![]() Dispersed growth is perhaps more easily accomplished through a comprehensive planning process to secure public buy-in, with upgraded transit and attention to the quality of other neighborhood infrastructure and amenities. Some strategies to disperse growth include Seattle’s “urban villages,” still leading to concentrated growth but affecting more parts of the city Boston’s construction of new housing affordable to middle-income households, without subsidies, near dispersed transit stations and Minneapolis’s designation of commercial corridors for growth, as well as permitting up to three units on all single-family lots. Such “distributed growth” plans cause changes where sizable populations already live, potentially creating controversy over land-use decisions. Such neighborhoods may adapt poorly to changing populations and lifestyles over time.Īn alternative, more difficult path to growth tries to disperse new housing over a broad area of the city. Furthermore, grand bargains lead to similarity of development, as new housing is built at much the same time, for much the same population, in a few locations. Most other households compete for the inadequate stock of older units, as well as the relatively few subsidized income-restricted new units that the city manages to construct. It fosters dependency on the costliest high-rise housing prototypes, requiring that most new units be targeted to high-income households. While pragmatic, “grand bargain” planning to achieve population growth suffers from several flaws. The areas that can be redeveloped in these neighborhoods may include open parking lots, now-underutilized but once-industrial sites, public property no longer needed for its original purpose, or areas cleared of residents under long-ago urban renewal plans. One is “grand bargain” planning: municipalities faced with the need for more housing but widespread opposition from neighborhood activists direct new housing (and thus population growth) to a small number of neighborhoods, in and near downtown, that do not have sizable preexisting populations that can object. cities have followed two distinct paths to growth. contribution to climate change, and provided Americans with increased choices for how and where to live. Dense cities are important to the nation as focal points of economic and cultural innovation, as well as areas where residents voluntarily adopt housing prototypes and lifestyle patterns that have lower-than-average carbon emissions. ![]() This paper looks at those 12 cities, most of which have had significant population increases in the past two decades. population away from dense, transit-rich urban areas. big-city average in 1950, the last census before suburbanization, urban renewal, and the construction of the interstate highway system permanently redistributed the U.S. cities in 2020 had population densities as high as 7,500 per square mile-the U.S. The latest decennial census revealed that most big cities become populous by spreading over a large land area. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |