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 08-11-2014, 06:27 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 23 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,649,686 times
Reputation: 33082

Advertisements

^^Congrats to you for living mortgage/rent free! I'll be there soon!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-13-2014, 07:33 PM
 
5,076 posts, read 8,515,909 times
Reputation: 4632
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
You were selling higher costs of your "density". Higher cost certainly isn't a positive attribute for a fundamental need such as housing. Urban growth boundaries are arbitrary political boundaries which distort prices on both sides of the boundary. If "densification" was such a great thing you wouldn't have to impose artificial barriers to force it on people - and you would compensate the landowners whose land you rendered nearly valueless in order to confer value on others. As previously stated: if urbanism was so great it wouldn't have to rely on forced adoption, discrimination in housing development and financing, or lame debate/marketing tactics for implementation.



So now you need to resort to making things up about what other people stated while you are backpedaling?

Contrary to your [mis]representation, you can't identify any post where I stated "growth boundaries are economic protectionism aimed at keeping prices high by restricting demand."

It would have been easier to simply accept error instead of making up stories about what others have posted. Our prior posts are readily verifiable.

Your initial post on this thread was directed at opposing "suburban growth". You provided an example:

"There was a good local example last year where a rural/suburban edge community (Black Diamond) voted NOT to allow expansion of the suburbs in their jurisdiction." mkarch

You also tried rationalizing forced urbanization with your [false] conclusion: "When you put this in context of all of the decayed inner ring suburbs that *could* be reconfigured for greater density, you really have to ask why it makes sense to keep building out at the edge just so a (relatively few) people get the luxury of a cheap new house." Id.

Further research suggests the "community" referenced had no such vote. At best a "citizen's challenge" (NIMBYs that don't want to see rooftops of other homes? Faux environmental groups trying to preserve endangered urbanist habitat?) was made in the form of a lawsuit opposing developments in progress. Apparently that challenge has failed to-date.

Furthermore the projects at issue were two planned communities estimated to bring 6,000 new homes and a million square feet of commercial space to a 4,170-resident city on the far edge of King County’s urban-growth area. At 2.5 people estimated per household on average, the projects at issue would have at least 3-4x the population of "the city" - hardly the "relatively few" as you suggested.

Ironically the "urban villages" you support opposition of undoubtedly have what you promote: dense housing. Moreover these projects will be as artificial as everything about densification. That's why they are "planned communities". They will have multiple layers of HOAs for all those homeowners to pay into forever along with private "fining", groveling for permission to do anything from private contractors, etc. There would be reasons to oppose these projects but this was the tail trying to wag the dog. Your characterization of the example appears to be incorrect. The "city" will actually become the suburb in this example.
Homebuilders lose big in Black Diamond vote | Local News | The Seattle Times
Black Diamond Mayor Dave Gordon and City Council collide - Covington-Maple Valley Reporter
I have to say your nit picking is getting kind of old, so I'll leave it at this.

The "vote" removed the mayor and all of the council members that were supporting the project against the wishes of the citizens.

I simply do not agree that a planned community at the edge of the growth boundary, with no job center, served by no major highways and with no mass transit is in any way "urban" just because it has some mixed use and higher density development wrapped in an HOA. It's like saying "Main Street Disney" is urban because it looks like a city block. Calling it an "urban village" is a misnomer designed to draw attention from the more common and derisive term "sprawl".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2014, 07:45 AM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,353,316 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
I have to say your nit picking is getting kind of old, so I'll leave it at this.

The "vote" removed the mayor and all of the council members that were supporting the project against the wishes of the citizens.
...who had no right to prevent development to maintain their views

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
I simply do not agree that a planned community at the edge of the growth boundary, with no job center, served by no major highways and with no mass transit is in any way "urban" just because it has some mixed use and higher density development wrapped in an HOA.
Not your choice!
Based on your position "Black Diamond" shouldn't exist either
The development involves 3-4x the population of the city. It is the "city" that will be the "sprawl" on the outskirts of the development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
It's like saying "Main Street Disney" is urban because it looks like a city block. Calling it an "urban village" is a misnomer designed to draw attention from the more common and derisive term "sprawl".
Sounds like you're saying the urbanists such marketing attracts are shallow thinking hypocrites. Nonetheless it is the city of Black Diamond that will become the "sprawl" relative to the development rather than vice-versa.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2014, 12:04 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,538,049 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
"Apartments" are typically rented in which case you aren't paying for a lawn to maintain.
However, apartments also typically have some type of lawn or grounds - you end up paying for the maintenance in your rent.

"Condos" may or may not have lawn around them in the "common areas". Worse than the scenario you suggested, your "assessments" are entangled with care for these areas. You pay the assessment but have no control on what it is actually spent on. You are not allowed to take care of the area itself. You have no control over the amount of money that is spent. You are an involuntary member of an organization that can foreclose upon you if you do not give it (or its vendors) the money demanded. You haven't escaped "lawn care". You relinquished all say in how it would be done, when it would be done, who will tend to it, and how much it will cost and you must pay whatever is demanded when demanded under threat of foreclosure regardless of whether the recipient performs as represented or expected.
That is untrue, owning a condo gives a condo owner a say in what happens with their HOA fees. A condo association made up of condo owners are the ones work out the budget.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2014, 11:51 AM
 
5,076 posts, read 8,515,909 times
Reputation: 4632
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
...who had no right to prevent development to maintain their views


Not your choice!
Based on your position "Black Diamond" shouldn't exist either
The development involves 3-4x the population of the city. It is the "city" that will be the "sprawl" on the outskirts of the development.


Sounds like you're saying the urbanists such marketing attracts are shallow thinking hypocrites. Nonetheless it is the city of Black Diamond that will become the "sprawl" relative to the development rather than vice-versa.
Marketing aside, I'd think the cows on the side of the road would be a dead giveaway that it's not urban. . Sounds like you may overlook that small detail in your quest to hate on anything that is described as urban, whether it is or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2014, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,538,049 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
Marketing aside, I'd think the cows on the side of the road would be a dead giveaway that it's not urban. . Sounds like you may overlook that small detail in your quest to hate on anything that is described as urban, whether it is or not.
We're the cows wearing skinny jeans and black frame glasses? If they were, then it was definitely urban.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2014, 09:56 PM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,353,316 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That is untrue, owning a condo gives a condo owner a say in what happens with their HOA fees. A condo association made up of condo owners are the ones work out the budget.
...and what is the source of this unsubstantiated myth?

The condo owners only have a "say" to the extent the current regime is willing to listen. The law where you're headed is pretty clear that the condo BOD is responsible for "working out the budget". ORS 100.412 Sure it's possible that bylaws authorize a BOD to utilize a committee of owners to come up with such a budget, there is absolutely no obligation to do so nor any "right" for owners to participate in "working out the budget". Next.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2014, 11:03 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,538,049 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
...and what is the source of this unsubstantiated myth?

The condo owners only have a "say" to the extent the current regime is willing to listen. The law where you're headed is pretty clear that the condo BOD is responsible for "working out the budget". ORS 100.412 Sure it's possible that bylaws authorize a BOD to utilize a committee of owners to come up with such a budget, there is absolutely no obligation to do so nor any "right" for owners to participate in "working out the budget". Next.
I owned a condo. Also, you obviously know that no one condo owner gets to say what happens with the grounds. My condo had a committee that worked with the owner and required the approval of the condo owners when major improvements were needed to be done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2014, 09:15 PM
 
5,364 posts, read 6,005,443 times
Reputation: 7158
I am going to keep it real globally cities have always been where most people with money lived. In America the people with money were so scared of minorities and the threat of crime they ran to the suburbs (keep in mind a lot of this crime can be traced to the CIA pumping drugs into the inner city but thats another conversation). Heck the highway system was built specifically so those people could go to and from their jobs in the cities back to the burbs

What were seeing now is the children of those (mostly white) rich people moving back into cities because crime has gone down and the populace is as blue collar as ever. Let crime go up again and these same Hipsters will run right back to the suburbs and they will call it a "suburban Renaissance" or some otger nonsense to hide the fact their scared.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2014, 10:53 PM
 
991 posts, read 921,919 times
Reputation: 828
The suburbs have a lot of undesirable elements that my wife and I are looking to escape: notably rampant drug use among frustrated teenagers because they are bored out of their minds, too many churches, conformity, national chain businesses peddling microwaved food and other soulless crap, and inability to ditch our car, and that guy who drives around a leased 5-series, frequents tanning salons and has one of those Bluetooth things attached to his head...

Seriously we live in the burbs now, but we are looking at moving into the city. I am not crazy about home ownership....I sold my house last year. I am a CPA....maybe I'll start a small practice in a more urban location. We don't have and don't want kids, and really just want to build some fun experiences....city living seems more conducive to that. My wife and I grew up in urban locations - but completely different circumstances: she was an immigrant refugee living in the ghetto of KCK whereas I grew up in a relatively urban, upper middle class family where we had big old neat houses, summer art and music camps at the local uni, and expensive private education. She likes the suburbs slightly more than I do.

I don't think there is a huge push to city living... I just think that if is naturally more glamorous, especially because a lot of oeople grew up in the suburbs....I mean, who the hell wants to do what their parents did (uncool!)?
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