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 09-25-2014, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,174 posts, read 23,280,389 times
Reputation: 10428

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Not exactly. It depends on the road layout and the zoning. It is very easy to have an unwalkable small town. I have been to many. Usually they have no crosswalks, or unprotected ones expecting you to cross highways or streets with speed limits over 40mph. No sidewalks. Or no compact development putting destinations within a short jaunt.

It is probably safe to say any small town that developed after 1940 give or take isn't very walkable. That is roughly when zoning began to require huge setbacks and parking lots.

Exclude the ones with agricultural roots, they tend to have huge lots and residences far from businesses.
The small towns out on the plains are quite unwalkable. Like you said, no sidewalks, things are very spread out, big parking lots to handle the big trucks people drive. I think the "village" concept never made it this far west.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-25-2014, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,174 posts, read 23,280,389 times
Reputation: 10428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Well, of course in a town of 14,000 most live withing walking distance to the town center and train station! That's about how big my hometown was when I was growing up (smaller now due to steel bust) and that was the case there, too.

My present town has ~20,000 people and most live within walking distance of the downtown. We don't have a train station.
Aren't you in Louisville? Sort of a small town within a metro area, from what I can tell. Will it eventually get a train stop with all the expansion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2014, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,509,053 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Uh-oh is right.

The first suburban town is really horrible. It's so horrible, it strikes horror into people's hearts as they enter. (That is the real definition of horrible.) https://www.google.com/search?q=horr...x-a&channel=sb
"causing or likely to cause horror; shocking.
"a horrible massacre"
synonyms: dreadful, awful, terrible, shocking, appalling, horrifying, horrific, horrendous, horrid, hideous, grisly, ghastly, gruesome, gory, harrowing, heinous, vile, unspeakable"


"informal
very unpleasant.
"the tea tasted horrible"
synonyms: nasty, horrid, disagreeable, unpleasant, detestable, awful, dreadful, terrible, appalling, horrendous, foul, repulsive, repugnant, repellent, ghastly;"


It's so horrible, the folks at CNN-Money rated it the best small town in the US in 2009 and 2011, second in 2013, and third in 2007. Just a horrifying place. If you go there, you'll turn into a zombie.
Louisville, Colorado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second US city used to have a heavy-industry factory within walking distance of every man, woman and child. I'm talking steel mills (several), 2 cork works (smelled like hydrogen sulfide, think rotten eggs), and a railroad freight station. Mothers would tie up their small children so they wouldn't run out into the street and get hit by a semi when trucks supplying these factories rolled by. (BTW, on street parking!)
Horrible as in horrible to me, so feel free to bring down the over reacting. I don't know anything about those towns, I was just commenting on the look of the towns compared to the one on the left. The one on the left looked much better than the ones on the right. You are welcome to disagree and say you like the ones on the right more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2014, 03:44 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33058
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian View Post
Aren't you in Louisville? Sort of a small town within a metro area, from what I can tell. Will it eventually get a train stop with all the expansion?
They say in 2044. But hey, it's horrible! Stay away! (J/K)

The train issue is a real sore spot up here in Boulder County. Now we're getting BRT, which will stop at Louisville exist of Highway 36, instead of a train through town.

Maybe you don't read the Boulder forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Good for her! Now back to the "Light Rail"

It was never going to be light rail. It was going to be heavy rail, along the BNSF tracks.

Here's an early article, from 2007.
Fix in works on FasTracks rail holdup - Boulder Daily Camera

Here comes trouble:
Transit plan tax deficit forecast - Boulder Daily Camera
FasTracks expansion faces new obstacle - Boulder Daily Camera
RTD to hear options on FasTracks dilemma - Boulder Daily Camera

Running short on money:
FasTracks options: Pay more or get less, board is told - Boulder Daily Camera
Poll finds support for FasTracks tax hike - Boulder Daily Camera
Mayors still looking for FasTracks funds - Boulder Daily Camera

Not going to ask for more:
RTD board nixes Nov. tax election - Boulder Daily Camera

Trying again:
RTD lays out four tax-hike options for FasTracks - Boulder Daily Camera
RTD staff propose additional 0.2% sales tax for FasTracks - Boulder Daily Camera

Not gonna do it:
Denver-area voters won't see FasTracks sales-tax vote in November - Boulder Daily Camera

The other shoe starts to drop:
Plan for rail to Denver's northwest suburbs might be replaced by bus service - Boulder Daily Camera

Pushing back to 2024 and Louisville's response:
No-train option for FasTracks a non-starter in Louisville - Boulder Daily Camera

"Hybrid" system (rail + BRT) proposed
RTD gets cool reaction to proposed rail to Westminster, buses to Longmont - Boulder Daily Camera
RTD board gives tentative OK for "hybrid" option for northwest corridor - Boulder Daily Camera

Unanticipated problems:
RTD stunned by BNSF's charge for use of northwest rail lines - Boulder Daily Camera

We're going to do it:
RTD vows to finish Northwest Rail line beyond the Longmont leg - Boulder Daily Camera

Let's "study" it some more:
U.S. 36 cities balk at new RTD study — and its price tag - Boulder Daily Camera
"That means FasTracks may not be built for the northwest corridor until 2044."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2014, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
13,720 posts, read 25,531,774 times
Reputation: 9216
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
I disagree. Both architects and urban planners have a direct influence on students' environment. I could even argue that it's more of a topic for architects, because we are designing the environment in which students learn.



Can you elaborate on that? I understand that the performance of schools can affect urban planning, but how can urban planning affect the performance of schools?

Maybe we should start a new thread?
Urban planning, because it can change demographics, can have enormous impacts to PUBLIC schools over time. Urban planning can affect real estate costs, which changes affordability.

San Francisco is said to be turning into a childless city. Why? Is it because families don't want to live there? I don't think that is it. I think families can't afford to live in SF - even less so if the public schools are mediocre or worse. So SF is becoming a city for high income singles and DINKs.

Families will migrate to places that meet their most important needs - and schools are at or near the top of the list for most families.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2014, 06:15 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,165 posts, read 29,655,359 times
Reputation: 26651
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano View Post
Urban planning, because it can change demographics, can have enormous impacts to PUBLIC schools over time. Urban planning can affect real estate costs, which changes affordability.

San Francisco is said to be turning into a childless city. Why? Is it because families don't want to live there? I don't think that is it. I think families can't afford to live in SF - even less so if the public schools are mediocre or worse. So SF is becoming a city for high income singles and DINKs.

Families will migrate to places that meet their most important needs - and schools are at or near the top of the list for most families.
Pretty much all of the Bay Area is pretty unaffordable for families. I am hardly exaggerating here, but if you have your typical 2 adult, 2 kid household, and want to have a 45 minute ore less commute, a 1500 sq ft house with fish bedrooms and live in a decent school district, you basically need about a $200k-$250k household income.

Renting a 3 bedroom place in the decent school district is about $3500, buying a home is at least $800k depending where you are.

Now it gets cheaper if you are willing to give up on commute time. Or you don't work in SF or Silicon Valley. You do get a few more options if you work in let's say downtown Oakland. Then those decent school district places are less than 45 minutes away.

But if you want the east bay decent school districts and you work in Silicon Valley, I hope you like commuting. It is about 90 minutes each way at best.

So basically, if you aren't inheriting some property, or didn't manage to purchase a foreclosure in the past couple of years, or didn't get a huge six figure lottery/trust fund/inheritance you are SOL.

A one bedroom condo is $200k at the cheapest pretty much anywhere in the far out Bay Area. If you want closer or nicer you need $300k for a one bedroom condo and it goes up quite a lot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2014, 06:42 PM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,560,099 times
Reputation: 4048
Urban planning isn't what makes the Bay Area expensive. On the contrary, it is the lack of planning--figuring out how to account for long-term growth--combined with an unprecedentedly strong economy. Price is based on supply and demand. In the Bay Area, the supply of land is limited, in part because of the low-density sprawl of most of the outer Bay Area, but mostly because of the enormous demand that comes from having a great climate, a strong economy, and an employment sector that generates lots of high salaries. If large proportions of the population have a $200-250K income, then they can afford a home requiring that income--it just becomes difficult for the proportion of the population who don't make that much.

When you are driving down the road and looking ahead to ensure you don't hit any obstacles, you're "planning." There is no sinister conspiracy to make you drive in a straight line. When you have to slow down for a turn, it's not because the United Nations is forcing you arbitrarily to drive more slowly, it's just taking into account the terrain and physics. That's all "urban planning" is: looking ahead for obstacles and directing growth to avoid or accommodate for them. They aren't perfect principles, and they are subject to interpretation and modification.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2014, 07:24 PM
 
229 posts, read 248,420 times
Reputation: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
It's so horrible, the folks at CNN-Money rated it the best small town in the US in 2009 and 2011, second in 2013, and third in 2007. Just a horrifying place. If you go there, you'll turn into a zombie.
Louisville, Colorado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You do realize all those "best towns for..." articles were paid to be published?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2014, 08:42 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33058
Quote:
Originally Posted by im_a_lawyer View Post
You do realize all those "best towns for..." articles were paid to be published?
What do you mean by that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2014, 08:48 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33058
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian View Post
This is the village I lived in. Population today of only about 1100 people. I liked that I could walk to 3 different restaurants, a pub, the bank, grocery store and bakery. I could also walk to trails that took me off into the forest!

There was no train station, but there was a bus that took you into a city about 15 minutes away. This is considered "rural" living in German, and there were farmers living in this village. But rather than living on the land they farmed, they lived in the village and drove their tractors out to their fields that surrounded the village. Just a very different concept that rural towns in the U.S.

What bugs me about these German towns is they pave over practically every sqare inch.
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