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 02-04-2013, 07:37 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,718,594 times
Reputation: 2538

Advertisements

To an Urbanite a new Condo Tower on a vacant or low-intensity lot, for example, means the possibility of more goods and services nearby, more lively streets, more of the stuff that urbanites like to do with few none of the negative externalities. More people doesn't necessarily mean more cars in a dense walkable city - it means more people on the sidewalks. If frequently means a blighted area or block is turned into something vibrant. Even when it does increase traffic, it's never that bad because a well planned grid is effective at disbursing traffic. The more people the more likely there will be to get more transit options as well.

To an Suburbanite a new subdivision just down the freeway has all the negative impacts (all traffic feeds onto the same roads). New subdivisions are almost always build on greenfields - replacing country with sprawl. A new subdivision mean mean a new grocery store or shopping center, but the chances that it would be walkable or nearby are infinitely small and anyway, each new business increases already congested roads.

Just occurs to me why the discussions on density create such diametrically opposed views. If you live in a city, density offers a ton of benefits with few downsides. If you live in sprawl, adding people creates a lot of negative effects without the positive benefits.

You can't fix sprawl by adding density - it doesn't work. By contrast, density in the center cities is desirable and increases viability by creating the critical mass that makes cities come alive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2013, 09:04 AM
 
28,441 posts, read 71,127,233 times
Reputation: 18401
Ridiculously over generalized.

I know thousands of cases inside cities where the NIMBY crowd came out in force against developments that did not fit their "vision" of how things should be built near where they live.

I also know of MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of developments in suburban areas where people have flocked to new developments in suburban area.

There are no shortage of "urbanites" that (correctly) recognize density by itself is no guarantee of positive devlopments -- projects that do match the income of desired future direction of an area can result in EITHER overpriced in sellable units OR under-supported low income residents harming the attractiveness of area.


Similarly smart suburbanites that recognize some kinds of ammenities can only be supported by certain levels of population density work to attract the kind of developments that will enhance the quality of life for all residents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,403 posts, read 59,899,964 times
Reputation: 54053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
New subdivisions are almost always build on greenfields
Well, that's certainly part of it.

Replacing a blighted, dilapidated building, or a littered, vacant lot with something more desirable is a different kettle of fish from replacing a cornfield with a warren of townhouses, an office park, and/or another half-empty shopping plaza.

Doing so also has very little impact on traffic, stormwater management, utilities, etc., where greenfield development can have huge impact.

People moving into a sparsely populated area always seem to want to be the last ones who move in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Denver
14,151 posts, read 19,785,378 times
Reputation: 8809
Because they can get a cheap, large, new house that's 30mins away from the city with no traffic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,446 posts, read 11,948,134 times
Reputation: 10548
Most urbanites tend to oppose new development if it happens immediately near them. However, given they are subsumed into a much larger polity (a city in the hundreds of thousands to millions, rather than a suburb in the thousands to tens of thousands), they have a lot less ability to block any particular project from happening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 09:50 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,718,594 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett View Post
Ridiculously over generalized.

I know thousands of cases inside cities where the NIMBY crowd came out in force against developments that did not fit their "vision" of how things should be built near where they live.

I also know of MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of developments in suburban areas where people have flocked to new developments in suburban area.

There are no shortage of "urbanites" that (correctly) recognize density by itself is no guarantee of positive devlopments -- projects that do match the income of desired future direction of an area can result in EITHER overpriced in sellable units OR under-supported low income residents harming the attractiveness of area.


Similarly smart suburbanites that recognize some kinds of ammenities can only be supported by certain levels of population density work to attract the kind of developments that will enhance the quality of life for all residents.
Of course I was generalizing. Of course there are counter examples to everything. This is a broad observation.

The perspective I was using was of an existing person - not someone new to an area. A person who already lives in a suburb and sees a sign that says "development coming soon" on what was until then a green field and will soon be filled with suburban homes and all the resulting impacts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 09:51 AM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,718,594 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Most urbanites tend to oppose new development if it happens immediately near them. However, given they are subsumed into a much larger polity (a city in the hundreds of thousands to millions, rather than a suburb in the thousands to tens of thousands), they have a lot less ability to block any particular project from happening.
I disagree that most urbanites oppose new development. I think there is a very noisy class of NIMBY's who scream bloody hell every time, but I by no means believe they represent a majority of urbanites.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 09:55 AM
 
Location: The City
22,341 posts, read 32,192,195 times
Reputation: 7744
City NIMBYs seem to be just as strong as suburban NIMBYs based on my experience
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 09:58 AM
 
Location: The City
22,341 posts, read 32,192,195 times
Reputation: 7744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
I disagree that most urbanites oppose new development. I think there is a very noisy class of NIMBY's who scream bloody hell every time, but I by no means believe they represent a majority of urbanites.

nor are they a majority of suburbanites
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,446 posts, read 11,948,134 times
Reputation: 10548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
I disagree that most urbanites oppose new development. I think there is a very noisy class of NIMBY's who scream bloody hell every time, but I by no means believe they represent a majority of urbanites.
At the very least, the percentage in the average urban neighborhood who opposes new development usually isn't any higher than in a suburban one. It's just that the ruckus they raise isn't enough to defeat the development in the vast majority of cases.

Admittedly in cities with low rates of home ownership where rental churn is high (e.g., no rent control), it may also be the case that a lot more people shrug. If you're not planning on living in your current unit for more than a few years, you might care a lot less about parking/noise/whatever issues a new major development right near your creates.

But generally speaking, only die-hard urban planning geeks (and people involved in real estate) are psyched when new development comes into their neighborhood (unless it's a very depressed area desperate for dollars and jobs). Everyone else is blase to opposed.
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