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

41–50 of 209 posts

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#41

Post by dsr_ »

crazygringo wrote: post #30

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 "cente…

What is shown is not better than what you grew up in; it's the same. It's an outdoor mall, pretending to be a downtown.

The only difference is that this mall doesn't have the food court and the giant corridors; instead it's outside where the rain and bugs can get to you.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#42

Post by kop316 »

I wish the author would hit the non-walkability a bit harder. To get from one section to another, cross a street. To get from one side to another, you have to cross several streets.

There is one area that did the same thing where I live (The Greene Town Center). I cannot simply think of why I would want to live there, and I was their target demographic! I really can't walk around inside of The Greene without having to watch traffic (I am simply amazed at how recklessly folks drive in there). If you look at both the Greene and that picture, the roads are pervasive in there.

The suburban neighborhood I live in is actually more walkable! I can walk through a park to get to the library, I have to cross a single one lane road to get to a Kroger, and I can walk within the neighborhood on the street with almost no concern for traffic (heck, it has better sidewalks then the Greene!)

If you really want to attract people to live there, make the place actually an area where you only need a car to drive to/from work (and try to bring jobs to there!). Bring Grocery Stores, Schools, a community center, local restaurants to the area. Have a park! Make it so I can walk/cycle to places surrounding the area. Shove parking/cars out of the way.

Heck, even downtowns have the same issue. The downtown in Dayton only has Second Street Market that could pass as a grocery store (don't get me wrong, that place is awesome, but it's only open Fri-Sun). I thought about living downtown, but once again, I have to drive to get anywhere anyways. I have no incentive to live downtown.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#43

Post by dsr_ »

wingdom wrote: post #38
mc32 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit more expensive but they could add a few underground floors for parking. In cold , snowy climates this might even be an advantage. This would waste less surface area to parking lots but would add some cost.

Except this particular development is in Florida, where you can't go under ground, and hurricane building codes make building up more complicated and expensive. As a Florida resident, I would love to see more parking garages, so parking takes up less ground surface area.

It appears likely that we are going to have to write off at least half of Florida in the next century, so any building at all seems counterproductive compared to finding better places to live.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#44

Post by gindely »

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.

Yet people continue to walk around in those areas. There's masses of onstreet parking here in Berlin and not that much off street parking, but the footpaths are always crowded.

It's the same in Melbourne - some parts have onstreet parking and lots of people, and some parts of only off street parking and few people.

If getting people to walk between destinations is a goal, you should increase the proportion of on street parking and decrease the proportion of off street parking. This will slow down the cars and increase foot traffic, since it becomes more competitive.

Also, by using the connecting space as parking places, you acknowledge the viability of using connecting places as destinations.

But if your goal is to eliminate car congestion, you aren't doing it right. Planning should optimise for humans and tax revenue, not cars.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#45

Post by mattlondon »

aga98mtl wrote: post #18

While not perfect, this type of development is already a step-up above the unwalkable so called "power center". They have great upgrade potential when we'll figure out public transport. The parking lots closest to the walkable public strip can be turned into mixed use buildings. Solving infrastructure and public transit problems is not the job of real estate developers. It is our job as a society. There has to be pol…

> Maybe we should be paying for influential people to spend a month without a car in a walkable european city.

It is not just being walkable in European cities - it is also a lot to do with workable public transport.

Sure, I could walk the 2 miles from Point A to B, but in a bus/tram/metro/train that will take 5 mins rather than 30 walking it.

Even then though it is often only workable right in the center of town where there is a lot of good coverage. Most people will live further out where affordability is more realistic. At least for me about "half-way" out from the center of London, getting to my local grocery store is a 33 minute walk, 27 minute bus (assuming I did not have to wait at the stop at all first), or just an 8 minute drive.

Note also that the bus would be a £3.40 return ticket, which is enough for about 2.5-3 litres of petrol. A toyota prius that can do about 3.7l/100KM means that for the price of a bus ticket you could cover about 68KM (~42 miles) or for a tesla 3 that gets 240Wh/mile charging @ £0.24/khw you'd get about 95KM (~59 miles). For the case of this example where it is about a 5 mile round-trip, you'd be looking at 9 or 12 return trips to the grocery store depending on if you took the prius or the tesla, for the cost of a single round-trip on the bus.

It is doable without a car, but not easy. You get into a situation where you are trading off trying to carry 20+KG of shopping back on the (crowded) buses vs taking multiple separate trips a week (...and the £3.40 monetary cost + minimum 54 minute travel time cost). And it might be raining (not easy to hold an umbrella when you have 16 carrier bags you are trying to lug). With a car you can easy haul back many 10s of KGs of shopping in one trip, while staying dry, with just 16 minutes spent getting there and back ... and in a car you are guaranteed a seat too :)

Personally I did the trade off and found that having a car for day-to-day life is just so much easier (not just for shopping but for all sorts), but obviously I'd never drive into the centre of London (if nothing else, there is nowhere to park) and happily walk + get the tube when in the centre of town. Driving to work just feels 100% alien here :)

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#46

Post by dsr_ »

ses1984 wrote: post #36
rayiner wrote: post #12

> Until you deal with the parking problem—which is done by building truly mixed-use places where people can meet their daily needs without hopping in the car—you haven’t created true urbanism. Daily needs means jobs for both you and your spouse, which won’t be in some random subdivision in Florida. It means schools, which don’t appear to be there either. It means the kids’ after school activities, again, missing from…

>Driving is unavoidable What about public transport?

Reston has public transport. Most of Florida doesn't. A shiny nickel says that the pictured development has a nod to public transport in the form of a shuttle van that loops around the parking lots and the main street once every hour or so.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#47

Post by kop316 »

crazygringo wrote: post #30

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 "cente…

I hate to tell you, there is a place like this near where I live (Look up The Greene). I assure you, that place is effectively an outdoor mall. I rarely go there due to traffic in and out, I really dislike walking in it (drivers in there are in a hurry to park or leave, and have little concern for pedestrians, there is no "pedestrian only" space), and if I am going to a mall anyways, I would prefer an indoor mall where I can at least not worry about getting hit by a car going from shop to shop.

It's not just the parking, its the fact that it is not pedestrian friendly at all. If they had shoved parking off to one side and made the entire area car free, that would have been a huge upgrade.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#48

Post by alex_c »

crazygringo wrote: post #30

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 "cente…

I mean... are you dismissing the bad because there’s worse?

My takeaway is that this kind of new development looks better (“movie set”) than what you describe, but it does not meaningfully change how people use and interact with the space and with each other.

The hard part is building a living, breathing, functional and healthy community on a continent that’s been built from the ground up around cars. There are so many examples everywhere in Europe and Asia, but I can’t think of many (any?) in North America.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#49

Post by alistairSH »

ses1984 wrote: post #35
seanalltogether wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Isn't it pretty much the exact same thing?

Yes, just tarted-up a bit.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#50

Post by lotsofpulp »

mtberatwork wrote: post #16
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…

> You get something that is an entertainment product—it looks cute, but it’s functionally like a movie set or a theme park. Its design has the aesthetic signifiers of a traditional town, but none of the functionality, none of the deep responsiveness to the needs of the people living there. I think he encapsulates things nicely here. Barring some exceptions, town/village life in the US is basically non-existent. There…

All of those are benefits that come from high density living.

But while they might say they like those benefits, most people will choose the benefits of low density living, such as more space (quarter acre lots with detached garages and front and back yards and 2,000+ sq ft interiors). Not to mention the benefit of being able to segregate children into different schools by socioeconomic status, by restricting different incomes from living in the same school district via zoning laws requiring large lots and expensive properties, which also leads to unfeasible public transportation.

Post reply on HN