Low Density Errors, is There an Answer?

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

See also Coin Street development. Simple case is, people want low rise housing with gardens in city centre locations. Or at least periphery central as Southwark was back in the days when they were built.

But the market dictates something else now, if it were possible to compulsory purchase these developments at 125% of their market value they could be redeveloped more densely at a profit and more attractively so. This current situation is leaving the home owners worse off - their properties are worth 100% of their current value, not 125%; builders who are not realising the profit to be made; potential home owners who cannot live in the homes that have not been built and society (work/jobs not created, less tax, fewer homes, etc.)

The problem is some stickler wouldn't accept a 125% compulsory purchase order and so the opportunity is lost.

[Bowater]

Originally Posted by NCT

London is a (largely) naturally developed city and it's only natural you see contrasting levels of density juxtoposed against each other. Isle of Dogs isn't exactly low density either - most of the residential buildings are mid-rise flats. A mixture of townhouses and mid-rise flats actually provide for a very effective urban density. There's no need to turn London into an Asian city on steroids.

But we could so with losing some bland relatively-new-builds and replacing them with quality mid rises that are demanded by the market.

[larven]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Of course, everythings more efficient for one.

Do you place importance on open space in urban areas, whether it be green space, squares or parks?

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by larven

Do you place importance on open space in urban areas, whether it be green space, squares or parks?

Im of the belief that when it comes to this sort of thing quantity does not necessarily mean quality. For instance East London, which I know the best, is awash with pointless little green and open spaces of varying sizes which are never used or used only by alcoholics. I think that a handful of large, attractive and well planned parks per area or so would be a much better idea.

Balconies and roof terraces could be promoted more as well. Nowdays these seem as somekind of luxury but they shouldnt be. They provide great views for one but also give extra space which could be used for growing stuff for example.

[Langur]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Its obviously inner city.

Before the DLR and Jubilee Line were built, the Isle of Dogs was manifestly not inner city. It was extremely difficult to get to, one of the most isolated places in the metropolis.

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Of course, everythings more efficient for one. Your examples of Athens prove nothing. If you dont like concrete we can build glass or stone or even timber structures, put your head into it and the possibilities are endless. Besides Attica was never known for its trees; when ancient Athenians wanted to build their fleets they had to bring their timber from elsewhere (Macedonia etc), hence why Athens streets are not lined with trees.

I've never heard of Athens referred to as "efficient", lol!

Modern Athens is overwhelmingly a modern C20th creation, so references to ancient Attica are irrelevent. Even there you're not correct. Ancient Athens had plenty of olive and cypress trees. The Academy of Plato and Aristotle was founded in a garden. Students were taught in the shade of the olive trees: the "groves of academe". There's been a bucolic ideal for educational environments ever since. Think of our ancient universities with their ivy clad walls and towers, or the contemporary concept of the garden campus.

Originally Posted by El_Greco

The same largely applies to Barcelona. Although both of them have large parks. And unattractive is the last thing these cities are. I love the fuctional feel of Athens and the rigid but airy Barcelona with its big old and new (theres a huge mix of styles) mansion blocks.

Sorry but Athens is extremely unattractive, and Barcelona, though far better, is lacking in green spaces. The Eixample is handsome but not varied. It's mostly uniform, monotonous, and repetitive.

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Obviously theres little than can be done about narrow (as you guys like to insist) central London streets but when it comes to inner city or brownfield sites theres no reason why these cant be made attractive - with dense elegant housing and wide tree lined streets. Suburban housing is just not very good use of land which is a finite resource after all.

But leafy suburbs are attractive and also functional. They provide spacious housing within commuting distance of the urban core, and are ideal for families. The garden suburb ideal was a seductive one...

image hosted on flickr

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Im not proposing to flatten London and go all Haussmann, no that era is way past us now, what I am saying is that dense and densification are nothing to be afraid of.

I don't think anyone is afraid of dense development. If they were, it wouldn't be happening on such a scale. However the urban models you idealise are far from ideal. Athens is hideous, and Barcelona's Eixample needs more green space and variety. You appear to worship monotonous repetition, and density for density's sake.

[El_Greco]

Of course dense is more efficient. The distances are less than what they would be in a sprawly city, it can house more people than a sprawly suburban city of the same mi2, the infrastructure can be smaller thus easier and cheaper to maintain not to mention its far more sustainable and attractive than covering swathes of countryside under indentikit suburban homes and lying miles and miles of new roads.

Why equate density with Athens and Barcelona anyway? Does densifying London means transplanting these cities here? Does a dense city necessarily has to look like them? Of course not! Want variety? Lets have variety, lets build tall dense glass, stone or even timber buildings with large flats and with wide tree lined streets and large & attractive parks. Any reason this cant be done? The general idea behind Athens and Barcelona is a very good one. What you have a problem with is architecture. Although some on here are genuinely afraid of density.

[Bowater]

Is high density in some respects inferior to low density? It depends on quality, imagine a benevolent dictator that demolished East London to build suburbs akin to Paris/Chelsea/Mayfair with a Hyde Park sized park to boot. This would be a win-win situation if it were feasible.

Bowater for dictator 2020.

[Langur]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Of course dense is more efficient. The distances are less than what they would be in a sprawly city, it can house more people than a sprawly suburban city of the same mi2, the infrastructure can be smaller thus easier and cheaper to maintain not to mention its far more sustainable and attractive than covering swathes of countryside under indentikit suburban homes and lying miles and miles of new roads.

So choked and chronically congested Bombay or Lagos are more "efficient" than smooth and easy Pheonix?

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Why equate density with Athens and Barcelona anyway?

I don't. It was you that held up those cities as models. I might just as well equate density with Lagos, Calcutta, Hong Kong, or Manhattan.

Originally Posted by El_Greco

Does densifying London means transplanting these cities here? Does a dense city necessarily has to look like them? Of course not! Want variety? Lets have variety, lets build tall dense glass, stone or even timber buildings with large flats and with wide tree lined streets and large & attractive parks. Any reason this cant be done? The general idea behind Athens and Barcelona is a very good one. What you have a problem with is architecture. Although some on here are genuinely afraid of density.

The problem is that when we've debated this in the past, you've held up Athens as an example. Yet Athens is the opposite of the qualities you list here. There are no tree-lined streets, no parks, no decent architecture. It's also inefficient.

I want to hold up a different example: Chicago. I think Chicago is vastly more attractive than Athens, and also Barcelona's Eixample. Comparison with the latter is apt, for their city grids were planned at the same time. What Chicago got was a dramatic and spectacular urban core, the skyscraper density offset by large and spacious parks. The nightlife districts extend north from the city core into the attractive North Side inner suburbs. Families can find space in the leafy suburbs, and can glide swiftly into the city along the wonderful Lake Shore Drive. It's a nicely planned and well balanced city, and it has huge variety in terms of building density. I find that far more attractive than an endless and unchanging sea of mid-rise monotony unbroken by parks or green space.

[El_Greco]

What I hold as a model is density (I have always been saying that I want tall & dense and not to transplant Athens or Barcelona to London) in the European style such as seen in Athens or Barcelona, or Vienna, or Munich etc. Concrete buildings in Athens (I love functionalism) or lack of trees in Barcelona is completely irrelevant point (which is wrong anyway as there are parks and trees too as well as "decent" architecture) and does not mean other cities that go the density path cant do it differently (ie plant some trees and introduce variation in its architecture).

A city ought to be dense, high and compact not a sprawly mess. The dense model is far better and more efficient than a sprawly model (once again Lagos and Mumbai are poor examples as these are cities that have been put together with little or no thought, unlike 19th Century European urbanism there was no attempt at masterplanning). The distances are less than what they would be in a sprawly city, it can house more people than a sprawly suburban city of the same mi2, the infrastructure can be smaller thus easier and cheaper to maintain not to mention its far more sustainable and attractive than covering swathes of countryside under indentikit suburban homes and lying miles and miles of new roads (believe it or not but environmentalist angle is not stupid at all). Indeed the suburbs encourage car-ownership which is a scourge of the modern times bringing with it congestion, pollution and other problems. It should be discouraged as much as possible. As should the wasteful, inefficient suburbs. Compact, dense, high cities served by public transport and where pedestrian comes first is the way to go.

A bit like this -

[Langur]

But anyone saying a city "ought" to be like Athens, is losing the argument as far as I'm concerned. Imo a city "ought" to have parks, green spaces, attractive architecture, and leafy suburbs. Athens has none of those things. London is far closer to the urban ideal than Athens.

I also diagree with the way you seek to impose your anti-suburbs agenda on everyone else. Stuff that. I want a city surrounded by suburbs with proper houses and gardens (as one finds incidentally, in Munich, Vienna, and indeed most European cities). I want to have a family one day. A good city offers choice and doesn't dictate a particular lifestyle.

Munich and Vienna are more attractive than Athens, but Munich has a very small urban core compared to London (compare them on satellite view to see what I mean), and neither Munich nor Vienna are especially dense. London's denser over a larger area, and has much more of a big city vibe.

Of the cities you list, only Barcelona achieves comparable density to London. Barcelona's nice, but it could use more green space.

The city in the picture is Istanbul. You are aware that Istanbul sprawls massively, has several far-flung centres, and inefficient public transport, right?

[El_Greco]

Athens is a city consisting mostly of tall and dense housing, as is Barcelona and many other European cities (or at least their centres and inner cities), so what Im saying is that city ought to be tall & dense and not as Athens or as Barcelona or wherever with their particular architecture or whatever they have or dont have. Is that any clearer now or do you enjoy deliberately misinterpreting posts? The same goes for the Istanbul picture - in the last sentence I quite clearly said "Compact, dense, high cities served by public transport and where pedestrian comes first is the way to go", so a bit like in that pic - tall & dense housing, attractive public realm and public transport.

Is it impossible to have family in city centre apartment now? I know plenty of people who do. Why sacrifice large swathes of countryside under endless rows of family homes? Why increase sprawl and add to the pollution and congestion? And why turn a city centre into some single and young persons ghetto? This anti-suburb thing is not one of my fetishes. It is a pretty serious thing. Where do you draw the line and just how far are the cities going to expand (and that is not just London problem - all across the World you can see ugly suburban sprawl)?

So to summarise and so you dont try and misinterpret me -

-London is what it is, noones proposing going all Haussmann
-City centre and inner city densification
-More family sized apartments
-More emphasis on pedestrians and aesthetics
-Discourage private car use

And yes Athens and Barcelona do have parks, green spaces and attractive architecture. One look at Bing or Google Maps will tell you.

[Langur]

But inner/central London is far denser, and dense over a larger area, than Vienna or Munich. It also has far more tall buildings than any of the cities you list. Vienna and Munich also have extensive suburbs (a good thing imo). Look up the density figures on Wikipedia, and you'll see that Vienna and Munich are not even remotely as dense as London. (Inner London alone has far more people within a smaller area.) And that's just population density. Once you factor in commercial space (of which London has vastly more), then London's lead is greater again. Watch the first minutes of this, and tell me that London lacks urban density.

And yes, I want to bring up my children in the suburbs. You can leave them in the garden to burn out their energy in safety. If you live in a city apartment, then you'll have to accompany them all the time outside the home. A spacious house surrounded by gardens, trees, flowers, lawns, etc, is also attractive. If I really make it, I'd like a swimming pool and tennis court in my garden.

[DarJoLe]

And a nanny to bring up the kids?

[ill tonkso]

There is nothing wrong with aspiring for a big house out of the city. Not everyone wants to live in the middle of everything. Wandsworth/Putney is about right for me, but I can see the appeal of the country. I have a friend living in that sort of place outside Woking. Big garden, big pool, annex over the double garage. And oh yeah, his Parents raised him.

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by Langur

But inner/central London is far denser, and dense over a larger area, than Vienna or Munich. It also has far more tall buildings than any of the cities you list. Vienna and Munich also have extensive suburbs (a good thing imo). Look up the density figures on Wikipedia, and you'll see that Vienna and Munich are not even remotely as dense as London. (Inner London alone has far more people within a smaller area.) And that's just population density. Once you factor in commercial space (of which London has vastly more), then London's lead is greater again. Watch the first minutes of this, and tell me that London lacks urban density.

And yes, I want to bring up my children in the suburbs. You can leave them in the garden to burn out their energy in safety. If you live in a city apartment, then you'll have to accompany them all the time outside the home. A spacious house surrounded by gardens, trees, flowers, lawns, etc, is also attractive. If I really make it, I'd like a swimming pool and tennis court in my garden.

Unlike in those cities London inner city does not consist of large, tall and dense mansion/apartment blocks. Weve been over this a thousand times, and then a thousand times again, I even posted pictures which clearly showed how tall, urban housing goes on for miles on the Continent and how it does not in London.

As for suburbs and kids. Kids up until quite recently played in the streets. Inner city/city centre is just as good place to play as a garden of a home in the suburbs. Maybe even better since it gives kids the opportunity to explore their environment and just be kids instead of being shut away from the World. The biggest problem is the car. Which is why I say that car usage should be discouraged.

[london lad]

Lol- playing in your own garden or leafy street is not quite the same as having a kickabout off the Walworth road

[El_Greco]

But they arent even playing in their leafy streets are they?

[NCT]

British suburban streets are much more 'playable' than say streets in Barcelona.

[El_Greco]

Yet there are more kids playing in these dense cities than in the leafy streets of London.

[ill tonkso]

That's because there are more kids.