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 07-27-2015, 07:02 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,098,416 times
Reputation: 12647

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Cool, I have never been to Sacramento, so I couldn't tell you anything about it density or how suburban or urban the city and metro was. I guess if you are claiming where you live looks the same as Sellwood, then maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong, I couldn't tell you....density numbers alone don't tell you much about the look and design of an area.

You seem to be the only one going on about density levels, I never brought that up.....so, I am not sure what you are trying to prove....that where you live is somehow dense or something? I guess in just density numbers, where you live is identical to Sellwood....
Difference of understanding of what the term means, I suppose. Sprawl to me means takes up room. I have no interest in the preference arguments of one type or another. If two areas take up the same room (not as simple as population density as one needs to consider nonresidential) they are equally sprawling. Of course, sprawl has the preference connotation too which I disregard. Depending how you weigh them, something that takes up more room could be less sprawling because it's less "ungainly." Not an argument I like. From there you get a slippery slope. Maybe someone has such a strong preference for El Dorado Hills (or Battle Ground, WA) such that to them it's less sprawling than Sellwood. You can't say they're wrong as it's just based on their preference to the point where objectivity is largely ignored.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2015, 07:11 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,544,210 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Difference of understanding of what the term means, I suppose. Sprawl to me means takes up room. I have no interest in the preference arguments of one type or another. If two areas take up the same room (not as simple as population density as one needs to consider nonresidential) they are equally sprawling. Of course, sprawl has the preference connotation too which I disregard. Depending how you weigh them, something that takes up more room could be less sprawling because it's less "ungainly." Not an argument I like. From there you get a slippery slope. Maybe someone has such a strong preference for El Dorado Hills (or Battle Ground, WA) such that to them it's less sprawling than Sellwood. You can't say they're wrong as it's just based on their preference to the point where objectivity is largely ignored.
When I use the term "sprawl" it means what can be found where I grew up, this looks nothing like Sellwood, this is what I think of when I hear the term "sprawl."

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8093.../data=!3m1!1e3

Usually the term "sprawl means stretching outward, Sellwood is a small contained neighborhood within an urban city...not something one would consider "sprawl."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2015, 08:56 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,083,292 times
Reputation: 1208
FWIW, Yesterday I read in NY Times that many NYer couples are getting large 1 Not sure how practical it would be when they're school age, or if it's more than one child, though.

Right now I'm musing buying an "uptown" Miami Beach (North Beach) 2 br condo with parking because it's getting close to the time to consider children. If I did need a house later on, I could of course let someone rent the condo (well, unless sea level rise gets it...). The other alternative for me would be one of those older, smaller houses within a 10 minute bike ride of the planned future commuter rail line.

Perhaps many millennials currently living in the City will eventually end up in houses in the 'burbs, but many of us might look more carefully at alternative transportation options if it's at all financially feasible, rather than just considering the house itself and "driving until you qualify."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2015, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,098,416 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
When I use the term "sprawl" it means what can be found where I grew up, this looks nothing like Sellwood, this is what I think of when I hear the term "sprawl."

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8093.../data=!3m1!1e3

Usually the term "sprawl means stretching outward, Sellwood is a small contained neighborhood within an urban city...not something one would consider "sprawl."
Well, then again so is Pocket. By geography and urban form it's likewise "contained" in that sense that there's limited ingress/egress routes. Mountain House, CA, would be even more "contained." Difference is in Mountain House you have to go to Tracy to go grocery shopping. In Pocket you've got pretty much everything except perhaps a movie theater (grocery stores, schools, parks, shopping, gym, restaurants, church -- little need to leave the Pocket for your daily needs). Maybe Sellwood is really different than that and it's got the one thing that Pocket doesn't have: jobs. Most people in the Pocket work downtown. Much like Park Slope, it functions nothing like a contained neighborhood.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2015, 11:49 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,544,210 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Well, then again so is Pocket. By geography and urban form it's likewise "contained" in that sense that there's limited ingress/egress routes. Mountain House, CA, would be even more "contained." Difference is in Mountain House you have to go to Tracy to go grocery shopping. In Pocket you've got pretty much everything except perhaps a movie theater (grocery stores, schools, parks, shopping, gym, restaurants, church -- little need to leave the Pocket for your daily needs). Maybe Sellwood is really different than that and it's got the one thing that Pocket doesn't have: jobs. Most people in the Pocket work downtown. Much like Park Slope, it functions nothing like a contained neighborhood.
If you wish to learn more about Sellwood, that is great, though I am not sure the point of this post is....it is a city neighborhood, shops, grocery stores, day to day needs, jobs, housing. It is a very bikeable and walkable area, it is extremely easy to get around the entire Sellwood neighborhood without a car. Not sure the point about Park Slope, I knew plenty of people there who worked in Park Slope. Though just like many neighborhoods in NYC, people also commuted for work to all over the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2015, 11:58 PM
 
2,485 posts, read 1,847,537 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Well younger families are having less kids these days, so the need to have a place for several children is no longer as in high demand as before. Granted, there will always be people looking for more space and that suburban lifestyle.
Younger families are having fewer kids? You mean just white people? Lots of young people of color and immigrants are having just as many kids. And they are going to be a larger percentage of the population
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2015, 12:18 AM
 
2,485 posts, read 1,847,537 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Do you have any censusdata to support that?

I think the actual census data is saying most suburbs are becoming increasingly minority.
I had to laugh when I saw that post. Minorities are overwhelmingly last prospers that whites in this country and they can't afford urban areas the way that's why it's Kim. Today the whole new urbanism is driven by white people of middle-class and above status. In fact a lot of people presume whiteness when they talk about the young.

The senses that shows that suburbs are becoming more diverse. In fact, a lot of suburbs in this country have developed their own ethnic communities and businesses. There are new Chinatown's in the suburbs. In LA, there are lots of these ethic suburbs. I live in a suburb of a major city and this place is not getting any whiter. By contrast is the course cities where Starbucks is replacing that make shops. The whole move back to the cities is his subways a reverse white flight
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2015, 06:42 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,544,210 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress View Post
Younger families are having fewer kids? You mean just white people? Lots of young people of color and immigrants are having just as many kids. And they are going to be a larger percentage of the population
No, it was just a general statement, though there is nothing wrong with minorities having a larger percentage of the population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2015, 07:45 AM
 
2,825 posts, read 3,353,316 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
No, it was just a general statement, though there is nothing wrong with minorities having a larger percentage of the population.
It changes who is a minority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2015, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,439 posts, read 11,941,006 times
Reputation: 10547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress View Post
Younger families are having fewer kids? You mean just white people? Lots of young people of color and immigrants are having just as many kids. And they are going to be a larger percentage of the population
This just isn't true. According to the latest census data, the fertility rate for the last 12 months was as follows:

Non-Hispanic White - 49 per 1,000 (0.49%)
Black - 58 per 1,000 (0.58%)
Asian - 59 per 1,000 (0.59%)
Native American - 68 per 1,000 (0.68%)
Latino - 69 per 1,000 (0.69%)

The gap between Non-Hispanic White and Latino fertility is only around 41%. The gap between other races is smaller. My understanding is that all racial groups have shown declining fertility as well, although the gap has been relatively constant. Black, Latino, and Asian families are getting smaller as well basically. The same is seen with traditionally high-birthrate white groups like Mormons - family sizes remain larger than the norm, but are smaller than in their parents generation.
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