New urbanism isn't just for liberals — conservatives should embrace it too

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by memph

Even in 1950, when cars were relatively affordable to the middle class, you could have designed communities adjacent to existent urbanism and it would have functioned in a relatively urban fashion. In many cases, that's not what governments and developers chose, but in some cases, they did, like outer neighbourhoods of New York, Outer Sunset, Daly City, several neighbourhoods of Montreal.

My guess is that these areas are the result of a Depression-induced hiatus. For example, much of Chicago's Bungalow Belt and inner suburbs were platted with streets and blocks in the 1920s that would not get filled in until the 1950s or 1960s. The developer was not really in charge of determining the street layout or the lot sizes since they had already been chosen 30 years earlier, but the buildings themselves reflected postwar modern style.

Here is such an area seen in 1939:
http://www.historicaerials.com/aeria...6445&year=1939

and 1962:
http://www.historicaerials.com/aeria...6445&year=1962

Any new, ground-up developments in the postwar period tended to feature more winding street layouts, larger lots, and greater separation of uses (think Levittown or Park Forest).

[memph]

Originally Posted by ardecila

My guess is that these areas are the result of a Depression-induced hiatus. For example, much of Chicago's Bungalow Belt and inner suburbs were platted with streets and blocks in the 1920s that would not get filled in until the 1950s or 1960s. The developer was not really in charge of determining the street layout or the lot sizes since they had already been chosen 30 years earlier, but the buildings themselves reflected postwar modern style.

Here is such an area seen in 1939:
http://www.historicaerials.com/aeria...6445&year=1939

and 1962:
http://www.historicaerials.com/aeria...6445&year=1962

Any new, ground-up developments in the postwar period tended to feature more winding street layouts, larger lots, and greater separation of uses (think Levittown or Park Forest).

True...

And looking into it more, the early post-WWII development of Montreal seems considerably more urban than that of Queens.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.53852...2koRAgEmhg!2e0

I wonder how much Queens or bungalow belt Chicago would have resembled this if not for regulations that favoured SFH.

Some parts of post-WWII Queens look really similar to post-grid Scarborough and post-WWII street grid Chicagoland bungalow belt.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.77504...u54puNkPZA!2e0
Sometimes it's a bit denser but still mostly single family homes with single storey retail.

Still, the fact that Jean Talon Street in Saint-Leonard (Montreal) was able to convert what was probably surface parking in front of the 3 storey "strip malls" into restaurant patios and such seems to support my point about building urbanism near the city or in 1st ring suburbs vs beyond sprawly 2nd/3rd ring suburbs.
This one is even post grid
https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.58471...PzvxJ3ifBg!2e0

[ardecila]

This is possible. I think it is interesting to look at the multi-family that did get built in the postwar period... in Chicago this tended to be set back from the street with no provisions for mixed use. Even apartment living needed to be a little more spacious and leafy than the core-city neighborhoods that these residents were moving from.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ce...b1cdb900f023de

Commercial in these areas was usually a series of low-slung buildings along the major streets, or larger shopping center strip malls.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9902...BMiJrmbLpw!2e0

Here is the purple cow, a mid-century mixed-use building:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9528...pbNHMV8Pog!2e0

[memph]

Kitchener is somewhat similar for residential apartments, although it's less dense. There's not much pre-WWII multi-family but there's a decent amount of early post-WWII apartment buildings.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.42390...VLwk2DchJw!2e0
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.43720..._nSshwugnA!2e0
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.43087...W4udVv63_A!2e0

Fairly low density with lawns, surface parking and usually 2-5 floors, though still denser than SFH. And often scattered among SFHs, although I think that's something a lot of places were lax with in the 40s/50s.

This commercial area was built in the late 40s I think (it was not built on a 1945 aerial).
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.45313...rBrfITGvZA!2e0

This building still wasn't there on a 1963 aerial (ditto for all the other commercial buildings in this area)
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.47625...8L_xWBCmfQ!2e0

[ardecila]

Wow, a lot of similarities there. It's really fascinating how some of these same patterns re-appear across multiple cities. Obviously Toronto's growth patterns today are far different than Chicago's, with super-dense infill and TOD popping up everywhere, and even Toronto's new SFH neighborhoods are on much smaller lots from what I recall.

[MolsonExport]

The words "New" and "Urbanism", by themselves or in combination, is not commensurable with "Conservative" or any derivation thereof.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

The words "New" and "Urbanism", by themselves or in combination, is not commensurable with "Conservative" or any derivation thereof.

Agreed.

This is a semantics issue where the "labels" are antithetical.

Now, if we changed "new urbanism" to "traditional urban design" and extended "traditional" back to 1920s, the "Conservatives" might bite.

The "Conservatives" like the "Liberals" have to have different monikers to describe the same thing.

[Jasonhouse]

Originally Posted by WilliamTheArtist

If regulation is anathema, if "government is bad for telling people and businesses what to do and how to do it" if letting the free market decide is best….we could at least move a good distance to what we want if they would join us in getting rid of minimum parking requirements, set backs, not make it illegal to have mixed use developments (living above shops) etc. etc.

Sadly, many conservatives would rather keep the ideal town of "Mayberry" illegal. You couldn't' build it with todays regulations that so many conservatives fight to keep in place.

The sad part is these morons will argue with you over and over and over, no matter how many times you explain it to them or point them to specific sections of municode.com so that they can literally see it for themselves.

They howl that it is people demanding the lessening of zoning and building codes which mandate that cars be accounted for everywhere, are actually the ones who are "discriminating against them", and is using "government power to force a lifestyle onto people who don't want it".

It's insane.

[memph]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Wow, a lot of similarities there. It's really fascinating how some of these same patterns re-appear across multiple cities. Obviously Toronto's growth patterns today are far different than Chicago's, with super-dense infill and TOD popping up everywhere, and even Toronto's new SFH neighborhoods are on much smaller lots from what I recall.

In Toronto you still had a decent amount of walkable mixed use developments built in the few years after 1945 (Toronto was growing at about 5%/year so it built a lot in just a few years). Based on 1947 aerials, most of Eglinton Avenue, especially West of Allen Road, was vacant lots. Even East of Allen Road you had vacant lots that were built up after 1947.

The buildings home to the Fa Flower Shop and Ashford Cleaners were vacant lots in 1947
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Nor...a3eb3ef68d23fa
"00" across the street too.

These ones too (obviously)
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.70329...jfEN3Bd8hw!2e0

These 5 shops too
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.70326...n_Y8CC2YkQ!2e0

This whole row on the N side of Eglinton (S side looks like it was finishing construction)
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.69940...aH6oQT97HA!2e0

And between Weston and Allen Road, most of it was post 1947

Like 100% of what you see here:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.69730...gG4bBbHnmg!2e0

And not just Eglinton.

All of this:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.64538...D5nSBoaJGg!2e0
As for the retail strip East of there around Royal York, around half was post 1947.

Avenue Road North of Lawrence too, that's a pretty substantial section.

This block of Kingston Road in Scarborough
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.68877...05K9159pyQ!2e0

And several little pockets in East York.

Neighbourhoods built around that time include Clairlea, Topham Park, Cedarvale, even parts of East York South of Taylor Creek
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Nor...a3eb3ef68d23fa


It's actually pretty interesting looking at old aerials.
http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/co...0071d60f89RCRD

It seems like small warehouses and manufacturing businesses like this were more common in Toronto's west side neighbourhoods.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.65592...pq-i0nfZdg!2e0

Also Downtown was basically south of Queen, although it extended west and east of the current Financial District. Downtown actually already had quite a few parking lots in 1947, though they were small. Lots of railyard type stuff too, including a chunk of Liberty Village, one where Simcoe Place/Roy Thompson Hall is, The Esplanade too. More vacant lots than I expected as well. And of course South the current rail corridor too.

The Portlands were basically a big oil refinery.

Dundas Street through Chinatown appears to have been residential, though it's quite the opposite today:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.65315...jeVUxZfTCQ!2e0

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by memph

I wonder how much Queens or bungalow belt Chicago would have resembled this if not for regulations that favoured SFH.

Some parts of post-WWII Queens look really similar to post-grid Scarborough and post-WWII street grid Chicagoland bungalow belt.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@40.77504...u54puNkPZA!2e0
Sometimes it's a bit denser but still mostly single family homes with single storey retail.

It is amazing the similarities between post-WWII areas of eastern Queens and the NW and SW side bungalow belts of Chicago. The main difference being that if you look at that streetview the general lack of alleys in NYC means that the garages are built underneath the bungalows/raised ranches where the often livable basements would be in Chicago with it's alleys. I think that arrangement in NYC makes the streets look cluttered, not to mention I don't know what they do about the potential flooding issues with the garage being below grade. That is one way in which Chicago has better urban planning than NYC, our alleys make our outer neighborhoods look more orderly.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Chicago103

That is one way in which Chicago has better urban planning than NYC, our alleys make our outer neighborhoods look more orderly.

Alleys also spread people out more and thus decrease population densities. It's a trade-off.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by fflint

Alleys also spread people out more and thus decrease population densities. It's a trade-off.

bisecting each residential block in chicago with a 16'-0" ROW for an alley does slightly decrease density compared to a city where there are no alleys. however, alleys allow for garages and driveways/curb cuts to be removed from the street and thus, in my opinion, create far more attractive residential side streets out in the bungalow belt/streetcar suburbia neighborhoods of the city compared to cities where the bungalow areas have garages and driveways galore facing the street.

it is a trade-off, but one i'm more than willing to make. density is important, bit it's also just a number. aesthetic qualifications matter too in my opinion.

[photoLith]

Urbanism is for hippie commie fascists who want free stuff from the gobment.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

bisecting each residential block in chicago with a 16'-0" ROW for an alley does slightly decrease density compared to a city where there are no alleys. however, alleys allow for garages and driveways/curb cuts to be removed from the street and thus, in my opinion, create far more attractive residential side streets out in the bungalow belt/streetcar suburbia neighborhoods of the city compared to cities where the bungalow areas have garages and driveways galore facing the street.

it is a trade-off, but one i'm more than willing to make. density is important, bit it's also just a number. aesthetic qualifications matter too in my opinion.

In my mind the bigger eyesore is power lines... alleys allow you to conceal power lines out back without sinking a ton of money into underground. Trash pickup, too.

Curb cuts I don't mind so much on a residential block.