87 replies to this topic

[gdvanc]

Guilty. I should know better. I did try not to make it sound judgmental. Really I'm not judging their beliefs or practices, but discussing it can certainly come across that way. I think it's interesting to look at what characteristics of these churches drive (or require) them to become so large. But I'll just wonder to myself because you can't go very far with that before the potential to start a heated discussion increases significantly. And whatever the reasons, they don't bear on the impact of these churches on their surrounding neighborhoods.

 

Setting aside what's going on inside - churches are one of a few institutions that have the ability to build out of scale with their surrounding environment. Schools at all levels are another. Governments can. Are there others? The scale thing - I'm not sure I've ever given a lot of thought to that. Zoning laws mostly address use, not so much scale, right? That's interesting. And these institutions are generally exempt regardless. 

 

People may disagree about whether simply having a massively larger structure adjacent to a typical neighborhood is 'unsightly'. And the opinions of some will be influenced by the nature of the structure. There may be less difference of opinion about the requisite expanse of asphalt. And the impact on property values can be studied - no need for opinion there. But there shouldn't be much doubt that they do generally create traffic an parking issues. How else do they impact their surroundings? How often does it happen? How much input do homeowners have? Are there places where zoning rules include scale requirements?

[cberen1]

I'm not a zoning expert (or even a novice for that matter).  But it does seem like churches are exempt from a lot of regulation in ways that go far beyond their not for profit status alone.  You can plop a church down somewhere and now there's restrictions on other people locating nearby.  Are there restrictions on where churches can plop down?  Maybe a church shouldn't be able to lcate within 1,000 feet of an existing bar? 

 

Or, somewhat less facetiously, maybe churches could be required to conduct a neighborhood impact study prior to any significant physical plant changes (parking, traffic, business, aesthetics, property values, etc.).

[Austin55]

I know of some churches that use shuttle buses, and have parking offsite somewhere, usually a big box store parking lot they've made an agreement to share with.

 

There's the huge new lots just a few blocks north along Harley. Shuttle people in perhaps? 

[Jeriat]

I never understand why it's always assumed that people who want a little density and urban development aren't going to be happy until FW is the Texas version of NYC. I just want a happy medium. Is that so much to ask? The last time I drove through the Bryant Irvin/Hulen area, there was plenty of development on the fringes. And all of that will look like a fallout zone when the strip centers and Super Targets/Wal Marts start popping up along the tollway out by 1187 and 917

 

I don't see anything wrong with having most of what's 2-3 miles within radius of downtown be more dense while everything outside of that radius is suburban. 

I think that's as good (and realistic) a balance as we could get.

[mmmdan]

I'm reminded of a documentary I saw on KERA years ago called Subdivided: Isolation & Community in America.  It focused on neighborhoods around Dallas.  The big takeaway for me was the difference in how homes were built in older neighborhoods vs new neighborhoods.

 

In the new neighborhoods, the homes don't have porches and when you look at the front of the house all you see is the garage.  A lot of times, you have to search to even find the front door.  The home is not inviting to people.  It's made for the owner to do all their interaction with the neighborhood through the garage.  You might never actually see your neighbor in the front yard because everyone is always coming and going in their car, through the garage.

 

In the older neighborhoods, the garages are typically on the side of the house or in the back and the front door is very obvious which says that people are welcome here.  They interviewed one couple who initially bought a home in a new neighborhood but left after a few years for an older neighborhood because of the feel of the neighborhoods.  They mentioned that after 2 years of living in the new hood they never met their neighbors.  In fact one day he saw the neighbor across the street mowing the lawn and wanted to stop by and say hello and introduce himself.  As soon as the neighbor saw him coming, the neighbor took his lawnmower straight to the backyard to avoid saying hi to him.  They didn't really meet any of their neighbors until the day they moved out.

 

When they moved to the old neighborhood, within a week or two, everyone on the block stopped stopped by to say hello.

 

The film also discussed how people love the feel of the old neighborhoods.  The homes are too small though, so they knockdown an existing house and build a new style house in it's place.  This new style home in the old neighborhood then feels completely out of place.  Next thing you know, this happens to a few more of the old homes and now the neighborhood has lost the feel that made the people want to live there in the first place.

 

Here's a little article about the documentary from before it first aired  http://blogs.dallaso..._kera_tonig.php

[Austin55]

^ Do politicians know that highways don't actually relieve traffic, but build them anyway just for the sake of development, even if it's this bad? Are they lying to us saying the traffic will be better when really they just want to boost the tax base?

 

Or are they just dumb?

 

 

The general feeling of elected officials of most cities around this part of the state is we need development at any cost.

 

 

Jumping from the Chisolm trail thread again.  It seems like there's a status quo that the only way to develop FW is to annex farm or otherwise large swaths of empty land, and either subdivide the land into homes or build big box and strip retail. Instead, we ought to be going denser in the urban areas and improving the existing areas. 

 

Much of the Near Southside, for example, has TERRIBLE infrastructure, the roads are falling apart if they even exist, sidewalks are non-existent, etc. There are large areas of land between E. Berry and E. Lancaster to 820 which could be much nicer neighborhoods if improved. But most of the big new developments are going into areas outside 820, Alliance, Chisolm, etc. And I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with suburban style in moderation. But there just seems to be to big of a gap between urban renewal and new construction to existing areas, and building walmarts on old farmland. So what I want to know is, how to break that status quo?

 

I'm preaching to the Choir here though. 

[JBB]

The problem is short-term thinking. In the short-term, it's cheaper to buy and develop empty land. And, as many have stated here, most people think that's the will of the people.

[cberen1]

OK.  For the sake of argument then, what would be the reaction here if a developer proposed a plan to buy up a lot of houses South of Magnolia and East of Hemphill to clear the land and put in new construction?  This gets away from the Fairmont preservation section and most of the grand Hemphill architecture has been gutted. 

 

There are a lot of properties in that area that could be bought for under $75K.  To accomplish what the developers would want, they would, for lack of a better term, want to be able to secure their borders.  They won't want to do one off houses in the middle of an old neighborhood.  They need to clear cut.  They'll want to me able to move the pricepoint up from $75K to $375K in oder to make it worth the effort.  So, there can't be crack houses in between their new McMansions.

 

Assuming it's possible (which I don't think it is), how would this forum respond to bulldozing an entire neighborhood for new development?  That's kind of what's happening with Linwood.

[RenaissanceMan]

For my part, I would say it generally depends on what it is being replaced with. For where that particular area is located in close proximity to downtown, but still very close to small single story homes and buildings, I'd say that it'd be ok to replace it with something that is somewhat but not drastically more intensive - and by that I mean buildings that are a story or two taller than what is there now and with a greater variety of uses (housed within mixed-use buildings). Otherwise, I would want to see about the same level of intensity and function (not in terms of use but as a part of the urban fabric) relative to its surroundings.

Neighborhoods evolve and I'm ok with that as long as the change is in a positive direction and as long as the neighborhood is becoming something appropriate for where and what it is (for instance, replacing those houses with exurban style McMansions would he deplorable even if at a $359-400K price point; it just wouldn't be appropriate to where and what that area is in reference to the city as a whole).

In some instances, there is something special and timeless there that should be preserved (with an historical district), but otherwise a gradual change over time should be expected. It just then becomes a hope that the quality of that change is suitable and positive.

[johnfwd]

This approach reminds me of the urban renewal impetus in major cities circa 1950s and 1960s.  Some projects worked; others were abysmal failures.  Yes, demolishing and starting over is a good idea for old neighborhoods such as Linwood where rehabbing on a piecemeal basis probably is cost-prohibitive.

 

One thing we may have overlooked in the discussion about "conventional suburbanism" is that there was a post-WW2 market demand for developing subdivisions away from the cities.  Specifically, high-income or upwardly mobile families desired to live in these secluded neighborhoods for a variety of reasons, including privacy, exclusivity, sense of community, lower taxes, and a more pleasant quality of life.  Some quality of life features:  getting away from urban crime, noise, traffic congestion; enjoying outdoor barbeques with friends; and the prestige of "keeping up with the Jones's".   And, unfortunately, there was a racial component to this outward trend.  So it was a matter of personal choice among economically fortunate Americans, not just because of the convenience of access afforded by automotive transportation.

[JBB]

 

So it was a matter of personal choice among economically fortunate Americans, not just because of the convenience of access afforded by automotive transportation.

Yes, you're right, but those 2 factors are mutually exclusive. The choice was available because of the convenience. 

[RenaissanceMan]

One thing we may have overlooked in the discussion about "conventional suburbanism" is that there was a post-WW2 market demand for developing subdivisions away from the cities.  Specifically, high-income or upwardly mobile families desired to live in these secluded neighborhoods for a variety of reasons, including privacy, exclusivity, sense of community, lower taxes, and a more pleasant quality of life.  Some quality of life features:  getting away from urban crime, noise, traffic congestion; enjoying outdoor barbeques with friends; and the prestige of "keeping up with the Jones's".   So it was a matter of personal choice among economically fortunate Americans, not just because of the convenience of access afforded by automotive transportation.

 
I have to say that it was actually quite a bit more complicated than that. Yes, there was a growing interest among the middle class in acquiring what was at that time perceived and presented as a middle class lifestyle. I say "presented" because there was a whole slew of ingredients that shaped this perception that a middle class lifestyle meant living in a modern subdivided suburban community and that the degraded "inner city" was and would always be a breeding ground for crime and minorities (viewed at the time as one in the same, of course), and this was reinforced in advertising and popular media (practically a third of the plot of "It's a Wonderful Life" revolves around this - heck, George Bailey was a subprime lender who helped get people out of mean old Mr. Potter's overcrowded tenement houses and into the ranch style houses of the gleaming new suburb; of course he and his wife also renovated an old Victorian house in one of the older suburbs in the city, but that's another story).
 

• You also had the VA loan which gave subsidized low interest long-term loans to returning WWII vets and their booming families toward the purchase of a house
• You had tax incentives (deduction of mortgage interest) that favored home ownership over renting
• You had HUD/FHA which literally rewrote the book on the strictly-defined types and physical designs of the homes that it would back (insure) loans for, which single-handedly led private mortgage lenders to lend almost exclusively to single-family homes (even if they weren't FHA loans)
• You had downtowns that had been devastated by disinvestment due to the one-two punch of the Depression and WWII and which were wholly inadequate (from a housing and infrastructure standpoint) for the needs immediately following the war and which would be far too expensive to address within a relatively short period of time (versus building outside of the city)
• You had radical changes in how and where infrastructure investments took place and the ripping up of existing infrastructure in the city (particularly transportation infrastructure, such as streetcars) that had degraded due to the country's inability to support it financially for the previous two and a half decades or which was seen to compete with an auto industry which was increasingly promoted as the backbone of the new American economy
• Racist practices such as blockbusting and redlining
• The rise of a new class of highly trained (in large part due to the war) engineers who were paired with architects that subscribed to a new flavor of Modernism (supported by the perceived blank-check of American post-war prosperity) that were now able to flex their muscles
• You had a widespread effort to clarify what it was to be an "American" family (in contrast to the godless communists of the Soviet Union) and the ways that Americans should spend their piece of a very prosperous time (we were, after all, the only industrial economy still standing after the war - all the other western nations had to go back and rebuild their war torn cities... we just left ours to die, to the point that by the 60s one would think that the war took place in America)
• You had a whole other complicated set of factors drawing industry out away from the city and into new regions of the country that were a practical blank slate for development (everything from changes in government subsidies, to changes in and modernization of business practices at the time, a feeding off of the residential trends that I've already described leading their workforce to be located further outside of the city, to a very real and deliberate effort on the part of the government and the department of defense to spread out the country's industry so that it would not be so highly concentrated and vulnerable to nuclear attack)
• And yes, you had people who simply desired to live in a single-family home out in the new version of a suburban "community"

 
So when I say that since WWII the U.S. has basically been building modern(ist) suburbs on an industrial scale, I mean that very literally. We've gotten so good at it, in fact, that we've nearly lost the ability to conceive of anything different. And much of the market response was in reaction to, guided by, and/or in the context of all of these factors.

Edit: oh yeah... and this is all before they tried to "fix" things in downtowns during the 60s and 70s using Modernist principles and experimental urban planning strategies.

[Volare]

I posted this article in another thread, but there are a couple of juicy quotes that fit into this thread:

 

... "About half of the land is in Fort Worth and the other half in its extraterritorial jurisdiction. Fort Worth Councilman Jungus Jordan, whose district includes the site, said land will be annexed as it is developed."

 

..."The land has access to a water tower, but plans are to bring city water and sewer service to the property."

 

..."The land is 18 miles south of downtown Fort Worth"

 

Brilliant.

 

Read more here: http://www.star-tele...#storylink=cpy"

Read more here: http://www.star-tele...1#storylink=cpy

[gdvanc]

Well, this is why this was built. This is why the movers and shakers have been trying to push this through for decades. Whether they call it the Southwaste Porkway or Chisel-em Trail, important people have accumulated property along its path and fought and fought to make this happen. Who are we to deny them?

 

I did meet someone once who thought this was actually about addressing traffic congestion. True story.

[mmmdan]

I'm a broken record on this, but it's a good thing we stopped looking into streetcars.  They would have just been a handout to developers.

[RenaissanceMan]

I'm a broken record on this, but it's a good thing we stopped looking into streetcars.  They would have just been a handout to developers.

I'll go ahead and be Side B of that broken record by saying that the streetcar system would have (and could yet be) a valuable addition to the city in numerous ways and that the decision that was at the time under consideration would have been a judicious use of public funds.

[gdvanc]

I've never broken any records, but I don't think a streetcar connecting points within an urban-ish core (where most people would agree further growth is widely beneficial) is a valid comparison to a tollway built across miles of gently rolling undeveloped prairie.

 

Any investment in new transportation infrastructure - whether rail or highway - will benefit landowners and developers. The thing with the parkway, though, is that seems to be the only reason to build it.

 

Given that the investment is going to drive development, invest it where the development is the most beneficial. I'm not anti-car; hell, I live in the suburbs. But the truth of the matter is that a dynamic and thriving core is what makes a city. Fort Worth cannot differentiate itself and attract more corporations, more conventions or more of much of anything interesting by promoting the kind of cookie-cutter crap that we've just enabled from downtown cowtown to Cleburne. The sprawl to the north is inevitable and there Fort Worth has to decide where to try to grab some (Alliance was sensible) and what to leave alone. But to promote sprawl to the south is just nonsense.

 

Just looking at Fort Worth as a product to market, most of it's best differentiators are in or near downtown: Sundance and the promise of what Lancaster and the rest of downtown might be, the Museum district, the near South, the Botanical Gardens, a world class Zoo and, for now, the Stockyards. Promoting commerce and density here should be the focus over accommodating people who want to work in the city but live in the sticks. Part of that is investing in ways for people to move around easily, and wider streets and more surface parking are not the answer. You'll never get there that way because cars aren't built for that scale. They're not designed for the density that we should hope to achieve in the core. I don't know if streetcars are the answer, but I'm quite sure cars are not.

 

It occurred to me not too long ago that as individuals and in groups we sometimes take advantage of a new technology (or belief) to free us from some shackle or difficulty only to find ourselves ultimately shackled to something new. Cars are a great example of that. They freed us from being confined to a small area. They allowed us a new personal freedom to roam and explore. But where everything is built for that, you're effectively bound to it. Just an observation. YMMV. At any rate, it seems pretty clear that - assuming we're not about to run out of oil - that won't change anytime soon. Still, doesn't it make sense to promote a type of growth somewhere in the Fort where people - whether guests or residents - can move freely and easily without an automobile? And isn't the most sensible place to do so in and around downtown?

[Fort Worthology]

 

I'm a broken record on this, but it's a good thing we stopped looking into streetcars.  They would have just been a handout to developers.

I'll go ahead and be Side B of that broken record by saying that the streetcar system would have (and could yet be) a valuable addition to the city in numerous ways and that the decision that was at the time under consideration would have been a judicious use of public funds.

 

 

I'm thinking that mmmdan was being sarcastic.  

[RenaissanceMan]

 

I'm a broken record on this, but it's a good thing we stopped looking into streetcars.  They would have just been a handout to developers.

I'll go ahead and be Side B of that broken record by saying that the streetcar system would have (and could yet be) a valuable addition to the city in numerous ways and that the decision that was at the time under consideration would have been a judicious use of public funds.
 

 
I'm thinking that mmmdan was being sarcastic.  

Well of course I can see that now....

Just leave me to fight my windmills - I feel so much more noble and courageous that way.

[mmmdan]

I remember that one of the major points for not putting in a streetcar was that it won't pay for itself and the city would be picking winners and losers for development based on where the line ended up running.  In essence it would be a handout to the people that owned land closest to the line.

 

It appears to me that all this new development has been patiently waiting for the last 40 years for the CTP to be built.  I can't say for sure because I didn't do any research, but from what I've been reading, most of the land that is currently under development or is planning to be developed has been held by just a few families.

 

While The CTP is a toll road so in essence it "will pay for itself," had we been raising the gas tax over the last 20 years to match inflation, I would bet that the CTP would have been built by the state w/o making it a toll road.  Had that happened the road definitely would not have paid for itself.

 

I don't hear anyone complaining when a new highway goes in and all of sudden there's all this green field development that makes a few people very rich because they were lucky enough to own the land nearby, but when you change the highway to a streetcar all of a sudden it's a problem.

 

Also, I will have to start using this to make sure my sarcasm isn't mistaken in the future.

[RenaissanceMan]

Also, I will have to start using this to make sure my sarcasm isn't mistaken in the future.

 

Much appreciated

[mmmdan]

Here's a great post about one of the major issues with how things were built in the modern era.

 

http://stroadtoboule...-and-non-places

 

The big take-away:

Green space is a new invention. What’s it for? Green Space was invented to make our other Non-Places less horrible. It basically doesn’t exist in the Traditional City.

 

One of the basic problems with Non-Place is that it’s contagious. When you start introducing Non-Places into a city design, you tend to add more and more Non-Places to try to fix the problems caused by the original Non-Places. If you have two Places next to each other, like an apartment building and a store, then you can easily walk from the apartment building to the store. If you put a big roadway in between, now you can no longer walk. You need a car. Now the apartment building needs a parking lot. Now the store needs a parking lot. Now the roadway needs to get bigger because of all the people driving from the apartment to the store. Now you need to surround the apartment building with grass (or better yet, a row of trees) to add a little buffer between the apartment building and the noisy roadway, because who wants to live next to a roaring highway? Then, you need to surround all the parking spaces with more grass and shrubbery, so that you aren’t left with acres of burning asphalt. Then, the apartment building and the store are now so far from each other that you decide you need a freeway system.

 

[johnfwd]

I understand the author's logic about the uselessness of "green space," by which he means grass, shrubs, and trees around buildings, asphalt parking lots, and concrete highways.  But I have no qualms about green space for two reasons.  First, the greenery adds variety to what would otherwise be a monotonous environment.  You want bland glass and brick structures everywhere and landscapes laden entirely with concrete for as far as the eye can see?  Not me, buddy!  Second, this cutesy writer is forgetting that flora and fauna do contribute worthily to our environment.  How?  By taking in carbon dioxide and giving off oxygen, for heaven's sake!  I can't image how I could breathe in a urban environment suffocating in brick and mortar and concrete and bereft of nature's gift to humanity.  Since you can't have a park on every street corner in a city, I won't begrudge developers for putting in as much greenery here and there as is possible.

[RenaissanceMan]

You want bland glass and brick structures everywhere and landscapes laden entirely with concrete for as far as the eye can see?  Not me, buddy! 

While I agree with your general sentiment, I can't help but jab that, apart from the blandness, there is a city just like that, and it's called Rome.

Anyhow, I think that what the author is really getting at is the use of so called "nature band aids."

[mmmdan]

I also don't want to live in a complete concrete jungle, and totally agree that we need nature in the city.  The problem as RenaissanceMan put is that developers put in green space as a band-aid for poor design.  It really should just be called landscaping, but the new buzz-word is green space.

 

When green space is presented the renderings show all these people using the green space, but in reality, the way green space is typically built, the green space is not accessible, not inviting, and no one actually goes there and uses it.  Boy does it look pretty as we zoom by in our car though.

 

Had a space been properly designed for people then the apartment and the store and the school, and the whatever, could be built such that people can easily access them by walking or biking, and then that properly designed green space would actually be called a park that both provides the benefit of converting CO2 to O2 but would also be used by people.

[johnfwd]

Not meaning to sound argumentative here, but I think you've missed my point.  If the author is saying that the only green space that counts is the green space that is a park, then no developer is going to put in green space.  Why?  Because you can't put a park just anywhere among buildings and parking lots.  My point was that a spot of grass, trees or shrubs may not be used by anyone, but it serves to add variety to the monotony of the urban environment and the greenery gives off oxygen.  These two factors should be as important as the utility of public access.

[McHand]

OK.  For the sake of argument then, what would be the reaction here if a developer proposed a plan to buy up a lot of houses South of Magnolia and East of Hemphill to clear the land and put in new construction?  This gets away from the Fairmont preservation section and most of the grand Hemphill architecture has been gutted. 

 

There are a lot of properties in that area that could be bought for under $75K.  To accomplish what the developers would want, they would, for lack of a better term, want to be able to secure their borders.  They won't want to do one off houses in the middle of an old neighborhood.  They need to clear cut.  They'll want to me able to move the pricepoint up from $75K to $375K in oder to make it worth the effort.  So, there can't be crack houses in between their new McMansions.

 

Assuming it's possible (which I don't think it is), how would this forum respond to bulldozing an entire neighborhood for new development?  That's kind of what's happening with Linwood.

 

 

This has been attempted at the Sierra Vista development at Riverside and Berry.  Some old apartments were demolished to make room for a subdivision with two-story frame homes with porches.  Design-wise they are a step up from the brick boxes of the 90s and early 2000's.  But the development is only about half full with several empty lots.  The project doesn't have a web presence anymore....call the number on the sign and it's someone's cell phone instead of an office.  The whole thing seems to be falling apart, unfortunately.  

The project was well-intentioned but there are no commercial entities along Berry or Riverside to appeal to those who want to live in an urban environment.  It is like a tiny suburb in the middle of blight.  No wonder people would rather purchase a home in the actual suburbs.

[cberen1]

To me, that begs the question, why are people in Chicago, San Fran, New York, etc. willing to put up with transitional neighborhoods and people in our happy burg are not?

 

At the neighborhood level I'm a little weak, but apart from Fairmont, is there another sizable Ft. Worth neighborhood ungoing a legitimate regentrification?  Does public school funding in Texas play a role in this?

[Russ Graham]

OK.  For the sake of argument then, what would be the reaction here if a developer proposed a plan to buy up a lot of houses South of Magnolia and East of Hemphill to clear the land and put in new construction?  This gets away from the Fairmont preservation section and most of the grand Hemphill architecture has been gutted. 

 

There are a lot of properties in that area that could be bought for under $75K.  To accomplish what the developers would want, they would, for lack of a better term, want to be able to secure their borders.  They won't want to do one off houses in the middle of an old neighborhood.  They need to clear cut.  They'll want to me able to move the pricepoint up from $75K to $375K in oder to make it worth the effort.  So, there can't be crack houses in between their new McMansions.

 

Assuming it's possible (which I don't think it is), how would this forum respond to bulldozing an entire neighborhood for new development?  That's kind of what's happening with Linwood.

 

 

Some development of this kind happened for a while in the early 2000's in Monticello.  Village Homes was able to get some contiguous lots put together that were already zoned "C".  They knocked down whatever was there (I think it was 40's bugalows) and built row houses at a higher price point.  I'd say that's almost a prerequisite for row houses to appear: you have to be able to put together 3 or 4 contiguous lots, and have that coincide with zoning that allows it, and a location that lends itself to denser single-family houses.  So in any redeveloping neighborhood there's a sweet spot as the neighborhood is turning the corner, where the lots are still cheap and you can still get lots for "$75k" or whatever.   You couldn't do the same thing now in Monticello for example - land has gotten pricier in the mean time.  (in part as a reaction to the redevelopment)

 

I wonder if Como will be the "next Linwood"...  you could easily imagine a developer stringing together several lots and making something good happen.  It depends on the city following through with the zoning though.

[cberen1]

I wonder if Como will be the "next Linwood"...  you could easily imagine a developer stringing together several lots and making something good happen.  It depends on the city following through with the zoning though.

 

 

There have been persistant rumors that the Bass family, through some intermediaries, has been accumulating property in Como for years.  I don't know if there's anything to that.  It seems inconsistent with their MO, but it highlights that people generally see it as a possibility.

[Russ Graham]

a spot of grass, trees or shrubs may not be used by anyone, but it serves to add variety to the monotony of the urban environment and the greenery gives off oxygen. 

 

Speaking as an urban dog owner, I have a slightly different view of spots of grass downtown.  I would say they are used by quite a few... and they are very important... but more as a "utility" than as a "decoration". 

[Fort Worthology]

My point was that a spot of grass, trees or shrubs may not be used by anyone, but it serves to add variety to the monotony of the urban environment and the greenery gives off oxygen.  

 

I'd say the urban environment isn't monotonous if you're doing it right.

 

Which is not to say I hate plants - far from it.  It's just there's no monotony to fix if you're designing your cities the right way.  There's visual interest abounding from the buildings, businesses, residences, etc.  Which you can spice up with the sort of greenery that fits a city context - planters, street trees, well-programmed & designed parks & plazas, etc. rather than just berms and shrubs wherever we couldn't figure out what to do.

[McHand]

 

rather than just berms and shrubs wherever we couldn't figure out what to do.

 

 

 

Or worse, shrubbery specifically designed to keep people out.

[RenaissanceMan]

 

My point was that a spot of grass, trees or shrubs may not be used by anyone, but it serves to add variety to the monotony of the urban environment and the greenery gives off oxygen.  

 

I'd say the urban environment isn't monotonous if you're doing it right.

 

Which is not to say I hate plants - far from it.  It's just there's no monotony to fix if you're designing your cities the right way.  There's visual interest abounding from the buildings, businesses, residences, etc.  Which you can spice up with the sort of greenery that fits a city context - planters, street trees, well-programmed & designed parks & plazas, etc. rather than just berms and shrubs wherever we couldn't figure out what to do.

 

You just summed up in five sentences the problem I've got with the so-called "Landscape Urbanism."

[johnfwd]

Beyond reacting to what I believe was a silly article (above), I have no quarrel with landscape artistry done the right way (though, as any art, "in the eye of the beholder." ).  I suppose that architecturally pleasing buildings and imaginative landscaping (along with LED lighting) can relieve the monotony.  I guess the argument about trees and plants giving off oxygen was not very impressive, but I think we've taken that for granted.  Somebody at BRIT needs to step forward and support that view!  Not being a perfectionist here, however, I find it difficult to distinguish between planters and shrubs,  At the risk of being repetitive, the more live greenery the better for reasons I've given, and for pet canines, too.

[mmmdan]

The main thing is to be on the lookout when developers use the term green space.  Like in the blog post, at the end where it shows the 4 lane road with a huge median.  It was most likely sold to the people as green space, but it ends up being a waste.  In a more perfect world, the median would have a been a lot smaller and the green space could have been moved to the sides of the road where people like Russ could actually use the grass to walk his dogs.  I highly doubt anyone is going to be hanging out in that median.

 

It's similar to the issue of useless sidewalks.  There's a sidewalk that takes pedestrians so far out of their way that it's hardly used, and the pedestrians end up wearing a path in the grass following the shortest, most logical route.  The developer got credit for installing a sidewalk, but in reality they might as well have not bothered.

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Desire_path

 

I think in general, we are a lot closer together on this issue than it seems on the internet.

[RenaissanceMan]

It's similar to the issue of useless sidewalks.  There's a sidewalk that takes pedestrians so far out of their way that it's hardly used, and the pedestrians end up wearing a path in the grass following the shortest, most logical route.  The developer got credit for installing a sidewalk, but in reality they might as well have not bothered.

 

There really are a lot of comparisons that one could make between the use of sidewalks and the use of greenspace in most developments, mostly because they both serve the same funtion in the eyes of the developers/architects: decoration. A lot of this discussion reminds me of a conversation I had a few years back with an architect as we drove toward a project. At one point we passed a somewhat new big box power center anchored by a Target and it was surrounded by the standard sea of parking that was wrapped in a green shell of grassy berm and sporadic trees. Along this berm was a sidewalk - just your standard suburban token sidewak that enjoyed peak use by the construction workers who built it and had barely seen a human since. As we passed, I think I made some casual comment about how disappointing that particular development was and how they could have done much more with it. The architect then said something I will never forget. He agreed that the development was disappointing and said that "they could have at least put a little more money into the sidewalk to make it curve along its way in order to make it more interesting." In his eyes, the fix to the situation was to have that boring old sidewalk curve back and forth like an amusement park ride at Coney Island in order to "make it more interesting."

 

And that's exactly the problem. If you look at someting like a sidewalk or greenspace as being mere decoration to help dress up a development, then you are going to 1) have it be viewed by the developer as an expense that maybe they'll get around to if theire is enough left in the budget or if people pitch a fit, 2) have it be viewed as an opportunity for the architect/landscape architect to express himself/herself by giving it a little extra flair, and 3) have it viewed by those who visit or travel past the property as decoration (and not something that serves any other function).

[RenaissanceMan]

Ok, so I am going to break a precedent here by freely admitting that I don't know everything. Here goes...

 

There is one thing that I have become fairly interested in lately that I just don't know that much about and I am hoping that some of you on here might be able to fill in the gaps for me. In tracing the history of architecture, urban design, and development from prior to WWII to its current (often sad) state, I have a pretty good grasp of the hows and whys of commercial, civic and residential design and development with one glaring exception - the suburban apartment complex. I honestly have very little knowledge of what drove architects and developers to begin building apartment complexes (particularly the standard garden apartment or gated apartment "community") in the manner that seems to be the almost exclusive form throughout the country for most of the past half-century.

 

I recognize several of the factors that are clearly involved (single-use zoning, auto-oriented city planning, etc.), but can anybody fill me in on how we went from building apartments the way(s) we did prior to WWII to the ways that we did in the 50s-60s, 70s-80s, 90s-today? What were the architectural influences? What were the cultural or commercial influences? It is simply too ubiquitous to be accidental, but I honestly have little idea as to what really shaped it.

 

Would love to get some perspective on this.