U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 12-28-2011, 06:04 PM
 
7,418 posts, read 8,106,724 times
Reputation: 2932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lincolnian View Post
Many of the cities of the 1890s were polluted, crowded, cesspools of corruption. Those that could afford it left the city as much as possible to improve their health, connect with nature, and lift their spirits.
That's not all they did--others worked to make the cities safer, cleaner and healthier, efforts that were often quite successful, only to discover that so many of the middle class had left the cities that there weren't enough left to implement the solutions they had found. Part of the efforts of contemporary urbanism is simply the fact of pointing out that today's cities bear little resemblance to those of the 1890s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-28-2011, 08:02 PM
Status: "Happy Halloween!" (set 9 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
69,194 posts, read 58,392,139 times
Reputation: 19722
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
(1)Deflecting questions that you don't want to answer, is this your thing?

Simple question:

Will $1,000,000 spent in a one square mile area of a typical suburban area directly affect more or less people than a typical square mile of urban neighborhood?

To make it even simplier:

Which typically has more residents living in one square mile, a suburb or a city?

2. It doesn't matter what is planned. What matters is that the money helps the people living inside the one square mile. And what also matters is bang for your buck.
You're going on ignore for your rudeness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2011, 09:43 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
7,726 posts, read 4,848,237 times
Reputation: 5607
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
(1)Deflecting questions that you don't want to answer, is this your thing?

Simple question:

Will $1,000,000 spent in a one square mile area of a typical suburban area directly affect more or less people than a typical square mile of urban neighborhood?

To make it even simplier:

Which typically has more residents living in one square mile, a suburb or a city?

2. It doesn't matter what is planned. What matters is that the money helps the people living inside the one square mile. And what also matters is bang for your buck.
Depends on the typical urban neighborhood you're talking about. If you're talking about downtown Sacramento which is roughly a square mile and has about 6,000 people living in slightly over a square mile, then many suburbs would benefit more people. You'll never be able to find me a square mile of suburb that's seen hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars redevelopment money like downtown Sacramento has. Sacramento doesn't even bother with public interest anymore. Bikini bars and crappy pizza parlors get tens of millions. And now they're talking about selling off all the city garages for a net proceed that will probably amount to less than the 2,000 capacity VIP garage for the new Kings Palace which promised to bring lots of new customers to its immediate neighbors: a railroad track, an Amtrak station, a freeway, and a museum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2011, 11:20 PM
 
7,418 posts, read 8,106,724 times
Reputation: 2932
Of course, more than 100,000 people work in that same square mile, so it's difficult to say that those redevelopment efforts didn't have any effect on people--if not for those projects, that rather large number of people wouldn't have places to work, and that would have an enormous effect on more than 100,000 households, mostly in the suburbs. There are of course other considerations about the beginning of that particular effort (which destroyed and evicted a densely populated nonwhite neighborhood in order to turn it into an expansion of the downtown commercial district) but please get your facts straight rather than distorting them so blatantly. From a purely fiscal point of view, especially the point of view of suburban interests, the redevelopment of Capitol Mall was an enormous success, raising tax valuations and erecting new buildings, both commercial offices and expanded government buildings. It wasn't until redevelopment started to be about city residents, instead of reshaping downtowns to meet suburban needs, that people started grouching about the evils of redevelopment.

The pizza parlor has become a catalyst that draws tens of thousands of people to K Street each month, not just to that redevelopment project but to adjacent businesses, and new businesses are opening nearby in order to get in on the newly expanded customer base. Having spent a lot of time on K Street over the past couple of decades, I have never seen it this busy, or this safe, especially late at night. And the food at the pizza parlor is actually really, really good.

And they're not talking about selling city parking garages, it's a 50 year lease for the garages in return for an up-front cash payment to toss into the theoretical fund to build an arena. It's a horrible, poorly-conceived idea, as is the arena idea as a whole, but at least get your facts straight about the horrible arena plan--plus, note that it isn't actually a redevelopment project in the traditional tax-increment funding sense (if only because the city's redevelopment funds are all tied up due to the state's efforts to defund them, and the resulting court battle.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2011, 12:56 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
7,726 posts, read 4,848,237 times
Reputation: 5607
Well, obvious me and the Redevelopment agencies and you have a different opinion on what constitutes enormous success. They want to waste more money with the Catalyst project to revitalize, in their words, Sacramento's Great Very Under Utilized Space." If it were such an enormous success, why is more money being thrown at it yet again? Or maybe that is the enormous success; the act of throwing money at a bottomless pit for no reason. In that case Welfare Street sure is enormously successful.

And you really like Welfare Street Pizza that much? It's mediocre pizza at obscene prices with horrendous service. Yes, you get a semi-truck, graffiti, and some guitars. The decor is unique, if a bit trashy. I've been there twice, both times during lunch. Despite being empty, service was ridiculously slow. For $30 for a medium-sized pizza, I'll take myself to Paesanos and have a couple beers to go along with my pizza for the same price. Given that you can't really get out of Welfare Street Pizza Parlor for under $20 a person and it brings "tens of thousands" a month, why does it even need millions of dollars of subsidies? For something that small to be clearing a minimum of $400,000 a month is just amazing.

You're correct, it's a 50 year lease on the city garages. They aren't selling them. Just leasing them for longer than they'll hopefully last. And by the time the get done paying of the $50 some million they still owe on the construction bonds, they'll probably net less than the $20 million VIP parking garage for the arena will cost. Smart. Eventually, the city will just run out of assets and we'll be like New York and Nevada: renting our capitol and prison from the private companies we sold them to "balance" the budget. And given Sac County's record of paying its bills, the idea of a privately owned prison is a bit scary even if it would be hilarious to see them just open the doors after the nth year in a row of not being paid.

Last edited by Malloric; 12-29-2011 at 01:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2011, 05:30 AM
 
Location: Chicago
1,264 posts, read 761,512 times
Reputation: 1341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You're going on ignore for your rudeness.

Oh no!!!!

Where will I ever find someone on the internet unwilling to answer simple and direct questions posed to them?

Isn't this sort of related to the original post? As opposed to dealing with a person, the simple and easy way is to run away from him/her? Ignore the "bad things", as it were.

Sure, that's everyone's right as an American. The freedom to do as we please. But taking the mentality of "out of sight, out of mind" is only a legitimate solution to problems in a fantasy world. Ignoring problems, or just flat out avoiding them at all costs will only allow the problems to continue. And people in the suburbs wonder why the city can't get it's act together.

Maybe if people who ACTUALLY CARED about where they live, and the neighbors around them stuck around the city, rolled up their sleeves and put in the work, cities around the country could be restored to their former glory.

"Oh, I have money! Why should I stick around and try to make things better?... That's work! I'm just going to buy my way out of having to think about or deal with problems."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2011, 05:33 AM
 
Location: Chicago
1,264 posts, read 761,512 times
Reputation: 1341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Depends on the typical urban neighborhood you're talking about. If you're talking about downtown Sacramento which is roughly a square mile and has about 6,000 people living in slightly over a square mile, then many suburbs would benefit more people...
Are you saying that outside the downtown of Sacramento, the suburbs have a population density of more than 6,000 per square mile?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2011, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
7,726 posts, read 4,848,237 times
Reputation: 5607
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
Are you saying that outside the downtown of Sacramento, the suburbs have a population density of more than 6,000 per square mile?
More like 5,500 for downtown vs 3,000-4,000 for the residential areas of Sacramento. I'm saying on its face it's obvious that Redevelopment isn't about benefiting people. The majority is going to where less than 2% of the population lives, and it's not even a particularly needy 2%. Is the best use of welfare to subsidize $2000/month luxury lofts in area where median rents are under a $1000? Or is that just a waste of public money to enrich developers while providing little public benefit. For bigger fans of corporate welfare than human welfare, which I guess wburg is, that's all peachy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2011, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Far from where I'd like to be
25,179 posts, read 30,909,567 times
Reputation: 36620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Do you think transit is unsubsidized? Every rider costs the transit district money.
And the transit district = You 'n' me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogee View Post
They are also concerned with zoning regulations that prohibit urban development in many places. They believe that the market should determine how new neighborhoods are developed, not laws.
What about zoning regulations and other laws that encourage development in infill areas? Otherwise, developers are going to go where land is cheaper and limitations are fewer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by checkmatechamp13 View Post
Aside from people like farmers, I can't think of anybody who would actually need a car. There are instances where you may need a car (e.g. Carrying heavy stuff home), but your whole lifestyle wouldn't revolve around a car (in a case like that, you could catch a taxi but in the long run it would be cheaper than driving)
Unless you're a salesperson. Or a social work case manager. Or a hospice nurse. Or ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango View Post
We've got quite the love-hate relationship with suburbia don't we, especially on this forum.
I prefer a take-it-or-leave-it relationship. I'll take it if it benefits me; leave it if it doesn't. Right now, living in the burbs benefits me. That may change later (but not unless I leave Philadelphia).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Actually, not true at all. There still are people who intentionally go to great lengths to ensure their remoteness from anything resembling a commercial building. Modern street design was laid out with that in mind.
Yes. Since the mid-19th century.

Quote:
Mixed use is only desirable ON commercial corridors. Most people don't want to live in mixed use. I certainly don't.
Ditto. Three or blocks away is close enough.

Last edited by Ohiogirl81; 12-29-2011 at 04:37 PM.. Reason: errant coding
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2011, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Planet Earth
3,318 posts, read 3,516,019 times
Reputation: 1236
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
Are you saying that outside the downtown of Sacramento, the suburbs have a population density of more than 6,000 per square mile?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
More like 5,500 for downtown vs 3,000-4,000 for the residential areas of Sacramento.
Here's a map of the population density of Sacramento: Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com (you have to zoom into Sacramento, clock "View More Maps", and click on "Population Density")

It's a little denser than that. It's around 7K for the Downtown and 5K for the residential areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
Unless you're a salesperson. Or a social work case manager. Or a hospice nurse. Or ...
If the transit is decent, it's not necessary. If the neighborhood has bus service every 5 minutes, the social worker goes to one home, takes care of business, goes outside, and waits 5 minutes for the bus to go to his next assignment. Rinse and repeat.

For the salesman and hospice nurse, it depends whether they're carrying anything bulky and/or heavy. If the salesman is just selling insurance, and if the hospice nurse has all of the equipment at her patients' homes, there's no need for them to drive either.

Basically, I'm advocating for subsidies to cars to be removed (and if you want, you can remove those for transit as well), and people will decide to build things in an non-auto-centric manner. Then, for those occupations where it is deemed necessary to have a car to accomplish the task, the government can help subsidize car use for those specific jobs.

More arguments for shifting subsidies from cars to transit can be found here: Cap'n Transit Rides Again
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 $84,000 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top