Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-14-2011, 05:33 PM
 
12,999 posts, read 18,811,640 times
Reputation: 9236

Advertisements

It seems to me that developers will build when and where they feel it is most profitable, regardless of what the County land use plan says.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-14-2011, 05:50 PM
 
546 posts, read 1,171,916 times
Reputation: 467
@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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2011, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C.
13,693 posts, read 15,610,182 times
Reputation: 4054
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKFire108 View Post
@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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Centre Wellington, ON
5,738 posts, read 5,962,368 times
Reputation: 3089
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKFire108 View Post
@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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2011, 12:11 PM
 
8,680 posts, read 17,206,810 times
Reputation: 4685
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2011, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,259,082 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top