I concur. Almost every downtown in America has been thinned out during the automobile age. Buildings that burned down were not replaced and many more were torn down specifically to accommodate parking. Redeveloping these missing teeth would go a long way to restoring the density once present. Doing so will require revising the regulations that dictate suburban development even in the cities by requiring parking and setbacks for yards, alongside unnecessarily large minimum lot sizes. Throw in height limits for good measure.
I think one of the most encouraging developments in recent years is the renewed popularity of city properties. 30 years ago much of Ithaca was poorly-maintained rental housing. It has been a wonderful improvement to the quality of the urban environment to have many of the beautiful older houses restored to their original condition. More and more of these houses are owner-occupied, and with that has come an increasing intolerance for crime and uncivil behavior. Grumble if you want about the loss of freedom, but the result is an increasingly pleasant environment in which to live -- creating a positive feedback encouraging infill and new development. There are downsides, of course. Affordability dropped as quality improved. The poor will eventually end up in the suburbs, as they do in Europe, unless subsidies of one sort or another are used to allow them to remain. We have such subsidies, of course, but the demand greatly exceeds the supply and that is likely to intensify rather than abate. To what extent does it make sense to redevelop to increase density? There is a lot of embodied energy in existing buildings, not to mention their importance to a sense of where we have come from. Not all old buildings were quality structures when they were built, and some that were have suffered serious deterioration due to neglect or structural or design deficiencies. With strong demand in place the potential now exists for replacing deteriorated housing with quality new construction that would add to the urban environment instead of detract from it. Joel At 12:44 PM 5/8/08 -0400, you wrote: > > >A good way to get started on increasing density is with in-fill projects and >redevelopment of low-density, one-story retail into 3-4 story mixed use >buildings. There are many opportunities to do this on State Street >for example. >But we need to combine this will changing zoning and building codes to allow >this type of development. Then we need to connect that to changing the >parking requirements for buildings. If we had good public transit >available, we >could build apartments over retail/commercial spaces and more fully utilize >the land for people and urban permaculture instead of parking lots. Connect >Ithaca's vision is for exactly this kind of redevelopment. And that is why >they are hosting the international podcar conference here in Ithaca in >September. We need a more user-friendly public transit system in order >to attract >people into downtown life without a car. We also need land use policy that >makes it difficult to add to rural sprawl. Don't follow the Lansing >model of >growth! > >Gay > > >In a message dated 5/8/2008 9:38:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >Andy Goodell wrote: > > ... > > Short of everyone renting out their space to more people or subdividing >their land to allow for more density, how do you envision increasing density >being any better? >I think these matters really would be a good first order of business, if >we're to look for a way out of this mess. The situation is serious >enough to warrant a reexamination of all the premises of our current >culture. What, exactly, would be wrong with everyone renting out their >space to more people? Or subdividing land? As for how increased density >would be any better, George has sketched enough of it to get my attention. > > > > The towns and cities have been built, and they could have been built >better, but I don't see an easy way to change that now. > >Probably there is a way to change it now -- are we actually waiting for >an *easy* way to do it? But even without changing what's built, at least >we could stop building more of the same. > >Andrejs >_______________________________________________ > > > > >---------------------------------------------------- >Gay Nicholson, Ph.D. > >607-533-7312 (home office) >607-279-6618 (cell) > >1 Maple Avenue >Lansing, NY 14882 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sustainable Tompkins >Program Coordinator >w_ww.sustainabletompkins.org_ (http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/) > >Southern Tier Energy$mart Communities >Regional Coordinator >Cornell Cooperative Extension of Tompkins County >615 Willow Ave., Ithaca, NY 14850 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family >favorites at AOL Food. >(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) >_______________________________________________ >For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, >please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ > >RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: >[email protected] >http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins >free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org _______________________________________________ For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
