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 06-09-2014, 04:30 AM
 
Location: 'greater' Buffalo, NY
3,067 posts, read 2,106,888 times
Reputation: 3965

Advertisements

I shouldn't have to explain to any frequenter of this forum what that is, should I? Anyway, CNU 22 was quite disappointing. It reminded me of when I sold knives for Cutco, which is a multilevel marketing company. Very cultish. My biggest complaint with society at the moment is the lack of original intellectual voices. Their coopting and trotting out James Howard Kunstler counts for nothing; Duany's speech this past Wednesday (which I attended, free of charge, amongst the VIPs) had some merit but left a lot to be desired in terms of specifics. "Towards a theory of new urbanism"--forever subjective, forever unresolvable. Much like life itself.

I also like this article, quite a lot in fact:

An open letter to the New Urbanist movement - City & Region - The Buffalo News

Last edited by Matt Marcinkiewicz; 06-09-2014 at 04:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-09-2014, 06:37 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,074,613 times
Reputation: 12636
Problem is the article seems to be more people-centric whereas the CNU movement is city-centric and doesn't really care about those issues. Not necessarily wrong, but I think it's rather misguided as well. Just because you build a small walkable urbanista playpen and run a toy train through it (as Portland has done) doesn't mean you actually solve any of those other issues related to poverty. That's kind of the underbelly of Portland's success story. Yes, Portland has a carved out a very nice urbanista playpen. It has also displaced the people that used to live where the new playpen is and now they're farther out on the fringes with reduced bus service to pay for the rich people living in the playpen to have a toy train.

I mean, you could look at it and say, hey who pays the taxes here? Of course we should provide the playpen with that fancy train and the non-tax-paying dolittles can scrabble around for whatever we damn well please to throw their way. That's a little anti-egalitarian even for me. But that's the direction the money from the federal government blows, so that's what gets built, mostly with deficit honeypot money.

But that's really the approach a lot of cities are taking. And not to pick on Portland, it's just one that has done the playpen particularly well. If you look at Sacramento, it's even worse. Sacramento just hasn't made a successful playpen so there's not much to show for the billions of dollars of taxpayer money Sacramento has concentrated almost exclusively in downtown where almost no one even lives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2014, 07:10 AM
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
If the article is refering to Buffalo, it's suffered so much abandonment and flight of those with money any type of gentrification can't be a bad thing; demand is so low city-wide as it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2014, 08:11 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Problem is the article seems to be more people-centric whereas the CNU movement is city-centric and doesn't really care about those issues. Not necessarily wrong, but I think it's rather misguided as well. Just because you build a small walkable urbanista playpen and run a toy train through it (as Portland has done) doesn't mean you actually solve any of those other issues related to poverty. That's kind of the underbelly of Portland's success story. Yes, Portland has a carved out a very nice urbanista playpen. It has also displaced the people that used to live where the new playpen is and now they're farther out on the fringes with reduced bus service to pay for the rich people living in the playpen to have a toy train.

I mean, you could look at it and say, hey who pays the taxes here? Of course we should provide the playpen with that fancy train and the non-tax-paying dolittles can scrabble around for whatever we damn well please to throw their way. That's a little anti-egalitarian even for me. But that's the direction the money from the federal government blows, so that's what gets built, mostly with deficit honeypot money.

But that's really the approach a lot of cities are taking. And not to pick on Portland, it's just one that has done the playpen particularly well. If you look at Sacramento, it's even worse. Sacramento just hasn't made a successful playpen so there's not much to show for the billions of dollars of taxpayer money Sacramento has concentrated almost exclusively in downtown where almost no one even lives.
So you are upset that Portland has become an attractive place to live for people and rents have gone up because of that? It is cute hearing you call their light rail a toy train, but if you want rents that never move, you should live in some place like Spokane where you never have to worry about rent increases because people aren't moving there.

Or do you think landlords shouldn't be allowed to profit on the large amount of people moving to Portland? You could always support rent controlled apartments, and making it so developers are required to build a number of low income units with any new building they build.

Also, that toy train you don't like helps people from further out in the metro get into the city easily, which that is where much cheaper rents can be found.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2014, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,074,613 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
So you are upset that Portland has become an attractive place to live for people and rents have gone up because of that? It is cute hearing you call their light rail a toy train, but if you want rents that never move, you should live in some place like Spokane where you never have to worry about rent increases because people aren't moving there.

Or do you think landlords shouldn't be allowed to profit on the large amount of people moving to Portland? You could always support rent controlled apartments, and making it so developers are required to build a number of low income units with any new building they build.

Also, that toy train you don't like helps people from further out in the metro get into the city easily, which that is where much cheaper rents can be found.
1) Am I upset that Portland has become an attractive place to live for people and rents have gone up because of that? Nope.
2) I'm glad you think calling light rail is a toy train is cute. I was actually referring to the specific type of light rail called a "streetcar," but I think it's cute too.
3) I like Spokane. I like Coeur d'Alene is much nicer however. Thanks but no thanks.
4) Landlords shouldn't profit - Nope. I'm more of a capitalist. Same with rent control and affordable unit requirements. Nope and nope. That's actually the only point in your thread that's remotely on target. There's a big difference between supporting welfare housing and rent control and concentrating your city services on the haves while neglecting the have-nots. They're essentially on polar opposites of the spectrum. While I don't generally support afforded by someone else housing, intentionally concentrating services on the haves while neglecting the have-nots is too anti-egalitarian even for me.

I'm just as critical of Portland doing it as I am when Anaheim does it. Although in fairness to Portland, Anaheim is much more egregious than Portland is. It doesn't have anything in particular to do with urban playpens. Anaheim doesn't have an urban playpen, more of a suburban/exurban playpen. I just think using the government to benefit the privileged is wrong. The deck is already in their favor. While I don't support welfare-dependent lifestyles for the less privileged, I still think the city should provide access to services to the neighborhoods where they live rather than concentrate services in the neighborhoods of the haves at the expense of the services to the have-nots.

5) No, it doesn't. I like the toy train fine, by the way, I just don't want my tax dollars going to pay for it since it's an urban toy. Once the federal deficit honeypot stops being used for these projects, I'll shut up about them. If Portland wants to create a special tax zone (as is often done) that actually pays for the urban toys it wants to have, I'm completely fine with that. At least it isn't free like it used to be while the poors actually had to pay to use the buses or MAX. It still, however, is slower than the bus routes it replaced and more expensive than frequent bus service in 2013.
TriMet: Performance Dashboard
(Operating budget of the Streetcar was $9.75 million (actually ran over) and boardings were 4.1 million rounded up.)

MAX has its own problems, namely that it was very expensive to build and hasn't increased transit usage over the buses it replaced. Considering the average distance on MAX and that it costs 10% LESS than frequent bus service, however, it's a cost saver in the long run. Enough to ever pay off its capital investment is questionable. There's a lot of billions to offset after all.

Last edited by nei; 06-09-2014 at 08:58 AM.. Reason: rude
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2014, 08:49 AM
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
Well at least a local I spoke to (not a hipster, but seemed a more working-class type living in the eastern part of the city) said the MAX rail line made it easier and more pleasant to access the city center.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2014, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post

1) Am I upset that Portland has become an attractive place to live for people and rents have gone up because of that? Nope.
2) I'm glad you think calling light rail is a toy train is cute. I was actually referring to the specific type of light rail called a "streetcar," but I think it's cute too.
3) I like Spokane. I like Coeur d'Alene is much nicer however. Thanks but no thanks.
4) Landlords shouldn't profit - Nope. I'm more of a capitalist. Same with rent control and affordable unit requirements. Nope and nope. That's actually the only point in your thread that's remotely on target. There's a big difference between supporting welfare housing and rent control and concentrating your city services on the haves while neglecting the have-nots. They're essentially on polar opposites of the spectrum. While I don't generally support afforded by someone else housing, intentionally concentrating services on the haves while neglecting the have-nots is too anti-egalitarian even for me.

I'm just as critical of Portland doing it as I am when Anaheim does it. Although in fairness to Portland, Anaheim is much more egregious than Portland is. It doesn't have anything in particular to do with urban playpens. Anaheim doesn't have an urban playpen, more of a suburban/exurban playpen. I just think using the government to benefit the privileged is wrong. The deck is already in their favor. While I don't support welfare-dependent lifestyles for the less privileged, I still think the city should provide access to services to the neighborhoods where they live rather than concentrate services in the neighborhoods of the haves at the expense of the services to the have-nots.

5) No, it doesn't. I like the toy train fine, by the way, I just don't want my tax dollars going to pay for it since it's an urban toy. Once the federal deficit honeypot stops being used for these projects, I'll shut up about them. If Portland wants to create a special tax zone (as is often done) that actually pays for the urban toys it wants to have, I'm completely fine with that. At least it isn't free like it used to be while the poors actually had to pay to use the buses or MAX. It still, however, is slower than the bus routes it replaced and more expensive than frequent bus service in 2013.
TriMet: Performance Dashboard
(Operating budget of the Streetcar was $9.75 million (actually ran over) and boardings were 4.1 million rounded up.)

MAX has its own problems, namely that it was very expensive to build and hasn't increased transit usage over the buses it replaced. Considering the average distance on MAX and that it costs 10% LESS than frequent bus service, however, it's a cost saver in the long run. Enough to ever pay off its capital investment is questionable. There's a lot of billions to offset after all.
Being from Portland, that does seem to be common with people there. Or maybe you are one of those that wish Portland never changed, but that is impossible for a city to do without becoming stagnant and run-down.

Either way, you support capitalism, thus you support rents going up so that people can make more money off those properties.

Last edited by nei; 06-09-2014 at 08:59 AM.. Reason: also rude
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2014, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,074,613 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Well at least a local I spoke to (not a hipster, but seemed a more working-class type living in the eastern part of the city) said the MAX rail line made it easier and more pleasant to access the city center.
I don't doubt that.

There's been a huge investment in MAX. Wiki puts it at $3 billion through 2004. Since then they've expanded the system by about 20%, so that's probably over $4 billion. What it hasn't done, however, is increase transit usage.

Human Transit: portland: a challenging chart
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2014, 09:03 AM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,819,994 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
As a movement, New Urbanism seems primarily concerned with making prosperous neighborhoods more prosperous and then hoping against hope that the benefits of that prosperity magically extend into sections of town untouched by their charming design sensibility. Hence “urban triage,” a term that connotes a lack of concern for the human occupants of those neighborhoods deemed unworthy of infrastructure investments.
It's kind of funny -- I thought trickle-down economics was the province of the city-hating right :-)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2014, 09:05 AM
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 nybbler View Post
It's kind of funny -- I thought trickle-down economics was the province of the city-hating right :-)
maybe, but it's the author that wrote that not any actual new urbanist. I didn't know New Urbanism had any claims to "trickle-down" to areas that didn't get New Urbanism. While perhaps many New Urbanist claims aren't well backed up, I'm not sure if this article is any better.
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