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 04-06-2013, 01:23 AM
 
Location: Weymouth, The South
786 posts, read 1,602,834 times
Reputation: 465

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
We are back to the binary problem again: either destroy all nature or no expansion of cities...
The same with fishing, hunting, pollution, breathing air, manufacturing, agriculture... all should be forbidden from now on?
People vs. The Environment - Mibba

"so that means it's totally cool to destroy just a little bit, or even more than that?"
-I would call it "take" a little bit, and wouldn't call it destroying. With proper control (small lots 2-story etc) that amount of take can be minimized, but completely forbidding it is I think wrong.
You are trying to depict me as an irresponsible drunk rapist, just because I dare to suggest to take a little bit from nature. You might not be far right, but some kind of radical who worships nature and hates people.
There are few cities with rare innovative economic activity, and these few cities have to expand their boundaries. 99% of other cities don't really need to.
There is nothing irresponsible in controlled and regulated sustainable development. And sustainable development is not only vertical, but horizontal too (just with control rather than without).

"every inch of man's built up environment did used to be wilderness, but we can't do anything about that at this stage"
-That is not true: you can get your house bulldozed down and plant a small piece of forest on it. You see, it is not only available to other people, but to you too.
No you're specifically missing my point. I did not say you're destroying 'all' nature. Again, nature is not one entity.

You'd call it 'take'? So how is ripping up trees and paving over grass and dirt not destroying it? I'm not completely forbidding it, I've said it's sometimes necessary to develop more land. I do however disagree with you that expanding is the best or even only solution to this issue. I'm afraid if anyone is depicting you as irresponsible, it's you. I've take nothing out of context. You want the problem of some people not being able to buy a house far larger than they need to be fixed by 'taking' land from nature. I'm not a radical, I just think that we as a relatively enlightened people should not continue to sprawl, even if it's controlled, if other options are available. You might 'want' a big house and think that infill apartment projects are not the answer, but if the options are you getting what you want and don't need whilst 'taking' a little nature, versus that nature being spared and you living in an apartment which fully fits your needs, the latter is the far less selfish option.

I'm afraid it is true. The rural land that was here before my house or village was built will never come back. I could bulldoze my house and plant a mini forest, but that wouldn't be the same as it was before. It also would be pointless if the whole village wasn't also flattened. I didn't say it was available to 'other people' and not myself. I've not suggested any houses should be knocked down, only that new ones should not be built on virgin land.

Anyway, I've stated my case and you seem to think differently. I don't think it's right move, but good luck in trying to get the UGBs expanded.

Last edited by BruceTenmile; 04-06-2013 at 01:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-06-2013, 12:08 PM
 
1,224 posts, read 1,494,434 times
Reputation: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceTenmile View Post
... I do however disagree with you that expanding is the best or even only solution to this issue. ....and think that infill apartment projects are not the answer...
I didn't say expanding is the best or only solution. I said both infill and expansion is needed in the same time in cities with huge influx of people like the Silicon Valley. Do you understand what "both" means? An unusually large amount of people move into the area, unlike 99% of the other cities. This cannot be serviced with ONLY infill development.

[SIZE=2][SIZE=2][LEFT] [/LEFT]
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 01:18 AM
 
1,224 posts, read 1,494,434 times
Reputation: 817
I feel that there is something suspicious about local environmentalism. The small destruction of nature by residential city growth is magnified so much, and paralleled with for example surface mining, to justify regulations that are really made for transferring wealth to current land/home owners. The regulations materialize with UGBs and with building regulations. See below.

Death of the California Dream | Newgeography.com
...
Green politics came early to California and for understandable reasons: protecting the resources and beauty of the nation's loveliest landscapes. Yet in recent years, the green agenda has expanded well beyond that of the old conservationists like Theodore Roosevelt, who battled to preserve wilderness but also cared deeply about boosting productivity and living standards for the working classes. In contrast, the modern environmental movement often adopts a largely misanthropic view of humans as a "cancer" that needs to be contained. Moderator cut: quote too long
...

There is no "Free Market" Housing Solution | Newgeography.com
...
This true fundamental problem is particularly evident here in Britain, the leader in house price inflation and housing financial bubbles since the 1970s. In their recent report Global capital markets, the McKinsey Global Institute has confirmed what has been shown in recent Demographia surveys.
The root of this problem lies with an elite agenda that is highly ideological. The ideology at work is environmentalism, making a moral virtue of the retreat of political and commercial elites from the industrial production of housing.
The preference is for interest payments on a fund of mortgage debt rather than the effort of turning a profit from development, let alone construction. Professionals like estate agents, planners, architects, and bankers are certainly in collusion with that elite ideology.
Moderator cut: quote too long
...

The Housing Bubble and the Boomer Generation | Newgeography.com
...
starting about 1970, there was an explosion in regulations on the use of land including tighter zoning and building codes, regulations governing environmental matters, historic preservation and land conservation, growth and building caps and growth management schemes. It became harder to build at the urban edge because of the environmental rules and efforts to limit “sprawl.” It also became harder to build at the center because of substantial down-zoning and other regulations to “preserve neighborhood character,” particularly in affluent neighborhoods. This aspect of the 1960s progressive agenda has led to grumbling about NIMBYism but has otherwise generated surprisingly little negative commentary
Moderator cut: quote too long
...

And some more to chew on:
Ecofascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edited by nei; 04-07-2013 at 07:53 AM.. Reason: copyright violations
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 08:07 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
45,988 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
I didn't say expanding is the best or only solution. I said both infill and expansion is needed in the same time in cities with huge influx of people like the Silicon Valley. Do you understand what "both" means? An unusually large amount of people move into the area, unlike 99% of the other cities. This cannot be serviced with ONLY infill development.
This isn't the San Jose forum, most of us don't know the specific details of the situation there, so you're only get general philosophical arguments over whether it's worthwhile to restrict expansion via urban growth boundaries. Yes, obviously it's not an either/or solution, the question is how much should be growth toward infill or expansion? Perhaps small lot detached homes and an increase of the urban growth boundary by 0.5 miles might be a reasonable, maybe not. I don't know the details. But if the Bay Area pushes the boundary out too lax, much could be lost. If most of the Bay Area had been built to the density of outer neighborhoods of San Francisco, there would be plenty of land left for development and there wouldn't be this debate. It's too late now, but building as much infill as possible is the only practical solution. Again, your suggestion of 2000-3000 square lots could work, though at certain point the houses are close together you might as well attach them and build row houses as I proposed earlier. I don't know the details of San Jose area development, but it wouldn't surprise me if when the current houses were built there was a minimum lot size (5000 square feet ?, larger?) helping create the current problem.

You don't seem particularly concerned on whether you have preserved land nearby; you're much more concerned about whether most can afford detached homes. Obviously I disagree (I'm more concerned about the reverse), and rhetoric saying those who disagree don't value human life and needs sound extremely silly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2013, 11:52 PM
 
1,224 posts, read 1,494,434 times
Reputation: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
You don't seem particularly concerned on whether you have preserved land nearby; you're much more concerned about whether most can afford detached homes. Obviously I disagree (I'm more concerned about the reverse), and rhetoric saying those who disagree don't value human life and needs sound extremely silly.
-Just check out what many environmentalists say about people in general: they call us cancer or cockroaches... Im not silly, these are real motives in many people. You dont seem to be concerned about what people can or cannot afford. I lived my whole life in apartment buildings and there was nothing good about this type of living. Very artificial. If you consider 3 year income as house price to be affordable, then you need 3x the median income to buy the median home in the Bay Area. Plus most homes here are SFHs, and most new home buyers could not afford these. Since the prices suddenly went up and staid there (unlike other parts of the country where they have no rigid UGB), it created a massive wealth inequality between generations (not based on educational background nor income but based on when you were born). An average 50 year old unemployed guy with high school diploma has better/bigger home than an average 35 year old engineering manager with a PhD will ever have. This is a very serious problem, partly caused by UGBs, and you are just dismissing it as less important than preserving 0.00...001% of unbuilt land that would not make much difference anyway. The UGB must be relaxed with some control on what will be built on new land.

Check this:
Smart Growth and The New Newspeak | Newgeography.com
"80 percent preferred the “single-family detached house” ...
Yet the press release from the National Association of Realtors proclaimed that “Americans prefer smart growth communities.” This is because on Question 13, respondents were given a description of two communities:
Community A, a subdivision of only single family homes with nothing around them. Not even sidewalks!
Community B: lots of amenities all “within a few blocks” of home. Of course, the description neglected to mention the population density and degree of residential stacking required to put all those dwellings in such close proximity to walkable retail. ..."
Building some houses around the city should surely not damage the environment as much as 20 miles commute routes? People will simply not move into the apartments in the centres but will move to the exurbs instead, as they are priced out of suburbs due to the UGB limitations. So you smart growth planners have 2 choices: let the young generation to move into new suburbs or they will move into exurbs and emit 3x more CO2 on their commute. It is an illusion that most will decide and live their lives in apartment buildings and commute shorter.

Also somehow the high density parts in silicon Valley just don't have the same character as the row house and city home parts of Boston or New York. Who would want to live in these not too successful remakes of dense urban cities? These are sold as "town home" for more than half mil $:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=sunny...51.51,,0,11.48

Here is another example of enforced/planned smart growth:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=ukrai...,,0,-7.78&z=14
How did this work out after decades of experimenting with it in Eastern Europe?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 04:56 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,101,267 times
Reputation: 3117
The suspicion and rhetoric reminds me of someone:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2013, 02:44 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,793 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
I didn't say expanding is the best or only solution. I said both infill and expansion is needed in the same time in cities with huge influx of people like the Silicon Valley. Do you understand what "both" means? An unusually large amount of people move into the area, unlike 99% of the other cities. This cannot be serviced with ONLY infill development.
As I noted previously, to have both expansion of the UGB and infill while slowing land price growth and simultaneously satisfying housing growth for new residents requires a difficult balance. Two things would have to happen.

1) The growth boundary would only be tweaked to allow for mild expansion while keeping some of the pressure. IE, growth needs couldn't be met solely through expansion of the UGB. If you can have a house cheaply, why bother with denser living?

2) San Jose, and any city for that matter, would need
a) a clear, cohesive vision for any given district
b) zoning policies which support that vision
b) zoning policies, within that vision, which allow developers to decide what kind of construction best fits any given site given market demand, land prices, etc.
c) minimal red tape

One alternative to UGB expansion and/or infill, speaking specifically of the south Bay area, is an extension of the electrification of Caltrain and "baby bullet" speeds to Gilroy to allow for housing growth there. But, even this requires some kind of actionable solution to the "last mile" problem in the Golden Triangle. Between the speeds and the last mile problem, Caltrain use out of Gilroy has been...underwhelming.

Last edited by darkeconomist; 04-11-2013 at 02:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2013, 08:39 PM
 
1,224 posts, read 1,494,434 times
Reputation: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
a) a clear, cohesive vision for any given district
b) zoning policies which support that vision
b) zoning policies, within that vision, which allow developers to decide what kind of construction best fits any given site given market demand, land prices, etc.
Could you be more specific?
The BA governments already have a plan called "Plan Bay Area". Would this plan achieve these goals in your opinion? If not, then how would you change it? To me it looks like everything that is not in the PBA will be forbidden.

I think any plan would include tearing down old houses/buildings and building new ones on the lots. When the home prices are so inflated, a new house would barely sell more than an old one (percentage to investment amount), so not worth the investment into construction. This would actually help in for example replacing 10 old homes on 8000sqft lots with 26 new 2story homes on 3000sqft lots.

What some of the apartmenters don't understand is that many people want to live in a place where they can have their own private (not shared) outdoor space called backyard, with plants like grass/trees/bushes. Especially in warm/sunny climates like California. For me it doesn't have to be large, just to have enough space for a family barbeque party and 2-3 smaller (fruit) trees. Plus when I get out of my home I want to be in a natural setting with trees. unlike the place in the link I provided: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=sunny...51.51,,0,11.48
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2013, 12:15 PM
 
9,839 posts, read 11,435,920 times
Reputation: 2358
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
I didn't say expanding is the best or only solution. I said both infill and expansion is needed in the same time in cities with huge influx of people like the Silicon Valley. Do you understand what "both" means? An unusually large amount of people move into the area, unlike 99% of the other cities. This cannot be serviced with ONLY infill development.

[SIZE=2][SIZE=2][LEFT] [/LEFT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE][/SIZE]

Why not? Washington D.C. is growing very fast and almost all the development to absorb that growth across the region is infill around the D.C. Metro system in the form of urban high density TOD development.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2013, 12:29 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,101,267 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar View Post
Why not? Washington D.C. is growing very fast and almost all the development to absorb that growth across the region is infill around the D.C. Metro system in the form of urban high density TOD development.
... and the exurbs in MD, VA, and WV.

It's hard to implement a UGB with so many jurisdictions. DC is doing OK at infill; I prefer Portland as an example of good UGB practice. Obviously it's smaller. Though it's UGB doesn't apply to Vancouver WA.
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