Hacker News Reader

Comment by graeme | Hacker News Reader

Are there any examples of new, dense construction in North America that aren't ugly or dispiriting to live in?

Serious question. I live in a very dense neighborhood by North American standards. About 32,000 people per square mile, and it's self contained: people don't have to travel elsewhere to go out, shop, relax, etc. Some leave for work, but a high proportion are here during the day too.

It was built around 1900, and lots of people visit just for the atmosphere.

If we could clone this neighborhood and built it elsewhere, it would be a good thing. But we don't seem to be able to build neighborhoods in this style anymore.

Are there any new developments that are both dense and nice?

View on HN

"It was built around 1900, and lots of people visit just for the atmosphere. If we could clone this neighborhood and built it elsewhere, it would be a good thing. But we don't seem to be able to build neighborhoods in this style anymore."

A few things ...

First, I think there are some decent examples of what you're looking for ... Minneapolis comes to mind, as you stand in the center of Loring Park, which has a fair amount of new, high density surrounding it. Denver, certainly, as you walk to the North end of 16th st. and cross over that weird bridge ... lots of brand new high density office and residential all arranged and balanced in a very pleasing way.

Anyway ...

One of the reasons people like your neighborhood (I'm guessing) is that the built environment is much more substantial (and honest in use of materials). But we can't afford that anymore. 10x10 timbers and big stones and bricks are (relatively) tremendously expensive.

We can only afford stick built 2x4 construction covered with engineered faux-stone facade, and deep down, people know that's crap. That's why they like a neighborhood like yours.

> stick built 2x4 construction

In 1900 people were already building like that. I live in Somerville MA, which is pretty close to what the OP describes, and it's pretty popular despite everything being balloon framed and covered with vinyl siding.

Toronto?

http://plumber.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/toronto-3.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Dundas_S...

http://www.mymetcondo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/TheMet_...

There are some shitty parts in the suburbs, but lots of nice areas (downtown, Kensington market, Bloor West / Ossington, Summerville, Moore Park, High Park, Entertainment district) and it isn't too pricey ($1500 / month for a 1 bedroom down town).

Aren't those older areas? They have some new construction, but the street plan and most of the buildings are pre-war.

Toronto's new neighborhood, the condos by the waterfront, is hideous: http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/displa...

If you want to pick on CityPlace, that is fine, but that is an especially hideous point of view / photo.

https://i.imgur.com/RKAhkqO.jpg is my view (I just took this photo now) and http://vikpahwa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/20140606_5407... is my condo (second from the right of the four main condos).

I agree that festival tower and the entertainment district is nicer, but it is also way louder, and I like quiet when I code so I moved out of that part of town.

But Toronto is currently building 130 towers in multiple neighborhoods, so to pick on the most controversial ones isn't really a rebuttle. Can you show an example of any 40+ story residential building that you like?

Ah, didn't mean to pick a misleading photo. Just searched "toronto new condos" and tried to use one that showed the streetscape.

I was actually talking about what it's like to walk around in neighborhoods - what's it like at street level in your area?

I can't think of 40+ residential buildings that I like, but that's at least partly because there aren't any in my area. My point was that we used to build dense, low rise neighborhoods.

But I like Manhattan, are some of those residential buildings 40+? Manhattan's a great example of a dense, walkable area that's pleasant to be in.

Low density of motorized transport (or even "fast" unpowered transport such as bikes) helps with the atmosphere. In some medieval towns which are still inhabited and thriving, the streets are mostly too rough for driving. Having everything you need within walking distance has a huge impact on the quality of life. You get to see more people, there is less noise and life feels less rushed.

You might find this interesting, it was posted here a while back: http://www.andrewalexanderprice.com/blog20131204.php#.VehYvr...

He had an article on Tokyo, but I can't find it. Apparently Tokyo meets many of these criteria and is pleasant to be in, despite being new construction.

Which is why I'm wondering if we have any North American examples.

>If we could clone this neighborhood and built it elsewhere, it would be a good thing. But we don't seem to be able to build neighborhoods in this style anymore.

It's not that we're unable, it's that North Americans have chosen not to. Nice dense developments are bad for cars, and car-lifestyles are what North Americans have culturally designated as the marker of success. Therefore you see a false correlation: dense developments are only built to house those too poor to participate in car culture.

> ...and car-lifestyles are what North Americans have culturally designated as the marker of success.

This is no longer uniformly true. Some of the hottest, highest-priced residential real estate in the US is explicitly tied to more walkable environs. In the urban cores of cities like Portland, OR, Boulder, CO, and Austin, TX, there are definitely extraordinarily expensive ("marker of success") residences that are impractical (or at least very time inefficient) to live in unless one eschews a car-centric lifestyle. The developers have noticed, and there is a boom going on right now in those and similar cities by the developers to increase density; however, often neighborhood associations and land-use regulations tend to hold back the density of the proposed developments.

Yeah, this is what I was getting at. The old, dense neighborhoods are getting expensive. But we can't seem to build them anymore.

Salt Lake City has some experiments built around outdoor shopping malls, but it seems the good apartments are never available and the condominiums are priced for wealthy investors, not residents.

The city has very wide streets around these developments and multi-level underground parking to accommodate cars.

>> "Are there any examples of new, dense construction in North America that aren't ugly or dispiriting to live in?"

There are a couple of new tall buildings in lower Manhattan that aren't totally hideous, e.g. 8 Spruce (Gehry usually makes me feel ill, but in this one case it sort of works). And it's not particularly dispiriting inside.

And a tiny fraction of the new stuff going up in Williamsburg and parts of Queens is not entirely awful.

Though not quite new, we do also have great examples of beautiful, stately, high density buildings in NYC like 45 Christopher: https://www.google.com/maps/place/45+Christopher+Street,+New...

There are plenty on Park that would fit the bill if they were divided into more apartments. I also agree with you on 8 Spruce, despite some of the hate, I like it, and it's infinitely preferably to many of the green glass monsters that have gone up.

Olympic Village in Vancouver, built for the 2010 games. https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2709354,-123.1060876,3a,75y,2...

Quite dense, nice to walk through, with nice looking buildings. Not the best mix of retail (few small independent shops) but aside from that it's a pretty good brand new neighbourhood.

I think the problem is that kind of high density housing is its hard to sustain out of a handful of high density metros because you can only employ a large fraction [but not all] of the people in it within the neighborhood. So there needs to be high density offices/industrial plants/etc as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com