neat urban planning stuff

'twas a joke. I made the Brooklyn comment because of the apparent Al Qaeda plan to crash planes into that, too. Oh, and because Van is in and or around NYC.
 
They weren't planning to crash planes into it. There are way easier ways to blow up a bridge.
 
children, children, please...

http://nfb.ca/film/weight-of-the-world-extras-urban-planning

This short video is interesting for a myriad of reasons, but in particular I enjoyed how it shed light on something very straightforward that I had heretofore surprisingly not thought of myself. Specifically, it makes the following (very interesting) points: Zoning (which traditionally focuses on single use districts) is the biggest obstacle to mixed-use, new urbanist developments. The legal basis of zoning ordinances in turn, rests on health, safety and welfare concerns. However, research shows that not only do walkable areas appreciate in land value faster than auto-sprawl (which bears on the welfare argument), also people are walking more and weighing less when they live in dense and walkable communities. So the legal basis of single use zoning should be, and more importantly can be challenged.
 
Every time I hear how important zoning is I point to Houston. Ending zoning makes no difference when developers insist on design inertia because of the opportunity cost and risk of trying something new. And there are concrete obstacles thornier than zoning, like a "democratic" process that facilitates a NIMBY chorus favoring separate uses as much as any 1950s planner.
 
czsz said:
Every time I hear how important zoning is I point to Houston. Ending zoning makes no difference when developers insist on design inertia because of the opportunity cost and risk of trying something new. And there are concrete obstacles thornier than zoning, like a "democratic" process that facilitates a NIMBY chorus favoring separate uses as much as any 1950s planner.
Click to expand...

Well, although I see what you are saying, consider this: isn't true design inertia actually the traditional urban concepts embraced by new urbanism? new urbanism is, after all, in fact not much more than old urbanism. and, furthermore, assuming that the design inertia you highlight (I get what what you were pointing out) is in fact something counterproductive to policy or regulatory based attempts to better the built environment, you still wrote when developers insist on design inertia. my question is, what about when they DON'T? While your point makes perfect sense in some contexts, I don't think the premise that developers necessarily insist of an inertia of design such as that you allude to holds up, at least not all the time. In fact THAT, I think, was the point of one of the videos above. i.e., if and WHEN developers DO attempt to ride renewed interests in mixed use development over otherwise or seemingly otherwise prohibitive opportunity cost waves, it would be tremendously useful if zoning were not in the way. True, as you pointed out, there are other issues to be contended with. BUT, if zoning is removed as an obstacle to mixed use construction and development, I think it is fair to say that perhaps the BIGGEST obstacle will have been overcome. Houston may be (and hopefully is) an anomaly. One of the biggest shortcomings of modern zoning is not that it REQUIRES single use districts, but that it PERMITS them. So, I'm not necessarily saying abolish zoning altogether. I am merely stating that changing zoning laws to accommodate more mixed use if and when there is a demand for it seems to be smart. moreover, the really interesting point is that the legal basis for zoning which separates uses (health and safety) can actually be used to combat the very thing it currently serves as a foundation for, in that mixed use developments are increasingly being thought of as healthier (because they are more walkable).
 
The Burj Khafila and the Empire State: History has some lessons for those crying 'hubris'

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune...etemporary-emptiness-of-the-burj-khalifa.html

I forget who, but someone on this forum recently emphasized the same points made in this article (vansh-etc?)

also, it is odd that two of the tallest buildings in the world (sears and B dubai) have been recently renamed. Sears tower is now apparently Willis Tower, and B dubai the Burj Khalifa.

some pictures of the burj khalifa are just utterly fascinating, although I have also read recently that the new part of the city is pretty poorly planned (no surprise to many, I am assuming) despite its starchitecture.

here are some photos of the Burj Khalifa I really enjoy
burj-khalifa.jpg

burj-dubai-show.jpg

bd1101.jpg

6a00d834518cc969e2012876c4da44970c-800wi


also watch this amazing video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t54Xzu5_ScY
 
Pah, Australia seems determined to repeat every one of America's mistakes. Racism? Environmental degradation? Living beyond its means? Take your pick.
 
I don't know anything about the country, but its cities look fantastic.
 
On that Orenco thing: while the projects aren't exactly quality designs, that woman in the green shirt can go live in an f-ing Amish community if she hates the present so much.
 
http://www.american.com/archive/2010/january/the-war-against-suburbia

On Top of the World: Looking Down from Dubai's Burj Khalifa
http://www.planetizen.com/node/42565

also, I have a further question on here for academics, professionals, or anyone who might be able to answer it for me. So I was thinking today about public transportation since the bus in my town just increased fares from 1.25 to 1.50 and in my opinion no one will ride it now. It saw little enough use when fees were a dollar, but now I think it is passed the tipping point at which people with a choice will choose to just take their car. So, I was wondering how to make pub transportation cheaper, and it dawned on me that it could be made better than that - free altogether (I think some other cities, too, like Baltimore, may in fact be trying something very similar right now). This would entice people with CHOICE to ride public transit, and could be done by increasing taxes. this seems politically unpopular though, but then I started thinking less cars = fewer required parking spots in developments, narrower and fewer roads, = more land to develop, = more property taxes from commercial real estate which should offset the increased taxes a bit if not totally or even represent a net gain. Then I thought, why not just tax commercial development in an exaction fashion for public transportation funding in a way that would benefit everyone involved (because commercial real estate could develop freely without required parking spaces, and would have efficient transportation for its workers, and people would at the same time have a free alternative mode of transportation available). This skips the need, moreover, to ever increase personal taxes of residents and shifts the burden directly to commercial properties. I can't imagine it would take much to run a free bus service around a small urban core with a good amount of commercial establishments. Any thoughts on the feasibility of this approach? has it been tried elsewhere? does it/could it work? thanks for the input.
 
Interesting statistics I just found - does this mean we're destined to lose yet more of our heritage, or that we're finally going to correct the mistakes of post-war crapitecture?

phpThumb.php


Link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top