HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2013, 7:20 PM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
Bellevue is far more similar to Southfield from a developmental timeline than you'd think.

Bellevue didn't start taking off until the 1950's the same time that Southfield did. It may have been settled in the 1860's, but so was Southfield. Southfield was settled by the 1830's. The area was essentially a rural hinterland until the bridge opened in 1940, and even then, it didn't start truly developing until the post-war era. The city only incorporated in 1953 essentially in the same era as Southfield. Virtually everything that exists in Bellevue was developed in the 50's or later. There was no true urbanity in Bellevue prior to the current wave of post-war development. The only difference is that in recent decades, Bellevue has seen a huge wave of new urbanism and Southfield has not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2013, 7:52 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by hudkina View Post
Bellevue is far more similar to Southfield from a developmental timeline than you'd think.
I don't understand why some folks are pretending that there is no difference between a suburb with a pre-automobile core and one without such a core.

Again, Bellevue has a downtown, and Southfield doesn't. This means it has a base of walkability, modestly-sized streets, and transit orientation. The fact that Bellevue didn't "start taking off" until the 50's, like 90% of suburbs out there (regardless of whether they have a downtown) is irrelevent.

All the New Urbanist development in Bellevue is in downtown Bellevue, which built on the existing base of pre-sprawl infrastructure. They have a Main Street upon which the city is centered. Southfield shares none of these characteristics and is centerless.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2013, 8:37 PM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
I don't think you realize how unurban Bellevue was prior to the post-war development cycle. There wasn't a little historic strip of turn of the century brick buildings. There wasn't apartment blocks or high-density single-family homes. It was a country bumpkin village. Sure it may have been platted into a small grid, but the development was sparse and almost rural in nature. Go look up Covert, MI on Google Maps and you'll see what Bellevue likely consisted of prior to the post-war era. Bellevue had little in common with Birmingham prior to WWII other than that both had been platted into grids.

And really, if you think that the Bellevue and Southfield are a universe apart simply because one had a simple platted grid prior to the post-war boom, you're grasping at straws. The least ambitious thing involved with this plan would be to create a small street grid for this area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2013, 9:43 PM
atlantaguy's Avatar
atlantaguy atlantaguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Area code 404
Posts: 3,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by hudkina View Post
I don't think you realize how unurban Bellevue was prior to the post-war development cycle. There wasn't a little historic strip of turn of the century brick buildings. There wasn't apartment blocks or high-density single-family homes. It was a country bumpkin village. Sure it may have been platted into a small grid, but the development was sparse and almost rural in nature. Go look up Covert, MI on Google Maps and you'll see what Bellevue likely consisted of prior to the post-war era. Bellevue had little in common with Birmingham prior to WWII other than that both had been platted into grids.

And really, if you think that the Bellevue and Southfield are a universe apart simply because one had a simple platted grid prior to the post-war boom, you're grasping at straws. The least ambitious thing involved with this plan would be to create a small street grid for this area.
You are absolutely correct, and Crawford has no idea of what he is talking about at all.

The first time I saw Bellevue was in the late 80's, and they were just starting on their Downtown Master Plan. It was pure, straight up suburbia with a large mall surrounded by acres of parking at it's center. There was NO traditional Downtown at all, just a typical mix of suburban style development with parking at the front door. You can still see scattered vestiges of this today, but they are disappearing fast.

What they have pulled off in the last 25 years is simply amazing, but they basically started from scratch. Belleview is proof positive that auto oriented suburbia can completely retrofit itself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2013, 9:50 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I don't understand why some folks are pretending that there is no difference between a suburb with a pre-automobile core and one without such a core.

Again, Bellevue has a downtown, and Southfield doesn't. This means it has a base of walkability, modestly-sized streets, and transit orientation. The fact that Bellevue didn't "start taking off" until the 50's, like 90% of suburbs out there (regardless of whether they have a downtown) is irrelevent.

All the New Urbanist development in Bellevue is in downtown Bellevue, which built on the existing base of pre-sprawl infrastructure. They have a Main Street upon which the city is centered. Southfield shares none of these characteristics and is centerless.
Bellevue's pre-WWII "main street" urbanism is about as large and close to its downtown CBD area as many of the suburban Toronto Growth Centres that you like to put down, ex Mississauga & Cooksville, Markham & Unionville, Midtown & Downtown Oakville... really only Vaughan Centre is significantly more isolated from pre-WWII urbanism.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2013, 10:06 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Bellevue, WA is nothing like Southfield, MI.

Bellevue has a downtown. It's semi-walkable. It was founded as a community in 1869.

Southfield has no downtown, is completely unwalkable, and was founded in 1958.

Just because sprawl came to Bellevue after WWII doesn't mean it wasn't a viable, pre-automobile community. Southfield was nothing but fields before WWII, hence has no pre-automobile backbone. Obviously a suburb like Bellevue with a semblance of a pre-automobile built form has something on which it can build a future of semi-urbanity. Southfield has no such luck, IMO.

Birmingham, MI would be a Metro Detroit equivalent of Bellevue, WA. As in Bellevue, they're building upon the assets of an existing commercial core.
That's not correct. Bellevue was a hamlet and small rural plots until the bridge opened (turns out it was in the 40s). A tiny corner of its downtown was developed then. The rest was fields. Here's an aerial from 1937 (Main St. was just off the lower edge). http://www.kingcounty.gov/environmen...llevue.aspx#37. Here's another from maybe 1955-60. http://www.vintageseattle.org/wp-con...e_early_01.jpg

Bellevue had a couple of towers in the 70s, and built several more in the late 80s. Since then they've also broken up some of the 500' superblocks into smaller blocks where it made sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2013, 10:39 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by hudkina View Post
And really, if you think that the Bellevue and Southfield are a universe apart simply because one had a simple platted grid prior to the post-war boom, you're grasping at straws.
Maybe this plan will come to fruition. Maybe it will even succeed at its goals--nobody yet knows. What we do know is you're desperately hitching your boosterism to an inapt analogy between two very different places: Bellevue and Southfield are indeed a universe apart, for many reasons.

High employment/housing demand in one of the continent's most vibrant and booming metropolitan areas, combined with physical and legal barriers to horizontal growth, has produced in Bellevue an urban, compact, gridded, walkable downtown with 5,000 residents and 35,000 jobs around a major regional public transportation hub.

Southfield doesn't have an urban downtown like Bellevue. It doesn't face nearly insatiable demand for new homes and jobs and isn't growing rapidly, low-density sprawl is not legally or physically restricted in the region, and public transit is pathetic even by American standards. There's no compelling reason to believe Southfield will become like Bellevue.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2013, 11:00 PM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
BTW, here are a few pictures of the pre-war Bellevue. The satellite images is from 1936.

The original settlement centered on Main and 102nd:


The post-war urban "Downtown" developed over the last several decades:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2013, 11:08 PM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
Maybe this plan will come to fruition. Maybe it will even succeed at its goals--nobody yet knows. What we do know is you're desperately hitching your boosterism to an inapt analogy between two very different places: Bellevue and Southfield are indeed a universe apart, for many reasons.
First of all, I don't think the plan will ultimately come to fruition. The argument here is whether it is possible for an auto-centric post-war suburban node to become a dense, walkable mixed-use urban node or even whether such a change has occurred in the U.S. at all. I'm arguing that it is possible, and has been done in places like Bellevue. The ultimate viability of this particular plan is shaky at best. You play like a broken record with your constant boosterism claims... Try something different.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2013, 11:52 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by hudkina View Post
First of all, I don't think the plan will ultimately come to fruition. The argument here is whether it is possible for an auto-centric post-war suburban node to become a dense, walkable mixed-use urban node or even whether such a change has occurred in the U.S. at all. I'm arguing that it is possible, and has been done in places like Bellevue. The ultimate viability of this particular plan is shaky at best. You play like a broken record with your constant boosterism claims... Try something different.
The question wasn't asked in a vacuum, it was asked in the context of this particular proposal--and the answer was quite stark. Bellevue is apparently the only notable example we can provide of an autocentric post-war suburb that built a traditionally urban district from scratch. It appears to be an outlier, and that's bad news for Southfield's proposal.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2013, 12:35 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by hudkina View Post
I don't think you realize how unurban Bellevue was prior to the post-war development cycle. There wasn't a little historic strip of turn of the century brick buildings. There wasn't apartment blocks or high-density single-family homes. It was a country bumpkin village. Sure it may have been platted into a small grid, but the development was sparse and almost rural in nature.
Unless Google maps is a mirage, this isn't true. Bellevue has pre-automobile built form along Main Street, and this is the backbone of its development. It has a real downtown that predates the sprawl era.

Southfield has nothing of the sort, and this is why it can't piggyback pedestrian/transit growth on its built form. It can't work in a vacuum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2013, 12:40 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlantaguy View Post
. There was NO traditional Downtown at all, just a typical mix of suburban style development with parking at the front door.
A quick look at Google maps indicates your claim is wrong.

Look along Main Street, say around 10200 Main, and you will see no little to no "front door" parking, you will see a narrow two-lane Main Street, you will see numerous older, pre-sprawl street-fronting buildings.

These are obvious characteristics of a pre-automobile built form. It isn't a Disney set. You will also see newer structures interspersed with the older development, mimicking the form and function.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2013, 12:44 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Yes the aerial from the 30s is lying. Who erased all the buildings!?

As for the backbone of its development, the two main draws in my opinion are the Bellevue Square Mall (built in 40s, expanded/densified every since) and the bus transit center (80s), both of which are a decent walk from the old part of Main.

In fact, Main is kind of a separate node. It has a lot of midrise housing. It's separated from the newer downtown by a couple blocks of sprawly properties. This is only changing now as additional projects break ground as the current boom gets going, finally connecting things better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2013, 12:57 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Unless Google maps is a mirage, this isn't true. Bellevue has pre-automobile built form along Main Street, and this is the backbone of its development. It has a real downtown that predates the sprawl era.

Southfield has nothing of the sort, and this is why it can't piggyback pedestrian/transit growth on its built form. It can't work in a vacuum.
Main Street in Bellevue started out pre-WWII and has grown since then but the majority of development and the area most people seem to call downtown Bellevue is further to the NE. The "downtown" is neither centered on, nor does it seem to be an organic extension of the main street area.

Their proximity to each other may have been mutually beneficial, although I suspect that the main street area benefitted more from the new downtown area than vice versa.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2013, 2:03 AM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
There are only a few actual pre-war buildings left along Main Street. Some of those "historic" buildings were built in recent years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2013, 2:10 AM
hudkina hudkina is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
The question wasn't asked in a vacuum, it was asked in the context of this particular proposal--and the answer was quite stark. Bellevue is apparently the only notable example we can provide of an autocentric post-war suburb that built a traditionally urban district from scratch. It appears to be an outlier, and that's bad news for Southfield's proposal.
Southfield's proposal isn't even remotely as ambitious as what Bellevue has done. They'd be happy with a glorified lifestyle center.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2013, 3:05 AM
animatedmartian's Avatar
animatedmartian animatedmartian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
low-density sprawl is not legally or physically restricted in the region
However, it is restricted to an extent. Unlike typical suburbs in most metros, Michigan's city boundaries are pretty much limited to their current state. Annexation is rare and, even moreso in Metro Detroit, cities are unlikely to consolidate with other cities. So while the overall region increases with sprawl, the municipal cities themselves can only capture a limited area of tax revenue from that sprawl. It's been this way since about the 1930s.

Therefore, land is systematically finite and as such every suburb developed post-1930s has this factor in mind. Once a city has sprawled to its edges and developed whatever open space it can, the only other option is increased density and/or gentrification (other options typically include NIMBY developments). This is why Royal Oak, Birmingham, Troy, and Southfield essentially are the way they are. These cities have zoned for denser development more out of a need for tax growth while at the same time keeping taxes low and the cities desirable. Add to the fact that household sizes are decreasing and it's quickly apparent that these cities need to add density if they want to sustain themselves.

It's not a simple case of transit and walkability generating density but an actual limitation on space. However, it's also true that much of the urban planning during the middle of the century did focus on car usage. Although, it should also be noted that in the first half of the century, most transit around Metro Detroit was privately operated. When transit shifted to the responsibility of the public sector, it fell by the wayside in favor of keeping taxes low. However, development still focused on localized density as a means to maximize the potential tax base within pretty finite city limits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2013, 3:26 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
But Detroit seems to have the opposite problem...land is plentiful and apparently cheap, or generally has been. That's how office buildings have large setbacks and surface parking for example.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2013, 3:48 AM
atlantaguy's Avatar
atlantaguy atlantaguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Area code 404
Posts: 3,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
A quick look at Google maps indicates your claim is wrong.

Look along Main Street, say around 10200 Main, and you will see no little to no "front door" parking, you will see a narrow two-lane Main Street, you will see numerous older, pre-sprawl street-fronting buildings.

These are obvious characteristics of a pre-automobile built form. It isn't a Disney set. You will also see newer structures interspersed with the older development, mimicking the form and function.
No, it most certainly is not wrong. A block of older storefronts, completely removed from what is now considered Downtown Bellevue is totally irrelevant. And just exactly how do you know the age of this cute little block? Can you prove that it was built pre-automobile? I seriously doubt it. I explored extensively throughout this area, and never even saw it.

Your claim of "Downtown Bellevue is a downtown district. It was never built as postwar sprawl on cornfields, like Southfield" has been totally shot down and proven wrong by not only local residents, but historical aerial photographs. Of course, this being the Pacific Northwest the only thing correct in your assertion is that the former farms here very likely did not grow corn.

I know in your mind your are never wrong about anything, ever. In this instance, you clearly couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2013, 4:11 AM
uaarkson's Avatar
uaarkson uaarkson is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Back in Flint
Posts: 2,079
Oh boy. It's the Buckhead vs. Troy thread all over again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:29 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.