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 09-26-2014, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,523,816 times
Reputation: 7830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
^^DO allow me to repost the post to which I originally responded, that kicked off this conversation:



I see nothing about any yards being acceptable in a "walkable neighborhood".

Not to mention, what do large amount of grass on streets in a town center have to do with either option?
Well I have since expanded what I was talking about, so that should have solved any confusion you might be having.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-26-2014, 06:17 PM
 
Location: West Madison^WMHT
3,280 posts, read 3,128,466 times
Reputation: 4072
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmichigan View Post
The simple fact is that we have too many #@! people on this planet for everybody to spread out to their hearts content! In the last century, the world's population has increased astronomically. Overpopulation is the biggest elephant in the room--one that nearly everyone is ignoring.
Sure, the world is overpopulated, but we don't (yet) just let the entire world immigrate to the United States.

Here in the USA, Montana and the Dakotas have an average population density of ~11 people per square mile. Outside of cities, overpopulation is not an issue in North America:

Acreage is achievable, even in denser parts of the country, given sufficient funds or willingness to accept less than ideal terrain and conditions (e.g. wetlands). You can buy 100 acres of boggy land in New Hampshire for the price of a cheap condo, but then you'd be stuck with 100 acres of boggy land in New Hampshire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2014, 06:46 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,932,349 times
Reputation: 18050
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
It looks like a lot of the focus here is on getting people to move to urban areas instead of suburban areas. Why? I know those of you who are younger think people should flock back to urban areas and you think that is the wave of the future. Maybe it is the wave of the future in the short term, but I think it will come full circle again when YOUR children decide they don't want to live in a population dense area and want room to spread out like their grandparents did.

I really don't understand the current push for urban living. The majority of the population is still going to live in the suburbs. A lot of the population never has and never will like urban living. I just don't understand trying to convince everyone that urban is better. To me, it's definitely not.
Simple the people who pay the bills are more and more leaving the urban areas. Its only going to get worse as boomers retire. urban areas have become more and more a small elite and large dependent clas and the finances are not making sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2014, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,523,816 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
Simple the people who pay the bills are more and more leaving the urban areas. Its only going to get worse as boomers retire. urban areas have become more and more a small elite and large dependent clas and the finances are not making sense.
That isn't true, boomers that are empty nesters area big market for buying in urban areas. Portland's Pearl District is full of these types of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2014, 10:13 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,563,164 times
Reputation: 4048
Of course things like churches, schools, parks, day-care centers and other family-friendly facilities are examples of desirable urban amenities!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2014, 10:25 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,002 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That isn't true, boomers that are empty nesters area big market for buying in urban areas. Portland's Pearl District is full of these types of people.
Believe me, they are still but a small minority of "empty-nesters". Most people "retire in place".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2014, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,523,816 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Believe me, they are still but a small minority of "empty-nesters". Most people "retire in place".
It doesn't take much to fill an urban district.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2014, 11:31 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,563,164 times
Reputation: 4048
Most of the Boomer empty-nesters in my neighborhood are retiring in place, but they already live downtown. The new arrivals are mostly GenXers or older Millenials with kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2014, 12:58 PM
 
Location: West Madison^WMHT
3,280 posts, read 3,128,466 times
Reputation: 4072
Default The term "urban amenity" is bogus.

Some researchers define anything positive as an "urban amenity", even including things like waterfronts, street lights, fast wireless Internet, green space, or nice weather in their definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Of course things like churches, schools, parks, day-care centers and other family-friendly facilities are examples of desirable urban amenities!
None of those are really "urban" amenities, many rural small towns in New Hampshire have all of the above, but groups like Granite State Future see this as insufficiently urban, and are pushing the development of high-density town cores throughout the state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U.S. Census Bureau
US Census Bureau defines an urban area as: "Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square kilometer).". 84 percent of the United States' inhabitants live in suburban and urban areas, but cities occupy only 10 percent of the country. Rural areas occupy the remaining 90 percent
So there is plenty of room in the USA for people (with the means to support themselves) to live in rural areas if they choose. There is no legitimate reason to "force" an urban lifestyle through Agenda 21's "sustainable develoment" mandates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-27-2014, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,523,816 times
Reputation: 7830
Please no one bring up the Agenda 21 nonsense. It has nothing to do with forcing everyone to live in urban areas.
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