quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Tulsa was far more dense back in the day than it is now. Early on it had around 9,000 people per square mile.
9000 people per square mile is approximately 1/4 acre lots with 3 to 4 people per house. Certainly more dense than now as an average but averages can be deceiving. It would be interesting to have a map with the density of the developed areas. For example: If a quarter section is developed but the remaining 3/4 square mile is not, show the developed area at its density and show the remainder at its density rather than average it together. Show the density as smooth contour lines like an elevation chart rather than by artificial borders. I saw something similar to this at the "What about rail" meeting but I don't remember it being in fine enough detail. There are probably areas of the metro area that meet or exceed 9000/sq mi or more. I've seen some developments where the houses are packed in pretty close. There will also be areas with the low density that many here complain about.
edit: darn no-line bifocals make it difficult to catch typos.
I think there is a misunderstanding, its more about the "proportions" of low, medium and high density thats important. When the VAST majority of ALL living is very spread out, low density,,, thats when things get a bit out of hand, inefficient, and expensive. And if there isnt a decent portion of higher density it becomes very, very, difficult to create it. Was reading on a different forum about how some in Austin were mentioning how even the high density living areas with lots of condos, the condos offer sometimes 2 parking spaces per unit. Even if the parking is structured, what it still means is that a good number of people still find it important to use cars to get everywhere, which again hurts the development of "pedestrian friendly" areas. People are still driving to the stores and to work etc. So you still need wide roads, businesses want parking lots, the walkable/pedestrian friendly "infrastructure" doesnt often happen which also stifles mass transit, etc. Its kind of a self-reinforcing, feedback loop thats hard to break. Where as even in some small towns in Europe you can see the traditional, midrise, 6 story buildings right up to the edge of town. The new buildings on the edges are just a continuation of that pattern, up to the sidewalk, 3-6 floors. The accepted norm is that people dont often have cars and want to be close to mass transit and walking/biking/scooter distance to lots of things. So the developers build what people want. Its a different kind of self-reinforcing, feedback loop.
Here is a town of about 150 thousand.
The central old part.
More of a "middle" part.
Close to the edge of town.
Aaaand the edge of town.
Notice the edge of town how it almost, suddenly ends. It doesnt turn into an endless sea of sprawl. There is even a mass transit line possibly going to the nearby larger city or another, similar "suburb".
I find it fascinating how even right up to the edge of town, and I have seen this in many examples, how similar sized buildings prevail. Again, many of those people may not have or even want cars. Many just walk/bike/scooter or mass transit to where they want to go. Its the prevailing habit, so even on the outskirts of town, the developers build accordingly.
Here is how we do it.
(now these examples may be extremes or ideals, but I am mostly trying to paint a picture and get an overriding idea across, and again, not everyone wants to live in the above example and nore do they. There are higher density and lower density areas and cities, its more about the proportion of people living in one way or another. We, especially in the midwest, tend to go too far imo, of having a majority of our people living...)
like this...
Living here.
Then a lot of us funnel onto roads.
And commute often like this.
Then drive to shopping districts like this.
Then pull in to places like this.
Perhaps head to work or back home like this.
And yes, I know, I know, I know. Some suburbanite will holler "But I CAN walk to places!"
Indeed.
And, OMG isnt this traffic horrible?
I remember reading some where how someone mentioned that it appears that the "ideal" city would have a population of around 100-150 thousand. Then I remember seeing the pics and hearing about what Tulsa was like when it was that size. Then I kept seeing European towns of that size being shown on "Skyscraper forums" . At first in the photo thread I would think it was a larger city like Paris because of how the streets looked, but then would see that the person would put the name and population of the city and would constantly be amazed when I would see that the population of so many of those places was around 100 thousand or so. And they had mass transit options. So you dont need to have a large population or skyscrapers, you just need a certain amount of "compactness".
Plus, many of these towns and cities did indeed have suburbs as we know them, and some often have taller buildings and more "citylike" areas. But it appears the majority of the people lived in more traditional 6 story buildings.
I also noted when they were showing us how the maps that people create for the Comprehensive Plan exercises in other cities often fell into 2 categories. One tendancy was to have a very large, dominant central core then growth spread out from that. Then the other was more "nodal" there were many dense nodes dotting the landscape and connected by mass transit. Still a larger core, but not as large. Each node was also its own little core.
We are so, habitually ingrained, with the particular development pattern we have had over the last 50 years or so, that I think we (city planners, developers, homeowneres, etc) have forgotten and dont even consider that there may be other alternatives. And even if we want the alternative, we are so stuck and force molded by what we have so much of now, that its almost impossible to create something different. I mean just go back up there and look at the amount of asphault that we use for our current way of doing things. WE ALL have to pay for that.
