[wnc3141]

If it is discontinuous with the broader urban fabric this is definitely a risk.

Look up Ørestad in Copenhagen - a massive master planned area that never gained any of the hoped for vitality you would see elsewhere in the city.

A decent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OMxzXsufq8

[hdlothia]

I think the tough part is it's hard to master plan these thing sometimes. Is it better to limit restrictions and let people put coffee shops and bars where they want?

[wnc3141]

I absolutely think your'e right - given permissive small business landscape

[konschubert]

Ørestad looks nice on street view. Give it some time, maybe?

I think you're right that decentralised planning will create a more diverse cityscape, but your example seems fine...

[jjjjj55555]

It seems like it had othe problems apart from being discontinuous from the city. There are lots of areas like this in the US which are contiguous with the city, that still end up as dead zones.

Did anyone really believe this was a good idea? I feel like the developers' need to turn a profit and the government's need to impose itself don't leave any good ideas on the table. Instead they focus on packaging up the same bad ideas just with different marketing.

When it inevitably doesn't work as promised, they just say oops, and move onto the next project.

[wnc3141]

I think the lack of organic place making is hard, but certainly not impossible. The example I listed suffered from insufficient place making (which one day may yet appear).

The pedestrian and shopping areas are linearized instead of polycentric as you would see in an urban core limiting mobility and discovery of the local businesses that make an urban landscape thrive. Additionally a limited variety in offerings of real estate limit the use patterns of a place. For example there stretches along the main way that form a barren pedestrian zone (among those are freeway underpasses, giant shopping centers and large office blocks).

Why its hard to replicate the organic formation of these places is that markets and public will, over time, evolve the space into the best value use. Of course, put enough people living in an area and urban life will emerge as people fill out coffee shops, theaters, etc. -given policy accommodative to mixed use development.

Here are two highly cherrypicked illustrations of my point.

Inner Copenhagen: https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6800033,12.5764683,3a,75y,24...

Orestad: https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6285983,12.5788039,3a,90y,19...

[jjjjj55555]

If the old city centers are crowded and expensive because they're so desirable, then why do we need any new solution? Can't we just copy paste the old stuff outward in every direction in concentric circles from the old downtown?

I've never understood all the headscratching on this topic. Everyone likes charming little streets, plazas, coffee shops, locally owned restaurants. Just let people have it!

[wnc3141]

It really is! Americans like myself feel the magnetic energy of old European city centers yet we relegate them to vacation rather than import them here.

My only guess as to why developments don't achieve this is that the most desirable outcomes to society is that all stakeholder interests can't possibly be seen within a development plan. With that a more narrow band of priorities are emphasized and bureaucratic processes lead to a rationalized and simplified plans rather than the controlled chaos that incremental and democratic growth creates.

(in the same way a product manager may propose a box to be the product shape - if profitability and volume is prioritized, and the box shape is explainable to regulators and management. While if the product had been iterated through organic public reception, it will evolve to take an ergonomic shape formed and validated by users over years).