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 07-31-2014, 12:34 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,345,135 times
Reputation: 3562

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Just as a throw in, some of you need to look at some of the state wide planning documents being developed if you don't think there's a push to bring development out of urban areas to a halt.

PlanMD is one such. It limits or denies funding to suburban or rural areas for infrastructure improvements or schools. The Flush tax is collected from every household in the State, whether on sewer or septic, but originally only urban sewer plants were eligible to use it to upgrade to the new ENR requirements. Small rural sewer facilities were ineligible to use the funding to bond their required upgrades. The cost of those upgrades were underestimated by 60%.
Is that because urban schools are so commonly struggling and suburban schools are so commonly much better off? I don't know much about it admittedly, but a large percentage of urban neighborhoods have been financially neglected for quite some time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-31-2014, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,733,004 times
Reputation: 26676
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Just as a throw in, some of you need to look at some of the state wide planning documents being developed if you don't think there's a push to bring development out of urban areas to a halt.

PlanMD is one such. It limits or denies funding to suburban or rural areas for infrastructure improvements or schools. The Flush tax is collected from every household in the State, whether on sewer or septic, but originally only urban sewer plants were eligible to use it to upgrade to the new ENR requirements. Small rural sewer facilities were ineligible to use the funding to bond their required upgrades. The cost of those upgrades were underestimated by 60%.
We have a "Plan Bay Area" that aims to reduce greenhouse gas admissions and so on. It basically outlines building most new development in existing areas, with an extra focus on "priority development areas." Most of these areas have been self-selected by the communities, and are near or adjacent to transit corridors.

We need to, since traffic in CA is ridiculous. Building on the outskirts and the exburbs would take a huge economic toll, if it isn't already.

There are some communities complaining about the development (ones packed with Nimbys), but I find it totally bizarre. I have looked at the maps, and this new denser housing is super concentrated to a couple of blocks around the train station or along the busy commercial road. And nowhere near existing suburbia.

Here in the Bay Area, we have let far too many communities build office parks and not build any housing to go with it. Some cities, like Palo Alto and Menlo Park have a 3 to 1 ratio of jobs to housing, which contributes to traffic issues since people can't live in the town they work in (at really any budget). These towns are clustered together so it is like a wall of too many jobs not enough housing, making even moderately affordable places no closer than 10 miles away (for people with above average income). And legit affordable housing for average income people is more like 20-30 miles away, not that there is much of this in the entire region.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Kalamalka Lake, B.C.
3,044 posts, read 4,025,333 times
Reputation: 3898
Default That's URBANE lifestyle, not urban

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.
If you buy a townhom near work, you don't need a car.
If your career is first when young, your time commitment is managed better living downtown.
There's no lawn to mow, neighbours dog crap to pick up (strike that), so your weekends are
your own. Jump the train.
You network a lot better. Everyone's here. And you're not spending up to 20% or more of your working day commuting.

If there's a push on the part of development it's because a city can support faster police response, better public transit, events, parks, and programs with a larger tax base and a more concentrated group.
Concrete was invented by the Romans but is probably one of the lowest impact materials anywhere.
You can have pools, butterfly gardens, recreation, and secure parking in hi-rise construciton and look at Canadian cities in particular as examples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,091 posts, read 16,126,368 times
Reputation: 12684
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post

Here in the Bay Area, we have let far too many communities build office parks and not build any housing to go with it. Some cities, like Palo Alto and Menlo Park have a 3 to 1 ratio of jobs to housing, which contributes to traffic issues since people can't live in the town they work in (at really any budget). These towns are clustered together so it is like a wall of too many jobs not enough housing, making even moderately affordable places no closer than 10 miles away (for people with above average income). And legit affordable housing for average income people is more like 20-30 miles away, not that there is much of this in the entire region.
How do you reconcile that was pushing for jobs in central cities? San Mateo County has a fairly small daytime population swell, far less than San Francisco. It's much more balanced housing/jobs. While the jobs do tend to be concentrated, it's far less so than, say, San Francisco. Santa Clara county is also usually at the top of population growth as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,733,004 times
Reputation: 26676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
How do you reconcile that was pushing for jobs in central cities? San Mateo County has a fairly small daytime population swell, far less than San Francisco. It's much more balanced housing/jobs. While the jobs do tend to be concentrated, it's far less so than, say, San Francisco. Santa Clara county is also usually at the top of population growth as well.
Actually it is not balanced at all. SF is more balanced, if I recall jobs/housing is pretty close to 1 to 1:

Take a look at this great image! These are the places that have a jobs and housing mismatch. And the jobs aren't easily connected via transit, so the only way to get there is to drive.




Job concentration works when there are multiple ways to get to the job center. If you don't have many ways to get to the job center, and you don't have enough housing near the jobs, you get loads of traffic and no alternatives.

The other issue is related to availability. If you want to live somewhere walkable, it doesn't exist in Silicon Valley, so you need to move to SF. (Besides small pockets of San Jose and some Peninsula cities.)

Here in the Bay Area we have 3 problems:
1. Not enough housing
2. Not enough housing in the right places
3. Not enough of the right kind of housing at the right price
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,091 posts, read 16,126,368 times
Reputation: 12684
Looking at (2010) census data, it appears that Santa Clara County and San Francisco City/County have similar daytime population swells of about 20%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 05:45 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,733,004 times
Reputation: 26676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Looking at (2010) census data, it appears that Santa Clara County and San Francisco City/County have similar daytime population swells of about 20%.
But the county level numbers for San Mateo county aren't very helpful. Some areas have zero jobs, and others have a lot. It isn't like it is constantly applied (FYI: Palo Alto is actually in Santa Clara County). You'll probably see a similar swell there, but it isn't evenly distributed. The city of San Mateo is about even for jobs/housing. Other cities are much worse!

San Francisco County only contains SF, so it is all the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,043 posts, read 102,757,343 times
Reputation: 33089
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I think we put way too much emphasis on walking to work. Even though we spend a lot of time at work, we don't make many trips to work on the scheme of things. We go to a lot of other places, and in reality, it is nicer if the other places we go are in walking distance. You might change jobs, but you don't change grocery stores often.
I agree, esp. with the first sentence. What of two job couples? It's awfully hard for two people to find jobs within walking distance of the family home. And what about job mobility?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 09:17 PM
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
45,992 posts, read 42,080,368 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Rio Linda, etc. Modern poor suburb of Sacramento. It's not exactly a shantytown, but then wealth disparity is nothing like what it was then. Advances in transportation and greater equality of wealth have of course made the idealic suburb more accessible to more of the population, starting with the railroad suburbs and then streetcars and now automobiles. HSR is the next chapter in that that is already occurring.
The difference in result between automobile and railroad/streetcar suburbs is the latter tends to result in some degree of centralization and the city center having some importance is it's the most convenient point accesible by transit. With the automobile, concentrated areas are often less convenient, due to parking and traffic congestion.

Park Slope is single-use in the sense most jobs are elsewhere, however residents are within a short walk to most shops though big shops are elsewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2014, 09:24 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,091 posts, read 16,126,368 times
Reputation: 12684
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
But the county level numbers for San Mateo county aren't very helpful. Some areas have zero jobs, and others have a lot. It isn't like it is constantly applied (FYI: Palo Alto is actually in Santa Clara County). You'll probably see a similar swell there, but it isn't evenly distributed. The city of San Mateo is about even for jobs/housing. Other cities are much worse!

San Francisco County only contains SF, so it is all the same.
Depends what you're looking at.

I'm not particularly concerned if Palo Alto has more jobs than houses. Say, hypothetically, Menlo Park had a lot more housing than it did and you worked in Palo Alto and lived in Menlo Park. No biggie. It's a line, completely arbitrary. It's now different than downtown San Francisco having way too many jobs while the Avenues have too much housing. No biggie.

County-wide looks at that. The problem in the Bay Area is it's just out of whack. San Francisco has more jobs than housing. San Mateo County is about even. Santa Clara has more. Okay, so where are all these excess workers living? Some, like you, are commuting from Alameda (and Napa/Sonoma). While those counties also have higher daytime populations, there's some displacement effect. Napa/Sonoma/Alameda residents make long commutes to elsewhere in the Bay. In turn, they are replaced by commuters outside the Bay (Lake, Colusa, San Joaquin). For example, about 60% of the San Joaquin county residents commuting to the Bay Area are going to Alameda. Alameda-bound commuters outnumber Santa Clara by nearly 3 to 1 and San Francisco-bound by nearly 20:1. Others are coming in from Santa Cruz. But still, there's really no housing, especially on SF/Peninsula/South Bay side. East Bay isn't so bad.

That's what county-wide numbers tell you. Who cares if Palo Alto has 3:1 job/housing ratio if there's housing in the area. Thing is, there isn't. The only county remotely in balance is San Mateo, and a bunch of them are going either to San Francisco or to Santa Clara so even there demand is sky high. Now, if you had housing for an extra 700,000 workers (so, basically housing for another 1.2 million since only about 60% of the population works), problem solved. Not all of it even needs to be in Santa Clara. San Mateo county is all of about 10 feet from Palo Alto.

That's also what city numbers do not tell you. Great, San Jose's population shrinks by about 5% during the day. Drop in the bucket in an ocean of shortage.

Last edited by Malloric; 07-31-2014 at 09:34 PM..
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