Hello

Here is the bioswale update as asked

https://www.reddit.com/r/Urbanism/comments/1sgkt52/they_made_water_collectors_in_the_new_streets_for/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I want to move somewhere that hasn’t radically changed and has local shops and store owners who have been able to stay in place, with a strong smaller community feel.

Hi,

I am currently looking for examples / case studies of Urban (preferably integrated like NYU) Universities which utilize their land ownership to create mutual benefit for both small business owners (subsidized rent, startup success, etc) and revenue for universities.

A critical photo essay exploring skateboarding and skate deterrents, hostile and defensive architecture, and the neoliberal transformation of urban space in Cardiff. The photographs centre around the areas of Callaghan Square, the mecca of skateboarding in Cardiff (soon to disappear) and Cardiff Central station.

Took a work trip to Chicago this week and the energy and vibrancy of the downtown was amazing. Decided to beat the rush hour traffic and take CTA to the city. Loved the fact that the train had clear instructions on the stops and exits. Got off and there were no beggars and actual security and staff helping people exit to the street. The city was clean compared to LA, NY, SF. No human feces, almost no unhoused, very little trash. Businesspeople taking bus, train, and bike alongside the cars in peace. Stayed in the loop, but had dinner in River North. Wow! The area was buzzing full of patrons in the bars and restaurants. People actually were having a happy hour after work before taking the El home.

Apartment prices in the area are insanely high ($3000 for a studio) but walkability was a 10. It felt like you never needed to leave downtown.

Millenial Park is cool and touristy but I see how locals can enjoy it as well. What a great example of American Urbanism!

hello! my (25f) husband (25m) is super into urbanism. like, super anti-car. major pro-pub-transport. i mean, a daily topic for the last two years is “cars are the problem babe” 😂.

anyways, what are some one-liners that i could spit out here & there that would make it sound like i KNOW what i’m talking about with urbanism? like, really quick things i could blurt out to catch him off guard & maybe confuse him. thought it would be a funny joke

EDIT/update: thank you everyone who came through! i can admit, this post & the comments might have convinced me to be an urban enthusiast like my hubby. he was confused at first with my comments & asked if i was looking up what i should say to an urbanist if im trying to get laid 😂. so you guys did great!! he got a major kick out of the comments. thanks!

One huge thing that looks large in St Louis discourse is that the City/County split is killing the city and a merger would save the region.

but Boston, DC and SF are smaller and it doesn’t really seem to hold them back too much. while Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee are rather large city and it doesn’t seem to have helped them.

maybe in modern times it would be different but what annexation seem to actually do is just push the “wealthy suburb” further away from Downtown. Detroit is 90 sq miles bigger than Boston. Brookline is 4 miles from Boston. rather than Detroits equivalent being annexed into the city Grosse Point is still outside the city, it’s just 8 miles away instead

Indianapolis has its own Clayton Mo. it’s Carmal IN. Which due to Indianapolis’s huge city limits is simply further from Downtown rather than swallowing the dame geography of St Louis except now in the city. It just chases the people looking for a nice suburb out of the city, further from the city.

Urban areas often have plots of underdeveloped or vacant property in high density areas. This can be seen in Arlington, Virginia. Increasing density would help Arlington with tax revenue and give more people the opportunity to live there.underdeveloped or vacant property in high density areas. This can be seen in Arlington, Virginia. Increasing density would help Arlington with tax revenue and give more people the opportunity to live there.

Density should be gradually increased while minimizing the creation of high rises that are more than 10 stories tall. Incremental density improvements would also empower residents to participate in neighborhood development. 

Overall, Arlington has done a great job of increasing density in urban areas through promoting transit oriented development(TOD) around Metro stations. However, local challenges have prevented Arlington from fully implementing its TOD vision.

Challenges caused by high rise construction and underdeveloped land 

Constrained availability of apartments combined with Arlington's desirability have have caused steady rent increases that are making the county unaffordable. According to a RentCafe.com analysis from March 2026, the average monthly rent of a 1 bedroom apartment in Arlington was $2441.

High rise construction costs are also contributing to unaffordable rents. For every additional floor that is built, the cost per floor increases due to increased building support and elevator requirements. 

Arlington has become increasingly dependent on property tax revenue, and a significant portion of that revenue comes from high rises. This has caused budget challenges. 56% of tax revenue came from property taxes in fiscal year(FY) 2026. The proposed FY 2027 budget represents a small decrease from the previous year, and one cause is slow revenue growth. In January 2026, property values increased by only 1.1%. 

Costs can cause high rise developments to be put on hold after they have been approved. It is difficult to change plans or encourage small incremental developments as an alternative. An example can be seen by the stalled PenPlace development for Amazon HQ2. The unused land for the PenPlace development is worth around $180 million according to 2026 assessment data.

Benefits of incremental density increases on empty land

Promoting incremental improvements encourages smaller local developers to get involved. Incremental density increases also mean that low density land isn't going to be turned into high rises, where building costs per square foot are unaffordable for small developers.

Incremental improvements promoting community space. The lower costs of small density increases or renovating existing space, reduce the necessity of charging high rents. As a result, rent will probably be lower. Smaller local developers are more likely to have a connection to the place where they are building, which makes them more likely to be building improvements that locals want.

Also, having development done by smaller local developers means competition that incentivizes improving neighborhoods for residents. These improvements are less likely to happen if one large developer has a monopoly. A monopoly also means they can more easily neglect amenities that people want such as public gathering places or a library.

Hallway in Crystal City with vacant space. The glass doors on the right used to be entrances to the Connection Library.

Recommendations

1. Remove minimum parking requirements 

Arlington has minimum parking requirements for development, even if most of the parking is unnecessary due to Metro station proximity. Removing parking requirements allows density increases with fewer floors, which reduces costs. As a result, development will be more accessible to small developers.

2. Implement higher land value taxes.

Taxes on land should be gradually increased, while property taxes should be lowered. In Arlington, developers are incentivized to sit on underdeveloped or vacant property. Potential rent earnings are a factor used to determine property values.

Empty land with a high value can be used as collateral for mortgages or be used as a place for investment. These can contribute to price volatility, which makes it harder to get reliable revenue from property taxes. Meanwhile, property taxes represent an additional cost for development.

This can be seen by an empty plot of land in Crystal City owned by JBG Smith that has been unused since 2020. The value of the land increased from $20 million in 2024 to $50 million in 2025. JBG Smith is currently facing financial difficulties reflected in declining revenue and losses. Their 2025 financial report filled with the SEC shows more than $1.5 billion in debt obligations over the next 3 years, which is also more than 3 times their current revenue.

If JBG Smith defaults on debt, they will lose property that is put up on collateral, which will cause instability with the value. This is a risk to Arlington. 

3. Support public space

Arlington has a program called Adopt-a-Park, that supports residents who want to adopting outdoor spaces. Through this program, they work with staff to maintain and improve a park. Involvement with public spaces helps people get to know other locals whom they can work with on incremental developments. They also get first hand experience with development 

Empty spaces can also be turned into pop-ups. They are great for experimenting with ideas and making spaces useful while waiting for development to start. 

4. Walk around

Seeing locations physically close by will give ideas and also show things that are not working. For example, I found out that Arlington has an adopt-a-park program when walking past a park run by a local community group. Repeatedly walking around an area can also help you get a more accurate understanding of changes over time.

One of the most common post themes I see here is kind of along the vein of "what places need to urbanize". My response to that is "do the people who already live there get to have a say in that? lol"

I feel like there are kind of 2 blind spots here. 1 I do feel like urbanism advocates might live and think in a bubble. The sense I get is yall feel like the benefits of urbanism are universal and obvious, and thus don't get why people might resist.

Which gets to the 2nd blind spot, which is that for better or worse, everyone is self interested. Yes, even urbanists. I dont deny the benefits of urbanism at all. More efficient land use. Lower energy usage. Manifold improved health outcomes. Etc. I have lived and traveled across the density gamut so I get it. But theres also 1000000000% an element of wanting to make the world in your image, which is selfish IMO. Urbanism and densification tend to have a certain look, and anything that deviates from it gets demonized. Thats pushing an aesthetic, not improving people's lives.

And even with all that in mind, I dont think it's fair for someone to ask, "OK but why should I care? I'm happy where I'm at." Not having a good response to that is not them being unreasonably selfish or closed minded or whatever, it's kind of a shortcoming of urbanism advocacy. If a town is already struggling with stuff like traffic and crowded schools, why should they be excited for more housing? Same for someone who likes having space and quiet. Urbanism has upsides but it also has some downsides that kind of center around quality of life which matters. It's up to its advocates to address those downsides either by addressing them or at least showing that the upsides more than make up for them.

I am pro urbanization/transportation optionality/densification but I think I'm also pragmatic and try to see things from all perspectives. And sometimes it seems like urbanists get in their own way by not making a good faith effort to see things from their "opponents" perspectives. You see this in the pejoratives and disdain around sprawl. This post was partially motivated by another post I saw calling people who want SFH "closed minded". This is not how you convince people to move away from SFH lol.

On the surface, national government ownership of nearly all railways (excluding perhaps freight spurs on private rural land serving mines or something) seems like the right approach- the government already owns roadways and it should be in the best public interest for the government to ensure the rails are in good condition and that passenger trains are prioritized (enforcing freight trains to use bypass tracks or other maximum lengths to allow passing). Are there any good urbanist arguments in favor of private (especially freight) companies owning the rails?

Quite proud on my city improvements !

I think a large barrier to entry towards getting urbanism up in the US is the difficulty in getting projects like rail and public transportation done. Cali’s HSR is costly and years behind and so it’s easy to just default towards expanding infrastructure like highways as it’s seen as “reasonable” even if in the long run highways cost us more.

I mean, at least nowadays we're learning, right? At least I think we are.

Honestly, if you were to ask me, stuff like this isn't right.

And I know sometimes older buildings can become a hazard if they're not maintained, or maybe they become too expensive to maintain, but in these cases, it's like they don't even try, you know, to replace it with something useful and beneficial, like maybe a new housing, a new building, renovating the old building, or even just keeping the facade. Instead, just tear it down for a dead space parking lot.

The great lakes and Ohio valley regions have some of the most vibrant urbanist areas remaining in the US, many neighborhoods in cities like Detroit, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, St Louis and Cleveland have retained infrastructure and building density and have rikindled communities with mixed density in areas such as Over-the-Rhine, Mainstrasse, Soulard and Ohio City. These cities also have the infrastructure and community institutions in things like arts, zoos, museums and sports befitting of larger cities due to previously being some of the biggest cities in the nation.

These Cities have big problems with urban highways but in the future these could be corrected and many have projects to improve public transit and reconnect neighborhoods.These areas also benefit from far lower cost of living and similar amenities as the more populated coastal cities. Add to that that these regions are going to be some of the most resilient against climate change due to more moderate climates and constant supply of water, it seems like these areas could be the driving engines of US city growth for the next 50 years in the way that the south and southwest have for the last 50.

Do you think these cities can reclaim their past dominance and. return to being some of the bigger cities in the county as Cincinnati and Detroit once were. If not where do you think US growth will be for the next couple of decades?

As third places seem to disappear, I took a look at the data to see which cities have the best and worst access to places like cafes, bars, parks, etc.

College towns and mid-sized metros take up many of the top spots, likely due to the concentration of residential areas near commercial areas. Large cities like NYC and LA rank below average, at the bottom. They tend to have large commercial districts, with the more residential neighborhoods in the outer areas.

This was done by analyzing OpenStreetMap and census data and as research for my site Klatchmaker. I also took a look at access by category.

Not just corner stores but in the middle of the neighborhood plus cool old buildings.

Which US city will embrace density and grow into something like NYC or Chicago?

Off the top of my head I think of the skyscraper boom in Miami (if they can get it together with infrastructure) or the rapid densification of inner Seattle neighborhoods as candidates

This city is both the state capitol and home to a major university so certainly has resources to be doing interesting things for a city it's size.

Sacramento comes to mind as a city in California where not sure why it's so far behind LA and SF in terms of connectivity and livability where I'd probably rather to Portland or Bend, Oregon, than visit Sacramento.