This project has been underway for a long time. But it adds a whole new element to urban development. That is, it is unabashedly NOT urban. But it is so huge it has the NAACP thinking abut relocating to the suburbs.
But is it the suburbs? Or is this basically the construction of a whole new city? Most of the suburbs I know don't have things like a 1,500-room convention center hotel.
This is an interesting question in a lot of places around DC. Are Arlington and Alexandria suburbs or cities? They have downtowns. Old ones. That are walkable. And what about newer places? Is Reston a suburb or a city? It has taller office buildings than DC.
Interesting stuff. Especially with the racial politics involved. Prince George's County has one of the highest populations of middle-class African-Americans in the country. So the familiar discussion of "white flight" to the 'burbs has a different feel to it there. More on that angle:
"The next level [of the Civil Rights movement] is economic development ... and you couldn't have a better county in the world for that branding than Prince George's County, Md."
Steele, the state's first African-American statewide elected official and a candidate for U.S. Senate, said the economic dynamism of Prince George's County will make the National Harbor the new gateway to Maryland and the perfect place for the NAACP.
In another twist, the NAACP moved to Baltimore from NYC in 1986, after Charm City drew them in with a bunch of subsidies.
What comes around goes around, I suppose.
Update: Here's more on Reston from Wikipedia. The intro actually says the place is "not a city." But it sure sounds a lot like what urban advocates admire.
Reston Town Center is becoming a focal point for business and transportation connections within the community, with several high-rise office buildings, restaurants, a cinema, a hotel, and shops. Reston also straddles the booming Northern Virginia Technology Corridor and is home to the world headquarters of two Fortune 500 corporations, (Sprint Nextel and Sallie Mae), as well as the United States Geological Survey and the National Wildlife Federation.
...From the beginning Reston was designed to follow "guiding principles" in its development that would stress quality of life. Citizens would be able to live in the same community while going through different life cycles with different housing needs as they age. It was hoped that Restonians could live, work, and have recreation in their own community, with common grounds and scenic beauty shared equally regardless of income level.
maybe we need to define what determines a city. for instance,if erie is a city, why not alexandria? is johnstown a city? harrisburg? altoona? washington, pa?
Posted by: sean mcdaniel | August 01, 2006 at 04:17 AM
Yeah, that's the hard part. St Marys, PA, which I mentioned a while ago, is officially a city. But I am not sure that people interested in "urban" living would consider it as such.
And then you get really confused. Because by a lot of measures, Oakland looks a lot like a city. But it is only part of one.
So what are the standards? Size? Density? Walkability? I'm not so sure. I think John Morris mentioned it before, but I think it comes down to the definition for porn: You know it when you see it. But I think that is becaoming less and less clear as places like Reston develop--and traditional cities un-develop.
Hmmm...
Posted by: Sam M | August 01, 2006 at 04:39 AM
whatever the definition...i'd call alexandria a city now and 40 years ago. a small city, sure. it's like looking at the pitt panthers and the steelers...one's a decent college football team and the other's a super bowl champ. but they're both football teams. which is why i don't think you can ever ever ever use nyc, sf, dc, boston as measuring sticks for pittsburgh. it's gotta be places like charlotte, cincinnati, indianapolis, asheville, austin, even portland. holding pittsburgh up to the really big cities isn't fair or even logical.
Posted by: sean mcdaniel | August 01, 2006 at 06:55 AM
San Francisco is by no measure a "really big city." I haven't done the research on population, but i think you are sort of drawing arbitrary lines because you want to.
I think looking at concepts like age and basic design/ geography are a lot more usefull than size. In that respect San francisco and Boston are interesting.
The open season "sprawl type cities" of the southwest seem to be the places with the least in common with Pittsburgh. Looking at cities with definate geographic limitations are interesting.
Posted by: John Morris | August 04, 2006 at 06:27 AM
San Francisco is by no measure a "really big city." I haven't done the research on population, but i think you are sort of drawing arbitrary lines because you want to.
I think looking at concepts like age and basic design/ geography are a lot more usefull than size. In that respect San francisco and Boston are interesting.
The open season "sprawl type cities" of the southwest seem to be the places with the least in common with Pittsburgh. Looking at cities with definate geographic limitations are interesting.
Posted by: John Morris | August 04, 2006 at 06:27 AM
to borrow one of your phrases JM, i never said that SF was a really big city. I was saying that it's in a different class of city than pittsburgh.
Posted by: sean mcdaniel | August 05, 2006 at 08:30 AM