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, 09:53 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
550 posts, read 1,092,916 times
Reputation: 650

Advertisements

Komeht: I posted this earlier.

Thoughts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EVAunit1981 View Post
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, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Monmouth County, NJ & Staten Island, NY
407 posts, read 408,261 times
Reputation: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
OK - I just wanted you to clarify your earlier statement that you are in fact against choice and for sprawl.

Thanks.
If by "sprawl", you mean allowing people to have different types of communities of different styles of homes with varying degrees of code strictness and design standards and the idea that people can live in either urban, suburban or rural areas...yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 10:06 PM
 
Location: Monmouth County, NJ & Staten Island, NY
407 posts, read 408,261 times
Reputation: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
sorry - I thought I was responding to your outrage about government subsidy of light rail. . .seems you would be even more outraged about government subsidies of highways.

guess not.

Consistency is tricky for you isn't it?
No, actually I'm outraged by neither. In fact I think both of them are good because one of the few things I think the government should do is help build infrastructure that allows people to live the lifetsyles which they choose and allows for commerce and business to thrive...whether it be transit or highway oriented.

You talk about wanting choice, yet you relentlessly believe everyone should just accept your opinion on how to live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 10:35 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,058,839 times
Reputation: 14811
We've strayed off the topic of urban growth boundaries, please return to the topic
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2013, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Kalamalka Lake, B.C.
3,044 posts, read 4,023,364 times
Reputation: 3898
Default since we're comparing "Oregan?" to Wash. state......

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
Urban growth boundaries, such as the one in Oregan, lead to ridiculous situations like land inside being worth 30 times more than land outside, companies being unable to expand, and stimulation of development in the neighboring State.
Oregon produces more marketable/exportable/first quality agricultural crops than any state in the union. It has a soil classification system in place, and while I admit it may have a surplus of "academic uni-bomber cabin" types, it's the planning envy of almost anywhere else.
Now look at Washington State. Years ago I was in development in Whatcom County and what a cluster clown show that was. Gerrymandering by bible thump farmers had city lines going around, by, and down the road the THEIR property, for subdivision.
Long term PLANNING is the issue. Yes, if it's not accompanied by a reliable land/zoning supply you have problems. If the planning is imposed by the state you have too many levels (city, county) trying to get their piece of the pie. Someone, in most cases cities, have to ensure with the planning a lot of other things get done, and it's one of the "new" jobs that is so in demand right now.
Think Europe: 1,000 years of small villages along the river with all the arable land also along that level place. Wouldn't developers love to have that level loam to concrete over? Ain't gonna happen over there, because once it's gong it's gone. We're playing catch up, and some North American cities are/were way, way ahead of the pack.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2013, 09:21 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,058,839 times
Reputation: 14811
Portland's urban growth boundary only applies to Oregon, there's suburbs across the Columbia River in Washington State. I don't see development flocking to the Washington side due to the urban growth boundary, though a local might be able to give more information. Here's a website on the growth boundary:

Metro: Urban growth boundary
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2013, 12:18 PM
 
1,240 posts, read 1,502,284 times
Reputation: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Suburban retrofits
In places with UGBs, the housing prices keep rising, at least here in the San Francisco Bay Area. Becouse of that old dodgy houses will not be torn down, as most of their rising value comes from the bubble that is something to do with the house itself not just the lot. It is a highly appreciating asset for investors so they have no reason to invest into rebuilding on the lot. Its another question that investors should not be allowed on the housing market. Its good that they are not speculating with water and food (yet).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Greenfield new urban developments such as the Kentlands
These are stopped by the enforced UGBs. So in your opinion UGBs stop more livable development? Shou;ld cities abolish the stupid UGBs, and in the same time enforce new codes for developers that they must develop similarly to the Kentlands?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
The last few don't look bad at all to me. What is dehumanizing is apartment buildings. Its like a human factory.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
So wait - before you were arguing for choice. . .now you want it the other way - fiat.

Which is it you want, choice or fiat? Right now - sprawl is by fiat.
Here in the SF Bay Area the local governments have accepted the Plan Bay Area for development and land protection until 2030. This fixes the UGBs, protects every square inch of land around the edge of the cities and only allow inner city developments in the form of apartment buildings. That is not choice for the home buyer either, but government fiat as you called it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2013, 12:47 PM
 
1,240 posts, read 1,502,284 times
Reputation: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Portland's urban growth boundary only applies to Oregon, there's suburbs across the Columbia River in Washington State. I don't see development flocking to the Washington side due to the urban growth boundary, though a local might be able to give more information. Here's a website on the growth boundary:

Metro: Urban growth boundary
On the website (Oregon Metro gov) they say:
"The urban growth boundary was not intended to be STATIC. Since the late 1970s, the boundary has been moved about three dozen times. Most of those moves were small – 20 acres or less. There have been other times when the Metro Council approved larger additions."

On the other hand the SF Bay Area governments have their "Plan Bay Area" that sets the UGB as STATIC until 2030. Most things they say show that any unused land is off limits, it is for the nature and not for you.
One Bay Area - Plan Bay Area

I understand the problem with sprawl now, but the solution is not to disallow new land development but to codify the way of new development.
For example in a typical sprawl suburb you have the nearest hair dresser or supermarket within 30min walking distance, so no one will walk there, its too far. But if it was within 5-10min walking distance many people would walk like they do in European cities. So instead of having 20 residential streets and a strip mall, have 2 shops (1 grocery, one other type, or a café or pub) at every 2 residential streets. For some reason previous developers didn't like shops near residential streets, maybe afraid of something I don't know. But that is what they have in European cities, even in areas with SFHs.
So sprawl and static UGB are not the only 2 ways to go, although many American local governments enforce one saying "the other one option" is bad. Either way no choice for the home buyer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 12:40 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,008,379 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
I understand the problem with sprawl now, but the solution is not to disallow new land development but to codify the way of new development.

...

So sprawl and static UGB are not the only 2 ways to go, although many American local governments enforce one saying "the other one option" is bad. Either way no choice for the home buyer.
That nails it. The question for the Bay Area, then, is how do we make more thoughtful decisions about the makeup of our cities and their neighborhoods?

It's that question, and the lack of an answer, which has kept Coyote Valley undeveloped. How do we balance nature and city? Who gets to decide on behalf of everyone in San Jose now and in the future how much nature we should keep? How do residents get to employment and entertainment?

San Jose has LRT running through the east side, which is densely populated despite the detached SFH suburban form, straight through the golden triangle. Even there, we can't get our policies together to make the best use of the infrastructure that we have; that LRT line is vastly underutilized.

I just don't see San Jose being able to optimize growth beyond the current UGB.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Bothell, Washington
2,704 posts, read 4,678,681 times
Reputation: 3691
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.
Absolutely false! How are these commutes by choice? Let's take my city as an example- if I were to try to live in a house near the downtown core of Seattle, for anything decent at all I'd be looking at paying over $500,000. That is double what I paid for my new construction home in a suburb 15 miles north of downtown. It would not have been physically possible to buy a home there, we don't earn enough money to qualify for a loan that large! So I drive about a half hour to my job each day, but my wife works in our suburb with only a 7 minute drive to her work place. So where is the "choice" there? If I were to "choose" to pay more than I can afford to live close to my work place, we would be rejected by the bank because we don't earn enough for a loan that large, and even if we somehow could do it, then I would have the short commute but my wife would have the longer one. So then what? Do you propose we live apart, I live near my work and she live near hers? And what if we do buy a home that is somehow magically close to both places of employment and then I lose my job and find another that is further away, in a suburb 20 miles away? Then what? Do we sell the house and move?
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