"The Limits of Density" (crime, transportation, Boston, interchange)
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 don't think people living in Staten Island would really want any more density. They likely moved there because it was not dense.
I can't believe Richard Florida gets paid to write non-sense like this:
So basically, if you want a great arts district in your city, jump in a time machine and build a bunch of rowhouse between 1870 and 1890. If you don't have a time machine, do your best to imitate the architecture in the Mission or Greenwich Village, and the "artists" and indie rock bands will come.
You're reading it wrong. Note Florida is talking about warehouse districts, not row houses. The bottom line he's talking about are disused and inexpensive housing forms that can support enough density for the interconnections that creative communities require.
Where I live, a lot of the creative community are moving into 1960s-80s era concrete "tilt-up" warehouses. Not because they have any great love for prefab concrete architecture--but because they are cheap and relatively plentiful, and allow relatively easy conversion into art galleries or studios etcetera. New uses require old buildings--and that usually means cheap buildings.
And yeah, it means that cities that demolish their historic building stock, or never had it in the first place, are kind of out of luck when it comes to fostering creative communities. New buildings are poorly suited for things like indie theaters, live music venues or cafes that aren't Starbucks.
You're reading it wrong. Note Florida is talking about warehouse districts, not row houses.
I didn't read it wrong. My point was not that neighborhoods had to have rowhouses specifically. I just mentioned 19th Century rowhouses because I'm sure they are the "vintage" high-density type of structures that Florida was talking about in the article:
Quote:
Similarly, you don’t find great arts districts and music scenes in high-rise districts but in older, historic residential, industrial or warehousing districts such as New York’s Greenwich Village or Soho, or San Francisco’s Mission District, which were built before elevators enabled multi-story construction.
Read: If you want the creative class in your city, be sure to have really cool looking vintage (but sustainable) buildings preferably within walking distance of an organic open air market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
The bottom line he's talking about are disused and inexpensive housing forms that can support enough density for the interconnections that creative communities require.
What are the "interconnections that creative communities require?" And why can't those interconnections exist in less walkable neighborhoods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
And yeah, it means that cities that demolish their historic building stock, or never had it in the first place, are kind of out of luck when it comes to fostering creative communities. New buildings are poorly suited for things like indie theaters, live music venues or cafes that aren't Starbucks.
Florida is not talking about punk rockers and slam poets exclusively. He's also talking about tech geeks:
Quote:
The urban tech districts that are emerging today, from SoMa in San Francisco to New York’s Silicon Alley and London’s Silicon Roundabout, are housed in similarly walkable, low to mid-story neighborhoods.
Yet you have computer engineers working in what are essentially office parks in Silicon Valley.
If Google and Facebook engineers can be "creative" in office parks, then I don't see why "historic build stock" is necessary for "fostering creative communities."
I didn't read it wrong. My point was not that neighborhoods had to have rowhouses specifically. I just mentioned 19th Century rowhouses because I'm sure they are the "vintage" high-density type of structures that Florida was talking about in the article:
And that part you're sure about is the part you're wrong about. He's not necessarily talking about "vintage" so much as just plain "old., disused, disreputable and fairly cheap to rent." We don't have many brick rowhouses out here on the West Coast, but we have a bunch of cheapo concrete warehouses, grotty tract homes, and other places just as inexpensive and disreputable as brick rowhouses were 50-60 years ago.
Quote:
Read: If you want the creative class in your city, be sure to have really cool looking vintage (but sustainable) buildings preferably within walking distance of an organic open air market.
And you're reading that wrong too--his point is that these were buildings without elevators; that is, buildings that are not high-rise. Cool-looking isn't the point, it's "old and short." The organic open-air market is also unnecessary, you're jumping far ahead--but being walkable to places to work, to buy stuff (even if it's just a corner bodega) and to catch transit somewhere else is important.
Quote:
What are the "interconnections that creative communities require?" And why can't those interconnections exist in less walkable neighborhoods?
Creative communities--the art/music/fashion/design sector--depends a lot of knowing people and bumping into people at random. You don't get a show at a cool gallery by sending out portfolios and hoping the curator likes your work, you get the show because you met them at some club because you were seeing your friend's band and happened to start up a conversation. The business model is based on running into people, and that happens a lot more frequently in dense spaces. New York's 1970s scene was based on that: the same few hundred people whose lives were interconnected because they were in bands with each other, or acted in each other's films, went to the same gallery shows and worked part-time at some bookstore or dated each other. Proximity fosters creativity by creating social connections that wouldn't happen otherwise.
Quote:
Florida is not talking about punk rockers and slam poets exclusively. He's also talking about tech geeks:
What's the difference? A lot of those punk rockers and slam poets are also tech geeks on the side. In the late nineties you couldn't swing a dead cat in the hottest Bay Area nightclubs without hitting three webmasters, an MCSE and an electrical engineer, they were just dressed up in baggy day-glo T-shirts or black velvet and eyeliner at the time and went into that field because you could look like a freak and still get a job.
Quote:
Yet you have computer engineers working in what are essentially office parks in Silicon Valley.
To some extent--but very often, the creative sparks aren't really flying in the office parks, but in "hacker houses" where a bunch of geeks live and hang out. It is done because rents are expensive and there really aren't any historic brick rowhouse neighborhoods in the South Bay, but there are a bunch of 1950s-80s tract homes. Instead of using them as intended (mom, dad, 2.4 kids and Rover) you get 5-6 nerds and a few hangers-on sharing the house, having parties in the backyard and extensive hacking marathons in the living room (if you saw The Social Network, the scene in that house where they zipline into the pool, it was something like that.) They do that because it's cheaper to have a bunch of roommates, and singles who spend 12 hours a day coding and 6 hours a day dancing don't need a whole lot of space. And a lot of those geeks also hung out at San Francisco nightclubs where they met other geeks. Note "low to mid-story neighborhoods" is what he mentions specifically--not strictly low-rise office parks that are deliberately remote and private.
If Google and Facebook engineers can be "creative" in office parks, then I don't see why "historic build stock" is necessary for "fostering creative communities."
The point of an office park is to encourage employees to hang out in common areas with people other than their coworkers--a limited and controlled example of that sort of creative reaction. The point of the article is that high-rise towers and high population density aren't necessarily the key to lively urban life--a certain amount helps--but the most important part is that ability to interconnect. Which is why Le Corbusier style "towers in the park" urbanism is generally pretty sterile, it's still car-centric and doesn't encourage people to walk around and meet each other. And why skyscrapers and density isn't the only metric of urban success.
And that part you're sure about is the part you're wrong about. He's not necessarily talking about "vintage" so much as just plain "old., disused, disreputable and fairly cheap to rent."
"Old" and "disused" buildings are vintage. Just like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Shirts are vintage. Just like vinyl records are vintage. Just like Atari is vintage. When cities do not have much construction that's vintage, they will create it. That's why you see so many newly constructed "artist" lofts with concrete floors and exposed ducts and an overall industrial look and feel. Florida is basically saying (or has said in other articles), "If you want these talented people, this is the stuff you need!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
We don't have many brick rowhouses out here on the West Coast, but we have a bunch of cheapo concrete warehouses, grotty tract homes, and other places just as inexpensive and disreputable as brick rowhouses were 50-60 years ago.
Why have you zeroed in on "rowhouses" with laser like focus? Rowhouses were merely one example of "vintage" housing that I used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
And you're reading that wrong too--his point is that these were buildings without elevators; that is, buildings that are not high-rise. Cool-looking isn't the point, it's "old and short."
"Old." So in other words, "vintage." If the emphasis in merely on "short," then there's a wide variety of newly constructed suburban development that can fit the bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
The organic open-air market is also unnecessary, you're jumping far ahead--but being walkable to places to work, to buy stuff (even if it's just a corner bodega) and to catch transit somewhere else is important.
Why is that important? Facebook and Google employees are doing all types of "creative" things and they drive to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Creative communities--the art/music/fashion/design sector--depends a lot of knowing people and bumping into people at random. You don't get a show at a cool gallery by sending out portfolios and hoping the curator likes your work, you get the show because you met them at some club because you were seeing your friend's band and happened to start up a conversation. The business model is based on running into people, and that happens a lot more frequently in dense spaces. New York's 1970s scene was based on that: the same few hundred people whose lives were interconnected because they were in bands with each other, or acted in each other's films, went to the same gallery shows and worked part-time at some bookstore or dated each other. Proximity fosters creativity by creating social connections that wouldn't happen otherwise.
So...if you live in a less walkable to almost unwalkable city, you cannot...
Meet people in clubs.
Go to galleries.
Run into people at bars?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
The point of an office park is to encourage employees to hang out in common areas with people other than their coworkers--a limited and controlled example of that sort of creative reaction.
So in other words...dense walkable neighborhoods are not required to spark creativity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
The point of the article is that high-rise towers and high population density aren't necessarily the key to lively urban life--a certain amount helps--but the most important part is that ability to interconnect. Which is why Le Corbusier style "towers in the park" urbanism is generally pretty sterile, it's still car-centric and doesn't encourage people to walk around and meet each other. And why skyscrapers and density isn't the only metric of urban success.
I don't see why living in an auto-centric environment precludes the ability to interconnect. You just drive to a restaurant to meet someone instead of walking to it.
"Old" and "disused" buildings are vintage. Just like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Shirts are vintage. Just like vinyl records are vintage. Just like Atari is vintage. When cities do not have much construction that's vintage, they will create it. That's why you see so many newly constructed "artist" lofts with concrete floors and exposed ducts.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (the comic) was created in a converted mill building in my city.
Quote:
Why is that important? Facebook and Google employees are doing all types of "creative" things and they drive to work.
Yet, when Google opens secondary offices in other metros, they almost always open in or near the center of a city not in a suburb. Not all Google employees drive to work; many live in a more urban area and take a company bus shuttle to their office. San Francisco has a large population of tech workers that commute to Silicon Valley. Ditto with Microsoft (many of the young workers live in Seattle and the company provides a shuttle). Most the tech startups in the NY metro are in "Silicon Alley" a section of Manhattan mostly of mixed-use low to mid-rise buildings outside of the two main CBDs/ skyscraper districts but still very dense and walkable with convenient subway access. Being close to financial and media companies in the CBDs helps, too. I know someone who works in one; none of the employees live in the burbs or even a neighborhood in the outer parts of the city. Which was sorta the point, more creative or new firms tend not to choose skyscraper districts.
Quote:
So...if you live in less walkable to almost unwalkable city, you cannot...
Meet people in clubs.
Go to galleries.
Run into people at bars?
So in other words...dense walkable neighborhoods are not required to spark creativity.
I don't see why living in an auto-centric environment precludes the ability to interconnect. You just drive to a restaurant to meet someone instead of walking to it.
Sure creative things happen in auto-centric areas; LA is a good example of one. But it's a bit easier to see events, venues on the way, experience city street life when you're walking a walkable urban area, say Greenwich and East Village in Manhattan rather than driving from happening spot to another happening spot in LA; especially if you're going by freeway.
Sure creative things happen in auto-centric areas; LA is a good example of one. But it's a bit easier to see events, venues on the way, experience city street life when you're walking a walkable urban area, say Greenwich and East Village in Manhattan rather than driving from happening spot to another happening spot in LA; especially if you're going by freeway.
Okaaay. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the concept of...
Sure creative things happen in auto-centric areas; LA is a good example of one. But it's a bit easier to see events, venues on the way, experience city street life when you're walking a walkable urban area, say Greenwich and East Village in Manhattan rather than driving from happening spot to another happening spot in LA; especially if you're going by freeway.
Not as a coincidence, the artist neighborhoods in LA are typically walkable and some of the more compact/transit connected neighborhoods - DT Art's District, Historic Core, Silver Lake, WeHo, Venice (where LA's Google office is located), Hollywood, Echo Park, even in the Valley the arts district is in the subway-connected and relatively walkable North Hollywood.
Like I said before, Dallas is a place that does not have a lot of walkable neighborhoods - but the arts district, Deep Ellum, is one of them. I am willing to wager the same is true in other car-centric cities like Albuquerque and Houston too.
Like I said before, Dallas is a place that does not have a lot of walkable neighborhoods - but the arts district, Deep Ellum, is one of them.
Why do you assume that creativity is being fostered in a neighborhood simply because it has been labeled an "arts district?" And what is the causal connection between walkability and creativity?
Why do you assume that creativity is being fostered in a neighborhood simply because it has been labeled an "arts district?"
Because of the abundance of galleries and artists living in the district. I've never been but my brother has a friend (went to Columbia U) who is a writer/journalist - when she got a job in Dallas for the newspaper, she was drawn to this walkable neighborhood with a high density of artistic/creative types and all the amenities that go along with it, like coffee shops not named Starbucks, record stores, bookstores, etc. So I didn't really assume, I have some second-hand experience with the neighborhood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
And what is the causal connection between walkability and creativity?
I don't think there is a causal link, but I think that walkability and density are a draw for artistic/creative people. Obviously it is not black and white, not every artist/creative wants to be in a high density neighborhood - many prefer peace and quiet.
Because of the abundance of galleries and artists living in the district. I've never been but my brother has a friend (went to Columbia U) who is a writer/journalist - when she got a job in Dallas for the newspaper, she was drawn to this walkable neighborhood with a high density of artistic/creative types and all the amenities that go along with it, like coffee shops not named Starbucks, record stores, bookstores, etc. So I didn't really assume, I have some second-hand experience with the neighborhood.
Galleries are just show places for art. That doesn't mean that creativity is being fostered in the neighborhood. And the ironic thing is that most artists could never afford to live in an "arts district" in their wildest dreams. My sister is a musician who currently lives out of my mother's basement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
I don't think there is a causal link, but I think that walkability and density are a draw for artistic/creative people. Obviously it is not black and white, not every artist/creative wants to be in a high density neighborhood - many prefer peace and quiet.
I actually think that walkable, dense/industrial areas are draws for wannabe artist types who think that artists should live in dense, walkable neighborhoods. These people are more focused on the outward affects of the "artist" (the Chuck Taylor's and weird haircuts) than they are on the actual art.
It's almost like teaching someone to play tennis. A question you'll often get from a beginner is, "What racquet does Federer use?" My response is usually, "Federer could use a stick and still beat you 6-0, 6-0." They're usually more focused on the equipment, the accessories, the shoes, the water bottles and looking like a tennis player more than they're focused on becoming a tennis player.
If you look at some of the more "creative" cities today (at least in Hip-Hop and R&B), they are not very dense or walkable. For example, most of the members of A Tribe Called Quest live in Atlanta in McMansions. Musiq Soulchild also lives in a McMansion. So does India Arie. Somehow they are able to create great music by getting into cars and driving to each others' houses/studios.
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.
