Are skyscraper cities becoming---bleh?

[dubu]

I think they are only bleh because it's only the same cities that add skyscrapers and if all cities had the same amount with no sprawl they would be a lot cooler.

[muppet]

Toulouse, France - pop 1 million

[dubu]

That's a nice built city. Close togeth and all the same height. They need cities like that in hot places in the us.

[mhays]

I'd live there in a second if I wanted to move.

Lower-density US cities could go that route. But it would take a lifetime to get all the way there for large areas. If we want density quickly, it needs to use only the sites that are easy and available to redevelop. A big highrise can go on 1/4 or 1/3 of an acre (or a full acre in the parking-heavy areas), resulting in the same change with a fraction of the acreage. Further, it can be a block from transit.

[10023]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'd live there in a second if I wanted to move.

Lower-density US cities could go that route. But it would take a lifetime to get all the way there for large areas. If we want density quickly, it needs to use only the sites that are easy and available to redevelop. A big highrise can go on 1/4 or 1/3 of an acre (or a full acre in the parking-heavy areas), resulting in the same change with a fraction of the acreage. Further, it can be a block from transit.

There is absolutely no way that a US city today could develop that sort of urban morphology. Even in Europe, it’s difficult from an economic and regulatory (disabled access, etc) to build that way today.

But yeah, urbanity doesn’t require skyscrapers.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'd live there in a second if I wanted to move.

Lower-density US cities could go that route. But it would take a lifetime to get all the way there for large areas. If we want density quickly, it needs to use only the sites that are easy and available to redevelop. A big highrise can go on 1/4 or 1/3 of an acre (or a full acre in the parking-heavy areas), resulting in the same change with a fraction of the acreage. Further, it can be a block from transit.

In the meantime, we're also losing a lot of the density in the old legacy Midwestern cities and other Rust Belt cities. A lot the new developments in the cities that are still losing people aren't as dense as what stood there in previous decades, and many blighted areas are seeing virtually no investment and continue to crumble. On top of all of that, the suburbs continue to go in every direction, even in the metropolitan areas with little to no population growth whatsoever.

[austin242]

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion

In the meantime, we're also losing a lot of the density in the old legacy Midwestern cities and other Rust Belt cities. A lot the new developments in the cities that are still losing people aren't as dense as what stood there in previous decades, and many blighted areas are seeing virtually no investment and continue to crumble. On top of all of that, the suburbs continue to go in every direction, even in the metropolitan areas with little to no population growth whatsoever.

Maybe. but Detroit is at least making a comeback! It lost a lot over the last generation but it's finally turning around.

[jessalamb57]

Personally, LOVE skyscrapers! The way the buildings look against a setting sun....I mean, it just doesn't get much prettier than that!

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'd live there in a second if I wanted to move.

Lower-density US cities could go that route. But it would take a lifetime to get all the way there for large areas. If we want density quickly, it needs to use only the sites that are easy and available to redevelop. A big highrise can go on 1/4 or 1/3 of an acre (or a full acre in the parking-heavy areas), resulting in the same change with a fraction of the acreage. Further, it can be a block from transit.

I'm sure it took Toulouse a lot longer than that. I'm curious as to how long it took Toulouse and cities like it to evolve into their current dense forms...

American cities were thrown together overnight in comparison to most European and Asian cities that have been around for 1,000 years or more..

[The North One]

Originally Posted by mhays

I'd live there in a second if I wanted to move.

Lower-density US cities could go that route. But it would take a lifetime to get all the way there for large areas. If we want density quickly, it needs to use only the sites that are easy and available to redevelop. A big highrise can go on 1/4 or 1/3 of an acre (or a full acre in the parking-heavy areas), resulting in the same change with a fraction of the acreage. Further, it can be a block from transit.

The density itself is not as important as the urban form.

[10023]

Originally Posted by JManc

I'm sure it took Toulouse a lot longer than that. I'm curious as to how long it took Toulouse and cities like it to evolve into their current dense forms...

American cities were thrown together overnight in comparison to most European and Asian cities that have been around for 1,000 years or more..

Call it 150 years, I’d say.

The population of Toulouse was 43,000 in 1695 and 59,000 in 1831. And then it took off, reaching 100k by 1860, 200k by 1930, and 300k by about 1960. It’s grown threefold since then.

Of course, much of that dense area in the photo might have been developed when it was a city of ~50k, though a lot of rebuilding would have happened as well. Few cities in Europe really have that much urban fabric dating to earlier than the late 18th century. You just wouldn’t want to live or work in most older buildings.

[10023]

More importantly, American cities cannot develop this way because of Americans’ cultural emphasis on individual rights and freedoms.

Such cities, the most famous example being Haussmann’s Paris, need to be planned, by governments which are not beholden to voters, with the ability to allocate funds how they wish and relocate the poor where they wish.

Any attempt to turn Detroit into a 21st century Paris or Toulouse or Bordeaux would result in a progressive and minority outcry, the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the 1960s.

[DatFiyah]

Originally Posted by 10023

More importantly, American cities cannot develop this way because of Americans’ cultural emphasis on individual rights and freedoms.

Such cities, the most famous example being Haussmann’s Paris, need to be planned, by governments which are not beholden to voters, with the ability to allocate funds how they wish and relocate the poor where they wish.

Any attempt to turn Detroit into a 21st century Paris or Toulouse or Bordeaux would result in a progressive and minority outcry, the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the 1960s.

Why do you believe there would be an outcry from these groups? Wouldn't more/denser housing in the inner city lead to more affordability and likely a more diverse community?

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by 10023

More importantly, American cities cannot develop this way because of Americans’ cultural emphasis on individual rights and freedoms.

Such cities, the most famous example being Haussmann’s Paris, need to be planned, by governments which are not beholden to voters, with the ability to allocate funds how they wish and relocate the poor where they wish.

I don't think that reaction would be that uniquely American as you think. The 'rights and freedom' argument was a big part of the opposition to Haussman-like projects in London.

Actually I wonder how pro-urban those transformations actually were at the time. For the most part the boulevards replaced neighborhoods that were already very dense.

I've read a bit about the debate around building the Kingsway in London, and it seems very similar to punching 290 through the west side of Chicago. 'Replacing slums' ... 'moving displaced residents to newer developments further away' etc etc. They even put public transport down the middle, just like the blue line.

[10023]

Originally Posted by DatFiyah

Why do you believe there would be an outcry from these groups? Wouldn't more/denser housing in the inner city lead to more affordability and likely a more diverse community?

No.

America’s densest and most intact inner cities are by far its most expensive. And anything newly built would not be affordable, if it was of high quality and built with the intention of earning a return for its investors.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Natoma

I don't think that reaction would be that uniquely American as you think. The 'rights and freedom' argument was a big part of the opposition to Haussman-like projects in London.

Actually I wonder how pro-urban those transformations actually were at the time. For the most part the boulevards replaced neighborhoods that were already very dense.

I've read a bit about the debate around building the Kingsway in London, and it seems very similar to punching 290 through the west side of Chicago. 'Replacing slums' ... 'moving displaced residents to newer developments further away' etc etc. They even put public transport down the middle, just like the blue line.

You’re probably right.

Americans just display a stronger version of what the French would consider an Anglo-American preference for individualism over the collective good. The British exhibit a tempered version of this, but also mastered the art of paternalism and noblesse oblige (the lack of which is a problem in modern society, in my view).

And yeah, Kingsway is a pretty unremarkable street built for the sake of creating a traffic link between Holborn and the Strand. Maybe if it had been built half a century earlier, the architecture would be more interesting.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Chicago's skyline holds much more than a candle (a beacon? I can think of Aragorn screaming "THE BEACONS ARE LIT!!") to San Francisco's.

And I love that of San Francisco, but Chicago is hands-down #2 in North America (after Jacksonville).

LOL, took you long enough? Why'd you have to wait 6 pages?