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 04-09-2014, 11:42 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,349,202 times
Reputation: 3030

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
True, I rarely care what suburban cities outside of my more urban city is doing. Like you shouldn't care what goes on in the more urban city your suburban cities surround. But I assume you live in a metro of some sort, which probably has zoning regulations, and with those zoning regulations are requirements that push for suburban style development. That is considered a government control on development, even in the suburbs.
The urban core and city make the nightly news. Dip pedestrians walking into moving cars a couple of times already this week. Don't have that problem in the suburban areas.
Zoning regulations represent another good reason to live outside the urban city so that one need not deal with such regulation.

If anything the county development rules push high density. Your complaint is that you want even higher density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-09-2014, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,514,457 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Local governments create "density" via their platting authority. If not a condo development, what they try to do is dictate a minimum size lot for "environmental" reasons. (score local government) To meet this lot size requirement the developer will set aside some land for "open space". The "open space" will typically be the parcels that would have been difficult to build on or were otherwise less desirable from the developer's perspective. (score developer) This allows the developer to achieve an "effective lot size" by taking the total number of houses and dividing by the total land area of the subdivision. However, the result is higher density (because of the introduction of "open space" consumes total space in the subdivision)



In a free market that might be true but the market is hardly free. Nonetheless, most of the individuals posting to this site obviously have far too much time to have jobs or livelihoods that would allow them to purchase housing in many of the more expensive urban areas even if the house was only 900 sf. If you can't pay $1,000 per square foot in Palo Alto or San Francisco you need not worry about purchasing the 900 sf much less something larger than 900 sf in that area. So folks end up living further away ("sprawl") in housing that is less expensive even though it is also roomier.
Well Palo Alto and San Francisco are some of the most expensive areas for a reason, though there is a good chance that those affording to live in those areas also work for tech companies, then good chance you could afford to live in those areas.

Good thing not every city in the US is like Palo Alto or San Francisco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,514,457 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
The urban core and city make the nightly news. Dip pedestrians walking into moving cars a couple of times already this week. Don't have that problem in the suburban areas.
Zoning regulations represent another good reason to live outside the urban city so that one need not deal with such regulation.

If anything the county development rules push high density. Your complaint is that you want even higher density.
Well there are usually more things going on in an urban core and city than there are in the suburbs. I don't know what city you live by so I couldn't tell you about the pedestrians hit by cars....for all I know, they were people who drove in from the suburbs because they didn't want to take transit and weren't paying attention when they ran over people.

I remember a woman and her baby were killed when walking down the sidewalk in a suburban area when a car lost control and ran them over. Though you don't typically see people walking around in the suburbs because they are typically regulated to be car dependent.

As for what I would complain about? I actually am not a fan of places that are too dense, I believe there is a happy medium in density that is typically best for cities that sit in the 1.5-3 million people in a metro. But that is my personal taste.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:43 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Local governments create "density" via their platting authority. If not a condo development, what they try to do is dictate a minimum size lot for "environmental" reasons. (score local government) To meet this lot size requirement the developer will set aside some land for "open space". The "open space" will typically be the parcels that would have been difficult to build on or were otherwise less desirable from the developer's perspective. (score developer) This allows the developer to achieve an "effective lot size" by taking the total number of houses and dividing by the total land area of the subdivision. However, the result is higher density (because of the introduction of "open space" consumes total space in the subdivision)
A minimum lot size imposes a maximum density, not a minimum density. The developer isn't allowed to build anything denser.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:43 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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
As for what I would complain about? I actually am not a fan of places that are too dense, I believe there is a happy medium in density that is typically best for cities that sit in the 1.5-3 million people in a metro. But that is my personal taste.
Density and city size aren't really the same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 12:44 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,349,202 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Well there are usually more things going on in an urban core and city than there are in the suburbs. I don't know what city you live by so I couldn't tell you about the pedestrians hit by cars....for all I know, they were people who drove in from the suburbs because they didn't want to take transit and weren't paying attention when they ran over people.
Maybe the pedestrians were on their way to take transit and should have taken the car that day. Maybe the car drivers took a route to a "park and ride" for transit and the incident would have been avoided if they had just driven a normal route to work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
I remember a woman and her baby were killed when walking down the sidewalk in a suburban area when a car lost control and ran them over. Though you don't typically see people walking around in the suburbs because they are typically regulated to be car dependent.
Under that theory it was a waste to put in sidewalks and you shouldn't be trying to put them in elsewhere. If the sidewalks hadn't been put in maybe she and the baby would still be alive, right?

Suburbs aren't "regulated" to be car dependent. People get out to use the sidewalk in the higher density areas because they don't inherently like being cooped up. Besides they need a convenient path to traverse and stand on while their pets #$@* in other people's yards, right?

The woman and child would have been just as dead if hit on a sidewalk in an urban area. The number of people getting hit or killed in an urban area is inherently greater due to larger population, greater congestion, and more traffic. Plus local governments in urban areas exacerbate the problem by trying to have "more events" going on in order to attract crowds to spend money. No doubt far more people killed in urban areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,514,457 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Density and city size aren't really the same thing.
That is true, I have lived in two different cities that were both about similar size and felt completely different due to density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 02:14 PM
 
1,511 posts, read 1,551,318 times
Reputation: 3416
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
The number of people getting hit or killed in an urban area is inherently greater due to larger population, greater congestion, and more traffic. Plus local governments in urban areas exacerbate the problem by trying to have "more events" going on in order to attract crowds to spend money. No doubt far more people killed in urban areas.
Wait, what? So urban areas should stop having "events" (wow, "events" is pretty general) because those events might draw more traffic and there might be a pedestrian injury or death? So... let's just cancel with all the conventions, concerts, festivals, parades, and sports events in cities, and just stay home because... in some indirect way they "cause" accidents involving pedestrians.

Because just not doing things makes more sense than trying to make urban areas safer for pedestrians through infrastructure, enforcement, education, etc...?

I find that line of reasoning really strange.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,514,457 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Maybe the pedestrians were on their way to take transit and should have taken the car that day. Maybe the car drivers took a route to a "park and ride" for transit and the incident would have been avoided if they had just driven a normal route to work.
You live near there, I thought you knew how these accidents happened....unless you were making it up, which is more than likely the case here. But chances are those that were in their car weren't paying attention.

Quote:
Under that theory it was a waste to put in sidewalks and you shouldn't be trying to put them in elsewhere. If the sidewalks hadn't been put in maybe she and the baby would still be alive, right?

Suburbs aren't "regulated" to be car dependent. People get out to use the sidewalk in the higher density areas because they don't inherently like being cooped up. Besides they need a convenient path to traverse and stand on while their pets #$@* in other people's yards, right?

The woman and child would have been just as dead if hit on a sidewalk in an urban area. The number of people getting hit or killed in an urban area is inherently greater due to larger population, greater congestion, and more traffic. Plus local governments in urban areas exacerbate the problem by trying to have "more events" going on in order to attract crowds to spend money. No doubt far more people killed in urban areas.
Obviously the woman needed to walk to somewhere and didn't have a car to use to get her there, so should she have just walked in the busy road if there wasn't a sidewalk? Doesn't matter now, her and her baby are dead thanks to a careless driver.

If you don't think suburbs regulated to be car dependent, then you have no idea what your suburbs' zoning regulations are. Could I build a 10 story 60 unit building in your neighborhood with no parking within the building or on the site?

Complaining about events is another strawman from you, all places do events for one reason or another, it isn't something unique to urban areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2014, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,660,252 times
Reputation: 26651
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
"Suffering"?
Problem with the people that "actually enjoy being in dense, urban areas" is that they feel a need to impose that on other people in order to achieve their density goals. I see nothing meritorious about increasing population density just for the sake of higher density.

Who really has the problem here?
It's the urbanists that constantly refer to anything that isn't located downtown as "sprawl" - a term intended to be negative and derogatory. Perhaps more than anything else sprawl reflects de-centralization and a desire to not be centralized.

Contrary to the urbanists' fairy-tale land, "sprawl" is natural, preferred, necessary, and often spurred by the very local government policies intended to reduce it.
There are plenty of shads of grey between super sprawl and Manhattan. And even in "sprawling" places, things are organized into centers of activity. The problem with most sprawling places is mostly because of restrictive zoning that requires separate "zones" for each type of activity. You can create a walkable suburb that isn't particularly dense with better organization, and people can use their cars less and still have their single family home.

But keep in mind some people like more density or moderate density. Not everyone wants to live somewhere super dispersed, but we keep building as if every household is a mom, dad, 2 kids, 1 dog and 2 cars.
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