TREES are a big one. Older neighborhoods almost always have nice big mature trees. So we could start by not clear cutting the existing land before building something new. Working around the existing environment is a feature of thoughtful design. It would also help if developers actually put some amount of effort into the architecture of their designs instead of throwing up whatever’s cheapest. Maybe that’s an old fashioned concept to be sacrificed at the shrine of capitalism, though.
Yeah I agree that trees are a big one! These new developments always have like thin, weak looking trees. Probably will look decent in 20 years but I live here now lol
It's easy to say capitalism is causing cheap materials, but at the same time, capitalism could stop it if people valued renting from places with better materials at a price difference higher than the amortized cost difference of those more expensive materials.
Yeah, it’s probably more accurate to say capitalism plus bad public policy is to blame. Excessive complexity of local permitting and poor land use patterns make it impossible to build enough to meet demand, leading to housing shortages, leading to an inefficient market where consumers lack the leverage to demand the quality of housing that they actually want sue to artificially restricted supply.
It takes a while for places to "settle in". In 50 years time it will probably have a bit more character.
Developers don't help things though. Copy-pasting the same apartment block 60 times with the same architecture as every other new build in the world doesn't exactly foster a vibrant community atmosphere. Places like that are built by corporations with a profit motive, and you can feel that sterile corporate energy permeating everything.
When I hear London and 'bought a flat' I also wonder how many of the surrounding dwellings are actually inhabited and not just bought as investment or holiday home and then left to sit empty. This absolutely kills any neighbourhood.
Have you tried Googling your city's vacancy rate? These things are actually studied. In the US, really expensive cities like NYC and Boston have vacancy rates under five percent and most of that is because of renovations. A vacancy rate of I think between 15 and 20 percent is considered healthy (you need slack for people to actually be able to move and have market power over their landlords).
Ah, so you think that cities were never built by profit-seeking developers copy-pasting cheap apartments? [LMFAO](https://cityobservatory.org/the-immaculate-conception-theory-of-your-neighborhoods-origins/).
I was talking about architecture more than anything. The lack of respect for local tradition and materials.
That was an interesting read though, thanks.
Councils (if they were allowed to and weren’t trying to fuck up on purpose), future residents’ associations (a model that’s worked in germany), or corporations (non-profit or not) with statutory obligations to consider wider interests than just profits.
If you could bring together enough people I suppose you could start a cooperative and build it yourselves. Then you can design for human use rather than profit.
The basics most people would preach might attract diverse groups of people who are proud of the neighborhood. With time, they may give it an identity.
Mixed-income, dense, walkable, as few cars as possible, ideally connected to the surrounding neighborhoods/community, human-sized scale, mixed use, etc.
An often overlooked element is that buildings (not just storefronts) should be max 50 feet/16 meters wide. The streetscape should easily read as multiple buildings with a mix of similarities and differences. Most lovely streetscapes often have similar building widths and heights, and setbacks from the street, but are highly variable in their visual design & decoration. There should also be very wide pavements/sidewalks (enough space for a row of tables and 3-4 people to walk side by side) and (most importantly) places within that streetscape *worth going to*. The most beautiful city will still be dead if it's warehouses or businesses unaffordable/unappealing to locals.
American centric disclaimer right here.
It's the parking deck. These buildings are big to mask the parking deck. Meaning there's A LOT of facade. Breaking up the facade with various massings is almost never executed well, everyone sees through it, and it's expensive. Having the same unbroken facade is simpler but easily becomes boring if you don't invest in your trim work. For an example of where this is done well, see the Mills House in Charleston, imo.
The root problem is the deck the parking structure the building is both trying to hide and have enough units to amortize the immense cost of the structure.
And the root problem to the deck are the policies requiring the deck and the banks that won't finance if you undersupply parking (in their mind).
This is in the UK so don’t think parking is the issue imo. I also don’t think the fact that the buildings are plain are an issue either. I live in east London - an area full of cheap, row housing built in the late 19th century to house factory workers. They’re plain and frankly uglier than my my plain midrise neighbourhood. Yet these neighbourhoods are much more cosy and vibrant than where I am currently.
Yup just added in my American centric note. But you beat me to it. Totally different context.
Only intelligent note i have for you is "something something human scale".
Your last sentence is because of time. Time gives everything an identity. We take time to understand ourselves, understand what we like and dislike and understand what makes us feel good and bad. That all influences how we engage in our environments and same applies for new builds. Something may happen in your neighbourhood or you might experience something there that will make it feel more alive to you. The houses you’re referring to have been there for so long and design has moved on so much that in our minds they are ‘cute’. They’re just old
This is why I adore soviet apartment blocks. Every window is a different age, every balcony a slightly different style. It's like you can see the marks the successive owners have left on each individual flat. They look so 'lived-in', so alive, so human.
I remember seeing an article a few years ago about a study done, comparing the architectural features of locations where women feel safe to loiter. These spaces were surveyed and viewed by the general public as more accessible, welcoming and vibrant. Perhaps if you can find the study it might give you some concrete ideas.
Container gardens, non-traditional lighting fixtures, stucco/tiling/wood accents on things (urban "coldness" or "cleanness" has a lot to do with just not having a variety of textures in buildings,) interactive artwork/muraling, you know, things that are "hip."
I find most places have too many straight lines. They're too square. And there's very little ornamentation. Humans like detail, we like organised chaos. Plazas are also generally too large, when people like having a mix of enclosed areas as well as open space. Planting is the easiest way to rectify this. Window boxes or vertical planting on the walls would be ideal. As someone else said, trees, particularly mature ones, and curved planters that could also be used for benches to break up the space and create smaller zones within a large plaza. You could use these as the base for pergolas for more vertical planting and to break up the eyeline, providing shade, cover from the rain and enclosure. Water as well adds life, a small fountain could work wonders.
I don't think you can manufacture that kind of atmosphere without it feeling fake. Lots of historic neighborhoods have identities based on what that history was and who lived there. Even more recent neighborhoods that have become more vibrant it's because of their identity. You can try all you want to be an artsy neighborhood, but if artists can't afford to live or hang out there it won't be artsy. It kinda has to happen organically
Yes I agree. These new neighbourhoods don’t have the history and people driven approach to have this much character. But I feel like they could be cosier? My neighbourhood just feels so sterile.
Well you live there. And presumably people with some amount of similarity as far as income or life stage also live near you. What do you want in a community? How can you make those things happen? Invite artists to perform? Street art? Restaurants? A board game hall? Start planning events and the buildings will follow if a market is seen
Just moved in! But yes, hoping to make it cosier. Looking for ideas on what to do. My thinking was to start putting planters and just overall push for more greenery since I love gardening. I love your ideas too so will think about it :)
It happens organically even today in some places where the lots are smaller and fill in a neighborhood organically. New neighborhoods in Indian cities still have that vibe of exciting dense neighborhood, even though they were just laid out 10-20 years ago. It's because instead of one developer artificially trying to create a neighborhood you have hundreds of small owners, developers etc each doing what they want with their land. One will build an sfh with a beautiful garden. Another an extended family home. Another flats on top of a retail spot, another building an office, etc etc
Have you read The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn? An awful lot of neighborhood history and identity turns out to have been manufactured by real estate brokers to sell condos.
There's definitely some manufacturing that goes in to it, but who was able to afford the housing/who moved in also definitely has an affect and is probably why places feel sterile initially for a lot of people
I’d check out Andres Duany’s more recent work. He’s argued that you need a mix of different builders and architects to make an urban area feel like a real neighborhood rather than a master planned project. Ideally, you set out the general rules for the development you want to see (scale, walkability, public spaces, street design, etc.) and then you open up the building spaces within that area to a mix of large and small builders. A large project built by one builder is always going to feel monotonous and artificial. Such a neighborhood can also adapt and change more easily over time, acquiring its own character and history.
Quality/natural materials and architectural detail also makes a place feel less artificial.
I believe that a place has to be lived in for a while before it loses that sterility new developments often have, but there are ways to set them up for success or hasten the process.
1) Develop incrementally. This will help give the place a sense of history as new buildings with different features are added over time as conditions permit (although I recognize that in a city with acute housing demand, this might be a luxury).
2) Design for people. When I walk down a vibrant street in my city, one of the main things I notice is that every buildings has a wealth of details -- carvings, engravings, cast iron scrollwork and so on. It rewards walking and lingering and adds depth to the streetscape. Another important design consideration is psychological. Our brains respond positively to architecture that subconsciously reminds us of human faces. A glass wall will make people feel bored.
3) Small is beautiful. One thing a lot of new construction I've seen has in common is that the commercial space is massive, with storefronts of 50 to 100 feet. These spaces take forever to get tenants and are usually rented to some kind of chain restaurant or worse, a bank. Great places often have 20 feet or less of storefront space. I've heard of popular nightlife areas in Tokyo having as little as five feet of storefront for an entire bar.
4) Let things happen. People will sometimes want to use a space in a way you didn't envision. Let them. New York once spent an awful lot of money and time to suppress an informal market that sprung up in Queens among recent immigrants because they didn't have permits, until planners managed to convince them that such a thing was a great sign. They probably couldn't afford to open a store themselves, but a little table on a sidewalk let them earn a bit of extra money and share their handicrafts.
5) Mix things up. For real vibrancy, it's not enough to have apartments or offices above shops near transit. You need a lot of different kinds of people, from families with kids to college students, young professionals, elderly, etc. This is important to make sure people are always coming and going. Also, be sure to mix up uses as well -- a library or church brings different people at different times of the day and on different days, which helps people to come and go.
Check out the work of [Ann Sussman](https://annsussman.com/) on the psychology of architecture and [Create Steets](https://www.createstreets.com/) in general.
Thank you for your great response. Really insightful, especially the small store idea. My development has some retail but it’s spread out and quite big - nothing that makes a cute little street with row of small shops. So I can definitely see that being part of the problem.
Personally I think developments need to be smaller. Historic neighborhoods were created by hundreds if not thousands of small develepers and property owners owning small lots and building whatever they wanted (with some restrictions) on their land, either for their personal interest or for business purposes. This variety creates the character of a lively neighborhood. You'll never get that when one developer buys a large area and tries to artificially create that variety.
This video about the transformation of Le Plessis-Robinson has some good strategies to consider that could be done even with a more modern aesthetic. Edit- if it still utilizes varying textures, scales, masses, and prioritizes natural materials and human centered design.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XfonhlM6I7w
I blame it mostly on developers building as cheaply as possible.
Take any European mixed use mid rise neighborhood. Now in your mind convert it to American style 5-over-1's and you'll notice it just sucks all the life out of it.
American builders use too much grey concrete and plain square surfaces. Makes things look sleek and lifeless.
I live in deptford. There are a lot of historical buildings here but all the gaps are being filled in by new builds. For me it’s a nice mix of a neighbourhood as there are still all the international food shops etc, whereas in a place like Stratford or more specifically the east village etc those things will never exist because of the idea of creating a ‘clean’ environment, restaurants and refill shops get the spaces. Also the retail units are always bigger in the new build spaces. I enjoy both but I like balance. Same as here in deptford I can walk 15 mins and be in Greenwich which is something completely different again
Organize a neighborhood block party/meet and greet. Ask those who show up what they think would help liven up the community and make it less sterile, then organize with neighbors to get even one of those ideas implemented in the neighborhood, like a community garden for example, and if it is successful organize more and ongoing block parties to get more ideas up and rolling. Bringing people together with music and food (pot latch?) almost always helps create feelings of community. Your neighbors might be looking for things to make the space more cozy right now and you won't know unless you find a way to meet them. Neighbors knowing neighbors always gives anywhere a better connection/since of space in my opinion.
Let me be real for a sec.
As someone who spends a lot of time near these developments, it's essentially the way they are set up. They are not run by the council, which means it's a capitalist venture (Google 'Privately Owned Public Spaces').
The homes are similar to the HOAs you see in the US - whatever the landlords have not agreed to is banned - it's designed with conformity in mind.
Think about how that plaza is used - who gets to decide it's use? Who had access to getting a space in the retail units?
Are there schools? Local cafés? Children's parks? Community centres? Essentially things that are not solely commercial in nature.
It's exactly because it's marketed as 'Hip' that it's not.
I wonder who owns your development.
TREES are a big one. Older neighborhoods almost always have nice big mature trees. So we could start by not clear cutting the existing land before building something new. Working around the existing environment is a feature of thoughtful design. It would also help if developers actually put some amount of effort into the architecture of their designs instead of throwing up whatever’s cheapest. Maybe that’s an old fashioned concept to be sacrificed at the shrine of capitalism, though.
Yeah I agree that trees are a big one! These new developments always have like thin, weak looking trees. Probably will look decent in 20 years but I live here now lol
It's easy to say capitalism is causing cheap materials, but at the same time, capitalism could stop it if people valued renting from places with better materials at a price difference higher than the amortized cost difference of those more expensive materials.
Yeah, it’s probably more accurate to say capitalism plus bad public policy is to blame. Excessive complexity of local permitting and poor land use patterns make it impossible to build enough to meet demand, leading to housing shortages, leading to an inefficient market where consumers lack the leverage to demand the quality of housing that they actually want sue to artificially restricted supply.
It takes a while for places to "settle in". In 50 years time it will probably have a bit more character. Developers don't help things though. Copy-pasting the same apartment block 60 times with the same architecture as every other new build in the world doesn't exactly foster a vibrant community atmosphere. Places like that are built by corporations with a profit motive, and you can feel that sterile corporate energy permeating everything.
When I hear London and 'bought a flat' I also wonder how many of the surrounding dwellings are actually inhabited and not just bought as investment or holiday home and then left to sit empty. This absolutely kills any neighbourhood.
Have you tried Googling your city's vacancy rate? These things are actually studied. In the US, really expensive cities like NYC and Boston have vacancy rates under five percent and most of that is because of renovations. A vacancy rate of I think between 15 and 20 percent is considered healthy (you need slack for people to actually be able to move and have market power over their landlords).
Ah, so you think that cities were never built by profit-seeking developers copy-pasting cheap apartments? [LMFAO](https://cityobservatory.org/the-immaculate-conception-theory-of-your-neighborhoods-origins/).
I was talking about architecture more than anything. The lack of respect for local tradition and materials. That was an interesting read though, thanks.
[удалено]
Councils (if they were allowed to and weren’t trying to fuck up on purpose), future residents’ associations (a model that’s worked in germany), or corporations (non-profit or not) with statutory obligations to consider wider interests than just profits.
If you could bring together enough people I suppose you could start a cooperative and build it yourselves. Then you can design for human use rather than profit.
The basics most people would preach might attract diverse groups of people who are proud of the neighborhood. With time, they may give it an identity. Mixed-income, dense, walkable, as few cars as possible, ideally connected to the surrounding neighborhoods/community, human-sized scale, mixed use, etc.
An often overlooked element is that buildings (not just storefronts) should be max 50 feet/16 meters wide. The streetscape should easily read as multiple buildings with a mix of similarities and differences. Most lovely streetscapes often have similar building widths and heights, and setbacks from the street, but are highly variable in their visual design & decoration. There should also be very wide pavements/sidewalks (enough space for a row of tables and 3-4 people to walk side by side) and (most importantly) places within that streetscape *worth going to*. The most beautiful city will still be dead if it's warehouses or businesses unaffordable/unappealing to locals.
I’m curious, what’s the reason that it should be no more than 16m wide? To avoid too much uniformity perhaps?
It's to do with how far into a building natural light and ventilation can penetrate. Beyond this you get stuffy dark rooms. Narrower is better.
American centric disclaimer right here. It's the parking deck. These buildings are big to mask the parking deck. Meaning there's A LOT of facade. Breaking up the facade with various massings is almost never executed well, everyone sees through it, and it's expensive. Having the same unbroken facade is simpler but easily becomes boring if you don't invest in your trim work. For an example of where this is done well, see the Mills House in Charleston, imo. The root problem is the deck the parking structure the building is both trying to hide and have enough units to amortize the immense cost of the structure. And the root problem to the deck are the policies requiring the deck and the banks that won't finance if you undersupply parking (in their mind).
This is in the UK so don’t think parking is the issue imo. I also don’t think the fact that the buildings are plain are an issue either. I live in east London - an area full of cheap, row housing built in the late 19th century to house factory workers. They’re plain and frankly uglier than my my plain midrise neighbourhood. Yet these neighbourhoods are much more cosy and vibrant than where I am currently.
Yup just added in my American centric note. But you beat me to it. Totally different context. Only intelligent note i have for you is "something something human scale".
Your last sentence is because of time. Time gives everything an identity. We take time to understand ourselves, understand what we like and dislike and understand what makes us feel good and bad. That all influences how we engage in our environments and same applies for new builds. Something may happen in your neighbourhood or you might experience something there that will make it feel more alive to you. The houses you’re referring to have been there for so long and design has moved on so much that in our minds they are ‘cute’. They’re just old
This is why I adore soviet apartment blocks. Every window is a different age, every balcony a slightly different style. It's like you can see the marks the successive owners have left on each individual flat. They look so 'lived-in', so alive, so human.
I remember seeing an article a few years ago about a study done, comparing the architectural features of locations where women feel safe to loiter. These spaces were surveyed and viewed by the general public as more accessible, welcoming and vibrant. Perhaps if you can find the study it might give you some concrete ideas.
Thank you! I’ll have a look. Was it centered around India the study? Found a few regarding that
Container gardens, non-traditional lighting fixtures, stucco/tiling/wood accents on things (urban "coldness" or "cleanness" has a lot to do with just not having a variety of textures in buildings,) interactive artwork/muraling, you know, things that are "hip."
I find most places have too many straight lines. They're too square. And there's very little ornamentation. Humans like detail, we like organised chaos. Plazas are also generally too large, when people like having a mix of enclosed areas as well as open space. Planting is the easiest way to rectify this. Window boxes or vertical planting on the walls would be ideal. As someone else said, trees, particularly mature ones, and curved planters that could also be used for benches to break up the space and create smaller zones within a large plaza. You could use these as the base for pergolas for more vertical planting and to break up the eyeline, providing shade, cover from the rain and enclosure. Water as well adds life, a small fountain could work wonders.
I don't think you can manufacture that kind of atmosphere without it feeling fake. Lots of historic neighborhoods have identities based on what that history was and who lived there. Even more recent neighborhoods that have become more vibrant it's because of their identity. You can try all you want to be an artsy neighborhood, but if artists can't afford to live or hang out there it won't be artsy. It kinda has to happen organically
Yes I agree. These new neighbourhoods don’t have the history and people driven approach to have this much character. But I feel like they could be cosier? My neighbourhood just feels so sterile.
Well you live there. And presumably people with some amount of similarity as far as income or life stage also live near you. What do you want in a community? How can you make those things happen? Invite artists to perform? Street art? Restaurants? A board game hall? Start planning events and the buildings will follow if a market is seen
Just moved in! But yes, hoping to make it cosier. Looking for ideas on what to do. My thinking was to start putting planters and just overall push for more greenery since I love gardening. I love your ideas too so will think about it :)
It happens organically even today in some places where the lots are smaller and fill in a neighborhood organically. New neighborhoods in Indian cities still have that vibe of exciting dense neighborhood, even though they were just laid out 10-20 years ago. It's because instead of one developer artificially trying to create a neighborhood you have hundreds of small owners, developers etc each doing what they want with their land. One will build an sfh with a beautiful garden. Another an extended family home. Another flats on top of a retail spot, another building an office, etc etc
check this out. This street in Amsterdam is similar to what you describe https://youtu.be/wD6NlS348CQ
Have you read The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn? An awful lot of neighborhood history and identity turns out to have been manufactured by real estate brokers to sell condos.
There's definitely some manufacturing that goes in to it, but who was able to afford the housing/who moved in also definitely has an affect and is probably why places feel sterile initially for a lot of people
I’d check out Andres Duany’s more recent work. He’s argued that you need a mix of different builders and architects to make an urban area feel like a real neighborhood rather than a master planned project. Ideally, you set out the general rules for the development you want to see (scale, walkability, public spaces, street design, etc.) and then you open up the building spaces within that area to a mix of large and small builders. A large project built by one builder is always going to feel monotonous and artificial. Such a neighborhood can also adapt and change more easily over time, acquiring its own character and history. Quality/natural materials and architectural detail also makes a place feel less artificial.
I believe that a place has to be lived in for a while before it loses that sterility new developments often have, but there are ways to set them up for success or hasten the process. 1) Develop incrementally. This will help give the place a sense of history as new buildings with different features are added over time as conditions permit (although I recognize that in a city with acute housing demand, this might be a luxury). 2) Design for people. When I walk down a vibrant street in my city, one of the main things I notice is that every buildings has a wealth of details -- carvings, engravings, cast iron scrollwork and so on. It rewards walking and lingering and adds depth to the streetscape. Another important design consideration is psychological. Our brains respond positively to architecture that subconsciously reminds us of human faces. A glass wall will make people feel bored. 3) Small is beautiful. One thing a lot of new construction I've seen has in common is that the commercial space is massive, with storefronts of 50 to 100 feet. These spaces take forever to get tenants and are usually rented to some kind of chain restaurant or worse, a bank. Great places often have 20 feet or less of storefront space. I've heard of popular nightlife areas in Tokyo having as little as five feet of storefront for an entire bar. 4) Let things happen. People will sometimes want to use a space in a way you didn't envision. Let them. New York once spent an awful lot of money and time to suppress an informal market that sprung up in Queens among recent immigrants because they didn't have permits, until planners managed to convince them that such a thing was a great sign. They probably couldn't afford to open a store themselves, but a little table on a sidewalk let them earn a bit of extra money and share their handicrafts. 5) Mix things up. For real vibrancy, it's not enough to have apartments or offices above shops near transit. You need a lot of different kinds of people, from families with kids to college students, young professionals, elderly, etc. This is important to make sure people are always coming and going. Also, be sure to mix up uses as well -- a library or church brings different people at different times of the day and on different days, which helps people to come and go. Check out the work of [Ann Sussman](https://annsussman.com/) on the psychology of architecture and [Create Steets](https://www.createstreets.com/) in general.
Thank you for your great response. Really insightful, especially the small store idea. My development has some retail but it’s spread out and quite big - nothing that makes a cute little street with row of small shops. So I can definitely see that being part of the problem.
Personally I think developments need to be smaller. Historic neighborhoods were created by hundreds if not thousands of small develepers and property owners owning small lots and building whatever they wanted (with some restrictions) on their land, either for their personal interest or for business purposes. This variety creates the character of a lively neighborhood. You'll never get that when one developer buys a large area and tries to artificially create that variety.
This video about the transformation of Le Plessis-Robinson has some good strategies to consider that could be done even with a more modern aesthetic. Edit- if it still utilizes varying textures, scales, masses, and prioritizes natural materials and human centered design. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XfonhlM6I7w
I blame it mostly on developers building as cheaply as possible. Take any European mixed use mid rise neighborhood. Now in your mind convert it to American style 5-over-1's and you'll notice it just sucks all the life out of it. American builders use too much grey concrete and plain square surfaces. Makes things look sleek and lifeless.
This isn’t in America
I look to the work of Jeff Speck on walkable cities. Check him out on YouTube. It's geared toward the US though.
Stratford?
Very close to it! But Stratford suffers from that same problem but with taller buildings lol
I live in deptford. There are a lot of historical buildings here but all the gaps are being filled in by new builds. For me it’s a nice mix of a neighbourhood as there are still all the international food shops etc, whereas in a place like Stratford or more specifically the east village etc those things will never exist because of the idea of creating a ‘clean’ environment, restaurants and refill shops get the spaces. Also the retail units are always bigger in the new build spaces. I enjoy both but I like balance. Same as here in deptford I can walk 15 mins and be in Greenwich which is something completely different again
In the US, need Single Stair reform and decouple parking from building design.
Organize a neighborhood block party/meet and greet. Ask those who show up what they think would help liven up the community and make it less sterile, then organize with neighbors to get even one of those ideas implemented in the neighborhood, like a community garden for example, and if it is successful organize more and ongoing block parties to get more ideas up and rolling. Bringing people together with music and food (pot latch?) almost always helps create feelings of community. Your neighbors might be looking for things to make the space more cozy right now and you won't know unless you find a way to meet them. Neighbors knowing neighbors always gives anywhere a better connection/since of space in my opinion.
Let me be real for a sec. As someone who spends a lot of time near these developments, it's essentially the way they are set up. They are not run by the council, which means it's a capitalist venture (Google 'Privately Owned Public Spaces'). The homes are similar to the HOAs you see in the US - whatever the landlords have not agreed to is banned - it's designed with conformity in mind. Think about how that plaza is used - who gets to decide it's use? Who had access to getting a space in the retail units? Are there schools? Local cafés? Children's parks? Community centres? Essentially things that are not solely commercial in nature. It's exactly because it's marketed as 'Hip' that it's not. I wonder who owns your development.