Urban planning community | #theplannerlife

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 31 of 31

Thread: Some Charlotte area new urbanism

  1. #26

    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Solano County, California
    Posts
    6,468
    Quote Originally posted by Luca
    But frankly the idea that we should design towns around the size of monster trucks seems counterintuitive.
    Or designing neighborhoods with streets that encourage 50 mph traffic and then signposting them for 25 mph! My major pet peeve!

    The Grumman Fire Truck is just so MACHO, btw. We need the big trucks!

  2. #27
    Member
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato, Mexico
    Posts
    37
    It's a shame; Vermillion could be quite a bit better. I think the developer was TRYING to be new urbanist, but he was still stuck on some of the aspects of the burbs. And when the two mixed, it wasn't pretty.

  3. #28
    Vermillion is nice and cozy. I prefer Birkdale Village, b/c it's more happening.

  4. #29
    I had to think a while to determine what was out of place about this development, but I think I've got it down now. What you see is a suburban development dressed up as urbanism. It is not real urbanism, it is not a real town. New Urbanism is about creating town life and selling that as a better way to live than the suburbs. This developer is trying to out-suburb the suburbs, but NU principles don't deliver suburban life. He is crippling his own project, especially since he faces fierce competition from other real suburban developer.

    A real town is made up of town houses and workplaces, not 'vernacular style' mcmansions where cars take up half the lot. No wonder he can't find buyers, he's offering the worst of both worlds.

  5. #30
          abrowne's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    1,584
    Quote Originally posted by jaws
    I had to think a while to determine what was out of place about this development, but I think I've got it down now. What you see is a suburban development dressed up as urbanism. It is not real urbanism, it is not a real town. New Urbanism is about creating town life and selling that as a better way to live than the suburbs. This developer is trying to out-suburb the suburbs, but NU principles don't deliver suburban life. He is crippling his own project, especially since he faces fierce competition from other real suburban developer.

    A real town is made up of town houses and workplaces, not 'vernacular style' mcmansions where cars take up half the lot. No wonder he can't find buyers, he's offering the worst of both worlds.
    OK, interesting point. But what options, then, do we leave the developer with? Suburban sprawl is undesirable, yet New Urbanism is bound to fail because its not connected to a real city - only a sort of suburban "mud" surrounds the parcel of land.

    Now, he owns this land - it's not worth anything to him to let it sit idle. Property taxes stack up. Nature/open space reserves are neat and all but there is no benefit for him in that regard.

    This is the sort of planning thinking that angers me. We can't give him any sort of a solution, so its no wonder that causing change is a bit difficult when we can't even get our advice straight or coherent.

    He can't exactly force the city to put in bus routes or a light rail corridor (due to the linear nature of the parcel of land), so what is he left with? Same old crap. He goofed on the execution of this New Urbanism development, and you can be damn sure he wont ever go out on a limb again. He'll go for sure money, and who can blame him?

    Moving on...



    Pardon my repost of this image, but I wanted to point out the ridiculously proportioned dormer windows. They look like toothpicks coming out of the roof. They don't even flow with the width of the windows below them, on the second floor. If they're going for dormer windows, large floor to ceiling windows, and a colonial style look... then perhaps it would also be wise to avoid vinyl siding and stick with either wood or brick?

    The detailing on this building isn't so bad. I find the windows and door to be quite agreeable to the eyes (although those shutters should actually be functional)... but then the developer neglects the rest of the building by constructing an ugly little box with no distinction from the other properties save for their little design details. Swap around some windows, move the doors, add an arch... its still the same little vinyl-sided box.

  6. #31
          ablarc's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2003
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally posted by jaws
    I had to think a while to determine what was out of place about this development, but I think I've got it down now. What you see is a suburban development dressed up as urbanism. It is not real urbanism, it is not a real town. New Urbanism is about creating town life and selling that as a better way to live than the suburbs. This developer is trying to out-suburb the suburbs, but NU principles don't deliver suburban life. He is crippling his own project, especially since he faces fierce competition from other real suburban developer.

    A real town is made up of town houses and workplaces, not 'vernacular style' mcmansions where cars take up half the lot. No wonder he can't find buyers, he's offering the worst of both worlds.
    Exactly.
    .
    .

+ Reply to thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

More at Cyburbia

  1. Brightwalk, Charlotte
    Cities and Places
    Replies: 1
    Last post: 17 Oct 2013, 11:00 AM
  2. Charlotte, NC
    Cities and Places
    Replies: 35
    Last post: 06 Feb 2007, 9:14 AM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last post: 07 Jul 2005, 8:32 PM
  4. New Urbanism in Charlotte
    Design, Space, and Place
    Replies: 0
    Last post: 03 Aug 2000, 4:33 PM
  5. TND in Charlotte, NC area
    Design, Space, and Place
    Replies: 0
    Last post: 27 Jul 2000, 5:10 PM