Want To Grow? It Has to Be Urban Sprawl, Gentrification, or Vertical
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2023
- Discussion of the only three ways that a jurisdiction can grow. Whether it be urban sprawl into uninhabited areas, gentrification and repurposing of buildings and neighborhoods, or vertical development with high rises, at least one must be implemented in order to grow.
If you would like to purchase a pin for the viewer wall map or just to support the channel, please visitpatreon.com/geographyking
Album displayed:
The Hives: "The Death of Randy Fitzsimmons: (2023)
I grew up in a low-density sprawled suburb. While it was safe and nice to play in my backyard barefoot, I always felt kind of trapped. And as an adult I'm sure I'd be bored. After college I moved into a high rise, and although fun it was too congested and all the transient residents weren't interested in creating a sense of community. Now I live in a medium density rowhouse and I love it. I have a deck and a flower garden. I can walk to the grocery stores, barbershop, lots of taco spots, post office, pharmacy, and a city park in 5 minutes. I can take a bus in 15 minutes to see the Orioles and Ravens play. After 8 pm the neighborhood is as quiet as any suburb.
Same!
You’ve found the right way.
I grew up in St. George, UT, in early '90s when there were 35,000 people and the drive to Zion was 30-40 minutes. Now it's nonstop suburban sprawl across the desert from the Arizona border to Zion National Park, and the drive is WELL over an hour. Intersections that used to be four-way stops are now giant, 6-lane traffic-cloggers.
My perspective on urban sprawl and urbanism has changed immensely since I began watching CityNerd and NotJustBikes. The points they make, specifically about transportation and community, are really interesting.
Traffic congestion seems worse in the St George area than the Salt Lake area to me now
It certainly helps that SLC has been making decent progress in transit, walkability/bikability, and has been focusing on infill and transit oriented development. I think it's interesting how when we don't plan well for development, it doesn't stop it from happening, it just happens worse.
City Nerd and Not Just Bikes are interesting but what they ignore is not everyone wants to live in a box in the sky or a congested low rise neighbourhood downtown. Many people want land. They want some open space. Many can't afford the urban areas these guys are fans of. That is what drives sprawl and I can't say it is right, but I can't say it is wrong either.
One thing you didn't touch on, is middle density housing, skyscrapers and single family homes are not the only options. Also infrastructure cost is magnitudes a lot more in singles family sprawl than higher density neighborhoods.
one of the cons pushed by corporate cleptoparasites is actual thinning occuring around their crooked highrise redevelopments, starkly contradicting phony densifications they purport
Ton o' rot decades ago claimed it was going to densify many thoroughfares there, yet it turns out that that lakeside burg went splashily corporate by going for godawful highrises, thus contradicting their cozier density mandate ... shit, now they're taking to plonking 60 storey towers right in the middle of wilderness (the bush is how it used to be called even...)
Nonsense. 1) The infrastructure is generally paid-for by the developer, so what it costs is none of your business. It's generally not tax-payer funded. 2) Oftentimes, the low density neighbourhoods are on wells and septic fields, so those costs are especially none of your business. By the way, they're demonstrably cheaper than running pipes for miles, building water and sewage plants. Actually running costs are significantly cheaper than water and sewage bills. In any case, many such systems are user-funded, isolated from the tax payers. 3) Higher density neighbourhoods will likely need an on-site police station to deal with all the crime that comes with that lifestyle choice. 4) Fact is, the urban areas tend to request amalgamation with the surrounding areas because they need the money. The downtown core, which we rarely visit, needs money from the suburban sprawl areas. They're not sustainable financially. 5) If downtown high density is so cost-effective, then how come the costs are so high? Your position is utter nonsense.
@@JxHthe upfront infrastructure is paid for by developers sure, but what about 10 years later when you need to replace, or 25 years later when sewer lines need to be updated?
Short term planning is what gets cities into debt where taxes pay the interest on maintenance instead of crucial or fun(!) projects
oo la ---- mightily accessorised predation feigning civic affairs as being the domain squandered away by tellingly cleptoparasitic developers...that *_one's_* H___ Gates shall never *e v e r* be pearly, shall they...
With gentrification, I think there are a couple of things going on. First, is that we are seeing a reverse of the "white flight" of the 50s where wealthy individuals left the inner city for new suburbs being built. But today those older inner-city neighbourhoods are seen as a nice medium density, and oftentimes walkable, place to live. When new suburbs are super far from anything, there is new value in being close to things so these neighbourhoods would see the effects of gentrification regardless of what redevelopment happens.
That being said, replacing a small house with a big house that has the same number of people is not increasing density. Its just making a newer, larger and nicer house.
And for tower living: there is a level of convenience offered with super high density mixed use neighbourhoods with excellent transit that I had never really appreciated until I was actually there. Having a grocery store in your building is unbelievably convenient. Or a train line with service every 2 minutes a 5 minute walk from your couch makes planning trips a non-issue. You just...go. super high density neighbourhoods (FSR 6-7+ places) arent for everyone, but they certainly sell fast enough to keep making them.
Nonsense completely. The middle class is getting out of the insane political wreckage of the inner cities every where. we are fleeing in masses
Even though you mentioned it a lot in the video, I do think infill development is fundamentally different from gentrification as it involves less adaptive reuse and more development on underutilized areas. So the fourth way to grow is infill development which I would say is slightly better than industrial repurposing because it raises property values more slowly. The former industrial area will inherently have lower property values before redevelopment than areas surrounding unused lots.
Growth is overvalued, and the drawbacks of limitless growth are never fully appreciated. Sadly, there is a coercive pressure to desire growth because the lower classes tend to take the brunt of the repercussions of recession. Great video, always a joy to watch!
Its interesting seeing development patterns post covid. I live in Portland which has seen CBD troubles but what never makes the news is how extra vibrant our neighborhoods became. Same for outlying suburbs. While many companies left downtown, they didn't go out of business. They just relocated to the suburbs. We now have the start of what I'd actually call semi dense edge cities forming along transit corridors. Beaverton especially has started to urbanized more and lots of walkable infill neighborhoods are starting to be built in the other outlying areas. Im sure lots of cities are also seeing these trends. Great Channel Kyle.
what is a “CBD”?
I may be one of the few, but I actually enjoy when new people move to where I live. They contribute their own thoughts, experiences, cultures, and bring something new to the community. Also helps with the economy and liveliness of the area.
Oh , wonderful. dead beats , and junkies at your doorstep
Word ✊🏼
I agree, Milkytron, with your thoughts about new people moving in.
Sometimes the opposite does happen too tho where once diverse neighborhoods become largely homogeneous
Im not arguing against new development but we should be sensitive in how we go about it after all thats how we got in this mess in the first place by making up nonsensical rules about zoning. Not all development is good development.
Another great video. Was just in LOs Angeles area and driving from city to city unless there was a sign saying a new town you wouldnt know you were in a new town majority of time.
3:01 Lies !! Nobody in recorded history has ever driven across Atlanta in "1 hr 35 min". Several years ago, I visited Atlanta for a short business meeting; I'm still here !! Stuck in traffic !! I do miss my family... LOL !!🙂
I am very glad I found this channel, I always wait for your new videos to pop up because you are one of the few subs I have where I watch every video when it comes out regardless of topic and this is because you just have a way of making things interesting and informative with a great impartial delivery of the information, thank you Kyle, and keep up the great work
Detroit is in a fairly unique spot with development. The historic population loss leaves a lot of genuinely empty lots and vacant property that can be redeveloped without pushing anyone out. Even immediately downtown has a surprising amount of just plain surface parking lots where buildings used to me.
I guess it depends on one's definition of "sprawl," but I don't think outward growth necessarily has to be in the form of sprawl... at least in the form we see it in most suburban areas in the United States. We can build new neighborhoods with a variety of densities and uses that are walkable and well connected, it's just that we often go for whatever the cheapest route is, which is usually is the opposite of efficient and forward thinking.
That's what I was thinking. It seems it's usually just some development company buys a huge lot of land and builds a grid of near identical houses waiting for people to move into. I think zoning laws have something to do with it too but I'm stupid and can't put the pieces together
@@ReverendMeat51I think you are feeling around the edges of something significant. When you have pools of private capital at odds with but somewhat answerable-to cities and municipalities that are also looking for a short term return (while simultaneously setting the rules for development) you end up with some of the most wonky outcomes. Everyone kinda loses; but all are competing to see who loses less… but as one might guess locals AND your average transplant is usually on the bottom of the pile :/
@@ReverendMeat51 I think you're spot on! I think it's a combination of lazy/cheap developers and municipalities with loose/non-existent zoning guidelines that is much of the problem. I love my hometown of Nashville, but it's suburbs are some of the worst offenders. Most have got next to nothing when it comes to zoning and development guidelines, so developers just swoop in, buy a giant swath of farmland or forest land, clear cut the trees, build some random unholy spiderweb of streets that all exit onto the same road (and they wonder why there's traffic issues,) and then throw up a bunch of cheap cookie cutter homes and call it a day... that one aforementioned main road (usually built only to accommodate cars, because of course they are) then becomes an ugly commercial strip filled with all the same chain crap you'll find in every corner of American suburbia... and rinse and repeat, on and on, until there is no more natural land at all.
The only reason Los Angeles and San Diego aren't a single urban footprint is because of the enormous Camp Pendleton between them, otherwise it would wall to wall city from Castaic to Tijuana.
One of the big problems we have is that the suburb was the American Dream. Now, a big problem is that all the suburbs that sprawled out of the built up cities don't want to become dense. They like their suburban "paradise" and refuse to change their urban form. So, you end up with cities like Tracy, Stockton, Fairfield, and Modesto becoming the new exurbs of the Bay Area, and Lancaster, Victorville, and Bakersfield becoming exurbs of Los Angeles. Kern Transit has a bus route from Bakersfield to Santa Clarita.
Also, now that many of the inner cities have been gentrified, they don't want new vertical housing or even large apartment or condo complexes either. They don't even want old empty malls, which are now enormous urban blight risks, turned into housing.
Fresno's growth has historically been to spread out, mostly to the north. This is expensive since the city has to build new sewers, water lines, sidewalks, etc. Fresno has defined infill as a key goal of the general plan, while at the same time beginning to move on developing a huge area of farmland in the southeast towards Sanger for 45,000 homes. So, so much for infill? We'll see how this all pans out. Fresno's central core has a lot of room for infill but it's been hard to get developers to build infill due to the smaller lot sizes and because luxury homes are far more profitable. It's really hard to get anyone to build the 1200 sq ft 3 bdrm 1 bath family bungalow home like the ones many of us grew up in anymore.
Fairfield and Vacaville are viewed as the outer suburbs of both Sacramento and Bay Area. I know recently there has been a debate in Solano County to put a new city halfway from Rio Vista and Suisun City. This started out as a federal investigation on who is buying land near Travis Air Force Base but it became a debate on how a new city would meet state and federal civil rights and environmental standards especially when Solano County has to protect both the Sacramento Delta and San Pablo Bay at the same time. Also wildfire risk, Earthquake risk, land rights came into play here when zoning is discussed.
@@blogdesign7126 I did read about that land grab. I don't trust billionaires!!
It won't be long before Sacramento and the Bay Area become one urbanized area from Livermore and Concord through Stockton to Sacramento along Hwy 99 and from Vallejo to Sacramento along I-80 with the only break being the Davis Wetlands.
@@bryanCJC2105 check out "Flannery Associates Solano County" Congressman John Garamendi initially called for a federal investigation over suspicious land purchases near Travis Air Force Base with initial allegations that Russia and China were involved in that deal. Once it was revealed that the leaders had VC backing from San Francisco to San Jose then the leaders bragged about a "Utopian City" for some reason this is where the suspicions changed from Pentagon investigation to environmental and Civil Rights concerns in the proposed city's formation.
Go to Fairfield and Vacaville on I-80 we have to respond to Both Sacramento and Bay Area rush hour traffic at the same time. This is how the proposed city was hyped up.
I grew up in DC in the late 90s to mid-2000s. I remember in the year 2000 a 2 bedroom apartment in DC was $700. Today, you would be lucky to rent a ROOM for that amount. DC is completely unrecognizable. I feel like an outsider whenever I go there. And what adds insult to injury is outsiders making ignorant statements like "nobody is REALLY from DC" as if a city of over 700k people developed solely around the federal govt and its officials.
Well, too sorry . It's just that we hate and despise DC
@@paulscottfilmsI’m sure I hate where you live too.
I’m from PG County and consider myself local. Parts of DC are so much nicer and safer now. It’s unrecognizable in a very positive way.
@@frogmantoad8110sadly violent crime, especially violent and automobile crime, have been on the rise
I'd be curious on you expanding your view on gentrification. There's a big push to remove R1 - "Single Family Zones" by allowing increasing density in-fill(duplexes, ADUs, small unit apartments, etc.) rather than simply building one more expensive home on the lot.
One area that I immediately thought of was Pigeon Forge, Tn., just NE of Gatlinburg. When the family and I started going to Gatlinburg in the mid-70s, there was virtually nothing there. Silver Dollar City was a tiny theme park and there were a couple of pottery shops, that was about it! Now drive through that place with Dollywood and all the inevitable build-up and sprawl. I haven't been in that area in years, but I can just imagine what it looks like now.
I was there about 1 1/2 years ago. It's a giant traffic jam.
I can imagine. @@BaxterTheBiker
I went there last year….Orlando in the mountains.
There is a 4th option which you actually mentioned in response to sprawl, infill.
I am not sure I buy your argument that gentrification counts as growth. What you call gentrification is either infill (valid growth) or displacement (not growth).
Gentrification makes growth more likely by reducing the visibility of ugly.
Another great video! I was also delighted to see that the Geography King is also a nerd for great music. The new Hives album rocks!
That was great. Thanks for making this
In looking at vertical development, the choice doesn't have to be between 30 story high rises and 1 or 2 story single family housing. 5-6 story blocks of flats can help combat sprawl equally as well as high rise apartments. Just look at Paris or the vast majority of New York City outside of downtown and midtown Manhattan for example of this done right
Great stuff!👍
Another insightful video! Sorry I missed you in Chicago😞
Nice work, with good research and examples. I always enjoy your videos.
Perfection 👍 Thanks 🙏
Thumbs up. I've seen old industrial warehousing turned into offices and apartments. If I were going to live in a city, I would consider that.
Love seeing the new Hives record
Thorough and insightful as usual. Great video!
from a Democrat and collectivist point of view
I watched your NorCal SoCal video and decided to sub!! I love channels like this
Its amazing how much Economic Development has to to with different geography topics! So much relevance.
The Gentrification happening in Duluth MN rn is wild!! New restaurants, stores, and housing popping up nearly every time I take a drive
Oh wow, so exciting gentle people in the city, to drive by and look at
I was just there yesterday. The area just south of the Children's Museum looks recently gentrified, almost like a secondary downtown. It looks like it might have been a little rough a few years back.
So interesting considering what, 10-15 years ago people it seemed there was not much development in Duluth at all, only dying industries. Seems that the population isn't changing much though. I wonder why that is.... And comparing Rochester MN (120k to Duluth 85k), which I'm surprised wasnt on the list. There is just so much more going on in Duluth. Rochester feels more a large suburb.
Great video.
Somewhere I'd keep on eye on the urban sprawl is the stretch of I-35 between San Antonio and Austin. The towns of Kyle, San Marcos, and new Braunfels have been growing a lot the past couple years and the growth seems to continue to accelerate. There used to be lots of farms and ranch land, but its all being built up and there is hardly any farms or ranch land there now. Lots of new neighborhoods and shopping centers.
I think part of the reason for the high growth is because people can live less than an hour away from San Antonio or Austin, and have a larger suburban house with majority of needs and wants for sale in one of the local shopping centers.
At the rate is growing i would expect that stretch of I-35 to be one continuous stretch of human development before 2028.
It will take longer for the infill, but its already very close to being on continuous stretch of sprawl.
Being from far western Massachusetts, it sometimes feels weird to be *just* outside the Northeast Megalopolis. It's very rural here, but I can and do travel to Boston, Providence, Hartford, and New Haven fairly frequently without too much difficulty (although what I wouldn't give for some decent rail). As much as I like the proximity, I do hope the sprawl stays away. Put another way: New Yorkers, please stop moving here. Just fill in around the Hudson, you guys. Albany needs you lol.
As someone from eastern MA, pretty much anything outside the 495 belt and Worcester, might as well be another state. That's how disconnected the state is. NIMBYs are ruining the Greater Boston Area by not allowing more density, clinging to tripledeckers as "good" housing. Doesn't help that for decades, the state has neglected the MBTA so people could reliably commute into Boston.
More for PA lol. Our states so fucked up we welcome the New Yorkers w open arms
Good video Geography King!
Great video. Very interesting
I’m weird and love more people moving to where I live! My only problem is the city not investing accordingly for public transportation to accommodate population growth
jUsT aDd aNoThEr cAr LaNe
/s
Great point, Kyle.
This hits home living in Nashville!
The Hives are back!
Great video, learned a lot :)
When I applied for a building permit in Pima County, they told me directly that it would take a while to approve because they prioritize permits for high density housing first.
Only two minutes in Kyle and I already dig it. Thanks from exurban LA Co. =/
I love when you mention Toronto ❤
There's a distinction for suburban sprawl, where the early adopters got in and purchased their 3+ acre lakefront forested lots, and built single family housing surrounded by trees and water. Then, the developers showed-up (decades later !!) and started to squeeze in the higher density subdivisions (~1 acre lots, no lakefront, sad...). So the woodland creatures can still coexist in the low density areas, with all sorts of wildlife happily living in coexistence in the 80%+ forest cover of the larger lots.
I visited Chattanooga last weekend for a family get-together. I go at least a couple of times per year but I certainly noticed the numerous construction projects within the Southside area. It is nice but prices are definitely going up. Looked at a house off of Dodds which is a transitional area but it will definitely not stay that way. Chattanooga is a great city with superb walkability and outdoor activities.
great video !
Great video as usual, I totally agree that upzoming and infill development is the best way for built environments to grow! ❤
OK you tell us where to love and we will laugh at you.
huh @@paulscottfilms
Great video
It's wild to think that urbanization has almost entirely taken over the entirety of Long Island. It is not small, and as recently as the 50's there was still plenty of farm land and fishing villages at the eastern end. Now, it's one massive suburb for New York City
Great analysis
St. George Utah is an absolutely gorgeous place I’ve been through it several times. It has been Callfornicated
I was wondering if Suburban Sprawl is the same thing as Urban Sprawl, or something different. I'm curious what your definition of "suburb". I see the channel "Adam Something" always going off on American developments where there are wide lawns without sidewalks and he compares them to European developments that look more like what we would call "urban". Moreover, since I grew up outside Chicagoland, I'm used to referring to "the suburbs" as independent cities that are near to a large city, which may have urban as well as other forms of development, as opposed to meaning a specific style of development.
I also wonder if it's good to gentrify old industrial areas or save them for new industry, since globalization is ending and industry may be re-shored, according to Peter Zeihan. I suspect current industry will have different needs for sites and logistics and want to build outside modern residential areas. So, gentrifying old industrial areas may be the best use for them. Although, I worry about hazardous waste on these sites, but if gentrification includes cleaning it up, then it's probably a net positive.
I think sometime you should take a deep dive into Colorado Springs... lots of every type of growth mentioned here but sadly, a lot of residential displacement gentrification (the street I lived on in had 3 apartment complexes dozed to build new shopping center and luxury condos in 2 years). But I think it is interesting to highlight the urban sprawl in medium sized cities which annex vacant land to basically force sprawl.
I just knew we were going to get mentioned. But it came with a view that I had never seen before, so that was cool.
Kyle, the thing that brought me to your channel was the mention of my homestate, and I am sure that folks in other places had the same experience. It doesn't seem that you mention places in your titles much anymore and that may be part if the explanation of why your numbers are dwindling.
Glad to see Sioux Falls get a mention. We tend to fly under the radar and I don't think a whole lot of people have even heard of us, let alone realize how much growth is happening here. We're currently adding over 6000 people per year with no signs of slowing down.
Hello from Sioux Falls!
@@BrianBonnema hi!
My grandparents live nearby (Spearfish) and they hate all the newcomers. Not really, but I know it makes them uncomfortable
@@trombonegamer14 Spearfish is actually on the opposite side of the state from Sioux Falls, but the whole Rapid City / Black Hills area is the only other part of the state that's growing in any significant way.
@timg2727 yeah I know lol, but anywhere in the state is pretty nearby compared to where I'm at (Nashville)
I'm pretty sure here in Michigan cities aren't allowed to continue to annex more and more land, because no city has grown in land area in about 40 years, even the biggest growers like Grand Rapids haven't added to their square mileage in some years. So it seems gentrification or vertical growth is the only option for them
That's because Michigan is a has been state
@@_Itchy_Bones_ i see you know very little of our state, there are areas that have done very well in Michigan. Like the Grand Rapids area, it has been one of the fastest growing metro areas in the country for the past decade, you just haven't heard of it because it's just outside of the top 10 lists
@@nothat0therguy992bum state
The fourth way a city can grow is infill. This is very important as industrial sites and parking lots become available for redevelopment.
He mentions infill several times in the video.
He's considering infill and gentrification to be different but related aspects of the same concept in this video.
Infill is mentioned in the video, but I think it should have been mentioned in the beginning when describing the different ways a city can grow.
Infill and gentrification are not the same thing. Infill projects don't necessarily have to be gentrifying an area.
@@johnburns8680 I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that. I'm just saying that's how he presented it in the video.
I got into this topic after reading two books by James Howard Kunstler, The Long Emergency and Geography of Nowhere.
I was wondering if you were going to mention Sioux Falls, SD. I realized it had grown a lot but I was unaware that so many decades it experienced 25% in growth and for such a long time.
A couple suburbs have also experienced rapid growth. Brandon, SD has grown from almost 700 in 1960 to 11,000 now. Harrisburg, SD has grown from 1000 people in 2000 to over 6700 now.
The only reason I want to stay in my house is because I am loud. I built a home theater that shakes the pillars of hell. I love it.
When I retire, I will either live in the city, or live off the grid. It all depends on my health.
We just went to Toronto for the first time 🤯🤯
Im so psyched to see you’re a hives fan. Bogus Operandi
There is another option besides sprawl, gentrification or vertical. It’s Co-Housing. Single family units share - by written agreements - kitchens, lawn mowers, child care, and many cars.
This, coupled with increased mass transit, means outward growth does not have to be sprawl, or gentrification infill. With fewer cars per household, the shot of the mall that is 2/3 parking lot would be an obsolete model. Older neighborhoods could compete economically because parking areas for businesses could be reduced to healthy sizes.
Hey, the Goonzquad UA-camrs are in Chattanooga TN as well. Look em up say hello, and check out their gentrification of a bit of old industrial land with their brand new vehicle repair shop/YT studio. Some locals also helped clean up the streets in their garage neighbourhood.
Gentrification is a tricky subject. While I see a lot of wonderful architecture being saved and refurbished I do not see the local population being hired in better jobs which tend to come in once the businesses begin doing well. It seems these people get pushed further away from the city core (in this case) and then have more issue in getting to a job. If they can even get one which is worth going to.
*moves into city* "nooooo! That's gentrification!"
*leaves city* "nooooo! That's white flight!"
@@jermsmason2082 exactly. I don't see how "gentrification" is not clearly the best of these three options. Instead of building Megacity 1 or concrete wasteland, just repurpose the historical infrastructure already there and *actually* *restore* *the* *city*
I was just thinking about Fountain Square here in Indianapolis when you were talking about bad gentrification. I have seen the exact house you pictured in this video. It’s awful.
Lincoln Nebraska is a great example of gentrification in the Telegraph District, as well as other areas in town… all those buildings look very similar
I cracked up at the start of your video, Kyle, when you said, “I know we all hate everybody else.”
Thought provoking. I'm not fond of stroads and strip malls, but I don't want to live downtown and travel by train, no matter what the urbanists say. --- One positive form of infill can be redevelopment of suburban retail space and building on overly large parking areas.
Nice work, as usual. I've groan through listening to your bad growth pun.
I contend that the point in this discussion where people tend to get upset and go into war with each other over the topic and issue is once it reaches the point of strike a balance. That's where the contention and even anger kicks into play. Humans of creatures of extremes, and that's especially true in the US. So as a result, most are either all for building up and rapidly increasing density while also demanding that all suburban (single-family) housing has to go permanently, and naturally that forces a reactive push-back making the other half of the majority demand exclusive sprawling, not density.
I think personally the best middle ground is setting a hard zone around each urban core of a metro area that the big jumps in density is not only allowed, but incentivized and pushed, including in policy, while outside of those zones, the single-family zoning remains, which then prevents further UGB expansions (sprawl), while giving people plenty of choice of housing - Condo? Apartment? Studio? House? There's plenty of each for everyone.
Also people often don't realize there is such thing as Medium Density, too. That's typically anything between 5-20 stories, though pickier people would likely shrink that to between 4-12 stories. No matter how one defines it, medium density is a very logical, cost-effective compromise and step in the right direction when it comes to the suburban urban cores of metro areas increasing their densities if that was not already standard/common for their respective city core.
So in example of this idea, take the Portland-Vancouver metro area of Oregon & Washington. Vancouver and Portland would have the largest, most expansive regions set for high density incentives and development. The mid-size cities of the metro like Gresham, Beaverton & Hillsboro would all be incentivizing their cores to develop buildings in the range of at least 8-16 stories, and the smaller cities like Tigard, Sherwood, Tualatin, Lake Oswego, Oregon City, Washougal, Salmon Creek and Camas would all have very compact, small zones in their respective cores to develop 5-8 story buildings. All the remaining neighborhoods of each city, and the remaining areas of low-density suburbs would be left alone and let remain the same. This would again create a nice balance between urbanized living and suburban living. I'll surely end up making a video explaining and showing this example in the near future too, knowing me.
You can also avoid gentrification if you expand housing subsidies, but it's expensive, and landlords, if they can get away with it, will still try to segregate people by income with poor doors. But, if you have strong house subsidies- not rent control, you can have urban renewal without gentrification.
But hey, I've fine with gradual vertification. I live on the bottom floor of a 3 story apartment building (what you'd call a basement from the front, but ground floor in back). I think there are 155 units on 11 acres, with half of the apartments being Section 8 and the rest being fair market. It's a growing suburb of a shrinking city (well, 3 shrinking cities... Albany/Schenectady/Troy). Out past us things get pretty sparse pretty quick, but there is a cluster of several apartment complexes near us. It's not quite like you'd see with a green belt, but there is a pretty stark divide once you get past us towards the country. I wish we could get some infill towards the cities on abandoned lots, but if it got extensive I'd want to see more housing vouchers. I'd love to live more downtown, or at least for us to not keep pushing much farther out and improving our bike and pedestrian paths. We've got huge malls that you can *almost* get to on foot, but there are a couple spots where the sidewalks don't make it across bridges or where they aren't cleared in the winter, and our buses don't serve us very well where we are, despite there being a large cluster of apartment complexes and malls near us.
I went to UTC my freshman year in 2010 and MLK was wild for gentrification at the time. Brand new apartment buildings on one block and dilapidated buildings the next.
Oh really brand new concrete chicken coups. wonderful.
High Rises are good for the upper classes, but not the poor.
I remember seeing low income high rises being demolished in Chicago, and St Louis.
You should take a look at the tip of South Texas, the Rio Grande Valley. It is nothing but a gentle sprawl. No city center, no density; just a bunch of small towns that have grown into each other. It has grown into a little metropolis of between 1.5 to 2 million people, not including a couple of million in two pretty big cities across the border. It stretches about 100 miles across 3 counties. Mostly along the I-2 corridor. And of course, in typical U.S. style, apart from a few fledgling systems, almost no public transportation. Lots of new 2-3 story apartment buildings and single family houses. There used to be a great deal of agriculture. Most of that land is now built up. There is still lots of infill potential but I guess land is still cheap enough to disregard any kind of efficient use.
Quality high rise residential is good in even small towns. It allows some people to walk everywhere.
Kyle spittin’ Knowledge ✊🏼
Be interested to know what you mean by the "modern white flight". Minneapolis at least is having a ton of growth, so not happening in our core city. Maybe other suburbs getting moved out and further away to exurbs? Or maybe just different in other areas of the country.
It can and should be a mix of all types. Medium density with open spaces are best.
I think this video hit a lot of great ideas, but missed a great opportunity by not mentioning missing middle housing. Residential development doesn't necessarily have to be one of these extremes. We often only think of suburban sprawl OR tall apartment complexes/high rises. Duplexes, townhomes, courtyard homes, etc. can provide a needed balance and are under utilized as a growth pathway.
Higher density doesn't have to mean skyscrapers. I think this gets lost on some people. Medium density of 5-10 story buildings I think is the ideal for most cities. There are countless cities in Europe that have 5 story mixed used developments that stretch way out beyond the urban core. We need that in the Americas.
Munich has a building restriction and is constantly under crazy demand and has a massive housing shortage. Not sure if it's a silver bullet. It does make a nice living environment though, agree there.
Sprawl seems to be the default form of growth in the US, where everything is built around the automobile. Pretty much since the 1940's, it's been single family subdivisions connected to freeways. Meanwhile, the inner city areas have been hollowed out to make room for freeways and massive parking lots. We pay for it in a lot of ways, with long commutes, neighborhoods where you have to drive to get anywhere, air pollution, and a dominant car culture where even working poor people have to own a car, which places huge financial burdens on people. It's also costly and inefficient to provide services to spread out suburban areas than to areas that are more dense and compact. A better pattern of growth is one that builds around mass transit hubs, which you are starting to see in cities like Seattle, and which has always been the case in the cities of the Northeast, like New York and Boston. I wish other cities would adopt it.
I always considered "Urban [geographic] growth" and "Urban Sprawl" as two different things. Sprawl is the growth of built up urban areas without the corresponding or proportionate increase in population. The Detroit metro area would be an example of this. Much new built up urban areas, but with the population loss in Detroit proper, the metro area did not have the new population. With Michigan's local government tax structure, that means a lot more infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, water and sewer lines, schools, etc., etc.) without the corresponding increase in people to pay tax for those services Urban growth (which also has population growth) has both the increase in people, and tax base, which populates the development and existing development.
The viability of higher density (whether it's vertical high density or 3-4 storey middle density) is tied fairly strongly with transportation, and I can't see metropolitan areas like Dallas-Fort Worth, Phoenix, or Atlanta really dialling in the sprawl without a concerted effort to both increasing housing density and improving transit availablility and walkability/bikeability.
Like it or not, most Americans own a vehicle, and until it's harder to drive to the places you want to go compared to using other modes of transportation, we'll continue biasing development towards sprawl.
California has passed state rules that prevent cities and towns from being very low density by allowing duplexes, small apartment buildings and ADUs. Cities can still have zoning, but it can't all be single family housing. Higher density must be allowed near train stations and other high frequency transit. There has been great weeping and gnashing of teeth in some ritzy suburbs.
❤
A lot of those photos of infill/gentrification remind me of Seattle's failings in replacing residential structures. Much of Seattle (for better or worse) features really neat 1920s Craftsman style house that have tons of characters. Seeing those boxy townhomes replace them reduces the character of the city. Tacoma, where I used to live, seems to be doing a better job of preserving the older houses and keeping that particular character of neighborhoods.
Living in the Seattle metro area, I see all three happening in spades.
I was surprised to learn Sioux Falls is that populated.
🕊
Pittsburgh is a unique city, because of its geographically characteristics.
Pittsburgh has 3 rivers, and more bridges than Venice Italy. Pittsburgh is at the foothill of the Allegheny mountains. Pittsburgh has very few straight roads with curving around hills.
Pittsburgh has very little grid, but a lot of 5 points intersection.
Trees are a real problem in Pittsburgh. Every year electric companies come out and prune Trees. Every year Pittsburgh has power outages because of downed trees.
My home is in Pittsburgh, but there are very few houses around. I live on a ridge. There are three dead end streets. The streets are dead ends because the hill coming off the goes up to a steep slope.
Nice thing even though, I am close to Downtown. I am isolated by the hills.
The thing about hills is that trouble doesn't like hills or dead end streets
So my neighborhood is quiet.
I feel like Pittburgh is going to be a boom town once places like PHX and LV run out of water. I'd like to visit, maybe catch a game!
@@eazydp It's Pittsburgh little secret.
Pennsylvania had a drought in 1988. It did effect Pittsburgh because we just held back water going to Cincinnati.
Pittsburgh weather is mild. Last year I didn't use my snow shovel at all, one day I had to sweep the snow off the steps.
Pittsburgh does have cold weather but it rarely goes to zero.
The cold weather is enough to keep insects down. We don't have the insects problem of the south.
Hurricane come up to Pittsburgh if the get west of the Allegheny Mountains, but by the time they get to Pittsburgh, they are weak.
Flooding: Most of Pittsburgh is hills. Flooding happens in low laying districts, but it is not a major problem.
Tornadoes rarely touch down in Pittsburgh because of all the hills.
Pittsburgh has very little flat land, but a lot of hills.
Trees 🌳 are a problem in Pittsburgh. We get power outages from falling Trees 🌳.
But our Trees 🌳 are everywhere.
👍👍👍
There is a type of gentrification that I term hipster gentrification. It's essentially when a poor neighborhood often inhabited by those of color slowly get bought up by young hipster families because the homes are cheap and old. This often spurs small business and restaurants in the area. It's not perfect, but the housing remains relatively affordable and it often creates more diverse neighborhoods. I think every city has a neighborhood like that the one that has the cool vegan restaurant and "drive bar" that actually has great cocktails.
What are some examples where this has happened and prices have remained low? Odds are prices will go up soon as the “hidden gem” is discovered.
Property taxes suck.
How about all of the above? My city began 'gentrifying' by going up downtown, then moved that outward some into the poorest areas as long established richer neighborhoods succeeded at fighting the developers and in getting zoning ordinances passed preventing their commu8nities from being mowed down. So the developers started taking over the area outside of the city limits, forcing out the lower middle class folks who had raised several generations in their homes. The difference? The city had powerful people living in the areas where development was blocked, while us outside of there had (and still have) a government being run by friends and family of the developers and bankers who are getting filthy rich fast. Well, it wasn't but 30 years ago when the investors, developers, and bankers got themselves directly appointed to this county's development and zoning boards changing the rules on lands they owned and could get cheap to pad their pockets subdividing them.
I'm not against growth but it must be limited and controlled so that those whose homes would be adversely affected (raised taxes, inadequate roads, etc) aren't harmed by the change. After all their government is supposed to protect them and has no obligation to those coming into the area. If you don't control growth it will race too far ad when the bubble bursts everyone gets harmed.
I have no interest in living in a dense downtown core. I want a house, ideally with a lot of land around it.
“It has to be one” is literally the worst way you could think about this. This issue requires a multifacted approach in order to be effective and also are not the only ways to ease growth depending on the circumstances of the location there could be plenty other options available. We need to keep open minds.
"If you want to have cities, you've got to build roads." - Cake
I suppose infill would fall under the category of gentrification. The city I live in, Phoenix, Arizona, is famous for its sprawl. However, if you look at Google Earth, you will see that there are a lot of empty lots right in or near downtown Phoenix. In particular, the area just to the southeast of downtown, behind the airport rental car center. That neighborhood is mostly empty lots and right in the middle of the city, just begging for some infill.
Kyle, you should have saved that Fez!
I want all of the above