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.
Over the heckles of hundreds of residents opposed to higher density and the two regional planning agencies making the decision, the Bay Area's growth plan designed to cut carbon emissions 15% by 2040 through better planning was approved.
According to Madsen, highlights from the plan include:
No sprawl for 30 years—100% of new growth will be within existing urban boundaries
Nearly 80% of new homes and over 60% of new jobs will be near public transit
Interesting. How will this effect the Bay Area? What other cities have initiated similar initiatives. Results?
Whoa!!! That's huge if true. Where can I find more details as to how this is going to be accomplished.
Here's the link to the .pdf of the FEIR...all 2,288 pages of it. Start the download, take a shower, have breakfast, then start wading through it with that second cup of coffee :-)
The Bay Area BANANA plan continues. One of these days they're going to get their wish and all those tech companies who want their employees to have a place to live will just get out.
The Bay Area BANANA plan continues. One of these days they're going to get their wish and all those tech companies who want their employees to have a place to live will just get out.
The Bay Area BANANA plan continues. One of these days they're going to get their wish and all those tech companies who want their employees to have a place to live will just get out.
Still haven't seen the particulars, but having a zero Sprawl policy is perfectly doable in an area as large and spread out as the Bay Area. Aside from SF and some pockets of Berkeley and Oakland its very very low density and with enormous potential for infill and denser development. I saw nothing about limiting growth, just sprawl, and that makes all the sense in the world.
Interesting. How will this effect the Bay Area? What other cities have initiated similar initiatives. Results?
The city I live in, Vancouver, has been developing along a similar line in an even more ambitious way for decades now and it's been a smashing success in some ways, but also a failure in others as we ended up facing one crucial problem. Development along these lines can be just as successful as sprawl in theory, but getting it to work that way in practice is a political problem that has to be successfully addressed. The problem has been NIMBYism has made development of new dense stock at the rate needed quite difficult, and so supply, despite the vast amount we built, did not keep up with demand and prices got crazy. They'll need to find a way to approve enough development to keep prices stable or lower them while also not angering so many people as to get booted out of office. This is a major challenge for a democratically governed city.
Still haven't seen the particulars, but having a zero Sprawl policy is perfectly doable in an area as large and spread out as the Bay Area. Aside from SF and some pockets of Berkeley and Oakland its very very low density and with enormous potential for infill and denser development. I saw nothing about limiting growth, just sprawl, and that makes all the sense in the world.
Except there is very little land left within existing urban boundaries, maybe a few parcels for infill. The only way to have growth would be build denser in existing neighborhoods. While most the Bay Area is low density relative to San Francisco and a few older cities, as American suburbs go, it's one of the densest in the country.
Except there is very little land left within existing urban boundaries, maybe a few parcels for infill. The only way to have growth would be build denser in existing neighborhoods. While most the Bay Area is low density relative to San Francisco and a few older cities, as American suburbs go, it's one of the densest in the country.
The overall density of the Bay Area including SF is about a third of extremely low density Austin Texas. There is decades and decades of opportunity to build more densely.
The overall density of the Bay Area including SF is about a third of extremely low density Austin Texas. There is decades and decades of opportunity to build more densely.
No it's not. Other than a few patches near downtown, Austin is less dense than the Bay Area, it's probably at least two to three denser. Check this map (choose density next to the arrow of "view more maps")
Bay Area (add up San Francisco + San Jose) is a bit over double that of Austin.
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.
