From my experience, the neighborhood of Riverside is a great example of urban development in one of the nation's most sprawling cities, Jacksonville, FL. It's got a nice mix of housing types leading to good density, light commercial usage in the form of restaurants, shops, and bars well within walking or cycling distance, and a lively community with events such as the Riverside Arts Market. Having lived in one of the city's newer car-dependent developments near St Johns County, moving to Riverside felt like a breath of fresh air, and I hope more of the city emulates its success. You can read more about the neighborhood and how the streetcar shaped its development here:
https://www.moderncities.com/article/2016-oct-the-lost-impact-of-streetcar-lines-on-riverside
So what do y'all think are some great neighborhoods in underrated or otherwise sprawling cities?
Same goes for the elevated railways. Did the Ford and GM corporations really lobby cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Washington DC to tear up streetcars and elevated railways to free up roads for cars and buses?
People want single-family houses yet walkable neighborhoods. They want their own cars but the availability of shops and restaurants.
This type of development was prevalent in the 1910s through 1930s amd often called a streetcar suburb. There were parks, schools, corner stores, etc. all while allowing people to have their own house.
This isn't a question of why don't we build them due to regulations like zoning, setbacks, etc, but rather why don't any cities use streetcar suburbs design to make their codes? This is also not about streetcars but rather the land use patterns in those neighborhoods.
Here are a few reasons why I think they should allow that way and would like reasons why I may be off-base here.
Real estate in cities continues to get more expensive. This is partially due to the limited supply of urban, walkable cities. Auto-centeic suburbs are everywhere and people will pay more for a neighborhood. Cities could maximize tax revenue by building this way.
People complain that suburbs have only generic stores and restaurants. Allowing smaller lots in these cities would make development/redevelopment less expensive and allow for more independent shopes.
People want single family houses. Streetcar suburbs have these.
People want choices and use that argument to actively prohibit choices. Right now in suburbs it's a single family house or a large apartment building only.
Thoughts?
It is pretty clear that the most desired neighborhoods are mostly walkable or historic neighborhoods. I define "desired" by ones whose prices remain steady over decades, are being "gentrified", etc. Their high value is because there is such a low supply of them across the country.
Knowing this, why don't more city councils advocate for that type of development pattern knowing it may result in higher real estate values and this more taxable value? Why do they insist upon a model that is very difficult to redevelop instead of a model that allows for easy redevelopment?
I may be crazy, but a while ago I thought I saw an intersection that someone made that was really a modular layout for a neighborhood. Had a streetcar down the center and then living space on either side - am I crazy or does someone know what I'm talking about?
