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 01-25-2014, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,432 posts, read 59,976,697 times
Reputation: 54096

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
On the scheme of community involvement, I care way more about local sourcing, than in kind donations. Most chains do a terrible job of local sourcing.
I see. So the chain stores' community involvement - encouraging volunteerism, giving in-kind donations, and providing cash donations - isn't good enough for you?

And these businesses that do a wonderful job of "local sourcing" - how many thousands of dollars do they provide to nonprofits in charitable donations? How many volunteers?

You're mixing apples and oranges, and forgetting that a local economy is a delicate balance of apples, oranges, pears and bananas as well. One business does not have to provide the entire fruit basket in order for it to contribute to the local economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2014, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
12,331 posts, read 12,560,219 times
Reputation: 19593
The cost of sprawl varies with the area. Land in South Texas or Arizona is worthless, so sprawl has minimal long term costs. OTOH, 60% of California's great Central Valley is now out of agricultural production thanks to decades of urban sprawl, which results in hundreds of millions of dollars of economic loss every year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2014, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,069 posts, read 102,785,508 times
Reputation: 33127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
The cost of sprawl varies with the area. Land in South Texas or Arizona is worthless, so sprawl has minimal long term costs. OTOH, 60% of California's great Central Valley is now out of agricultural production thanks to decades of urban sprawl, which results in hundreds of millions of dollars of economic loss every year.
However, there is no evidence that there is any shortage of cropland in the US. Also, the Central Valley had to be irrigated, so perhaps that wasn't the best use of the land in any event.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2014, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,069 posts, read 102,785,508 times
Reputation: 33127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
I see. So the chain stores' community involvement - encouraging volunteerism, giving in-kind donations, and providing cash donations - isn't good enough for you?

And these businesses that do a wonderful job of "local sourcing" - how many thousands of dollars do they provide to nonprofits in charitable donations? How many volunteers?

You're mixing apples and oranges, and forgetting that a local economy is a delicate balance of apples, oranges, pears and bananas as well. One business does not have to provide the entire fruit basket in order for it to contribute to the local economy.
Agreed. IME, with community fairs and the like, it's usually the big employers, which is mostly the chains, that make these kind of donations. The "Mom and Pop" places can't afford to donate, say, a few thousand hot dogs for the city 4th of July festival.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2014, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,094 posts, read 16,134,638 times
Reputation: 12696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
However, there is no evidence that there is any shortage of cropland in the US. Also, the Central Valley had to be irrigated, so perhaps that wasn't the best use of the land in any event.
We've got too much land and not enough water in California. Nationwide, there's been about a 20% decrease in crop land from the 1950s. That's mostly because of higher yields with modern farming. We still produce way more food that we can eat domestically.

Urban areas (using the census definition, which means suburbs too) accounts for only about 3% of land. Even if it doubled or tripled it wouldn't cause any issues at all. There's some regionalism to that. For example, you can't take the farmland in Santa Barbara and just move it to the Central Valley. We don't have the water here to grow any more than we already do.

Anyone that thinks the Central Valley is out of commission because of urban sprawl is clueless. They've obviously not been in the central valley for decades. Hell, just pop it into satellite view on Google Maps and you can see "out of commission" the central valley is for crop production. There shortage is water. It's always been water. Urban sprawl doesn't use much water. Sacramento uses about 260 GPD (gallons per day) versus San Francisco's 108 GPD per capita. That's not really about density though. Sacramento does more manufacturing than San Francisco per capita and just is wasteful of water. We're the first major metro area to get water coming out of the major watershed area of the state. Completely different constrains here than San Francisco has. And urban and ag uses are on a completely different. Ag uses four times as much as all urban usage, most of that is in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. The Central Valley just doesn't have much population so we're in this weird position where we're horribly wasteful of water while always complaining about the urban areas taking water out of our fields.

Last edited by Malloric; 01-25-2014 at 02:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2014, 03:07 PM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,359,806 times
Reputation: 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
The cost of sprawl varies with the area. Land in South Texas or Arizona is worthless, so sprawl has minimal long term costs. OTOH, 60% of California's great Central Valley is now out of agricultural production thanks to decades of urban sprawl, which results in hundreds of millions of dollars of economic loss every year.
???
economic loss by what measure?

From local, state, and federal government standpoint the tax revenues from the area would be significantly increased by a transition away from ag

As noted by others, water that may have previously been used in ag is used elsewhere

Don't see the loss or what entity incurred the loss by your explanation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2014, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,094 posts, read 16,134,638 times
Reputation: 12696
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
???
economic loss by what measure?

From local, state, and federal government standpoint the tax revenues from the area would be significantly increased by a transition away from ag

As noted by others, water that may have previously been used in ag is used elsewhere

Don't see the loss or what entity incurred the loss by your explanation
Population growth isn't urban sprawl. Anyway, we partially offset it by being more efficient with water. Mostly it's because in the Central Valley the water was coming out of the ground. You can't just pump it out indefinitely. Parts of Merced and Fresno the ground water is 100+ feet lower than it used to be. Wells run dry, it becomes too costly to pump, salt water comes in and ruins the land permanently. It's not really that the water went anywhere as much as it is that you just can't indefinitely overdraft ground water with impunity.

Sure that's causing some economic loss. It just wasn't caused by urban sprawl in the least. There will continue to be economic loss, especially in Merced where they're still overdrafting ground water like mad. Eventually they'll just run out of ground water or ruin the land permanently due to salinity building up in the soil. A lot of the water when you get down far enough has high salinity and it just keeps accumulating in the root zone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2014, 03:24 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,347,632 times
Reputation: 3566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
I see. So the chain stores' community involvement - encouraging volunteerism, giving in-kind donations, and providing cash donations - isn't good enough for you?

And these businesses that do a wonderful job of "local sourcing" - how many thousands of dollars do they provide to nonprofits in charitable donations? How many volunteers?

You're mixing apples and oranges, and forgetting that a local economy is a delicate balance of apples, oranges, pears and bananas as well. One business does not have to provide the entire fruit basket in order for it to contribute to the local economy.
According to the local multiplier study, there is a difference in local circulation of revenue. Here are a couple of interesting diagrams:

http://www.amiba.net/assets/images/I...urn-hi-res.jpg

http://www.amiba.net/assets/images/G...013-hi-res.jpg

Here's the full article: AMIBA | Local Multiplier Effect

I can say that while there are good big box stores out there (e.g. Costcos), I've yet to find one that treats me the same as a local establishment. The places I frequent are almost all local at this point, and pretty much every one of them knows my name, the neighborhood I live in, etc. One of the restaurants I frequent sends me home with a nice bottle of wine at the holidays. My local grocery store holds on to my favorite eggs when they come in, because they know I like them. When I used to shop at the larger stores (just as frequently in the past), I hardly ever knew anyone, much less got the same treatment.

That's not to say big box stores are bad. IMO they just aren't as good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2014, 03:27 PM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,359,806 times
Reputation: 3031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Population growth isn't urban sprawl. Anyway, we partially offset it by being more efficient with water. Mostly it's because in the Central Valley the water was coming out of the ground. You can't just pump it out indefinitely. Parts of Merced and Fresno the ground water is 100+ feet lower than it used to be. Wells run dry, it becomes too costly to pump, salt water comes in and ruins the land permanently. It's not really that the water went anywhere as much as it is that you just can't indefinitely overdraft ground water with impunity.

Sure that's causing some economic loss. It just wasn't caused by urban sprawl in the least. There will continue to be economic loss, especially in Merced where they're still overdrafting ground water like mad. Eventually they'll just run out of ground water or ruin the land permanently due to salinity building up in the soil. A lot of the water when you get down far enough has high salinity and it just keeps accumulating in the root zone.
I was agreeing with you. I think you meant to quote someone else. I was challenging the proposition that switching from ag to something else was somehow an economic loss
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2014, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,347,632 times
Reputation: 3566
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
This is what I see most of the time, and it has been downright impossible in my city to get mixed use developments outside of downtown. Even though most of the long thriving main streets are mixed use.

They also developed in the street car days and were built up in the early 1900s.

It is really crazy. I mean there are mixed use developments across the street in some cases. There is a BS argument that the real estate isn't selling, and the home prices in the walkable transit friendly areas like these developments are going in are up about 40% overt he past 5 years. Rents are up about 30-40% as well. There is a huge housing shortage of newer stuff in "good" walkable neighborhoods, and the projects that do exist have been selling pretty briskly, even when I think they are overpriced.

The better block projects goal as an organization is to creat blocks that are more vibrant and combine uses.
Yeah, the only mixed use neighborhoods in my city are in the core area. They are VERY expensive, and most can't afford them. I suppose that's why gentrification is happening in the previously bad neighborhoods with good bones; because they can't be replicated for the most part.

Since the 2008 RE crash there have been freshly built tracks with, "starting in the $200s" signs, sitting there half vacant. Not all are like that, but there are quite a few.
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