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.
I would say if there is a person (not talking about anyone specifically here!!!) who is lobbying for changes that are going to result in higher taxes, congestion and construction for the next 20 years, they damn well better have credentials. And even then, they will have to understand why some people are still skeptical.
Look at the Big Dig in Boston. Started in the early 80's, supposed to have finished in the late 90's, actually got finished 10 years behind schedule and millions over budget. Someone's credentials didn't mean jack. Only in city planning could a person come in millions over budget and 10 years behind schedule and still have a job. Do that in any other sector and you'll find yourself out of work.
Okay, rather than just cheer on jfre1, I figure I can try to respond here.
I'm beginning to see a picture emerge. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that Yankeerose and katiana don't like change that much. They don't want to see their neighborhoods change, and they perceive the efforts of these "new urbanists" as trying to change how they live their own lives.
So maybe it could be beneficial to explain how the return to cities could actually save the suburbs.
You see, no matter what, there will be changes in the United States over the next 30 years. More people will be born, products will be made, businesses and industries will open and close. These people will have to live somewhere, and the businesses where they work and shop have to go somewhere, and the kids have to go to school somewhere. All of these things take space, and money. Somehow, people have to travel between all these places, and the urban form of these new neighborhoods is determined mostly by the transportation network. If cars are part of the transportation network, more space is required, and the sort of neighborhood where cars can really come into their own requires enormously larger amounts of space--for driving lanes, for parking, for access, etcetera.
And that costs money! Often, it costs lots and lots of money. The "Big Dig" in Boston is not any "urbanist's" idea of a good time: its purpose is primarily to facilitate moving cars in and out of the urban core, to make it easier for suburban commuters to drive to and from work. The highway projects that devastated American cities, the urban renewal projects that destroyed downtown housing, none of them were favors in any ways to the people who lived downtown. They were intended to facilitate the suburbs, at taxpayers' expense.
So maybe that's something Yankeerose and I can agree on: Public works projects to move suburbanites downtown are not all they're cracked up to be!
The other way that Yankeerose and Katiana's future is threatened by the status quo is the inevitable horizontal growth of suburbs. I have already mentioned that I grew up in a suburb. As a kid, there was tract housing around my neighborhood, but you didn't have to bike too far to hit open fields. One of my preferred destinations was biking to a nearby flea market about 5 miles away, next to the railroad tracks. At the time, there was almost nothing built around this flea market--the train tracks, an auction yard, a few low-intensity agricultural uses, and rolling hills as far as the eye can see.
Today, the scene is very different. The flea market is still there, as are the train tracks, but the entire place is built over with tract housing. Instead of fields, farms and foothills, there are cul-de-sacs, with the occasionally interspersed low-slung office park, shopping center, mini storage, gas station, etcetera. Each of course is set behind an immense asphalt moat of a parking lot, including the neighborhood "parks" (bland green lawns with lollipop trees, where open fields and valley oaks stood a few years earlier) and schools and churches. It's a horribly inefficient use of space.
Most of the people in this new suburb don't work anywhere near there. The greatest proportion commutes to my neighborhood, where there are huge numbers of jobs but not very many residents. Public transit is limited to a couple of buses and one train per day, so pretty much everyone drives. It's about 30 minutes drive time: roughly the same as Yankeerose's commute home.
My old neighborhood's fate is probably Yankeerose's neighborhood's future, if suburban sprawl continues unabated. Now she has wide-open spaces, but the creeping suburban crud is heading her way, as long as there are government dollars to pay for expanded highways!
The alternative is to look at ways to build those new neighborhoods in more space-efficient ways, to make better use of the spaces already near cities, and modes of transportation that not only take up less space and can be more cost-effective, but also promote development near them that is more compact while not sacrificing livability or comfort.
And part of it is also intended to repair the damage done to urban neighborhoods. Yes, urban living in a good neighborhood is more expensive--because so few urban neighborhoods were spared the bulldozer, the supply is limited and demand is high. That raises the price. Yes, urban schools often aren't very good--because the middle class were coaxed out of the city center, taking their tax base with them. Yes, city traffic can be a hassle--because the places where people live can be so totally disconnected from where they work, the idea of living and working in the same city (let alone the same neighborhood) seems alien to many people.
The idea is, in the long run, to spend less taxpayer money, not more. To protect existing rural areas from being overrun by development, not turn them into cities. To make life for kids in citiesbetter and safer than they are now. There is no escaping change in the future--but the more we learn from the past, the more we can direct that change.
For the "urbanist" typecasting against me (since apparently we're waiting for more city urchins to arrive) I live in a part of "the city" that didn't exist in 1950 and is suburban in every sense except it is located in a large city's limits; the outward expansion and constant newer/bigger/shinier turned those first couple rings of post-WWII suburbia into yesterday's news. With this track record, should I want to commit to a 30-year mortgage on a house there when what I'm buying into will be changed for the worse within 20 years?
Direct link to what? To a post where I said the author of a book was unqualified to write about the topic? That is allowed here on CD. I was not denigrating the poster. For God's sake, she's a mod herself. I may be crazy (see below), but I"m not stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Okay, rather than just cheer on jfre1, I figure I can try to respond here.
I'm beginning to see a picture emerge. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that Yankeerose and katiana don't like change that much. They don't want to see their neighborhoods change, and they perceive the efforts of these "new urbanists" as trying to change how they live their own lives.
So maybe it could be beneficial to explain how the return to cities could actually save the suburbs.
You see, no matter what, there will be changes in the United States over the next 30 years. More people will be born, products will be made, businesses and industries will open and close. These people will have to live somewhere, and the businesses where they work and shop have to go somewhere, and the kids have to go to school somewhere. All of these things take space, and money. Somehow, people have to travel between all these places, and the urban form of these new neighborhoods is determined mostly by the transportation network. If cars are part of the transportation network, more space is required, and the sort of neighborhood where cars can really come into their own requires enormously larger amounts of space--for driving lanes, for parking, for access, etcetera.
And that costs money! Often, it costs lots and lots of money. The "Big Dig" in Boston is not any "urbanist's" idea of a good time: its purpose is primarily to facilitate moving cars in and out of the urban core, to make it easier for suburban commuters to drive to and from work. The highway projects that devastated American cities, the urban renewal projects that destroyed downtown housing, none of them were favors in any ways to the people who lived downtown. They were intended to facilitate the suburbs, at taxpayers' expense.
So maybe that's something Yankeerose and I can agree on: Public works projects to move suburbanites downtown are not all they're cracked up to be!
The other way that Yankeerose and Katiana's future is threatened by the status quo is the inevitable horizontal growth of suburbs. I have already mentioned that I grew up in a suburb. As a kid, there was tract housing around my neighborhood, but you didn't have to bike too far to hit open fields. One of my preferred destinations was biking to a nearby flea market about 5 miles away, next to the railroad tracks. At the time, there was almost nothing built around this flea market--the train tracks, an auction yard, a few low-intensity agricultural uses, and rolling hills as far as the eye can see.
Today, the scene is very different. The flea market is still there, as are the train tracks, but the entire place is built over with tract housing. Instead of fields, farms and foothills, there are cul-de-sacs, with the occasionally interspersed low-slung office park, shopping center, mini storage, gas station, etcetera. Each of course is set behind an immense asphalt moat of a parking lot, including the neighborhood "parks" (bland green lawns with lollipop trees, where open fields and valley oaks stood a few years earlier) and schools and churches. It's a horribly inefficient use of space.
Most of the people in this new suburb don't work anywhere near there. The greatest proportion commutes to my neighborhood, where there are huge numbers of jobs but not very many residents. Public transit is limited to a couple of buses and one train per day, so pretty much everyone drives. It's about 30 minutes drive time: roughly the same as Yankeerose's commute home.
My old neighborhood's fate is probably Yankeerose's neighborhood's future, if suburban sprawl continues unabated. Now she has wide-open spaces, but the creeping suburban crud is heading her way, as long as there are government dollars to pay for expanded highways!
The alternative is to look at ways to build those new neighborhoods in more space-efficient ways, to make better use of the spaces already near cities, and modes of transportation that not only take up less space and can be more cost-effective, but also promote development near them that is more compact while not sacrificing livability or comfort.
And part of it is also intended to repair the damage done to urban neighborhoods. Yes, urban living in a good neighborhood is more expensive--because so few urban neighborhoods were spared the bulldozer, the supply is limited and demand is high. That raises the price. Yes, urban schools often aren't very good--because the middle class were coaxed out of the city center, taking their tax base with them. Yes, city traffic can be a hassle--because the places where people live can be so totally disconnected from where they work, the idea of living and working in the same city (let alone the same neighborhood) seems alien to many people.
The idea is, in the long run, to spend less taxpayer money, not more. To protect existing rural areas from being overrun by development, not turn them into cities. To make life for kids in citiesbetter and safer than they are now. There is no escaping change in the future--but the more we learn from the past, the more we can direct that change.
Ass*ume away! Are you a shrink now, too?
To cheer on jfre when you should know the quote he posted of mine, supposedly "proving" his point, was a respnse to a book uptown urbanist was touting, not a slam on HER qualifcations.
And for the "urbanist" typecasting against me, I live in a part of "the city" that has been around for over a century, but most folks on the East Coast would call it a suburb, as my street is tree-lined, none of the buildings are taller than 3-4 stories, and we have backyards (albeit small ones.) I'm a homeowner with a backyard garden. I have lived in this neighborhood for over 20 years, and in that time I have seen it go from a place primarily associated with druggies and delinquents to the jewel of the region, a desirable and beautiful place, where decades of effort cleaned up the neighborhood, fixed up our beautiful historic homes, and brought businesses of all sorts. I have been witness to urban repair, watching a neighborhood I felt was charming but neglected turn around. It's more livable and comfortable than it used to be, and I see more families than ever. Having also talked to people who grew up here in the 1920s and 1930s, I know this place was once great for families, and it could certainly be so again. I'm seeing it work before my eyes!
To cheer on jfre when you should know the quote he posted of mine, supposedly "proving" his point, was a respnse to a book uptown urbanist was touting, not a slam on HER qualifcations.
Well, as you are aware, I used to be a social worker who worked with the mentally ill--so I did gain certain skills in dealing with the mentally unstable, yes.
Well, I didn't get my LCSW or anything, which is why I'm not charging you $80 an hour.
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.
