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.
People can move here if they want, but most of them can't stay without employment. If there weren't jobs o be had, then people wouldn't move here. So it seems to me that the only way to slow down the growth is to make it more difficult or expensive for companies to do business here. So should the government discourage companies from moving here? Or somehow sabotage local companies so that they won't be as succesful and won't be able to afford to hire new people? Or is there another, saner option I don't know about?
The solution does not lie in eliminating jobs. That's asinine.
There needs to be a better solution towards "smart" growth. European and Asian metro areas would set a tremendous example. As they tend to be very dense and livable at the same time by implementing positive efforts towards maintaining quality of life, efficient mass transit and environmentally friendly building structures.
Not to mention the fact that Raleigh needs a "full time" mayor's seat and city counsel.
Encourage concentration of both residences and businesses so public transit would work.
When you say "encourage", what do you have in mind? Do you think that maybe the government should give builders a financial incentive to build up and tack on additional fees to those who build out?
Of course, this won't encourage growth to slow down. It will simply put some of the growth in a different direction. Does anyone have any ideas on how to get the growth to slow down?
People can move here if they want, but most of them can't stay without employment. If there weren't jobs o be had, then people wouldn't move here. So it seems to me that the only way to slow down the growth is to make it more difficult or expensive for companies to do business here. So should the government discourage companies from moving here? Or somehow sabotage local companies so that they won't be as succesful and won't be able to afford to hire new people? Or is there another, saner option I don't know about?
You are not being serious here I hope New job opportunities implies a strong local economy which shouldn't hurt in the long run.
But I have to agree that this is probably the most effective (albeit contrived) way to stop the influx.
Have heard about Triangle conservation group on the radio which has been fighting to conserve greenery for many years. May be we should all support that to fight for a more controlled sprawl since their voice will probably be better heard by the builders and town planners than puny individuals like us.
When you say "encourage", what do you have in mind? Do you think that maybe the government should give builders a financial incentive to build up and tack on additional fees to those who build out?
Of course, this won't encourage growth to slow down. It will simply put some of the growth in a different direction. Does anyone have any ideas on how to get the growth to slow down?
The idea is not to slow the pace of growth, but steer it in a more positive direction. The Triangles growth is the driving economic stimulus for this area.
The local Gov't IMO opinion is set up very sloppy. There needs to be more cohesiveness about what the Triangle envisions itself to be.... That does not include making it off limits for people who want to enjoy this area as well.
You are not being serious here I hope New job opportunities implies a strong local economy which shouldn't hurt in the long run.
But I have to agree that this is probably the most effective (albeit contrived) way to stop the influx.
Have heard about Triangle conservation group on the radio which has been fighting to conserve greenery for many years. May be we should all support that to fight for a more controlled sprawl since their voice will probably be better heard by the builders and town planners than puny individuals like us.
The solution does not lie in eliminating jobs. That's asinine.
There needs to be a better solution towards "smart" growth. European and Asian metro areas would set a tremendous example. As they tend to be very dense and livable at the same time by implementing positive efforts towards maintaining quality of life, efficient mass transit and environmentally friendly building structures.
Not to mention the fact that Raleigh needs a "full time" mayor's seat and city counsel.
I don't mean to come off as asinine or insulting. Honest. I was just trying to explain the only things I can think of that might slow down population growth. I would really love to hear other ideas. Truly!
As for European and Asian metro areas ...
Well, some of them are more concentrated because of topography. Bodies of water or steep hills result in less land that can easily be built upon. Another reason why many cities in Europe are so concentrated is because they are very very old. Much of these cities were well established long before the automobile gained such popularity. They were built with pedestrians in mind (and public transport was developed to accomodate those pedestrians). Even so, sprawl certainly exists there. I have many family members who love in London. The places where they live were once small villages that were considered outside of town, but over time they were absorbed by the big city.
The Triangle is located on fairly flat land, so it's cheap and easy for builders to build out. If you don't want sprawl, you have to find a way to reverse that. The good news is that there are people working hard to make downtown Raleigh and Durham more attractive places to live. Older buildings aare being rennovated and turned into condos and apartments. New skyscrapers are in the works. People are working on this. But it takes time.
I hate to say it, but I think this region is pretty much destined to experience sprawl because there is not one, central, hub city for the region. Instead, we have multiple employment centers: Raleigh, and Durham and Cary and Chapel Hill and, of course, RTP. It makes sense for the cities to spread and grow to fill in the gaps between them. I'm not saying it's right or that it's good for the environment. I'm just saying that the sprawl we're seeing is far from unique to this region and that I think the very size of the Triangle actually encourages sprawl.
As long as you have people who are willing to have hellish commutes just to end up with some land (the types who complain of "postage stamp size lots" near jobs) or save a few bucks ("look how much I can get for my money by living in <insert the next town to get overrun>"), you are going to have sprawl. There are no natural barriers around here. The best we've got are some man made lakes and running into the next metro area.
One thing that should be done is to open up more land for and encourage residential/shopping/dining developement in RTP itself, such as Davis Park. The more you can keep the employees of these companies in the park, rather than commuting, the better it will be for everyone.
Another is to encourage more development similar to the Davis Drive & High House sections of Cary. I live in Stone Creek Village and I love it. On weekends, I can stay in my own area. Once all four corners are completed, I may never have to leave. There are a lot of people that live in this area and they have a lot of money. If they can stay here and spend it, they won't be on the road to Soutpoint, Crabtree, North Hills or anyhwere else.
Again, it is about smart growth. Slow growth is not smart. Smart growth is mandating certain types of development in certain areas.
I don't mean to come off as asinine or insulting. Honest. I was just trying to explain the only things I can think of that might slow down population growth. I would really love to hear other ideas. Truly!
I took his comments more along the lines of him acknowledging the idea as "not sane" (like you had started out with). No more.
Quote:
As for European and Asian metro areas ...
Well, some of them are more concentrated because of topography. Bodies of water or steep hills result in less land that can easily be built upon. Another reason why many cities in Europe are so concentrated is because they are very very old. Much of these cities were well established long before the automobile gained such popularity. They were built with pedestrians in mind (and public transport was developed to accomodate those pedestrians). Even so, sprawl certainly exists there. I have many family members who love in London. The places where they live were once small villages that were considered outside of town, but over time they were absorbed by the big city.
The effects of spreading out can be mitigated if we were to be proactive at going after mass transit. Yes - European cities tend to be "tighter" or more bunched together, but they can afford to be because they have a working transit system, that by far and large obviates the need for every day use of a car. Paris is smaller than Cary footprint-wise, and yet it manages to accomodate 20 to 30 times the population because of an efficient, cheap, reliable and well planned-out rail system. You wouldn't need a bigger beltline if 50% of the population were taking a train to work.
They also didn't wait for the whole place to be built up to start putting in a transit system. That alone is "asinine", which is why I think it's crazy that the city council wants to wait until the area is built up to put the transit system infrastructure in place.
Interestingly enough, building it now is also a way to steer/shape the growth: mass transit attracts growth. I mean - in a house you build the framework first, and then you put in the plumbing, the walls, etc... It would make sense to treat the region the same way: put the infrastructre in place, and grow around the infracture you've built.
Paris had a huge population well before rail. People lived close together because you had to walk everywhere.
Can anyone point to a modern US city, without a natural boundary, that has seen the vast bulk of its growth since the car became ubiquitous, that is a model for what they'd like this area to be in terms of transit? Especially when you consider the unique nature of the RTP in pulling people out of the city to the jobs?
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.
New job opportunities implies a strong local economy which shouldn't hurt in the long run. 
