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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-25-2014, 07:52 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
260 posts, read 328,761 times
Reputation: 169

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetcarFan55 View Post
Portland has taken progressive urban planning objectives to heart reducing sprawl, increasing quality of life, and providing a more equitable transit system.

Transit: Streetcar/MAX Light Rail make Portland one of the most innovative transit friendly cities of its size in a nation that is zealously anti-transit.

Urban growth boundaries: Stopped haphazard development and sprawling development that is not only unsightly but puts massive strain on the environment.

Strict land use controls.

Things they need to work on: More public housing for low income people and or rent controls to increase affordability.
Rent control is generally found to be pretty bad in economic studies.

Public housing housing tends to concentrate poverty in specific areas. New York City would've been better if public housing was never constructed.

That aside, Portland is pretty well designed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-25-2014, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
560 posts, read 441,553 times
Reputation: 1002
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetcarFan55 View Post
Portland has taken progressive urban planning objectives to heart reducing sprawl, increasing quality of life, and providing a more equitable transit system.

Transit: Streetcar/MAX Light Rail make Portland one of the most innovative transit friendly cities of its size in a nation that is zealously anti-transit.

Urban growth boundaries: Stopped haphazard development and sprawling development that is not only unsightly but puts massive strain on the environment.

Strict land use controls.

Things they need to work on: More public housing for low income people and or rent controls to increase affordability.
While I agree that Portland has done a good job at urban planning the last few decades, I have to point out that some of your statements are mutually contradictory. Urban Growth boundaries and strict land use controls are incompatible with more housing for low income people. They actually promote the opposite. With restrictions on development, land and housing become scarcer and therefore more expensive. They artificially inflate the cost of housing and over a period of time, lower income people are displaced by higher income people. This has been happening in Portland, with lower income people being driven to the outer SE and outer NE and outside the city limits. Portland will become increasingly more white and more affluent, with less ethnic and economic diversity. I would say this is ironic since political power is controlled virtually 100% by liberal Democrats, but I won't say it because I'm not so sure that deep down this isn't part of their plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2014, 09:02 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,698 posts, read 23,726,563 times
Reputation: 35455
I dislike the way Portland has torn down perfectly sound older smaller homes and shops and built large expensive apartment buildings or other multiple housing structures in their places. No provision for parking in these old neighborhoods where people have to fight for parking spaces. Also dislike the fact that small green spaces between homes and smaller apartment buildings have been filled with shotgun houses or multiple dwellings.

I like the way my city of Cleveland Heights and some areas of the City of Cleveland has taken old structures Churches, hospitals, and warehouse and rather than tearing them down has turned them into condos and affordable housing for seniors and middle income people. These improve the neighborhoods while maintaining their character. It makes people want to stay and invest time in them rather than turning them into transient areas of temporary dwellings for those who know they aren't going to be living in tiny expensive studio apartments for just a few years.

I also like the little parks in CH that border city parking lots where people can sit and enjoy the many green spaces around my area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 12:31 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,605,283 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
I dislike the way Portland has torn down perfectly sound older smaller homes and shops and built large expensive apartment buildings or other multiple housing structures in their places. No provision for parking in these old neighborhoods where people have to fight for parking spaces. Also dislike the fact that small green spaces between homes and smaller apartment buildings have been filled with shotgun houses or multiple dwellings.

I like the way my city of Cleveland Heights and some areas of the City of Cleveland has taken old structures Churches, hospitals, and warehouse and rather than tearing them down has turned them into condos and affordable housing for seniors and middle income people. These improve the neighborhoods while maintaining their character. It makes people want to stay and invest time in them rather than turning them into transient areas of temporary dwellings for those who know they aren't going to be living in tiny expensive studio apartments for just a few years.

I also like the little parks in CH that border city parking lots where people can sit and enjoy the many green spaces around my area.
You act like Portland has been tearing down old buildings left and right, but that is just untrue. Portland is a growing city and not every building is going to survive, but cities like Cleveland tend to see little to no change. Visiting where I was born in Cleveland, my parents informed me that nothing has really changed from when they lived there in the 70 which is just sad to hear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,698 posts, read 23,726,563 times
Reputation: 35455
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
You act like Portland has been tearing down old buildings left and right, but that is just untrue. Portland is a growing city and not every building is going to survive, but cities like Cleveland tend to see little to no change. Visiting where I was born in Cleveland, my parents informed me that nothing has really changed from when they lived there in the 70 which is just sad to hear.
I think you need to reread the initial question. Although I did not agree with your statement about Portland I respected your right to make it and did not put forth an argument. But since you have chosen to do so with mine I will give you one response one time.

The OP asked "What cities/towns had your favorite urban planning?" He was not asking for a debate but rather opinions. Now go back and read my post. My comment was specifically my opinion regarding the urban planning of the cities of Portland where I used to live, Cleveland Heights where I now live and a portion of Cleveland in which I do know of where these changes I mentioned have taken place. I don't know how it can be any made clearer but I will try.

I was giving my opinion as one who lived in Portland for 36 years nothing more nothing less. I answered the question from the perspective of one who lived there for three decades and in my last Portland neighborhood for 25 years before moving to Cleveland Heights last June. From my perspective Portland has torn down buildings "left and right." How can anyone say otherwise when what was once is no more? I don't mean dilapidated old buildings either. I mean buildings that had to be destroyed by virtue of the fact they were simply too small to house tiny apartments in colossal buildings at mega rents.

What's even sadder is the lovely green spaces that were paved over and built upon such as the ones in the older neighborhoods where I used to live. Along with them went the sense of community people felt as they gathered in these areas. This isn't just about buildings. It's about people.

These are not my favorite form of urban planning as the question was asked.

So the second part of my response, the things I liked about what I have seen about urban planning in Cleveland and Cleveland Heights is what I have seen so far and that is success in housing. You can add to that the city of Cleveland's ability to bring some much needed revenue here through sports and events at its convention center.

Just take a look at the Cleveland forum on CD and you will see the many, many people from all over the county congratulating Cleveland on the many great positive changes happening in this city. Sure there is always a lot to be done in any city but things are looking good here and anyone saying otherwise, that there have been no great changes especially if they live here, must have their head in the sand.

That is why I am living where I am living now and am not living where I was living before. To each their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2014, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,605,283 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
I think you need to reread the initial question. Although I did not agree with your statement about Portland I respected your right to make it and did not put forth an argument. But since you have chosen to do so with mine I will give you one response one time.

The OP asked "What cities/towns had your favorite urban planning?" He was not asking for a debate but rather opinions. Now go back and read my post. My comment was specifically my opinion regarding the urban planning of the cities of Portland where I used to live, Cleveland Heights where I now live and a portion of Cleveland in which I do know of where these changes I mentioned have taken place. I don't know how it can be any made clearer but I will try.

I was giving my opinion as one who lived in Portland for 36 years nothing more nothing less. I answered the question from the perspective of one who lived there for three decades and in my last Portland neighborhood for 25 years before moving to Cleveland Heights last June. From my perspective Portland has torn down buildings "left and right." How can anyone say otherwise when what was once is no more? I don't mean dilapidated old buildings either. I mean buildings that had to be destroyed by virtue of the fact they were simply too small to house tiny apartments in colossal buildings at mega rents.

What's even sadder is the lovely green spaces that were paved over and built upon such as the ones in the older neighborhoods where I used to live. Along with them went the sense of community people felt as they gathered in these areas. This isn't just about buildings. It's about people.

These are not my favorite form of urban planning as the question was asked.

So the second part of my response, the things I liked about what I have seen about urban planning in Cleveland and Cleveland Heights is what I have seen so far and that is success in housing. You can add to that the city of Cleveland's ability to bring some much needed revenue here through sports and events at its convention center.

Just take a look at the Cleveland forum on CD and you will see the many, many people from all over the county congratulating Cleveland on the many great positive changes happening in this city. Sure there is always a lot to be done in any city but things are looking good here and anyone saying otherwise, that there have been no great changes especially if they live here, must have their head in the sand.

That is why I am living where I am living now and am not living where I was living before. To each their own.
Again, you are incorrect. Has there been some old houses torn down in Portland? Yes, are they teeing down old houses left and right? No. There are tons of old neighborhoods filled with old houses and buildings all throughout Portland. Just because a house here and there gets torn down isn't the same as they are being torn down everywhere in the city. If that were true then everyone I know in Portland wouldn't be living in old houses in neighborhoods full of old houses.

I am not sure which Cleveland you are talking about, but the Cleveland I saw was still struggling and dealing with a city that hasn't seen any real economy change since their loss of needed industries. I have yet to hear people call this rust belt city a hot spot to move to, though I am sure there has been renovations here and there that have happened in Cleveland.

Oh and this is a forum so everything is up for debate, if you are just living your opinion, that is fine and I disagree with your opinion about Portland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2014, 08:50 AM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,698 posts, read 23,726,563 times
Reputation: 35455
One more of my favorite urban planning cities is Chicago's lakefront along Lake Shore Drive. Back when it was being developed it was planned so that the land would be used for a beach front and parks for the citizens of Chicago to use and buildings could not be constructed right up to the lake along the drive.

So everyone gets to enjoy these features and the ride along the Drive is a scenic one. The buildings are set back from the land and the beaches can be used by everyone. That property can never be built up or turned into private land for use by only the few who can afford it. It's nice to see a city that has maintained a feature that has lasted over the years for the people to enjoy. Being a tourist attraction doesn't hurt either. People visit Chicago an enjoying the beaches and parks is one of the features that attracts them.

When I lived in Chicago, if I had summeritme visitors, we would always head for the beach and a drive down Lake Shore Drive was a must do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2015, 01:59 PM
 
7 posts, read 9,426 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
Though a suburb, Radburn NJ is good planning for a place you would want to live. It has a commuter train station and is laid out so children can walk to school without crossing a main road. Granted, not practical these days when parents won't let them walk 100 m unsupervised, and of course, no night life.

Not strictly true, for those who live in the Radburn HOA and nearby many kids walk with a sibling or friend. Compared to Letchworth in England, from which Radburn took ideas, it's much better here for the kids.
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