urban renewal and planning disasters

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by edale

^ I don't see anything resembling urban neighborhoods in those streetview links. Suburban, yes.

The discussion was about traditional residential neighborhoods that arent cut off from the downtown by a highway. Which those arent, those neighborhoods are 100+ years old adjacent to the downtown and not blocked via modern infrastructure.

[Citylover94]

The discussion did however specify urban residential neighborhoods and the links you posted are not urban regardless of whether or not they are directly adjacent to downtown Phoenix without a highway blocking them off.

For comparison here is what the residential neighborhoods next to downtown Boston look like:
Back Bay
Beacon Hill
Chinatown
North End

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Citylover94

The discussion did however specify urban residential neighborhoods and the links you posted are not urban regardless of whether or not they are directly adjacent to downtown Phoenix without a highway blocking them off.

No:

When you think about it, there really are only a handful of major cities where traditional residential neighborhoods right next to the CBD - with no highway in the way - survived. Basically it's Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, San Francisco, and New Orleans.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Citylover94

The discussion did however specify urban residential neighborhoods and the links you posted are not urban regardless of whether or not they are directly adjacent to downtown Phoenix without a highway blocking them off.

For comparison here is what the residential neighborhoods next to downtown Boston look like:
Back Bay
Beacon Hill
Chinatown
North End

Those neighborhoods were constructed before Phoenix had been founded and incorporated. Phoenix's historical neighborhoods are from the 1920s, 30s, 40s bungalows and even mid-century ranch neighborhoods have reached historic preservation status. It's all relative to the founding of each city. Boston wouldn't preserve a post war neighborhood of SF ranches, but Phoenix would. It is what it is.

In the 1880s, Boston had Back Bay while Phoenix had small adobe huts.

Boston pop 1900: 560,000
Phoenix pop 1900: 5,500

[edale]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

In the 1880s, Boston had Back Bay while Phoenix had small adobe huts.

Boston pop 1900: 560,000
Phoenix pop 1900: 5,500

Which is precisely why Phoenix doesn't belong in the conversation with Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, San Francisco, and New Orleans when talking about contiguous urban fabric spreading out from downtown areas.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by edale

Which is precisely why Phoenix doesn't belong in the conversation with Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, San Francisco, and New Orleans when talking about contiguous urban fabric spreading out from downtown areas.

That's not what the discussion was about though, at least according to prior posts.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by edale

Which is precisely why Phoenix doesn't belong in the conversation with Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, San Francisco, and New Orleans when talking about contiguous urban fabric spreading out from downtown areas.

Because it was a small town 120 years ago?

Your comment makes no sense at all.

I dont think Boston deserves to be talked about as a city because Cairo, Athens, Alexandria and Rome are thousands of years old! so how about that!

the attidudes of the people on these forums are baffaling.

[eschaton]

FWIW, I did mean traditionally urban residential neighborhoods. Leaving that out was an oversight on my part.

The point I was trying to get across was in the mid 20th century 19th century neighborhoods were just considered "unfashionable" everywhere in the country - often called "tenement housing" and slated for destruction for no particularly good reasons. So where a 19th century neighborhood used to be you might end up with a highway, an industrial zone, a large "no man's land" of parking lots and institutional buildings, or some mix of these typologies. Which kept to the mid 20th century conception of the ideal city - a CBD fringed by dirty industrial, which was in turn fringed by strictly residential neighborhoods.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Because it was a small town 120 years ago?

Your comment makes no sense at all.

I dont think Boston deserves to be talked about as a city because Cairo, Athens, Alexandria and Rome are thousands of years old! so how about that!

the attidudes of the people on these forums are baffaling.

No, Phoenix doesn't belong in the conversation because the other cities listed have contiguous urban fabric out from its core. As was shown, Phoenix has detached single family homes with yards (or dirt/stone) and picket fences immediately adjacent to its downtown. There was no urban fabric to be destroyed via highway construction and/or urban renewal. The point was pretty obvious- US cities largely obliterated their core, downtown adjacent neighborhoods, or separated them from downtown via freeways. Phoenix had none to speak of, so it doesn't belong in the conversation. Shouldn't be hard to understand...

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by edale

No, Phoenix doesn't belong in the conversation because the other cities listed have contiguous urban fabric out from its core. As was shown, Phoenix has detached single family homes with yards (or dirt/stone) and picket fences immediately adjacent to its downtown. There was no urban fabric to be destroyed via highway construction and/or urban renewal. The point was pretty obvious- US cities largely obliterated their core, downtown adjacent neighborhoods, or separated them from downtown via freeways. Phoenix had none to speak of, so it doesn't belong in the conversation. Shouldn't be hard to understand...

Can you imagine being this person. Holy shit. That wasnt the perameters of the discussion but I guess if you prefer to stare up your own asses constantly have fun.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by edale

There was no urban fabric to be destroyed via highway construction and/or urban renewal. The point was pretty obvious- US cities largely obliterated their core, downtown adjacent neighborhoods, or separated them from downtown via freeways. Phoenix had none to speak of, so it doesn't belong in the conversation. Shouldn't be hard to understand...

The 10 freeway was completed in downtown Phoenix in 1990. The 51 freeway, began construction in the 90s. It just happened after other cities because Phoenix is newer. Phoenix obliterated it's core through urban renewal, freeways and grand civic projects.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ph...4d-112.0740373
Streetview:
https://goo.gl/maps/yezyMh4ZFcK2

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ph...4d-112.0740373
Streetview:
https://goo.gl/maps/K8EkY3uRkKw

[edale]

Originally Posted by eschaton

FWIW, I did mean traditionally urban residential neighborhoods. Leaving that out was an oversight on my part.

It was the framework of the discussion. It was implied and the OP confirmed it was. No one in their right mind would see New Orleans, San Francisco, Philly, New York and think Phoenix would fit into the discussion.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by edale

It was the framework of the discussion. It was implied and the OP confirmed it was. No one in their right mind would see New Orleans, San Francisco, Philly, New York and think Phoenix would fit into the discussion.

Why dont you start threads with your arbitrary peramerters then? You know something like "I only want to talk about my same neighborhood and dont care to see or discuss anything esle that is different from my comfortable bubble"

[eschaton]

Speaking of Phoenix, can someone tell me what happened here?

I wouldn't call that a traditionally urban neighborhood. But it seems like 3/4ths of a relatively dense residential neighborhood was demolished to make way for...empty gravel lots?

I mean, I get that Phoenix is too dry to really have the vacant lots taken over by weeds like elsewhere in the country. But a level of blight that comprehensive must be due to some sort of "urban planning."

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Speaking of Phoenix, can someone tell me what happened here?

I wouldn't call that a traditionally urban neighborhood. But it seems like 3/4ths of a relatively dense residential neighborhood was demolished to make way for...empty gravel lots?

I mean, I get that Phoenix is too dry to really have the vacant lots taken over by weeds like elsewhere in the country. But a level of blight that comprehensive must be due to some sort of "urban planning."

As I adressed previously before the discussion police got involved this was a very poor slum like neighborhood that went through a verying series of attempted revivals or abondonments over decades.

The City center in general was basically abanonded and demolished between 1970-2010 besides some vertical 9-5 office complexes.

More recently that neighborhood is basically a non-existent ghost town, it lies directly under the runway of the airport and the city/airport has created a program to sell the basically useless land to them, who then have slowly demolished and maintained the gravel until such a time that they could resell the land for redevelopment.

They are just now beginigng to fromulate plans on what to do with this basically flattened former neighborhood since it is now almost wholly owned by the city/airport.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Speaking of Phoenix, can someone tell me what happened here?

I wouldn't call that a traditionally urban neighborhood. But it seems like 3/4ths of a relatively dense residential neighborhood was demolished to make way for...empty gravel lots?

I mean, I get that Phoenix is too dry to really have the vacant lots taken over by weeds like elsewhere in the country. But a level of blight that comprehensive must be due to some sort of "urban planning."

I think it's because about a mile to the east is Sky Harbor Airport. That area used to be a thriving neighborhood. The city places gravel down due to air quality environmental laws.

This church is all that's left on an entire neighborhood. Today it sits in the middle of a dirt lot, surrounded by cleared land.



E] That neighborhood was called the Golden Gate Barrio and was home to 6,000 people.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

I think it's because about a mile to the east is Sky Harbor Airport. That area used to be a thriving neighborhood. The city places gravel down due to air quality environmental laws.

This church is all that's left on an entire neighborhood. Today it sits in the middle of a dirt lot, surrounded by cleared land.

that church has actually reached a deal for a redevelopment plan.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Obadno

As I adressed previously before the discussion police got involved this was a very poor slum like neighborhood that went through a verying series of attempted revivals or abondonments over decades.

The City center in general was basically abanonded and demolished between 1970-2010 besides some vertical 9-5 office complexes.

More recently that neighborhood is basically a non-existent ghost town, it lies directly under the runway of the airport and the city/airport has created a program to sell the basically useless land to them, who then have slowly demolished and maintained the gravel until such a time that they could resell the land for redevelopment.

They are just now beginigng to fromulate plans on what to do with this basically flattened former neighborhood since it is now almost wholly owned by the city/airport.

It's funny, because 90% of the rationale you give (minus the airport noise issues, which are a bit unique) was exactly what was used in the mid-20th century to excuse demolishing much of the 19th century fabric of St. Louis.

The difference is the building stock is much newer (oldest houses seem to be from 1930s) and the decision to bulldoze an entire neighborhood is also much newer.

Most cities don't do this any longer, unless it's to "redevelop" public housing.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's funny, because 90% of the rationale you give (minus the airport noise issues, which are a bit unique) was exactly what was used in the mid-20th century to excuse demolishing much of the 19th century fabric of St. Louis.

The difference is the building stock is much newer (oldest houses seem to be from 1930s) and the decision to bulldoze an entire neighborhood is also much newer.

Most cities don't do this any longer, unless it's to "redevelop" public housing.

Its been ongoing for many many years. The neighborhood has been functionally dead since the early 90's