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.
"If you follow urban issues in the press, you might be forgiven for thinking there are only three cities in America, San Francisco, New York and Portland. All three are victims of their own success as rising demand for housing has pushed rents to unsustainable levels. Despite their best efforts, from rent control to doublespeak "inclusionary zoning" mandates, middle and lower-income households are increasingly forced to leave these cities as each progressively transforms into a playground of the rich. Yet there is a fourth city, which must not be named except to be derided as a sprawling, surburban hellscape. This fourth city has managed to balance a booming economy, explosive population growth and affordable housing. This city has-as cities have for thousands of years-steadily grown denser, more walkable and more attractive to low-income migrants seeking opportunity. This city is Houston, and its well past time for her to come out of the shadows...."
West Coast cities save for LA are tucked in geographically limited land areas. Given the natural geography, these cities need planning in order to even function. Houston, on the other hand, has vast miles of flatness. Also, it's potentially negligent to condone wasteful land uses. Cities like Seattle and San Francisco have comprehensive planning to plan for population growth within the next 25+ years. Such planning takes into account resources, green space, transit, where to focus the burdens of higher population, etc. Encouraging local governments to not engage in comprehensive and mindful planning is governmental negligence.
West Coast cities save for LA are tucked in geographically limited land areas. Given the natural geography, these cities need planning in order to even function. Houston, on the other hand, has vast miles of flatness. Also, it's potentially negligent to condone wasteful land uses. Cities like Seattle and San Francisco have comprehensive planning to plan for population growth within the next 25+ years. Such planning takes into account resources, green space, transit, where to focus the burdens of higher population, etc. Encouraging local governments to not engage in comprehensive and mindful planning is governmental negligence.
Portland's "geographically limited land area" is artificial and primarily serves the interests of existing property owners. As far as the other unnamed cities referenced, "these cities need planning in order to even function" is specious when used for the proposition that cities that don't adhere to your beliefs for crowding, increased density, etc. should be maligned. Identify one of the cities you haven't named and explain what that city has done any differently - and by the way people aren't obligated to live or expand within some city boundary to begin with. Brexit shows that the actual people get fed up with lofty ideas from people issuing mandates from distant ivory towers as to how the populace should live.
The "don't try" is obviously the best advice and the only ones decrying this are the "urban planners".
No, it preserves farms and forests, and avoids the need to build roads and utilities out into the sticks. Growth management is what you do when things other than your personal square footage matter.
Portland's "geographically limited land area" is artificial and primarily serves the interests of existing property owners. As far as the other unnamed cities referenced, "these cities need planning in order to even function" is specious when used for the proposition that cities that don't adhere to your beliefs for crowding, increased density, etc. should be maligned. Identify one of the cities you haven't named and explain what that city has done any differently - and by the way people aren't obligated to live or expand within some city boundary to begin with. Brexit shows that the actual people get fed up with lofty ideas from people issuing mandates from distant ivory towers as to how the populace should live.
The "don't try" is obviously the best advice and the only ones decrying this are the "urban planners".
What exactly is your alternative for Seattle or SF to handle the huge demand to live here and the massive influx of transplants? Population increase is a constant variable that demands consideration. Neither city has available land to develop outwards, so developing within current urban boundaries is the rational solution. As such, putting thought into how to incorporate that increase in population is suggested.
Your idea that urban planners are responsible for incensed density is without merit. Urban planners are responding to circumstance, not themselves the cause of them.
There's a huge amount of demand for higher-density neighborhoods. It's also generally cheaper in terms of public dollars (and personal dollars) when people can walk to work or use transit vs. needing new highways. So planners (and the politicians who lead them) are right in making higher densities possible especially in urban cores.
What exactly is your alternative for Seattle or SF to handle the huge demand to live here and the massive influx of transplants? Population increase is a constant variable that demands consideration. Neither city has available land to develop outwards, so developing within current urban boundaries is the rational solution. As such, putting thought into how to incorporate that increase in population is suggested.
Your idea that urban planners are responsible for incensed density is without merit. Urban planners are responding to circumstance, not themselves the cause of them.
"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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
No, it preserves farms and forests, and avoids the need to build roads and utilities out into the sticks. Growth management is what you do when things other than your personal square footage matter.
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.
There's a huge amount of demand for higher-density neighborhoods. It's also generally cheaper in terms of public dollars (and personal dollars) when people can walk to work or use transit vs. needing new highways. So planners (and the politicians who lead them) are right in making higher densities possible especially in urban cores.
Actually they try turning things into "urban cores" and most are irrationally focused on having a "central core" which is not particularly useful in a modern world. The method promoted for "making higher densities possible" is not "making ... possible" but rather trying to force an outcome by eliminating garages, eliminating parking, making roads too narrow, converting them to tollroads, and pushing congestion in general.
"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.
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.
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. 
