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 08-06-2014, 07:45 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,351,264 times
Reputation: 3030

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
Community in this case would be the people that are already using the means of access. In this specific example it's an incorporated city, but it doesn't have to be. I'm fairly sure that if the developer wanted to put in those homes and not connect them to the existing road network or rely on the city to provide services the "non-owners" wouldn't have been opposed. "put up the homes, just don't connect them to the existing city" would have accomplished the same objective.
The names sounded like a subdivision rather than a city. The question was oriented at determining the role of the "voters" in this "election".

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
Edge suburban homes are much, much less expensive. In some edge areas you can get a new house for $300K, maybe even $200K the further you go. That's about half or less (perhaps 25% in many cases) what you'd pay on average for a new home in a non-edge, urban or semi-urban area. They're cheap because the land is not worth much. The land is cheap because the location is remote and hard to access, and few people are willing to pay to live there (otherwise the land would be worth more - supply/demand etc...) I have no idea where you get the idea that this is an entitlement program. It's planning communities around the obvious issue of egress. Hardly anyone buys those houses without owning a car, so pretending the owners aren't going to drive to and from them is foolish.
The entitlement and economic protectionism comment was directed toward the people opposing the development. An artificial "growth boundary" was created to prevent alternatives to the existing housing. Just because something is less expensive does not mean that few would purchase it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2014, 07:49 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,351,264 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingz33r0 View Post
Being able to attend a festival within walking distance does not imply that said festival is "festering on your doorstep".

But why don't we just put it out in the open: While you might prefer to shut yourself off from the world in your big massive house, others do not. Hence the appeal of urbanism.
Why do you assume folks that don't want to live like hamsters have big massive houses?
How about larger property?
Or not adjacent to stores or retail shopping centers?
or not within walking distance of frequent "festival" attendees?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 07:51 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,423 posts, read 11,929,235 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Well put! So many are so concerned about what's outside in their immediate neighborhood-is there a bar, a coffeeshop, an indie movie theater, etc?
I actually feel very jealous of the non-parents in our neighborhood who can be out and about all the time. Our neighborhood recently gained a single-screen theater which shows classic films. We haven't been able to attend, due to having two small children and no regular babysitter. The theater even has a kids movie most Sundays at noon, but most of the weeks we were busy then, and the one time we weren't my daughter refused to go (she was worried ET would be too scary for her).

Regardless, as much as I'd like to wander around the neighborhood and take in the sights (not to mention be one of those people who can idly sit at the local coffeeshop for hours in the middle of a weekday). I just can't. Since we bought pre-gentrification we've been living in our existing house on the cheap, but we'd nearly have to double our mortgage if we bought the minimum house size a family of four can comfortably fit inside in the modern era. And I don't think that price for the minimum house (3 bedroom, 1.5 bath, maybe 1500 square feet) which will almost certainly need work anyway makes sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 07:53 AM
miu
 
Location: MA/NH
17,147 posts, read 34,643,040 times
Reputation: 16248
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
The biggest benefit for me, for public schools, that it kids kids an opportunity to interact with people who are not like them, if that is considered a core value of school system.

I think in many cases, many communities are really homogenous.
Whether they are in the suburbs or urban areas, aren't all tightly knit communities homogeneous? A tightly knit community is bound together by common culture, spiritual values and lifestyle/life goals.

In Boston, there is Little Italy, Chinatown and South Boston was very Irish American. In my old city of Newton, we had an Italian neighborhood where the median lines on the streets were painted with the colours of the Italian flag. Many homes had a Virgin Mary in a clamshell statue. All the homes were kept very neat on the outside and many had vegetable gardens and a grape trellis.

And looking back at my childhood in the suburbs, I am glad that I was able to be in a public school where the majority of the students were on an academic track to go to an Ivy League college. I think that while I was there, the METCO program was a failure and a waste of money. Those inner city kids were not at all interested in going on to college. And my parents did take us into Boston to various cultural festivals, ethnic restaurants, museums, concerts, and to walk the city streets. So yes, my sisters and I did experience diversity. However, I like that the majority of the time, we were around people that were more like my parents and with their values. And my mother made sure that we spoke proper English and taught us the importance of formal speak for work and business, and to save the slang terms for casual talk with our friends.

And yes, it is important for children to interact with others of different backgrounds and cultures, but more important is for the child to see how their parents interact with those who are different. Children need their parents to help them with this, so that they can take with them the best parts of these other cultures, not just the aspects that they think the coolest. Every culture has both strengths and weaknesses, no culture is perfect. And for a solid family foundation, the children still need to primarily align themselves with their parents' culture, spiritual and core values. There's plenty of time later on for them to become rebellious teenagers and young adults, so no need for them to start younger questioning their parents' values.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,423 posts, read 11,929,235 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
If anything, I would think that magnets would allow for students to be in an educational situation that fit their strengths. So, that would seem to be a plus and it could allow that lower income, high achieving student to get into an academic program that may be a better fit for them. I know in some cities, a reason for having magnet schools was for integration purposes.
In my experience, magnets do "brain drain" the smart kids out of the neighborhood schools. But it's not as if the magnets themselves are lily-white - they tend to be far more diverse than a private school would be, or a suburban neighborhood school. So while you can argue that they do damage to neighborhood schools, they do no more damage than other educational options do, and (provided you actually want your kid to go to a school where they meet lots of kids from different backgrounds) they have a big upside compared to private or suburban educational options.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 08:07 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
45,989 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14805
Quote:
Originally Posted by miu View Post
In Boston, there is Little Italy, Chinatown and South Boston was very Irish American. In my old city of Newton, we had an Italian neighborhood where the median lines on the streets were painted with the colours of the Italian flag. Many homes had a Virgin Mary in a clamshell statue. All the homes were kept very neat on the outside and many had vegetable gardens and a grape trellis.

And looking back at my childhood in the suburbs, I am glad that I was able to be in a public school where the majority of the students were on an academic track to go to an Ivy League college.
Visited Newton recently. It's not a typical suburb at all. It's like using Bethesda or Beverly Hills as an example*. The group of Newton high school grads were a great bunch, but I was told it's a high-stress competitive academic environment where many are trying to go to Ivy-League and similar schools.

*Not quite as extreme, but Boston doesn't have quite the extremes of wealth as DC or Los Angeles does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 08:07 AM
 
13,044 posts, read 15,397,378 times
Reputation: 15299
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingz33r0 View Post
Being able to attend a festival within walking distance does not imply that said festival is "festering on your doorstep".

But why don't we just put it out in the open: While you might prefer to shut yourself off from the world in your big massive house, others do not. Hence the appeal of urbanism.
My big massive house is about 1300 sq feet not counting the finished basement and is modest compared to surrounding homes. I have a front yard. I have a back yard. I have a deck. I have a front porch. I have windows on the north, south, east and west of my house. There are two shopping areas in my little suburban city that are easy enough to get to. They are close enough that I COULD walk there, but far enough that I drive instead. Sometimes they have sidewalk sales and art fairs and pep rallies for local college or professional teams. I can choose to attend or not. It's not on my doorstep, so I don't have people who attend those things on my doorstep. If I choose to attend, I can go and then come home to my quiet home. I'm close enough to enjoy the things I want to participate in, and far enough away that other people attending those things don't affect the peace and quiet of my home.

I had my fill of community living in college. Why would I want to go back to living in close proximity to other people if I don't have to? If I had to move into an apartment or condo or other living space connected to others' living spaces, I'd consider that a step down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 08:08 AM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,351,264 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingz33r0 View Post
You have an utterly disparate and clueless understanding of what urbanism is supposed to value and inherently produce. Furthermore, you are projecting your own values and preferences of what is to be desired or un-desired about urban vs surburban living onto a urban situation where such values and preferences do not actually hold true in the real world.

In other words, you say portray festivals as crime-drawing events that produce more problems that produce pleasure, which is not a fair portrayal of what should be a neutral benefit to increased proximity and access to points of interest.
The example give was the proximity of the poster's house to festivals that occur so frequently there is more than one per weekend. Yes they are crime-drawing events. I don't see a "neutral benefit" from living in such a location.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wingz33r0 View Post
If you were correct in that a festival were indeed undesirable, than so many posters in this thread would not have attempted to paint for you why they would want INCREASED assesibility to points of congregation rather than DECREASED.

It's about placement of preferences: You seem to believe people are inherently bad and want a wall of separation between where a diverse group of people aggregate and where you are walled off in your own zone of isolation that is penetrable by motor vehicle.
Good fences make good neighbors.
You seem to want to decide when you can ignore the fence, what kind of fence is allowed, and who is allowed to have fences.

If you want to live in a bar zone then go live there but don't expect to force others to accept the negatives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wingz33r0 View Post
Again, inaccurate. As protectors of (their desired) greater good, the community members have every right to restrict the freedom of those wishing to impede on and injure on their own priviledges through suburban development.

Lastly, those in urban areas will subscribe to a city centric thinking whether you like it or not. It's up to you whether you want to join in and share their objectives and intentions.
Where did you attend school and have you finished yet? What grade did you get through?

No the "community members" have no such "right". What "priviledges" do you think your "community members" have in their people's republic? Sounds like you promote nothing but groupthink. What other freedoms (besides we don't allow you here) do you believe your community "protectors" are entitled to take away from "those other people"? Ironically you believe it is okay to have a "community fence" but not an individual fence. When the door is under someone else's control it's called a prison - not a home or community.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 10:20 AM
 
5,076 posts, read 8,511,692 times
Reputation: 4632
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
The names sounded like a subdivision rather than a city. The question was oriented at determining the role of the "voters" in this "election".



The entitlement and economic protectionism comment was directed toward the people opposing the development. An artificial "growth boundary" was created to prevent alternatives to the existing housing. Just because something is less expensive does not mean that few would purchase it.
There are other incorporated cities in the same area that did allow explosive growth, and the effects of building thousands of homes in an area serviced by a 2 lane highway were highly negative both to quality of life and property values.

Plenty of examples in that part of the county where development exploded and transportation infrastructure never caught up. Just up the road from Black Diamond there's a city called Maple Valley. It's a complete mess. Development peaked out there around 2006, and here we are 10 years and tens of thousands of homes later and there's still a 2 lane highway serving this sprawling community. A big part of why this happened is because it's not economically viable to build the amount of infrastructure needed to service these remote areas. If that cost was actually factored in to the development, it wouldn't be cost competitive with other less remote areas.

As for entitlement, it's the same from the other side. People want their (relatively) inexpensive homes in far flung locales, then expect 'someone else' to pay for the massive infrastructure investments required to make these homes accessible. As I mentioned before, the main reason the land out there is cheap is precisely BECAUSE it's inaccessible. If the necessary improvements were made (putting in large, expensive freeways or some kind of mass transit) the local taxes required to pay for this would be prohibitive. It's development that only makes sense if someone else shoulders the massive costs, or everyone in the area agrees to accept poor access.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 10:47 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,008 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
In my experience, magnets do "brain drain" the smart kids out of the neighborhood schools. But it's not as if the magnets themselves are lily-white - they tend to be far more diverse than a private school would be, or a suburban neighborhood school. So while you can argue that they do damage to neighborhood schools, they do no more damage than other educational options do, and (provided you actually want your kid to go to a school where they meet lots of kids from different backgrounds) they have a big upside compared to private or suburban educational options.
Maybe in Pittsburgh, but not everywhere. Here are the demographics of a wealthy, suburban Pittsburgh high school:

Fox Chapel Area High School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For those who don't want to bother clicking the link, 92% white.

Another: Mount Lebanon School District
Mt. Lebanon HS: 90% white

Cherry Creek HS, in an affluent Denver suburb (John Elway's kids went there); comparable to Fox Chapel
Cherry Creek Search
75% white

Littleton HS (Comparable to Mt.Lebo)
71% white
Littleton High School - Littleton, Colorado - CO - School overview

Legacy HS, Broomfield CO (average upper-middle class burb)
71% white
Legacy High School - Broomfield, Colorado - CO - School overview

Centaurus HS,Lafayette CO (slightly less affluent)
63.4% white
Student Demographics

Monarch HS, Louisville CO (affluent, best city in the US to live, my kids' HS, about 25 mi. from Denver)
80% white
Student Demographics

Now look at this:
Blackhawk High School - Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania - PA - School overview
96% white
I did not go to this school, but this is where the kids who live in my old neighborhood now go. ~30 mi. from Pittsburgh
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