Register123
Active Member
I'll take LA's rail system over Toronto's any day. I've lived in both cities and to tell you the truth find LA's system better than Toronto's believe it or not.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Thread starter E.B.
- Start date
Memph
Active Member
I remember reading about how LA's metro was the densest in North America. I think Toronto was second. I'm not sure which city was third, but I think New York was a fair bit behind. Maybe the third was another of the Southern US cities. While LA lacks high density and is very decentralized, it actually has a lot of multi-family homes. It and other Southern cities also tend to have much denser single family home neighbourhoods than New York, Boston or Washington.
Softee
Active Member
^ I saw a new urban area density chart that indicated that Toronto has overtaken LA as the densest urban area in the Canada and the US. Someone posted it on skyscrapercity.
Benjamin Hemric
New Member
Critique of Glaeser's Writings on Jane Jacobs`
While I generally agree with much of what Edward Glaeser has to say about cities and skyscrapers, I think he has greatly misunderstood the work of Jane Jacobs and therefore mischaracterized it -- even if unintentionally. This is particularly true, so it seems to me, with regard to her ideas on 1) high-rises, 2) high-densities, 3) old buildings and 4) what makes for healthy urban districts in general.
For those who are interested in a detailed critique of Glaeser misunderstandings of Jacobs work, I have a three-part comment that I've posted in the comments section of his on-line article, "How Skyscrapers Can Save the City," in the February issue of the on-line "Atlantic." The first two parts are in one comment about half-way down the comments page. They have my name, and I've "time stamped" them 2/12/11, 12:40 a.m. and 2/26/11, 4:22 p.m. The third part didn't fit into this comment box, so it is further down the page. It too is has my name, and it is time stamped 2/26/11, 5:34 p.m.
Here's a link, although I don't know how well it will work:
http://tinyurl.com/3hya955
It seems that sometimes when you access the article via a link, the comments section does not appear. If that's the case, accessing the article via a Google search may work better. (Or maybe the comments section was just "down" when I've tried accessing it via a link?)
Part I of my comment is a short introduction; Part II is where I discuss in more detail how Glaeser has misunderstood Jacobs; Part III is where I discuss how his misunderstanding of Jacobs weakens his own work.
Since a number of people in this thread seem to have made similiar points, I hope they, in particular, will get a chance to check out these comments.
If I have the time, I may also make some brief comments about the article that starts off this thread.
Benjamin Hemric
Sat., April 16, 2011, 8:25 p.m.
While I generally agree with much of what Edward Glaeser has to say about cities and skyscrapers, I think he has greatly misunderstood the work of Jane Jacobs and therefore mischaracterized it -- even if unintentionally. This is particularly true, so it seems to me, with regard to her ideas on 1) high-rises, 2) high-densities, 3) old buildings and 4) what makes for healthy urban districts in general.
For those who are interested in a detailed critique of Glaeser misunderstandings of Jacobs work, I have a three-part comment that I've posted in the comments section of his on-line article, "How Skyscrapers Can Save the City," in the February issue of the on-line "Atlantic." The first two parts are in one comment about half-way down the comments page. They have my name, and I've "time stamped" them 2/12/11, 12:40 a.m. and 2/26/11, 4:22 p.m. The third part didn't fit into this comment box, so it is further down the page. It too is has my name, and it is time stamped 2/26/11, 5:34 p.m.
Here's a link, although I don't know how well it will work:
http://tinyurl.com/3hya955
It seems that sometimes when you access the article via a link, the comments section does not appear. If that's the case, accessing the article via a Google search may work better. (Or maybe the comments section was just "down" when I've tried accessing it via a link?)
Part I of my comment is a short introduction; Part II is where I discuss in more detail how Glaeser has misunderstood Jacobs; Part III is where I discuss how his misunderstanding of Jacobs weakens his own work.
Since a number of people in this thread seem to have made similiar points, I hope they, in particular, will get a chance to check out these comments.
If I have the time, I may also make some brief comments about the article that starts off this thread.
Benjamin Hemric
Sat., April 16, 2011, 8:25 p.m.
Benjamin Hemric
New Member
Critique of Glaeser's statements in article leading off this thread
Here are some comments on the Glaeser statements in the article that starts off this thread. (Since I haven't read the book itself, these are comments on Glaeser's ideas as they are being portrayed in this article.)
1) [H]e says that “Jane Jacobs’ opposition to urban renewal led her to a more sweeping dislike for tall buildings in general.â€
As my more detailed critique in the comments section attached to Glaeser's "Atlantic" article points out, Jacobs did not have a "sweeping dislike for tall buildings in general." In fact, Jacobs actually praises high-rises in a number of instances, and I point out a few of them.
2) "Jacobs argued that high-rise residential towers isolate their residents from the street. Only by living in low-rise buildings, like her own home in New York’s Greenwich Village, could they stay connected to the bustling street life that keeps cities vital and safe."
Again, this is simply untrue. Jacobs does say that elevator apartment houses pose problems for low-income families with children, and I think this has been pretty well established as true.
3) "But her views on density and height also led her to oppose a nine-storey library for New York University."
This is also untrue. Jacobs believed high densities were good for cities, not bad. She was opposed to the construction of NYU's 9-story Bobst library (where I am at this very moment, by the way!) for a few reasons, but the height was only problematic because it was on the southern (sunlight) side of Washington Square Park.
4) In her 1961 classic The Death and Life of Great American Cities, she argued that neighbourhoods with more than 200 households to the acre risked becoming sterile and standardized.
First of all it should be pointed out that 200 households per acre is actually pretty high density. For instance, do a search on the internet for photos of NYC's high-rise Stuyvesant Town. It has a density of only 125 dwelling units per acre. So in order for Stuyvesant Town to reach 200 d.u.'s per acre it would have to have more than half again as many high-rises as it already has!!!
What Jacobs was saying in her chapter on density was, more or less, the following, "I believe very high densities are important for healthy city districts. Is there an upper limit, though, where high densities can be bad? It seems to me [Jacobs] that when the production of high densities is a result of standardization (in other words, where high densities are a result of the construction of nothing but high-rise apartment houses), RESIDENTIAL density has gone too high." (Check out the chapter on density in "Death and Life . . ." for the Jacobs' actual statement along these lines.)
It's also important to remember that Jacobs believed that mixed uses, in addition to high densities, were important for urban health. So a district with 200 d.u. per acre could actually have an even higher density when other uses are also included in density figures. This is especially useful to remember when considering the statement #5, directly below.
5) Anyone who has walked through Hong Kong or midtown Manhattan can see that’s mistaken. Lined with high-rise apartment towers, boasting densities many times over Jacobs’s danger mark, these streets teem with life. The same could be said of Yaletown in Vancouver or the condo canyons of downtown Toronto.
As I point out in my comments on Glaeser's "Atlantic" article, Jacobs herself points out such neighborhoods as being successful.
6)he was also wrong when she argued in her early work that preserving older, shorter buildings would keep accommodation affordable for homeowners and entrepreneurs.
This is untrue. What Jacobs was arguing against was large scale clearance of buildings, including high-rises, for the construction of "all new," lower-density, tower-in-the-park developments.
7) “Her vision for Greenwich Village produced an area that was enshrined in amber, that was unable to produce enough supply to create affordability – and now it’s $5-million to buy a house in Greenwich Village,†he said at a University of Toronto talk this week.
Again, this is way off the mark. Jacobs argued, essentially, against killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and argued in favor, essentially, of breeding a lot more geese to produce a lot more golden eggs. (See, in particular, the chapter on the self-destruction of diversity, in "Death and Life . . .")
- - - - - - - -
As mentioned previously, my arguments are more detailed in my responses to Glaeser's "How Skyscrapers Can Save the City" article on the "Atlantic" website, so I hope that people who are interested will get a chance to read them over there.
PLUS, in any case, I hope people don't just take my word for it but, instead, go back to "Death and Life of Great American Cities" to see for themselves what Jacobs really had to say about the issues in question.
Benjamin Hemric
Sat., April 16, 2011, 9:55 p.m.
Here are some comments on the Glaeser statements in the article that starts off this thread. (Since I haven't read the book itself, these are comments on Glaeser's ideas as they are being portrayed in this article.)
1) [H]e says that “Jane Jacobs’ opposition to urban renewal led her to a more sweeping dislike for tall buildings in general.â€
As my more detailed critique in the comments section attached to Glaeser's "Atlantic" article points out, Jacobs did not have a "sweeping dislike for tall buildings in general." In fact, Jacobs actually praises high-rises in a number of instances, and I point out a few of them.
2) "Jacobs argued that high-rise residential towers isolate their residents from the street. Only by living in low-rise buildings, like her own home in New York’s Greenwich Village, could they stay connected to the bustling street life that keeps cities vital and safe."
Again, this is simply untrue. Jacobs does say that elevator apartment houses pose problems for low-income families with children, and I think this has been pretty well established as true.
3) "But her views on density and height also led her to oppose a nine-storey library for New York University."
This is also untrue. Jacobs believed high densities were good for cities, not bad. She was opposed to the construction of NYU's 9-story Bobst library (where I am at this very moment, by the way!) for a few reasons, but the height was only problematic because it was on the southern (sunlight) side of Washington Square Park.
4) In her 1961 classic The Death and Life of Great American Cities, she argued that neighbourhoods with more than 200 households to the acre risked becoming sterile and standardized.
First of all it should be pointed out that 200 households per acre is actually pretty high density. For instance, do a search on the internet for photos of NYC's high-rise Stuyvesant Town. It has a density of only 125 dwelling units per acre. So in order for Stuyvesant Town to reach 200 d.u.'s per acre it would have to have more than half again as many high-rises as it already has!!!
What Jacobs was saying in her chapter on density was, more or less, the following, "I believe very high densities are important for healthy city districts. Is there an upper limit, though, where high densities can be bad? It seems to me [Jacobs] that when the production of high densities is a result of standardization (in other words, where high densities are a result of the construction of nothing but high-rise apartment houses), RESIDENTIAL density has gone too high." (Check out the chapter on density in "Death and Life . . ." for the Jacobs' actual statement along these lines.)
It's also important to remember that Jacobs believed that mixed uses, in addition to high densities, were important for urban health. So a district with 200 d.u. per acre could actually have an even higher density when other uses are also included in density figures. This is especially useful to remember when considering the statement #5, directly below.
5) Anyone who has walked through Hong Kong or midtown Manhattan can see that’s mistaken. Lined with high-rise apartment towers, boasting densities many times over Jacobs’s danger mark, these streets teem with life. The same could be said of Yaletown in Vancouver or the condo canyons of downtown Toronto.
As I point out in my comments on Glaeser's "Atlantic" article, Jacobs herself points out such neighborhoods as being successful.
6)
This is untrue. What Jacobs was arguing against was large scale clearance of buildings, including high-rises, for the construction of "all new," lower-density, tower-in-the-park developments.
7) “Her vision for Greenwich Village produced an area that was enshrined in amber, that was unable to produce enough supply to create affordability – and now it’s $5-million to buy a house in Greenwich Village,†he said at a University of Toronto talk this week.
Again, this is way off the mark. Jacobs argued, essentially, against killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and argued in favor, essentially, of breeding a lot more geese to produce a lot more golden eggs. (See, in particular, the chapter on the self-destruction of diversity, in "Death and Life . . .")
- - - - - - - -
As mentioned previously, my arguments are more detailed in my responses to Glaeser's "How Skyscrapers Can Save the City" article on the "Atlantic" website, so I hope that people who are interested will get a chance to read them over there.
PLUS, in any case, I hope people don't just take my word for it but, instead, go back to "Death and Life of Great American Cities" to see for themselves what Jacobs really had to say about the issues in question.
Benjamin Hemric
Sat., April 16, 2011, 9:55 p.m.