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 03-23-2013, 02:47 PM
 
1,227 posts, read 1,497,473 times
Reputation: 822

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
A couple of things:

People pay a huge premium to live centrally. Even further out developments that are new urbanists command a higher price than their distantly related cousin, sprawl.

Secondly, sprawl isn't choice. Sprawl is mandated by codes. If developers had a choice they'd build urban becaus urban pays better. Everything about sprawl is by government fiat: from the setbacks to the curb sweeps to the width of the traffic lanes, to the number of parking spaces, the heights of the buildings, the impervious cover restrictions, the color and the widthe of the parking strip, the bio Swales and the berms and those silly little scrub plants that are supposed to make us feel better about hell on earth... Precisely all of it is to code.

So don't give me any crap about choice. Sprawl is by mandate.
Not everyone wants to live centrally, and not every city has a downtown worth being close to.


Those who want an SFH and work in the city, have 2 choices:
a) give up their dream home and buy an apartment in the city.
b) buy a SFH in a nearby town and commute from there.
Many people would love to buy a SFH in the city boundary but the prices are pushed up (mainly by the UGBs), so they can't buy there, that is why only these 2 are the real options for most people.
Not many people would give up their dreams, so I guess b is more popular than a. Most people I asked would chose b), and a) is out of the question.
One of the motives behind UGBs is to reduce commute by forcing people in the city centre (instead of letting them live in the extending town boundary), but instead those people are actually forced to nearby towns rather than into the city centre. This way commute time, traffic, congestion and pollution increases not decreases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2013, 04:35 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,717,097 times
Reputation: 2538
Long commutes are by choice. Always by choice.

I do not feel sorry for people who opt to live in a suburb and commute long distances. Not only do I not feel sorry for them, I'm irritated that:

1. They expect me to subsidize bad choices.
2. They pollute the air I breath
3. The warm the planet
4. The help to perpetuate the most wasteful allocation of resources in the modern world, and
5. They contribute to a sinister ugliness that pervades what use to be beautiful cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 04:43 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 23 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,634,943 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
A couple of things:

People pay a huge premium to live centrally. Even further out developments that are new urbanists command a higher price than their distantly related cousin, sprawl.

Secondly, sprawl isn't choice. Sprawl is mandated by codes. If developers had a choice they'd build urban becaus urban pays better. Everything about sprawl is by government fiat: from the setbacks to the curb sweeps to the width of the traffic lanes, to the number of parking spaces, the heights of the buildings, the impervious cover restrictions, the color and the widthe of the parking strip, the bio Swales and the berms and those silly little scrub plants that are supposed to make us feel better about hell on earth... Precisely all of it is to code.

So don't give me any crap about choice. Sprawl is by mandate.
LOL, "If developers had a choice". Of course developers have choices. What I think is really funny is that you seem to think there are no zoning codes in "the city".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 04:53 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,717,097 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
LOL, "If developers had a choice". Of course developers have choices. What I think is really funny is that you seem to think there are no zoning codes in "the city".
? link to me saying that there are no zoning codes in the city?

The zoning in center cities is typically DIFFERENT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 04:56 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,717,097 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
LOL, "If developers had a choice". Of course developers have choices. What I think is really funny is that you seem to think there are no zoning codes in "the city".
No - that is not true.

When you develop in sprawl you do not have a choice about your building form - it is by code. You actually have to get a variance and spend years to fight traffic engineers, hostile NIMBYs, ignorant public, and and entrenched bureaucrats.

Or you can build the big ugly sprawl and sail through the process unopposed and break ground in 60 days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
550 posts, read 1,092,054 times
Reputation: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Long commutes are by choice. Always by choice.

I do not feel sorry for people who opt to live in a suburb and commute long distances. Not only do I not feel sorry for them, I'm irritated that:

1. They expect me to subsidize bad choices.
2. They pollute the air I breath
3. The warm the planet
4. The help to perpetuate the most wasteful allocation of resources in the modern world, and
5. They contribute to a sinister ugliness that pervades what use to be beautiful cities.
No, long commutes are not always by choice.

After graduation I took the first job I could find because I was desperate and had been job hunting for almost a year. That job was 60 miles from home and required several hundred miles of travel every month.

We couldn't move because 1) To move closer to my job would mean that we would pay significantly more in state income taxes, something we couldn't afford to do. (This job was in another state.) 2) We live about 1.5 miles from my wife's work. Sure I would have had a shorter commute, but my wife would have had a longer commute - even if she had changed clinics. So for an anti car zealot like you it would have been pointless. Talk about winning the battle but losing the war! 3) We can't sell our house for a few more years because of stipulations in the loan. 4) Even if #3 wasn't an issue there's still the local economy which is in the tank. 5) I dislike the job and want to change jobs ASAP so what's the point in moving closer to a job you aren't going to keep? 6) This job is in another state that I have no ties to.

Oh, and I live in a rural town of about 11,000. There are no jobs closer to home. I know because I've been looking for the past 2.5 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 06:52 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 23 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,634,943 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
? link to me saying that there are no zoning codes in the city?

The zoning in center cities is typically DIFFERENT.
Right here, by implication:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
No - that is not true.

When you develop in sprawl you do not have a choice about your building form - it is by code. You actually have to get a variance and spend years to fight traffic engineers, hostile NIMBYs, ignorant public, and and entrenched bureaucrats.

Or you can build the big ugly sprawl and sail through the process unopposed and break ground in 60 days.

So when you build in the city, it is not by code? Please respond.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 07:31 PM
 
1,227 posts, read 1,497,473 times
Reputation: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
build the big ugly sprawl
-What is ugly about it?
-what is the real alternative? To build 10 apartment buildings in the centre with each having 20 apartments exactly the same? Or to build houses each different style? Who can afford that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 08:28 PM
 
3,836 posts, read 4,717,097 times
Reputation: 2538
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
-What is ugly about it?
-what is the real alternative? To build 10 apartment buildings in the centre with each having 20 apartments exactly the same? Or to build houses each different style? Who can afford that?
The alternative to bad development is good development. It can and is being done all over the country. It is happening in various forms including:

Revitalization and rehabilitation of down towns and central cities
Densification of urban cores
Suburban retrofits
Brownfield redevelopments of former industrial sites and airports like Stapleton and Mueller
Greenfield new urban developments such as the Kentlands

in short, it is the way we use to build cities, it is the way our cities are currently being redesigned and it is the way cities will once again be build when the madness finally ends for good.

Last edited by Komeht; 03-23-2013 at 08:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 08:38 PM
 
2,366 posts, read 2,129,528 times
Reputation: 1752
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
-What is ugly about it?
-what is the real alternative? To build 10 apartment buildings in the centre with each having 20 apartments exactly the same? Or to build houses each different style? Who can afford that?

All you see is a bunch of brick and mortar stores everywhere surrounded by a parking lot that only reaches full capacity once a year. There are no place where someone can walk around and enjoy the area. Everything is car-dependent which brings more cars clogging up the main roadway. Speaking of roadway, there aren't that many to begin with which forces all traffic on one major artery while any other possible alternative path is a cul de sac rather than a connecting street which could relieve some of the traffic. There used to be a nice land available whether it was for farming/agriculture or a wooded area, suddenly gone in favor of such development.

Those houses aren't well built and they really aren't that different. The houses are the same. They are placed in some subdivision along some undersized road that needs to be upgraded.

No, I don't think having apartments in the center is a good idea. That was already done with urban renewal and it was a failure. I believe Komeht already mentioned this but you build mixed used development to reduce the amount of travel needed from point A to point B. One area is for housing and another is for retail and so on. One alternate is the build pedestrian pockets where jobs, retail and residence are mixed together.
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