Eugene/Springfield - The Bad News (Portland, Corvallis: short sale, real estate, apartments)

[backdrifter]

Originally Posted by Tom Lane

One of the main objective of "Smart Growth" is to control "sprawl" as if there's something "wrong" with it.

I just went through Boulder, Colorado and witnessed what happen when you stop sprawl, and pack over 100,000 people into 12 square miles, w/ an urban growth boundary.

Heavy traffic, air pollution, rude drivers, lack of greenery, bicyclists fighting with traffic, and you have to pay $1.50/hour to park downtown at the library.

In contrast, Flagstaff, Arizona; Santa Fe, NM; Durango, Colorado; and Yucca Valley, CA are small towns like Boulder and Eugene -- yet they are spread out over larger areas. Nobody complains about having to drive 15 miles from one end of town to the other. There are less stop lights and less lanes on the roads than in Boulder. And, you travel at 35-50mph, not 20-35mph. That's better fuel economy and less pollution.

As a young person in the 18-34 demographic, I want to own property someday. Urban Growth Boundaries and Impact Fees increase the cost of housing. I do not see how I can ever own property unless I stay away from places like Boulder and Eugene.

At the same time, I am 110% for all the other Green elements of smart growth: bike trails, walkable neighborhoods, multi-modal corridors, landscaping, etc. -- but not by way of impact fees from developers. I think volunteers could contribute to tree planting and bike trails. I would love to build bike trails in my community.

In the next election, I will vote all the smart growth, pro-impact fee candidates out of office <grin>

Good luck with that election campaign... Just remember that us greenies outnumber you in Oregon!

I could spout off tons of reasons why sprawl is bad... Especially in a place like Oregon... But I'll spare ya... for now.

[nutleynut]

Yea but the function of the urban growth boundary in Eugene seems not to be to make a town denser and save the land around it but to stop growth period increasing the value of certain areas and keeping other areas down.
You have people making decisions that have no experience of living in a proper city with a normal amount of people around you, who seem to hate the idea of interacting with anyone outside their nuclear group, that do not want the density that city living, common sense, and a public transport infrastructure requires. Like most things in Eugene it looks good on paper but the reality is quite a bit different.

[Mr Eugenified]

Originally Posted by nutleynut

Yea but the function of the urban growth boundary in Eugene seems not to be to make a town denser and save the land around it but to stop growth period increasing the value of certain areas and keeping other areas down.
You have people making decisions that have no experience of living in a proper city with a normal amount of people around you, who seem to hate the idea of interacting with anyone outside their nuclear group, that do not want the density that city living, common sense, and a public transport infrastructure requires. Like most things in Eugene it looks good on paper but the reality is quite a bit different.

I am not really understanding your point. Plus I am wondering who the "people making decisions" are?

It seems that you are advocating for a small but dense city, with a firm boundary around it, surrounded by forests (or whatever). Is that correct?

I suppose the opposite view would be suburban sprawl.

Is there any other options that you see (and reject)?

[nutleynut]

You'll have to read the posts prior to mine to get the context. As for people making decisions that is self evident, the local gov. I think you assume to much when you say I am advocating, but what you describe is the general intent of an urban growth boundary. It is the preferred method of stopping sprawl which is considered to be a net negative to us as a society and to our environment.
The last sentence is almost incomprehensible to me. I suppose if I think you took and assumption about me, it might make sense that you have imposed some negative label on me. Then that sentence means I am narrow minded and prejudiced. Hmmm which means you are narrow and prejudiced and projecting it upon me because you think you percieve something in what I wrote that you do not bother to mention.

Maybe I'm missing my mark, I am simply pointing out that we have an urban growth boundary but the city is not getting much denser and I think it would a lot faster that it is because so many would like to live here. This is a very desireable location, thus the reason for the lack of building more densely has to be artificial. Urban growth boundaries generally make real estate more valuable which generally encourages development. Of which we have very little.
I made the remark about it being to stop all growth because that is what it appears to be doing.

[Steve97415]

Originally Posted by Tom Lane

In contrast, Flagstaff, Arizona; Santa Fe, NM; Durango, Colorado; and Yucca Valley, CA are small towns like Boulder and Eugene -- yet they are spread out over larger areas. Nobody complains about having to drive 15 miles from one end of town to the other. There are less stop lights and less lanes on the roads than in Boulder. And, you travel at 35-50mph, not 20-35mph. That's better fuel economy and less pollution.

Well, yeah...of course. Places like Phoenix, L.A. and Denver didn't start out as hell-hole oceans of urban development; they had good livability at one point in their development, too. The fact that Flagstaff, Santa Fe, Durango and Yucca Valley are temporarily at a manageable stage in their sprawl cycle doesn't negate the fact that they are on a trajectory of downward livability due to sprawl. Sprawl just isn't sustainable. You also pass over the fact that most of the communities you mention have other natural sprawl controls. Flagstaff is entirely landlocked by Coconino National Forest and really can't grow that much anyway. Santa Fe and Yucca Valley are both hamstrung by water supply (probably the same with Durango, too, I'm less familiar with its issues). You're not providing very good models for the notion of unplanned growth being more affordable, BTW, these are fairly exclusive places in comparison to nearby areas.

You pass right over one of the main points about land use design without recognizing it in your last sentence above: land use patterns are determined to a large extent by transportation design. For the past 100 years or so, individually-owned automobiles have prevailed as the dominant strategy for moving people around. That era is drawing to a close. We have to design cities that are compact, walkable and bikeable because automobile proliferation can't continue. It was an idea based on burning hundreds of millions of years worth of solar energy stored as hydrocarbons in just a few decades. We can't do the same thing with renewal energy sources when we've finished burning our way back to the last few drops of Paleozoic sunshine. One of the things we all need to realize about the stark consequences of exponential population growth: tomorrow isn't going to be like yesterday -- the math just doesn't work out for it.

The only thing that UGBs really do is force planners to be deliberate in their approach to designing the future. Oregon law requires that every planning jurisdiction maintain a 20-year supply of buildable land in its local inventory. That size of urban growth area is far too generous to put a squeeze on the real estate market (UGBs are expanded every five years). But it does force planners to think about where the city should go as they look forward rather than looking at where the city did go, in hindsight. It also provides ample opportunity for citizen input, something that doesn't happen with emergent design in an unencumbered free market.

[Steve97415]

Originally Posted by nutleynut

I made the remark about it being to stop all growth because that is what it appears to be doing.

This surprises a lot of people, but almost 40% of all homes built in the last decade were built for reasons other than primary home-owner occupancy. In other words, they were built for investment purposes. Most cities have far more homes than what their housing-demand document says they need. Current cessation of economic growth has nothing to do with urban planning.

When the stock market slowed, a lot of people turned to real estate as a secondary form of investment ("house flipping" became a career path for a few years) . The demand for additional real estate caused builders to respond with a lot of new building. The lending market responded by lowering its lending requirements to people who really weren't credit-worthy borrowers. When the credit market collapsed, so did the real estate market. So now there is a huge surplus of residential real estate because it's no longer a sought-after investment. Lenders have been chastened on qualifying mortgage applicants and supply now greatly exceeds actual demand. It will be a number of years before the slack is purged from the market and new building will make sense again.

[Mr Eugenified]

Originally Posted by Steve97415

...One of the things we all need to realize about the stark consequences of exponential population growth: tomorrow isn't going to be like yesterday -- the math just doesn't work out for it.

Not that I disagree with your points, but the world population growth rate is only 1.1% per year...if I am remembering my college math correctly, that's a lot lower than "exponential population growth".

[FlagstaffMama]

Originally Posted by Steve97415

Well, yeah...of course. Places like Phoenix, L.A. and Denver didn't start out as hell-hole oceans of urban development; they had good livability at one point in their development, too. The fact that Flagstaff, Santa Fe, Durango and Yucca Valley are temporarily at a manageable stage in their sprawl cycle doesn't negate the fact that they are on a trajectory of downward livability due to sprawl. Sprawl just isn't sustainable. You also pass over the fact that most of the communities you mention have other natural sprawl controls. Flagstaff is entirely landlocked by Coconino National Forest and really can't grow that much anyway. Santa Fe and Yucca Valley are both hamstrung by water supply (probably the same with Durango, too, I'm less familiar with its issues). You're not providing very good models for the notion of unplanned growth being more affordable, BTW, these are fairly exclusive places in comparison to nearby areas.

You pass right over one of the main points about land use design without recognizing it in your last sentence above: land use patterns are determined to a large extent by transportation design. For the past 100 years or so, individually-owned automobiles have prevailed as the dominant strategy for moving people around. That era is drawing to a close. We have to design cities that are compact, walkable and bikeable because automobile proliferation can't continue. It was an idea based on burning hundreds of millions of years worth of solar energy stored as hydrocarbons in just a few decades. We can't do the same thing with renewal energy sources when we've finished burning our way back to the last few drops of Paleozoic sunshine. One of the things we all need to realize about the stark consequences of exponential population growth: tomorrow isn't going to be like yesterday -- the math just doesn't work out for it.

The only thing that UGBs really do is force planners to be deliberate in their approach to designing the future. Oregon law requires that every planning jurisdiction maintain a 20-year supply of buildable land in its local inventory. That size of urban growth area is far too generous to put a squeeze on the real estate market (UGBs are expanded every five years). But it does force planners to think about where the city should go as they look forward rather than looking at where the city did go, in hindsight. It also provides ample opportunity for citizen input, something that doesn't happen with emergent design in an unencumbered free market.

I live in Flag, and am considering Eugene. Flag will be built out in 20 or so years, according to estimates. And you are 100% correct, because of the Nat'l Forest. New areas are trying to build up...

[Mr Eugenified]

Originally Posted by Steve97415

...Oregon law requires that every planning jurisdiction maintain a 20-year supply of buildable land in its local inventory. That size of urban growth area is far too generous to put a squeeze on the real estate market (UGBs are expanded every five years). But it does force planners to think about where the city should go as they look forward rather than looking at where the city did go, in hindsight. It also provides ample opportunity for citizen input, something that doesn't happen with emergent design in an unencumbered free market.

That's a nice clear description that I have never heard before. On its face, it sounds like a very smart and pragmatic approach.

[Steve97415]

Originally Posted by Mr Eugenified

Not that I disagree with your points, but the world population growth rate is only 1.1% per year...if I am remembering my college math correctly, that's a lot lower than "exponential population growth".

No...recheck your college math...that's still an exponential rate, even if a lower one than that seen in the mid-20th century. At 1.1% growth, the population will double in just 65 years.

However, much the annual rate might fluctuate through the years, the consequences of exponential population growth -- the growth that has occurred in the past and the growth that will occur in the future -- are going to drastically change the way we live. Doubling Time