Banning Lewis Ranch

[reginhild]

Originally Posted by CS-Urbanist

I don't think it is realistic to not develop Banning Lewis Ranch. However, my recommendation would be to cluster the development into pods of higher densities (say 6-20 du's/ acre) and maintain a lot of the land as open space. It's the 1/2 acre lots - 2 acre lots that do the most damage. What are you going to do with 2 acres of land that you couldn't do with 1/4 ac. lots, besides mow a hell of a lot more. It's the greed of our western mentality that wants more land, and than we just seed it with Kentucky Blue Grass, which requires way too much water... I say build dense and preserve as much open land as possible in the process.

While they're at it, develop it in a more sustainable, non-car dependent way with walkable retail, grocery, etc... a la New Urbanism/ Smart Growth.

I don't mind big lots if there were some restrictions about having a ton of Kentucky Bluegrass that requires lots of water. We are in a limited water resource area and new development will cause water problems in the future unless we plan smartly.

Hopefully the new CS Utilities increase in the water bill will help motivate transition to more Xeriscape yards. I can tell you from renting the previous year that 1/3 acre of Kentucky Bluegrass can cost $200+ per month in water bills - and that's before the new water rate hike. That could be $300/month in my old rented house now in the summer!

[lalahartma]

Originally Posted by CS-Urbanist

I don't think it is realistic to not develop Banning Lewis Ranch. However, my recommendation would be to cluster the development into pods of higher densities (say 6-20 du's/ acre) and maintain a lot of the land as open space. It's the 1/2 acre lots - 2 acre lots that do the most damage. What are you going to do with 2 acres of land that you couldn't do with 1/4 ac. lots, besides mow a hell of a lot more. It's the greed of our western mentality that wants more land, and than we just seed it with Kentucky Blue Grass, which requires way too much water... I say build dense and preserve as much open land as possible in the process.

While they're at it, develop it in a more sustainable, non-car dependent way with walkable retail, grocery, etc... a la New Urbanism/ Smart Growth.

Horses! If there was also some place to ride. And the zoning, of course.
While horses do use water, they don't use water like the blue grass!

[CS-Urbanist]

Originally Posted by lalahartma

Horses! If there was also some place to ride. And the zoning, of course.
While horses do use water, they don't use water like the blue grass!

Can you have that on that 5 acre lots? What they should do is have some horse stables in some common open space there that could connect to a trail so every horse user could use it rather than add their own stables.

[lalahartma]

Well, the riding you can't do on the 5 acre lots, unless you stay in an arena, which is pretty boring 24/7. The rest is fine, as you can't support horses on most land around here unless you have LOTS of acreage. Every one feeds hay, instead of depanding on grazing. In Albuquerque, they have a long history of agri-areas, and run more horses on a smaller acreage than I've seen anywhere. Commercial stables/trainers/breeders operate on 5-6 acre lots. In the city!


The communal stables is a good idea. There are very few 'equestrian communities' around here. (One has a fairly large event center.) There's one or two in the works, or were in the works, which are VERY high end.