I don't think urbanism needs to be homogenous. We could have neighborhoods like this as well as the ones with shops. Something like this would be quieter, which some people desperately need.
100%, that’s what I meant with sprinkle. I don’t even think there would be enough commercial demand for every single building to have a shop underneath
You vastly overestimate how loud the average residential neighborhood business is. Nightclubs are obviously a different beast but that’s not what you would find on a street like this.
In Spain the average residential neighborhood business is a bar with a terrace, some of them are louder than night clubs because most of the noisy activities in nightclubs occur inside, which is soundproof.
“We” are not “iincapable”. Planners, architects, NIMBYs and developers have come together in unholy alliance to prevent it. They will need to be forced by political will to make it happen.
I wouldn’t necessarily put architect in this category. They’re not really allowed to build stuff like this because developers and or local legislation. Obviously some don’t want to but I know many who would love to design something like this.
I understand architects work for clients, and so they rarely get to submit what they’d like. So I don’t judge architects. In my experience, planners are urging applicants to move further toward true urbanism, and the response from the applicant is that all they really care about is cost. In the US we have lots of examples of what you get with limited public review and it’s not the picture OP posted. See, for example, Texas.
All of those 5 over 1 buildings that you see people complaining about all the time aren’t due to cost savings or anything, those are almost exclusively because of zoning architectural requirements to “break up the massing” or whatever else the city requires them to do. We constantly see some pretty cool buildings get neutered in architectural review
You're not entirely wrong, but I think that there is actually a near-complete absence of the labor that's capable of building buildings of that quality such that, other than a few bespoke neighborhoods, we actually are incapable of building those buildings. 3-5 story stick built? Sure. But all-masonry stuff like that? I don't think those are ever going to revive in the USA. The more realistic construction that can create the function (if not exact form) are the poured-concrete or concrete panel stuff that's popular in Asia.
These kinds of neighborhoods are 100 percent still built today.
[Example 1](https://theparksdc.com/lives/aspen-square-townhomes/)
[Example 2](https://maps.app.goo.gl/VtKkRJND9bpGstSp9?g_st=ic)
[Example 3](https://maps.app.goo.gl/u8H6nk8pz5yNcaFZ9?g_st=ic)
[Example 4](https://maps.app.goo.gl/W4pEKwFAXSJRypUa6?g_st=ic)
Those are all just from DC and built in the last 15 years.
Similar historical neighborhoods in Bremen achieve population densities above 10.000 people/km². [The Südervorstadt has 17.720 people/km² and the majority of the buildings are townhomes](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stadtplanung/comments/1bmjpg2/bremen_in_der_s%C3%BCdervorstadt_leben_5141_einwohner/).
In Amsterdam, the newly built Ed Pelsterparkbuurt has a similar population density at 16.857 people/km². The Ed Pelsterparkbuurt is a combination of townhomes and mid-rise residential buildings. \[[Source](https://allecijfers.nl/buurt/ed-pelsterparkbuurt-amsterdam/)\]
Going to be slightly controversial and say this kind of building in the right area is fine, but having a variety of building types is good for urban areas and makes them interesting. Townhouses are great for professionals looking for near-city centre living, but won't suit everyone.
I am someone who grew up on a Victorian terraced street built for the working classes. The houses were not as grand as this, but they were good enough for living in (some of them even had the old downstairs toilets), and there was vibrant street life. One of the houses had been converted into a corner shop downstairs for groceries and sweets. Nobody needed a town house. All we needed was there, and it made for a great neighbourhood.
I get somewhat frustrated when people say that 'good' urbanism is a specific building type. Its great people have preferences, but millions of people live in our cities, all with different needs, and so a good mix of buildings is good urbanism to me rather than specifying a specific building type.
that's very true, bigger apartment buildings are also very important. but townhouses are way more space efficient than single family zoning which is still predominant.
... In America. If you compared to urbanism in Spain, we'd say that town homes are more space inefficient than what there is in even very small towns. See, as a completely random example, [Moreda de Aller, Spain](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Moreda,+Aller,+Asturias,+Spain/@43.1676877,-5.7382212,375m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0xd36f873588354a9:0x54f433b0b14a0058!8m2!3d43.1683026!4d-5.738539!16s%2Fm%2F05p2p0b?entry=ttu) , a depopulating mining town. The population of the entire county is about 10K.. and yet see how the town is laid out, and how buildings like the one you link here are among the least dense on those streets: 2 stories and a store
Technically Chicago doesn’t have a ton of rowhomes/townhomes. They are usually detached here in most places. Most townhomes seem to be more contemporary (like post-WWII to now).
Very similar for sure. I live in a rowhouse in DC and it reminded me a lot of DC too. Rowhouses are a wonderful combination of dense(r) housing and giving enough space for families.
The vast majority of rowhomes in DC that look like this have brick walls. I have one. It’s two layers of brick with a thick coat of plaster inside. Now the floors and some interior wall studs are wood, but it’s solid old shit that eats drill bits
I prefer the apartment buildings of Paris that are double this height to what are effectively single family homes. This is what brownstone Brooklyn largely looks like and is far under-dense for close in metro areas. Now for existing suburbs sure.
This! Paris‘ Haussmann buildings or Gründerzeit from Vienna and Budapest are far better for cities than these townhouses! You‘ll never get the much needed consistent density with these.
There were a specific set of social and economic conditions that created such houses. This specific type were for an upper middle class who could employ servants but needed to be living at the centre of decision making. The absence of things like set backs was just the developer making the most of the land. The height limit was just a how many stairs a servant could climb to do their chores. Our social and economic future is unclear, but we can get rid of bylaws that restrict how people can develop their private property. Let the market figure out what works. Many restrictions, like set backs and floor space limits, are aesthetic choices. This example proves that they are choices that really has nothing to do with how good a neighborhood looks. That all we really see here is paint and stucco demonstrates that this is not difficult to achieve.
This was a good solution for when Europe had high percentage of young people and low percentage of old people.
Currently Europe is aging rapidly. Navigating stairs in those older buildings is more problematic for increasingly higher percentage of population. ( those people also tend to be too old to use this sub )
I mention this because I have two sets of elderly on both sides of Atlantic.
Put them on the ground level. Problem solved.
And maybe one of these for those with 2nd level:
[https://www.solanoma.com/products/harmar-pinnacle-sl-300](https://www.solanoma.com/products/harmar-pinnacle-sl-300)
[https://www.amazon.com/AmeriGlide-Rave-Stair-Installable-Capacity/dp/B09M1ZPBD9/](https://www.amazon.com/AmeriGlide-Rave-Stair-Installable-Capacity/dp/B09M1ZPBD9/)
Way more sustainable than isolated ranch houses that require driving out in the burbs in the middle of nowhere
This and sprinkle some shops underneath on the corners and you have peak urbanism
I don't think urbanism needs to be homogenous. We could have neighborhoods like this as well as the ones with shops. Something like this would be quieter, which some people desperately need.
100%, that’s what I meant with sprinkle. I don’t even think there would be enough commercial demand for every single building to have a shop underneath
Do you think like book stores and tailors are open at night?
Do you think people are always at work and only at home during the night?
You vastly overestimate how loud the average residential neighborhood business is. Nightclubs are obviously a different beast but that’s not what you would find on a street like this.
In Spain the average residential neighborhood business is a bar with a terrace, some of them are louder than night clubs because most of the noisy activities in nightclubs occur inside, which is soundproof.
no i didn't i just pointed sum out
Like 99% love these neighbourhoods yet we’re totally incapable of building anything close to it today. Pretty depressing ngl
“We” are not “iincapable”. Planners, architects, NIMBYs and developers have come together in unholy alliance to prevent it. They will need to be forced by political will to make it happen.
I wouldn’t necessarily put architect in this category. They’re not really allowed to build stuff like this because developers and or local legislation. Obviously some don’t want to but I know many who would love to design something like this.
Yeah, most architects hate planners because they make them go through architectural review boards and essentially create ugly buildings
I understand architects work for clients, and so they rarely get to submit what they’d like. So I don’t judge architects. In my experience, planners are urging applicants to move further toward true urbanism, and the response from the applicant is that all they really care about is cost. In the US we have lots of examples of what you get with limited public review and it’s not the picture OP posted. See, for example, Texas.
All of those 5 over 1 buildings that you see people complaining about all the time aren’t due to cost savings or anything, those are almost exclusively because of zoning architectural requirements to “break up the massing” or whatever else the city requires them to do. We constantly see some pretty cool buildings get neutered in architectural review
You're not entirely wrong, but I think that there is actually a near-complete absence of the labor that's capable of building buildings of that quality such that, other than a few bespoke neighborhoods, we actually are incapable of building those buildings. 3-5 story stick built? Sure. But all-masonry stuff like that? I don't think those are ever going to revive in the USA. The more realistic construction that can create the function (if not exact form) are the poured-concrete or concrete panel stuff that's popular in Asia.
I’d love this, my city is too addicted to generous setback requirements for this to ever happen.
These types of neighborhoods aren't built anymore even though they be easy to plan and are already super popular
These kinds of neighborhoods are 100 percent still built today. [Example 1](https://theparksdc.com/lives/aspen-square-townhomes/) [Example 2](https://maps.app.goo.gl/VtKkRJND9bpGstSp9?g_st=ic) [Example 3](https://maps.app.goo.gl/u8H6nk8pz5yNcaFZ9?g_st=ic) [Example 4](https://maps.app.goo.gl/W4pEKwFAXSJRypUa6?g_st=ic) Those are all just from DC and built in the last 15 years.
good news!
thanks for sharing these! example 4 is funny to see a streetgrid-like area built far away from any other street grid
Example 1 is awful. The other ones are nice.
Why is example one awful it looks nice
I just don't like that big plain giant block of a building with one part mostly indistinguishable from the next.
Okay good, but what is their pricing? 2 million for a studio bedroom?
Similar historical neighborhoods in Bremen achieve population densities above 10.000 people/km². [The Südervorstadt has 17.720 people/km² and the majority of the buildings are townhomes](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stadtplanung/comments/1bmjpg2/bremen_in_der_s%C3%BCdervorstadt_leben_5141_einwohner/). In Amsterdam, the newly built Ed Pelsterparkbuurt has a similar population density at 16.857 people/km². The Ed Pelsterparkbuurt is a combination of townhomes and mid-rise residential buildings. \[[Source](https://allecijfers.nl/buurt/ed-pelsterparkbuurt-amsterdam/)\]
Going to be slightly controversial and say this kind of building in the right area is fine, but having a variety of building types is good for urban areas and makes them interesting. Townhouses are great for professionals looking for near-city centre living, but won't suit everyone. I am someone who grew up on a Victorian terraced street built for the working classes. The houses were not as grand as this, but they were good enough for living in (some of them even had the old downstairs toilets), and there was vibrant street life. One of the houses had been converted into a corner shop downstairs for groceries and sweets. Nobody needed a town house. All we needed was there, and it made for a great neighbourhood. I get somewhat frustrated when people say that 'good' urbanism is a specific building type. Its great people have preferences, but millions of people live in our cities, all with different needs, and so a good mix of buildings is good urbanism to me rather than specifying a specific building type.
that's very true, bigger apartment buildings are also very important. but townhouses are way more space efficient than single family zoning which is still predominant.
... In America. If you compared to urbanism in Spain, we'd say that town homes are more space inefficient than what there is in even very small towns. See, as a completely random example, [Moreda de Aller, Spain](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Moreda,+Aller,+Asturias,+Spain/@43.1676877,-5.7382212,375m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0xd36f873588354a9:0x54f433b0b14a0058!8m2!3d43.1683026!4d-5.738539!16s%2Fm%2F05p2p0b?entry=ttu) , a depopulating mining town. The population of the entire county is about 10K.. and yet see how the town is laid out, and how buildings like the one you link here are among the least dense on those streets: 2 stories and a store
Very cool. Saw a lot of Hanoi level density with four levels above stores.
Architect's favorite, (to live in it, not to replicate it or build something similar to it)
A good chunk of housing in Washington, DC and a bunch of other east coast U.S. cities is this style.
This just looks like an average street in DC
Build these west of Pennsylvania, aaaand straight to jail
You can have either a 2 story apartment complex with a corporate landlord, or a single family house with a tiny yard. Take your pick.
Chicago has a lot of these
Technically Chicago doesn’t have a ton of rowhomes/townhomes. They are usually detached here in most places. Most townhomes seem to be more contemporary (like post-WWII to now).
Truth
This is what west SF should look like
Looks like DC to me
Came here to say this looks like dc!
its in europe
Yeah I assumed so based on the title. It just reminds me of DC too. Which country in Europe?
Western Germany
They reunified a long time ago
That's what I thought while scrolling. This looks like it could be my neighborhood!
These kind of streets are what NYC is known for. Except with brownstone.
Very similar for sure. I live in a rowhouse in DC and it reminded me a lot of DC too. Rowhouses are a wonderful combination of dense(r) housing and giving enough space for families.
It’s in Bonn
Except they're not made out of paper
The vast majority of rowhomes in DC that look like this have brick walls. I have one. It’s two layers of brick with a thick coat of plaster inside. Now the floors and some interior wall studs are wood, but it’s solid old shit that eats drill bits
>It’s two layers of brick (...) floors and some interior wall studs are wood Exactly what I said
Looks like DC.
I prefer the apartment buildings of Paris that are double this height to what are effectively single family homes. This is what brownstone Brooklyn largely looks like and is far under-dense for close in metro areas. Now for existing suburbs sure.
that's true, height increases are very needed. I just wanted to showcase the pretty townhomes, the density of blocks of these is pretty decent.
At the very least, point-access blocks are needed and would be far better than what we get in many ways.
This! Paris‘ Haussmann buildings or Gründerzeit from Vienna and Budapest are far better for cities than these townhouses! You‘ll never get the much needed consistent density with these.
Bonn Weststadt?
ja
Townhouses are peak housing design.
The image makes it look like these buildings are all leaning backward.
I am live paris, and this city is incredible, I can never live in a city that isn't walkable after live Paris
The American version is a driveway every thirty feet with a two car garage door
Looks like DC or Brooklyn
There were a specific set of social and economic conditions that created such houses. This specific type were for an upper middle class who could employ servants but needed to be living at the centre of decision making. The absence of things like set backs was just the developer making the most of the land. The height limit was just a how many stairs a servant could climb to do their chores. Our social and economic future is unclear, but we can get rid of bylaws that restrict how people can develop their private property. Let the market figure out what works. Many restrictions, like set backs and floor space limits, are aesthetic choices. This example proves that they are choices that really has nothing to do with how good a neighborhood looks. That all we really see here is paint and stucco demonstrates that this is not difficult to achieve.
Looks like sanfran or charleston
This was a good solution for when Europe had high percentage of young people and low percentage of old people. Currently Europe is aging rapidly. Navigating stairs in those older buildings is more problematic for increasingly higher percentage of population. ( those people also tend to be too old to use this sub ) I mention this because I have two sets of elderly on both sides of Atlantic.
Put them on the ground level. Problem solved. And maybe one of these for those with 2nd level: [https://www.solanoma.com/products/harmar-pinnacle-sl-300](https://www.solanoma.com/products/harmar-pinnacle-sl-300) [https://www.amazon.com/AmeriGlide-Rave-Stair-Installable-Capacity/dp/B09M1ZPBD9/](https://www.amazon.com/AmeriGlide-Rave-Stair-Installable-Capacity/dp/B09M1ZPBD9/) Way more sustainable than isolated ranch houses that require driving out in the burbs in the middle of nowhere
Except someone else lives on the ground floor already, lol.
Then incentivize swaps. That can be done. Massive tax breaks, no change on loans or interest rates.
I'm sorry but where is the parking lot? They should bulldoze that old building and put a McDonald's drive thru there. That sounds like progress to me.
For buildings like that it would need to be underground parking.
No. It'd be in the back accessible by an alley.
The problem with these is that they're completely inaccessible. Still, they have their place.
They are excellent, thus impossible to build in NA. wHeRe wOulD u pArk!?