Light Rail in Madison? (Milwaukee: condos, neighborhood, pros and cons)

[Drover]

^^ Oh, and to say nothing of the irony that the apparent right to have cheap gas is your motivating premise behind wanting to reorder urban development when cheap gas is precisely what enables the sprawl you abhor. Want to bring sprawl to a halt tomorrow? Double the price of gas.

[south-to-west]

Originally Posted by Drover

^^ Oh, and to say nothing of the irony that the apparent right to have cheap gas is your motivating premise behind wanting to reorder urban development when cheap gas is precisely what enables the sprawl you abhor. Want to bring sprawl to a halt tomorrow? Double the price of gas.

Now you're talking. Settting a price floor on the price of gas in order for it to reflect its true costs to society (air pollution, etc) is a good start for raising revenue for infrastructure improvements. Also carrots, or incentives, like tax credits and abatements for infill development would be key. Another step in helping to reduce the cost of housing in the city would be to create and enact zoning ordinances allowing for denser housing and mixed use development, thus reducing the costs that developers incur when applying for rezonings.

[gold*dust1]

Originally Posted by Drover

Well ScranBarre, it's real simple: if that's not the lifestyle for you, don't live it. If you think it's "unsustainable," then you are under no obligation to try to sustain it. Like I said upthread, people have more choices than ever about where to live and work. If someone wants to live out in cul-de-sac Hell, that's their business. I've got no call to hope for circumstances to change to make their lifestyle harder to live. If that happens just through the normal course of events, well so be it; but I have no interest in actively hoping for it. I don't have to do that because I don't have to live that lifestyle if I don't want to. And I don't want to, so I don't.

This post brings it home for me on the debate playing field. Good job!

[Milwaukee City]

If we put a stop in Madison when and where do we stop? do we then put a stop in GB then Appleton will want one then Oshkosh will want one and then FDL and West Bend. What about Eau Claire and Hudson WI? and then what about Tomah? where do we draw the line or don't we? If we are going to put in a Madison stop let's not put one at the airport that nobody would use b/c nobody goes to Madison to fly out of if they live in Milwaukee but maybe in tomah and chances are the only way you can use the rail to the madison airport is if you have a daytime flight, I doubt they are going to have a train arrive at 4am.

Buildings would have to come down and houses torn down to make way for a downtown train station. Are you prepared to do this? is their any line or should we make rail our future?

Let's have a serious debate if we are going to do this

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

If we put a stop in Madison when and where do we stop? do we then put a stop in GB then Appleton will want one then Oshkosh will want one and then FDL and West Bend. What about Eau Claire and Hudson WI? and then what about Tomah? where do we draw the line or don't we? If we are going to put in a Madison stop let's not put one at the airport that nobody would use b/c nobody goes to Madison to fly out of if they live in Milwaukee but maybe in tomah and chances are the only way you can use the rail to the madison airport is if you have a daytime flight, I doubt they are going to have a train arrive at 4am.

Buildings would have to come down and houses torn down to make way for a downtown train station. Are you prepared to do this? is their any line or should we make rail our future?

Let's have a serious debate if we are going to do this

I think you're confusing regional heavy/high-speed rail with local light rail.

[Chelito23]

Drover brought up a good point that, assume we did have that 8 dollar a gallon gas and people all looked to live in infill and high density areas. It would be very expensive to move into a rebuilt or reworked urban community. So what DOES happen to th displaced previous residents or just low income earners in general? What solutions and alternatives would there be for affordable housing? Although there are many McMansions in the sprawl, in many areas, sprawl exists because the land is cheaper and the housing stock is more affordable farther out (less desirebale, long commute to everything) and that is why people move to these far flun locaations. So what is the viable alternative for these people who need affordable or cheaper housing? Would affordable satellite cities have to be designated where there would be a cap on prices? I am just wondering what are some possibilities?

[jwhalun08]

Originally Posted by Chelito23

Drover brought up a good point that, assume we did have that 8 dollar a gallon gas and people all looked to live in infill and high density areas. It would be very expensive to move into a rebuilt or reworked urban community. So what DOES happen to th displaced previous residents or just low income earners in general? What solutions and alternatives would there be for affordable housing? Although there are many McMansions in the sprawl, in many areas, sprawl exists because the land is cheaper and the housing stock is more affordable farther out (less desirebale, long commute to everything) and that is why people move to these far flun locaations. So what is the viable alternative for these people who need affordable or cheaper housing? Would affordable satellite cities have to be designated where there would be a cap on prices? I am just wondering what are some possibilities?

Two (one of them hyphenated) words: multi-family homes. Most families live in cheap colonials built after the 1950s that are either too big or don't make an effective use of the space they occupy. Townhomes/rowhouses might also be an option. Look up the New Urbanism/New Suburbanism Movement for inspiration as to what I'm getting at about effective/non-effective uses of space.

[Milwaukee City]

Most families live in cheap colonials built after the 1950s that are either too big or don't make an effective use of the space they occupy.

I know what you're saying about new urbanism and I don't disagree with it however It can't be the solution for everyone, is that what you are suggesting? that we all start to move into row houses? or just start to build more of them?

The problem with a lot of the new Urbanism movement is a lot of the people involved want NU to be they way all cities are built and everyone and every piece of new development be of a NU design.

There is a development in Milwaukee in the Alverno Neighborhood where they built a whole area on NU, here is a link to some pics however they don't show how narrow the streets are and they don't show the green space.

Cherokee Point Neighborhood

[jwhalun08]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

I know what you're saying about new urbanism and I don't disagree with it however It can't be the solution for everyone, is that what you are suggesting? that we all start to move into row houses? or just start to build more of them?

The problem with a lot of the new Urbanism movement is a lot of the people involved want NU to be they way all cities are built and everyone and every piece of new development be of a NU design.

There is a development in Milwaukee in the Alverno Neighborhood where they built a whole area on NU, here is a link to some pics however they don't show how narrow the streets are and they don't show the green space.

Cherokee Point Neighborhood

The principles of New Urbanism can and should be applied universally to any new development. On the other hand, though, I'm staunchly against new development. New Urbanism should (and is, for the most part) start in cities--especially in brownfields--and work its way out. I don't just mean big cities like Milwaukee, but smaller ones (some of which one might call "towns" or "villages") like Madison, La Crosse, Eau Claire, Superior, etc. People don't live near the heart of cities, towns, villages or whatever for but a few main reasons: (1) it's too expensive, (2) it's not feasible (there simply aren't any desirable/suitable options available), or (3) it's ugly, loud, etc. New Urbanism can correct all of those issues.

Think of the way we humans generally grow our crops. We plant everything in monocultures. Corn and corn alone stretches across acres and acres and acres. It's only done this way because basically every aspect of the process is mechanized; the machines need straight rows of the same crop. Because it exists in such defiance of nature, it requires a lot of pesticides, herbicides, water, and fertilizer, but--while oil is cheap--it's far more cost effective than employing hundreds upon hundreds of human laborers to do everything by hand. Polycultures, on the other hand, work with nature; they don't require as many inputs and they don't wreak havoc on the soil and other plant/animal life in the area--but again, it's not a cost effective scheme.

This is the same way we approach urban planning. Residences are in one area, businesses in another, nature in another. Everything is separated. It would be healthier, more practical, and more aesthetically pleasing to work with nature, but the other option requires less money and less thought, so it's the one we go with.

From the looks of that picture and the website you provided, it seems as though the only New Urbanist element of that development is the varied architecture of the homes. Other than that, it's just a cute marketing ploy--some greedy investment bankers disingenuously using the Cherokee name and image to lead potential buyers to believe they're doing something noble and good and ethically sound by living in their "progressive" community. It smacks of the same kinds of tactics food companies use: branding a product with the "All Natural" label versus the "USDA Organic" label. Only one of those terms is regulated. And that's really the trouble with the New Urbanist movement. As far as I know, there's no regulatory body to deem x development New Urbanist and x development sprawl. Maybe the CNU could step in to serve that purpose some day.

To answer your questions more succinctly, the last thing I'm saying is that we should all move into rowhouses/townhouses. And I'm not necessarily saying we should build more New Urbanist communities. Although I'd like to simply see suburbia return to nature, I'm saying we work with what we've got and improve it by following New Urbanist principles.

Variety is the spice of life, as the cliche goes.

Here's a great (real) New Urbanist community--what I was getting at:



Glenwood Park - Glenwood Park Site Plan

Unfortunately, it's in the South

[Badger]

Originally Posted by Milwaukee City

Maybe Madison needs regional bus service like we have in Milwaukee.

too bad they are restricting the routes and raising the fares, biggest increases since 1975.

and the bus drivers get beaten up, it's happened twice recently

FOXNews.com - Man Attacks Bus Driver, Attempts to Commandeer Vehicle - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News


your "service" isn't doing so well....