Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Is that because we have transformed our built environment to one that is only inviting to cars? Think about majority of our retail, there front not a sidewalk or street, but a parking lot.
It's because we now have the ability to go as far as we want, whenever we want, and explore our city and state, country and world. Not many people are interested in staying in their neighborhood most of the time. Yeah, I mean, I guess if I had 50 restaurants and bars, a grocery store, a hobby store, an electronics store, a home improvement store, ten different kid-oriented businesses, a few playgrounds, a music venue, and a hookah lounge all within a ten-minute's walk, I'd be less inclined to venture out further, but almost nowhere has that. And to achieve this, you most likely are living in a condo/apartment of some sort. And that's not my bag, baby.
People want to venture and see new things, not be stuck in their same block. People want more space than a 600 square foot condo/apartment. And they mostly prefer the freedom of transporting themselves and their stuff. We have built our environment to support that, whether or not you agree that it's desirable.
I'd be totally cool with retail which fronts the street and and with parking in the back, but you have just got to get over this mentality that full urban walkable car-free life is enticing to everyone. It just isn't. Most people have no desire to walk much further than 1/2 top 3/4 of a mile for everyday trips. They might go a little more for special occasions/drinking. Even from your location, most people aren't going to walk or bike to EAV or L5P. Kirkwood downtown has a limited number of offerings. jsvh's location offers quite a bit within half a mile, but it still wouldn't be enough to convince me to go car-free. There's just so much more.
It's because we now have the ability to go as far as we want, whenever we want, and explore our city and state, country and world. Not many people are interested in staying in their neighborhood most of the time. Yeah, I mean, I guess if I had 50 restaurants and bars, a grocery store, a hobby store, an electronics store, a home improvement store, ten different kid-oriented businesses, a few playgrounds, a music venue, and a hookah lounge all within a ten-minute's walk, I'd be less inclined to venture out further, but almost nowhere has that. And to achieve this, you most likely are living in a condo/apartment of some sort. And that's not my bag, baby.
People want to venture and see new things, not be stuck in their same block. People want more space than a 600 square foot condo/apartment. And they mostly prefer the freedom of transporting themselves and their stuff. We have built our environment to support that, whether or not you agree that it's desirable.
I'd be totally cool with retail which fronts the street and and with parking in the back, but you have just got to get over this mentality that full urban walkable car-free life is enticing to everyone. It just isn't. Most people have no desire to walk much further than 1/2 top 3/4 of a mile for everyday trips. They might go a little more for special occasions/drinking. Even from your location, most people aren't going to walk or bike to EAV or L5P. Kirkwood downtown has a limited number of offerings. jsvh's location offers quite a bit within half a mile, but it still wouldn't be enough to convince me to go car-free. There's just so much more.
See you keep on assuming that majority of people believe what you are saying. Just because majority of Americans drive almost everywhere does not believe that is what they want in life, 99% of American landscape is built for cars and not people.
It's because we now have the ability to go as far as we want, whenever we want, and explore our city and state, country and world. Not many people are interested in staying in their neighborhood most of the time. Yeah, I mean, I guess if I had 50 restaurants and bars, a grocery store, a hobby store, an electronics store, a home improvement store, ten different kid-oriented businesses, a few playgrounds, a music venue, and a hookah lounge all within a ten-minute's walk, I'd be less inclined to venture out further, but almost nowhere has that. And to achieve this, you most likely are living in a condo/apartment of some sort. And that's not my bag, baby.
People want to venture and see new things, not be stuck in their same block. People want more space than a 600 square foot condo/apartment. And they mostly prefer the freedom of transporting themselves and their stuff. We have built our environment to support that, whether or not you agree that it's desirable.
I'd be totally cool with retail which fronts the street and and with parking in the back, but you have just got to get over this mentality that full urban walkable car-free life is enticing to everyone. It just isn't. Most people have no desire to walk much further than 1/2 top 3/4 of a mile for everyday trips. They might go a little more for special occasions/drinking. Even from your location, most people aren't going to walk or bike to EAV or L5P. Kirkwood downtown has a limited number of offerings. jsvh's location offers quite a bit within half a mile, but it still wouldn't be enough to convince me to go car-free. There's just so much more.
See you keep on assuming that majority of people believe what you are saying. Just because majority of Americans drive almost everywhere does not believe that is what they want in life, 99% of American landscape is built for cars and not people.
You're incorrect, cq. It is built for people to get around - in cars.
You're incorrect, cq. It is built for people to get around - in cars.
Unless in transit or carpooling, very inefficiently at getting people around. Also, reducing the need for park storage at every single development would reduce the cost of building and therefore we could more affordable options. As it stands now, the costs of building the car storage (at least $10K/spot for above ground garages) is included in rent or the sale price even if the occupant does not use it.
Housing prices depend on a lot of things. A house might bring X in one location and 3X in another. So it's a lot more complicated than just supply and demand or the amount of inventory.
On the large scale, it really is as simple as supply and demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brown_dog_us
Are you really OK with this?
The reason I asked you early where to build the SFHs for millenials is because if we don't create a place for them ITP then they will be built OTP far from transit.
I have no problem with building SFHs for people who will pay for them. The problem is that we have tons of SFHs all over the metro. They are FAR more available as an option than anything else. The policy changes I have suggested would make it no harder to build such development should people still want them.
Let me say this again, because some people don't seem to understand this: I am not trying to remove SFHs from existence.
What I've been suggesting, though, is to try and make it just as easy, from a governmental stand point, to build higher density as it is to build SFHs. Default zoning to allow it, removal of unnecessary regulations, and so on that make it easier to build higher density, even if that takes the form of single homes.
There is a huge backlog for density within both the city and the metro, and making that easier to satisfy that will go a LONG way towards helping things.
See, SFHs are, right now, the default. Sprawl is the default. Cars over transit and walking and biking is the default. I just want to open up the default to allow more options than car-centric low density sprawl should people choose to make it happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnsleyPark
You're incorrect, cq. It is built for people to get around - in cars.
Therefore it is built for moving cars, storing cars, and managing cars, all of which just happens to make it harder for humans to get places without cars, while using up far more space, cost far more money, and do far more damage to the environment.
We're not thinking of the best ways to move people. If we were, we'd be more compact, allowing people to actually save time, money, and pollution by not needing to drive everywhere. We'd be investing more in transit and bikes, which can move far more people through a space, often cheaper overall than with cars. We'd be mixing uses so that people can reach as many amenities as possible within a quick walk.
If we were really designing for people, we'd be thinking much more multi-modal. Instead, we're hyper-prioritizing cars, because we've been tricked to think that designing for cars is designing for people, when, in fact, the second the person steps out of the car, they're second-class.
On the large scale, it really is as simple as supply and demand.
I'm not sure how simple that is.
Demand is constrained by what consumers are willing and able to pay for things. It isn't simply what people want in the abstract.
For example, I'm sure that if you took a poll and asked how many people would enjoy having a beachfront home on Sea Island for $100K or less, you'd get a whole lot of folks saying, "Yes, I would like that!" Similarly, if you were to ask how many would like to have a house on Lake Burton with a boat slip for under $95K, you'd have tons of people respond in the affirmative.
However, the market price for such condo or lakehouse is probably $1 million or more.
Does that mean there's simply not enough supply? Do we need to open up Burton and Sea Island for dense, inexpensive, zero lot line triplexes and apartments with no parking requirements that anybody can slap up without having to comply with any zoning requirements or regulations?
Demand is constrained by what consumers are willing and able to pay for things. It isn't simply what people want in the abstract.
I never said otherwise?
Quote:
For example, I'm sure that if you took a poll and asked how many people would enjoy having a beachfront home on Sea Island for $100K or less, you'd get a whole lot of folks saying, "Yes, I would like that!" Similarly, if you were to ask how many would like to have a house on Lake Burton with a boat slip for under $95K, you'd have tons of people respond in the affirmative.
However, the market price for such condo or lakehouse is probably $1 million or more.
Boy it's almost like there isn't enough...
Quote:
Does that mean there's simply not enough supply?
Oh look, you beat me to it!
Quote:
Do we need to open up Burton and Sea Island for dense, inexpensive, zero lot line triplexes and apartments with no parking requirements that anybody can slap up without having to comply with any zoning requirements or regulations?
1) I never said that we should have no zoning requirements or regulations. I said we should have more open zoning and fewer impedimentary and ultimately harmful regulations. I would take it as a show of arguing in good faith if you'd stop saying that I'm suggesting to remove zoning all together since that's never been my position.
Things like real safety, health, and environmental protection laws should be maintained. It's just that so many things help up in the name of those things really do more harm than good.
2) I'd be surprised if the people who lived there wanted to sell their homes to dense development if it were allowed.
3) Adding density to Sea Island wouldn't be too crazy, considering how common ocean-front towers are on the barriers elsewhere. Again, though, the people who own property on Sea Island are rich enough to not have to do squat with a developer if they don't want to. They would be more than capable of retaining their homes, and, should their personal tastes dictate, choosing not to sell to anyone who wanted to make a tower.
4) I probably shouldn't need to say this, but since you're using Sea Island as an example, Atlanta IS NOT St. Simons. Atlanta is the economic engine of the state, a place of immense opportunity and resources for uplifting people. It is a place that can be used to great effect to improve lives and break generational trends of poverty and lost economic mobility. If St. Simons was anything other than a tourist location with a shrinking population (13,381 in 2000 & 12,743 in 2010) then yeah, we'd be having a different conversation about the need of upzoning the island. For now, though, they can get away with artificially raising prices.
5) That said, funnily enough St. Simmons does allow the some of the middle-density housing you're so adamant on keeping away from huge swaths of Atlanta. Perhaps there's not as much as there could, or should be, but there's quite a bit of medium-level density around with town homes, and condos. There's even a solid, fairly dense, zero-lot-line commercial cluster in the Village that's quite walkable and bikable. I know, because I have stayed there quite a bit myself.
See you keep on assuming that majority of people believe what you are saying. Just because majority of Americans drive almost everywhere does not believe that is what they want in life, 99% of American landscape is built for cars and not people.
I believe it is far, far more than those who want to live a car-free, walk-everywhere, small-apartment, dense lifestyle. Absolutely.
Most people are not urbanist die-hards. They just aren't. If they were, that would be the target market, and that's what things would be built for. Do you really think that the world came to be like it is when it's not what anyone actually wanted?? Few really wanted to own a car, drive anywhere, live in houses, but that's what was built anyway? If so few people actually want to live in houses outside the direct core, why are those houses flying off the market, sometimes within hours, even at inflated prices? Hint: it's what people want!
And again: people drive those cars. What you're actually trying to say is, 99% of American landscape is built for vehicles (with sidewalks frequently attached for pedestrians and extra bike lanes spread around for cyclists), and not specifically for only pedestrians or cyclists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourthwarden
On the large scale, it really is as simple as supply and demand.
My response to cq above touches on this. We've built the environment the way it is, because that's what demand was for.
Quote:
Let me say this again, because some people don't seem to understand this: I am not trying to remove SFHs from existence.
What I've been suggesting, though, is to try and make it just as easy, from a governmental stand point, to build higher density as it is to build SFHs. Default zoning to allow it, removal of unnecessary regulations, and so on that make it easier to build higher density, even if that takes the form of single homes.
No, we totally understand that. We just don't agree with it as a default for every area, every neighborhood, every lot. It is you who is not understanding.
Quote:
We're not thinking of the best ways to move people. If we were, we'd be more compact, allowing people to actually save time, money, and pollution by not needing to drive everywhere. We'd be investing more in transit and bikes, which can move far more people through a space, often cheaper overall than with cars. We'd be mixing uses so that people can reach as many amenities as possible within a quick walk.
If we were really designing for people, we'd be thinking much more multi-modal. Instead, we're hyper-prioritizing cars
Why are we "hyper-prioritizing" cars if that's not what people want? Seems like you think there's some big conspiracy out there to brainwash people against their own desires.
Quote:
, because we've been tricked to think that designing for cars is designing for people, when, in fact, the second the person steps out of the car, they're second-class.
Oh. My. Dear. Lord. Tell me you didn't type this with a straight face. Are you actually saying I've been tricked into believing that I'd rather drive to vast areas of the city, rather than walk to the short distance around my house to limited amenities (having an entire metro of amenities within walking distance is nearly impossible without ridiculous density) all the time? That I'd actually rather ride transit for 90 minutes over three transfers in the winter cold or summer heat to get to work rather than drive for 20 minutes, but I've been tricked into thinking that the 20 minute drive is not actually better for me? Second class? Seriously?
Like I said above, unless there were a truly incredible amount of amenities around me, I would want to drive to most places. But, that amount of amenity is only supportable with very high density, because otherwise there aren't enough people to support all those amenities. But, I don't want to live in high density, in a small multi-level apartment building, at least as a family. And most others probably don't either. The Manhattan style of living is of absolutely zero interest to me, and likely most other people here.
If you did a poll asking how many people want to live near amenities and be able to walk to restaurants and stores, the answer would probably be yes for the vast majority (including myself). So, you might conclude that most people want to live an urban, walkable lifestyle. But, then you have to ask how many of them are willing to live in a cramped apartment building with no yard or car in order to achieve it. I'd bet the numbers drop significantly.
1) I never said that we should have no zoning requirements or regulations. I said we should have more open zoning and fewer impedimentary and ultimately harmful regulations. I would take it as a show of arguing in good faith if you'd stop saying that I'm suggesting to remove zoning all together since that's never been my position.
Things like real safety, health, and environmental protection laws should be maintained. It's just that so many things help up in the name of those things really do more harm than good.
2) I'd be surprised if the people who lived there wanted to sell their homes to dense development if it were allowed.
3) Adding density to Sea Island wouldn't be too crazy, considering how common ocean-front towers are on the barriers elsewhere. Again, though, the people who own property on Sea Island are rich enough to not have to do squat with a developer if they don't want to. They would be more than capable of retaining their homes, and, should their personal tastes dictate, choosing not to sell to anyone who wanted to make a tower.
4) I probably shouldn't need to say this, but since you're using Sea Island as an example, Atlanta IS NOT St. Simons. Atlanta is the economic engine of the state, a place of immense opportunity and resources for uplifting people. It is a place that can be used to great effect to improve lives and break generational trends of poverty and lost economic mobility. If St. Simons was anything other than a tourist location with a shrinking population (13,381 in 2000 & 12,743 in 2010) then yeah, we'd be having a different conversation about the need of upzoning the island. For now, though, they can get away with artificially raising prices.
5) That said, funnily enough St. Simmons does allow the some of the middle-density housing you're so adamant on keeping away from huge swaths of Atlanta. Perhaps there's not as much as there could, or should be, but there's quite a bit of medium-level density around with town homes, and condos. There's even a solid, fairly dense, zero-lot-line commercial cluster in the Village that's quite walkable and bikable. I know, because I have stayed there quite a bit myself.
What's wrong with simply sticking with the precepts of the City Design Book and protecting our single family neighborhoods? I thought you were a big fan of this.
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 register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
