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

151–160 of 209 posts

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#151

Post by atombender »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #147
atombender wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are absolutely tons of towns like that, but they're old towns that grew organically from villages. Cold Spring, NY, Shelbourne Falls, MA and Santa Fe, NM are some examples that come to mind. What this blog is talking about is really new developments and the gradual transformation of old, previously functioning towns.

I live near Santa Fe, NM and I cannot possibly agree with this characterization. Most modern (i.e. non-tourist) commerce in S.Fe is on Cerrillos Road. While I support this arrangement to a large degree, Cerrillos is a 4 mile long strip mall, in essence. In a car, it's convenient. On foot, it's a nightmare. There is a bus running up and down, but the bus rarely seems to have much ridership. The old core of S.Fe contai…

I don't live in Santa Fe, but I think it's got a very walkable core. That said, it's also a very typical example of a town whose residential suburbia has ballooned without support from public transit, to the point that if you don't live near Cerillos Road, you're basically in the suburbs and absolutely you need a car.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#152

Post by kop316 »

Bootwizard wrote: post #109
kop316 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it in Orlando? If so, that actually looks like a pretty nice area! Judging by what I saw on the map, that would be a nice place to live. If one looks at the map, you see multiple parks surrounding the area, an elementary and middle school that appears to be walkable, a sizeable grocery store, and a lake to walk around. While it looks to have a lot of streets still throughout, it looks to be much more than just an…

Yeah it is in Orlando :) It's a great place to live, tons of parks around, literally everything I need within walking or biking distance. We even have a 30 mile bike trail that starts from here. I was just using my area as an example of how this model can work if designed well.

Just by looking at it at the map, I'm fairly jealous. It does look good for living

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#153

Post by rayiner »

reggieband wrote: post #146
rayiner wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a normal population pyramid, people with kids will compromise a significant plurality of people. Nationwide, about a third of households have kids. In Manhattan, it’s half that. Moreover, far fewer of those kids come from the middle class. 18% of kids in New York City attend private school, about double the national rate. Of the public school kids, 75% are eligible for free or reduced price lunch, double the natio…

Sounds like you are moving the goal posts. If you said "less than average amount of middle class families per capita" then that is obvious. You said "almost no middle class people with kids" which is in my experience misleading and almost certainly false. Given the massive population of Manhattan, even if the percentages are as skewed as heavily as you believe they are, that means there is still a significant and vis…

You’re the one moving the goal posts. We were not talking about whether the population of families was significant “enough to support a large number of businesses.” I was replying to a post that suggested New York was an example of “a living, breathing, functional and healthy” urban community. By my reckoning, middle class households with kids are underrepresented by a factor of six in Manhattan. That’s is a hugely distorted demographic statistic that suggests New York City is inhospitable to families. Yes, 3% of Manhattan households is like tens of thousands of households. But it’s a small minority. “Almost none” isn’t all that hyperbolic.

Given that 85% of people will have kids at some point, I think that disqualifies New York City from being deemed “functional” and “healthy.” If we are looking for cues as to how to design urban environments, we should be looking at places that serve the needs of normal people. New York City is not one of those places.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#154

Post by kop316 »

clairity wrote: post #104
leviathant wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I first encountered this kind of shopping center in the suburbs of Philadelphia. Main Street at Exton struck me as incredibly strange - it's a strip mall dressed up to look like an urban downtown, right down to parallel parking spots on the street. Once you do park, it is actually fairly walkable. A couple of years later, after having moved to Philadelphia, there was something I wanted to grab at a store in Main Stre…

i'd read somewhere that these kinds of developments became popular with developers (over indoor malls) because of their success in southern california in the past couple decades: the revitalization of third street promenade in santa monica and the success of the grove in LA (as well as irvine company developments in orange county). to be honest, the grove always gives me the fakeness willies, like it's all facade and…

I've been to both of those places. The huge difference between them, the example I give, and the one from the website once you park and get to the grove, there's no car traffic in it!

The third street promenade likewise had entire blocks closed to traffic. Crossings where also very generous to the pedestrians, so you rarely had to wait to cross the street and knew that you wouldn't get hit. It was also very easy to walk to the Santa Monica beach.

Both examples were built for pedestrians.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#155

Post by inetknght »

cortesoft wrote: post #79
dsr_ wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is also near the water, which could be nice.

> It is also near the water, which could be nice.

It is also near the water, where bugs love to congregate.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#156

Post by zeveb »

dsr_ wrote: post #41
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.

Hey, at least it serves as a proof-of-concept to suburbanites that it is entirely possible to walk around outside without dying. It takes time to wean folks off of suburban malls and back into urban living: first we show them that the world is nicer than an air-conditioned mausoleum; then we show them that walking is wonderful; then we convince them to live where they can walk to work; then we all prosper!

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#157

Post by reggieband »

rayiner wrote: post #153
reggieband wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you are moving the goal posts. If you said "less than average amount of middle class families per capita" then that is obvious. You said "almost no middle class people with kids" which is in my experience misleading and almost certainly false. Given the massive population of Manhattan, even if the percentages are as skewed as heavily as you believe they are, that means there is still a significant and vis…

You’re the one moving the goal posts. We were not talking about whether the population of families was significant “enough to support a large number of businesses.” I was replying to a post that suggested New York was an example of “a living, breathing, functional and healthy” urban community. By my reckoning, middle class households with kids are underrepresented by a factor of six in Manhattan. That’s is a hugely d…

> You’re the one moving the goal posts.

I'm responding directly to your claim using your own words. Again you want to change the subject, which is fine.

> I think that disqualifies New York City from being deemed “functional” and “healthy.”

I made no claim for or against that point. I responded to your claim "almost no middle class families" which I believe to be false. Feel free to walk back that hyperbole if it isn't a true representation of your beliefs. If you want to make a point about how functional or healthy NYC is you should do so without making grossly exaggerated claims to support your argument.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#158

Post by clairity »

kop316 wrote: post #154
clairity wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'd read somewhere that these kinds of developments became popular with developers (over indoor malls) because of their success in southern california in the past couple decades: the revitalization of third street promenade in santa monica and the success of the grove in LA (as well as irvine company developments in orange county). to be honest, the grove always gives me the fakeness willies, like it's all facade and…

I've been to both of those places. The huge difference between them, the example I give, and the one from the website once you park and get to the grove, there's no car traffic in it! The third street promenade likewise had entire blocks closed to traffic. Crossings where also very generous to the pedestrians, so you rarely had to wait to cross the street and knew that you wouldn't get hit. It was also very easy to w…

yes, i was commenting more on the impetus for the rise of insular, faux "microcommunities" in general than on the walkability therein, which, as you point out, is better at 3rd street & the grove.

Re: The Rise of “Movie-Set Urbanism”

#160

Post by [deleted] »

dsr_ wrote: post #41
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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN