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 12-24-2013, 01:19 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
45,990 posts, read 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
If you live in an area with few transplants, it is difficult to make new friends. You see that over and over here on CD. There are some cities where most people have lived for generations. Whether they live in the city or the burbs, they socialize with family. One often wonders how any of them find spouses/partners! I don't think cities are much different than the burbs in that regard. Cities are well known for being cold lonely places. "New York's a Lonely Town", etc.
Or rather socialize with whatever network of friends they got growing up locally.

Suburbs tend to have fewer transplants [at least younger people] than cities, and a bit more of everyone and their family grew up here, maybe for generations. As for New York, I can think of a transplant friend who chose it over Long Island for that very reason. Instead, she lives in a city neighborhood full of many other young transplants. That doesn't mean she socializes with her neighbors, nor knows them.

And others post-college move to cities since lots of other people of a similar age do the same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-24-2013, 01:37 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,014 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Or rather socialize with whatever network of friends they got growing up locally.

Suburbs tend to have fewer transplants [at least younger people] than cities, and a bit more of everyone and their family grew up here, maybe for generations. As for New York, I can think of a transplant friend who chose it over Long Island for that very reason. Instead, she lives in a city neighborhood full of many other young transplants. That doesn't mean she socializes with her neighbors, nor knows them.

And others post-college move to cities since lots of other people of a similar age do the same thing.
Most adults in metro Denver, city and suburbs alike, were born somewhere else, including people my daughters' ages (20s). A guy once told her he had never met a native Coloradan before. Very few of my friends and neighbors are from here, and I have lived in the burbs for 30 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2013, 05:04 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,351,950 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
You continue your uninterrupted streak of being wrong about everything. Allow me to dismantle this post piece-by-pied - bear with me, since everything is wrong, this will take some time:

1. No one forces anyone to move somewhere. No one points a gun at someones head and says "you will live urban." This is a myth. You can test this out in your home town. Do a price/sf comparison of what people willingly pay in the city and what people willingly pay in the suburbs.
"Willingly pay" is a loaded claim.
People live places based on job, family, etc.

Price per square foot is meaningful only in a NU world - completely disregarding the size or value of the land. This is only meaningful in an environment where the lots are the same size and the construction of same or similar quality from house to house.

Folks in rural areas often have homes on parcels significantly larger than what you will find in an urban environment. The "price per square foot" is a rather meaningless comparison and fails to comprehend the size of the parcel one would have. I'll submit that in many cases the price of housing on a "per square foot of residential space" is higher in many rural areas than what you'll find in most of Austin because of the land component that you prefer to ignore. "Price per square foot" is a poor comparison that is useful only in tract housing built by the same or similar builders on same-sized lots. It means something only in the myopic view of NUs where homogeneity, conformity, and mindless mass repetition are the norm. I realize that recognizing individuality is problematic for NUs because it disrupts your "urban fabric". Tough. We aren't all herd animals.

I've seen real estate agents try to use "price per square foot" to bully homeowners into reducing prices for sale. Problem is that it isn't just the house that's for sale, it's the house and land. Unless your comparable is the same size lot, similar sized and construction house, don't bother using "price per square foot" as metric. The very use of that term indicates a myopic "urban" mentality.

Quote:
2. You have completely turned New Urbanism on its head. Urbanism has been made illegal in most of the country except for relatively small city cores. New Urbanists seek to reintroduce urbanism into regimes that have been made incredibly complex. That's what makes New Urbanists "new". Oh, and don't believe me - go check out their website - CNU.org.
Well call it what you want. Urbanism. Communitarianism. Agenda 21. Whatever. I'm not aware of NU being made "illegal". Virtually every local government with platting authority mandates "open space" and other elements that NUs are touting. Of course the "open space" is required to be privately owned and maintained which means forced imposition of HOAs.

Quote:
3. New Urbanists seek to allow what was once legal, and has been made illegal, legal again. That's is pretty much the heart and soul of New Urbanism. So it's 180 degrees opposite of what you proposed - it the suburbanites who have mandated auto-dependecy on most cities in the US. In fact, if municipalities would simply step out of the way and give people the option to develop in an urban way a large part of the problem would be corrected over time because developers seek to maximize profits and urbanity commands premiums.
You haven't identified anything that was "once legal, and has been made illegal, legal again." Not one. Urbanity forces premiums because the concentration of NIMBYs is higher and because the slothful city needs ways of generating revenues to sustain wasteful spending.

Quote:
4. The scope of the areas and projects that New Urbanists practice in is extremely broad from individual parcels, to revitalization of a block or a neighborhood to re-introducing vitality into the city core to planned developments outside the city core. Although you attack one facet of new urbanism - planned development - the movement encompasses so very much more than this.
They tend to all suffer from failure to realize that correlation does not equate to causation. By manufacturing the trappings of "community" or "success" NUs proclaim that community and success therefore exist. However, these are all artificial trappings and end up being the opposite of the image they portray. "Reintroducing vitality" is code for taking property under claims of blight and then redeveloping them into mixed-use development (planned community) with condos and retail operations and something touted as "shared space".

Quote:
5. The purpose of planned new urban developments is to give a way to OPT OUT of the current regime that makes urbanism impossible. It's the only tool new urbanists have at their disposal to build urbanism in places that have deemed it illegal.
Nothing but planned developments are permitted. Local government code statutes prohibit the provision of power, water, or other utilities to a subdivision of property for which plat approval is required. Plat approval won't be given unless the property has "open space" and other unwanted liabilities. These in turn force imposition of HOAs on virtually all new development. These places are not the result of consumer demand, they are the result of local government mandate. Claiming they are "illegal" is ridiculous. If anything, its the only way the vast majority of new housing is allowed to be built - subject to planned community and involuntary membership HOAs.

Quote:
6. Contrary to what you stated - the new urban developments that are well done command a HUGE premium the similarly situated standard suburban fair. I'll direct you to Kentlands, Seaside, Stapleton, Sunrise, l'on and many many more. Why do people pay a huge premium to live in places they find "abhorrent".
The "premium" you refer to may be the lesser of two evils. People's choice of housing is dictated by many variables. The fact that something costs more does not make it more desirable. That's a snob appeal tactic not one for rational people. Why do people buy tacky magazines at the checkout counter? I don't know but don't try to mandate a requirement that I purchase that junk along with grocery items at checkout.

Real estate hype is often much larger than reality. The hype has to be maintained at all costs. I've certainly seen places in Austin that are hyped - and the turnover is high. Austin itself is over-hyped - and the city will eventually have to pay the price for the hype. However, high prices do not mean that people enjoy living there. There are certainly plenty of places in Austin that are hyped. After people buy, reality sets in. Residents have to continue the hype so they can get out without losing their shirts. Real estate agents love it because of the commissions generated from the higher turnovers.

Quote:
7. Building "connected communities" is far from nonsense, is the antidote to building auto-dependent suburbs where everything is single use and almost all trips require a car. Connected simply refers to having a network of options available to all.
...and unless all the residents have the same needs/desires you will never come close. NUs seem to be single individuals or to not have families. Certainly it is not likely to have elementary school, middle school, high school, and the sports fields or other amenities associated with them all within walking distance for any sizeable population. The employers for the adults are not likely to be there. Consider adding grocery stores and other retailers and it becomes apparent that your dream is not an achievable reality nor a desirable one for the vast majority of the populace. Perhaps it would be appropriate for assisted living.

Your definition of "connected" and division of "communities" suffers from issues of granularity and tribalism. Community is a completely abstract and meaningless concept. Apparently you want to divide different geographic areas up as tribal territory under the mistaken belief that everyone in that area is part of the same "tribe" or is somehow not an equal to everyone else in the area. Perhaps you might recognize that your "community" should not be limited to pockets of homogenous territories. Similarly the people owning the properties should not be deemed to belong to individual, exclusive tribes based identified by which homogenous pocket they own property in.

As far as "connected" is concerned, Austin has done a very poor job of keeping up with transportation needs and the NU types have only sought to make things more difficult. Anti-car zealots try pushing their "anti car" design agendas in order to exacerbate the problem. The only "connection" I need is a nice wide road for getting out of Austin to another place that is "connected" by a road. According to an article in the Statesman today, it would appear that Austin needs to get with it to handle the anticipated growth in traffic instead of spending millions of dollars to purchase and convey no-growth easements in other counties to private entities at taxpayer expense:
Texas A&M traffic study paints bleak picture of future Austin-area traffic


Quote:
8. I have no idea what you are talking about re "communitarianism" but it suggests that you've been listening to Alex Jones a bit too much….put down the tin hat and step away from the black helicopter.
Ah, ad hominem attacks. A tool of the weak minded. Perhaps you should just admit when your position is indefensible and arguments without merit?

Last edited by IC_deLight; 12-24-2013 at 05:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2013, 08:45 PM
 
Location: NYntarctica
11,436 posts, read 6,410,146 times
Reputation: 4340
It's not a new trend. It existed long ago, just listen to Subdivisions, a great Rush song from the early 80s. Even my grandmother always told me how excited she was to finally live in a big city after toiling her life in a rural village in the countryside that was almost burned to the ground by the German army

At least in the city in the 40's they had food, in the countryside they had nothing to eat but apples and bread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2013, 09:02 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,014 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
"Willingly pay" is a loaded claim.
Exactly! While personal preference does play a part, the "urban advocates" have touted this urban environment, gotten into bed with the developers and convinced naive people to willingly pay way more than they should to live "in the city".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warszawa View Post
It's not a new trend. It existed long ago, just listen to Subdivisions, a great Rush song from the early 80s. Even my grandmother always told me how excited she was to finally live in a big city after toiling her life in a rural village in the countryside that was almost burned to the ground by the German army

At least in the city in the 40's they had food, in the countryside they had nothing to eat but apples and bread.
Well, in the US during the depression, the people that lived on farms had enough to eat while the city people went hungry (some of them). True story from both my mother and mother-in-law, who were kids during the depression and lived on farms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2013, 09:42 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
45,990 posts, read 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Exactly! While personal preference does play a part, the "urban advocates" have touted this urban environment, gotten into bed with the developers and convinced naive people to willingly pay way more than they should to live "in the city".
That's a bit much to argue that people paying extra to live in the city are being brainwashed. They could always choose to live somewhere else, anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2013, 09:45 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,014 posts, read 102,621,396 times
Reputation: 33082
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That's a bit much to argue that people paying extra to live in the city are being brainwashed. They could always choose to live somewhere else, anyway.
I didn't use the word brainwashed, but I think some, mind you some, pay more to live in "the city" b/c they think it's so hip that they're willing to pay extra. Geez, I've heard people say that. And the developers are always ready to make a buck selling whatever people want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2013, 09:47 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
45,990 posts, read 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post

Folks in rural areas often have homes on parcels significantly larger than what you will find in an urban environment. The "price per square foot" is a rather meaningless comparison and fails to comprehend the size of the parcel one would have. I'll submit that in many cases the price of housing on a "per square foot of residential space" is higher in many rural areas than what you'll find in most of Austin because of the land component that you prefer to ignore. "Price per square foot" is a poor comparison that is useful only in tract housing built by the same or similar builders on same-sized lots. It means something only in the myopic view of NUs where homogeneity, conformity, and mindless mass repetition are the norm. I realize that recognizing individuality is problematic for NUs because it disrupts your "urban fabric". Tough. We aren't all herd animals.
I'm not sure why you equate tract housing with New Urbanism. Most tract housing isn't new urbanist

Quote:
I'm not aware of NU being made "illegal". Virtually every local government with platting authority mandates "open space" and other elements that NUs are touting.
Some new urbanist proposals run afoul of existing zoning regulations, often the typical lot size rules or just scale of development. I can think of one in particular locally near my parent's home on Long Island that didn't get town approval.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2013, 09:49 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
45,990 posts, read 41,989,613 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I didn't use the word brainwashed, but I think some, mind you some, pay more to live in "the city" b/c they think it's so hip that they're willing to pay extra. Geez, I've heard people say that. And the developers are always ready to make a buck selling whatever people want.
So what's wrong with people getting what they want? No different that someone paying extra for a larger home, a bigger lot, or a "luxury" home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2013, 09:52 PM
 
3,667 posts, read 2,334,534 times
Reputation: 1970
I first noticed this back in 1992 when I lived in the Huntington Heights section of Newport News, the answer to me lies in the size of the typical suburban yard. When the suburbs started, homeowners were presented with he option of having a good 1/4 or 1/2 acre with their suburban cookie cutter house at a price not too much higher than in the city with no yard. When I moved to NN in the early 1990's you gave up a city rental to buy a 1200 SQ Ft home on a 1/4 acre for $90-140K. Then for some reason the suburban choice switched what was now a 3300 Sq FT home on 1/12 acre for $350K, flight back to the city for a 2100 SQ FT home on a 1/10 acre for $60K began. After I moved to San Diego, I noted a similar transition around 2001.
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