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.
If you grow up in a suburban city you don't really pay much attention to open space until it is gone.
For years a major road through the suburban city I lived in had a mixture of woods, fields, homes and commercial buildings. While I always acknowledged that people had to live somewhere and there was a need for commercial development in the community, I started hating development when over time most of the open space in the community was leveled for development. The huge woods that we played in as kids was clearcut over one month a while ago for a huge strip center. Another large wooded area was clearcut a few months later for a huge townhome development. Hardly a tree was left standing and many of the forests cut down were over 50 years old.
Now when I drive down the previously scenic road going through town I see mostly concrete. I asked my friends about it and they said it's progress.
How about a compromise? Why can't they leave fifty percent of the woods intact as parkland or general open space and instead of building a huge parking lot, have a parking garage taking up less space. And only cut down trees where the home itself is, and leave the rest of the site in it's natural space.
They say in Sweden and Norway most communities are fifty percent open space so the quality of life is higher. What percent of the land should be left natural in a developing community in the suburbs?
I noticed a similar thing in the town in Connecticut I grew up in. When I first moved there, it was mostly built up, but there was still plenty of undeveloped land directly of of the main streets. Over time, every one of these isolated plots of forest (minus the parks) were developed into new subdivisions or stand-alone houses.
The way things often work in Europe, they often have "green belt" which surrounds a city and blocks development from happening past a certain distance from a city core. As a result, development still tends to be clustered tightly in a village-like manner. To give an extreme example, there's an area like the "Groene Hart" of the Netherlands, which is between major cities but stays largely undeveloped.
In general, I do think there's a tradeoff between lot sizes and the ability to keep open land. In the western United States, suburban lot sizes often tend to be smaller than in the east. Thus the suburbs would need to be much, much larger in terms of population to sprawl over the same land area, and you see open land still existing fairly close in to medium-sized cities (although admittedly topography also plays a role).
But yeah, in general, if you want to save open land, have it be in big chunks - preferably ringing the city - and make it into park land. Privately-held undeveloped plots scattered through a city are doomed (provided the city is actually doing well economically).
The trouble with the plan of a urban growth boundary or green belts at the edge of town with dense development in the actual cities is the people who don't drive out of town don't get to see the green trees or open fields. In the DC area we have two planned communities that had a 40% goal of open space in the development of the community. (Reston and Burke VA) But of course the residents of the town had to pay for the green because the areas are off limits for development the developers need to either charge more for the homes or have higher homeowners association dues to pay for the empty land.
Some people would rather pay less for their home and clearcut the forest and use every inch of land in commercial or residential development. Others like the green space. These are not actively used parks but instead just land kept in it's natural state. I see a real advantage being able to be in a community near jobs and retail but still be able to drive down the road and see a large amount of the land in it's natural state.
Would you pay more for your home or higher homeowner fees so maybe half of the land in your community could be green and undeveloped?
If you grow up in a suburban city you don't really pay much attention to open space until it is gone.
For years a major road through the suburban city I lived in had a mixture of woods, fields, homes and commercial buildings. While I always acknowledged that people had to live somewhere and there was a need for commercial development in the community, I started hating development when over time most of the open space in the community was leveled for development. The huge woods that we played in as kids was clearcut over one month a while ago for a huge strip center. Another large wooded area was clearcut a few months later for a huge townhome development. Hardly a tree was left standing and many of the forests cut down were over 50 years old.
Now when I drive down the previously scenic road going through town I see mostly concrete. I asked my friends about it and they said it's progress.
How about a compromise? Why can't they leave fifty percent of the woods intact as parkland or general open space and instead of building a huge parking lot, have a parking garage taking up less space. And only cut down trees where the home itself is, and leave the rest of the site in it's natural space.
They say in Sweden and Norway most communities are fifty percent open space so the quality of life is higher. What percent of the land should be left natural in a developing community in the suburbs?
RE: the bold, maybe the same percentage that was left in cities? Why do some not think about the impact cities have on the natural environment? Why do some think cities are a natural form, and that they sprung up fully developed?
"They say in Sweden. . . " is not exactly a ringing confirmation. And you have your urbanists on this forum who don't like natural land in any event.
The big cities have already been developed, the damage has been done. The developing suburban town is still a work in progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
RE: the bold, maybe the same percentage that was left in cities? Why do some not think about the impact cities have on the natural environment? Why do some think cities are a natural form, and that they sprung up fully developed?
"They say in Sweden. . . " is not exactly a ringing confirmation. And you have your urbanists on this forum who don't like natural land in any event.
I'm a huge fan of open space, and I live in a city that "walks the walk" and requires a 15% dedication of open space for any new development. (Unfortunately, my development was built before that requirement, but it's fairly small and backs to a large parcel of open space w/trails.) However, if you dedicate *too much* to open space, it increases sprawl. Like you, I also disagree that the open space should be ringing the city.
Your OP sounds like you've been channeling my father. People have been complaining about "development" for ages.
The trouble with the plan of a urban growth boundary or green belts at the edge of town with dense development in the actual cities is the people who don't drive out of town don't get to see the green trees or open fields. In the DC area we have two planned communities that had a 40% goal of open space in the development of the community. (Reston and Burke VA) But of course the residents of the town had to pay for the green because the areas are off limits for development the developers need to either charge more for the homes or have higher homeowners association dues to pay for the empty land.
Makes sense. They're constraining supply, plus they're making an area have extra appeal, which would raise demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HumanNature
Some people would rather pay less for their home and clearcut the forest and use every inch of land in commercial or residential development. Others like the green space. These are not actively used parks but instead just land kept in it's natural state. I see a real advantage being able to be in a community near jobs and retail but still be able to drive down the road and see a large amount of the land in it's natural state.
As I said, if it's privately held land, I dunno what you think they can do. Everyone has their price, and as long as it's undeveloped, someone is paying property taxes on the land and getting nothing out of it. Hell, if you just drive by it, and don't hike into it or something, you're getting pretty minimal use yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HumanNature
Would you pay more for your home or higher homeowner fees so maybe half of the land in your community could be green and undeveloped?
I'd never move into a HOA area, and I like city living. But if the question is would I pay more to live next to a major park or otherwise protected open land, of course I would. It's one of several things I'd look for in a house though, which also include being built before 1920, and having access to a walkable business district. Under no circumstances would I want to live in an isolated "cabin in the woods" type layout though.
The trouble with the plan of a urban growth boundary or green belts at the edge of town with dense development in the actual cities is the people who don't drive out of town don't get to see the green trees or open fields.
There are tradeoffs for both. But a large scale parcels of undeveloped land provide more of an escape, and feature more real nature than smaller more manicured parcels. Maybe 15% set aside for open space and than a large green belt outside? Perhaps instead of a greenbelt, you could have a mile wide green wedge radiated from the city center with development on both sides?
It also depends on how big your urban area. A green belt for a smaller one won't be that far away, while for a larger one won't be as accessible for most residents.
There are tradeoffs for both. But a large scale parcels of undeveloped land provide more of an escape, and feature more real nature than smaller more manicured parcels. Maybe 15% set aside for open space and than a large green belt outside? Perhaps instead of a greenbelt, you could have a mile wide green wedge radiated from the city center with development on both sides?
It also depends on how big your urban area. A green belt for a smaller one won't be that far away, while for a larger one won't be as accessible for most residents.
A lot depends upon local topography as well. Generally speaking, areas with steep hills and/or ravines tend to have more green space within them, as there's a lot of essentially unbuidable property. In contrast, areas which are flat as a pancake or have rolling topography have no clear ways to limit development geographically.
If you grow up in a suburban city you don't really pay much attention to open space until it is gone.
...
What percent of the land should be left natural in a developing community in the suburbs?
A hard percent is the wrong approach, I think.
And we have to differentiate between uses. You said natural, so does that mean we're not talking about parks in general? Are we only referring to natural preserves?
Most parks and pocket parks are very much un-natural, but that's what we get from hard percentage dev requirements. But, if you said yes to the previous questions, such parks would be out.
And when you say natural, do you mean truly natural, even though natural might be wide open prairie and not terribly welcoming to people, especially in the summer? Or would psuedo-natural (ie, it feels like it was always naturally there, though it was man-made) planted forests count?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
There are tradeoffs for both. But a large scale parcels of undeveloped land provide more of an escape, and feature more real nature than smaller more manicured parcels. Maybe 15% set aside for open space and than a large green belt outside? Perhaps instead of a greenbelt, you could have a mile wide green wedge radiated from the city center with development on both sides?
It also depends on how big your urban area. A green belt for a smaller one won't be that far away, while for a larger one won't be as accessible for most residents.
+1
The approach of cross-city natural trails connecting parks (eg, San Jose's Coyote Creek Trail) might be a good balance.
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.
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.
