What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The (new) urbanist, traditional walkable neighborhood, TOD & Place-Based Econ Dev thread: Off to APA then LOCUS - next month CNU (1 Viewer)

Koya

Footballguy
It's been requested that we start a thread about something a few of us are directly involved within professionally and many others have expressed some interest in discussion.  Namely, the growing market for live, work, learn, shop, play settings that provide for walkability, mobility options (biking, street car, light rail, commuter rail, heavy rail). 

Let this be a catch all thread for discussions of design, architecture, transportation and, really, living and experiencing these environments.

For those who don't know, I am a developer and urban/suburban revitalization strategist who has worked on multi-billion dollar projects in the Northeast (Primarily Long Island, also New Rochelle, NY), about half a dozen of which are all about to enter the construction phase.  I've parlayed that into forming my own strategic consulting firm, which is now entering into a partnership with a Town Planner/Urban Design and Development Strategies firm in Dallas.

Feel free to ask any questions, provide comments, whatever it may be.  

Now, this expansive growth in mixed-used, walkable and (at times) transit oriented communities is not for everyone.  There will always be a strong market desire for traditional single family homes and suburban landscapes... although those are adapting in ways whereby bedroom communities more and more demand having some "center" of activity, commerce and culture, be it a downtown, a town center, or whatever you wish to call it.  However, we had built SO little urban product over the past 70 years since the end of WWII and the onset of suburbia and suburban sprawl that this market is terribly underserved.

The last 20 years have witnessed expansive growth and reinvestment into large urban cores - I call it the friends and seinfeld phenomenon.  After cities decayed into blight, outside of select high end cores (like certain areas of manhattan), there was a huge pent up demand within Gen X (and very young boomers) to move into the city as a departure from their suburban upbringing.  At the same time, older boomers who were looking to retire or downsize as empty nesters also wanted to live a more urban, walkable experience without reliance on the auto, the troubles of moving lawns, shoveling snow and the isolation that occurs in low density, single use environments (it's one thing when you have kids, you world revolves around school, PTA, church/synagogue and activities, when the kids go, it can get boring to say the least). As TV is often representative of new trends, you went from watching CHiPs and the Brady Bunch that idealized automobiles and suburbia to watching Friends and Seinfeld, ER and the like... within urban centers. 

Over the past 20 years, the demand for city living has made many of these prime large core cities all but impossible from an affordability component. In addition, technologies like the internet, remote workplaces, better access to travel and the spread of urban amenities into less dense locations made it possible to have "most" of the benefits of urban living without the cost. This has created significant pent up demand for urban style living within suburban regions (often connected via transit to the major urban core).  Now, we see that pushing into small towns and rural locations with downtown hubs, and that is where my expertise lies, along with my new business partner (I've done more urban/suburban, not much small town yet, but the market is beginning to grow - hell, it's the only walkable, cool building stock, mixed-use environment that artists can afford, which is one of the initial signals of a market shift in our industry).  

To that end, there are growing areas that are trying to utilize what little vacant land they have to maximize growth potential and tie into transit lines, necessitating the creation of "urban nodes in suburbia" along with revitalizations of existing and often neglected downtowns.  From both a strategic consulting and actual development perspective, that is my focus.

ANYhoo, with that as backdrop, discuss away.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Will kick this off answering @BroncoFreak_2K3's question from my Moving to Dallas thread:

Ever read any works by Andres Duany? Founder of the Congress for the New Urbanism.  Good stuff.  I'm a member here in MI.

Our group has undertaken several similar projects like you've spoken of around the state.  They have been very successful and have led to the overall stability of the municipality on a whole.

Big believer.

Good luck!
Thanks.  Yes, I know Andres - literally almost got into fisticuffs with his brough Doug - ERRRR Douglas. Have also done some, though minimal work with DPZ (Senen is great, and Marina Khoury is a no holds barred kick ### force of nature).

Long story short, I was speaking at the CNU congress 3 or so years ago, and was talking to someone about my issues with CNU's overly academic approach.  As a developer, I love the theory, but without implementation it's a worthless ivory tower there to stroke the ego's of Andres et al (who has had a profoundly positive impact on land use and design, but has not evolved as the market and the world, even, has caught up - it's in many ways no longer a New Urbanism.  It's urbanism.

ANYhoo, Im talking to someone about how to take it from the Ivory tower, not dilute the purpose of the congress, but expand the reach to interested developers and others who want to do great work - or even good work/development, as opposed to strip center suburban crap.  DougLAS turns around on his high horse and starts pontificating about "if WE (the CNU) catered to people like YOU, then people like ME would have no desire to even come here!"

I was aghast.  So obvious it was about ego and the "concept of it all" without any consideration to actually implement, and without implemention you don't positively effect people's lives.  He goes ... "have you even READ MY BOOK!!!" to which I responded... no, but I am here, talking with you, interested in learning and wanting to embrace the concepts of New Urbanism to make great things actually happen. 

Well, he huffs and puffs and goes on about all the great master plans and all he has done, and I respond something like a master plan without implementation is worthless, and sometimes does more harm than good and went on with the real kicker.... 

"Tell me DougLAS, how many JOBS have you created through these plans"

At that point his head almost explodes and that comment brought Andres into the heated discussion as he was apparently right behind us listening.  

After the heat of the intellectual battle subsided a little, Andres did give me a hug and seemed to appreciate the debate, if not my position on it and "gained some respect" for me - which is a fairly underhanded compliment, but hey, it was fun. 

FYI, my partner has been a CNU board member for 8 years. It's a great organization, but their insular and overly academic approach really limits the good work they can do.  For that reason I focus far more on the Urban Land Institute, more localized efforts (I am on the board of the Real Estate Institute at Stony Brook) and folks focused on practice and implementation (also a board member of the Form Based Codes Institute, which is great since I couldn't write a code for my life, but as an urban - urban/suburban developer, recognize the value of a good zoning code and the terrible downside of a bad one).

There are a number of folks in the field on this board, curious to see who else we have. 

 
I hate bicyclists.
I'm sure the feeling mutual.

in all seriousness though, when you have appropriate infrastructure and educated cyclists users of different modes can all get along.  Also, urban centers are appropriate locations for emphasizing walking and biking at the expense of autos - the opposite for connective asterials in lower density auto-oriented suburban settings. 

 
You got any links or pics of this urban lefty utopia?

i lived in Sweden and am guessing the stuff you work on is like where I lived in Sweden. These were row houses with bike paths, shops and open areas.  People parked their cars at a garage located on the outskirts of the development. 

 
I'm sure the feeling mutual.

in all seriousness though, when you have appropriate infrastructure and educated cyclists users of different modes can all get along.  Also, urban centers are appropriate locations for emphasizing walking and biking at the expense of autos - the opposite for connective asterials in lower density auto-oriented suburban settings. 
Good luck on the educated cyclists thing. As Chicago makes its city more and more bicycle friendly, there seems to be a whole bunch of give an inch, take a mile mentality with these people.

 
Also in thread title you use the word traditional.  Do you mean the time before cars or was there some time in our past where we lived like this and got away from it?  Serious question. 

 
At the same time, older boomers who were looking to retire or downsize as empty nesters also wanted to live a more urban, walkable experience without reliance on the auto, the troubles of moving lawns, shoveling snow and the isolation that occurs in low density, single use environments (it's one thing when you have kids, you world revolves around school, PTA, church/synagogue and activities, when the kids go, it can get boring to say the least).
My wife and I have definitely discussed downsizing and living in a city after kids are gone. We've both grown up in the DC area, so we naturally talk about getting a small 2 BR rowhouse. But, I'm also increasingly attracted to small towns with a good urban center. That could simply be because of cost of living.

 
I'm sure the feeling mutual.

in all seriousness though, when you have appropriate infrastructure and educated cyclists users of different modes can all get along.  Also, urban centers are appropriate locations for emphasizing walking and biking at the expense of autos - the opposite for connective asterials in lower density auto-oriented suburban settings. 

Good luck on the educated cyclists thing. As Chicago makes its city more and more bicycle friendly, there seems to be a whole bunch of give an inch, take a mile mentality with these people.
Adding to this... with the bike sharing programs being implemented in urban areas (Chicago's is called Divvy), and the fact that any idiot with a credit card can hop onto a bike lessens the likelihood of the educated cyclists. Throw those same idiots into one of the most heavily trafficked places in this country.....  I'm amazed that there isn't a trail of dead up and down Wacker Dr.

 
Make sure to make some room for mobile home parks for the all the Trump supporters.  Just put them around the retention ponds, they'll feel right at home.

 
Thanks!   That looks really nice though it would suck having a neighbor you didn't like as you'd be forced to see them frequently.  
I'm a huge fan of pocket neighborhoods that surround a central commercial node.  The proximity practically eliminates crime and does force you to actually to get to know your neighborhood.

Generally speaking the guy next door to you isn't going to out working on his pick up truck loudly listening to kid rock...most people get along

 
Don't care for it in old population centers (altho the Manhattan Skywalk is nutty great) because it's squeezing the poor out, but revitalizing mill towns is verrrry cool and anything that could be done to replace Western sprawl would be wonderful.

 
I live in a very walkable neighborhood, (Ballard, Seattle), and I love it.   I'd have a hard time moving out to the suburbs.    I don't see this as a lefty/righty thing, once you accept that increasing population density requires more public infrastructure.  

 
I live in a very walkable neighborhood, (Ballard, Seattle), and I love it.   I'd have a hard time moving out to the suburbs.    I don't see this as a lefty/righty thing, once you accept that increasing population density requires more public infrastructure.  
You may not see it as left and right but if you look at the map of the last presidential election the rest of the US population generally disagrees with you.  

 
Mrs. Foos and I have always had suburban homes, but I see the trend towards more urban city center planning.  Millennials want to be close to activities, walkable, short Uber rides, etc.  But they aren't the only ones.  I'd love to be able to walk to the grocery store and grab a few things without having to get in the car and drive 10 - 15 minutes each way.  Walk to a restaurant or some festival/activity, etc.

As soon as the kids are out of primary school we will be looking to get out of the suburbs and more into a town center type of location.  Both before it gets too expensive and before the suburban market decline.

 
I'd love to be able to walk to the grocery store and grab a few things without having to get in the car and drive 10 - 15 minutes each way.  
We're in the suburbs, too, but are fortunate to be within walking distance of a small shopping center. It has a grocery store, a few restaurants (mix of chains and local), pet store, barber/stylist, and a few other things. We didn't specifically pick our house because of it, but it's turned out to be nice ubran-like amenity despite not being in an urban area. Would be awesome, though, to have even more within a short walking distance which can really only happen in an urban setting. The few restaurants can get old fast.

 
Black dot.

I'd like to see discussion on the following topics:

  • Neighborhood revitalization vs Gentrification
  • Use of local tax incentives towards development projects
  • Affordable housing initiatives
 
You got any links or pics of this urban lefty utopia?

i lived in Sweden and am guessing the stuff you work on is like where I lived in Sweden. These were row houses with bike paths, shops and open areas.  People parked their cars at a garage located on the outskirts of the development. 
I'll get around to providing some examples and case studies (both concept plans and built product).

FWIW, this is hardly a lefty issue, don't let the word "urban" fool you.  This market crosses ideological lines. In fact two of the greatest champions I know in terms of supporting mixed-use, walkable and Transit Oriented Development are on the right, one of whom a FAR right evangelical. In addition, the opportunity to provide common space, employment and amenities is key for community centric populations, including and especially the Mormon Church and others in Utah. 

 
I'm sure the feeling mutual.

in all seriousness though, when you have appropriate infrastructure and educated cyclists users of different modes can all get along.  Also, urban centers are appropriate locations for emphasizing walking and biking at the expense of autos - the opposite for connective asterials in lower density auto-oriented suburban settings. 
Well said. Put some bike lanes in every city and it's all good. Love being able to bike somewhat safely around Seattle, to bars, to the store after work. When I'm not a lazy ### I can bike to work in about an hour even though I'm about 15 miles away and across a giant ### bridge.

Bikers that break the rules should be given tickets just like cars. Let's be honest though there are at least the same amount of  ####ty, probably more, drivers out there.

 
I love this subject.

Couple thoughts:

- Research Copenhagen.

- Man aren't you in Dallas now? Hard to imagine a less friendly grid that meets your concept, is that fair or unfair? NO has a great old pedestrian urban layout. If you're looking for a business model like this I think you have to find the right locale with a grid created when people largely driving....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I live in a very walkable neighborhood, (Ballard, Seattle), and I love it.   I'd have a hard time moving out to the suburbs.    I don't see this as a lefty/righty thing, once you accept that increasing population density requires more public infrastructure.  
People will do it if they find it more satisfying. Cities will do it if their voters want it. MMV.

 
 Interesting thread.  I live in an auto – oriented suburb build out primarily from the 1970s to the 1990s.  It even houses one of the larger regional indoor malls with the surface lot strip centers surrounding it.  It's also home to a number of large employers and has a rapid bus transit commuter station with frequent rides into downtown Minneapolis. 

 The mall has a current vacancy in one of the four anchor stores and the parking lot and that anchor store take up such a tremendous amount of wasted space that I would love to see higher density condos with first floor retail and a walkable entertainment  complex there as well.    Unfortunately, the built environment immediately outside of the mall retail area is dominated by freeways and high speed limit arterial roads so you can't really get to this area very easily without driving. 

 However, the Twin Cities is very well known for its investment in green space and biking and trails infrastructure.   I could very easily ride my bike from my home about 4 miles away to the mall complex area on completely paved, dedicated bike trails.  In fact, I could commute into downtown Minneapolis, which is about 15 miles away, using dedicated paved bike trails. 

 
I live in a very walkable neighborhood, (Ballard, Seattle), and I love it.   I'd have a hard time moving out to the suburbs.    I don't see this as a lefty/righty thing, once you accept that increasing population density requires more public infrastructure.  
Hey neighbor. Greenwood here.

 
 Interesting thread.  I live in an auto – oriented suburb build out primarily from the 1970s to the 1990s.  It even houses one of the larger regional indoor malls with the surface lot strip centers surrounding it.  It's also home to a number of large employers and has a rapid bus transit commuter station with frequent rides into downtown Minneapolis. 

 The mall has a current vacancy in one of the four anchor stores and the parking lot and that anchor store take up such a tremendous amount of wasted space that I would love to see higher density condos with first floor retail and a walkable entertainment  complex there as well.    Unfortunately, the built environment immediately outside of the mall retail area is dominated by freeways and high speed limit arterial roads so you can't really get to this area very easily without driving. 

 However, the Twin Cities is very well known for its investment in green space and biking and trails infrastructure.   I could very easily ride my bike from my home about 4 miles away to the mall complex area on completely paved, dedicated bike trails.  In fact, I could commute into downtown Minneapolis, which is about 15 miles away, using dedicated paved bike trails. 
From a city perspective you don't collect taxes on parking lots either...

 
What point are you trying to make with the "lefty" label?
Mostly tongue in cheek but I think this type of living is geared more towards city dwellers. Who tend to be more liberal.  

i think it would be a bit more difficult to convince conservative folks in this style of living. 

I think it's great and if it offered what I was looking for I'd move there no problem. 

 
Also in thread title you use the word traditional.  Do you mean the time before cars or was there some time in our past where we lived like this and got away from it?  Serious question. 
I mean both.  Historically, we started as Villages - walking was the only option. Built form followed this singular mode of transportation. Then you had carriages, horses etc, but still it was primarily pedestrian oriented, almost entirely. 

The train transformed the landscape by reducing the time to cross distance... but only for locations where the train stopped. As such, you had larger, more dense communities built at and around rail stops.  This extended well into the 20th century.

In fact, even early suburbs had a far more traditional neighborhood design. Much smaller homes on smaller lots were usually anchored by a smaller, midsize or even large (but not city core, NYC stuff) downtown. This was the center of community life, arts, retail.  Families had one car - women were not yet in the workforce and kids didn't start driving around in high school.  

As the 50s moved into the 60's, this entire landscape changed. For the first time in human history, the car became the dominating form of transportation and all but dictated how we built cities, communities, everything.  Retail went from mom and pops in downtowns to national brands in malls, strip centers etc.  There was no longer a convening element of a local downtown, and suburban sprawl literally and figuratively isolated and divided us.  We built neighborhoods not for people but for cars...

Early on, this was fine.  Driving was easy, there was not much traffic.  The suburbs provided access to the main city, many connected by commuter rail systems. It was part country/bucolic living, part modernity.  

But, unlike urban living where more is better (generally speaking, well designed uses spur more activity, more economics, more vibrancy), suburbia suffers when the "next potato field" becomes the next housing development.  It's a rampant use of land, terribly inefficient.  Road systems are almost incapable of significant flexibility and growth to accommodate the next new housing development as people lived further from the City core, the employment centers and rail connections.  Eventually, suburbia absorbed office uses as City's were abandoned, and now there was no centralizing factor. Just a bunch of cars going in all directions, overburdening the roads... it was not no longer like the country, and without the access to convenience as was found in more urban or formerly downtown oriented communities. 

In response to this sprawl and the negative effects, there was a renewed desire to live in the city, as I mentioned above... people moved, jobs moved back and as not everyone wants to (or can afford to) live in the "big city" there has been a growing movement for smaller, more human scaled mixed-use urban environments.

Hope that answers the question without going into a full on thesis. 

 
The lingering death of retail is a challenge for faux urbanism.  There has to be a there there for people to want to congregate.  The booming local economy here has helped to fill most of the ground floor commercial space available in newly constructed residential towers but I think there's got to be a limit to how many cafes, nail salons and medical offices that any area can sustain.

 
Most urban sprawls are cesspools of poverty stricken people that can barely make their bills. The urban cities are designed to destroy most folks and keep them down for the count. 

The Slaughter of Cities

On a lighter note I think it's great what you are doing. I am cheerleading the Brightline from West Palm Beach to Miami and then will go the other way to Orlando. When I bring it up around town to friends I am met with disgust. Most of them will never leave their cars, part of it is Florida mentality, public transportation down here is mostly hell. 

I see Brightline as a potential game changer, they see it as a major taxpayer expense. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I definitely see the appeal of these developments. Although honestly, they're usually so new, trendy, contrived, and millenial-oriented that they can be a bit eye-rolling. That's just me being a hater though. I'm glad for anyone finding a way to drive less.

 
I love this subject.

Couple thoughts:

- Research Copenhagen.

- Man aren't you in Dallas now? Hard to imagine a less friendly grid that meets your concept, is that fair or unfair? NO has a great old pedestrian urban layout. If you're looking for a business model like this I think you have to find the right locale with a grid created when people largely driving....
Copenhagen and much of Europe is eon's ahead of us in terms of good urban places.  That said, they also had a couple thousand year head start as compared to all but a tiny fraction of a percent of our developed land (the walled city was downtown, and once again is).

Europe also has never had the sprawling nature we face... you had tight knit, dense cities - walkable and transit friendly.. then the country. Very little low density but high impact uses like our suburbia.  

Even so, many city's in Europe or reintroducing pedestrian malls at the expense of vehicular traffic.  I believe Barcelona has a large car free zone.  Plazas that had become parking lots (like beautiful ####### european squares!) have been reconfigured for their original intended use... with significant social, economic and environmental benefits as a result.

It's only a matter of time before Manhattan becomes car free - or at least private car free during many/most hours.  Simply put, cars are not designed for dense cities, and dense cities are not designed to handle that much auto traffic.  The auto is best to get from some place to another place... not to go down the block to pick up milk. 

As to Dallas, you'd be shocked - as I was a couple months back.  Most of the area is driveable suburban, and I'd shoot myself having to live there. But the entire downtown area and surrounding neighborhoods is becoming a diverse, eclectic mix of walkable and transit served communities. Light and commuter rail then spur out to Mockingbird, up to Plano, Richardson, all kinds of places including historic and revitalized downtowns and new mixed-use developments. In fact, by moving to Dallas (in the downtown area), I'll give up my car for a bit as my wife and I can get by totally fine with one.  

The market wants this.  Even in a place like Dallas. Or Atlanta. Or LA.

And the market always wins.  Eventually. 

 
I definitely see the appeal of these developments. Although honestly, they're usually so new, trendy, contrived, and millenial-oriented that they can be a bit eye-rolling. That's just me being a hater though. I'm glad for anyone finding a way to drive less.
Much of the newer construction is just as you say - or Gen X and moreso boomers (because we Gen Xers now have kids and need some space and better schools) in lux/ultra lux accommodations.

That said, there are a ton of revitalized smaller scale downtowns that have existing old building stock and great street networks... a much more authentic look and feel 

 
My wife and I have definitely discussed downsizing and living in a city after kids are gone. We've both grown up in the DC area, so we naturally talk about getting a small 2 BR rowhouse. But, I'm also increasingly attracted to small towns with a good urban center. That could simply be because of cost of living.
As I mentioned, the next frontier for this is your smaller scale exurband and rural downtowns.  We had a good discussion in the automation thread about how technology will enable places that currently are simply "too far away" to have a full slate of offerings and amenities to get 80-90% of what is offered in the big city... that really is the best of both worlds for many. 

 
LOVE these concepts. Harkens back to the true Village style communal living of old, but with your own place and independence.  It's great for young professionals, artists and others and a nice compromise between an apartment and a traditional larger lot single family home.
What we have found is that old people actually love them along with those groups you have identified.  Pretty much eliminates crimes as I mentioned above. 

I have yet to see a pick-up driving, ted nugent loving individual buy one but maybe one day...we can dream.

 
Black dot.

I'd like to see discussion on the following topics:

  • Neighborhood revitalization vs Gentrification
  • Use of local tax incentives towards development projects
  • Affordable housing initiatives
All very important and sensitive issues.  That said, good planning and development, especially when done in a comprehensive way (not ad hoc just put up some zoning and see what happens type stuff) can eliminate much of the downside and increase the upside.  

In the end, if one master developer is working on a billion plus dollar project, or a city acts in that capacity and you have multiple 100M dollar developments going up, there is plenty of private sector profit and new public sector tax revenues to provide for local job training and creation, provision of attainably priced housing and a balance between new populations (and money/investment) entering a community while not displacing those who already live there. 

Tax incentives are a very local issue, but the reality is our gov't regulations and tax structures are so often onerous, especially in suburban areas (where dense may mean 3-5 stories, which is a lot less profit potential than 30 stories... or 80), they are necessary to get something built.  It's a high reward business, but eminently risky as well. 

The biggest issue with addressing the above is that Real Estate and development are now financial tools, investment vehicles and commodities... they have become removed from "place" and from the humans that will live, work, learn, shop and play in and around those buildings. That is why proper planning and govt partnership (not just oversight) is necessary, and why methodologies like a form based code which focuses on building the right urban form to create pedestrian friendly, vibrant neighborhoods can help direct the commodity style profit driven large scale developers into making their IRR's, but also creating buildings of high quality that interact properly with the street/sidewalk, other buildings, public spaces and the humans that use them.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top