• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

Architecture and Jane Jacobs

TradArch12

TradArch12

Cyburbian
Messages
373
Points
12
I'm an aspiring architect in the midwestern United States and I have been reading Jane Jacob's book "The Death and Life of Great American Cities". So far I am only on chapter 2, but I have already seen examples of what she discusses in my area. Unfortunately, she is referring to the 1950's and 1960's, and that means that the same mistakes that were being made 40-50 years ago are still being made.

As an apiring architect, I would like to know what I would be able to do as an architect to help change the bad trends of design and planning in my area.

I currently have about a dozen books I have had ordered regarding architecture and would also like to know what I might focus on. I personally love designing things, especially buildings, however, if I eventually work on my own, I'd also like to design neighborhoods and/or subdivisions instead of individual buildings.

Any suggestions or comments?

Edit...
I forgot to mention i'm more interested in urban architecture and urban areas.
 
Ty for your suggestion/advice,
I'm someone who likes a range of architecture, from Classicism, to Romanesque, to Renaissance, to Queen Victoria, to art deco/terra cotta to post-modernism... Not to mention East Asia architecture and Russian architecture (mostly pre-Lenin).
I even really like the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, though I sometimes agree and disagree with some of his views and works.
 
I'm an architecture student in NYC...I agree with most points made by Jacobs.
I would suggest reading The Power Broker, to provide more prespective on what spurred Jacobs to become involved in urbanism.

Beware of the trappings of "style:" There are great and awful examples of architecture in every movement.
 
thank you,
I forgot to mention that while I'm still in high school, i'm a Senior, and have been enrolled in a CAD class...
I'm really hoping to spend my life in architecture, but hope it will be fun as well as enjoyable.

I have a question regarding NYC, are areas like Greenwich Village still like she is talking about in the book? My area currently is spending billions of dollars in redevelopment across the city and especially in it's Downtown area, however i'm concerned that with their spending of millions of dollars on single projects, that this will restrict these areas to just medium and high wealth residents. Is there a way to build housing and districts like in NYC to where you can have low, medium and high wealth people living together w/o segregation and with interaction? Especially with modern construction costs?

I know if you go 20-30 miles from the center of the city, houses still cost from 150,000 to over 300,000 dollars, which is really continually pushing some medium income and low income people farther from the city center. (and trapping those still living in the inner city there)
 
HeartlandCityBoy said:
thank you,
I forgot to mention that while I'm still in high school, i'm a Senior, and have been enrolled in a CAD class...
I'm really hoping to spend my life in architecture, but hope it will be fun as well as enjoyable.

I have a question regarding NYC, are areas like Greenwich Village still like she is talking about in the book? My area currently is spending billions of dollars in redevelopment across the city and especially in it's Downtown area, however i'm concerned that with their spending of millions of dollars on single projects, that this will restrict these areas to just medium and high wealth residents. Is there a way to build housing and districts like in NYC to where you can have low, medium and high wealth people living together w/o segregation and with interaction? Especially with modern construction costs?

I know if you go 20-30 miles from the center of the city, houses still cost from 150,000 to over 300,000 dollars, which is really continually pushing some medium income and low income people farther from the city center. (and trapping those still living in the inner city there)
Click to expand...

It's cool you're interested in architecture...If you have any questions about schools, books, etc, I'd be glad to help.

Greenwich Village is the second most expensive neighborhood in NYC, second only to TriBeCa, to the south. There are laws in place which mandate a lot of new development to have a certain amount of below-market-rate housing. There are also rent-control laws which help in some cases, but Manhattan is extremely expensive, even in crappier neighborhoods. There is another thread on this site about the phenomenon of a shrinking middle class in urban areas...It tends to be a very contraversial and often personal topic which has a lot to do with local politics and economics.

If you have never been to NYC, and would like a great book on it, read Rem Koolhaas's Delirious New York: It does a lot to explain the insanity of this city. The urban core of the New York Metro region is huge (check out Google Earth). Now, the the problems of affordable housing have saturated neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens, as well as many cities around the region.
 
I've been to NYC, but only for a couple days on a tour of NYC.

I only saw SOHO in that area, we probably went through Greenwich Village, however we weren't told about it.

I personally didn't like a lot of NYC that I saw, however what I do like are the townhouses.

I looked at prices in Greenwich Village and noticed they aren't much different than those in our city's Downtown area, and even some of the average prices in Greenwich are lower than those in our Downtown. (some lofts/penthouses reaching 2 million dollars)

I really believe that kicking out the medium and low class people can only hurt a city.

TY once again for your help and suggestions.
 
HeartlandCityBoy said:
I really believe that kicking out the medium and low class people can only hurt a city.
Click to expand...
New York's middle and lower classes aren't being kicked out, they are selling out. On the surface there is nothing wrong with that.

The reason why some town real estate prices have reached such extremes is that there is no more multiplication of towns anymore. The system just blocks it entirely. That makes the remaining towns something akin to paintings by a long-dead artists. There aren't going to be more created and there are more and more people with more and more money that want one.
 
However if we allow the medium and lower income people to continue moving out of the city and selling their homes for more and more money, the cities will not continue to improve.
The liveliness and activity of cities is not dependant on income. Even the existance of slums or "blighted" areas is not dependant on income.

What I'm seeing is a constant renovation of existing buildings, which is very good. However, what developers are doing is renovating these buildings and spend millions of dollars doing so in order to make even more money. However, if they could just spend enough money on these buildings to preserve them and make them livable again, they would still make money, as well as continue to improve the community.
Most of them are making these lofts and condos top-dollar/luxury residences, this, if repeated across the whole of our Downtown area, will not improve it, and could in fact have an opposing effect.

My concern is entirely for the community of the area. Sure people would be coming to the area for entertainment and work, but how many would be venturing outside of their lofts just to walk the streets, converse with strangers and watch their kids play on the sidewalks? Many of the current people moving there are single people without kids, who will definitely move out after their tax breaks are expired. THat isn't good for a community and i'm just wondering what I can do to help turn this trend around in my area. While I won't be able to do so for about another 5-6 years, I'd still like to be able to get the idea out there that much of what we are currently doing is wrong.

Is it at all possible to renovate an old building to where medium income families can afford to live there? Many of these buildings are former office buildings, however they can easily be converted into NYC type housing with 2-3 families in one building. (currently they are spending lots of money to sell them to higher income, single men and women)

Oh, and another thing I would like to know about, as an Architect, could you also help design and develop your own projects? I know developers and planners mainly do this, but I believe many of the local planners and developers are doing the wrong thing and are still going for more open space and money instead of more people and a better community. (many cite an active park as an eyesore that needs to be improved, though it is already well used and active, and cite a constantly empty park as one that has a lot of potential to be very active)

___________

One example of potentially bad planning is that we have a district that is the poster boy for redevelopment in our area, however I can already see some things that are wrong with the design of it.
It will have over 1,000 units in surrounding highrises, however those highrises appear to be more inwardly focused and the only time people will venture out into the area is for the entertainment, or for work. They aren't really inspiring people to let their kids venture out onto the streets to play, or to just sit out and enjoy the day.

Is there any way to possibly influence people like mayors or planners, even if your just a voter and not a real architect or developer?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HeartlandCityBoy said:
However if we allow the medium and lower income people to continue moving out of the city and selling their homes for more and more money, the cities will not continue to improve.
Click to expand...
If we allow? This is not something that can be allowed or disallowed. It just happens and you can't stop it. It can be prevented by building more, but unfortunately that is currently not allowed. ;)
Is it at all possible to renovate an old building to where medium income families can afford to live there? Many of these buildings are former office buildings, however they can easily be converted into NYC type housing with 2-3 families in one building. (currently they are spending lots of money to sell them to higher income, single men and women)
Click to expand...
What people can afford is not up to you. If a loft is worth a million bucks to someone, than that's what it's worth. That person decides how much it's worth.

The higher income singles are going to live somewhere, and they will choose to live where they choose by using as much of their income as they want to. You can't stop them. What you can do is give them a greater range of good choices, and hopefully that will mean neighborhoods will not become homogeneized.
 
However , IMHO that is not an ideal neighborhood. An area cannot be active with just single/rich people living there. You can certainly build or renovate buildings targeting certain people can't you?

I forgot to mention, i'm not talking about designing things for single people or clients, I'm talking about working with your own company and contractors to build a building to make money and targeting certain people or locations with regards to market demands.

Right now, it isn't really people working for a single client in renovating these buildings, it's mostly private companies working with contractors and developers to build or renovate buildings to target a certain group of people.
For instance, a private developer is looking to build a highrise residential tower in a popular area of town, however it will cost several million dollars, and the project is being constructed for the sole purpose of marketing it to certain people and to make money off of the purchased units. It isn't a client wanting a specific office building or home, it's companies working together to renovate or construct these buildings to market them and make money off of selling them. (like designing and selling a product rather than custom designing a product for a single client)
 
HeartlandCityBoy said:
It isn't a client wanting a specific office building or home, it's companies working together to renovate or construct these buildings to market them and make money off of selling them. (like designing and selling a product rather than custom designing a product for a single client)
Click to expand...
Yes...it's called 'speculative building' and can, often times, be much more profitable that custom designing for specific clients.

But to you original question...you will be stymied in your efforts to use your architectural designing skills to 'social engineer' a place to be only for the medium income buyers/renters, because often the architect has little say in what the selling prices will be. Your responsibility will be to design buildings/places will be quality spaces and adaptable to the varying nature of human use/activity.

Good Luck.
 
How much influence would someone in real estate have on the prices of a project? (I know someone who is in such a field)

I personally could design the project to fit a certain type of social environment (anyone can, you just have to know how to do it, i'm sure I could easily learn), but I don'ty think it would make much sense for someone to price a specifically designed building for a group of people that wouldn't want to live there.

lol nvm, I think I just restated what you said in a question...

I guess I didn't...

As I've been reading Jane Jacob's book, i've realized that sometimes, having an area design a certain way is not always good for a community. I've recognized what makes cities unsafe and what makes them safe doesn't always lay with the income, however what they are currently marketing their buildings to will not make the city more active during the nighttime on the streets, instead it will be active in the buildings and bars, but a city should have activity and eyes on the streets all the time.
 
HeartlandCityBoy said:
I personally could design the project to fit a certain type of social environment (anyone can, you just have to know how to do it, i'm sure I could easily learn), but I don'ty think it would make much sense for someone to price a specifically designed building for a group of people that wouldn't want to live there.

lol nvm, I think I just restated what you said in a question...
Click to expand...

I think it was done before and failed miserably - take a look at the history of and current state of public housing developments.
 
Yup, I whole-heartedly agree... However I think that many of them apparently didn't pay much attention to what Jane Jacobs had to say about cities... The more I read what she wrote, the more I realize that she is right. Yet I don't see why some developers and planners still choose to not do what she suggests, even when they praise her and her books.
 
HeartlandCityBoy said:
Yup, I whole-heartedly agree... However I think that many of them apparently didn't pay much attention to what Jane Jacobs had to say about cities... The more I read what she wrote, the more I realize that she is right. Yet I don't see why some developers and planners still choose to not do what she suggests, even when they praise her and her books.
Click to expand...
Because it's out of their control. Developers have to sell to the market. If the market is strongest for the rich single demographic, then developers have to serve them. Planners have to serve politicians. If the politicians are against investing in the city, there's nothing they can do.
 
And the city HAS to continue to decline without notice? I'm sorry but I do not believe that.

They go after the "market", yet you can still target so-called minorities (which are actually majorities, but not according to the market) like medium and low wealth people, and still make money. Granted, it isn't as much money, however the point IMO is not making money, it's improving the city. Improving the city and the community is number one, having fun is second and making money is third...

As an architect, I definitely would not be out to just make money. I would be out to improve the city and the community within the city. Most cities have a bad reputation because suburbanites believe that they are dangerous areas with gangs, violence, and all sorts of vice... Putting rich people there just because there is value for them doesn't improve the area. Just because you change the type of people living there doesn't mean you can change the community. Crime knows no boundaries, not even income.

Say you have a building with 100 condos in it... With single, rich people living there, you have a probability of 150-200 people living in that building... However, what are they going to do other than go to restaurants, work and entertainment venues? There is no reason for them to go to parks, there is no reason for them to walk the streets, there is no reason other than those 3 for them to leave their building at all. This is terrible for a community, sure you have lots of ppl living in that small area, but if they have no reason to walk the streets other than to go eat, work or to have fun, the streets are more likely to become more dangerous.

A perfect street would be one with many kids playing on the sidewalk, with people watching the street activity from windows, their front porches/stoops, benches, etc... People walking for recreation or errands. Cars coming through often, people eating on the streets and in restaurants, etc...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HeartlandCityBoy said:
A perfect street would be one with many kids playing on the sidewalk, with people watching the street activity from windows, their front porches/stoops, benches, etc... People walking for recreation or errands. Cars coming through often, people eating on the streets and in restaurants, etc...
Click to expand...
So where are the rich people going to live?
 
Right alongside the medium and low wealth people... You can easily have neighborhoods that have no social restrictions, people of different incomes can easily be good friends or acquaintances, and can easily life beside each other... They should not be seperated or segregated from each other.

This isn't just a vision, many neighborhoods are and/or have been like this. It just takes good planning, design, and marketing. That is one of the mistakes of modern planning and design, they believe that rich people want to avoid the poor, or vice versa, but on the street, everyone is equal, despite your dress or the size of your pocketbook.

Modern times are not any more different than 40-50 years ago, the only difference is the planning and design, people are the same, their mindsets are just altered because of how the planning and design is conducted and how it influences them.
Planning and design goes a lot farther than just aestheticness or convenience, it also has psycological and social effects as well...
 
So knowing that it's currently not working like that, what are you going to do about it?
 
jaws said:
Because it's out of their control. Developers have to sell to the market. If the market is strongest for the rich single demographic, then developers have to serve them. Planners have to serve politicians. If the politicians are against investing in the city, there's nothing they can do.
Click to expand...

Developers don't have to sell to the market, they choose to be cause they can make more money than they would otherwise...and although I don't like it, that's capitalism!

To Midwest, there are still neighborhoods that thrive in the model of Jacobs, and there are still people strongly committed to this. Here's a group in my neighborhood, which is also affiliated with my school which seeks to do many of these things:

prattcenter.net/

Check it out, it may help you get some of the answers you're looking for.
 
Although I don't neccessarily agree with many of jaws' more laisezz faire attitudes towards the planning profession, I do have to say that HeartlandCityBoy's beliefs about the ability of any profession to determine housing prices is very naive.
 
I guess some of you forget that I'm still learning and have to read more of these books and talk with more people to learn more. I may be naive, but then again, I still have a lot I can learn.
 
hi HeartlandCityBoy

I really admire your desire to help build a better community, and your willingness and curisity to look outside of the Box( ie the statusquo).

I'm not a big poster, so I won't go into a big speel about what works and what is possible, and what isn't, etc..

However I can at least recommend a good book for you: A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander.
If you don't already own this book I would highly recommend it to you. It involves designing and building communities using a number of patterns the author has discovered from the best of mankind's historical past. I really love the fact the book's ideas are not boxed in by current ideas( ie free market idealogy and orthodoxy), and current fashions (ie AutoLove). There truely is a timeless quality to this book in that sense. I think you would appriciate that.

It is surely not the practical guide you are looking for to help rebuild community in midst of NYC but I think you can definetly gain some insight and/or inspiration from this book.

Anyway, I wish you luck. I feel there's alot of people trying to find ways to build a better community, but not nearly enough as is needed.
 
Form-Based Codes designed to create interactive pedestrian friendly communities. I think that she had several good ideas in the book, however most communities (and residents who purchased there) have turned their backs on the idea of density.

I just moved from a higher income suburb (but in an apartment) into a historic district walking distance to a downtown. My new home is a condo in a former Apartment building and most of the residents there are young professionals who wanted to live in an interactive pedestrian friendly environment.

The biggest suggestion that I have is create environments that will enhance human interaction while staying true to dense traditional design.
 
I was amused by the assumption that wealthy people without children will not interact or use urban streets. (Not that I want to be the guy who defends wealthy people - I am usually the one praying for the revolution). Some poor people and people with children will not contribute to street life. Others will. Same with wealthy people.

There are lots of reasons to promote diverse neighborhoods as well as a diversity of neighbohrood types. IMO there isn't enough affordabable housing, anywhere. And the situation is worse in places like NYC. Also, more people want to live in neo-traditional communities than exist, driving up prices in these neighborhoods. Perhaps these are market failures, perhaps they should (and can) be addressed by innovative public policy.
 
HeartlandCityBoy said:
I guess some of you forget that I'm still learning and have to read more of these books and talk with more people to learn more. I may be naive, but then again, I still have a lot I can learn.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to single you out. There are many people (politicians), including some planners, who think they can regulate what something sells for. All that planners/architects/etc. can do is create something appealing and sustainable and then let the market decide.
 
GottaSpeakup, I don't believe it is the people, I believe it is the way a place is designed. The way something is designed effects their psycology and is the biggest detirmining factor in street usage.

Personally if I become an Architect, I could care less about money. As long as it's enough to pay for my home, food and general luxuries, I'd be happy.
The most important thing is making a difference and improving communites.

I don't believe people have completely turned away from density. Traditional planning and design has planted a seed in their minds that density is bad. This shouldn't be that difficult to reverse. People would recognize that density doesn't matter, especially since in many cities, the Downtowns have much lower crime than the suburbs.

I don't mind neighborhoods where homes are seperated by 10-20 feet and have medium to small yards, the only neighborhoods I hate are suburban housing additions. Personally, I'd design areas that are dense with townhouses instead of regular houses.

The market is for people who are looking to make money... I'd be someone looking to make a difference, money is just a small advantage to the profession IMO.

I believe one of the tricks to making housing more affordable is to not spend millions to renovate buildings into luxury condos. Just renovate them enough to where they are livable and healthy, and resell them to medium and/or low income people.

Also, I didn't really mean that single, wealthy people don't contribute to city street life... They definitely do, but what many cities are doing at the moment is designing neighborhoods targeting just this minority. If you have an area with just one minority/majority, then that neighborhood is destined to go down. Also, like I said, many cities (like mine) are offering tax breaks to companies and residents to move into these high-end neighborhoods, yet when these tax breaks expire, it is likely these people will leave again, looking for cheaper housing.
You cannot have people living in condos that are so expensive that they are spending 70-80% of their money on rent alone.
 
HeartlandCityBoy said:
You cannot have people living in condos that are so expensive that they are spending 70-80% of their money on rent alone.
Click to expand...
By choosing to buy or not to buy, they are the ones who make this place expensive. They chose to spend that much on their residence. If they didn't make this choice, the residences would be much less expensive.
 
Can't you just price the home based on what it costs you to fix it up or build it and figure in money for the salaries and call it good? The point here is not making money, it's making the community/city better.
 
HeartlandCityBoy said:
Can't you just price the home based on what it costs you to fix it up or build it and figure in money for the salaries and call it good? The point here is not making money, it's making the community/city better.
Click to expand...


To those who price the homes, the point is making money.

Take a look at the Charter of the New Urbanism. I think you'll agree with many, if not all of its objectives.
 
HeartlandCityBoy said:
GottaSpeakup, I don't believe it is the people, I believe it is the way a place is designed. The way something is designed effects their psycology and is the biggest detirmining factor in street usage.
Click to expand...


I understand and I agree with you. You should be aware, however, that there are people who say its the other way around. Some places attract people who want to use streets. (Partly true, but I believe there are lots of "in between" people who would be sedentary recluses in some neighborhoods, active in others)
 
HeartlandCityBoy said:
Can't you just price the home based on what it costs you to fix it up or build it and figure in money for the salaries and call it good? The point here is not making money, it's making the community/city better.
Click to expand...
You can price the home however you want to price it, and that's why generally speaking people price their home at the highest price they can get for it. They aren't going to stop doing that. That's how the housing market remains in balance.

Even if you were to start a company that sold below-market homes, the people you sold them to would probably resell them for the market price first chance they got.
 
jaws said:
Even if you were to start a company that sold below-market homes, the people you sold them to would probably resell them for the market price first chance they got.
Click to expand...

How about developing limited equity coops where the value of a property can only increase by a set amount? This allows people to build up savings, but preserves the affrodability over the years.
 
I just cannot believe that there is no way to attract medium wealth families to the inner-city...

Can't you just enter into an agreement with those who buy your homes that they agree to not sell them after so long of a time? And that they HAVE to occupy them?
I'm sick of hearing that celebrities are buying lofts/condos that they will never use and never occupy full-time, it's a waste of space, money and a building.

I personally don't care about how our system works, the idea is to think outside the box and improve the community and city, not to make money or continue harming the community like cities are still doing.

People care too much about money and not enough about improving communities and cities. They hide their wish for profit under the veil of "redevelopment".
 
HeartlandCityBoy said:
Can't you just enter into an agreement with those who buy your homes that they agree to not sell them after so long of a time? And that they HAVE to occupy them?

I personally don't care about how our system works, the idea is to think outside the box and improve the community and city, not to make money or continue harming the community like cities are still doing.

People care too much about money and not enough about improving communities and cities. They hide their wish for profit under the veil of "redevelopment".
Click to expand...

First, homes/condos are personal property, and there is nothing that Americans hold so dear as their personal property. Take away their right to develop to the fullest extent, and you get sued. I don't know how crazy people would be with restrictions on how long they would have to live and occupy the property.

But what's so wrong with single rich people living in an area? Yes, ideally there should be a mix, but often what follows on the heels of the rich is the improving of the neighborhood. Restaurants and retail move in, the aesthetics of the neighborhood improve, money is invested in older historic buildings. Yes, maybe some long-term residents get pushed out, but vast majority of the time, it is their choice to sell.

Second, there are some things that are fundamental to the vast majority of human beings, and one of those is the pursuit of income and profit. We are always seeking to get a little more "comfortable." The idea is to find a balance as a planner/architect/whatever between profit-making and the communal good. Learn about Planned Unit Developments. They are a good tool offered by communities and used by developers so that both parties walk away with something that they want. All developers are not the enemy and are often very willing to work with a community.

Third, YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS TO APPLY YOUR "OUT OF BOX" IDEAS! Otherwise, your ideas will just be discredited as artsy, hippie-ish crap...keep your desire, everything that inspires you now, but you have to have some roots in reality or your ideas will never become a reality.
 
First of all:
But what's so wrong with single rich people living in an area? Yes, ideally there should be a mix, but often what follows on the heels of the rich is the improving of the neighborhood. Restaurants and retail move in, the aesthetics of the neighborhood improve, money is invested in older historic buildings. Yes, maybe some long-term residents get pushed out, but vast majority of the time, it is their choice to sell.
Click to expand...
This is a myth of modern planning and development. Even reading Jane Jacob's first three chapters tells you this. Income does not effect what a neighborhood is like.
There are many rich neighborhoods that are dangerous, especially at night because no one goes out and there isn't enough interaction.

Restaurants and retail move in, but the singles are not the majority of people that would be going to these spots. Also, modern "neighborhoods" are bad for cities. There are only three good types of neighborhoods according to Jane Jacobs... The city itself, very large districts (like in NYC, districts of 100k+ people), street neighborhoods.

Right now, the way American cities are is completely wrong and is going down the wrong path. We think it will be impossible to change ourselves, however if you look at the early 1900s compared with the beginning of the end of true America in the 1950's and 1960's, you will see we changed ourselves rather quickly.

I can see a mix of capitalism and communism in modern America. Some may not want to hear this, but the idea of suburbs and subdivisions are more communist than capitalist. Especially the idea of identical houses being built to save money and restricting homeowners from having the complete freedom to paint their homes how they want to or modify their homes the way they want to.

We cannot have seperated districts of upper income people, middle income people and lower income people. We cannot have seperated districts of commercial, industrial, residential, etc...

Also, going along with one of the threads in this section, modern building codes and zoning is useless unless it has to do with safety or health.

Personally, I believe America is the best country for returning the world to how it should be. We have enough freedom to even change our economic system in small areas, we can build where we want to and how we want to. (if not restricted by zones or codes). It's just many people are unwilling to change or work hard for change.

Third, YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS TO APPLY YOUR "OUT OF BOX" IDEAS! Otherwise, your ideas will just be discredited as artsy, hippie-ish crap...keep your desire, everything that inspires you now, but yo
u have to have some roots in reality or your ideas will never become a reality.
Click to expand...
Rather, we need to change the system to apply to our out of the box ideas. One of the flaws today is the system itself.
 
One of the main problems with current zoning is that it is somewhat tough to change, and doesn't allow any alteration from the zoning w/o permission... (such as houses can't also hold stores w/o being zoned as such)

She talks about cities holding districts of 100,000+ people in interconnected neighborhoods but how can smaller cities do this? Should it just be a large fraction of the population of a city?
 
Im in the same boat that HeartlandCityBoy is in, which is to provide the lower and middle class with affordable housing and seeing that all the rich are getting all the best properties is really disturbing to me, but its like the previous posts have said, it's what the market will bear. Im going to college in the fall to study urban planning and design. I've read Jane Jacobs as well and find what she's talking about in Raleigh,NC as well. After talking to parents, a developer actually, and a family friend your (HeartlandCityBoy) going to realize that this thing we call "developing cities for the community" is all to make money, and there's little you can do about it except keep your inspiration and hope and your ideas.
 
Back
Top