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.
It would be easy to see how the desirable features of an area could be obliterated as the population grows.
I can see a role for urban planning in the preservation of such. For example, historical preservation.
In the case of Seattle I would like to see the preservation of neighborhoods of Single Family Homes/with yards. With a growing population, I would consider urbanizing certain parts of the city, concentrating the extra population into dense areas.
And what you end up with is the Bay Area. Can't build out because you need density. Can't build up because you'd step on a NIMBY.
People vote with their feet and wallets. Developers have a huge incentive to get it right...if they don't, they won't lease their apartments/offices/retail at decent rates.
I'm talking about how things actually work. You're theorizing from a couch.
Delusions and wishful thinking aren't reality.
You've already resigned yourself to being a renter instead of an owner.
You've completely passed over the concept of purchasing a property.
The developer is usually only concerned with initial sale and exit. Once the property is sold the resale isn't the developer's problem so the incentive you refer to isn't really there.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 06-26-2016 at 09:54 PM..
One side-effect that's perhaps beneficial to people who hate the idea of free choice is the rise in litigation and bureaucratic red tape. The exponential increase in litigation in the last 15 years or so has really stymied expansion of the UGB. Take one of the huge expansions to Damascus which occurred 14 years ago. While it's inside the UGB, you still can't develop anything there. The city is too dysfunctional to put together a growth management plan and without a growth management plan you can't have development. So they just spent hundreds of millions of dollars putting in new roads and schools and utilities to the 17,000+ acre UGB expansion in 2002 and there's been little development in any of that area, particular Damascus. It's not entirely surprising as uh, Damascus is in the middle of nowhere. The only reason it was added was because the land is to useless to grow anything on. In other places litigation has stopped planned development. Woodburn (also in the middle of nowhere but where there's actually demand) has been fighting to get an expansion area for 10 years in court. I guess they can just go up to Lake Oswego and commute down to save the environment.
One could fit more than 60% of Syracuse into the Damascus expansion.
I had a bunch of posts multi-quoted, but I really don't want to post a wall of text. I'll highlight a few things I agree (blue)/disagree (green) with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Red Road
Agreed.The Urban elitism on City Data can be nauseating at times.
I understand the appeal to urban living, but there's nothing enlightened or altruistic about living in a downtown condo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz
It really sounds like you have a complex against pro-urbanists which is bizarre given that this is a forum intended for city enthusiasts. You are free to believe cities like Houston are ideal. This is clearly a minority opinion on a forum intended for those interested in city planning.
As for the whole "Brexit" thing, this is the second time you've mentioned it in this thread. I don't see the relevance.
All forums on CD are open to anyone. This forum is specifically for people interested in urban issues, but they don't have to buy into the whole "New Urbanism" shtick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature
It's so amusing to see you try to simultaneously argue that planners shouldn't be telling people what to do with their property but then when it comes to parking suddenly giving people mandates is "legitimate." You're no different than the "urbanists" you decry. Every planner has some excuse to justify telling others how to live their lives - some urbanists' excuse might be "the environment," yours is "congestion." Your opinion that government should force mandates onto other's property in the name of preventing "congestion" is just you trying to force your opinion onto others. Some of us LIKE the density you consider "congestion" - that's why people pay millions of dollars for property in places like Manhattan. If you don't want to live in a busy, dense area, simple answer is don't live there, rather than forcing your preferences onto others through mandates set down by planners.
You'd be more convincing if you weren't constantly making fun of posters you disagree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
And you'd rather tell people what they "should" want? Urban cores are booming (and building less parking) because that's what people and employers want, and are paying for.
I don't see any evidence for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
"urban planners" in this forum aren't "responding" to density. Instead they promote it and malign anything else as "sprawl" or anyone that lives in something other than high density as irresponsible, wasteful, or immoral. Look at mr holier than thou below.
There is nothing special about living within the geopolitical boundaries of a city. Population increase tends to take care of itself over time. Most of the urban planning proposal lead only to more expensive costs of living. Basic economics will cause people who work to exit the area solving the "problem" you were trying to create.
The forests, farms, and land in general aren't community property in this country buddy. More lofty ideas about how other people should live and what they should be allowed to do on their property? The moral superiority approach carries no weight. If you want to control it then maybe you should consider paying for it first. The "sustainability" green mask is off. Brexit.
Most of the "urban planners" on this forum are nothing of the kind. I have an idea what a few of them do for a living; there are very few who actually work as urban planners. I too find the moral superiority attitude, assumptions of altruism, and enlightenment very annoying.
Most of the "urban planners" on this forum are nothing of the kind. I have an idea what a few of them do for a living; there are very few who actually work as urban planners. I too find the moral superiority attitude, assumptions of altruism, and enlightenment very annoying.
Apply assumptions cautiously. I've worked for two different city planning agencies.
You don't see evidence that people are making choices about where they live? And picking one building out of hundreds based upon its characteristics and location?
Apply assumptions cautiously. I've worked for two different city planning agencies.
Good for you. I said "most" posters, not all. We have some engineers here, someone who works for a labor union and some other posters whose occupations I am unaware of on the "Big Urbanism" side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
You don't see evidence that people are making choices about where they live? And picking one building out of hundreds based upon its characteristics and location?
Of course people make choices. But they make choices based on what's available that they can afford at the time they are looking.
I'll tell you about my daughter, if you promise not to trash her like some others on here have done in the past.
She and her partner were renting this dump in St. Paul, MN. The landlord told them they had to be out by June 30 as he is selling the building. Her priorities-air conditioning (Mpls/SP is hot and humid in the summer, and her partner works at home); dishwasher and laundry facilities in the apt. They looked a long time to find something that had all that. At one point she said to me, "Maybe I'm being too picky". I said, "No, you have to live in it; it better be what you want".
My metro has at least 10,000 vacant apartments. Your and MSP probably have a similar number. People can choose from 10,000 options, or maybe the 5,000 they can afford.
Their actions are pretty closely reported in the aggregate. Do they rent units in central locations and pay high prices for them? Of course, in droves. Do they rent cheaper units too? Of course, but they won't pay more for them...hence their cheapness. People are paying large rents for units that don't have parking.
In fact, this is directly related to development economics. If digging that additional level downward for additional parking was worth it in future rents, developers would do it. But in building hundreds of local buildings, they've found that demand either wasn't there for that parking, or wasn't there to the extent that it paid for itself in terms of rents.
That's true with $2,500 one-bedrooms, and it's true with $900 micro units the size of hotel rooms. True micros are extremely hard to pencil out with parking. You'd need to charge hundreds more per month just with construction costs. And the site geometry might limit a site to a fraction of the number of units due to parking demands.
My metro has at least 10,000 vacant apartments. Your and MSP probably have a similar number. People can choose from 10,000 options, or maybe the 5,000 they can afford.
Their actions are pretty closely reported in the aggregate. Do they rent units in central locations and pay high prices for them? Of course, in droves. Do they rent cheaper units too? Of course, but they won't pay more for them...hence their cheapness. People are paying large rents for units that don't have parking.
In fact, this is directly related to development economics. If digging that additional level downward for additional parking was worth it in future rents, developers would do it. But in building hundreds of local buildings, they've found that demand either wasn't there for that parking, or wasn't there to the extent that it paid for itself in terms of rents.
That's true with $2,500 one-bedrooms, and it's true with $900 micro units the size of hotel rooms. True micros are extremely hard to pencil out with parking. You'd need to charge hundreds more per month just with construction costs. And the site geometry might limit a site to a fraction of the number of units due to parking demands.
They had a certain amount of time and wanted certain things. That's what they went looking for. And that's what they rented. As far as "(a)nd picking one building out of hundreds based upon its characteristics and location?", well, no. Characteristics, yes, did it have what they wanted at a price they could afford? Location, not so much. Hundreds? I don't think so. The vacancy rate in M/SP is 2.3%. They didn't have unlimited time to look. They had to take what was on the market when they were looking. Didn't know we were still talking about parking.
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.
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.
The Urban elitism on City Data can be nauseating at times. 
