Quote:
Originally Posted by The North One
I'm not trying to take any dig at anything about Philly, it's a fantastic city, don't blame anybody for wanting to stay there forever. But that doesn't mean it's urbanism is beyond any criticism.
I'm sick of this site's obsession with certain housing typologies and the way they project/gaslight their biases and predictions. They've been saying the same things for years. In 2013 this site was so certain that Baltimore was gonna have a gentrification boom because the rowhomes were just too good to let go. Today the city still demos large numbers of probably the best examples of the typology in the country on a regular basis, they're still rotting. Clearly that didn't work out how they thought. Clearly their armchair theories for urban revitalization in the US or the preferences of tenants/homeowners is actually just opinionated garbage.
|
There's definitely a subset of urban "purists" on this site who sometimes devalue any deviation from traditionally-urban form, I would agree. But speaking in rational and realistic terms, we all know that one urban housing form isn't for everyone--nor should it be.
Speaking as an East Coaster myself, I personally find that all gradients of "urban" are critical and valuable to every city for the very reason that they provide housing
options.
From the uber-dense rowhome neighborhood, to the semi-urban, leafy neighborhoods with bungalows or even small manses on grassy lots, these typologies all add greatly to a city's repertoire.
Yes, there are some differences in walkability, and yes, one has slightly less land-use efficiencies than the other, but to me it's splitting hairs. Great cities offer diversity in their neighborhoods, and even the more suburban oriented neighborhoods of any large city will be light-years more vibrant and urban-leaning than a post-war, cul-de-sac laden exurban subdivision 40 miles from the core. And that certainly includes a city like Detroit.