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.
The problem is that community gardens don't exactly generate a lot of tax revenue. They are a temporary placeholder, not a solution. The long-term solution is to limit outward sprawl, which is as simple as not spending a bunch of tax money on more freeways, followed by establishing an urban services boundary.
Over the past century two schools of thought emerged about the problems of cities: one school of thought said we should spend money and time actually addressing the problems of poverty, crime, education and economic opportunity. The other said we should just abandon the cities and build new communities outside the city limits. That one seemed cheaper and easier, so that's what we did. But in the long run, suburban expansion hits a point of diminishing returns--you can only commute so far without infrastructure costs causing even more problems. Eventually, the lovely suburbs of a previous generation start to collapse. So you can blame the "let's abandon the cities" mentality for why many of those problems were never suitably addressed--it's based on the philosophy that you don't ever have to clean up your own mess, you just leave it for someone else to deal with and move on.
Compact row houses are designed to function in a neighborhood. Demolishing every other house just makes them look silly and out of place, and it is based on the totally unsupported idea that somehow lowering housing density will lower crime. That assumption is based on nothing!
The problem is that community gardens don't exactly generate a lot of tax revenue. They are a temporary placeholder, not a solution. The long-term solution is to limit outward sprawl, which is as simple as not spending a bunch of tax money on more freeways, followed by establishing an urban services boundary.
Over the past century two schools of thought emerged about the problems of cities: one school of thought said we should spend money and time actually addressing the problems of poverty, crime, education and economic opportunity. The other said we should just abandon the cities and build new communities outside the city limits. That one seemed cheaper and easier, so that's what we did. But in the long run, suburban expansion hits a point of diminishing returns--you can only commute so far without infrastructure costs causing even more problems. Eventually, the lovely suburbs of a previous generation start to collapse. So you can blame the "let's abandon the cities" mentality for why many of those problems were never suitably addressed--it's based on the philosophy that you don't ever have to clean up your own mess, you just leave it for someone else to deal with and move on.
Compact row houses are designed to function in a neighborhood. Demolishing every other house just makes them look silly and out of place, and it is based on the totally unsupported idea that somehow lowering housing density will lower crime. That assumption is based on nothing!
The problem is that community gardens don't exactly generate a lot of tax revenue. They are a temporary placeholder, not a solution. The long-term solution is to limit outward sprawl, which is as simple as not spending a bunch of tax money on more freeways, followed by establishing an urban services boundary.
Over the past century two schools of thought emerged about the problems of cities: one school of thought said we should spend money and time actually addressing the problems of poverty, crime, education and economic opportunity. The other said we should just abandon the cities and build new communities outside the city limits. That one seemed cheaper and easier, so that's what we did. But in the long run, suburban expansion hits a point of diminishing returns--you can only commute so far without infrastructure costs causing even more problems. Eventually, the lovely suburbs of a previous generation start to collapse. So you can blame the "let's abandon the cities" mentality for why many of those problems were never suitably addressed--it's based on the philosophy that you don't ever have to clean up your own mess, you just leave it for someone else to deal with and move on.
Compact row houses are designed to function in a neighborhood. Demolishing every other house just makes them look silly and out of place, and it is based on the totally unsupported idea that somehow lowering housing density will lower crime. That assumption is based on nothing!
You and I have a very different opinion on the "let's abandon the cities" reason. I would buy that arguement back in the 60's and 70's, but its 2012, at some point you can't keep saying the reason city is in bad shape is because people moved to the suburbs. My question is, what is the answer? You can say that infrastructure cost will cause problems for suburbs but If there is no alternative back in the city, i think people will continue to migrate to the suburbs.
yea i'm pretty sure about that. We got people talking about the morality or ethics of living in auto-dependent suburbs, but nobody talking about reducing crime or improving schools to convince us not to move to those immoral suburbs.
maybe cause there are other forums on this site that are devoted to education or crime, and city specific forums where education and crime are discussed? This particular forum is the refuge for folks wanting to discuss transport and design issues, mostly.
maybe cause there are other forums on this site that are devoted to education or crime, and city specific forums where education and crime are discussed? This particular forum is the refuge for folks wanting to discuss transport and design issues, mostly.
when one of the arguments people have against the suburbs is people go into their houses and don't talk to their neighborhoods and have no sense of community, and they are immoral or unethical, we have moved beyond design and transport issues.
The problem is that community gardens don't exactly generate a lot of tax revenue. They are a temporary placeholder, not a solution. The long-term solution is to limit outward sprawl, which is as simple as not spending a bunch of tax money on more freeways, followed by establishing an urban services boundary.
Over the past century two schools of thought emerged about the problems of cities: one school of thought said we should spend money and time actually addressing the problems of poverty, crime, education and economic opportunity. The other said we should just abandon the cities and build new communities outside the city limits. That one seemed cheaper and easier, so that's what we did. But in the long run, suburban expansion hits a point of diminishing returns--you can only commute so far without infrastructure costs causing even more problems. Eventually, the lovely suburbs of a previous generation start to collapse. So you can blame the "let's abandon the cities" mentality for why many of those problems were never suitably addressed--it's based on the philosophy that you don't ever have to clean up your own mess, you just leave it for someone else to deal with and move on.
Compact row houses are designed to function in a neighborhood. Demolishing every other house just makes them look silly and out of place, and it is based on the totally unsupported idea that somehow lowering housing density will lower crime. That assumption is based on nothing!
Do you think Oregon's urban growth boundary statute is effective?
maybe cause there are other forums on this site that are devoted to education or crime, and city specific forums where education and crime are discussed? This particular forum is the refuge for folks wanting to discuss transport and design issues, mostly.
Coulda fooled me! I thought it was to discuss all urban issues!
In Youngstown that would make sense to me. I'd rather have someone have neighbors maintaining the larger yards next to me than two abandoned houses on either side. YMMV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown
I'd say in places where detatched homes were the norm 100 years ago, a larger yard could be attractive. However, rowhouse blocks with demolition-created yards mixed have sort of a "gap-toothed" effect that I don't care for.
It's funny that on so many of our blocks of mostly abandoned rowhouses, there will be ONE, usually in the middle of the block, that's still occupied. The newspaper quotes from these folks is usually funny, usually something along the lines of "Thank GOD those MFers finally left, now some quiet!!"
Here is a fairly typical group of middle-class houses in Youngstown:
And here is my street:
(I don't have many street pictures, but these are still fairly representative)
While it wouldn't be as jarring as removing a single row-house from a group, it still doesn't look right.
I'd rather preserve the semi-urban fabric that we still have, that makes us unique from the suburbs, and eliminate the neighborhoods that are almost gone.
I'd rather preserve the semi-urban fabric that we still have, that makes us unique from the suburbs, and eliminate the neighborhoods that are almost gone.
I understand that sentiment as well, and in many ways I think it would be better to do that.
However, how would you remove that one person on the block who doesn't want to leave? At least here, using eminent domain for something like that is political suicide, and nobody will do it.
At least having a neighbor in an occupied home buy the adjacent lot means the land will be producing some revenue, and, theoretically, if/when demand improves, it could be sold to create something that creates even more revenue, and the homeowner can go back to having the standard-sized yard. Or, that home's value is higher because of the land attached, bringing with it the surrounding values.
Of course, for my neighbor with one scrubby, overgrown acre (he bought a vacant property whose SFH was razed long ago), I'm not sure it's a benefit. I think he'd have to maintain it way better than he is willing or capable of doing, at this point.
when one of the arguments people have against the suburbs is people go into their houses and don't talk to their neighborhoods and have no sense of community, and they are immoral or unethical, we have moved beyond design and transport issues.
I guess some folks think those phenomena, to the extent they exist, are driven by design issues.
I would agree that general charecterizations of suburbanites (or for that matter of city dwellers) unrelated to design issues are usually off topic.
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.
