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 think they're for the most part, good because they keep population flowing particularly through less ideal neighborhoods and create an incentive for businesses to open or stay open.
One of those links described the housing in the Hill at the time. There is no doubt much of it, though not all, was what we would call "substandard" as in, dirt floors, rat infested, non-working or barely working plumbing, heating, and so forth. People look at the Hill through these rose-colored glasses and see only the good, and think, "those evil urban renewalists". Even when I did my public health clinical rotation at Pitt in 1970, the Hill was pretty rough.
But I think the argument can be made that wholesale razing of those poor living conditions and replacing it with that era's "urban renewal vogue" of fortress-like high rises, an arena surrounded by acres of parking lots, and an elevated highway was not a good answer. Sure, we weren't the only city to try this, but that doesn't make it any less of a mistake.
The Mercedes-Benz Superdome is in a perfect location, it adds to the life of the CBD and downtown and hosts many events including concerts, NCAA games, etc. There wouldn't be a better place for it to be than in that location on Poydras. Suburban stadiums are the worst "innovation" of all time, traveling fans don't get a chance to wonder around and check out the city they are visiting.
For example, Reliant is in a horrible location. An ocean of concrete separates it from a massive freeway and 8 lane wide roads. People drive there and drive back home or the hotel. It makes the game a chore.
But I think the argument can be made that wholesale razing of those poor living conditions and replacing it with that era's "urban renewal vogue" of fortress-like high rises, an arena surrounded by acres of parking lots, and an elevated highway was not a good answer. Sure, we weren't the only city to try this, but that doesn't make it any less of a mistake.
Funny you should say that. It seems that many of our urbanist friends want all of us to live in such buildings, and in Denver, a view of the interstate is considered quite chic in the hipster apts.
I don't think it was the greatest thing, but I'm not in favor of anyone living in such places.
Funny you should say that. It seems that many of our urbanist friends want all of us to live in such buildings, and in Denver, a view of the interstate is considered quite chic in the hipster apts.
Tower in the park high rises usually get bashed in urbanist forums, justly or unjustly.
But "density" is celebrated. These apt. complexes were not located in parks, for the most part.
Yes, many are interested in denser neighborhoods (including myself), not necessarily isolated high rises. Not all high density neighborhoods are built the same, and neither are all low density ones. Something like this rather than this. Both high density, extremely different form. I meant isolated high rises, whether by park or pavement.
As has been said before, an arena can add a lot to a CBD, assuming that sufficient road/transit access can be put in place*, and that the arena isn't replacing a neighborhood that's already adding a lot to the CBD. The hoardes of people that come into the arena can wander around downtown, see the sights, and do business in the CBD, which is something they wouldn't be doing if the arena was in suburbia. In the case of Atlanta there's already a stadium there anyway, so they've got nothing to lose and everything to gain by replacing it.
*Sufficient meaning that there is enough road space, parking, and transit access to avoid turning much of the downtown into a traffic nightmare on game day. If you can't do it right, don't do it at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Tower in the park high rises usually get bashed in urbanist forums, justly or unjustly.
For some reason the towers-in-a-park development style always appealed to me, in that it combines urban form with a taste of nature, which is something absent from most urban areas. It can also be beautiful to look at assuming the towers are otherwise attractive and the whole place is maintained properly.
For some reason the towers-in-a-park development style always appealed to me, in that it combines urban form with a taste of nature, which is something absent from most urban areas. It can also be beautiful to look at assuming the towers are otherwise attractive and the whole place is maintained properly.
I think if done well, they could be appealing, but otherwise they could be too isolating to gain many of the advantages of city life and feel while still having all the negatives (packed on top of each other). If for some reason low density detached housing was impractical, I suspect we would have seen more of them. What do you think of these examples that I took photos of? Too close together for lots of park, at least on one side, but on the other there is.
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.
