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)
 
Old 02-15-2014, 07:08 PM
 
358 posts, read 359,643 times
Reputation: 306

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Setback rules are designed to limit congestion and overcrowding, for visibility and traffic safety, access to structures, light, separation of land uses and users, privacy, health, and safety among other things.
You seem to be a cheerleader for property rights and limited government, yet you make excuses for setback laws. Interesting.

 
Old 02-15-2014, 07:46 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,856,291 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete. View Post
You seem to be a cheerleader for property rights and limited government, yet you make excuses for setback laws. Interesting.
There are reasons for some laws beyond ascetics. There are laws about distance between buildings to control the probability that a fire will burn more than one structure. There are laws regarding having secondary exits in bedrooms that define that the bedroom must have more than one way out and that law can be fulfilled by either doors or windows of an certain height.

The reason why strip malls are so set back is to have enough parking. Parking structures are expensive and limiting(You could expand the store or sell some parking lot space, a structure limits that). The reason why cities were walkable was because that was the only method at the time of construction for older buildings. The automobile give people the power to travel much larger distances caring far more stuff and usually faster than any other method of travel and stores are going to want to accommodate drivers.

However there can be problems with say lots in the back of the store, namely security(the buildings blocking visibility) as well as amount(a too small for a typical WalMart or Target). My experience has been that parking structures are only built in the most expensive parts of town, elsewhere not.
 
Old 02-15-2014, 07:54 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,673,134 times
Reputation: 1838
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenk893 View Post
Maybe it's just me but I don't understand what concern are suburban strip malls to urban city dwellers. If you don't want to see them, don't live there.
The problem is when they show up in urban areas. That doesn't work so well. From a personal perspective, I have no issue with strip malls in the middle of an area focused on car usage. It's when they're thrown right in the heart of a dense area that I get irritated. That's just my own opinion though.

@IC_Delight-I haven't forgotten about you yet, I'll get to your points soon. I had a couple responses typed up but they got deleted.
 
Old 02-15-2014, 08:44 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,347,033 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete. View Post
You seem to be a cheerleader for property rights and limited government, yet you make excuses for setback laws. Interesting.
Try re-reading the post.
I'm not "making excuses for setback laws".
I merely rebutted another poster's claim as to the alleged purpose.
 
Old 02-15-2014, 08:45 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,673,134 times
Reputation: 1838
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
This is what is needed before anyone considers changing the strip mall to accommodate pedestrians. If you live in a burb without much in the way of sidewalks don't expect it to be geared to walkers.
Let me add here that I live in the area of two seperate burbs-the one a live in is a 1960s/1970s car-centric development, with subdivisions and cul-de-sacs. It is the definition of suburbia. However, it borders an earlier, immediate-postwar suburb that does have its fair share of driveways and sidestreets, but still has sidewalks, few dead ends, and even a grid in some parts. What I'm hoping for is for my car-centric suburb to work to mesh itself with its older neighbor in a manner that makes them more compatible and more friendly to pedestrians so that they won't just fade into obscurity. They both have an aging demographic that's beginning to wear out, and if they want to sustain their populations, they need to attract younger generations.

Judging by the trend of millennials flocking to the cities, it seems that younger individuals prefer denser, walkable environments, and if my home area wants to have a piece of that millenial pie they need to shape up. Of course, it seems likely-to me, but that's my opinion-that the millenials will move to the suburbs from the cities when they have families to raise (discussion about that in another thread). But when they move to the burbs, they'll likely look for similar qualities to what drew them to the cities in the first place. So the best chance for the communities I live in would be to draw in this crowd by appealing to their tastes. And I feel like this would serve as a good example for other similar suburbs across the country to hold on to population, and keep growth in the city and old burbs as opposed to spreading out more and more.

You know, in respect to IC_Delight's defense of the rights of business owners, I think that the government shouldn't necessarily force the businesses to "conform" to any standards unless there is a strong demand by the populace of the community for a business to do so. But I do think that the community govt. should encourage walking within its means-so more sidewalks, more parks, etc. That way, if people want to walk, they can, and if they want businesses to be more accessible to walkers, they will be (the businesses, if they are smart, will respond to customer demand for walkability; the demand just has to be there in the first place).
 
Old 02-15-2014, 09:53 PM
 
810 posts, read 1,229,541 times
Reputation: 955
It's so easy for "planners" to ***** about things.

If it didn't work, people wouldn't be doing it. Or are you, in your $30k planning job, smarter than a developer in his $300k developing job?
 
Old 02-16-2014, 05:14 AM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,264,094 times
Reputation: 2924
The problem isn't the strip mall so much as the draconian zoning laws that leaves developers no other option and no other choice. Because in 99% of the country it is against the law to build in any other way but the strip mall. So much for land of the free!
 
Old 02-16-2014, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,163 posts, read 29,645,043 times
Reputation: 26646
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenk893 View Post
That's the nicest street in ghetto Oakland. That area is the last place you need to be concerned about.
You obviously haven't been to oakland. That street is mediocre at a best. Plenty of nice ones all over town. And ones that are more pedestrian friendly. The whole all of Oakland is ghetto thing is a false narrative.
 
Old 02-16-2014, 12:50 PM
 
358 posts, read 359,643 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Try re-reading the post.
I'm not "making excuses for setback laws".
I merely rebutted another poster's claim as to the alleged purpose.
You're using your ideology to defend strip malls, parking lots, and car-oriented design. All in the name of property rights.

But you seem to forget your ideology when it comes to street-facing buildings, sidewalks, and pedestrian design. Setback laws and parking minimums go against an owner's property rights.

The simple fact is that you prefer car-oriented design to pedestrian-oriented design. Your faux-libertarian argument is inconsistent.
 
Old 02-16-2014, 12:55 PM
 
358 posts, read 359,643 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
The reason why strip malls are so set back is to have enough parking. Parking structures are expensive and limiting(You could expand the store or sell some parking lot space, a structure limits that).
I just don't believe that the government should be able to dictate how much parking a business owner needs to provide.
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.


Closed Thread

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