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 04-10-2014, 03:52 PM
 
4,064 posts, read 3,094,692 times
Reputation: 5608

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
Why don't anti-urbanists who claim suburban sprawl is the product of consumer demand oppose the height restrictions, minimum parking regulations, zoning rules, etc. that artificially suppress density?
Do you people realize that height restrictions have more to do with the availability of the proper firefighting equipment in the municipality than opposing density? My parents' hometown had a three story limit on buildings for many years for this very reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-10-2014, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Well try to change state law or be like the "anti-urbanists" accused of fleeing to a better locale and leave for a place that allows for such possibilities. The complaint I'm hearing is that folks aren't allowed to build a ten story building due to regulations they don't like.

I do not live in such an area and it's hard to have sympathy for those complaining they can't do that where they are, aren't active in lobbying to change the law or zoning classification, aren't willing to move to a location where it isn't a problem, and to top it off ridicule those who leave such areas as "fleeing rather than facing the problems".
You live in a place that has zoning laws, your county has specific zoning laws that must be followed if one plans to build anything in your county.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 03:59 PM
 
4,064 posts, read 3,094,692 times
Reputation: 5608
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Around here, nothing is unincorporated.
Maine has tons of unincorporated land and it is subjected to statewide zoning regulations under a governing body known as LURC - Land Use Regulatory Commission.

Maine's Land Use Regulation Commission: Past, Present, and Future
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 04:06 PM
 
1,998 posts, read 2,931,684 times
Reputation: 2150
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan View Post
Do you people realize that height restrictions have more to do with the availability of the proper firefighting equipment in the municipality than opposing density? My parents' hometown had a three story limit on buildings for many years for this very reason.
So because your parents' hometown had a height restriction for the sake of firefighting equipment, you assume that all height restrictions are in place because of that?

Very simplistic thinking, and also factually false. To name just one example, Washington DC has some of the most stringent height restrictions of any major city (we have no skyscrapers despite having the CBD of one of the top ten metro areas in the country) and it has nothing to do with firefighting equipment. Obviously if every other major city can afford to have skyscrapers compliant with fire codes, DC could too. It has to do with a bunch of other factors like preserving the skyline that are pointless to delve into in this thread. (I think these factors are BS and I oppose the DC height ban, but that's a debate that has been beaten to death in the DC forum.)

But regardless, even if this were the reason for height restrictions everywhere, it's no reason to just full stop ban buildings over a certain height. Tax those buildings to pay for the extra firefighting equipment they might necessitate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 04:13 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,349,202 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
Untrue that minimum parking rules exist only in cities. Many counties have them as well, meaning there is no guarantee that you won't have them in any unincorporated area. Just because your unincorporated area doesn't have them doesn't mean all of them don't either.
Well either i) lobby to change the law or the zoning requirement, or ii) move. I'm not responsible for the political problems in those areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
If you're not looking for the government to promote a "lifestyle," do you also oppose the government planning roads? Who designed, built and maintains the roads in your community? Unless you live in one of the very few places with private roads, you are just as dependent on the government for your transportation when you drive on government-built roads as somebody riding government-built transit.
Well let me know when Star Trek style transporters become readily available and maybe we could reconsider roads.

Very few places with private roads? What part of the country are you in? Virtually all new subdivisions in the sunbelt states are built at least initially with private roads. In many cases the roads are turned over to the county/city to maintain as part of the original development agreement with the developer. The roads are typically planned out by a developer and approved during the plat review process. In some cases the roads are deliberately not made up to local government requirements to protect the local government from ever having to actually make a decision on whether to accept the road. It's a non-starter when the road is sub-standard by design. All the homeowners there will have to pay "assessments" to an HOA which may or may not actually take care of the road. The homeowners will not get any break on the taxes paid to local government. These places are cash cows for local government - full taxes, no services.

Transit dependency is far more confining than the independence offered by cars and roads. You won't win that argument with me. I've paid plenty of gas tax, sales tax, income tax, and ad valorem tax and somehow knowing that local government employees will get generous pensions isn't enough for me. You're "road dependent" in the city as well since groceries and goods will typically be trucked in and out. Local businesses will use motor vehicles in shipping and receiving. Haven't seen a postman relying on transit to deliver the mail either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
I have no idea how the fact that I disagree with some city policies means there is no democracy. That makes no sense.
If it was as simple as voting for a change then you should have no problem getting enough constituents to vote for a change. But it's not really a democracy. That's why it's sometimes easier to move instead of trying to recreate city hall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
Perhaps the demand is not sufficient for more density - but the only way to find out how much demand there really is is by lifting the regulations that artificially suppress density.
The specific amount of density that I personally believe is necessary is irrelevant because I am not saying planners should aim toward my own preferred number. I would prefer the price of a six pack of beer to be cheaper, but that doesn't mean I think the government should impose price controls to that effect.
The amount of density should be determined by the market.
Well then let the market determine the demand for other types of housing as well. Unfortunately, virtually all that's been built for decades is HOA-burdened housing. The proponents of "density" and "mixed use" aren't helping with that problem because the legal regime for those will be condo or hierarchies of HOAs. You are then subjecting yourself to a privatized government which is even worse than and in addition to municipal government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,655,359 times
Reputation: 26651
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
You're not subsidizing them if the parking spot conveys with the unit. Also in such a case it wouldn't matter to you whether they use it or not.
You are if not all residents do not use their parking spaces. Parking is rarely if ever sold separately from residential complexes. You are forced to "accept" a parking space with your unit no molter if you use it or not. And many places do not let you use that garage space for anything other than storing your car.

Quote:
Relatively speaking that is "downtown" from any area I would be coming from.
It isn't even remotely downtown in my city. In fact, many Oakland residents rarely even bother with downtown, although it is most recently a bit of a nightlife district.

Quote:
Yeah except you need to ensure the car will be there when you need it and you don't have that assurance with car share. You can't use car share effectively for commuting for example nor for a weekend in Tahoe or a trip down the coast.
Actually, people who need to commute by car do not use car-share. For stuff like weekend getaways, car-share or conventional car rental are ideal. Car share is not designed for people who need daily access to a car, it is for people who need occasional access to a car. A few days a week or less.

Quote:
How far away? I already know that folks don't want the same things. Promoters on this list support hamster style living. No thanks.
Parking was available within a 2 mile radius (keep in mind this location was in the middle of downtown Chicago where 15+ story buildings were common, and most residents used transit for most trips). There is a lot of room between dense enough for transit, Manhattan level density and Hong Kong level density. In my city there are several walkable areas that are mostly single family homes with 3-4 story ground floor commercial/residences on the top floors on the main streets, and a few 20-30 unit apartments and condos mixed in here or there. Certainly not whatever you think of as "hamster" living.

Quote:
If one "1" refers the parking space what does the other "1" refer to?
parking/housing

Quote:
If more parking spaces were available, the price would fall.
Your arguments are along the lines of the article promoted by urbanlife78 which supported promotion of transit by economic harm to car drivers. What you are saying is that transit can be promoted by eliminating the availability of parking in order to make it unaffordable for commuters.
No if there was more parking there wouldn't actually be room for anything else. Between the congestion and the parking garages, you'd lose all street life. And building 100% underground parking is cost prohibitive.

Quote:
Congestion already is ridiculous in the area and isn't going to be eliminated by failing to implement additional lanes or parking. I lived in San Jose for a while and though SF was highly overrated in virtually every category.
Actually, new study out says congestion is decreasing in downtown SF. They certainly didn't add any roads or parking....
Downtown traffic seems worse, but studies show it moves faster - SFGate

And one of the east bay agencies is seeing an uptick in riders (AC transit does local bus service and bus service to SF):
AC Transit Ridership Swells | AC Transit
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 06:04 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,349,202 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
You live in a place that has zoning laws, your county has specific zoning laws that must be followed if one plans to build anything in your county.
Care to identify what state you're licensed to practice law in?
I didn't think so.

The "zoning laws" in this state say that the counties have NO zoning authority (there are some exceptions limited to areas near military bases, reservoirs, airports - essentially areas that come under federal regulatory provisions).

Zoning is a function of municipalities. If you don't live in a city then you don't have to deal with zoning in this state. Some cities also don't have zoning authority.

You complain about zoning and zoning limitations in the city? Move out of the city. Kinda paradoxical for urbanists to have to leave the city to pursue dreams of "density".

Last edited by IC_deLight; 04-10-2014 at 06:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 06:13 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,349,202 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
You are if not all residents do not use their parking spaces. Parking is rarely if ever sold separately from residential complexes. You are forced to "accept" a parking space with your unit no molter if you use it or not. And many places do not let you use that garage space for anything other than storing your car.
So? You aren't "subsidizing other residents" just because you purchased a parking space or because they aren't using theirs. You're paying for your own.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Parking was available within a 2 mile radius (keep in mind this location was in the middle of downtown Chicago where 15+ story buildings were common, and most residents used transit for most trips). There is a lot of room between dense enough for transit, Manhattan level density and Hong Kong level density. In my city there are several walkable areas that are mostly single family homes with 3-4 story ground floor commercial/residences on the top floors on the main streets, and a few 20-30 unit apartments and condos mixed in here or there. Certainly not whatever you think of as "hamster" living.
Wow. I would really look forward to walking 2 miles from my car to my Habitrail unit in 15+ story building in Chicago heat, rain, ice, or snow. Did I leave out any seasons? How convenient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
No if there was more parking there wouldn't actually be room for anything else. Between the congestion and the parking garages, you'd lose all street life. And building 100% underground parking is cost prohibitive.
But I went to town to go to a shop, not to hang out on the "street" to watch other people hanging out on the street. Obviously catering to tourists rather than people living in the area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Actually, new study out says congestion is decreasing in downtown SF. They certainly didn't add any roads or parking....
Downtown traffic seems worse, but studies show it moves faster - SFGate
Perception is reality. If they say it's so, it must be so.
Moving faster is not less congestion in my book - just a moving big crowd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 06:16 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

Zoning is a function of municipalities. If you don't live in a city then you don't have to deal with zoning in this state. Some cities also don't have zoning authority.
In the Northeast, with a few exceptions, everyone lives in a municipality with zoning / development authority. I wasn't aware that other situation were possible until this forum.

In Massachusetts specifically, every piece of land is incorporated. Many NYC suburbs are at least as regulated if not more the city itself. Probably the case with Boston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 06:21 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
So? You aren't "subsidizing other residents" just because you purchased a parking space or because they aren't using theirs. You're paying for your own.
That she/he may not be using.

Quote:
But I want to town to go to a shop, not to hang out on the "street" to watch other people hanging out on the street. Obviously catering to tourists rather than people living in the area.
No, it's catering to people who live there and aren't driving. The government is not stopping developers from building more parking (with a few exceptions in downtown areas). The free market isn't building more parking, space is valuable for other things.

As for streetlife, a street full of pedestrians present a different environment that full of just cars.

Quote:
Moving faster is not less congestion in my book - just a moving big crowd.
That's an odd definition.
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