Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

strongtowns.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 209 posts

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#21

Post by seanalltogether »

Steltek wrote: post #8

I think he's barking up the wrong tree. The problem isn't "movie set urbanism", it's just boring, old "too much parking". Too much parking creates sparseness which reduces walkability. But putting parking behind stores ("movie sets") creates a human scale street space. While organic urban growth should be cherished, there are extreme cases, like most American towns and cities, where urbanism needs to be forcefully bo…

Really I think these "main streets shops" are designs to replace strip malls in suburban environments, which in my opinion is infinitely better.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#23

Post by rtkwe »

sandoooo wrote: post #11

Why is there no multilevel parking? All that space can't be cheap. Is there zoning laws against it?

I've often wondered that, why parking structures aren't considered more as a medium term solution to increasing density while not having to revolutionize public transit. Probably a combination of the cost to build and resistance to having one next to buildings because they're usually pretty ugly if I had to guess.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#25

Post by hirundo »

When manually driven cars become a rare exception expect these layouts to change again. Instead of vast parking lots somewhat integrated with the destination, cars in surplus to immediate requirements drive themselves to "inconvenient" staging lots or back to their corporate homes. Developments become more dense again.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#26

Post by Asooka »

I wonder why we don't see more developments with underground parking. Imagine a three-level underground parking space with a small public park on top. Access would be gated to residents of the surrounding buildings. You should still have some above-ground parking for deliveries, friends visiting, etc. but you can have the majority of parking underground.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#27

Post by jnwatson »

This style is not new. The earliest planned community in Reston VA built 50 years ago [1] uses this approach, except the housing is more integrated.

Housing above the shops and immediately adjacent produces the ambiance of a walkable community around a lake.

Still, it has to be surrounded by parking lots. There’s just no way around it unless you move all the work and the schools there too.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Anne

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#28

Post by Swenrekcah »

hirundo wrote: post #25

When manually driven cars become a rare exception expect these layouts to change again. Instead of vast parking lots somewhat integrated with the destination, cars in surplus to immediate requirements drive themselves to "inconvenient" staging lots or back to their corporate homes. Developments become more dense again.

That's probably true, but in the intervening 75 years, cities would do well to build up their public transport.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#29

Post by ch4s3 »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #14
Steltek wrote: post #8

I think he's barking up the wrong tree. The problem isn't "movie set urbanism", it's just boring, old "too much parking". Too much parking creates sparseness which reduces walkability. But putting parking behind stores ("movie sets") creates a human scale street space. While organic urban growth should be cherished, there are extreme cases, like most American towns and cities, where urbanism needs to be forcefully bo…

If you don't have of street parking you get congestion as people park on streets - that is the reason why planners mandate of street parking.

I my recommend “The High Cost of Free Parking” by Donald Shoup to get a sense of what planners actually think about street parking.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#30

Post by crazygringo »

Correct it's no vibrant, bustling organic downtown.

But it's still a helluva lot better than nothing at all.

The suburbs I grew up in? There were a bunch of shitty strip malls, and a single indoor mall with a single food court with zero natural lighting, taken over by teenagers after school because it was literally the only place to congregate besides the parking lot outside the supermarket.

There was no local "center" at all for community.

This kind of development would have been a huge life upgrade. Yes it's still built around parking -- but if life is already built around cars in suburbia, there's literally no alternative. Without parking, nobody can get there in the first place.

This article seems to be dismissing the better because it only wants the perfect.

Edit: to people replying this is still terrible or no better than a mall... look at the photos. This has paths to stroll along, a waterfront, trees, outdoor dining/cafes, building facades that aren't horrible to look at the way painted flat concrete is. You can hang out here and it looks nice. I think some people here must just not be aware of how horrible and ugly strip malls and 1970's-era indoor malls can be. This is objectively a gigantic upgrade for some people.

Post reply on HN