Can Infill Development Save Cities?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- Learn more about SGC’s work at sgc.ca.gov/
Vacant lots and underused parking lots can be redeveloped into housing, offices, shopping and more. When that happens, the environmental and social benefits are immense. This video is all about the policies that can make infill development possible.
Watch this on Nebula: nebula.tv/vide...
Check out CityNerd's video here: • The 10 Most Useless Ur...
Resources on this topic:
grandchallenge...
www.newyorkfed...
www.brookings....
www.latimes.co...
www.cbo.gov/pu....
This video was produced with the California Strategic Growth Council.
Produced by Dave Amos and the fine folks at Nebula Studios.
Written by Dave Amos and Sully Israel in consultation with the SGC.
Select images and video from Getty Images.
Black Lives Matter.
Trans rights.
Nebula folks -- this is a special collaboration outside of my normal posting schedule, so there is no Nebula First video on Nebula. Don't worry, next week we should have a new First video.
I saw the notification and immediately checked nebula, lol
Didn't realise you were on Nebula. If you want to see infield development look no further than the UK. Almost every town & city is surrounded by green bekt, which is practically sacrosanct
Having said that their are places like Oxford, that have infuelded every practical space & every college has tried plans to handle water drainage so they can build on Oxfords Meadows & everytimre they are shot down by Oxford Planning Dept.
Currently Oxford is growing along it's poorer areas - around Headington hill & in Greater Lees which were built originally as "worker homes" for Morris & MG, which is now the main BMW MINI plant. Richer areas of Oxford can block you development.
The one get around is Kidlington. Once the biggest village in Europe, now a town growing increasing closer to Oxfird. I expect that in due course like other villages like Littlemore, Barton, Risinghurst, sandhillsit will be appended to Oxford
Hey I love your videos! I've watched all of them. If you're taking suggestions, you should do a video on transforming graveyards into parks. Maybe a taboo topic, but I live in N Chicago now and I have noticed that the biggest green spaces around here are mostly car-centric, anti-pedestrian, graveyards that are rarely used.
When you censor facts and opinions you disagree with, you are only proving to most people that you know your arguments are weak and cannot stand up to scrutiny.
Can’t we start using terms besides “downtown” to describe commercial districts? We designers need to give people a more expansive set of vocabulary to share the varied experiences of a neighborhood commercial corner, neighborhood commercial node or district, a Main Street strip, civic center, car-free or -lite district, etc. We can be as creative with our vocabulary as with our designs & policies!
This is one of those “well, duh” plans that most citys somehow struggle to implement.
So many cities still "worship" the car. It will take time to change opinions to match the realities.
Cities struggle to implement....because residents want to relive the 1950s. A lot of it is getting the message out to voters in a way they empathize with and buy-in to the reasoning of. Saying "we want to build 4-story mid-rise buildings of mixed-use stuff in your area", will get the NIMBY property owners all who complain about their property-taxes being too high but want their 'investment' to go to the moon when the sell--out in the streets.
Saying instead, "aren't you tired of needing to do a car trip to get a gallon of milk? Wouldn't you like to just have a cafe nearby to enjoy on Saturday morning that you could walk to? When you're 80 wouldn't it be nice to be able to walk around and have people-watching and enjoying to do--rather than being a prison in your R1 single family house?" are ways that get through to people a lot more.
80 years of suburban experiment that was built to completion on Day 1 and hasn't changed...has done a psychological number on Americans, resulting in some of the most massive NIMBY complainers around.
There seems to be a lot of that going around both ways.
Dude, there's so much NIMBYism in California it's ridiculous. This is as much the voter bases's fault as it is the politicians.
@@ZeroGravitas187yes also don’t forget money and politics ….sigh…
Worth mentioning the "heat island effect". All that asphalt from parking lots traps heat and causes the local environment to be much hotter than if covered by grass, for example.
Asphalt is such a bad idea anyways, from heat island effects, to oil leaching into the ground from the tar, to shitty quality perpetuating myriads of potholes. Roads need to be redone in concrete, and homes & buildings need to have white / light-colored roofs.
Tall buildings replacing the parking lots can also help cast a lot of shadows during the day to alleviate some heat
@@4473021 Doesn't really work. Just concentrates the heat on the non-shady sides of each building.
Climate Town already covers that a bit.
@@4473021can put cool stuff on the roofs also... Solar panels, green roofs... Both cooler in terms of temperature and otherwise
It is also harder for NIMBY types to claim that a parking lot or vacant lot is a vital part of local culture or a historic location.
THIS!!
They will try anyway
lol. I dunno. Where I live, homelessness and substance use downtown have been going on for so long that they ARE the local culture.
What's hilarious is apparently a neighborhood in Berkeley tried to do just this... they claimed a parking lot was on some ancient indigenous shellmound
I Heard that a NIMBY in San Francisco successfully prevent a new development on a parking lot because the parking lot is "historic"
Here in Portland, there's a neighborhood called Lents. In the last 10 years, they tore down a crappy strip club and used the empty lot across the street to build up high rise apartments with shops on the bottom floor. They did this for that entire area without displacing any one. That neighborhood went from being referred to as felony flats to being a desirable neighborhood with a good amount of low income housing. The difference is insane. It feels like a mini downtown now and people actually WANT to be there. There's a real community feel. These changes need to happen.
Edit: No, I do not care if you're going to leave some stupid snarky comment about Portland while you live across the country and have never been here before. Locals know the city, you don't. We do not care what you have to say.
This happened in Asbury Park, NJ. I live near there. It was completely transformed from a rundown city to a place everyone wants to be.
The best part is Portland has a ton more surface park and ride lots that could get the same treatment. Way too many MAX stations are just dead zones. We need more neighborhoods like Lents and Orenco.
Who would want to even live in Portland by choice?
When I see these comments I like to look it up on google maps. Is this at Woodstock Boulevard? A random guess got me there and I saw several 4-story flats. Looked much like modern European flats to me.
Lost me at portland
It’s definitely worked for us here in Tucson. 15 years ago, our downtown was completely dead. Just a bunch of empty parking lots and disused buildings. Thanks to infill and a big investment push from the city, it’s thriving again. Lots of new housing, hotels, restaurants, bars, clubs, etc. If you go there on a weekend especially, it’s packed with people. Infill can be an amazing thing when done right.
The rents in tucson have nearly tripled
@@zevvxn I try to explain this to people all the time I hear people in Phoenix say "we're building more than in history" and it should be 3 times more.
What your saying is, Tucson is turning into or back into a city. I guess you will see how well it goes.
Dvelopment downtown is exciting, but not enough. The rest of the city also needs it. It infuriates me to no end to see apartments that are rarely more than 2 stories tall.
@Lildizzle420 why? they are already overpopulated and developed over all the farmland.
My small city's doing a lot of infill. A brand new provincial courthouse is already going up on, and a new Performing Arts centre is being planned to be built on, a large parking lot just adjacent to the downtown. They also took some parking away from the large surface parking lot to build a skatepark, and took some more from the smaller one to renovate the city square.. and then several empty lots used as parking "temporarily" have actually been turned around and turned into office buildings, planned mixed-use buildings, large apartment buildings with ground floor uses etc.. and this is a very small city, and only within the last few years! We're doing better!
Would love to know what city this is!
sounds like cost of living is about to go up
There is an economic component that channels like this hate to acknowledge. These infill development wont fix squat if they just get bought by investors who are just going to put them up in AirBnB or if just drives the cost up of housing causing the masses to have to move farther and commute longer.
@@jaad9848 which is where local governments can step in, i.e. favoring local developers over venture capitalists like BlackRock, or you know, actually building the housing themselves. Let the state be the arbiter.
@@jaad9848 you're exactly right. just because you get $20 smoothie places and barcades that are "walkable" from 600 sq ft apartments that cost $2500/mo doesnt really fix anything
Golf courses are prime infill opportunities. In San Diego, a 27-hole golf course in the inner city is being redeveloped into 4,300 units and 1M sq ft office space with its own light rail station.
I don't understand this stuff. If there's a serious housing crisis, why not build JUST housing (and retail to make the neighborhood walkable)? Why do 4300 new apartments need to be accompanied by enough new office space for 5000+ workers who will move to the area? In your example, it's feasible the new apartments could offset the jobs with enough dual income households or roommates. Many zoning efforts including examples used in the video have far worse ratios. Yet I constantly see urbanists fawning over these projects while talking about a housing shortage without doing the math.
So many apartment complexes are basically parking lots with apartments in the middle. If residents had better transportation options, they could reduce parking to make complexes look more like park.
My first year in Austin, by pure dumb luck, I rented an apartment that was no more than 50 feet from an express bus route stop. It took me within 15 minutes' walking distance from my office. It was amazing. I almost didn't drive my car the whole time I lived there. The only problem was the unholy horde of cockroaches. But with time (and a lot of boric acid) I even got that under control. Now I live out in the suburbs, and I can't even get a jug of milk without driving 20 minutes.
@@texaswunderkind I was in a similar situation once (minus the cockroaches). Nice 10 minute walk on each end of a metro line. It was wonderful.
Many people equate travel by car as freedom, but my experience commuting by metro was exponentially better than the stop and go freeway traffic I once had for my commute in another city.
Agreed - these are referred to as 'density without connection' and are just another type of sprawl
bros scared of cars
Then all cities can look like Philly and can't afford to park.😂
There's a plan for infill in my Green Bay suburb that'll take over the space where a Shopko used to be. I'm so excited for if it actually happens, because the proposed plan would take out the big department store and parking lot and create a new walkable and mixed-use area right next to downtown
Three questions
1. Are you from De Pere?
2. Do the people of De Pere think of it as a city?
3. Are you a packers fan?
Great to hear a comment from NE Wisconsin! I grew up in Sturgeon Bay!
Here in the Philippines, the big department stores have also ventured into real estate. So they simply built high rise office and residential developments on top of their vast parking spaces. One example is SM Megamall in Ortigas.
Cities are definitely getting the message. In Vancouver BC, they are tearing down Oakridge Mall, and building up an entire community with a bit of everything. Oakridge Mall was already busy, so I find this to be amazing.
I love that your argument basically boils down to “infill development saves us money and reduces our emissions.”
I’m a pretty big fan of that type of argument 😊
Name checks out.
@@princesidonmame checks outexactly
There is an economic component that channels like this hate to acknowledge. These infill development wont fix squat if they just get bought by investors who are just going to put them up in AirBnB or if just drives the cost up of housing causing the masses to have to move farther and commute longer.
@@jaad9848This is a good but often ignored point by many “urbanists”. Up development and gentrification drive people out into the sprawl and opportunities concentrate in the inner cities. People become even more car dependent in response to this.
@@MelGibsonFan A lot of "Urbanists" are hyper individualistic from a capitalist sense but somehow collectivists in how they view society as far as urban planning. It makes no sense outside of some untold plan to exterminate the poor.
Infill development along a local bike path has made it feel safer. Biking along parking lots, empty lots, and low density industrial at night is spooky, man. Now, there are always people around if anything happens. I guess that's not very profound, but just something I have thought about when going through there
I recently figured out why I couldn't convince a friend of mine to bike more. I live next to a giant greenway along a BART viaduct in the Bay Area. My friend lives in a much nicer new building but in the middle of a ton of parking lots and stroads. During our last biking session we went to my place to eat instead of out. He said that if he lived in my building he'd probably bike all the time. Quote, "You basically live next to a park that is also a bike highway. I live inside of a parking crater."
Yeah Walmart Parking Lots especially here aren’t known to be all that safe, man just half of my cities former industrial center area near that parking lot is basically a ghost town full of abandoned buildings and other parking lots that is in between one side full of ghetto and one of the most dangerous cities in America and the other side is just full of super expensive housing for either rich and retired older people or people who are just super well off it’s kinda crazy
it's a main biking artery used by a shit ton of people. I don't go there to frolic, it's my commute. Why would leaving a bunch of sporadic, barely used industrial lots literally just outside the city center be "real"? People need places to live and transport themselves@@4149stonepony
It’s true. It’s not profound it’s actually very human.
In Dallas Texas I often pass through a row of new apartment buildings that have been built in replacement of warehouses and parking lots, they are amazing to pass by and serve to increase the value of the area by a ton, they look so modern and shiny despite being affordable
When you said Dallas I thought you were about to mention something about bad land use. I'm pleasantly surprised to hear different.
@@jamaalfridgedowntown Dallas has tons of empty lots/land that could be developed
Some of Dallas’ suburbs are getting better with land use as well. Richardson already has transit oriented development around 3 of its 4 light rail stations, and it has plans for more around the fourth and future fifth.
I looked at my city's downtown on google maps and saw that 40% of the land use was either vacant lots or parking lots. Not to mention that 1/4th of all buildings were permanently closed.
if infill development can improve my city financially then we should try it. I'm tired of being poor.
Houston?
As long as the city is not paying for it, but alas the liberal hates his city. Oh please Mr. Mayor I want to pay for a fake downtown! I sure hope that the politicians in your town are not dumb and if they are the voters at least know a scheme when they see one.
@@avic57 California
Grow weed
Have you ever heard of Georgism? The better version of infill
Glad to see plenty of San Diego clips in this video. The city has gone all in on urban infill over the past decade, especially in Mission Valley along a light rail line. They've built a large development called Civita on a ridge and old quarry, a golf course is being converted, a blighted area called Grantville is replacing used car dealerships with 6-8 story apartments, and the old Chargers stadium was demolished and downsized with the excess parking planned as college housing and a SDSU campus extension. I love to see it.
Best thing about SDSU Mission Valley is that it's only 8 minutes away from SDSU main campus via a fully-grade separated light rail ride, meaning it'll capture enormous ridership. It also will have a whopping 4,600 units and 1.6M sq ft classroom/labs--it's literally a Vancouver Skytrain-sized TOD megaproject.
As an Australian who has travelled around most of the US many times, it always shocked me how much "wasted space" was in so many American cities. Where I'm from, you would just never, ever see a vacant block in the inner city (other than active construction sites). They're just too valuable. You would also never see a block of surface parking close to the inner city. And this is Australia we're talking about too - not Europe - hardly a beacon of urbanism by global standards. But every bit of potential value is almost always extracted from every piece of inner city land here, and it's hard to fathom that not being the case, which is why my US travels were so eye-opening.
At some point, American cities were dense. Then, everyone ran to the new suburbs. Which caused money to leave the cities. Cities got old and crumbled. Business and homes had to be demolished b/c that had been vacated and abandoned. It left gapes where there used be a building.
On the whole you're correct, but there is still a lot of inefficiently used land in Australian cities.
@@simonealexander7313 No doubt but nowhere near the extent of US cities and typically not within 10-15km of the CBD either (at least not in Melbourne where I'm from).
I work at a community organization (Milwaukee) and yesterday we were literally just talking about this. Thanks for the video!
Researching my family's genealogy, I've noticed that most lived in single family homes, or sometimes townhouses/rowhouses. The difference for the single family homes was the reduced setbacks, particularly on the sides. Even just this facilitates a much more walkable community. Many cities are dense enough for good transit even with this, and many people prefer single family, or maybe townhouse, at least once they have children. I think that urbanists would benefit from avoiding falling in the Borg cube around train station mentality, as the only solution. Mid rise around a transit stop can be popular with young adults without children yet, or with young children, and could be with retirees I think, but dense walkable single family neighborhoods can be more of interest for others. And still perfectly compatible with walkable neighborhoods and transit.
Streetcar suburbs are 100% an acceptable form of urbanism if they have enough mixed zoning built-in, but denser transit-oriented and infill development absolutely serves a purpose. Streetcar suburbs still suffer the same sprawl problems long-term as car-dependant suburbs, albeit to a lesser degree, like infrastructure costs and chewing up farmland, provided that’s most of what you’re building. Then there’s the practical reality that most American cities already sprawl far too much to be financially sustainable as a result of the car-dependant suburbs that exist now, and dense infill is the only way to deal with the shortage of housing in the short to medium term without creating even more sprawl. That’s not to say that streetcar suburbs are bad, but rather that the reality on the ground doesn’t make them a realistic option to rely upon unless we’re willing to start bulldozing the pre-existing car-dependant suburbs to make way for them.
most urbanists aren’t against all single family homes, the issue is that they’re the only thing allowed in most places in this country. Even in more “urbanist” countries like Germany or Japan, huge portions of the population still live in single family housing. The issue is having cities have a more gradual density drop off so there’s a wider variety of housing types. Just having slightly more people in denser environments saves drastically more land than if they were all forced into r1 zoning
Walkable neighborhoods were built with the car in mind, cars have been part of cities and it's neighborhoods since the late 20's. Believing some pie in the sky BS about streetcars and transit as the dominant form of transportation is BS. Once smart people stop buying that crap or telling the falsehood then their dream of urbanity, and yes that involves cars becomes more real. Not the fake touristy one you find in Europe or on a trip to NY.
Well, a lot of suburbs are less dense than that. Which is why allowing all low-rise density increases besides maybe 1 story large apartments is a great way to increase density in existing suburbs that aren't as close together.
Town homes are great. The earlies and oldest suburbs are often the most affordable non-public housing close to the city itself. I think there is an issue with those areas getting demolished so they can build apartments. But there is still room for density to increase with duplexes, or removing parking spaces to build ADUs or neighborhood shops.
So, making those districts low-rise mixed use is a good way to avoid gentrification.
But the second ring suburbs with a little larger lots are ripe for putting in denser housing that and the people living there are likely already middle class
I am a big townhouse fan because they are one of the most space efficient forms of low-rise family housing. That is over double as space efficient as typical slim suburb.
I do agree that we should think of other options though.
But frankly lower mid-rise and stuff like town-homes is the cheapest form of residential development if you don't count land cost. Sprawl can effectively deal with housing issues. But it has so many other negative effects that it is kind of a bad option overall and can bankrupt cities.
Those "borg cubes" are a great step. But particularly if you add bike infrastructure then lower mid rise around stations can work great.
I personally am also in favor of degrowing or transforming outer-ring suburbs strategically.
I don't see a reason to waste pre-built houses. But, we can at least reduce the waste of lawns while still giving people good green space.
In many cases, semi-rural suburbs were built on good farm land and have large wasteful lawns. But you can transform lawns into an eco-village that produces food locally. People may still commute. But it can resolve some of the issues with grocery and food desserts when a community produces some of it's own food.
And if they produce a surplus then some could be given to the poor or taken into the city farmers market to sell some to the rich yuppies.
This can easily be done as a small scale community project but a city might be able to actively support it further.
Then denser suburbs could be up-zoned along with some transit oriented-development blocks as well.
@@jonathanlochridge9462 "But frankly lower mid-rise and stuff like town-homes is the cheapest form of residential development if you don't count land cost. Sprawl can effectively deal with housing issues. But it has so many other negative effects that it is kind of a bad option overall and can bankrupt cities"
I would love to know how sprawl bankrupts cities? Cities are bankrupted by bad policies related to crime, schools, and lack of financial transparency and accountability.
Cities across the board almost always have bad schools and lots of urban crime. So to pay for all crime cities raise taxes to pay for police, jails, and the court system. Chicago's Budget is in the billions and 40 percent of that is spent on policing it.
Not to mention the pension crisis cities face because American cities still have gold plated pensions for their employees.
Cities also like to give away tax dollars on "economic development" and that is the real reason cities go bankrupt. Here is how it works, they give out the tax break to a favored developer and they in turn donate to that campaign fund and it is like a giant circle jerk and that is why cities go bankrupt. No one can track who is getting what from big city govt. hand outs. Happens all the time.
Big cities could tax the air and they would run out of money to give away. BTW, there is a book called "Confronting Suburban Decline" by David Phlillips and William Lucey" that goes in depth into why cities decline and mostly it has to do with the housing cycle and changing incomes, not highways and social engineering.
City of South Bend, IN is implementing a bunch of these policies, they're approving large development on empty lots and requiring a percentage be affordable housing, but they're also incentivising infill between homes by updating zoning, providing pre-approved architectural plans, and even subsidizing the cost of water & sewer hookup. They're also working with local banks to encourage loans to build these homes to offset the gap between build costs and appraisal values.
My town has plans for infill development, would increase the population of the town by 10% and would be pedestrian dominated, im very excited for it
Yes, wishing for it to push through, I hope empty lots or parking lots will be turned into a public housing apartments for the poor, I think Metro Manila is also doing lots of infill development.
That is moronic cities are pedestrian filled, they actually own cars and don't virtue signal about zeroing out their carbon footprint.
@@4149stonepony it's replacing literal inaccessible wasteland with housing without making the roads for cars, residents can still have cars and will even be able to park outside their houses. You haven't even seen the proposals and you're calling it moronic
@@4149stoneponyYeah, cities would be much better if we just banned all bikes. Cars and walking only
Sounds pretty dumb how are they going to get around? On scooters and e-bikes?
A bright spot to improving our cities thanks to our long poor policy around parking lots.
I don't see how those to things connect to each other. Cities often lack parking and parking lots. Infill won't effect the building of or deleting parking lots in cities. In fact lowering the cost of driving in expensive cities would greatly improve them while increasing the cost of driving would improve decrepit cities by making them feel not so empty. Now I would love to know what parking lots have to do with infill?
@@4149stonepony Did you literally not watch the video at all? Or latch onto "city" meaning the tiny downtown core and ignore the 10+ miles of low density sprawl surrounding it?
"In fact lowering the cost of driving in expensive cities would greatly improve them while increasing the cost of driving would improve decrepit cities by making them feel not so empty."
What an asinine assertion when cars are literally what killed walkable/lively cities (in the US). LOL
What cities did cars kill? I would sit back and wait for you to name a few...
I live in an apartment that is an infill. There are 4 other buildings (townhomes, condos, apartments, hotel, some with bottom level retail) within 2 blocks of me that are also all infill; three blocks of parking lots is now three blocks of almost all middle density housing/mix use. It's great, and a no brainer; no new roads and minimal utility work.
Suburban malls in Metro Vancouver that have been linked up with rapid transit are redesigning themselves into mixed entertainment/shopping destinations, and turning all the surface parking areas into residential and office towers with landscaping/parkland, & underground parking.
If I was a leader who had unlimited power, I would introduce green belts and urban growth boundaries around cities, end single use zoning and minimum parking requirements and automatically approve TOD and infill development
The problem with green boundaries is that they backfire and create "sprawl donuts". The sprawl still continues after the green belt, but now all those people drive farther to get through the green belt. Canadian cities tried this en masse and saw exactly how that works out.
The reality is that any regulations will be "leaky" like this. We're better off encouraging as much development within cities. We can still have the green belts and other similar regulations. But if we want to actually prevent sprawl then we need to provide an outlet for that demand balloon that we're squeezing with the green belt.
You should move to Oregon. We already have statewide Urban Growth Boundaries, which eliminates the drawback of greenbelts (can't have sprawl donuts if the greenbelt doesn't end!).
We also just recently ended single family zoning and (with the exception of very small towns) banned parking minimums statewide!
We're also moving toward ending double-loaded staircase requirements and such. It's a very exciting time for us!
@@TohaBgood2 Very easy to get around that by establishing new small cities as satellites to larger ones.
@@JohnFromAccounting That sounds like a good idea, but it has also failed. The Bay Area did this. They kept their restrictive regulations and established new cities like Dublin, Pleasanton, Freemont (expanded). As a result people just commute from those largely bedroom communities to the larger metros where all the jobs are.
I think that urban boundaries with a ton of dynamic upzoning are the only solution. You just have to keep adding enough density to soak up the demand for growth while you simultaneously increase the costs of building far out. Any regulations will be "leaky". People will find their way around anything. But you can make building within the existing cities so attractive and building outside of them so unattractive that people will naturally want to build within the cities.
urban growth boundaries don't work. More important would be the requirement to improve biodiversity and vegetation cover as part of developments. Thereby making urban development easier than edge of city development.
The other issue is gentrification. Building new apartment buildings for young professionals will increase the cost of living for nearby residents and force out people who currently live there. In america this is typified by african american residents being priced out due to an influx of young white professionals from the suburbs. Which then extenuates a racial social issue that is already at breaking point. Unfortunately a lack of investment into african american residential communities is often blamed for why african americans are less prosperous and educated than white americans. It's a terrible scenario where much needed investment is met with claims of gentrification and pushing black people out of their homes, but lack of investment isn't doing any favours either. Americans really need to sort out their priorities and stop sitting on their hands refusing to implement change because it's easier than doing something radical but needed.
4:05 I think it's really great how you said that ADUs can increase property value, without changing the character of the neighborhood. Property value and "the character of the neighborhood" are kind of the two most important things for NIMBYs, so addressing those two things directly is how you turn one into a YIMBY.
The Newport Section of Jersey City is an example of infill construction done wrong, but then changed course. There’s some giant suburban style strip malls/big box stores plus a huge sprawling mall but there’s also lots of dense housing that exist and under construction. There’s plenty to be improved including removing the strip malls, big box stores, and the mall but it can be adapted for urban use (such as the shops at Hudson Yards or an multilevel Shop Rite) with the land being converted to housing.
Bro. I lived in Newport for 4 years. Who told you thaeres strip malls and big box stores. You have a PATH station connecting you to WTC. Stop complaioning as you litterally are living in one of the best subrubs in the whole nation.
that includes a Target in a horrendous parking moat, correct?
@@uzin0s256 He has the freedom of speech to complain. No matter how great Newport is, it can be better and he has the right to bring attention to those issues.
@@bwofficial1776 Im just saying that he shouldnt be complaining as if newport is hell on earth and is sprawling like crazy and bro. Thats freedom of speech taken from the GOVERNEMENT.
@@uzin0s256 the whole Newport area used to be a train terminal and a freight yard that was abandoned, left to rot, and made
Into huge parking lots until the area got redeveloped in the late 80s. Unlike Battery Park City, Newport was designed with a suburban layout in mind if you look at old aerial photos but then in the 2010s, it became pretty clear that Newport was poorly designed and there needed to be newer developments that can incorporate more walkability and car-free mobility to align better with Exchange Place/Grove St, especially with Mayor Steve Fullop’s pro-transit/Urbanist vision, but there’s still more to be done. The Pep-Boys that was there is now housing and the old Bed, Bath & Beyond is being redeveloped into more housing and eventually the shop rite and BJ’s warehouse will be converted into more housing as part of Hudson Exchange which will create a park and build new streets which is much better than a giant big box store that it currently is.
There was this parking lot in the town that I grew up in that was left to rot for years. But when I saw them on Google maps, I saw that they were turning it into homes. There are still many huge empty parking lots in Richmond Virginia that could be used for infill.
At least Richmond is slowly filling them in. They got rid of parking requirements. Newport News needs to get rid of the sea of Shipyard parking and build townhouses for the workers. We got rid of parking requirements for downtown. NN.
My small city in NE Ohio is currently using parking lots to build mixed-use buildings and a hotel downtown. I’m proud of my city for that
What city?
@@tedster911 Medina
Yahh higher Profit m³
Probably Cleveland@@tedster911
Infill has been happening near me in London, the area used to have a lot of car dealerships, but as everyone browses online they don't need so much frontage. The dealers have moved to more warehouse-style units further out, and the space has been turned into 3-6 storey blocks of flats. As it's a historic road out of town there's also suburban rail alongside on the valley floor, and the expansion of ULEZ makes it all the more appealing. I'd like a few more shops on the ground floors, and there needs to be expansions of schools and medical care to deal with the increase in population, but it's pretty neat.
Seattle(and the surrounding cities) need to be better about this. There is some good development happening around the new light rail stations, but so much potential for higher density building
Yep! Seattle just needs to ape Vancouver's policies with extremely dense development around the Skytrain stations. It clearly works a looooooot better than Seattle's attempt. It's not perfect, but it is the superior model that should be emulated.
I'm all about this. Though solving the affordable housing shortage wont happen unless developers start making starter condos/homes as opposed to just exclusively luxury housing.
I see a lot of talk from people like this about affordability. I agree infill and the solutions talked about here are useful in many ways, I just disagree that affordability is on the table at all if anything these projects make it more expensive to live in the cities they are developed in, and they displace long time residents
We must also move away from Wall Street owning real estate, replacing them with Cooperative Homeowners Associations (what is called "social housing" in Europe) or community land trusts. Markets are not appropriate for distributing basic needs like land.
I just wanna say I lean conservative, but I completely agree with your channel on how we should tackle urbanism in this country. Actually, I would argue it's compatible with Conservative ideology. Encouraging the construction of mixed-use developments across the country would significantly improve individual freedom for consumers as well as flexibility for business owners. It allows small businesses to compete with large corporations in a way that doesn't seem forced by the government.
I also just hate how bad traffic is everywhere.
Keep up the good work!
Well said! I think this sensible approach is something most people would agree with since it makes both financial and social sense. I've argued before that forcing everyone to use car transportation and shop in suburban-style box stores limits individual freedom. Local community government does have a key role here in promoting better land uses which, in turn, helps promote healthy competition.
Your point about individual freedom is so important! I think more conservatives should get behind these issues because they restrict a lot of individual freedom. And nobody likes traffic!
I know Montana has been doing infill and it’s helped keep inflation down; conservative state and governor with some libertarian leanings; letting the market work as intended.
Good to see both political sides joining in on this cause! I hate how everything is always so politicized because it really distracts us from the real cause which is bettering our society. Politicians want us to point fingers at each other and not them
If things worked like they should conservatives and liberals would be disagreeing mostly over details on things they generally agree on. As long as we stay away from hot button issues we can still do some of that.
Could you do a video on induced demand but with Public Transport, at the bottom of my road is a bus stop but the bus only comes once every 2 hours so only the very oldest people and kids who are just messing about with their mates, so aren't in a rush, will use it. If it was once every hour I'd use it much more often, if the bus came once every 15 mins I don't think a lot of people would use their cars. If there was a bus as frequent as the underground in London, I don't think anyone would use a car, unless for holdiays. I was just thinking about it because since 2010 in the UK the number of Buses has halved and I have used them a lot less than I used to.
Blame the frequency of busses on Thatcher. She sold the public busses to private companies and didn't put any rules on them.
@@ferky123 of course I blame the tories, it was more that's what got me thinking about it.
Even the notorious Irvine Company is on the bandwagon. They have no less than five infill projects from Newport Beach to Tustin to Orange to Brea. Mixed use apartments going in at some of the old mall locations, some defunct, some just underperforming. They're adding some 5,000 units in Orange County. Tustin legacy / Warner Red Hill is adding 6,000 more.
Went to school in Brea. a good portion of Brea in 1998 then it turned into downtown in 5 years. Similar happened to Tustin Legacy, was wasted space from the base not is a bustling place. I hope they dont take those trees down on Red Hill ave near by, my grandmother said she planted them while living near by when she was a little girl in the 1920s or so.
@@CaseNumber00I drive down Red Hill all the time. There's still a big line of trees in the median south of Walnut, and north of Irvine Blvd is pretty residential with a lot of trees. Also a whole lot of trees on the west side of the road all the way down to the airport.
One of the minor problems with Mixed Use developments is some of the areas don't need another shop on the ground floor or more office space as the area already has high vacancy rates. A more productive thing would be for this to be taken into account and if the area has a high vacancy rate already, possibly having the developers refurbish vacant shops/office spaces, either through buy-outs or profit sharing. This would reduce current vacany due to new residents, while improving the current crop of vacant shops/offices.
Totally agree. Where I lived in SLU in Seattle a few years ago, it took years to fill vacancies, and one of the commercial units in my old apartment is still empty 6 years after the building was constructed. That could have been ~5 more units for people to live in instead. Mandating ground floor retail isn't good, but it should be allowed. We should also make it easier to do conversions on the ground floor if there is need for more commercial space in the future.
@@Norfirio totally agree, although they'll need to make sure the ground floor has higher ceilings as commercial buildings require that for all their wiring etc.
Where I live in Germany you often see ground floor apartments get converted to retail space and vice versa. It is not completely optimal as the conversion may not allow for all retail types (due to layouts, infra, etc) but the flexibility is good
I think toning for mixed use would be good even if it just means providing another option for builders and allowing potential future land uses
@@Norfirio I think one of the major problems (at least in my city) they don't even build a floor or walls, they have the space but nobody can rent it. it's expensive because even the largest buildings are always restricted by the city. the few shops that do open struggle because there's not enough density to support that many local stores. doubling the density and the height would solve this
In Bay Area, I seen some mix used on first floor. It can be both residential and potential future store front.
I saw something pretty cool while traveling overseas that might help with the transportation issues that arise with increasing density: private busses.
No, they didn't eliminate public transportation. They just allowed private passenger vans to operate on already established public bus routes. These private vans were more comfortable, charged more than the city busses, and picked up the slack during rush hours. Since they were privately operated, they could quickly shift resources as needed. For example: concerts, sports games, and festivals. I found these private busses/vans easy to use because they followed known routes and made all the same stops as their city-operated counterparts. They also meant that passengers wouldn't have to wait as long for a ride to pick them up at their bus stop.
I, too, have wondered if private shuttles would be allowed to operate in a city and help with transportation.
I love your videos, and a lot of it is about the tone. It's positive and fact-based while also promoting healthy urban concepts. I don't watch City Nerd anymore because it's just too snarky. Kudos to you for making an effort to be genuinely educative rather than just preaching to the choir.
I like both! I like City Nerds snark. He is sarcastic but if you listen he is usually pretty balanced. Very different from Not Just Bikes who is extremely negative most of the time.
honestly, i feel the same way, but mostly with NJB. He is just way too negative and whiney for my taste. So i appreciate CB's more optimistic and educational approach.
Please check out Arlington, Virginia. Perhaps one of the best modern examples of development around a transit line in the United States.
That's the entirety of the Metrorail system. Very rarely would you find a station without development adjacent to it.
I just wish Baltimore would have the wherewithal to that with our metro & light rail
I think he already did, in the video about transit oriented development.
Arlington is quite literally the most touted example of coordinated TOD in the entire country. It's been a featured "best practice" at every transit and urban planning conference I've attended over the last 20 years. You might say that people are familiar with it.
Buffalo took a block of scantly used parking into a 200 unit affordable apartments and a grocery store next door helping other downtown residence. Old hospitals, office space and factories are being converted into housing.
Buffalo still has a lot of surface lots, but it’s slowly improving.
Please do a video about japans train stations that double as malls and shopping centers!
Also check out CF Toronto Eaton Centre it's a huge subway station with a world class mall attached.
Seems like most airports around the world do the same! Only American airports seem to focus less on merchandise and more on food. Schiphol airport in Amsterdam and Kuwait City are prime examples here. They are basically malls in an airport.
Well they also have grocery stores at the train station which is very convenient you need groceries every week could pick them up on the way home same with restaurants in the train stations
a lot of train stations in Europe do that too
Recently visited Japan, to say they simply double as malls and shopping centers is an understatement. They are like whole cities under there, often saw way more people below ground than above ground.
Some pieces of the puzzle that come to mind for me are:
Design parking structures denser, safer, and more attractive and inviting.
Engineer public transport, bus stops, bus stations, and subway stations to be safer, and much more beautiful.
Other countries do this on balance more, and more creatively (and beautifully) than we do. Check out Moscow's subway stations.
Social and physical engineering both will go along way to encouraging people (Americans) to develop new habits.
Would love to see you do a video on Sacramento how good/bad public transportation is, city design and layout what you would do to upgrade the city and draw tourism...don't think old sac and sutters fort are doing the job
When WA passed its mandatory planning law in the early 90's, the city I worked for was supportive but believed that some incentives would be needed for older communities to attract infill development. We were able to pass a law allowing cities to designate infill areas and permit a 10-year exemption of property taxes on new residential development on mixed use housing projects. Only the new or remodeled residential portion of the building is exempt, not the underlying land or any commercial uses. We later improved the law by allowing a shorter 8-year exemption for any project but a longer 12-year exemption for projects with affordable housing units. This was recently extended to 25 years. The city also wisely significantly reduced its parking requirement for these projects. There have always been complaints that this tax exemption goes to wealthy developers who could afford to pay the tax. And some people constantly bemoan projects built without a parking spot for every unit. I have no problems with either of those issues. Looking back, I regret only that the law allowed the exemption to be used for projects as small as 4-units. This feature and the city's failure to update comprehensive plans in some neighborhoods for several years resulted in an ugly hodgepodge redevelopment of an older single-family neighborhood near a major shopping center with dozens of these small buildings.
Usually the answer to why do we have so much sprawl or so many vacant lots is zoning. We should start by upzoning and abolishing the worst parts of zoning, but eventually we should abolish it altogether. All zoning does is segregate the uses to force us to drive while claiming to sort out incompatible uses. It also severely limits density we desperately need to get good urbanism going. Infill developments as well as any other development that densifies cities will be much easier without the arbitrary lines drawn by zoning.
Good urbanism is fake yuppie density scams. Stay in the suburbs with that fake enviro BS that you want in the cities. What makes a city urban is authenticity and vibrancy, and that involves cars. Not your cup of tea, I suggest you find a commune in Oregon to live in if you hate cities.
Good urbanism can work at quite low densities too. It doesn't need to be high rises. You can even have good urbanism in places where most people live outside the town as farmers and only come in for trade, supplies and other tasks. So many towns across the plains have this, where walking to the shops and services while a longer journey, is still viable more so than in a denser suburb
Zoning is not necessarily bad, back then the industrial factories were in the cities, polluting the air and killing it's residents, until zoning was used as a solution, separating the two
@@elciervoparaguayo3756 When they say zoning the anti car crowd means their kind of zoning. They want zoning that eliminate cars and single family homes. They look down on zoning because they want to destroy blocks of single family homes in cities so that they can shoe in dense pack'em and stack'ems with no recourse.
These people want to ruin communities that live in single family homes and drive cars because they have a plan for you! And guess what? zoning gets in the way of the anti-car fever dream of cities not being designed for cars BS they spew. They are subservient neoliberals and tree huggers who think that we should all live stacked on top of each other like they did in Soviet and eastern bloc countries, not be allowed to own cars and get this, rely on rideshare companies to get around. Real great neoliberal BS idea there coming straight out of Agenda 21.. The interest in getting rid of zoning is purely ideological and has nothing to with the technical or political aspects of it.
In the UK we have Green Belts that are a ring of 'don't build further' around urban areas, but I keep seeing them being built on (because it's cheaper to build on a greenfield site than a brownfield site and there are usually major roads outside urban areas so people can commute. Which is the wrong way of going about it. Where I live by the old docklands there is plenty of gap sites that aren't being utilised while they encroach on Green Belt
Can Infill Development save cities? Yes, if done along with serious Traffic Calming.
(This may be the best City Beautiful video yet. The opening example of what is possible through infill was quite encouraging.)
Housing is cheap to build if you don’t insist to have a parking spot per unit.
Parking is the limiting factor because it’s expensive to scale vertically. On a per square meter basis, parking is a cost while housing generates more revenue.
The more desirable area, the bigger the opportunity cost of those parking spaces. The more airspace is wasted.
Where are people supposed to park then? It's a hard sell to say "come pay us to live in this building but you can't bring your car."
@@bwofficial1776 I didn’t say you aren’t allowed to create parking. Parking needs of a particular location depends on many factors. The best people to determine how much parking they need are the developers themselves.
If they build too much, they might lose on opportunity costs. If they build too little, less people will want to live there and they’ll lose money.
In the city, many people can live without a car. You may not care for a parking spot if you are close to everything you need (school, job, groceries), if there is good public transport or good biking infrastructure. Many people are retired or work at home, or work remote, and they might not need a car.
If you insist on having a car, then it’s your responsibility to find a safe place to park it. If you park in the street then it’s subject to the city’s parking enforcement policies.
Having a car is convenient, comfortable, and nice but it not a free ride. That parking spot is the same space as another bedroom. That expense shouldn’t be forced on everyone.
@@bwofficial1776 this is specifically for urban downtown areas where there’s public transit
I wish you'd do more talking about Land Value Tax. Sometimes it seems like a third rail on urban planning sites. I know lots of Americans store their wealth in the value of their home and it depresses the value of land... but that also means a lot more people can afford a home. It encourages density exactly where it's needed by making land expensive to own. If you own a big house (or a small house) on a small lot it is generally neutral towards your overall tax bill, but if you own a huge lot it raises your taxes... but if you combine it with up zoning you can offset that increase in taxes by putting more units on the lot, and unlike under the normal system you don't pay a big tax hit for having a better building on the lot. It's also much harder to cheat than other forms of property tax. I'm not saying we should switch entirely to an LVT, but we should definitely shift the balance in how we assess property tax more heavily towards LVT. You can even use it as a precision tool by, for instance, just using it along a mass transit corridor to encourage density.
Yes, it has to include upzoning, but it's a great tool to encourage density and it's budget neutral. Mostly it just makes it expensive to have vacant lots.
For people who don't know how it works... right now, most of how we assess property values for taxes is based on what sort of building you have on a lot. Say you have three lots, all the same size, right next to each other in the middle of a block. Lot 1 is vacant... maybe it's got a condemned house on it. Lot 2 has a nice tiny little house on it and Lot 3 has an apartment building that has 6 units in it. Other than that, the lots are identical. The way we tax things right now, Lot 1 will pay almost no taxes, Lot 2 will pay some taxes, and Lot 3 will pay lots of taxes, but really, Lot 3, from the perspective of what we actually want for density, is doing exactly what we want them to do- building some apartments. Because he is paying almost nothing in taxes the landlord for Lot 1 looks around and says... eh, maybe I'll just hold onto this land and see if there maybe is a property boom and I can sell it... he can wait for the perfect buyer or perfect opportunity to develop... but because, in practice, there are lots of people doing the same thing, the area doesn't get redeveloped.
Under an LVT we shift that balance. We look at the street... it's got a bus line, sewer, a police station nearby, a park nearby with a public pool, it's in a fairly good school district... so, instead of taxing mostly based on the value of the building, we say, 'We are providing these services here, and we are going to tax the lot.' The landlord for Lot 1 suddenly gets a huge tax hike. If he sits on this land he is going to lose his shirt, so now he has to develop the land or sell the land to someone who will (or maybe lose it through tax forfeiture). The person who owns Lot 2... their taxes, if you set the rates right, maybe sees their taxes go up if it's a particularly big lot, or might see them go down if it's a small lot, but generally speaking, their taxes will stay about the same. The landlord for Lot 3... his taxes go down. Yes, he still is paying the taxes on the lot, but since the guy who owns Lot 1 is now paying his fair share we can give a small break to the landlord at Lot 3. What happens next? Well, first you have to do the upzoning thing so they have options, but now Lot 1 isn't worth waiting around for a 'good' time to build, so they stop waiting and build something, hopefully another apartment complex or at least a duplex or a shop with an apartment over it. Overall, the tax burden stays roughly the same. You can still do programs like STAR that helps elderly people stay in their homes, but overall, because it encourages more development, and because owning a huge lot compared to what you have on it creates more taxes for you you see denser construction. It doesn't encourage low or high income housing over each other... a landlord can build a 6 unit luxury apartment building or a 12 or 18 unit middle or low income building... what they can't do is just let the lot sit vacant. Because it encourages development it's very hard for the landlord to pass the cost off to the tenants- there are more places to live, so rents, in general, go down. Of course, it does cost people more in taxes who have underdeveloped property. If you have a house with a giant yard in the middle of the city your taxes will go up, but if you have a giant lawn in the middle of the city where you are getting all the benefits of density without helping with the density, maybe you should consider building a small apartment building on your lot and renting out some of the land. If you absolutely have to have a big lawn, move out to the country. Let people who actually want to live in the city live in the city.
It's just one tool, and it can be used with a lot of other tools. I know some people want to replace all taxes, and I'm not proposing that... just slowly shift the way we assess property values. (
-On the topic of property values, I also think we have problems with how we fund schools locally... we need to do a better job funding rural and urban schools at the state and federal level. Right now rich districts stay rich by pricing poor people out of their districts. Poor people get stuck going to poorly funded schools, which helps perpetuate the cycle of poverty. If we let rich areas fund their schools locally they fund their schools locally and then vote against funding schools at the state and federal level. Poor districts tend to stay poor because people with kids don't want to move there. Rich districts tend to stay rich because they are too expensive for poor people to live there. Short of a poverty based school bussing system the only real solution is shifting funding up the ladder. If rich people want to fund their schools well they'll have to shell out to fund all schools well. Someone will surely say 'that's communism' but if we can't at least agree to get kids to the starting line they can't participate in our wonderful capitalist society. There is a difference between advocating for sharing the wealth for everyone and arguing that we should at least share the wealth so all our kids get good educations so that the next generation is functional.
Excellent read of a comment
I have noticed that with older parts of cities, the blocks are subdivided into many parcels. But the newer blocks, especially in “rising” places, have one or two corporate owners per block. Hoboken, NJ is an example of this, featuring older blocks next to newer ones. There indeed has been a rise in the “forever renters” with younger generations. I understand that more housing is needed and that includes apartments, so it’s technically the right business decision. But I can’t help to notice the drastic parcel difference between older and newer housing in dense urban neighborhoods.
Something that you didn’t mention is that much of the upzoning and infill development is happening along noisy, polluted stroads. Several examples in the video are next to stroads and highways. I think that really factors in to where people want to live. Infill development needs to be spread throughout neighborhoods, not just the undesirable land next to car sewers.
Everyday I pass by a dead k-mart that’s been turned into a church of some sort. The empty parking lot is massive and this is in a pretty expensive area, there’s a few homeless service centers literally across the street from the church of dead retail. A few 5+1 buildings would go well next to the grocery store and watered down BRT line in the area.
In other words: that’s turning American cities into typical European urbanism. 4 or 5 stories buildings with commerce on the ground level, public transport, few open air parking lots (underground ones where needed).
The five-over-one thing is also partly because of building codes making that cheaper and easier to do the paperwork for than anything taller, but that more or less describes it. You may as well copy something from the people doing it the best.
No we don't need any European urbanism, completely built around tourism and elitists and gouging the public to pay for all that useless transportation. Europeans urbanism based on automobiles too, I think little bike people just love the BS narrative about Europe, Denmark and Holland are not all of Europe.
Yeah let's all be like Europe! Nothing beats an entire city completely paved over with plazas and no grass or trees! Europe is like half the size of the US with double the population.
I pass by that millbrea area pretty often and even more apartments are popping up right there. Pretty much overnight.
Growing up in san jose, stevens creek has definitely been interesting in the way they’re building it up
I also live in slo and think there is great potential to make the town more walkable and bikeable. But how do average citizens promote change in our communities? I always hear about great programs and ideas, but I don’t hear how to promote them. Any thoughts? Thanks
show this video to Houston city planners ....
Mixed-use apartment buildings (office, retail, condos) no more than 6 stories tall with a hidden parking garage. That's your solution. Makes hundreds of them throughout every US city and most of our issues will go away....
people in la love small walkable places like the grove and downtown disney/main st but as soon as someone actually wants to implement this type of change they turn into NIMBYs. whats nice is theyre starting to do this kind of development next to some of the metro stations. some of them have had long streches of line with not much build up around them. and the more housing the better
Just the other day i was looking at my city on google earth imagining doing this very thing. We've had a lot of infill already but really only in highly desirable areas, most of which never experienced redlining. Its starting to happen more in more economically/racially diverse areas recently. However I wish there was more missing middle getting built. My neighborhood is a former streetcar suburb so its mostly zoned SFR and there aren't too many oversized parking lots. There are a good number of vacant 1/4 acre lots and a housing stock that is aging without available $$$ to maintain their viability that couldn't accommodate the big 5 over 1s. However they'd be perfect for 4plexes and attached homes.
you said it all in just under one minute. i hated living in houses as a child and hate them even more as an adult. Apartment style condominiums are the way to go.
The countless bleak parking lots in downtown Toronto near the waterfront, replaced with condo towers (living spaces) and work spaces over the past 30 years. Small parks and transit added. Rezoning of certain downtown areas to live-work spaces also helped.
This describes the Las Vegas Valley perfectly. Yet all that's being built on these unused/underused lots are gas stations, car washes and strip malls.
You should make a video on how we should have more places like the YMCAs to house our homeless and under employed. It seems they're always building apartment units to house homeless people instead of dorm like buildings, like the ymca which would be cheaper and more efficient..
Yes, rooming houses used to be popular in bigger cities.
@@bruceh4180 Yeah, exactly, we had flophouses for hundreds of years. Now we don't have them anymore and that's why we have all the homeless.
Local governments should get workplaces with +200 employees to convert 20%-40% of their parking spaces to affordable mid -density employee rentals. Employees with long commutes or least affordable housing get priority. No more cars and commutes.
The US is for sure in a time of change towards "better" (take this as you will) development to start a drive away from car centrism, its gonna take a loooooooong time to get anywhere near not needing a car, but the steps we are making is good. And I for sure see it in my city (Atlanta, GA)
3:10 --- for anybody interested, this is the shopping center (or near the shopping center) with the Safeway at Lawrence Expressway (n-s in photo) and stevens creek (e-w). I was just there maybe an hour ago. I'm delighted it's getting built up. Density is the answer.
It's odd to watch this as a Dutchman (or any other European, likely). I was constantly thinking "This can't be new to American city planners. I bet they are eager to work on such projects/solutions. There must be some unwilling politicians or lobbyists working against plans that are the norm all around the world."
We used to have denser, transit-oriented cities here in the US. The automobile & real estate industries lobbied the government for decades to change that so they could profit, leaving many of our cities either in bankruptcy or teetering on the edge of it. So we're effectively moving backwards in time right now.
Eliminating parking for a DMV office is hilarious.
MAYBE it's For Electric moped Licenses
My city is doing infill developments on vacant lots near the bus rapid transit line and is planning on building mixed use developments on parking lots adjacent to two shopping centres.
Changing our homes won’t be easy but it’s necessary
Why are most businesses and retail centers along Highways and not in downtowns? I live in a suburb of New York and most retail shops are along highways where transit isn't served but cars do. Is there a better way to serve shops on or near highways with transit in mind?
There's an empty lot next to my office. It's big enough for an apartment building, a grocery store, and a cafe, if there isn't a lot of parking. If they built those things there, I would seriously consider moving there.
Infill development is a common practice here in the Netherlands. Known as 'inbreiding' (as opposed to 'uitbreiding', which means 'expansion'), it's often necessary for cities with limited available space. Some cities have sort of grown together, leaving even less space to expand. In a small country like the Netherlands, inbreiding is often the only way to develop more houses. But be aware that this isn't the be all and end all of the housing crisis. Filling empty plots with high end appartments and penthouses does nothing to solve this. Affordable housing is the way. Whether it's by expanding or infill development.
I live in the St. Louis region, and all the empty wasted space I see when I drive by them I always imagine how much more livable and friendly it would be. So many problems in STL can be solved with a well thought out plan to make better use of wasted land
If you think there aren't that many vacant lots, take a drive through your nearest big city's lowest income neighborhoods, especially ones built before WW2. You'll see vacant lots and houses in the process of caving in.
@@robloxvids2233There's a lot of people who want to live close to animals, that's why we have pets, and why so many people want to live on a farm
@@robloxvids2233 Oh sorry, I didn't notice you were being racist, have a good day
@@elciervoparaguayo3756 Not racist, realist. Look at the facts. Or bury your head in the sand.
Infill is why I don’t get too worked up over bad developments, empty lots, big box stores and strip malls, etc.
Great example of Infill is Boston’s Seaport district, which was rapidly developed in the 2010s. Since the entire area was all parking lots, it was very easy to develop, since the equipment had room to move.
Just to be contrary, lets appreciate these poorly used areas as ways to set aside land for future development. As we know from Jane Jacobs (and just common sense) its not good to build everything all at the same time. Neighborhoods need time to grow, evolve, and adapt, and gradual construction is the best way to achieve that.
Because these poorly used areas take some time to develop, since there’s usually something in the way of the new construction, it slows things down and makes sure we’re not just building a whole bunch all at once.
They’ve been doin this in Sf for the last 10-15yrs all the old cheap gas stations n empty lots n warehouses have been turned into condos or modernized apartment buildings the unfortunate consequence is it makes rents nd property valuations go up n makes housing more unaffordable
that's because San Francisco has such a massive lack of housing that all housing/land will be competed over by a stupidly much larger amount of people than there are houses leading to the demand outstripping supply and pushing up the prices. San Franciso's only solution is to build roughly 20 decades worth of unbuilt housing as a result of zoning restrictions to begin tackling the problem it brought upon itself.
For starters, probably everything north of those lake Merced park golf courses needs to be upzoned to not be single family homes, because that is a close enough area to the SF down town and its jobs within a reasonable distance able to be neatly serviced by public transit, while suburbs around Stanford and the big job centers like Palo Alto and Mountain View to San Jose need to be upzoned to not be single family homes in the lands right next to the big job sources.
Build enough housing near the jobs, and the people working those jobs will with good possibility move there, which in turn frees up hundreds of thousands of homes for everyone else poorer and not employed by tech corporations
@@alehaim supply n demand & no rent control ordinance 50/50…..this problem will happen everywhere with no rent control ordinance the developers take over n prices get out of wack n create more homelessness.
I'm sorry, but this is patently false. Study after study shows that the blocks/neighborhoods in San Francisco that _didn't_ get new developments had their rents and prices go up by more and quicker. This 1970s theory of "gentrification" via new buildings is bunk. The rents go up either way, whether you build or not. But they go up much slower if you add a ton of units to compete with the old housing.
Another local example - Berkeley was forced to add an insane amount of units and the rent in the old buildings went down while the adjacent cities saw a 20-30% rise in rents. Mind you, the average for all the units went down too, but the existing housing were the most affected. And this happened while the university added 20% more students! If that isn't proof positive that adding more housing then I don't know what is! If it can work in NIMBY Berkeley then it can work anywhere!
Even our rent board is now begrudgingly acknowledging that adding new units keeps the rent down better than their ability to force the landlords to keep the prices stable.
@@TohaBgood2 adding new units keeps the rent down?? That’s where supply n demand comes in at sir if theres not enough supply being built your theory is incorrect, sf is limited in size so there’s not alot of units hitting the market all at once, u can’t tell a person that’s been here over 15yrs bud I’ve lived it n seen it
@@kalb.3002 I've lived here my whole life. That doesn't really give you econ superpowers, as I can attest. The fact is that new buildings are almost always built in areas that are already seeing increases in housing prices. If you ban them then you're just turbocharging displacement!
Think about it! If you don't build new housing when an area becomes more popular then the prices go up by X%, and many of the locals are forced out. If an area is becoming more popular and you do build new housing then the new residents simply move into the new units and the old residents get to stay. The landlords don't see too many new renters because they're all going to the much nicer new housing. This prevents them from raising the rents. What's the point of raising the rent if you're just not going to find any takers at that higher prices compared to nicer adjacent properties!
I understand that the old hippie anti-development logic has become orthodoxy now, but it simply does not withstand even the most mild scrutiny. Markets simply don't work like that.
0:05 seconds in and im already severely triggered by peoples incompetence and inability to properly park a motor vehicle
I remember parking in that Millbrae parking lot. Times have changed, love it!
They're continuing to build too! All those parking lots that are still left around the station all have approved buildings. It's kind of crazy how quickly they built a completely new "downtown" right there by the BART station. We need more of these BART station villages!
We're doing just this in the wilds of far North California's Humboldt Bay area; it's a struggle, as people get surprisingly emotional about the loss of parking in the oversupplied areas where the housing is going to be built, but the cities have learned to ignore them.
My city’s doing lots of infill construction, granted that some of it was poorly done in the past (such as building skyscrapers with no street front stores and suburban style plazas with parking in what used to be a dense neighborhood) but they have reversed course and started to build more buildings with street facing storefronts. Now for transit, I think where I live could use more light rail to create a network that moves people faster while connecting with the existing line and the two major stops in the downtown (and also spurring more TOD development surrounding the stations but in massive ways that most of the state haven’t done).
There's a spot in a downtown near me that was once a grand train station that was demolished in the 60's to become a strip mall with a large parking lot. In the last couple years part of the lot got developed as a strip of restaurants. There's always talk of bringing rail back to the area but I doubt I'll live to see it.
Yes this is great! City Beautiful, please check out College Park, MD transit oriented development and infill projects happening on US Rt 1 just outside UMD campus and near the College Park Metro station which has a metro stop directly on the DC metro system. It’s the perfect example of what upgrading stroads should look like!
I love how @5:22 video chosen is showing completely full parking lot thats overflowing to unbuild land next to it
It is AMAZING how little space these mid-rise buildings take up. This would be so perfect for LA since home affordability out there is alarmingly low. I wish a wave of a magic wand would make it all happen. Instead we have to struggle to do it ourselves. Darn!
Removing a DMV parking lot?
Thanks for sharing positive examples! Solution-focused videos like these help spread optimism ❤
What does running this in Cities: Skylines show?
My city is planning to convert a large vacant lot right beside a tram stop to towers and townhouses with around 900 units total plus grocery store and daycare, so that’s pretty awesome!
Another banger! Keep ‘em coming
While a great idea, the obvious challenge is the infrastructure of a urban community. Developers in my area of Fairfield County Connecticut are running into just that problem. Not enough parking for the proposed construction. Or roads to sustain all the added traffic. Especially as local public transportation is at best nonexistent. Limited to buses, and Metro North commuter rail line. Lastly most developments are geared towards “luxury” housing with only a handful of units in each site mandated as affordable lower income housing. It’s a huge problem for sure.
I'm waiting for the day we have a Tokyo style train for the million residents running alongside Wilshire Blvd :,,(
What do you think you mean by "Tokyo style" and why on Earth would you want it built on the surface? Does the heavy rail subway D line extension that they're building right NOW beneath Wilshire fail to meet your exacting standards? The first new segment is supposed to open next year, so it might be a little late to change their plan.
Eliminating the minimum parking laws and changing zoning to be more flexible would be a massive improvement
Even when you can't afford to live in the city regardless or don't want to live in the city, at least suburban development need to be accessible by transit and with everything being currently far away with the single family zoning and the lot sizes. Increase density even with single family homes using smaller lots. Smaller single family lot sizes like in 4:00. Lower the lot minimums and loosen zoning regulations which Houston made it possible.
this is a major issue in the Dallas FW metro area. Even downtown and uptown youll see way too many vacant lots and large parking lots that never get used.
We like the idea.
Some nits though... a neighborhood in our city here in California is constructing a mixed use building in an old strip mall--hurrah, but a handful of vocal neighbors hates the idea. It's unclear whether they'll be appeased after completion or further enraged dealing with the changes to the skyline, view, traffic volume, etc.
Another concern is a metric for success... homelessness in California seems to be increasing... if projects like these are anticipated to be beneficial, what metric can be used to demonstrate their effect and hold us all accountable?
Great topic and channel, thank you City Beautiful. Keep up the great work.
I feel like this would be great for Detroit, making it more walkable if only a little bit. Lots of empty space here.
Great video! Its exciting to see some of these projects coming together to make our communities better!
Whats interesting is a nice chunk of Wilshire Boulevard is pretty well like a mixed use street (especially around Koreatown)
I live in ktown and I agree.
@@Izzy-qf1do when I lived in Califormia I would frequent there
My city did one of these things recently, and is in the process of doing another. There was this giant, downtown parking lot, next to a 3 story parking garage and an office building and a few restaurants- with a metro station and its own giant parking lot across the street. Well, while I wouldn't call the new housing necessary affordable, the empty lot is now a Wegmans grocery store, and 750 residential units- with a bike trail on one side and a 2 minute walk to a metro station.
The other one was not just an empty lot, but an empty mall. The mall got demolished, and a new hospital is being built along with mixed use and new roads. The Landmark mall property was already a bus transit point, right next to an interstate, but if only WMATA got smart and built a metro line under 395 from Pentagon to Van Dorn St. 2 other exits in a 5 mile stretch are already pretty much tailor-made to have a metro station right there with mixed use and bus transit stations- and to get people off that road.
The high rise buildings make every city look the same though. Please make a video about how the fear of ornament has killed local character. Almost any unique characteristic of local architecture is in ornament. The ornaments of Amsterdam, Venice, Rome, Kyoto, Salvador, make those places unique. The dogmatic fear of ornament makes all cities sterile and uniform.
I think the problem with traditional ornamentation is that it can increase costs of building and maintaining the building. I think what ex-soviet countries did with old commie blocks by giving them pastel colours and just vibrant colours is a nice way of making samey buildings have more character for a low cost though. Also the push to have more vegetation on buildings is a nice step, it's not all that useful for climate change or anything like that but it looks nice and the vegetation will give the building its own unique touch just by the nature of plants growing differently.
@@kev2034 I get that argument all the time but I don't believe in it. Concrete is just like clay, you can pour it in any form you like. Also in terms of costs I see doubling housing prices in 20 years, and for some reason there is always money for more expensive houses just not for a tiny bit of ornament. Also you see old buildings built in time of crises, like 1929, they always found a way to add a bit extra, even just by laying the bricks in a different pattern. Even factories and prisons had nice facades in the 19th century. Google 'victorian pumping station' to see how they made pumps look back then. It can't be that we are ten times richer than two centuries ago and our architecture looks the poorest of human history. Also, research shows that buildings with more ornament sell for higher prices. I think the real problem is ideology. Ornament is discouraged among architects and this makes it very difficult for them to develop styles and techniques. When they try it, they find out that it quickly looks like kitsch or ironic because they never developed that language. It takes some time and determination, but the thing is that it is also fun. So the extra effort isn't much effort at all. In the total time of a study to become an architect, just spending a month on ornament should not be a huge problem.
he'll never make that video. i'm starting to think all the american "urbanist" youtubers are backed by corporate developers.
@@kev2034 then how come all the new constructions that are so cheaply built have expensive rent or lease prices?
This is why I love the channel "The Aesthetic City".
A perfect example is New Haven CT. The city has undergone a tremendous in fill lot development in the last 15 years creating walkable dense housing. Entire new blocks have been developed. Would love you to do a video on New Haven !
We desperately need a highly regressive vacant underutilized / property tax to prevent further dereliction and vacancy!
Just use an LVT.
@@linuxman7777 There needs to be a punishment for hording, dereliction & vacancy.