be the first time a recently constructed ex-urb has quickly fallen on hard times. The Charlotte area, where banking is the top industry was also one of America's fastest growing cities in the 2000's. When the banking industry first began signs of falter in 2006, the effects on the Charlotte suburbs were immediate. Entire ex-urban housing developments, most likely owned by investors, were abandoned. Vacant houses were stripped down of copper wire and other materials by thieves and other vacants were being used by squatters. Costly infrastructure and utilities were wasted to these unpopulated housing developments. To add insult to injury, crime became another problem for ex-urbs adding onto wasted infrastructure and services costs.
Will this become the fate of Las Vegas? Some Vegas planners are already planning for a post-sprawl city. The article quotes:
"In fact, planning for a future that is more dense, more vertical, more urban and connected by mass transit could solve several problems at once.
...Las Vegas could draw skilled professionals it needs with a more varied development pattern that includes urbanism. If you want to attract really sharp engineers and scientists and creative people, having a city will make it much easier to do that."
Does this mean the city of fantasy will actually have to grow up to become a real city? More importantly though, does our fantasy of the American dream also have to grow up and face the reality that the dream is no longer sustainable?
What are your thoughts?
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Urbanizing Dallas
The City of Dallas and it's city planners are looking to introduce a formal zoning code to try to curb unregulated sprawl and to increase development in downtown neighborhoods. For those of you that are unfamiliar with Texas and their land use laws, you should that Texans are fiercely pro-property rights and are against any government regulation. So much so, that it is against the law for a planning official to label a zoning map an official government document. Texas zoning or land use maps or more recommendations.
What does this mean when it comes to city development? It means that anyone can subdivide their land almost as many times as they want and construct a development as large as they desire...anywhere. No matter the scale or appropriateness of that development. This means that a 70 story skyscraper can be placed outside of a downtown next to a freeway exit with no other large office development nearby (Houston, Tx).
So what is the big deal of allowing the market to determine development, the last thing we need in this economy is for government to stifle growth of businesses and construction, right? Well the problem is that these cities are inefficient and non-sustainable and actually cost tax payers more money to provide services to sprawling developments then it would it city developments were dense and compact. Wherever development goes, infrastructure has to follow. That means, highways, roads, bridges, power, water, schools, police, fire, ambulance all have to provided for large developments no matter how far or inconvenient. All of these services are expensive and they tax the residents of existing development even more to pay up front for services to another development that they will most likely never use.
Besides the monetary expenses of development there are other consequences in allowing sprawl. One of the most harmful consequences is pollution. Houston is now one of the country's most polluted cities because of smog. Texas cities are dependent on freeways for travel. In Dallas,the mere mention of a subway system brings out strong protest. Other factors, are quality of life factors and having those that normally dependent on public transit forced to seek automobile transit some how, some way.
Despite all of the negative consequences, there are Texas planners that vehemently oppose zoning and hold up their cities as a model of success purely on the fact that their cities continue to grow while East coast cities (the cities with zoning codes) continue to shrink. While it is true that East coast zoning codes have become burdensome encyclopedia of regulations, allowing the market to dictate development is even more troubling. Remember parts of the code exist because the market had no problem cramming workers into dumbell tenement housing that lacked air, light, sewer and trash disposal.
In Dallas, the continued pattern of suburban growth and increased population has planners looking for better solutions. While Dallas planners are still not in favor of traditional zoning, which is based on prohibiting land uses, they are looking toward the new urbanist approach of "Form Based Zoning" which promotes land uses on coded streets that a community would to see. From a recent article:
"The solution most proposed was 'form-based zoning,' which encourages developers to purchase large tracts of land on which to develop dense urban areas near transit stations and along the Trinity River.
It’s kind of like college vs. the real world. In college, parties just sort of happen. As adults, parties come with the cumbersome trappings of invitations and phone calls, dates, times and places to meet up.
In districts with the proposed zoning ordinances, Dallas-ites can live and have fun in the same vicinity: they spend an evening wandering around, stumble upon a new coffee shop, see a movie, find a nice place to sit and talk, have a beer, run into friends, and walk home in a single night."
Hopefully Dallas Planners can convince it's council to implement a new urban zoning code. And hopefully other cities not just in Texas but in suburban locales all across this county can do the same. In an country that is 80% urbanized we can no longer continue are pattern of sub-urban growth. As a country we can not afford the infrastructure and as of last summer, we could not afford the gas for our commute. Our post World War II development patterns can no longer continue, we must create a new pattern of development for a new generation of people that is sustainable and not over extend our local governments like a proverbial credit card as they bank on future growth which may not happen.
What does this mean when it comes to city development? It means that anyone can subdivide their land almost as many times as they want and construct a development as large as they desire...anywhere. No matter the scale or appropriateness of that development. This means that a 70 story skyscraper can be placed outside of a downtown next to a freeway exit with no other large office development nearby (Houston, Tx).
So what is the big deal of allowing the market to determine development, the last thing we need in this economy is for government to stifle growth of businesses and construction, right? Well the problem is that these cities are inefficient and non-sustainable and actually cost tax payers more money to provide services to sprawling developments then it would it city developments were dense and compact. Wherever development goes, infrastructure has to follow. That means, highways, roads, bridges, power, water, schools, police, fire, ambulance all have to provided for large developments no matter how far or inconvenient. All of these services are expensive and they tax the residents of existing development even more to pay up front for services to another development that they will most likely never use.
Besides the monetary expenses of development there are other consequences in allowing sprawl. One of the most harmful consequences is pollution. Houston is now one of the country's most polluted cities because of smog. Texas cities are dependent on freeways for travel. In Dallas,the mere mention of a subway system brings out strong protest. Other factors, are quality of life factors and having those that normally dependent on public transit forced to seek automobile transit some how, some way.
Despite all of the negative consequences, there are Texas planners that vehemently oppose zoning and hold up their cities as a model of success purely on the fact that their cities continue to grow while East coast cities (the cities with zoning codes) continue to shrink. While it is true that East coast zoning codes have become burdensome encyclopedia of regulations, allowing the market to dictate development is even more troubling. Remember parts of the code exist because the market had no problem cramming workers into dumbell tenement housing that lacked air, light, sewer and trash disposal.
In Dallas, the continued pattern of suburban growth and increased population has planners looking for better solutions. While Dallas planners are still not in favor of traditional zoning, which is based on prohibiting land uses, they are looking toward the new urbanist approach of "Form Based Zoning" which promotes land uses on coded streets that a community would to see. From a recent article:
"The solution most proposed was 'form-based zoning,' which encourages developers to purchase large tracts of land on which to develop dense urban areas near transit stations and along the Trinity River.
It’s kind of like college vs. the real world. In college, parties just sort of happen. As adults, parties come with the cumbersome trappings of invitations and phone calls, dates, times and places to meet up.
In districts with the proposed zoning ordinances, Dallas-ites can live and have fun in the same vicinity: they spend an evening wandering around, stumble upon a new coffee shop, see a movie, find a nice place to sit and talk, have a beer, run into friends, and walk home in a single night."
Hopefully Dallas Planners can convince it's council to implement a new urban zoning code. And hopefully other cities not just in Texas but in suburban locales all across this county can do the same. In an country that is 80% urbanized we can no longer continue are pattern of sub-urban growth. As a country we can not afford the infrastructure and as of last summer, we could not afford the gas for our commute. Our post World War II development patterns can no longer continue, we must create a new pattern of development for a new generation of people that is sustainable and not over extend our local governments like a proverbial credit card as they bank on future growth which may not happen.
Friday, January 30, 2009
L.A. Sprawl
Years ago, one of my Urban Studies Professors challenged the current notions of sprawl by stating that Philadelphia has more sprawl then L.A. The professor stated that the Philadelphia suburbs consume more square miles of countryside given Philadelphia's size when compared to Los Angeles and it's suburbs.
Could this be true? Do east coast cities actually generate more sprawl then auto-dependent L.A.? Well, it depends on how you calculate density. The popular myth of East Coasters when they think of L.A. is that it is a giant collection of suburbs when in fact it is a densely populated city.
But how dense is dense? While L.A. is undoubtedly urban is it as dense as Philadelphia? The answer to that question is no. Philadelphia is the most compact city in the county, even more so then New York City. So if one city is denser then another but it's suburbs consume more land, how would you calculate which is more sprawled?
Fast forward to a book review I ran across recently in Metropolis Magazine about Robert Bruegmann’s book, Sprawl: A Compact History. The book which advocated that Los Angeles’s urbanized area is more densely populated than New York’s, set off a whirlwind of debate between planners. While most planners believe in traditional regulation of development, found most prominently in the east coast, there is a rising faction of planners that believe in minimal regulation and allowing the market to dictate development. Bruegmann's book about sprawl and density seem to ignite both camps of planners.
The book review was not favorable to Bruegmann's claim that L.A. was statistically more populated then New York and sought to disprove this notion. The review poked a major hole in Bruegmann's theory by detailing that the units of measurements that was used to compare L.A. and New York were not the same. The article quotes:
"The UCLA study, which appears on the Livable Places Web site, concedes that Bruegmann is technically right since he merely claims that Los Angeles’s urbanized area is denser than New York’s urbanized area. As a unit, the greater Los Angeles metro area boasts 7,009 people per square mile, far in excess of the New York metro area’s paltry 5,239, according to the 2000 census. But just what is an urbanized area? And are they really enough alike to bother comparing?
As the UCLA group discovered, the census bureau’s official statistical units vary considerably in size and character. The land mass of New York’s urbanized area—defined as the city and the suburban counties within its gravitational pull—is twice the size of Los Angeles’s. New York’s statistical unit also has a third more people. Thus the two units are the proverbial apples and oranges. 'We believe comparing density by urbanized area is deceptive,' the UCLA group wrote."
That is a major hole to Bruegmann's article. To try to prove that L.A.'s miles of low rise housing is denser then New York's miles of high rises and skyscrapers not only goes against conventional wisdom it goes against common sense by just looking at the two cities. The review later goes onto show that L.A. and the cities that have followed it's growth patterns such as Phoenix and Atlanta have very low urban densities, which further my beliefs that few major cities in the south and west are actually urban. Phoenix and Houston have overtaken Philadelphia as being in the top 5 largest cities despite Philadelphia being in Phoenix case, over 10 times as dense. The article quotes:
"Even a modestly congested place like Philadelphia, where people cherish their single-family row houses and postage-stamp gardens, packs in 11,000 people per square mile, in contrast to L.A.’s 7,828. As for Phoenix and Atlanta, the cities that most closely mimic Los Angeles’s land-use patterns, the density barely hits 1,700 per square mile—hardly an indication of efficient, or environmentally sustainable, land use."
So back to the original question, does Philly have more sprawl then L.A. Technically yes if you just compared the two cities sizes in comparison to the size of their suburbs. However, the lower density of L.A. allows the city to consume more square acreage then Philly. So one can easily make the argument that there is sprawl even inside the city boundaries of L.A. given it's density. On top of that many Philadelphia suburban townships mimic Philadelphia development which would make them denser then the city of Los Angeles. Which means the answer that would be most correct is the Los Angeles Metropolitan region has more sprawl then the Philadelphia region.
Your thoughts?
Could this be true? Do east coast cities actually generate more sprawl then auto-dependent L.A.? Well, it depends on how you calculate density. The popular myth of East Coasters when they think of L.A. is that it is a giant collection of suburbs when in fact it is a densely populated city.
But how dense is dense? While L.A. is undoubtedly urban is it as dense as Philadelphia? The answer to that question is no. Philadelphia is the most compact city in the county, even more so then New York City. So if one city is denser then another but it's suburbs consume more land, how would you calculate which is more sprawled?
Fast forward to a book review I ran across recently in Metropolis Magazine about Robert Bruegmann’s book, Sprawl: A Compact History. The book which advocated that Los Angeles’s urbanized area is more densely populated than New York’s, set off a whirlwind of debate between planners. While most planners believe in traditional regulation of development, found most prominently in the east coast, there is a rising faction of planners that believe in minimal regulation and allowing the market to dictate development. Bruegmann's book about sprawl and density seem to ignite both camps of planners.
The book review was not favorable to Bruegmann's claim that L.A. was statistically more populated then New York and sought to disprove this notion. The review poked a major hole in Bruegmann's theory by detailing that the units of measurements that was used to compare L.A. and New York were not the same. The article quotes:
"The UCLA study, which appears on the Livable Places Web site, concedes that Bruegmann is technically right since he merely claims that Los Angeles’s urbanized area is denser than New York’s urbanized area. As a unit, the greater Los Angeles metro area boasts 7,009 people per square mile, far in excess of the New York metro area’s paltry 5,239, according to the 2000 census. But just what is an urbanized area? And are they really enough alike to bother comparing?
As the UCLA group discovered, the census bureau’s official statistical units vary considerably in size and character. The land mass of New York’s urbanized area—defined as the city and the suburban counties within its gravitational pull—is twice the size of Los Angeles’s. New York’s statistical unit also has a third more people. Thus the two units are the proverbial apples and oranges. 'We believe comparing density by urbanized area is deceptive,' the UCLA group wrote."
That is a major hole to Bruegmann's article. To try to prove that L.A.'s miles of low rise housing is denser then New York's miles of high rises and skyscrapers not only goes against conventional wisdom it goes against common sense by just looking at the two cities. The review later goes onto show that L.A. and the cities that have followed it's growth patterns such as Phoenix and Atlanta have very low urban densities, which further my beliefs that few major cities in the south and west are actually urban. Phoenix and Houston have overtaken Philadelphia as being in the top 5 largest cities despite Philadelphia being in Phoenix case, over 10 times as dense. The article quotes:
"Even a modestly congested place like Philadelphia, where people cherish their single-family row houses and postage-stamp gardens, packs in 11,000 people per square mile, in contrast to L.A.’s 7,828. As for Phoenix and Atlanta, the cities that most closely mimic Los Angeles’s land-use patterns, the density barely hits 1,700 per square mile—hardly an indication of efficient, or environmentally sustainable, land use."
So back to the original question, does Philly have more sprawl then L.A. Technically yes if you just compared the two cities sizes in comparison to the size of their suburbs. However, the lower density of L.A. allows the city to consume more square acreage then Philly. So one can easily make the argument that there is sprawl even inside the city boundaries of L.A. given it's density. On top of that many Philadelphia suburban townships mimic Philadelphia development which would make them denser then the city of Los Angeles. Which means the answer that would be most correct is the Los Angeles Metropolitan region has more sprawl then the Philadelphia region.
Your thoughts?
Monday, January 26, 2009
New Urbanism
The Pros and Cons of New Urbanism. As great as it is to have New Urbanist principles to suburban development, there still remains an emptiness and a feel of exclusiveness that make these New Urbanist developments feel suburban despite their densities.
Monday, December 29, 2008
What Disney Films Taught Me about Cities
This is a review of Walt Disney's classic short film "The Little House" released in 1952.
It's amazing how cartoons aimed at children can affect our perceptions of ideas and places. Disney's "The Little House" is one of those affectionate cartoons that make us reminisce but also can enforce negative ideas about the city.
I know, I know it's a cartoon and it was created in the 1950's when American cities were at there most congested but one can not helpt to notice that the film puts the city in a really bad light. The city is being shown as loud noisy boistorius plague that sprang up overnight.
"Everything was bigger and better for this was the age of progress" Claims the self narratoring house as the the film shows tenement houses fighting and throwing garbage at each other. Every time the Little House gains a new neighbor, they become more disruptive and less friendly. In fact all of the city buildings are angry, with the skycrapers being the angriest.
The end of the film, ironically sends the Little House to a new countryside...presumbably to have a new city reach it's countryside. Kind of sounds like sprawl. The cartoon ends with the Little House saying "...the best place to find peace and happiness is in a little house...way out in the country." I wonder how many Americans still believe that and how many developers are still selling that belief as sprawl gobbles up the beloved countryside.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Next Slum
The Atlantic Magazine recently wrote an article titled, The Next Slum, about the rapid decline of new suburban tract housing as the real estate market takes a down turn and homeowners are now making life style changes to live closer to where they work. The suburbs of Charlotte, which have been particularly hit hard by the real estate crises as has many communities across the nation, has seen McMansion neighborhoods that were built during the real estate boom of a years ago turn into slums.
Atlantic Magazine writes:
"At Windy Ridge, a recently built starter-home development seven miles northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina, 81 of the community’s 132 small, vinyl-sided houses were in foreclosure as of late last year. Vandals have kicked in doors and stripped the copper wire from vacant houses; drug users and homeless people have furtively moved in. In December, after a stray bullet blasted through her son’s bedroom and into her own, Laurie Talbot, who’d moved to Windy Ridge from New York in 2005, told The Charlotte Observer, “I thought I’d bought a home in Pleasantville. I never imagined in my wildest dreams that stuff like this would happen.”
Who would have ever thought that suburban tract housing located in the fringes of American cities would become America's next slums. What is your opinion? Have you observed any suburban blight in your local metropolitan region?
To read the entire article, click here.
Atlantic Magazine writes:
"At Windy Ridge, a recently built starter-home development seven miles northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina, 81 of the community’s 132 small, vinyl-sided houses were in foreclosure as of late last year. Vandals have kicked in doors and stripped the copper wire from vacant houses; drug users and homeless people have furtively moved in. In December, after a stray bullet blasted through her son’s bedroom and into her own, Laurie Talbot, who’d moved to Windy Ridge from New York in 2005, told The Charlotte Observer, “I thought I’d bought a home in Pleasantville. I never imagined in my wildest dreams that stuff like this would happen.”
Who would have ever thought that suburban tract housing located in the fringes of American cities would become America's next slums. What is your opinion? Have you observed any suburban blight in your local metropolitan region?
To read the entire article, click here.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Who Controls your City Transit Agency?
A Map of Philadelphia's Rail SystemToday, many city transit agencies are in constant financial crises as they are forced to maintain a transit system to inner city commercial corridors that have been in decline for decades now. With commercial corridors moving away from cities and residential development leap frogging to different highway exits, city transit systems have been unable to provide transit to a constantly moving population. The decline of ridership which has lead to a decline in revenue has left many city transit agencies dependent on the aid of other sources.
When a city transit agency only has a small percentage of its revenue coming from fares generated, the city transit agency has to depend on other sources, such as neighboring suburban counties, to help fund their services. Often times the source that provides the majority of the funding dictates the policy recommendations for that transit agency.
When non-transit planners are making transit agency decisions over regional transit needs, they often times they will put the needs of their constituents over the transit needs of the whole region. So if suburban counties are providing major funding to a city transit agency, they are more likely to push for transit lines (such as light rail or heavy rail) that connect suburban communities to downtown while providing little connection back to the existing transit system or the larger city as a whole.
Situations like these often lead to bad transit planning which often is reflected in transit ridership numbers. The mistakes of bad transit planning, such as spending billions on light rail systems that benefit the few and not the whole has wasted funding, time and energy that could have been used to upgrade the existing system. Such costly mistakes has allowed existing transit systems to deteriorate while making transit agencies maintain suburban costly suburban commuter lines for suburbanites who still preferred to commute by car.
So what is your opinion? Do you live in a metropolitan region where suburban counties dictate transit planning? If you are not sure, ask yourself whether or not your metropolitan region has a well running suburban commuter line system and a deteriorating city transit system.
When a city transit agency only has a small percentage of its revenue coming from fares generated, the city transit agency has to depend on other sources, such as neighboring suburban counties, to help fund their services. Often times the source that provides the majority of the funding dictates the policy recommendations for that transit agency.
When non-transit planners are making transit agency decisions over regional transit needs, they often times they will put the needs of their constituents over the transit needs of the whole region. So if suburban counties are providing major funding to a city transit agency, they are more likely to push for transit lines (such as light rail or heavy rail) that connect suburban communities to downtown while providing little connection back to the existing transit system or the larger city as a whole.
Situations like these often lead to bad transit planning which often is reflected in transit ridership numbers. The mistakes of bad transit planning, such as spending billions on light rail systems that benefit the few and not the whole has wasted funding, time and energy that could have been used to upgrade the existing system. Such costly mistakes has allowed existing transit systems to deteriorate while making transit agencies maintain suburban costly suburban commuter lines for suburbanites who still preferred to commute by car.
So what is your opinion? Do you live in a metropolitan region where suburban counties dictate transit planning? If you are not sure, ask yourself whether or not your metropolitan region has a well running suburban commuter line system and a deteriorating city transit system.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
The Megatropolis
Recent data as well as new articles are now showing that metropolitan regions on the east coast are now starting to merge with one another.
Some D.C. area workers now commute from as far as Baltimore or West Virgina for cheaper housing
Some Baltimore area workers now commute from as far as Southern Pennsylvania for cheaper housing
And now some New Yorkers have reached as far south as Philadelphia to find cheaper housing
This leaves one to wonder if we are looking at the beginnings of a future Megatropolis? A Megatropolis that would stretch from the southern Connecticut commuter towns and cities that feed New York City in the north and to the edge cities in northern Virgina that feed Washington D.C. to the south.
A November 15th article of this year in the Washington Post details Marylanders slow migration out of the state in an article titled "Housing Costs Driving Away Marylanders"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111400049.html?nav=rss_realestate
Excerpts:
"High housing prices are pushing Maryland residents to move farther from Washington and, in some cases, to neighboring states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia, according to a new study released by the Maryland Department of Planning."
An August 14, 2005 article in the New York Times wrote that artists who have been pushed out of Manhattan and now are being priced out of Brooklyn are now coming to Philadelphia in increasing numbers in an article titled "Philadelphia Story: The Next Borough"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/fashion/sundaystyles/14PHILLY.html
Excerpts:
"Philadelphians occasionally refer to their city - somewhat deprecatingly - as the "sixth borough" of New York, and with almost 8,000 commuters making the 75-minute train ride between the cities each weekday, the label seems not far off the mark."
What's your opinion?
Some D.C. area workers now commute from as far as Baltimore or West Virgina for cheaper housing
Some Baltimore area workers now commute from as far as Southern Pennsylvania for cheaper housing
And now some New Yorkers have reached as far south as Philadelphia to find cheaper housing
This leaves one to wonder if we are looking at the beginnings of a future Megatropolis? A Megatropolis that would stretch from the southern Connecticut commuter towns and cities that feed New York City in the north and to the edge cities in northern Virgina that feed Washington D.C. to the south.
A November 15th article of this year in the Washington Post details Marylanders slow migration out of the state in an article titled "Housing Costs Driving Away Marylanders"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111400049.html?nav=rss_realestate
Excerpts:
"High housing prices are pushing Maryland residents to move farther from Washington and, in some cases, to neighboring states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia, according to a new study released by the Maryland Department of Planning."
An August 14, 2005 article in the New York Times wrote that artists who have been pushed out of Manhattan and now are being priced out of Brooklyn are now coming to Philadelphia in increasing numbers in an article titled "Philadelphia Story: The Next Borough"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/fashion/sundaystyles/14PHILLY.html
Excerpts:
"Philadelphians occasionally refer to their city - somewhat deprecatingly - as the "sixth borough" of New York, and with almost 8,000 commuters making the 75-minute train ride between the cities each weekday, the label seems not far off the mark."
What's your opinion?
Friday, November 9, 2007
Great City Planning Documentaries
The City, Parts I, II (1939)
A documentary which pleas for less development in the inner city while promoting what we call today, urban sprawl.
http://www.archive.org/details/CityTheP1939
http://www.archive.org/details/CityTheP1939_2
A Place to Live (1948)
This documentary was about slum clearance in Philadelphia. For any who has lived in Philadelphia, you will get a kick out of the new upscale housing project known as "The Richard Allen Housing Projects." These projects were some of the worse projects in the country. They were eventually torn down in 1999.
http://www.archive.org/details/PlacetoL1948_2
The Dynamic American City (1956)
A 1950's documentary which is advocating the removal of blighted neighborhoods through Urban Renewal.
http://www.archive.org/details/DynamicA1956_2
Community Growth & Crisis (1959)
Every Planner should watch this film. This is a documentary about homebuilders decrying unplanned urban sprawl. Their solution? Planned Unit Developments, Cluster Zoning, Flexible zoning controls and Pro Land Use laws... if only we had listened
http://www.archive.org/details/Communit1959
Detroit: City on the Move (1965)
And after the King riots in 1968, the city residents were on the move to the suburbs. Such high hopes for the city in the mid 1960's. Has there been a major American city that has fallen harder than Detroit?
http://www.archive.org/details/DetroitC1965
A documentary which pleas for less development in the inner city while promoting what we call today, urban sprawl.
http://www.archive.org/details/CityTheP1939
http://www.archive.org/details/CityTheP1939_2
A Place to Live (1948)
This documentary was about slum clearance in Philadelphia. For any who has lived in Philadelphia, you will get a kick out of the new upscale housing project known as "The Richard Allen Housing Projects." These projects were some of the worse projects in the country. They were eventually torn down in 1999.
http://www.archive.org/details/PlacetoL1948_2
The Dynamic American City (1956)
A 1950's documentary which is advocating the removal of blighted neighborhoods through Urban Renewal.
http://www.archive.org/details/DynamicA1956_2
Community Growth & Crisis (1959)
Every Planner should watch this film. This is a documentary about homebuilders decrying unplanned urban sprawl. Their solution? Planned Unit Developments, Cluster Zoning, Flexible zoning controls and Pro Land Use laws... if only we had listened
http://www.archive.org/details/Communit1959
Detroit: City on the Move (1965)
And after the King riots in 1968, the city residents were on the move to the suburbs. Such high hopes for the city in the mid 1960's. Has there been a major American city that has fallen harder than Detroit?
http://www.archive.org/details/DetroitC1965
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)