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.
Yes, spot on. Actually it's as much about young people as the elderly. How are seniors with limited mobility and no driver's license expected to get around? Does everyone plan on living in a retirement community? Does everyone have the money to live there or afford a caregiver? The elderly are typically the most income constrained and physically limited population. They can't afford to live in large suburban houses or isolated condo complexes because they can't drive.
I hope to God that middle aged people are not expecting to drive for the rest of their lives
Higher density has equal benefits for the young, old, and lower income. Progressive planning is about catering to all population groups, not just suburban families with children.
San Diego needs to be more strategic and less opposed to developments that actually make sense. If you live near downtown, then expect higher density! Expect infrastructure and services that do not cater to the automobile. The fact that the 4/5th avenue bike lanes are an issue is absolutely ridiculous. It's arguably the most appropriate place to build them and I'm not even a biker.
I get what you're trying to say, but making a point that people shouldn't expect to drive a car into their old ages and then complaining about issues with Bike Lanes makes little sense. If a person is too old to drive, they sure aren't going to be riding a bike. So that bike lane becomes pointless for most middle aged people then.
About every assumption you have made about me is wrong. I want the 2 story apartments next to my house to become 4 story. I want our strip mall shopping center down the street to be mixed-use and higher density. I am more than willing to give a road diet to our local avenue in favor of bike lanes & bus lanes, even though I have never dared take a bike down that dangerous stretch of road.
I was born at Tri-City hospital and have lived here my entire life with the exception of 3 years for graduate school and study abroad. High school, college, weekends, weekdays all in SD. I live and breathe San Diego and I for one am willing to make small sacrifices to give our city improved transit, economic development, and affordable housing.
San Diego has infinite potential and is an amazing place to live. Being a NIMBY does not benefit anyone in the long run. You stopped them from building that new mixed-use shopping center- guess where they are going to put the new 99cent store:Your local, outdated strip mall
Share the piece of paradise. Otherwise we'll all be priced out
Since when does being a San Diegan mean short-sighted or NIMBY?! What happened to the competitive city that built Balboa Park against all odds? How about the city that created the best zoo in the world!? Or the city that INVENTED THE CALIFORNIA BURRITO.
Let's face it: we're awesome. However, we're slowly losing out to places like LA, SF, Seattle, and Portland. We really are the most backwards coastal metro in the West when it comes to sustainable and progressive planning. Wake up people! We're getting further behind!
So you are saying we need to take a "road diet" and build more bike lanes. But doesn't pro-growth include the right balance of infrastructure that supports growth. To support the expanded growth you talk about we would need an aggressive plan to supply the new population with ingress and egress routes to work, home, entertainment...etc. You want growth but you want everyone on bikes and buses. People don't want to take bikes and buses. They want to drive their cars. I want to drive my car. Sounds like you are only interested in your version of growth and not the reality that comes with it.
You say we are slowly losing out to places like LA, SF....but what are we losing? What tangible thing are we losing to these other places.
This subject comes up in the media every now and then and it is usually some gee whiz pipe dream of smart growth and some over educated doofus trying to explain their version of a BS utopian city. I'm not buying it-
Is it just me or are San Diegans so annoyingly NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) that nothing can ever get done? I mean honestly, the number of recent transplants that are adamantly against new residents/growth is just mind-boggling. I call it Last Newcomer Syndrome. Once you've earned your slice of paradise, no one else is allowed. As a native, I simply can't stand these people.
I'm also increasingly frustrated with the people who continue to cling to the small town mentality. We have 3.3 million people, with about a million more to come in the next few decades. Do you want to end up like San Francisco? Restrict development and then push everyone out (locals) who can't afford it? Wake up! San Diego isn't a small town and restricting development isn't going to return us to the 1970 beach town feel. It's time to get competitive and think outside the box. San Diego is literally the least forward-thinking major city on the Pacific. Portland, Seattle, LA, SF, San Jose? Lightyears ahead of us in terms of planning for the future.
Don't people see that our current policies (state & local) are just making this area a place of haves and have-nots?
-rant over-
I am just starting to read this thread, so I am sorry if I am missing answers to my questions. Being here for about a year now, I am still learning the local political climate, as well as learning about growth/development projects that are being proposed. Is there a particular example of something that isn't being developed that you feel should be?
I have been trying to read up on projects like One Paseo, and proposals for new construction in Mission Valley. Can anyone offer a list of pros and cons to help out this newbie? The biggest con I see is water - where will it come from? But I know there is a big list on each side of the issue.
You want growth but you want everyone on bikes and buses. People don't want to take bikes and buses. They want to drive their cars. I want to drive my car. Sounds like you are only interested in your version of growth and not the reality that comes with it.
I took the bus to my job at UCSD today, I rode my bike to the gym and I drove my car too. Transit ridership hit record levels in San Diego last year.
No one is taking away anyone's right to drive, just trying to provide other options so we're not all forced to sit in traffic. If we're going to accommodate new growth (much of which is from within by the way - should our children just move away under your vision?), let's put it near transit. What's your approach - widen the freeways forever? Only until they come to tear your house down, I'm guessing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo42
You say we are slowly losing out to places like LA, SF....but what are we losing? What tangible thing are we losing to these other places.
Here's what we'll be losing: jobs. As younger people increasingly can't afford to live here, who's going to work the skilled (often tech-oriented) jobs our employers require? Once the talent pool has left for cities that are addressing growth by actually building near transit, and we're a city of NIMBY cranks like yourself, we can go back to the low-skill, low-pay tourist plantation scenario you've mapped out for our city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo42
This subject comes up in the media every now and then and it is usually some gee whiz pipe dream of smart growth and some over educated doofus trying to explain their version of a BS utopian city. I'm not buying it-
I don't get how providing transit options to people is "utopian". There are plenty of examples of other cities doing this around the world. Yet somehow in San Diego safer roads for non-motorists and more efficient public transit is "utopia".
look its easy. Old people and long-term residents vote. young people and transient renters don't. Guess who cares about bike lanes and guess who doesn't. Bikes lanes don't create jobs. Old people don't ride bikes. Bikes are for kids. Kids who don't vote and will largely be gone in 2-4 years anyway.
SD isn't going to grow like Portland, isn't going to become a 'second tech city' like Seattle or Austin did. That ship sailed 20 years ago. Portland isn't San Diego.
San Diego is the same as it ever was... pretty, expensive, limited, and cloistered. And those who can afford it, like it that way. It preserves our investment, it keeps the quality of life high and so what if some newbie transplant whines and cries about our skyline not being high enough or our job market not having enough jobs.. hey, wait a minute...
I took the bus to my job at UCSD today, I rode my bike to the gym and I drove my car too. Transit ridership hit record levels in San Diego last year.
No one is taking away anyone's right to drive, just trying to provide other options so we're not all forced to sit in traffic. If we're going to accommodate new growth (much of which is from within by the way - should our children just move away under your vision?), let's put it near transit. What's your approach - widen the freeways forever? Only until they come to tear your house down, I'm guessing.
Here's what we'll be losing: jobs. As younger people increasingly can't afford to live here, who's going to work the skilled (often tech-oriented) jobs our employers require? Once the talent pool has left for cities that are addressing growth by actually building near transit, and we're a city of NIMBY cranks like yourself, we can go back to the low-skill, low-pay tourist plantation scenario you've mapped out for our city.
I don't get how providing transit options to people is "utopian". There are plenty of examples of other cities doing this around the world. Yet somehow in San Diego safer roads for non-motorists and more efficient public transit is "utopia".
It isn't just the people of SD. The companies here are not part of any of these conversations and some are just interested in moving as soon as they get bought out or others just hiring more offshore workers. If you look at San Fran and Silicon valley, besides BART/CalTrain and so on being so much better than SD train systems, they also have a network of companies providing buses to their employees. And it's not just the Googles or Facebooks. You can live in east bay and get picked up on a nice bus with wifi, better seats and so on. Some companies obviously don't have the luxury buses, but many many companies up there have this as part of the employee benefits package. Or they give train passes/bus passes and so on. Or they give out some rewards or perks for employees who take bike or drive an electric car to work. Many of the companies up there are interested in the self-driving cars in 5-10 years as well.
That is forward thinking and it's not just worrying about people using public transportation. It is the people who work and live there, but it's also the corporations, startups, and companies that exist there. NYC companies have started offering some greener perks as well.
Like it or not, many people will never use public transportation. Transfers are a pain, some trains or buses are never on time. Or it takes 20-30 minutes just to get to a station. Or SD still is in the stone age where it's cash only. It's not always the case, but even going to del mar fairgrounds without cash on you, you can't even buy tickets or park. Like it or not, that's all part of the same mindset.
I honestly can't tell you one company in SD that offers a shuttle to/from work or companies who give out benefits for employees being green by riding a bike to work or driving an electric car. I could tell you hundreds in the bay area that do this though. And there are far more I don't know or wouldn't even think they did it because, damn, even places like Ford and Visa offer those things.
So you can speak about better bike lanes or people need to use public transportation more, but the reality is, it is a mindset that doesn't seem to exist in SD. When many companies in the Bay Area will pick up an employee in some town in east bay, that tells you they really want their employees to be at work, but it also says they are more forward thinking. And they have trains, buses, cars, bike lanes, etc as well.
Whereas people in SD fight over a damn boardwalk to be removed and win that argument. They fight over a new retail/office/condo complex and pretty much delay that till the end of time. They fight over having bon fires banned or alcohol banned from the beach.
I also think all this Growth in many cities is pretty much BS. You have cities like Nashville that gentrified and revitalized that downtown and if you visit now, it's far different than you would have seen ten years ago. And supposedly certain parts are getting far more expensive like most gentrified areas. But there still aren't that many jobs or great paying jobs in that city.
When I was there last year, I had a lot of interesting conversations, but the reality is you can build more buildings, create more expensive areas, have some new hipsters move in and whine about this or that, but long term, half these places offer no real growth. It's all pretend.
So if SD suddenly added more bike lanes, added more trolley service lines, coaster lines, and so on, added more $800K condos in Little Italy and the Gaslamp, added new million dollar condos near a new billion dollar football stadium, what does it really do when the job market doesn't exactly change? Adding expensive and overpriced condos downtown are cool now, but it's not really adding high paying jobs. And what happens when east villiage is too cool or no longer the hip new upgraded place to move to? This isn't exactly a new concept, but people like to pretend the old is new and different all the time.
SD can add whatever it wants, but if most of whats added are benefits to a few young people who wind up moving when it's no longer cool or can't afford it, what do you really have left?
People love to mention Portland, but ignore the fact Portland isn't exactly known for a ton of high paying jobs and many of those jobs are outside the city. Intel and Nike are like an hour outside of downtown if you take a train. So a lot of people who work at those places, don't exactly live in the city and some rarely ever go.
And that gets back into a big argument over more bike paths in North Park or Hillcrest or South Park or east villiage and so on. Why would somebody in Carmel Valley really care about more bike paths downtown? It's the same as many people who live downtown don't care what happens up in Carmel Valley. And go further south or further north and it becomes even more of an argument.
And some people like to pretend downtown is the center of the universe, but in SD, most jobs aren't downtown and many people who have money, don't live downtown. And rarely go downtown.
As far as young 22 year olds leaving, that is going to happen anywhere in the world. A lot of kids want to find greener pastures. Nothing to do with SD. Half the people who move to SD seem to be young kids looking to find greener pastures. The challenge SD has is keeping the 30+ year olds who start families, buy houses, stick around long term. If those 22 year olds don't want to come back and many 30+ year olds who start families move away, SD is just going to be a rich retirement community, a poor poverty stricken community, and a place where some 22 year olds without a ton of ambition come to party or a place where 26 year old scientists, most not even from the US, come to work but wind up moving within ten years.
I honestly don't see any of that changing. I do see a different dynamic going forward though where a lot of the rich old white folks will no longer exist. And their kids will have a far different opinion or be a minority and irrelevant as far as voting. So maybe there will be a change in the future. That dynamic should be very interesting in many cities across the US going in the future.
I can understand the perception that San Diego is a city of haves and have-nots. It most certainly rivals many Third World cities. Some people may even like it that way because it makes them feel better about themselves, who knows. But unique to San Diego it is not.
I had and still have a lot of hope for this city. It has a lot going for it like good weather, nice people, of which are seemingly infinite. We all want good things for our children, which is really what life is all about: ensuring successive generations. Like it or not we live in a world of finite resources and therein lies the challenge.
Pedro2000 makes a good point because American demographics are changing in profound ways that will have many unforeseen consequences, for better or for worse. This makes a lot of people nervous, as change usually does. I think it's easier to care for one's own than it is to care for your neighbor. Nothing new, to be sure.
Maybe I am naive for thinking the world could be a better place, or maybe I didn't watch enough TV as a kid. But I know that truly fantastic things in life come from people who reject the status quo and dare to dream. It's our burden to bear but a fight worth it in the end, I think.
look its easy. Old people and long-term residents vote. young people and transient renters don't. Guess who cares about bike lanes and guess who doesn't.
SD isn't going to grow like Portland, isn't going to become a 'second tech city' like Seattle or Austin did. That ship sailed 20 years ago. Portland isn't San Diego.
San Diego is the same as it ever was... pretty, expensive, limited, and cloistered. And those who can afford it, like it that way. It preserves our investment, it keeps the quality of life high and so what if some newbie transplant whines and cries about our skyline not being high enough or our job market not having enough jobs.. hey, wait a minute...
Well, we aren't "newbies". We are lifelong residents with an actual vision for the city. A vision that is not based on some idolized 1970s image of what San Diego was. We've doubled our population since then and we're going to add 1.5 million more by 2050. Do you really want all those people driving? Even if you only drive yourself, wouldn't providing an alternative help get more cars off the roads? What about the senior population when they can no longer drive? It's called planning for the future. This is the issue: people in San Diego are extremely short-sighted.
It's not about making SD a tech city or some biking utopia. It's about providing completely reasonable transit options for a growing population. It's about strategically located new housing in areas that have infrastructure in place. The population is growing. People are getting older and less mobile whether you like it or not. Alternative modes of transport are a must.
Quote:
Bikes lanes don't create jobs. Old people don't ride bikes. Bikes are for kids. Kids who don't vote and will largely be gone in 2-4 years anyway.
Actually there are plenty of examples of how improved streetscapes have improved business/economic activity. Even if these kids are gone in 2-4 years, they will be replaced by more kids who will be using bike lanes. The elderly population will be gone in 10-20 years. Should we stop planning for them? No, because their numbers are growing, just like the "kids on bikes". I think this generalization really demonstrates ignorance of the entire topic. Willful ignorance to brush aside problems because they don't directly affect you. I'm not even a bicyclist, but can I understand the importance of diverse transport options. I want people off the roads when I'm in North Park or Hillcrest. Most people who frequent these businesses live nearby, but understand the inhospitable biking/walking conditions and will only drive.
It's not just about bike lanes, it's about redesigning our streets so that they are safer, promote active transport/transit, and improve economic conditions. Our roads cannot handle another 50% increase in traffic. The last thing I want to see is a 5 lane highway going up to Hillcrest.
Last edited by sdhkshdcny09; 05-19-2015 at 04:08 AM..
So you are saying we need to take a "road diet" and build more bike lanes. But doesn't pro-growth include the right balance of infrastructure that supports growth. To support the expanded growth you talk about we would need an aggressive plan to supply the new population with ingress and egress routes to work, home, entertainment...etc.
Let's be clear: I don't bike. It's way too dangerous on our roads and I would prefer to not be killed. Would I bike if it was safe? Yeah, I would- like I've used them in other cities that have the infrastructure. It's a great alternative to get around my neighborhood. I'm sure all the people who visit my area also appreciate that I'm not moving my car 5 blocks to go to the grocery store because it means more parking for them.
Yes, pro-growth is a balance. Currently our streetscapes are designed 100% for cars. Even bus infrastructure is severely lacking in how roads are designed. Pedestrians and bicyclists are hardly even considered.
Quote:
You want growth but you want everyone on bikes and buses. People don't want to take bikes and buses. They want to drive their cars. I want to drive my car. Sounds like you are only interested in your version of growth and not the reality that comes with it.
I don't want everyone on bikes and buses. With that reasoning, I assume you want everyone driving in cars? How are the extra 50,000 downtown residents supposed to get around? Give them cars and huge parking structures?
People don't want to take bikes and buses because they are unsafe. Our transit is equally inefficient. So your solution is to ignore the problem and give everyone cars? 50% increase in road traffic? Yeah, great solution...
Quote:
You say we are slowly losing out to places like LA, SF....but what are we losing? What tangible thing are we losing to these other places.
Young people (ie. the people who invent things and create new companies that fuel our economy).We have a dynamic economy with a history of innovation. However, San Diego plans like it is 1980s Florida and we will slowly head in that direction. Large senior population, poor infrastructure, dependence on automobiles, extremely low-paying tourism or service sector jobs, etc.
Is that what you want? Florida?
Quote:
This subject comes up in the media every now and then and it is usually some gee whiz pipe dream of smart growth and some over educated doofus trying to explain their version of a BS utopian city. I'm not buying it-
Transportation alternatives are not "utopia", it's available everywhere around the world. This comment is just too funny. Suddenly transportation infrastructure is "utopia".
Expect it to come up a lot more. San Diego is bursting at its seams. It's not changing and we need to do something about it.
Last edited by sdhkshdcny09; 05-19-2015 at 05:01 AM..
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.
It's time to get competitive and think outside the box. San Diego is literally the least forward-thinking major city on the Pacific. Portland, Seattle, LA, SF, San Jose? Lightyears ahead of us in terms of planning for the future. 
