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.
I agree that self-driving cars are the future. 30% of all inter-city congestion comes from people just circling the block to park... Ownership is the key word, and who knows how that will factor in. I think Uber has already said they plan to convert their fleet to 100% automated in 10 years.
A lot of talk but then again, a lot of technology to back it up.
Remember in The Matrix when Neo asks Morpheus if he would ever be able to dodge bullets? and Morpheus replies: "No, Neo. What I'm saying is that you won't have to."
Bike lanes go hand in hand with the whole idea that you can live close enough to work to be able to bike there. Just like the whole idea of a car is that you can live miles and miles away from work and be able to drive there. It's a matter of scale and perspective.
I think the Bike is a dream that just isn't real. It's a start, but lets face it, SD isn't a city like NYC. It never will be and so bike lanes will never help, but a few people. Most companies and people aren't moving to downtown San Diego. So this bike theory only works if they build Bike Lanes in places like Rancho Bernardo and Sorrento Valley. Beyond that, who cares, it's more for tourists and those who don't really work.
And therein lies the problem with the "live close to work" argument. A place like SD, most people don't work downtown. So why do anything downtown if most people don't work there? Nobody needed Petco park or a revamped east villiage. True there are jobs there, but most of the major companies and jobs in SD aren't downtown or in gaslamp. So that build more bike lands and have people live close to work doesn't work. The military did create housing or have people live close to work. Go to Coronado or Oceanside or even Mira Mesa and you'd notice a lot of military folks. So they are living close to work. Places like Carmel Valley are in between Rancho Bernardo and Sorrento Valley.
And this theory people need to live in Cities is a BS concept. True most people live on either coast, but over the past couple of hundred years, cities became cities because of rivers, gold, coal, farming, manufacturing, etc. People built homes and communities around where they worked and the cities either sprouted up or they didn't. I mean Philadelphia would be one of the biggest cities in the world if the concept about move people to the city were true. It was once the Capitol of the US.
I think a place like SD will never be like NYC, it's not possible. It's not LA, but it's closer to LA than SF or NYC. And many jobs are concentrated around Rancho Bernardo, Sorrento Valley, UTC, Coronado/Oceanside. Downtown is nice and there are jobs, but in SD, it's just the reality that many people will never work downtown nor ever need to go downtown. So why build up all these things downtown when most people don't even work there? It almost feels like they are trying to force downtown SD to be something it isn't nor will never be.
No, as I've said all along the growth needs to be strategic. Housing and jobs need to be concentrated in areas with existing infrastructure.
It's not progress if you are continuing the same land use patterns of sprawl. Mass transit will be insufficient, roads maintenance will be a future burden as the Jamul community cannot pay for it itself, and these jobs are not even high paying.
I'm not saying yes to anything that creates jobs or housing.
So basically, you only support projects you are interested in or that you deem viable to the future growth. This is more about you than it is about growth. Your version of utopia, your version of tomorrow, regardless and reckless of other people's input or intention. Not your fault, youth I suspect is the culprit, millennial righteous indignation.
Here is what will happen: you will be on this kick for many years, steadfast in your belief. Somewhere along the line you may acquire a significant other and maybe offspring. They will begin to suck the life out of you along with your dreams and passion. But this is OK, because reality takes over and the fact that you love them and would do anything for them builds new passions and dreams....and life is great. Until someone wants to eff around with your happiness and dreams for your family because they have some bright idea they picked up in grad school. Likely you'll encounter this person in the media, community forum or heaven forbid-an internet forum. You'll laugh, remember me (but I'll be dead or too old to care by then) and go about your business and enjoy the life, home and career you have built. You may turn off the computer and walk away....much like I'mm gonna do now.
So basically, you only support projects you are interested in or that you deem viable to the future growth. This is more about you than it is about growth. Your version of utopia, your version of tomorrow, regardless and reckless of other people's input or intention. Not your fault, youth I suspect is the culprit, millennial righteous indignation.
Here is what will happen: you will be on this kick for many years, steadfast in your belief. Somewhere along the line you may acquire a significant other and maybe offspring. They will begin to suck the life out of you along with your dreams and passion. But this is OK, because reality takes over and the fact that you love them and would do anything for them builds new passions and dreams....and life is great. Until someone wants to eff around with your happiness and dreams for your family because they have some bright idea they picked up in grad school. Likely you'll encounter this person in the media, community forum or heaven forbid-an internet forum. You'll laugh, remember me (but I'll be dead or too old to care by then) and go about your business and enjoy the life, home and career you have built. You may turn off the computer and walk away....much like I'mm gonna do now.
This is just BS. Go take a look at some 90 year old getting his college degree. Others starting companies in their 60s or 70s. Bill Gates is not young and trying to 'save the world' in his own way these days. The list goes on. And the "they take your life away" is the biggest BS I've ever heard. It's just comes from people who gave up on their own dreams or people who never really had any and tried to force their own dreams onto their children and then when the kids grow up and move away, they have nothing to dream about until grandkids come along.
And I'm not some young grad. And I have two kids. Neither have sucked the life out of me. True they did change my life in many ways, made me learn other things, but my dreams are still my dreams and my kids dreams are their dreams. Sorry, but to me, parents who give up all their dreams and life and place every ounce of hope on their kids to fulfill their lives are the ones who suffocate their kids. It's the same theory as a man or woman who gives up everything because their "soulmate" will answer all their prayers and dreams. It's some delusional philosophy.
Just because you have kids doesn't mean you stop dreaming or have your own goals or hopes for the future. Hell, you would think a having a hope for a better future world and city would also fall into the category of a better future for your kids.
So lets be real about what some of these bike lanes are for and what they are not for. Most people will never ride a bike to work, even in cities like SD. So adding a few bike lanes helps people who don't work or so few individuals that it's kind of pointless. It is better for the environment, better for peoples health, but most people aren't doing it.
All the future talk might be years away, but changing the future does require actually changing the future now and not just waiting for 2030 or 2050 to show up and let the kids and grandkids worry about that. Those thoughts are why things wind up the way they are. The future is really having self-driving cars, self-driving buses and so on. It is a long ways off, but not as long as you think. In only 10 years places like San Fran and Mountainview will have some driver-less cars, will SD?
Funny you mention it. I've won international design competitions for how to integrate driverless technology with current infrastructure- how it interfaces with other modes of transport
Either way, not everyone needs to be sitting in cars. It's one of the reasons Americans are so unhealthy. Also, why do you need a car to go 10 blocks? Bikes are literally the most efficient forms of transit. Look it up!
Like I said, I don't even bike. I think San Diego drivers don't know how to share the road and are dangerous. (as are many cyclists in their stupid Lance Armstrong uniforms)
Last edited by sdhkshdcny09; 05-21-2015 at 05:49 AM..
I think the Bike is a dream that just isn't real. It's a start, but lets face it, SD isn't a city like NYC. It never will be and so bike lanes will never help, but a few people. Most companies and people aren't moving to downtown San Diego. So this bike theory only works if they build Bike Lanes in places like Rancho Bernardo and Sorrento Valley. Beyond that, who cares, it's more for tourists and those who don't really work.
And therein lies the problem with the "live close to work" argument. A place like SD, most people don't work downtown. So why do anything downtown if most people don't work there? Nobody needed Petco park or a revamped east villiage. True there are jobs there, but most of the major companies and jobs in SD aren't downtown or in gaslamp. So that build more bike lands and have people live close to work doesn't work. The military did create housing or have people live close to work. Go to Coronado or Oceanside or even Mira Mesa and you'd notice a lot of military folks. So they are living close to work. Places like Carmel Valley are in between Rancho Bernardo and Sorrento Valley.
And this theory people need to live in Cities is a BS concept. True most people live on either coast, but over the past couple of hundred years, cities became cities because of rivers, gold, coal, farming, manufacturing, etc. People built homes and communities around where they worked and the cities either sprouted up or they didn't. I mean Philadelphia would be one of the biggest cities in the world if the concept about move people to the city were true. It was once the Capitol of the US.
I think a place like SD will never be like NYC, it's not possible. It's not LA, but it's closer to LA than SF or NYC. And many jobs are concentrated around Rancho Bernardo, Sorrento Valley, UTC, Coronado/Oceanside. Downtown is nice and there are jobs, but in SD, it's just the reality that many people will never work downtown nor ever need to go downtown. So why build up all these things downtown when most people don't even work there? It almost feels like they are trying to force downtown SD to be something it isn't nor will never be.
I think the Bike is a dream that just isn't real. It's a start, but lets face it, SD isn't a city like NYC. It never will be and so bike lanes will never help, but a few people. Most companies and people aren't moving to downtown San Diego. So this bike theory only works if they build Bike Lanes in places like Rancho Bernardo and Sorrento Valley. Beyond that, who cares, it's more for tourists and those who don't really work.
Everyone is getting so latched on this bike thing!! No! I'm talking about bikes in urban areas, not in Rancho Bernardo. Downtown, UTC, etc. is realistically the only place that could support it. No way anyone is going to bike 30 miles to work. The idea is to remove local commuters off streets. This relieves congestion for the growing number of car commuters.
Quote:
And therein lies the problem with the "live close to work" argument. A place like SD, most people don't work downtown. So why do anything downtown if most people don't work there?
Okay, then what about UTC or Mission Valley? Huge employment center and residential neighborhood. I never advocated for growth in one neighborhood. It can be scattered in the neighborhoods that can accommodate it
Quote:
And this theory people need to live in Cities is a BS concept. True most people live on either coast, but over the past couple of hundred years, cities became cities because of rivers, gold, coal, farming, manufacturing, etc. People built homes and communities around where they worked and the cities either sprouted up or they didn't. I mean Philadelphia would be one of the biggest cities in the world if the concept about move people to the city were true. It was once the Capitol of the US.
Everything was privatized. It's a different world where the market determined investments like transit or transport infrastructure priorities. Unfortunately, that began when we created car culture and suburbanization through massive government subsidy.
Quote:
So why build up all these things downtown when most people don't even work there? It almost feels like they are trying to force downtown SD to be something it isn't nor will never be.
Because it is the place that is most appropriate! Downtown San Diego's employment numbers are growing as well. Furthermore, the important thing to understand about human settlement is that people and services cluster in hubs. I agree that not all development needs to be downtown, as "downtown" is an American invention.
In San Diego, residential and job growth needs to be concentrated in specific clusters that have infrastructure and employment: Mission Valley, Downtown SD, UTC, downtown Oceanside, downtown San Marcos, etc.
Not everyone is going to live immediately next to their job. Some people need transit and some people need cars. For some reason everyone is putting this "pro-bike" label on me. My (attainable) vision for San Diego is one in which the tourists can stay off the road for short trips and about 5% of commuters can bike to work. Maybe another 5% can simply walk to work.
Why is this so hard to achieve in a beautiful and sunny place like San Diego? Why must 86% of the population commute by car in the future? Our population is growing by another 1.2 million- do you really think current infrastructure (or our patience) can support this?
He also forgot to mention the fact that a growing number of individuals telecommute. That is another issue that will change how we build cities.
It has implications for bike, transit, and cars. They simply wouldn't be needed for most commuters. I suppose it doesn't really mean anything for the future of bikes or transit. So few people currently use these modes anyways.
My real concern is that we continue these massive road infrastructure projects when they really won't be needed in a future of driverless technology and telecommuting. Makes you rethink these massive projects like the I-5 widening, right?
So basically, you only support projects you are interested in or that you deem viable to the future growth. This is more about you than it is about growth. Your version of utopia, your version of tomorrow, regardless and reckless of other people's input or intention. Not your fault, youth I suspect is the culprit, millennial righteous indignation.
You asked for my opinion about a development project for the purpose of setting up this rebuttal. Really pathetic argument in my opinion. I knew whatever I said (for or against) you would take the opportunity to claim this whole idea is about me. No, it's about the region and our city. You offer no ideas and I advocate being strategic about where we should put more people. What is your alternative solution? Have you even thought things through? It's a lot easier to say 'no' than to actually come up with a viable solution to our region's problems.
You have no idea what you are doing and are unable to see anything holistically- only through your small, unimportant life. Furthermore, you offer no concrete alternative. This isn't a discussion of what we should do or how we should manage growth. This is just you crying "no, no, no!" and then walking away. Well guess what? We can't walk away from our problems. So motivate your sorry self to contribute to our region's development in a proactive way. Don't just leave the room because you are upset with my opinion, challenge me with an alternative solution to accommodate a growing population. We need good ideas. Pedro2000 has brought a number of issues, like driverless technology, which I think will be extremely important to the region. AngryTaxPayer is mentioning water issues. You, well you are being a whiny baby.
I refuse to make the same mistakes as your generation. Isolating people from their jobs, destroying alternative modes of travel, building infrastructure in the middle of nowhere, segregating populations based on income/race, strengthening our reliance on Middle Eastern oil, or destroying beautiful habitats around SD. NO THANKS.
Quote:
Here is what will happen: you will be on this kick for many years, steadfast in your belief. Somewhere along the line you may acquire a significant other and maybe offspring. They will begin to suck the life out of you along with your dreams and passion. But this is OK, because reality takes over and the fact that you love them and would do anything for them builds new passions and dreams....and life is great. Until someone wants to eff around with your happiness and dreams for your family because they have some bright idea they picked up in grad school. Likely you'll encounter this person in the media, community forum or heaven forbid-an internet forum. You'll laugh, remember me (but I'll be dead or too old to care by then) and go about your business and enjoy the life, home and career you have built. You may turn off the computer and walk away....much like I'mm gonna do now.
No, I care too much about this place to be some miserable old fart. I'm investing in this place for the long run. Sadly you have already reached the point of not caring. This is about preserving your lifestyle for the remainder of the time you have on Earth. You are a NIMBY, you are selfish, and you couldn't care less about the world you are leaving to your kids.
Call me a selfish and naive millennial all you want. The fact is that you are doing nothing to address our problems, while I am try to be proactive. You are the one that is clinging to the past so you can preserve your specific lifestyle.
It's feel sorry for your kids. Such an unmotivated and uninspiring parent. I'm planning to take my kids bike riding on Coronado or maybe along the Embarcadero if they build a bike lane. Kids love trains, so I'll probably take them on the trolley to the Children's museum or maybe the new streetcar up to Reuben H Fleet in Balboa Park. I want my kids to see the world, not stuck in a car getting fat and bitter.
Well here's another trend: The population of the region is growing at 50,000+ per year and will continue to do so for the next 30-50 years. Should we ignore it? Where do you recommend we put up the fences?
I've studied the Japanese demographic bomb, its effects on city structures and organization, and am quite familiar with its potential implications on the US. Let's be clear on one thing: it's not looking good for this country. Japanese land patterns concentrate people, infrastructure, and jobs near the city. As the population declines, the center city continues to be maintained because resources are concentrated there.
Unfortunately, we continue to build infrastructure in the middle of nowhere that can not be realistically maintained during a population decline. These beautiful gated suburbs will turn into unmaintained ghettos, something that we already witnessed in Riverside County with the recent recession. Maintenance of this far-flung infrastructure will be a heavy burden for our future generations.
Visit Japan and there will be no sign that the population is declining (other than tons of old people). Visit Nagoya, heart of Japan's auto industry, and notice the difference between the Detroit region and Nagoya region. Nagoya is thriving! Detroit is falling apart EXCEPT the one place that they concentrated resources, infrastructure, and investment: urban areas.
I'm not advocating for San Diego to become as dense as Seattle (although it will have to be with the current projections- which are likely off). Just build new infrastructure and housing strategically to accommodate the short to middle term population growth. When the population stabilizes or declines, these town centers or urban areas can be areas were maintenance investments can be prioritized because the cost is less/resident and will affect more people. We need to plan for both scenarios.
Have you done population projections? These "mathematics" you speak of? Hmm, well I have. Learned it in college and use it to this day. So please don't lecture on the math behind demographics and growth. Growth is not a universal mandate, it's the reality of living in an immigrant-focused nation. But hey, if you want to live in ga-ga land and not accept the reality that our country/state/region will grow for at least the next 50 years, go for it. Have fun changing the national policy, mission, and direction of the United States. Clearly that is a better cause than simply creating a progressive plan to account for a growing population that concurrently plans for a population decline in a world. And no, that doesn't mean accept anyone. It just means concentrate growth so current residents are not pushed out.
What is your solution- do nothing? Price all the locals out of San Diego? Force the next generation to leave?
You criticize my thoughts, but have offered nothing of your own plan.
Again, I live in the real world. It's time to make difficult decisions and not just pretend these problems are going to go away. News flash: Our population will continue growing with or without our direction. Maybe you don't see this as your problem? Something for future generations to deal with?
Why it will make the world better? No, it won't. I'm not claiming the world will be a better place. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Will it make San Diego better? Yes. Our jobs are too spread out. People spend more time in their cars than walking in their local neighborhoods. Accessible shopping, jobs, etc. actually make people healthier!
Half the population means that we can't realistically maintain our current infrastructure. The life you enjoy and the current cost of living will cease to exist as your increasingly higher tax dollars go towards maintaining sprawl. How is that for a little dose of reality?
A larger population means more people to contribute to the resource pool for maintaining roads, utility lines, etc. 50-60% of San Diego was built between 1980 and 2000. Fast-forward 50 years and now 50% of our infrastructure needs to be replaced in a 20 year span. Wake up people, we can't afford the lifestyle we've enjoyed in the long-run!
All I want is your step-by-step strategy (and explanation) of you plan for current growth (+1,000,000) and future decline. It appears that you want to wing it and see what happens. Oh, and please make it politically feasible too. No utopia or fences. Remember, real world.
Being condescendingly lectured to by millennials is one of my very favorite retirement amusements - thanks!
The mathematics I speak of hasn't a thing to do with your "college demographics class". It was simply stated: you can't infinitely expand in a finite paradigm.
And the "finite paradigm" of which I speak encompasses much more than acres of land and natural resources. It includes the psychological limitations of the human animal. Which limitations include personal space and freedoms.
Now, you suggested in your first haughty response to me that I move to another country if I don't like the changes you propose. How about, instead of me moving, you just rent a studio apartment downtown with a few dozen of your millennial compadres and share that living space whilst you all pat each other on your backs for your wonderful ideas about my future? Mmmmm?
All the "college classes" in the world and international design awards, as you say you have received, are meaningless if you can't understand human nature. But in this you are not alone. People have been trying to ignore it since the advent of agriculture. Which is when societies emerged that exceeded a natural order and limitation of the species now known by anthropological biologists as Dunbar's Number. This number (since you love statistics so much) has been scientifically derived and proven (and unanimously accepted) to show that the maximum number of humans that can live grouped together cooperatively, with empathy and concern for each other, is 150.
Yes, San Diego has past that limit. And there's not likely any going back.
You ask for solutions. But you don't begin to grasp the problem factors. The finest minds in AI are estimating that in less than two decades nearly 50% of today's employment will be eliminated. Replaced by robotic automation functions. And these jobs will not simply give way to new employment opportunities. They will cease. Most new career opportunity will also cease. Humanity is progressing toward a state of idle meaninglessness.
Have you noticed that humanity is good at having idle time on its hands? I have not. Oh goodie, more time for aberrative computer games and bizarre neurotic expressions of psychological breakdown.
Your demographics are about to be meaningless with this future of guaranteed minimum incomes and self driving cars and global citizenship.
Birth rates decline in advanced societies where there is education and security. But even if the world population was halved this new leisure will give rise to a couple of particularly notable reactions:
1. Many people will be free of the kinds of constraints that populated less desirable places - and they will try to emigrate enmasse to places like coastal California. Thus, if the world were even 25% as populated as it is California would still have a a population problem.
2. People will need to be controlled passively ..... To extremes you have apparently not imagined.
Time for you to read Huxley's "Brave New World".
You, and your compadres are so busy trying to solve problems that you fail to recognize that your solutions merely feed the tsunami of disaster we are about to realize is on the horizon. One of the most effective ways to challenge this future is for bright young minds, such as you think you are, to figure out how to not have these problems. As opposed to how to solve what shouldn't be solved to begin with.
Meanwhile, mass NIMBYism is the best delaying tactic I see occurring. Until YOU wake up.
(By the way, it's possible I know a lot more about the things and places you refer to than you think. )
(Oh, and also by the way, apparently in all your "education and research" you missed the part about how rural and agrarian lifestyles are actually far more efficient and less environmentally destructive than urban. Including studies estimates on the lifestyle consumption habits of populations with comfortable incomes in dense living environments.)
Employers will have to have a mindset change. Many workers can work from home but with today's mindset about a business model, management wants to be able to pat workers on the head. I've seen it time and time again.
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.
)
