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.
@OP I think that this is a very complication scenario. I think that suburban cities should be limited in growth, in growing sideways. I think that all suburban counties especially if they have any greenfield left should be limited in growth by having a regional board of some sort by the state or something else have designated green belt protection zones/urban growth boundaries that are very strict, preferably even moreso than what happens in Portland, Oregon. As far as the principal city, I think they can grow unlimitedly but doing so would be bad because if the city has lots of historic architecture and buildings, they'd need to demolish them to build ugly glass and steel highrises to accomadate the growth. So I think limiting the growth of the principal city too would be good in order to save it from being destroyed Robert Moses-style. The suburban counties surronding the city however should be restricted from growth onto greenfields or farmland, and in some ways "forced" by no room to grow to replace their McMansions over time with higher density mixed use housing and high rises since the principal city would be restricted in growing any further. These suburbs would eventually become mini cities over time and having transit between these mini-cities and the principal city would eventually be needed.
@OP I think that this is a very complication scenario. I think that suburban cities should be limited in growth, in growing sideways. I think that all suburban counties especially if they have any greenfield left should be limited in growth by having a regional board of some sort by the state or something else have designated green belt protection zones/urban growth boundaries that are very strict, preferably even moreso than what happens in Portland, Oregon. As far as the principal city, I think they can grow unlimitedly but doing so would be bad because if the city has lots of historic architecture and buildings, they'd need to demolish them to build ugly glass and steel highrises to accomadate the growth. So I think limiting the growth of the principal city too would be good in order to save it from being destroyed Robert Moses-style. The suburban counties surronding the city however should be restricted from growth onto greenfields or farmland, and in some ways "forced" by no room to grow to replace their McMansions over time with higher density mixed use housing and high rises since the principal city would be restricted in growing any further. These suburbs would eventually become mini cities over time and having transit between these mini-cities and the principal city would eventually be needed.
I agree and that's probably why Gaithersburg is building such high density. Montgomery county has zoning laws that protect the agriculture reserve. Its about half the county.
@OP I think that this is a very complication scenario. I think that suburban cities should be limited in growth, in growing sideways. I think that all suburban counties especially if they have any greenfield left should be limited in growth by having a regional board of some sort by the state or something else have designated green belt protection zones/urban growth boundaries that are very strict, preferably even moreso than what happens in Portland, Oregon. As far as the principal city, I think they can grow unlimitedly but doing so would be bad because if the city has lots of historic architecture and buildings, they'd need to demolish them to build ugly glass and steel highrises to accomadate the growth. So I think limiting the growth of the principal city too would be good in order to save it from being destroyed Robert Moses-style. The suburban counties surronding the city however should be restricted from growth onto greenfields or farmland, and in some ways "forced" by no room to grow to replace their McMansions over time with higher density mixed use housing and high rises since the principal city would be restricted in growing any further. These suburbs would eventually become mini cities over time and having transit between these mini-cities and the principal city would eventually be needed.
I don't think growth needs to be limitted in the principal city. Just about all cities have brownfields, parking lot, and a decent bit of very ordinary looking buildings that could be redeveloped. Most of them have single family home neighbourhoods that could be intensified, or older ones that could add laneway housing. Not to mention the fact that you can build highrises on very small footprints in the historical neighbourhoods. Some examples of this in Toronto include 1 King West, and several U/C or proposed condos like 8 Gloucester, 5IVE, and Cinema Condos.
It sounds like this issue is more of a regional whizzing match (Gaithersburg vs. DC) over a particular development proposal rather than being based in any sort of actual philosophy or structural idea of urban development?
It sounds like this issue is more of a regional whizzing match (Gaithersburg vs. DC) over a particular development proposal rather than being based in any sort of actual philosophy or structural idea of urban development?
Well, every now and then you and I agree, wburg. I think a mod needs to stop this hijack.
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.