# To segregate or to mix?



## annie_himself (Oct 18, 2010)

Old a new should mix but to a certain extent, historic neighborhoods are important and they shouldn't be fooled with for some new crap but integration to a certain extent is good.


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> More important, however, is to segregate individual function of buildings. On a residential building there shall be no commercial/office activity and vice-versa. Nowadays the idea of putting a steel mill in the middle of downtown sounds quite strange and unacceptable, some decades in the future the idea of living in front of your office place will be deemed abhorrent.


I think we tried that already. It didn't turn out so good.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

hammersklavier said:


> I think we tried that already. It didn't turn out so good.


Do you honestly think industrial plants should restart being placed within residential areas? Like industrial waste trucks passing by your house 2am, or your balcony having as the mains sight.... a furnace?

Industry plants do not belong to built-up environment, they ought to be located far from inhabited areas.


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Then, one thing must lead to another: build one-function only skyscrapers in the outskirts, near the next highway exit/train station.


No, skyscrapers could be build at local S-Bahn hubs, like we have it in Zürich-West (stations Hardbrücke and Altstetten) or Zürich-Nord with the Oerlikon Station.
These are not the outskirts, and they are mixed, business and residential.



> Do you honestly think industrial plants should restart being placed within residential areas? Like industrial waste trucks passing by your house 2am, or your balcony having as the mains sight.... a furnace?


How big is the heavy-industrial sector in western countries? Very small.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> Do you honestly think industrial plants should restart being placed within residential areas? Like industrial waste trucks passing by your house 2am, or your balcony having as the mains sight.... a furnace?


People don't want to live next to heavy industry because of the noise, the potential heath issues, and the overpowering ugliness of it.

The same does not apply to offices, or even light industry.


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> Do you honestly think industrial plants should restart being placed within residential areas? Like industrial waste trucks passing by your house 2am, or your balcony having as the mains sight.... a furnace?
> 
> Industry plants do not belong to built-up environment, they ought to be located far from inhabited areas.


This, gentlemen, is called a *fallacy*. It is, in fact, three fallacies rolled into one: *slippery slope*, *false cause*, and *begging the question*. Why?

1. It's a slippery slope because it assumes that if mixing is enforced, we would mix residential with retail (we do), with office (we do), with light industry (we do) and with heavy industry (which is called a "nuisance use" and we _don't_). It ignores psychology in its claim.
2. It's a false cause fallacy because it suggests that mixing would be the cause behind residential use being put next to stinky factory uses. In fact, a dumb enough planner can pull that off with *total zonal segregation* in the systems we have in place today.
3. It begs the question _Who would be dumb enough to move next to a stinky nasty factory?_ This isn't the 1800s, we have wonders like bikes, autos, and public transportation which 99.9% of the population can afford.

Needless to say, fallacies are *bad*. They are the sign of an irrational mind. It's best to avoid fallacies whenever you make an argument. Otherwise it can easily be torn to smithereens.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

^^
Diógyőr Steel Mill, right in the middle of a 180000 city:

http://maps.google.hu/?ie=UTF8&ll=48.09591,20.738926&spn=0.028376,0.055189&t=h&z=14

No-one seems to mind it from the locals.


Dunaferr Steel Mill, right next to Dunaújváros

http://maps.google.hu/maps?f=q&sour...9676,18.938112&spn=0.029003,0.055189&t=h&z=14

Locals dont really mind it...


Borsodchem Chemical Industries right next to Kazincbarcika

http://maps.google.hu/maps?f=q&sour...8397,20.645971&spn=0.028292,0.055189&t=h&z=14

Locals dont mind it...

These are just the old industries.

A new one:

Audi night next to Győr, a 150000 city

http://maps.google.hu/maps?f=q&sour...2317,17.676487&spn=0.028598,0.055189&t=h&z=14

The locals love it.


So I guess those are dumb enought lo live next to it who actually work there, maybe to cut down on travel time, and money spent on getting to work.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

hammersklavier said:


> 1. It's a slippery slope because it assumes that if mixing is enforced, we would mix residential with retail (we do), with office (we do), with light industry (we do) and with heavy industry (which is called a "nuisance use" and we _don't_).


 Office and light industry produce their share of nuisance too, including a lot of strangers passing in front of your house. Delivery trucks also frequent retail areas and light industry areas with greater intensity in relation to a strictly residential area. Therefore, new office buildings should be clustered with other office buildings, near a transportation nod (road or road/railway) but not connected to existing residential areas. Historical buildings should then be turned mostly into touristic-catered enterprises like souvenir shops, hotels, museums...



> 2. It's a false cause fallacy because it suggests that mixing would be the cause behind residential use being put next to stinky factory uses. In fact, a dumb enough planner can pull that off with *total zonal segregation* in the systems we have in place today.


Then, it's simple: just keep light industry and retail far from residential areas as we keep heavy industry! Don't contaminate residential life with non-residential activities in the same street or, worse, in the same building!



> 3. It begs the question _Who would be dumb enough to move next to a stinky nasty factory?_ This isn't the 1800s, we have wonders like bikes, autos, and public transportation which 99.9% of the population can afford.


 As they have means of transportation, you can segregate functions in a city and have people moving around after them. 



RawLee said:


> ^^
> Diógyőr Steel Mill, right in the middle of a 180000 city:
> 
> 
> ...


With all due respect and without any intention of offending anyone's country, Hungary is an ex-communist country and, as so, were likely plagued by ultra-technocratic top-down decisions based, for instance, in ubiquitous culture (from Russia to Yugoslavia) that laborers should live near the factories they worked in to reinforce their sense of ownership of the means of production.

Yet, I'm not so sure about whether a completely new factory would be allowed amidst a residential area today, as of 2010.

I think spatial segregation of industry new buildings is good, as it promotes a detachment from workers in regard of their workplace and the much scattered houses where they live, thus avoiding the formation of socially undesirable knit-tight communities of people whose friends, dates and even cultural life is associated with a major employer in the neighborhood. 

So new industrial buildings should not be built near residential centers.


----------



## ThatDarnSacramentan (Oct 26, 2008)

Suburbanist, you never answered my question. I feel my city is an example example of your world view, and yet you've failed to tell me why my city is a failure because it did, in fact, segregate commerce and retail from residential, which pretty much killed the urban area. I understand if you don't answer my question on the previous page simply because you don't want to face the inconvenient truth.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> With all due respect and without any intention of offending anyone's country, Hungary is an ex-communist country and, as so, were likely plagued by ultra-technocratic top-down decisions based, for instance, in ubiquitous culture (from Russia to Yugoslavia) that laborers should live near the factories they worked in to reinforce their sense of ownership of the means of production.
> 
> Yet, I'm not so sure about whether a completely new factory would be allowed amidst a residential area today, as of 2010.
> 
> ...


Well, thats where you are wrong. Those factories are probably older than the US. The cities grew around them, they werent built into them. People willingly moved next to them.

All industries are built right next to residential areas, into zones called "industrial park", to allow easy access to them. 

Szekszárd
http://maps.google.hu/maps?f=q&sour...1875,18.717484&spn=0.014663,0.027595&t=h&z=15

Pécs
http://maps.google.hu/maps?f=q&sour...7276,18.236232&spn=0.007369,0.013797&t=h&z=16

Budapest (one of many examples)
http://maps.google.hu/maps?f=q&sour...9398,19.109173&spn=0.014326,0.027595&t=h&z=15


But to reinforce that it isnt an "ex-communist" habbit:

Vienna:
http://maps.google.hu/maps?f=q&sour...8794,16.362591&spn=0.028347,0.055189&t=h&z=14

Milan
http://maps.google.hu/maps?f=q&sour...27757,9.132771&spn=0.014882,0.027595&t=h&z=15

New York
http://maps.google.hu/maps?f=q&sour...353,-74.239694&spn=0.004026,0.006899&t=h&z=17


----------



## Maghil (Dec 5, 2010)

I've modded/flagged Anderson Geimz's (aka SHiRO's) piece-of-shit message. :lol:

Oh, and integrated architecture, for sure...


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

ThatDarnSacramentan said:


> Suburbanist, you never answered my question. I feel my city is an example example of your world view, and yet you've failed to tell me why my city is a failure because it did, in fact, segregate commerce and retail from residential, which pretty much killed the urban area. I understand if you don't answer my question on the previous page simply because you don't want to face the inconvenient truth.


Why would Sacramento be considered a failure? First of all, I don't agree with the concept that each city needs to have a well-defined "center" and I think this fuss about "street life" is overrated. In a 50mi-radius from Sacramento you find some of the most expensive pieces of real state and high-tech industry in US! And very expensive shopping malls and upscale retailing districts. Just because commerce left the "nucleus" of an urban area (that, in case of any Californian city, is not even close to be 2 centuries old...) it doesn't mean that the city is "killed", it just mean that life changed everywhere.

I think of it like fashion: in the 80's, it was the heyday of mega-hair and shiny clothes. The 2000's were pretty much the opposite, few girls would not straighten their hair if they wanted to look pretty (unless, usually, they wanted to look alternative or so). City areas should be let to die and reinvent themselves in something completely different, there is no point in promoting mixed used function zoning just because it worked... in 1904.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

A city without vibrant urban districts is a place many people and companies won't consider locating in, particularly young adults and the companies that rely on them, as well as empty-nesters. Every city's economic development people know this, which is one of the main reasons they're all boosting their downtowns and urban districts. 

Sorry if reality gets in the way of your preconceptions.


----------



## ThatDarnSacramentan (Oct 26, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> Why would Sacramento be considered a failure? First of all, I don't agree with the concept that each city needs to have a well-defined "center" and I think this fuss about "street life" is overrated. In a 50mi-radius from Sacramento you find some of the most expensive pieces of real state and high-tech industry in US! And very expensive shopping malls and upscale retailing districts. Just because commerce left the "nucleus" of an urban area (that, in case of any Californian city, is not even close to be 2 centuries old...) it doesn't mean that the city is "killed", it just mean that life changed everywhere.
> 
> I think of it like fashion: in the 80's, it was the heyday of mega-hair and shiny clothes. The 2000's were pretty much the opposite, few girls would not straighten their hair if they wanted to look pretty (unless, usually, they wanted to look alternative or so). City areas should be let to die and reinvent themselves in something completely different, there is no point in promoting mixed used function zoning just because it worked... in 1904.


The city is failing because every night at 5 PM, there's a mass exodus from the city center. There are now more jobs in the suburbs than the actual city itself! I've seen the traffic with my own eyes: there's more traffic leaving the city in the morning and returning in the evening than vice versa. The reason Downtown is a failure is just that: it lacks vibrancy. It lacks life. I've walked those streets (remember walking? It's that thing you do with your feet other than hit the gas pedal in a car) at night myself, and the only people left are poor degenerates who have nothing else to do but sleep on a bench or under an awning. Midtown, on the other hand, is very vibrant and alive BECAUSE it is completely mixed. How anyone can find street life overrated is just preposterous. The suburbs are waves upon waves of boring tiled roofs of homes that all look the same, and to think of the native vegetation torn down so that five McMansions could have a view of, yes, you guessed it, A FAKE POND! Your world version, quite frankly, scares the shit out of me.


----------



## kevi (Dec 7, 2010)

ThatDarnSacramentan said:


> The city is failing because every night at 5 PM, there's a mass exodus from the city center. There are now more jobs in the suburbs than the actual city itself! I've seen the traffic with my own eyes: there's more traffic leaving the city in the morning and returning in the evening than vice versa. The reason Downtown is a failure is just that: it lacks vibrancy. It lacks life. I've walked those streets (remember walking? It's that thing you do with your feet other than hit the gas pedal in a car) at night myself, and the only people left are poor degenerates who have nothing else to do but sleep on a bench or under an awning. Midtown, on the other hand, is very vibrant and alive BECAUSE it is completely mixed. How anyone can find street life overrated is just preposterous. The suburbs are waves upon waves of boring tiled roofs of homes that all look the same, and to think of the native vegetation torn down so that five McMansions could have a view of, yes, you guessed it, A FAKE POND! Your world version, quite frankly, scares the shit out of me.


There is a mass exodus from the city center at 5 PM. Oh wait, there's more traffic returning to the city in the evening than vice versa. Very confusing. hno:


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ You can have all urban amenities, without them being accessible by walking. What's big deal to drive to a state-of-the-art opera house near an Interstate exit or going to a rewarded intl. food restaurant that is totally cool inside and located near a highway?


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

^^ Many people simply prefer the atmosphere of a vibrant city centre over a retail park near a freeway intersection. I know I do.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ That is fine. People are different. The problem arises when those who prefer overcrowded downtown streets feel entitled to demand that no detached office parks or retail clusters be built because they would "divert critical pedestrian traffic from downtown, killing it" - a narrative that is all but ubiquitous in those circles.


----------



## Piltup Man (May 21, 2010)

> going to a rewarded intl. food restaurant that is totally cool inside and located near a highway?


Anti drink-driving laws, for a start.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Piltup Man said:


> Anti drink-driving laws, for a start.


Have someone in the groups who's not going to drink. Take a cab if you are going only with your spouse/girlfriend and want to drink. This has the positive side effect of keeping teenagers and others (mostly) out of the nightlife as they can't reach (easily) places where alcohol is available.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

^^Only in the US. Here, everyone, from like age 12, drink at home, stuff you would use as fuel (50-90% alcohol content). No need to keep children away from alcohol, when their primary source is their home.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Segregate 80%. Allow a little bit of mixing.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Suburbanist's ideas wouldn't be as bad if they weren't also environmentally and economically destructive, and if he allowed freedom of choice. 

While I don't like suburbia, it's clear that a US city that wants to be successful (short of creating its own new paradigm) needs to have a mix of types that appeal to a variety of people and organizations. But we don't need to encourage sprawl or zone to make it easy. Let regulation, geography, and market forces combine to keep land expensive, and zone appropriately, with plenty of room to mix uses and develop in denser patterns where appropriate, and the result will be a mix of types, but a denser one.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> Have someone in the groups who's not going to drink. Take a cab if you are going only with your spouse/girlfriend and want to drink. This has the positive side effect of keeping teenagers and others (mostly) out of the nightlife as they can't reach (easily) places where alcohol is available.


Wow reality has totally escaped you now didn't it?


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

No drinking unless there are three people minimum! In suburbanist's world.


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

RawLee said:


> ^^
> Diógyőr Steel Mill, right in the middle of a 180000 city:
> 
> http://maps.google.hu/?ie=UTF8&ll=48.09591,20.738926&spn=0.028376,0.055189&t=h&z=14
> ...


True...I wasn't thinking of Central Europe, though--a lot of what's been built there (panelaks etc.) was the result of Communist planning, and suburban buildout of those places is only beginning.

BTW I'm like 1/8 Hungarian so I can insult my own people.

All the same, thanks for providing that last little bit that takes an argument from being utterly defeated to ground into teeny-tiny little dust paticles. Sinking NIMBYism is _fun_. 


mhays said:


> Suburbanist's ideas wouldn't be as bad if they weren't also environmentally and economically destructive, and *if he allowed freedom of choice. *
> 
> While I don't like suburbia, it's clear that a US city that wants to be successful (short of creating its own new paradigm) needs to have a mix of types that appeal to a variety of people and organizations. But we don't need to encourage sprawl or zone to make it easy. Let regulation, geography, and market forces combine to keep land expensive, and zone appropriately, with plenty of room to mix uses and develop in denser patterns where appropriate, and the result will be a mix of types, but a denser one.


This is to me the most grating part of Suburbanist's position. If we lived in a truly libertarian society the world wouldn't conform to Suburbanist's mores--modern suburbia is essentially the cumulative result of many, many tiltings of the playing field, inclusive of (1) unequal rail-road payment distribution, (2) FHA "guidelines" (really rules, if you wanted to get a mortgage), (3) masking of the true costs of usage of one mode thereby ensuring its preferential usage (this is done through public subsidy of the Interstate system, mandating of overlarge amounts of "free" parking, and an artificially low gas rate vis-à-vis Europe), and (4) redlining and its successor, mortgage steering, which has caused (5) unwillingness of private capital to re-invest disinvested areas. The final part of this set of biases is beginning to turn, due to "gentrification", which has its own issues associated with it.

A truly libertarian society would distribute capital about the same as residents' preferences. To give an example, Plan Philly (dot com), in their ongoing study of the unslumming "Eastern North Philadelphia" neighborhood, noted that the CDC--Asociación de Puertoriqueños en Marcha (APM)--has discovered that half their neighborhood wanted to live in suburbanesque construction and the other half in more urban environments, and are consequently developing their properties to suit.


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

hammersklavier said:


> True...I wasn't thinking of Central Europe, though--a lot of what's been built there (panelaks etc.) was the result of Communist planning, and suburban buildout of those places is only beginning.


Hungary is one of the most suburban places in Europe:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=65385171&postcount=21


----------



## Ands51 (Dec 9, 2010)

They have to be completely segregated from the old places since they are irrelevant and even impair what is today.


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

RawLee said:


> Hungary is one of the most suburban places in Europe:
> 
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=65385171&postcount=21


Which begs the question...even though there is a correlation between the prevalence of detached housing and suburbia in the US, does that apply in Europe? And its corollary--detached housing was historically found primarily in rural places. If Hungary is statistically less urbanized than the rest of Europe, wouldn't this account for the prevalence of detached housing?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

hammersklavier said:


> Which begs the question...even though there is a correlation between the prevalence of detached housing and suburbia in the US, does that apply in Europe? And its corollary--detached housing was historically found primarily in rural places. If Hungary is statistically less urbanized than the rest of Europe, wouldn't this account for the prevalence of detached housing?


It is not that simple. Take Belgium and Netherlands, countries that are relatively similar in their economies and historical development patterns: the prevalence of stand-alone houses in Belgium (around 65% of all housing stock) is far higher than in Netherlands (29%), where semi-detached houses (around 50%) make most of the housing stock (a modified form of row houses, as people are fussy about "saving energy" by attaching walls of 1 or 2 floor housings creating long stripes of houses as that (usually with a backyard)).


----------



## Piltup Man (May 21, 2010)

The population densities of both countries are not similar though. It would be interesting to see where most of the stand-alone houses are between Flanders and Wallonia.


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

This is particularly interesting to know, since Walloonia is a good deal less urbanized than Flanders. In addition, most of the Netherlands' urbanization exists primarily from Amsterdam south. When I think of the Netherlands, places like Zwolle (/tsvɔ:lə/?) are afterthoughts. Likewise, when I think of Belgium I think of Flanders first...this in spite of the fact that I would be able to get along better in the Francophone part of the country.


----------

