It's not fair to compare New York with LA, or Chicago with Houston. They come from different eras, serve different purposes and have their own unique challenges. But we need to start somewhere.
I agree with your basic premise on the time factor. But I think it's not necessarily the time that a city originated that's the key, but the periods (often more than one) where it experienced major city and metro area population growth. I personally find the urban areas that developed through the end of the streetcar era to be among the most compelling, in particular in places like Milwaukee that had 457,000 residents packed into 25 square miles in 1920 resulting in a density exceeded only by NYC and Newark among major US cities. This core area formed in the streetcar era has been the focus for 90% or more of the redevelopment over the past 30-40 years.
It seems like extreme growth eras (like Detroit growing from 456K to 1569K from 1910-1930, or LA from 577K to 1504K from 1920-1940, or Phoenix from 107K to 582K 1950-1970 and 790K to 1321K from 1980-2000) never result in a high-quality urban environment. I suspect there's a tipping point for population growth beyond which it does more harm than good.
An interesting analysis would be to look at the population changes for a city in each individual census tract, to identify the decade (or development era) when the initial major development or growth spurt took place, as well as subsequent periods of growth accomplished through densification or redevelopment. Then you might be able to produce detailed maps of the dominant development era characterizing different areas of a city, their relative size, as well as areas that experienced on on-going or multiple periods of development which may bear the characteristics of multiple eras.
This piece also reminded me of a trip to Barcelona a few years ago, when I stayed in the medieval portions of the City and realizing that these had no corollary in any US city. But what surprised was seeing the extent to which redevelopment of industrial areas and former brownfield sites (my specialty) had continued to transform the city over recent decades and add new amenities (such as the Olympic Park area and some of the beachfront areas). So even though much of Barcelona's development doesn't correlate with development eras characterizing US cities, the industrial districts developed in the late 1800s through 1970s have significant similarities to industrial areas in many US cities.
I would agree it's hard to compare Houston to New York, but it's interesting that a recent paper compared major metros in California to Texas and they basically found that TX is a bit behind CA in terms of running up against constraints on single family housing. Your time argument is apt but I imagine many of these cities will start looking similar even with different development regimes if the theory holds. Totally worth taking a look at as this paper has really fascinated me as a new way to think about cities and growth in the US. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.12490?af=R
I agree with your basic premise on the time factor. But I think it's not necessarily the time that a city originated that's the key, but the periods (often more than one) where it experienced major city and metro area population growth. I personally find the urban areas that developed through the end of the streetcar era to be among the most compelling, in particular in places like Milwaukee that had 457,000 residents packed into 25 square miles in 1920 resulting in a density exceeded only by NYC and Newark among major US cities. This core area formed in the streetcar era has been the focus for 90% or more of the redevelopment over the past 30-40 years.
It seems like extreme growth eras (like Detroit growing from 456K to 1569K from 1910-1930, or LA from 577K to 1504K from 1920-1940, or Phoenix from 107K to 582K 1950-1970 and 790K to 1321K from 1980-2000) never result in a high-quality urban environment. I suspect there's a tipping point for population growth beyond which it does more harm than good.
An interesting analysis would be to look at the population changes for a city in each individual census tract, to identify the decade (or development era) when the initial major development or growth spurt took place, as well as subsequent periods of growth accomplished through densification or redevelopment. Then you might be able to produce detailed maps of the dominant development era characterizing different areas of a city, their relative size, as well as areas that experienced on on-going or multiple periods of development which may bear the characteristics of multiple eras.
This piece also reminded me of a trip to Barcelona a few years ago, when I stayed in the medieval portions of the City and realizing that these had no corollary in any US city. But what surprised was seeing the extent to which redevelopment of industrial areas and former brownfield sites (my specialty) had continued to transform the city over recent decades and add new amenities (such as the Olympic Park area and some of the beachfront areas). So even though much of Barcelona's development doesn't correlate with development eras characterizing US cities, the industrial districts developed in the late 1800s through 1970s have significant similarities to industrial areas in many US cities.
I would agree it's hard to compare Houston to New York, but it's interesting that a recent paper compared major metros in California to Texas and they basically found that TX is a bit behind CA in terms of running up against constraints on single family housing. Your time argument is apt but I imagine many of these cities will start looking similar even with different development regimes if the theory holds. Totally worth taking a look at as this paper has really fascinated me as a new way to think about cities and growth in the US. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-6229.12490?af=R
Thanks for the share! I'll read it right now.