Holding a line on sprawl (New York, Buffalo: credit, school district, income)

[justflow1983]

I've actually gone out of my way to point out that suburban development will always occur. I do genuinely think that limiting it will help the city redevelop, I don't think there's really any way to ever stop suburban development if there is a market for it. I question sprawl because I think a lot of it happens for reasons other than because its a good idea, and the majority of new speculative development works to fragment and dissociate the sense of place and the urban infrastructure in the place that their built. A lot of what gets built is simply done is because its cheaper than urban redevelopment and the profits are higher; there's almost no social or community consideration tied into it.

You weren't saying its not that simple, if that's what you were saying then it would be a valid part of the conversation. Instead you are just saying that anti-sprawl discussions are stupid. They aren't as long as they are used to think about ways to help a city. I'm not completely anti-sprawl, but I am for limiting it to a certain extent, or putting urban design criteria in place that makes it more compact, which is something that has been done many times to great success. For instance, the density effect that I mentioned in my previous post in Portland.

Next time maybe guide the conversation by something along the lines of your last post, rather than belittle the posters. Mentioning new urbanism is a good place to start; one reason I'd never live in one of those new subdivisions is that I prefer biking to work over driving if the weather is ok. A lot of people are very bothered by sprawl in its current form, I for one find it very jarring and disorienting. We urban people have a right to express that view.

[momix5]

I would rather see homes than WALMART

[RollsRoyce]

[quote=justflow1983;7940435]Yes, density is one of my goals. And I feel that density helps a city forge an identity, which is something that would help Syracuse. As I mentioned, the increased density of Portland directly helped the city become the magnet that it is.


I was impressed with Portland during my visit there in 2003. It was a very well planned dense city with newer development co-existing with older structures. From what I've read the city was in serious decline about 30 years ago after losing some of its industrial base and flight of its middle class population to the suburbs. In a strange way it reminds me of Syracuse, in part due to its hilly landscape and industrial feel of some neighborhoods.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by justflow1983

I think you're missing the point of the conversation. Growth isn't a bad thing; its a bad thing when it happens in a situation where its just the same population moving around rather than happening in tandem with population growth. And your portland example highlights the fact that attempts at restricting sprawl work. The main reason people move there is its vibrancy, which is a direct offshoot of its increased density compared to other cities of the same size. I also have a problem with sprawl from an urbanist point of view. Its just bad urbanism. Portland's outer areas are much more diverse in terms of their use-mix. They also are better planned than Syracuse's ad-hoc, unchecked growth areas where shopping centers and housing are just stuck in wherever they fit. What those growth boundaries do is force developers to build things other than the cheapest and easiest option, which is mcmansions on old farmland.

Syracuse isn't even that crime or drug ridden. Ever been to North Philly? It makes the south side look just peachy . Syracuse does need growth to recover. I just don't think improved suburbs will do anything to help it grow. As a young, highly educated, extremely mobile professional those sorts of things just don't attract me to a city. Nightlife, an art scene, great restaurants, and a walkable, car-light lifestyle are attractive to me, and encouraging suburbs and denigrating the city just undermines that lifestyle and discourages people like me from seeing Syracuse as an option.

I've said before that suburbs will always be there. But restricting them does encourage the development of other housing options. Encouraging them won't do anything but tear up a beautiful countryside and add lots of TGI Fridays and Wal-Marts.

Exactly......

[ckhthankgod]

[quote=RollsRoyce;7941053]

Originally Posted by justflow1983

Yes, density is one of my goals. And I feel that density helps a city forge an identity, which is something that would help Syracuse. As I mentioned, the increased density of Portland directly helped the city become the magnet that it is.


I was impressed with Portland during my visit there in 2003. It was a very well planned dense city with newer development co-existing with older structures. From what I've read the city was in serious decline about 30 years ago after losing some of its industrial base and flight of its middle class population to the suburbs. In a strange way it reminds me of Syracuse, in part due to its hilly landscape and industrial feel of some neighborhoods.

What Portland and a lot of other newer looking cities did that Syracuse hasn't done since the 1930's or so, is that they annexed surrounding areas. Even with urban renweal in the 60's and early 70's here, Syracuse didn't think in order to retain it's population, it would have to start annexing adjacent land and/or communities.

[justflow1983]

I never thought about the annexation thing, but it makes sense. It would also help fix the tax base a little bit; maybe it can be done without disrupting the school boundaries.

[bellafinzi]

The city should annex Solvay and East Syracuse first and see how it works out. Then DeWitt and/or Geddes.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by justflow1983

I never thought about the annexation thing, but it makes sense. It would also help fix the tax base a little bit; maybe it can be done without disrupting the school boundaries.

Or just keep the school boundaries the same. For instance, Portland has it's own school district, but there is also the Parkrose School District, which is also within the city limits of Portland. So, it can be done. It would be like Eastwood having it's own school district or imagine the city of Syracuse annexing Lyncourt, but keeping the Lyncourt School District.

Home | Parkrose School District

[bellafinzi]

Originally Posted by ckhthankgod

Or just keep the school boundaries the same. For instance, Portland has it's own school district, but there is also the Parkrose School District, which is also within the city limits of Portland. So, it can be done. It would be like Eastwood having it's own school district or imagine the city of Syracuse annexing Lyncourt, but keeping the Lyncourt School District.

Home | Parkrose School District

You're right. Annexation will never work if people in the suburbs fear they'll lose their current school district.

[ckhthankgod]

Originally Posted by bellafinzi

The city should annex Solvay and East Syracuse first and see how it works out. Then DeWitt and/or Geddes.

If anything, annex the hamlet of Southwood in the town of Onondaga(J-D school district) and Lyncourt. I say those two due to Lyncourt pretty much blending in with the character of that part of the North side and that Southwood is an area that could be developed more than it currently is. I would still keep the children in the school districts they are in now though.