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 02-23-2014, 02:21 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,655,359 times
Reputation: 26646

Advertisements

I am reading this book right now: the option of urbanism.

The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream: Christopher B. Leinberger: 9781597261371: Amazon.com: Books

Personally, I like some density. But my magic number is about the density I have now. About 15k-25k. Enough for transit and amenities but not too crowded. And sufficient for a good mix of housing types.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-23-2014, 05:42 AM
 
Location: Seattle some of the time now.
727 posts, read 524,103 times
Reputation: 1238
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
So you think there is no middle between your statement? That's odd.
What would that middle be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 06:38 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Funny.

I coulda sworn Hoboken, Union City, and West New York, etc, etc were pretty dense.

But the good thing is we now know that the threshold for sprawl is higher than 50,000 per square mile for you.
If you think those three area are all there is to New Jersey, then you have never driven around in this state. It is basically one giant suburb.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 06:41 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Telling.

So much for all those fancy posts about choice and all that. People should be allowed to choose as long as their choices are sufficiently limited to densities of over 60,000. Got it.
False, you are making a poor assumption. Providing people with walkable communities doesn't mean it needs to have densities that rival Manhattan. Portland, OR metro achieves these walkable communities with a much lower density level. It has more to do with planning than it does extremely high density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 06:42 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I am reading this book right now: the option of urbanism.

The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream: Christopher B. Leinberger: 9781597261371: Amazon.com: Books

Personally, I like some density. But my magic number is about the density I have now. About 15k-25k. Enough for transit and amenities but not too crowded. And sufficient for a good mix of housing types.
That is a pretty good high number for transit that can easily become less dense the further from a transit stop housing is located.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 06:47 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoNansea View Post
What would that middle be?
Simple, urban growth boundaries that includes the cities within a metro and surrounding suburb areas, as well as future expandable areas, keeping in mind how transit should be expanded within the metro. This all can be achieved with much of the metro sitting at 2-4000K density, with it getting higher where major transit lines are. Then commercial planned like you would with Main St in a small town so that small local businesses have places to start up and expanded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 07:54 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,348,447 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Simple, urban growth boundaries that includes the cities within a metro and surrounding suburb areas, as well as future expandable areas, keeping in mind how transit should be expanded within the metro. This all can be achieved with much of the metro sitting at 2-4000K density, with it getting higher where major transit lines are. Then commercial planned like you would with Main St in a small town so that small local businesses have places to start up and expanded.
nybbler noted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
So you don't want the cities to expand in extent, and you don't want development outside the cities... so you want more and more people packed into the same space.
and this was your "middle" in response to nybbler's observation of your claims?
If anything you've only affirmed nybbler's conclusions.

Density is measured as population per unit area. You referred to 2-4000K density which is pretty unreasonable if you are referring to per square mile and well above the 50K - 60K that you were refusing to own up to. If you were referring to your "urban growth boundary" then it is a meaningless number since you didn't indicate the area of the UGB.

The "commercial planned like you would with Main St in a small town" comment is pure pablum and wholly irreconcilable with the false economics of your government intrusion. A "small town" would not have all the sidewalks, transit, etc. that you insist needs to be everywhere (it's your justification for all these schemes). Your "small local business" is being prohibited from being "local" elsewhere because of government forces preventing it from locating elsewhere (the ugb). A city inherently already has a boundary but you want to extend control to deny opportunity outside the boundary through the use of regional government and 'growth boundaries'. Your policy benefits only the city and at great cost to those owning property outside the UGB as well as the "locals" who are forced to pay a premium to open up business inside the UGB.

All this said, however, it's pretty apparent there is no "middle" as you claimed. Your sole purpose is density for density's sake. Apparently anything less than 60,000 ppl/sq mile is "undesirable sprawl" as far as you are concerned. You seek to use a regional government (ugb) to prevent development for the sole purpose of increasing density in the only area permitted to grow. Your objective also artificially inflates the cost of housing in Portland which makes it further unlivable. People move further beyond the rein of the ugb where housing is allowed again to live in a more affordable area and COMMUTE to Portland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
nybbler noted:



and this was your "middle" in response to nybbler's observation of your claims?
If anything you've only affirmed nybbler's conclusions.

Density is measured as population per unit area. You referred to 2-4000K density which is pretty unreasonable if you are referring to per square mile and well above the 50K - 60K that you were refusing to own up to. If you were referring to your "urban growth boundary" then it is a meaningless number since you didn't indicate the area of the UGB.

The "commercial planned like you would with Main St in a small town" comment is pure pablum and wholly irreconcilable with the false economics of your government intrusion. A "small town" would not have all the sidewalks, transit, etc. that you insist needs to be everywhere (it's your justification for all these schemes). Your "small local business" is being prohibited from being "local" elsewhere because of government forces preventing it from locating elsewhere (the ugb). A city inherently already has a boundary but you want to extend control to deny opportunity outside the boundary through the use of regional government and 'growth boundaries'. Your policy benefits only the city and at great cost to those owning property outside the UGB as well as the "locals" who are forced to pay a premium to open up business inside the UGB.

All this said, however, it's pretty apparent there is no "middle" as you claimed. Your sole purpose is density for density's sake. Apparently anything less than 60,000 ppl/sq mile is "undesirable sprawl" as far as you are concerned. You seek to use a regional government (ugb) to prevent development for the sole purpose of increasing density in the only area permitted to grow. Your objective also artificially inflates the cost of housing in Portland which makes it further unlivable. People move further beyond the rein of the ugb where housing is allowed again to live in a more affordable area and COMMUTE to Portland.
There are a lot of false assumptions in your post. And if you are referring to people moving to Vancouver to escape the UGB, then you are unaware that the Washington side has an urban growth area which functions like an urban growth boundary.

Also, I have said nothing about 60K density, that is just absurd to even assume that.

As for the size of these metros, that is something for each metro to decide based on forecasts of population growth and the geography of each metro.

Also, why couldn't small businesses expand in their own metro under this model?

Last edited by urbanlife78; 02-23-2014 at 08:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,070,870 times
Reputation: 12635
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
False, you are making a poor assumption. Providing people with walkable communities doesn't mean it needs to have densities that rival Manhattan. Portland, OR metro achieves these walkable communities with a much lower density level. It has more to do with planning than it does extremely high density.
I agree. But I'm just going what you said that anything under 60k per square mile is sprawl. Did you not mean what you said?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
I agree. But I'm just going what you said that anything under 60k per square mile is sprawl. Did you not mean what you said?
What post did I say that? I don't recall ever making that claim.

You are aware there is no place in the US that is 60K per square mile. There are only about 18 cities in the world that have that kind of density.
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