U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico > Albuquerque
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 07-27-2010, 12:10 AM
 
Location: ABQ New Mexico
35 posts, read 55,105 times
Reputation: 17
While I agree with the above post, I have to say that Albuquerque is taking baby steps towards a better direction. Try Houston/Dallas/Phoenix for a dehumanizing mess of suburbs and dead downtowns...
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2010, 05:20 AM
 
266 posts, read 348,329 times
Reputation: 107
I'm relatively new to the boards. But my simple understanding was that Albuquerque could not expand like AZ or TX (or Atlanta, talk about sprawl!) because of the geography - mountains, Native American reservations... do you think this helps at all, or are we destined to mow through these obstacles and keep sprawling?

I'm happy we have different strokes for different folks and that people who don't like it once place can move to another - what a luxury we take for granted, the ability to be mobile (jobs aside). So I am wary of comparing how one city is compared to another. If I wanted X, then I'd live in X and not live in Y and complain about how it's not X. I am glad I got to experience the Northeast for a while - it taught me what I can do without and how to be more conscious of the lifestyle I lead. I loved walking to work and using public transportation. The cost of living and lower salaries on average make it prohibitive (and silly) to live there when you hard-earned dollar can go much further elsewhere (again, unless you are bound by your job) - I asked myself what I was sacrificing or willing to pay more for in order to live there and couldn't come up with much. For my lifestyle (it's a personal thing), I'm okay with everything "big" being a plane ride away. I came here partly to escape a lot of the other junk and drama. As another poster pointed out, there are a TON of folks who leave the Northeast and move here - because there is something to be had out here that the NE doesn't have. When I lived there, I heard just as many stories about how we had something they didn't.

Having said that, I do think that controlled, well-planned infill and public transportation are the way to go. I don't have any good answers on how to do that. But what makes this place special is that you get to experience a (not indefinite) luxury of having open spaces, more personal freedoms, and other things. You can have the suburban, the rural, and hopefully more the urban in time and with good planning. So for me, comparing how one city is set up compared to another is flawed - we know what our pros and cons are, we have plenty of smart people here, so let's deal with them without trying to be Boston or Canada.

Again, I'm new - apologize in advance for any ramblings, board violations, or grammatical errors.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 08:16 AM
 
Location: ABQ, NM
374 posts, read 352,559 times
Reputation: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Horrell View Post
Cottage industries can only support a very small number of people. Or are you suggesting
that we revert to company towns like in mining where everyone lives right next door
to a factory (or in modern terms an office) and that everyone in the neighborhood
work at the same location?

That's the only way to ensure "walkable employment".

Is that your desire?
I did not suggest that, please do not over simply my argument and belittle it while not adding any suggestions of your own. This is a perfect example of what I mentioned in my last post, more personal attack than helpful discussion.

There are many different types of work out there, and among those many different sub-groups of that work. If a neighborhood has been built correctly, many of those jobs will be present and many people will be able to work close to home. Not everyone works in a office tower or in a mine. Even if a large amount of a given neighborhood did the same job, there could be several different companies all close together. On top of that, it is no more crazy that everyone would all work in the same tower that is next door than it is that the whole neighborhood drives 15-20 miles away during "rush hour" to a handful of locations to get to work
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Nuevo México
1,810 posts, read 2,078,337 times
Reputation: 1752
Did anybody see a recent TV program, I think it was called "After Oil"? I only caught the tail end of it. It was in the same vein as those other apocalyptic programs, like "After People." It predicted that after oil supplies diminish in the not too distant future we'll see suburban developments abandoned and people living close to railroad lines again. That may be our sprawl "solution". Maybe go back to the horse and buggy?

I think human nature proves time and again that old habits die hard, changing patterns usually comes only from necessity. We're not going to "fix" sprawl until we have no choice.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 09:07 AM
 
1,973 posts, read 2,759,696 times
Reputation: 782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanrice View Post
I did not suggest that, please do not over simply my argument and belittle it while not adding any suggestions of your own. This is a perfect example of what I mentioned in my last post, more personal attack than helpful discussion.

There are many different types of work out there, and among those many different sub-groups of that work. If a neighborhood has been built correctly, many of those jobs will be present and many people will be able to work close to home. Not everyone works in a office tower or in a mine. Even if a large amount of a given neighborhood did the same job, there could be several different companies all close together. On top of that, it is no more crazy that everyone would all work in the same tower that is next door than it is that the whole neighborhood drives 15-20 miles away during "rush hour" to a handful of locations to get to work
Let's take this a step at a time.

One: no one made any sort of personal attack on you.

Two: EXTRAPOLATION of your premise raises some real questions and guess what?
You put a proposition on the table and it gets looked at.

OK now if YOUR criteria is to have everyone walk to work, you either need very high
density with a few high volume employers or lots and lots of small "villages" with smaller
employers supporting everyone; i.e "cottage industries".

I can't see the cottage industry model working for more than a small fraction of the
population. If it did work, most of the areas around major cities whose residents
face horrendous commutes would already be converting on a large scale. They're
actively doing what they can, but there just aren't the total employment numbers
in a cottage model that are required to support the entire local population.

Too bad as I think that's a generally nice concept.

So "walkable employment" is going to require high volume employers that rely on a
large number of employees living within very short distances. That's the classic
definition of a company town which is most graphically illustrated by the mining industry.

The old real estate adage is "Location, location, location"... when talking about ways
transportation can be used to reduce sprawl, it should be "Volume, Volume, Volume..".

That clarify things a bit?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 09:19 AM
 
1,973 posts, read 2,759,696 times
Reputation: 782
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63 View Post
I think human nature proves time and again that old habits die hard, changing patterns usually comes only from necessity. We're not going to "fix" sprawl until we have no choice.
"until we have no choice". I think the general trend is toward "greening" because the
average person is no fool. The problem is no so much that "old habits die hard" as
that any proposed solution has to be demonstrably better to those who will have to
adapt before they will get on board. Going from a 20 minute commute to an hour or
so just ain't gonna get anyone very enthused.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 09:30 AM
 
Location: ABQ, NM
374 posts, read 352,559 times
Reputation: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Horrell View Post
Let's take this a step at a time.

One: no one made any sort of personal attack on you.

Two: EXTRAPOLATION of your premise raises some real questions and guess what?
You put a proposition on the table and it gets looked at.

OK now if YOUR criteria is to have everyone walk to work, you either need very high
density with a few high volume employers or lots and lots of small "villages" with smaller
employers supporting everyone; i.e "cottage industries".

I can't see the cottage industry model working for more than a small fraction of the
population. If it did work, most of the areas around major cities whose residents
face horrendous commutes would already be converting on a large scale. They're
actively doing what they can, but there just aren't the total employment numbers
in a cottage model that are required to support the entire local population.

Too bad as I think that's a generally nice concept.

So "walkable employment" is going to require high volume employers that rely on a
large number of employees living within very short distances. That's the classic
definition of a company town which is most graphically illustrated by the mining industry.

The old real estate adage is "Location, location, location"... when talking about ways
transportation can be used to reduce sprawl, it should be "Volume, Volume, Volume..".

That clarify things a bit?
I don't see how walkable means that everyone is required to only walk, I meant walkable as in people can get many places by walking. Otherwise, most trips after that should be able to be done by mass transit options and only a few trips done by personal car. I don't think that all of this will necessarily require high volume. Look at the plan for mesa del sol. Homes will not be built until certain thresholds of business are met. I understand that most of those businesses will be high paying, and high education jobs, and that is who will typically live in the area. I still think that the plan for mesa del sol is a much better model of what we should be striving for, and that it will help your current situation of sprawl.

The simple truth is that most employers don't care whether or not their employees travel far or not. They don't yet see how that harms their business. However, some do see the harm, and they use concepts such as tele-commuting to reduce the amount of work missed, reduce employee stress, and to raise production. Obviously, that will not work for everyone, but I do think that it is the start of employers' mid-sets changing for the better.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 10:40 AM
 
Location: ABQ New Mexico
35 posts, read 55,105 times
Reputation: 17
I think Canada, Boston, etc. have been brought up as examples of what Abq might want to aim for, as far as planning and transportation, as the city develops.

Also, geographically, Abq is a somewhat hemmed in, on 3 sides (Sandia res. on the north, East mts., and Ysleta Res. on the south) but this has led to large scale "sprawl" on the Westside. Furthermore, the development in the East Mts. communities/torrance county, and Los Lunas/Valencia County, sort of prove that people are willing to keep moving out in those directions.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque
5,553 posts, read 9,251,353 times
Reputation: 2453
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorcyclenut
Moortimer I'm not surprised by your impatient attitude reading my post.
You're not surprised, yet you didn't do anything about it. Lots of
people complain about others who post gigantic run-on posts
without line breaks. If I didn't do it, somone else would have.

If you want people to read your opinions, you need to make it easy
to read them. This is a written forum and the worse your style is,
the less likely it is that people will get what you have to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorcyclenut
Seems like you want to hear people tell you how
great controlling peoples actions by taxing works.
No, that's what you wanted to take from my post.
I said that the only thing that will cause people to reduce
their consumption of petroleum is an increase in price.

This is an experiment that has already been run. Successfully.
It was tried in 1974, 1979 and later in 2008. Consumption went
down. Unfortunately, the lessons of the dangers of dependence
on foreign oil were forgotten. They were forgotten FAST.

If I was one to jump to conclusions, I would say something to
you like Seems like you want to hear people tell you how great
it is to send more and more American treasure to oil exporting
countries that hate us works.


I know you don't mean that and you know I don't mean what you wrote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63
... "After Oil"? ... after oil supplies diminish in the not too distant
future we'll see suburban developments abandoned and people
living close to railroad lines again.
The presumption that oil will suddendly run out, that the wells
will suddenly dry up and stop flowing all at once is wrong.

The supply of oil will never actually run out, it will simply decrease
over time and the price will go up. As the price goes up, people,
with their inventive minds will figure out how to make what is left
go further. Some of that will happen via more fuel efficient vehicles.

Such programs also assume that people won't ever be able to use
substitutes for oil. Vehicles can be run on natural gas, electricity,
alcohol, sawdust, and a bunch of other stuff. All it takes is an
economic incentive.

We'll never run out of oil. Never. If you are willing to pay the cost
of wringing out the harder and harder to get petroleum, you can have as
much of it as you want. Oil can be synthesized from garbage if you want
it bad enough.

Last edited by mortimer; 07-27-2010 at 10:58 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque
343 posts, read 412,022 times
Reputation: 224
I think there is a fantasy about peak oil and how its going to run out and make the world a better place...but I don't see that happening. People didn't forget about how the speculation in oil prices took a painful chunk out of their budget and the car manufacturers are have gotten their act together.

The Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf and Coda Sedan should all be on the market by the end of the year. At least half a dozen more will be on the market by the end of 2012. It will take a long time before most of the cars in America are electric, but with the option there people can choose to live further away even if they can't afford gas.

The people that want new homes on in the suburbs can buy their 130K house at the edge and an EV for 30, 40 or even 50K instead of 200K - 300K for a nice house located closer to the city or an expensive and small condo/rental in the city center. That is assuming that they can't afford gas anymore, which may not happen depending on how speculative people get again, how much new drilling is allowed to go online, how much we reduce our demand over the years and how quickly we actually recover from the recession.

It might not work for people living far away from their jobs on the coasts, but an EV would be fine for a city Albuquerque's size. 100 mile range will get you anywhere you need to go round trip in the Albuquerque metro and still have plenty of range to get the kids to/from school and do some shopping.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico > Albuquerque

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top