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 01-11-2014, 08:44 PM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
5,802 posts, read 5,470,885 times
Reputation: 3113

Advertisements

The problem with urban planners is that many of them are too full of themselves to believe that their 'solutions' for combating 'urban sprawl' do nothing except lead to skyrocketing prices for housing, and go 100% against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of us who want a home with a backyard as opposed to an apartment the size of a box of Wheaties.

Micromanaging the lives of others makes no sense, yet they and our clueless President continue to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2014, 09:33 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
543 posts, read 1,003,912 times
Reputation: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
Maybe because this forum naturally attracts urbanites who want to or desire to live in highly walkable and fairly dense areas? Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta may have low COL and jobs, but they lack a walkable urban fabric that many on this forum want...
Very true about the cities you mentioned (plus other Midwest cities.) For so many years, people kept spreading out away from cities and high density living. Now, the trend is to move back or to help create neighborhoods where amenities are clustered together. Walking to places helps create community and people are wanting that now.

I think there is an element of nostalgia from a slower paced time, where the idea of spending an afternoon just poking around an area is very restorative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2014, 09:46 PM
 
Location: Earth
1,306 posts, read 1,258,153 times
Reputation: 1429
Don't get me wrong Marv, I'm not here to tell anyone how to live their lives. Despite my love for the city, there are times where I think I might be happier in a smaller town (usually New England style small towns). Certainly there are HOA and/or towns that micromanage every development; it can be frustrating and I get it. But this belief in unlimited freedom and the right to do whatever we want with whatever land we want isn't fair either. Certainly if we owned 100 acres in the middle of the countryside, we can pretty much live as we please. But what if we were neighbors, separated by a fence. You have your quarter acre and I have mine. I'm sure if I didn't keep up my house, or if I turned it into a brothe,l it would bother you. Why? Because sometimes our freedom to live the way we want affects other peoples freedoms.

I look at this country and world as one big community and the choices we make often affect others. If we use a lot of oil, we must search for more oil...greed begets war etc etc etc. If we put poisonous gasses in the air, we affect our neighbors across the globe. When we build more highways that cut through the heart of a beautiful city, we destroy the neighborhoods of many people who once had a community. Hell, if we build public transportation to areas that can't afford/need it, that means less money for other programs that we might like. Whether we like it or not, our actions affect each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,720,175 times
Reputation: 26676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post
This is an urban planning forum populated by young childless people who would be into walkable environments and the current fad right now is to "live, work, and play" downtown. Back to the city living is more popular right now compared to the last 50 years, but don't mistake that to mean that is what people are doing so in mass. I need to find the data again, but IIRC a significant chunk of millennials are still choosing the suburbs over the city. It's not as one sided as many would believe.

I'm young and like city living as well, but I've also wondered the same thing as you. For example the word gentrification gets used a lot here, but it's hardly ever questioned since doing so raises the issue of some of the topics you're interested in and how they're how they're all interrelated. I find it problematic that people are telling you that these things don't get discussed here because it's an urban planning forum. Cities are increasingly becoming more dumbbell shaped with the ultra rich and ultra poor with the poor(those who can leave), working, and middle classes being squeezed out. Young transient millennial have no real reason to care outside of the abstract because we're not laying down our roots in any one location. When the time does come to do so, the sky is going to fall out when we realized we were more concerned about urban commercialism than making the institutions in our cities functional.

I'm a teacher and I'm interested in educational issues and it's hardly ever discussed here(which shows the age of the posters here). You would think it would be since schools today in the city are one reason why people choose to live in the suburbs over the city if they aren't rich enough to afford private school. I'm sure when many of us have children, we'll be going back to the suburbs(that and many of the buildings going up in cities aren't built for families).

I agree and I'm sure it also has to do with the economy as well since millennials are not going to be as well off as baby boomers due to the economy and growing income disparities.
First walk ability and density are not the same thing at all. Secondly, even the suburbs are changing to get more walkable. People, whether they live somewhere dense or not, want to be able to have more transportation/mobility options no matter their life stage or neighborhood type.

We have purposely destroyed our urban schools through a variety of policies related to districting, property taxes and more. Despite this, in my own region, it is increasingly more common for younger families to move to more walkable, and sometimes urban places.

I am finding, that in my own age group, with people who are having kids later, they still value walkbikity and convenience but haven't been able to find as many family friendly options near their jobs so they are suffering with a less ideal living situation. As I have mentioned previously we have made it very difficult for families to choose denser or more walkable places by eliminating that option.

My city is increasing in popularity. With young families, lots live in my own neighborhood and schools are improving. Some of the most popular areas for former city dwellers are the inner suburbs with good schools and walkable neighborhoods. They aren't super dense, but most people can walk to most things easily. I also find people reluctantly leave the neighborhood because they can't find a big enough home for their growing family, because it doesn't exist in the neighborhood.

Walk ability is good for everyone, I am happy we are returning to our development and dwelling patters of old where everyone is oriented towards a quick walk to the "town square" vs very disparate development and zones.

You don't need to live in a dense place to have a functional walkable and accessible town square.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 11:48 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 28 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,035 posts, read 102,723,474 times
Reputation: 33084
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
First walk ability and density are not the same thing at all. Secondly, even the suburbs are changing to get more walkable. People, whether they live somewhere dense or not, want to be able to have more transportation/mobility options no matter their life stage or neighborhood type.

We have purposely destroyed our urban schools through a variety of policies related to districting, property taxes and more. Despite this, in my own region, it is increasingly more common for younger families to move to more walkable, and sometimes urban places.

I am finding, that in my own age group, with people who are having kids later, they still value walkbikity and convenience but haven't been able to find as many family friendly options near their jobs so they are suffering with a less ideal living situation. As I have mentioned previously we have made it very difficult for families to choose denser or more walkable places by eliminating that option.

My city is increasing in popularity. With young families, lots live in my own neighborhood and schools are improving. Some of the most popular areas for former city dwellers are the inner suburbs with good schools and walkable neighborhoods. They aren't super dense, but most people can walk to most things easily. I also find people reluctantly leave the neighborhood because they can't find a big enough home for their growing family, because it doesn't exist in the neighborhood.

Walk ability is good for everyone, I am happy we are returning to our development and dwelling patters of old where everyone is oriented towards a quick walk to the "town square" vs very disparate development and zones.

You don't need to live in a dense place to have a functional walkable and accessible town square.
Purposely? Seriously? What was the purpose? You are aware that city schools, in general, have higher per-pupil spending than suburban schools. (Rural schools sometimes have high expenses as well, due to transportation costs and small class sizes.)

Suffering, LOL! It's all a trade off!

Sounds like you are advocating for New England or midwestern farm towns, not cities. Most people living in cities live too far from the downtown to walk. I don't know of any big city that has a "town square". Denver's Civic Center Park comes close, I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 12:02 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 28 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,035 posts, read 102,723,474 times
Reputation: 33084
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octa View Post

I'm a teacher and I'm interested in educational issues and it's hardly ever discussed here(which shows the age of the posters here). You would think it would be since schools today in the city are one reason why people choose to live in the suburbs over the city if they aren't rich enough to afford private school. I'm sure when many of us have children, we'll be going back to the suburbs(that and many of the buildings going up in cities aren't built for families).
I could not agree more about the schools issue and have said so before on this forum. For the most part, I have been met with indifference. It seems only teachers and those few parents on this board care about urban schools. Most of the posters on this forum care about "urban fabric", "public squares", density, walkability, public transportation, too many trees (?) and all sorts of other urban issues, but when you say schools the response is generally a form of "huh?". The reality is that the school age population spends a great deal of their time in school, and schools are something urban advocates should be concerned about.

A childless poster recently asked "What should I do about schools?" I'm not going to suggest that he volunteer to take the first graders to the library, or be a "patrol boy" helping kids to cross the street safely before and after school, but I think everyone should be aware of the schools in their community. Not everyone has to be fanatic about schools/education, but everyone should be at least aware that schools are a part of the city, and that once one's kids get in school, few are willing to sacrifice their kids' education.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,086,507 times
Reputation: 1208
Urban planning does not necessarily improve schools. Investment in schools is needed to improve schools--be they urban or suburban or rural. There are both good and bad schools in suburbs, there are both good and bad schools in the city. We simply don't invest enough in education in general--and this may not be not a problem urban planning can address. To ask an urban planner to address failing schools may be like calling the police when your home is on fire. (I work in Education and am not a proper "urban planner," just interested in the sustainability aspects).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 09:19 PM
 
1,356 posts, read 1,638,190 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
Urban planning does not necessarily improve schools. Investment in schools is needed to improve schools--be they urban or suburban or rural. There are both good and bad schools in suburbs, there are both good and bad schools in the city. We simply don't invest enough in education in general--and this may not be not a problem urban planning can address. To ask an urban planner to address failing schools may be like calling the police when your home is on fire. (I work in Education and am not a proper "urban planner," just interested in the sustainability aspects).
Im going to respond to everyone when I get the chance later this week(busy week).

To say that urban planning isn't related to education is an outright lie. Urban planning is what led to neighborhood racial discrimination, segregation, and isolation. Urban planning is deciding how to zone districts which affects property values and ultimately tax money which fund those schools. Urban planning is deciding how to make neighborhoods inclusive to families. I'll elaborate and more when I get the chance since urban schools don't exist in some isolated bubble free from policy and history. I'm also going to find a copy of an academic article I've read about the urban gentrification and the disparity between poor urban schools and rich urban schools.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 09:26 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,720,175 times
Reputation: 26676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Purposely? Seriously? What was the purpose? You are aware that city schools, in general, have higher per-pupil spending than suburban schools. (Rural schools sometimes have high expenses as well, due to transportation costs and small class sizes.)

Suffering, LOL! It's all a trade off!

Sounds like you are advocating for New England or midwestern farm towns, not cities. Most people living in cities live too far from the downtown to walk. I don't know of any big city that has a "town square". Denver's Civic Center Park comes close, I guess.
Spending per pupil is not the end all be all indeterminists education quality. We haven't prioritized making sure everyone, regardless of social class, actually gets a good education. As long as that's the case, places with more affluent parents will have better education than those with less. Reducing that gap would have huge societal benefits, but we still seem to think everyone has access to bootstraps and they just aren't self motivated enough to succeed. Too often in out "inner city schools" low expectations. Prevent progress, no matter how much money is going in.

Downtown isn't the only destination. Once a place gets above a certain size, there needs to be multiple main streets and town centers. One per neighborhood. Every city works this way. People who live in Brooklyn don't need to go to Manhattan to get groceries, their own neighborhoods have plenty of stuff.. Each neighborhood should be oriented around a town square....and downtown can have the destination stuff you don't need every day. The average person does most of their stuff in a 2 mile radius of home. How about make those things more friendly to using a non-car form of transit to get there.

The average person in my city rarely goes to downtown, most people have the stuff they need much closer to home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2014, 09:42 PM
 
9,522 posts, read 14,865,612 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Spending per pupil is not the end all be all indeterminists education quality. We haven't prioritized making sure everyone, regardless of social class, actually gets a good education.
It's not a matter of priorities. We don't actually know how to do that.

But to address Katiana's point, while the size and location of schools and the transportation systems for them fall under the heading of "urban planning", the actual administration of the schools and the teaching is largely out of scope. If parents don't live in a city because their kids would have to walk 3 miles to kindergarten, that's an urban planning problem. If they don't live in a city because they only thing kids learn in school is the basics of the drug business, that's not something urban planning can solve.
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
Similar Threads
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