Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm just curious about the downsides of "smart" growth. That term implies that anything else is "dumb" growth. Certainly, "smart" growth cannot win on every single front. Is there something that we're possibly overlooking when it comes to "smart" growth. I'm sure that urban planners thought freeways and big houses were also "smart growth" back in the 40a and 50s.
I'm just curious about the downsides of "smart" growth. That term implies that anything else is "dumb" growth. Certainly, "smart" growth cannot win on every single front. Is there something that we're possibly overlooking when it comes to "smart" growth. I'm sure that urban planners thought freeways and big houses were also "smart growth" back in the 40a and 50s.
The downsides, if any, are felt by petroleum companies and auto manufacturers, as the suburban growth of the 40s and 50s was a product thereof and would have been impossible without. That type of growth certainly was "smart" at the time; Fuel was what, a nickel a gallon? How much did it cost to buy several square miles of potato fields in Long Island and put up tract homes? Not much. Yes, indeed it was very smart, and for those who bought it, it was a pretty high quality of life at a good price.
However, the consequences of these actions, not the actions themselves, is why some look back at that period now as "dumb," and dense development as "smart."
It depends on what you mean by infill. If you're talking about 1960s Robert Moses style wholesale demolishing and rebuilding of urban districts, which includes abandoned storefronts, factories, warehouses etc then I would disagree strongly.
That's not what I mean -- in most places, infill commonly refers to a piecemeal development of property that's no longer being used actively (as opposed to, say, demolishing an entire owner-occupied working-class neighborhood for commercial development); for instance, a new shopping center where a factory had been demolished.
And not all abandoned buildings can or should be repaired.
Quote:
Cities need to be protected more than post-WWII autocentric suburbs because old architecture is rare and it is not built anymore.
Someday 1950s architecture will be rare and has not been built in, oh, 52 years. What's your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown
I'm not sure that would necessarily protect the cities, but it would protect undeveloped and agricultural land that is closest to the city/market.
The downsides, if any, are felt by petroleum companies and auto manufacturers, as the suburban growth of the 40s and 50s was a product thereof and would have been impossible without.
So that's the only downside? Otherwise it's just win, baby, win for density?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
I can turn that around and ask why do people need to live in low density areas?
But nobody's suggesting that people should live in low-density areas. There's a clear implication (more than that really) that high density living is superior to low-density living. That's why "smart" growth is generally associated with higher density development.
SF is currently building and planning to build thousands of housing units (over 4,300 units are currently under construction throughout the city), as well as hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space, with millions more planned. And the population grew by about 20,000 from 2000-2010. So San Francisco is definitely not filled yet.
I really meant close to full. I'm aware there's new development going in, but gentrification has really reached its logical conclusion now that Hunters Point and the Tenderloin are starting to turn over. Barring the demolition of gentrified single-family housing for residential towers (unlikely for many reasons), there will be few options for further expansion soon.
Edit: Also, the topography of San Francisco in some ways precludes true "Manhattanization" from taking place on a large scale.
So that's the only downside? Otherwise it's just win, baby, win for density?
.
I don't know. It's the only quantifiable one I can indentify. I think everything else is a matter of personal preference. There will still be plenty of low density places to live, even if things trend inward in the next 100 years, ya know?
But nobody's suggesting that people should live in low-density areas. There's a clear implication (more than that really) that high density living is superior to low-density living. That's why "smart" growth is generally associated with higher density development.
Zoning laws restricting density and mixed used in many suburbs have created a low density bias.
There's an implication by "smart growth" that high density is superior but there are plenty of other parts of culture (and existing development) biased in favor of low density living, so I don't think low density advocates have much to worry about. Regardless, in most big cities, most high density development isn't occurring because of some "smart growth" movement but because there is depend for residences, shops and offices and space is limited. There must be some demand for high density growth otherwise it won't be built. I don't think any city has seen enormous infill growth more just slow and steady.
And another benefit of high density is a lot of metros, particularly coastal ones have run out of room to grow outward practically.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good point.
