The Influence of Jane Jacobs

[RPfresh]

Yes, this refers to a book, but I don't think it's a Book Club thread. My question has more to do with the concrete implementation of Jacobs' theories and suggestions.

It's kind of ridiculous for anyone to think that they know everything about cities and know what to do with them, but, reading Death and Life again, it seems like Jane hits some points dead on. From advocating wide sidewalks to pointing out the absurdity of treating poor citizens like members of the prison-industrial complex, I think she really has something, at least in her first book.

I'm just wondering if the world of planning really takes this stuff into account, or if it were even possible to do so. It seems like lots of people pay lip service to Jane and advocate wide reading of her book, but I look around and don't see her ideas really being applied at all.

If this book is so highly regarded, why are her ideas not put into action more often?

[sakalamp]

If this book is so highly regarded, why are her ideas not put into action more often?

bureaucracy and politics

[RPfresh]

That cuts to it as far as government is concerned, and that sucks. But in private developments, for example, it seems as though you could incorporate some of her theories. Maybe not.

So, then, are her ideas doomed to be mere observations and not affect anything real? I hope not. And if that's true for Jane, it seems as though it would be true for all writers; however, it's not - Le Corbusier seems still to be very influential in his writings still. Is it really like sakalamp says? Does urban theory have little effect on the world because of urban politics?

[Gotta Speakup]

bureaucracy and politics

Why blame government? Do you think that the vast public out there wants Jacobs' style communities, the developers are all lined up there to build these types of neighborhoods?

As much as I wish there were more walkable, mixed use, Jacobs inspired neighborhoods, the US public doesn't know about them or want them. I think the demand is greater than the supply, but the demand is not dominant.

[Streetwall]

I think it's somewhat accurate that most of the North American public doesn't want to live in so-called "Jane Jacobs" urban environment if that term indeed entails noisy, narrow, gridded streets with large buildings crowded together.

Though what many forget is that this compact classical urbanism is not the only way for high-density, sustainable communities to exist. Let's get our minds out of the North American and European context for a bit. There are prosperous cities in East Asia which have chosen to embrace the Garden City model with tons of density. As much as New Urbanist-minded planners like to barf all over this planning regime, there are cities like Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and Hong Kong which have very successfully been able to built high-density living environments (new towns) that offer plenty of open space and greenery, aren't too noisy, don't feel too crowded and have convenient access to the city's rapid transit network.

In North America this sort of development has been giving a bad name as it was only really implemented in the form of grim housing projects. If we were to build these here with much better architecture and a "resort"-like feel I bet the majority of North Americans would enjoy living in high-rise garden city new towns, granted there was convenient transit access to regional employment and attractions. The compact, "Jane Jacobs" urbanism would still be attractive to the young and energetic who want to live a vibrant, exciting urban setting.

[RPfresh]

There are prosperous cities in East Asia which have chosen to embrace the Garden City model with tons of density. As much as New Urbanist-minded planners like to barf all over this planning regime, there are cities like Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, and Hong Kong which have very successfully been able to built high-density living environments (new towns) that offer plenty of open space and greenery, aren't too noisy, don't feel too crowded and have convenient access to the city's rapid transit network.

I can't speak for Singapore or Kuala Lumpur, but Hong Kong in my opinion has nothing to do with the Garden City model. It is incredibly dense, like Jacobs advocated, is made up of mixed-use buildings with stores below and LOTS of housing above, like Jacobs advocated, has tons of people on the street at all times, like Jacobs advocated, has a huge amount of independent businesses, which Jane would argue is a direct result of the first two factors, and stacks skyscrapers right next to each other in a way that would make Ebenezer Howard and Le Corbusier tear out their hair. I walked the entire length of HK island (although I can't say I saw THAT much of Kowloon) and saw only two spots that resembled Radiant Garden City - the projects of Wan Chai and Chai Wan, which were the most dead parts of the island.

Hong Kong to me is a perfect example of a walkable, transit-led neighborhood structure. Hell, you've even got landmarks like the mid-level escalators and neighborhoods like Causeway Bay that have irregular streets and are captivating visually. In short, I have no idea what you're talking about, and completely disagree. Sorry. Are you from or have you been to East Asia? If so I'm interested in how you came to different conclusions from the same urban structure.

I love Hong Kong and would love to move there, for those specific reasons, and I think the reason the city is that way is that market forces have a chance of creating Jacobs-style neighborhoods, as they still do to a degree in NYC. Paris is another one (can't speak for the rest of Europe). Mexico City and Montreal, as well as San Francisco, are other examples. They're around, and people love them. Dead parts of cities can of course be Radiant City setups, but in my opinion no Garden City areas are anything fun or vital. They're just projects.

[RPfresh]

Just reread your post and realized that you were actually talking about projects like Chai Wan/Wan Chai and not the main cities. I still disagree. Those places are no fun compared to the big city, and are not Garden City at all in the sense that they leech off the main city for culture and economic vitality. Garden City planning would be establishing a project like that in the New Territories with no access to Hong Kong at all.

[Streetwall]

I can't speak for Singapore or Kuala Lumpur, but Hong Kong in my opinion has nothing to do with the Garden City model. It is incredibly dense, like Jacobs advocated, is made up of mixed-use buildings with stores below and LOTS of housing above, like Jacobs advocated, has tons of people on the street at all times,

Well, in terms of Hong Kong I was referring to the more outer new towns mostly found on the upper Kowloon, which are incredibly dense, walkable and transit-connected, yet in form are more garden city than the traditional tight, grid-block format.

Kind of like this:
http://tinyurl.com/2wfhc6d
http://tinyurl.com/2wmwzg7

In Singapore, this sort of development is the norm throughout most of the island, albeit not nearly as super high rise oriented as in HK:

http://tinyurl.com/3agsjqr

In these type of master-planned communities, housing is clustered into complexes ringed by curvilinear roads rather than having tons of smaller buildings abutting tons of narrow little streets. These places are very dense, offer a walkable shopping center in the middle not more than a 1km walk from any point in the neighborhood. They're certainly dense enough for easy transit access and clustered enough to offer a lot of open space on the periphery. If we could take this development pattern, humanize it a bit by making more attractive streets within the communities and offer more architectural variation, I believe this places could be the key to redeveloping our own cities for a sustainable 21st century.

Though, I think I'm digressing from the key point I'm trying to make here, that: High-rise, high-density urbanism can indeed be something the masses can live with. Sure, many of us urbanists would find such places noted above as being bland and predictable, but what we need to remember is that most people prefer comfort and security over excitement from living in a place like a bustling urban core that constantly stimulates and challenges all 5 senses. Remember that the "garden city" is already the de-facto living environment for a majority of North America. We're just accustomed to calling the low-density version of the garden city "suburbia." I'm thinking if given a try and properly implemented, lots of people would like the high-density version just as much, if not more.

[RPfresh]

Well, in terms of Hong Kong I was referring to the more outer new towns mostly found on the upper Kowloon, which are incredibly dense, walkable and transit-connected, yet in form are more garden city than the traditional tight, grid-block format.

These aren't cities, and thus aren't radiant garden cities or however you want to put it. They are in-city suburbs, and walk and talk like them. To me it seems like you're advocating something that occurs all over the US already. And considering that US citizens don't seem to like living in highrises EXCEPT in the middle of cities, odds are they would not succeed, build up vacancies and form a downward spiral. But maybe you're right, and in the present economic climate would make people settle for an apartment with a nice view once their condo gets foreclosed. I couldn't say.

[RPfresh]

Why blame government? Do you think that the vast public out there wants Jacobs' style communities, the developers are all lined up there to build these types of neighborhoods?

As much as I wish there were more walkable, mixed use, Jacobs inspired neighborhoods, the US public doesn't know about them or want them. I think the demand is greater than the supply, but the demand is not dominant.

Unfortunately I think other factors are at play here. The US is, correct me if I'm wrong, pretty much unique in its preference for suburb over city. At least in Asia (and Paris I believe) suburbs are the bad parts of town, and city living is coveted. I wonder if US citizens were to feel safer and more able to be involved in inner-city neighborhoods (or, let's say, were less afraid of minorities), they might well prefer those to suburban living. Not only that but suburbia was pushed on people by the auto industry and its friends in government, and I'm not sure just how it became all the rage it is today.

Also Jane Jacobs did not advocate the creation of urban neighborhoods outside of cities, and I think wouldn't be all that happy with the New Urbanism movement; she was all about neighborhoods already in cities. Fixing those would be more along Jane's ideas, not developers creating new neighborhoods outside of the existing urban core. Not only that, but she talks about how lots of money or all new construction in a neighborhood does NOT create good neighborhoods, but in fact bad ones.

[Streetwall]

I wasn't really advocating building these sort of neighborhoods outside the city, I think it's more an idea of redeveloping decaying parts of an old city that were never really dense enough to be very vibrant.

Perhaps I shouldn't be using the "garden city" label for this concept. By that I merely apartment buildings being organized into complexes instead of closely clinging to curbsides on gridded streets. Think of a circular 1km diameter "subdivision" that consists of a web of high-density apartment blocks, a shopping/civic center and rapid rail stop in the center. The rail line gives easy, convenient access to the urban core close by. Around the periphery of the community is a ring road and beyond that road is a open space recreational buffer standing between it and the next community over. Imagine a city that is dense enough so people aren't dependent on cars and where there are ribbons of beautiful open space that course though the city so that no citizen is more than a 2km walk (or 10 min bike ride) from this recreational expanse.

I envision a vibrant urban core that consists mostly of refurbished old buildings and context-appropriate infill comprising neighborhoods that Jane Jacobs would be proud of. So we have about 30-40% of the city population living in traditional urbanism in the center (largely young adults, students, creatives) and the rest (families, elderly) living in the dense "new towns" I propose that would ring the core.

[RPfresh]

That doesn't sound as bad. At the same time, separating people based on age, whether driven by market forces or not, would rob the rest of the city of people that would populate city streets and make them more safe.

Let's say most of the families in the new settlement have one or two workers - they're gone for the day. Kids are in school for most of the year - they're gone for the morning/afternoon. The other parent takes care of the house? or however they pass their time. So maybe they're there. But a shopping center would have relatively no business during these times of body vacuums; would it be able to stay in business? And if it folded, people would be inclined to go somewhere to do their shopping...and bring their car to hold their food.

The thought of TOD works when there's a big pull a la Manhattan or San Francisco and choked traffic getting there; however, for local traffic I bet those same commuters use their cars unless where they live there is a store to sell them food nearby, which would need additional people like workers during the day to support the business in the off-hours. So I think that if you included office space in this development it would be more likely to succeed. Not only that, but people that worked at these office buildings might want to live nearby, or at least nearby another metro stop.

Of course, another way to discourage car use is to put in restrictive parking plots (ie not enough parking spaces for everyone to own a car). Etc.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

The "New" in the New Urbanism does not refer to greenfield projects. And, the New Urbanism actually advocates Garden Cities with several Transect Zones that exist within a single pedestrian-shed.

Just because high-rises surrounded by parks are rejected by the New Urbanists does not mean that open space and parklands have to be completely divorced from the Urban Core. The trick is to regulate the Transect so that as many T. Zones as possible fit into each pedestrian-shed and, then, to connect the ped.-sheds with each other by transit.

True walkability and a sensitivity to context must be the guiding principles.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

What ideas of Jane Jacobs in particular do you want to see embraced?

[RPfresh]

The "New" in the New Urbanism does not refer to greenfield projects. And, the New Urbanism actually advocates Garden Cities with several Transect Zones that exist within a single pedestrian-shed.

Just because high-rises surrounded by parks are rejected by the New Urbanists does not mean that open space and parklands have to be completely divorced from the Urban Core. The trick is to regulate the Transect so that as many T. Zones as possible fit into each pedestrian-shed and, then, to connect the ped.-sheds with each other by transit.

True walkability and a sensitivity to context must be the guiding principles.

Not sure I understand most of that, but I agree with what I do and on your guiding principles.

What ideas of Jane Jacobs in particular do you want to see embraced?

Stuff like gradual infusion of money into neighborhoods instead of huge projects, more mixed-use zoning, wide sidewalks, more people-intensive park uses on the edges of parks, hold on let me go get my copy of Death and Life...jk. Just all of it, if you're familiar. She's got a lot of ideas about a lot of things, and reading the book I was just going through my head like, never seen that, never seen that, etc. I mean there is mixed use zoning, but it seems still to be a radical concept, maybe I'm wrong about that one. But so many of her theories seem to never have been tested on any large scale; I'm not saying they'd work, but you'd think people would try.

Oh also, are banks still blacklisting certain neighborhoods for mortages/renovation loans or however that works? If they are then we're still in the dark ages.

[Streetwall]

That doesn't sound as bad. At the same time, separating people based on age, whether driven by market forces or not, would rob the rest of the city of people that would populate city streets and make them more safe.

In a free and open society people and groups of people tend to self-sort based on culture, lifestyle and aesthetic preferences. Trying to legislate against this is futile; the best we can do is to utilize design to make the best out of this situation. If the "hip" and "family" parts of the city could seamlessly play together as a sustainable, cohesive whole, that would be a major advance in how our cities function. In my model city, no one will be saying certain people or groups can't live here or there; obviously people can dwell wherever they please; we just need to plan around anticipated preferences.

Let's say most of the families in the new settlement have one or two workers - they're gone for the day. Kids are in school for most of the year - they're gone for the morning/afternoon. The other parent takes care of the house? or however they pass their time. So maybe they're there. But a shopping center would have relatively no business during these times of body vacuums; would it be able to stay in business? And if it folded, people would be inclined to go somewhere to do their shopping...and bring their car to hold their food.

1. I anticipate the nature of "work" itself changing in our future cities. Knowledge and information work can already be done remotely from any location. The 9-5, 40hr/wk is a relic of the 1950s work mentality. Work hours will likely continue to become more flexible and not as reliant on peak commute times. Also, in a saner society, (in which my concept city is designed around) two parents will NOT need to work full time in order to comfortably support a modest-sized family.

2. The trends in shopping/retail keep getting more and more automated. Automated shopping already exists in the form of internet commerce and self-checkouts in brick-and-mortar stores. In a city almost completely redesigned, there is great potential for an electronic, automated freight conveyance and delivery system. More and more stuff will be ordered digitally and delivered straight to the home. Weekend runs to the big box mart to schelp home large consumer items may soon be a thing of the past. Eventually look forward to seeing autonomous delivery carts (or alternatively..."robo-couriers") to emerge. Large grocery deliveries (already popular in very large cities) will become more commonplace. For immediate on-demand needs, each apartment complex will likely have a mid-sized grocery convenience store. Computerized analysis will efficiently decide when is best to staff the store with the most people based on measured demand.

The thought of TOD works when there's a big pull a la Manhattan or San Francisco and choked traffic getting there; however, for local traffic I bet those same commuters use their cars unless where they live there is a store to sell them food nearby, which would need additional people like workers during the day to support the business in the off-hours.

See my above comment on automation and virtuization of shopping. Expect less stores and more warehouses and parcel delivery logistics.

So I think that if you included office space in this development it would be more likely to succeed. Not only that, but people that worked at these office buildings might want to live nearby, or at least nearby another metro stop.

I foresee there being a sort of shared/rentable office spaces in the civic center of each of these communities for those who find working from home to be too distracting. Centralized company offices will become less necessary. Office work will become more decentralized and less dependent upon face-to-face interaction. Reducing the need for commuting all over town will greatly reduce the emissions and transportation congestion. 5-10 minute walks will hopefully start replace 20-40 minute intra-city treks.
[/QUOTE]

Of course, another way to discourage car use is to put in restrictive parking plots (ie not enough parking spaces for everyone to own a car). Etc.

In a city where car trips become less and less a requirement daily needs, expect car sharing to start replacing individual car ownership. Having cars constantly in service will greatly reduce the need for parking.

It's a shame that ideas on how futuristic cities will operate have been monopolized by dystopian sci-fi settings

[RPfresh]

In my model city, no one will be saying certain people or groups can't live here or there; obviously people can dwell wherever they please; we just need to plan around anticipated preferences.

How is this unlike the suburb/inner city dynamic already in place? And keep in mind what damage this has already done.

1. I anticipate the nature of "work" itself changing in our future cities.

I foresee there being a sort of shared/rentable office spaces in the civic center of each of these communities for those who find working from home to be too distracting. Centralized company offices will become less necessary. Office work will become more decentralized and less dependent upon face-to-face interaction. Reducing the need for commuting all over town will greatly reduce the emissions and transportation congestion. 5-10 minute walks will hopefully start replace 20-40 minute intra-city treks.

Also, in a saner society, (in which my concept city is designed around) two parents will NOT need to work full time in order to comfortably support a modest-sized family.

2. The trends in shopping/retail keep getting more and more automated.

Eventually look forward to seeing autonomous delivery carts (or alternatively..."robo-couriers") to emerge. Large grocery deliveries (already popular in very large cities) will become more commonplace.

It's a shame that ideas on how futuristic cities will operate have been monopolized by dystopian sci-fi settings

And you're not advocating science fiction how...?

For immediate on-demand needs, each apartment complex will likely have a mid-sized grocery convenience store. Computerized analysis will efficiently decide when is best to staff the store with the most people based on measured demand.

In other words there will be a store that depends on people being able to support it at various times (and choose IT over automated service). Not sure if you could convince a business owner to get into that.

In a city where car trips become less and less a requirement daily needs, expect car sharing to start replacing individual car ownership. Having cars constantly in service will greatly reduce the need for parking.

I agree with this.

[Streetwall]

How is this unlike the suburb/inner city dynamic already in place? And keep in mind what damage this has already done.

It will be a compact, transit-oriented and far more sustainable version of that. Our cities of the future will have to balance responsible land use with consumer preference. We need to offer a variety of community types that can satisfy varying tastes and ideas---of course within the confines of sustainable practice. I don't see anything inherently wrong with the core/periphery dynamic as long as it doesn't serve as an engine behind social inequality, natural resource waste and environmental despoliation.

These peripheral communities I refer to are very dense, walkable and connected via rapid transit to the city core.

And you're not advocating science fiction how...?

I'm merely looking at existing and emerging technologies and projecting not so far into the future in terms of how they can make our cities much better places.

The problem I have with a lot of maintstream planning is that it's stuck in the "now" mentality. A lot of planning solutions are merely aesthetic bandaids to serious problems caused by the status quo. Innovation comes from vision not from just trying to appease vested interests.

In other words there will be a store that depends on people being able to support it at various times (and choose IT over automated service). Not sure if you could convince a business owner to get into that.

I can guarantee that in a 1-2sq km community with a population of around 20,000 there will at least be one decent supermarket. A business owner would be foolish to pass over this sort of lucrative market. If the store offered a delivery service (for those who are too lazy/busy walk the 200-500 meters), it'd be beyond a guaranteed success.

Anyway, I think I've strayed far beyond the scope of the original post in this thread. Maybe I'll start my own separate thread on some of my ideas.

[JNA]

Interesting Article & Headline: The new urban renewers: Getting past the Jacobs-Moses paradigm
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/articl...moses-paradigm

For example, the preciousness of Jacobs’ vision has fought with the large 21st century ambitions of contemporary urban academics and planners: The way she thought about urban planning—preservation, community involvement—is the same sort that makes any building project in New York a long and arduous process.

“Jacobs failed to look at how people use capital and culture to view, and to shape, the urban spaces they inhabit,” wrote Sharon Zukin, a professor of sociology at Brooklyn College, in her 2010 book Naked City: the Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places.

[RPfresh]

Jane Jacobs may have been wrong about some things, and her way of thinking and deducing has its issues, but I don't think she was wrong about Urban Renewal. Renewal is like a man-made disaster inflicted by property developers - I read a book that had a chapter about reconstruction in bombed-out Beirut, and similar issues were there - building owners wanted to get paid, tenants wanted to get paid for what they'd lost, businesses wanted to get paid for lost investments and business. The difference is that urban renewal, as it was practiced, wiped the slate clean and DID NOT PAY ALL THESE PEOPLE. As Jane points out, if they did renewal would never be done as it would be a budgetary nightmare.

And saying Robert Moses wanted housing for all incomes is interesting. He was, if you read the power broker, a glaring racist, and did everything he could to keep minorities out of parks on Long Island and municipal pools. That this man somehow could put aside his differences and advocate good housing for African Americans and other minorities out of the goodness of his heart, is preposterous. He kept his own brother from getting work, so that he died broke - he was a sociopath. Robert Moses was a dick, and anything he did is tainted by that.

Not only that, but urban renewal TARGETED minority and poor areas, as that was the point, and did NOT build adequate housing to hold everyone that had been displaced. I fail to see how we have anything to learn from a practice that is so inherently racist, classist and exploitative.

And the comment that building in New York is hard because it involves communities - in my opinion that's how it should be. The professor that talked about how happy he was to 'live in New York' seems not to realize that what he's advocating is wiping out poor areas to build for the middle class - and if he does, that's just evil. Poor people deserve to live in New York as well. IMO, if we are sliding back into a period where urban renewal is in vogue, we've got issues.

[Linda_D]

IMO, if we are sliding back into a period where urban renewal is in vogue, we've got issues.

I think that you missed the author's point that it's time to stop seeing this issue in black and white.

You seem to ignore the fact that Jacobs' way hasn't resulted in keeping the middle class in central cities or providing affordable housing for the poor any better than urban renewal has. Individual projects may be hailed as "successes" when they are just completed, but long term, what following Jacobs' tenets has resulted in is mostly the gentrification of neighborhoods and the replacement of substandard housing affordable to the mass of poor people with token "affordable" housing units that maybe the lower middle class people can afford.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

You seem to ignore the fact that Jacobs' way hasn't resulted in keeping the middle class in central cities or providing affordable housing for the poor any better than urban renewal has. Individual projects may be hailed as "successes" when they are just completed, but long term, what following Jacobs' tenets has resulted in is mostly the gentrification of neighborhoods and the replacement of substandard housing affordable to the mass of poor people with token "affordable" housing units that maybe the lower middle class people can afford.

The gentrification phenomenon is directly-attributable to the fact that so few urban residences exist compared with the demand that you've argued in other discussions doesn't exist.

Before cars and freeways created sprawl, every city throughout history contained a mix of incomes. And, if trains and trams once again regain their dominance, we'll see a return to the truly mixed-income city, especially if more such places in this country compete to offer that lifestyle.

[RPfresh]

It's easy to gloss over 60 years of urban issues for a feel-good seminar, saying that the issue is black and white. But it's not, and never has been. These projects you speak of sound like small-scale urban renewal, which Jacobs would hate. And speaking of shades of grey, paying lip service to Jane is an entirely different thing than adopting her policies, which I see is never going to happen as an idealist she was not, exactly, realistic. The point of this thread is that largely she called for things that still aren't happening. I don't think we've tried or ever will try what she suggested, and thus it's unfair to say they didn't work.

[Linda_D]

The gentrification phenomenon is directly-attributable to the fact that so few urban residences exist compared with the demand that you've argued in other discussions doesn't exist.

Before cars and freeways created sprawl, every city throughout history contained a mix of incomes. And, if trains and trams once again regain their dominance, we'll see a return to the truly mixed-income city, especially if more such places in this country compete to offer that lifestyle.

Demand for urban residences exist in large cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco etc. There is nowhere near the demand for apartments/condos in mixed use buildings that many urbanists claim there to be in the smaller/medium sized cities, primarily because many of these metros don't attract a lot of people looking for the "urban experience" as envisioned by Jacobs. Sorry, but there's a limited number of people interested in living above storefronts on busy streets, and paying big $$$ to do so, when they can rent/buy detached or semi-detached homes on residential streets or condos/apartments in all residential buildings for the same or less money.

That doesn't mean that there isn't anybody, just a lot less than you think.

It's very easy to blame cities' problems on the automobile, but the fact is that sprawl has been going on for the entire history of this country. The only real difference is that most of the "sprawl" prior to WW II occurred within city limits (or what became the city limits if the city annexed areas).

The biggest factor in whether small/medium cities experience middle class flight is the perceived quality of their public schools. Cities that don't have good school systems lose large percentages of their young middle class households when those start having children. The wealthy and upper middle class will stay because they prefer private schools anyways. The lower class and poor can't afford to move away.

It's easy to gloss over 60 years of urban issues for a feel-good seminar, saying that the issue is black and white. But it's not, and never has been. These projects you speak of sound like small-scale urban renewal, which Jacobs would hate. And speaking of shades of grey, paying lip service to Jane is an entirely different thing than adopting her policies, which I see is never going to happen as an idealist she was not, exactly, realistic. The point of this thread is that largely she called for things that still aren't happening. I don't think we've tried or ever will try what she suggested, and thus it's unfair to say they didn't work.

I'm thinking of developers rehabbing/restoring individual buildings or perhaps buying up a block of houses and rehabbing them. That's been going on in Buffalo, NY, for a while now, especially in and around the downtown area.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

Demand for urban residences exist in large cities like New York, Chicago, San Francisco etc. There is nowhere near the demand for apartments/condos in mixed use buildings that many urbanists claim there to be in the smaller/medium sized cities, primarily because many of these metros don't attract a lot of people looking for the "urban experience" as envisioned by Jacobs. Sorry, but there's a limited number of people interested in living above storefronts on busy streets, and paying big $$$ to do so, when they can rent/buy detached or semi-detached homes on residential streets or condos/apartments in all residential buildings for the same or less money.

That doesn't mean that there isn't anybody, just a lot less than you think.

You're talking in circles. Urban residences, which, despite your generalizations and preconceptions, are not all "apartments/condos. in mixed-use buildings," create big cities. Smaller/medium-sized cities are smaller because they have no urban residences.

You also have this strange conception that people "paying big $$$" is completely divorced from supply and demand. Provide more New Yorks, Chicagos, and San Franciscos, and you'll see the demand absorbed and the prices come down.

Look at southern California. The highest rents are charged by those buildings in walkable places connected to transit. And, not all of them are located in downtown L.A. Many are scattered in Pasadena, Long Beach, Belmont Shore, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, etc.