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 03-25-2013, 08:11 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 1,495,969 times
Reputation: 817

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Who gets to decide on behalf of everyone in San Jose now and in the future how much nature we should keep?
I think they have already decided it: they keep ALL the nature, and the newcomers and the young generations can f*** off. Done deal, good bye, extremely selfish... Several local government decisions were made recently and into this direction. There are the local environmentalists (one group is called The Green Belt Alliance), they lobby at the local governments for their interests, and no one else lobbies, so their interest went into local law. There was a PBS documentary about the Bay Area, in the last episode they showed the "success" that the cities have been stopped from providing living space to the evil and environmentally unfriendly humans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2013, 08:15 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
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
There's no way to densify with infill to accomodate new growth and preserving nature at the same time?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 08:45 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 1,495,969 times
Reputation: 817
Their plan only consists of infill: and that only high density hosing. It might pack enough people into the boxes so they can work here. But a lot of people don't want to live in high density housing, their needs will not be met.
There is millions of acres of nature in CA, but they are only concerned about those few acres at their own backyards. Actually the homes of these people (NIMBYs and UGBs) should be bulldozed down and given back to nature. They could not possibly have any objection to that. If my future home must belong to the nature, then their present home should too. It would only be fair. Just because someone was born few decades sooner, it doesn't mean they have more rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 08:52 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
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
Their plan only consists of infill: and that only high density hosing. It might pack enough people into the boxes so they can work here. But a lot of people don't want to live in high density housing, their needs will not be met.
You mean their wants would not be fulfilled.

Or they could settle for higher density housing, rather than take away nature nearby for current and future generations (want about future residents who want to live near lots nature? Shouldn't they have a right to enjoy that, too?). Having scenic nature five miles away is very different than having nature much further away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 09:26 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 1,495,969 times
Reputation: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
You mean their wants would not be fulfilled.

Or they could settle for higher density housing, rather than take away nature nearby for current and future generations (want about future residents who want to live near lots nature? Shouldn't they have a right to enjoy that, too?). Having scenic nature five miles away is very different than having nature much further away.
Having an average house can be considered "need", I think.
If you have to travel 6 miles instead of 5 (1 mile growth), then it would give a chance of decent housing to a lot of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2013, 03:12 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,005,466 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
Having an average house can be considered "need", I think.
If you have to travel 6 miles instead of 5 (1 mile growth), then it would give a chance of decent housing to a lot of people.
A home is a need, a house is a want.

Regarding nature, we had a similar discussion some time ago about Central Park in NY. There is clearly adequate demand for more land for construction, so why not sell some of the park? It's large, so a fraction of it wouldn't be devastating. Or would it? Arguments can be made for both sides, but the reality is that it's a slippery slope once you say "just this once."

No-one is denying that UGBs have raised prices artificially. But, nature is finite, and people have a finite will to travel to it. Reducing the quality (including distance to get to it) and quantity of it is a one-time decision. Once it's used for development, it's not, generally, coming back. And using it to temporarily reduce prices instead of dealing with the real problems of horribly skewed income inequality (in the Bay Area) and awful zoning would simply be a quick, temporary injection of relief, but in no way a true fix.

Fix zoning and you could add tens of thousands of units (something like 4000 units are under construction or permitted for it in Santa Clara County right now, much of which is going up around the future BART stations) to some areas (ie, Cupertino, Palo Alto, Mountain View) while leaving others (Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, most of San Jose) low density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2013, 02:37 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 1,495,969 times
Reputation: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
A home is a need, a house is a want.
OK.
Right now a decent 2bed apartment in the city in Silicon Valley is around $300k, plus $600/month HOA. I think for many people its still unaffordable. I could buy one like this in the near future, but not sure if it is worth a 15/30yr mortgage paying a big portion of my income on it. I guess inner city development would help on that (increase supply), maybe they just didn't start much of the planned development yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-30-2013, 11:13 PM
 
8,287 posts, read 11,836,190 times
Reputation: 4948
Miami Dade county, Florida has had a UGB since the mid 1970s to curb growth from intruding into the Everglades watershed to it's west & of course the other boundary to the east is the Atlantic ocean.
The distance between the ocean and the western boundary is roughly 20 miles and most of the county has been built out therefore housing prices started to increase in the late 1990s as land for development was running out. Due to this developers started to urban infill Miami proper hence the huge skyscraper boom of the last decade. This is smart growth in my opinion since there needs to be a balance between preserving nature and sustainable developmnent.
If you can't afford to live in areas with UGBs or want a huge suburban home instead then don't move to them! It's as simple as that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 02:05 PM
 
1,225 posts, read 1,495,969 times
Reputation: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiRob View Post
If you can't afford to live in areas with UGBs or want a huge suburban home instead then don't move to them! It's as simple as that!
It is not that simple. Some career paths are pretty much locked to certain cities. If you want to be on the top of a profession (not just have some kind of job), then the options are very limited. For example for computer engineering it is the Silicon Valley, for Finance it's Manhattan... You can get a mediocre computer engineering or finance job in any bigger city, but you will not be on the "top" with your work. For most people it's OK, but for me I have to be in the SV to get access to highest-end technical work.
On the other hand there are a lot of people who move to these places and not even working in the these high-demand fields, for them any city should be just as good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-31-2013, 03:20 PM
 
8,287 posts, read 11,836,190 times
Reputation: 4948
^ My point is that sometimes you have to make tradeoffs in life. Do you want that job that puts you at the top of your profession and thereby forcing you to live in a shoebox? Or do you want a nice house but have to settle in the suburbs far away from that job? UGBs doesn't force you to make choices personal wants and needs and what type of lifestyle you want does. Americans are used to having their cake & eating it too.

Last edited by MiamiRob; 03-31-2013 at 04:15 PM..
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