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 01-30-2013, 07:45 AM
 
Location: Long Neck,De
4,792 posts, read 6,791,276 times
Reputation: 4768

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
This has been the way development has been going for the last decade or two. Open/naturalized space helps to buffer and absorb run-off, maintains habitat and does increase values for the houses. Usually the houses are clustered relatively close together (the density varies) with the bulk of the property undeveloped. MD has stepped it up and now requires sub-divisions of more than 10 houses to be on central water and sewer.
I see this in so many of our newer/upscale developments. Houses are almost ontop of each other. No yard. No privacy. But they do have open space. Sorry not fot me!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-31-2013, 06:28 PM
 
Location: Laurentia
5,593 posts, read 6,376,484 times
Reputation: 2388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tired Man View Post
Would you be open to paying significantly higher homeowners association fees to keep a relatively large amount of your community protected from development and thus woods or fields, or would you rather see the area developed so you could save in property taxes and homeowners fees?

Remember, in this case the land is not active parkland but just open space. How much is too much?

Do you think the open space and protected woodland increases property values more than having a shopping mall in the protected woodland with tons of popular restaurants? Many residents of these communities would rather have the woods cuts down to build a restaurant park. Would you?
I'm not open to being part of an HOA at all, but in principle I support open space in the midst of urban development. For one, I like open space and forests, and it's a nice change from the crowded concrete and grass jungles that characterize urban and suburban life. 15% open/85% developed seems to be about right to me.

Good popular restaurants and high quality malls are nice and are about as attractive as having woodlands, but all too often these big development projects turn into cookie-cutter developments dominated by Walmart and its ilk, devoid of any quality or interest. Also, I would argue that you can have nice restaurants and open space at the same time. However, often one or the other has to be chosen, and it's a difficult choice that has to be made on a case to case basis in my view.

I also bristle at the view of open space as "saving" land from development, as if development was some sort of plague. I suppose I think of deliberate open spaces as being part of the development, since it will be a key characteristic for homebuyers to consider.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 05:55 AM
 
281 posts, read 632,123 times
Reputation: 364
I would not want to live in a suburban or stand alone town that only had 15% open space. For my orginal post I was suggesting maybe 40% of the land in the city would be designed green spaces which could include parks, ball fields, golf courses and field or woodland, that would never be turned into houses or commerical land.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
I'm not open to being part of an HOA at all, but in principle I support open space in the midst of urban development. For one, I like open space and forests, and it's a nice change from the crowded concrete and grass jungles that characterize urban and suburban life. 15% open/85% developed seems to be about right to me.

Good popular restaurants and high quality malls are nice and are about as attractive as having woodlands, but all too often these big development projects turn into cookie-cutter developments dominated by Walmart and its ilk, devoid of any quality or interest. Also, I would argue that you can have nice restaurants and open space at the same time. However, often one or the other has to be chosen, and it's a difficult choice that has to be made on a case to case basis in my view.

I also bristle at the view of open space as "saving" land from development, as if development was some sort of plague. I suppose I think of deliberate open spaces as being part of the development, since it will be a key characteristic for homebuyers to consider.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 07:02 PM
 
Location: Land of Free Johnson-Weld-2016
6,473 posts, read 13,951,748 times
Reputation: 6436
I would pay. I read someplace that only 5% of the land in the US is set aside for nature. It seems people love these awful new developments more than forests, plains etc. The "new house smell" from all the synthetics off-gassing must be irresistible.

Nevertheless, I honestly believe we need trees and plants to create oxygen. I am no scientist, but I wonder if that's where all the autism is coming from...Oxygen deprivation. There are a lot of countries which have cut down a lot of trees recently, and started creating more CO2 at the same time.

We need MORE trees, not fewer, in order to deal with the increasing amounts of un-breathable gases. Trees turn these gases into oxygen. I'm not sure if there are other natural ways to get enough oxygen to breathe other than having large amounts of plant matter.

Finally, trees clean the water. To ensure clean groundwater, clean waterways for swimming, fishing...drinking, don't we need large expanses of vegetation? But, it looks like we're going in the opposite direction. Maybe I just won't care anymore. There are so many awful people around, maybe we're better off if the earth is finally destroyed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 03:19 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,895 posts, read 42,123,479 times
Reputation: 43298
What I findfunny is that in my political career (dating back to 1985) I've gotten the reputation of being anti-developer. I usually respond that rather than that I'm more anti-stupid project. The funny part is that if I were in the same position where I grew up in very rural Western PA I would be accused of being a developer's ***** (paid escort). Different situations means different approaches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 05:57 PM
 
1,002 posts, read 1,439,402 times
Reputation: 868
I would be open to paying for reserving it, as long as it the fees weren't too outrageous.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top