Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 07-11-2011, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C.
13,713 posts, read 15,659,858 times
Reputation: 4063

Advertisements

Most incorporated cities have their own mayor and city council. They pay city taxes and maintain their own municipality. Should they be limited in growth for their municipality? How can you tell a city how much density they can add in their own borders? Should the principal city in a major metro area be the only city that can grow at unrestricted levels or should every municipality be able to grow their tax base as they please?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-11-2011, 07:58 PM
 
1,953 posts, read 3,867,004 times
Reputation: 1101
The key issue with home rule is that you have one tiny municipality competing with the next one over for businesses, rather than the whole region presenting an united strategy against a competing region in a different part of the country, or a different country altogether. Zoning on a regional level, like at the county level as is done for the most part in Maryland, may lead to more short-term complaints, but is a smart way of achieving sustainable long-term growth.

The 21st-century model for regional growth seems to be a dense, vibrant core with good transportation links to some dense outlying minor cities. Restricting growth in most low-density suburban areas would allow this model to reach its full potential, by providing incentives for businesses to move to these key dense areas.

On the other hand, the economy blows right now, so we should probably just encourage growth anywhere we can get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2011, 11:29 PM
 
8,680 posts, read 17,234,581 times
Reputation: 4685
Most principal cities in major metro areas can't grow much, or at all, because they are completely surrounded by already-incorporated municipalities or built-out suburban areas. So they cannot grow at unrestricted levels. Outlying cities in a metro area with lots of undeveloped land can turn that land into more suburbs if they can expand the transportation network, and often there are public funds (like highway funds) to construct them. But these cities are then left with the responsibility of ongoing maintenance of the transit system. Over the long term, the overhead of dealing with a far-flung transportation network outstrips the ability of low-density suburban neighborhoods' tax base. The end result is big fiscal problems for unincorporated areas (or incorporated cities) who figured that the only commercial district they would ever need is a shopping mall, and whose residents primarily work in adjacent major cities or "edge cities" in the metro area.

Regional planning, and in some ways smart growth, are based around the idea that long-term, large-scale development should be done on a regional basis, rather than having each city in a metro area attempting to poach businesses from each other or engage in a "race to the bottom" to see who can provide the fewest services to needy populations (which sends those populations to the larger metro areas that can't avoid providing those services, who then become overtaxed.)

Portland is typically hauled out as a good example of regional planning--their urban boundary was enacted at the state level. The idea is to focus growth inward--instead of unlimited horizontal growth, some of the growth has to focus upward, increasing average density and resulting in less need for new outward-focused infrastructure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2011, 12:18 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C.
13,713 posts, read 15,659,858 times
Reputation: 4063
I'm speaking more in terms of infill development in suburban cities. Increased city density to 8,000 or more per square mile etc. Many people think that growth should be mainly in the principal city even if that suburb is building in city limits with very high density infill development. I'm sure this is happening everywhere between suburbs and main cities. I know there is a rift between some people in the DC area that don't agree with the amount of development planned in Gaithersburg for instance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2011, 07:11 AM
 
Location: Centre Wellington, ON
5,805 posts, read 6,010,759 times
Reputation: 3125
Toronto has some regional planning going on, which was directed by the provincial government.

There is the Greenbelt Act, which created a wide belt of land around the Metropolitan area in which no new subdivisions can be built. It's purpose is to protect agricultural land and environmentally sensitive areas. While there are still lands that could be developed as new subdivisions on the edge of suburbs, many suburbs will have to grow inwards sooner than they otherwise would have.

Then there is Places to Grow. It doesn't dictate how much growth the suburbs can have. It requires all municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe to have 40% of their population growth within their current built area. This includes cities that aren't Toronto suburbs like Barrie, Peterborough, St Catharines, Kitchener-Waterloo and Brantford too.

There is also a plan to focus growth in multiple secondary hubs which should have minimum amounts of residents and jobs per hectare. Aside from Downtown Toronto, there are 4 such hubs within Toronto city limits, which would have minimum residents+jobs of 400 per hectare (about 100,000 per square mile), and I think 20 hubs in the suburbs and surrounding cities with minimum density of 150-200 per hectare. Most of these hubs would have overall populations (residents+jobs) of 20,000-50,000, although Downtown Mississauga would have 100,000. Some of them already act as hubs, some are planned redevelopment sites. All of them will be services by regional or rapid service, and most are at the intersection of multiple lines.

There is also the Ontario Municipal Board. They are involved in reviewing development proposals. Generally, they are favourable to high density (especially high rise) development, and some people think they pander too much to condo developers.

There is also Metrolinx which oversees transportation across the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

Anyways, I think suburban cities should definitely be allowed to grow inwards. Some of them need to in order to survive. For example, Mississauga, which has basically run out of land now needs to reinvent itself and become more urban. Besides, in most cases the inward growth should be greater in the central cities, since they typically have better public transportation and give it's residents the chance to be closer to downtown.

If you don't allow a certain number of jobs and density in the suburbs, they will just have to remain car-oriented bedroom communities that will cause tons of traffic in the central city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2011, 07:22 AM
 
Location: Centre Wellington, ON
5,805 posts, read 6,010,759 times
Reputation: 3125
Merging the suburbs into the cities certainly has it's downsides. The city of Toronto merged with five surrounding municipalities (suburbs) in 1998. That caused the city's population to increase from around 650,000 to 2,400,000.

Now many the people who live in the area of the old city of Toronto are complaining about how the former suburbs helped elect a mayor that cares only about preserving lanes for cars, building unneeded subways into the suburbs, privatizing everything and unwillingness to invest in improving the downtown area. Several are unhappy that he cancelled several proposed LRT lines and wants to get rid of bike lanes and streetcar lines.

Meanwhile, the residents of the former suburbs are suffering the consequences of inheriting Toronto's high business taxes that are driving new offices into the suburbs outside Toronto's new city limits. Downtown Toronto has the advantage of being a transportation hub, and at the center of it all, so it can still bring in new office space despite the taxes, but the activity centres in the former suburbs are struggling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2011, 07:28 AM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,868 posts, read 12,526,733 times
Reputation: 2604
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar View Post
. Many people think that growth should be mainly in the principal city even if that suburb is building in city limits with very high density infill development. I'm sure this is happening everywhere between suburbs and main cities. I know there is a rift between some people in the DC area that don't agree with the amount of development planned in Gaithersburg for instance.
are these actually serious people in the regional debate, or just CD posters?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2011, 09:29 AM
 
8,680 posts, read 17,234,581 times
Reputation: 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar View Post
I'm speaking more in terms of infill development in suburban cities. Increased city density to 8,000 or more per square mile etc. Many people think that growth should be mainly in the principal city even if that suburb is building in city limits with very high density infill development. I'm sure this is happening everywhere between suburbs and main cities. I know there is a rift between some people in the DC area that don't agree with the amount of development planned in Gaithersburg for instance.
Who thinks growth should mainly be in the principal city? An urban growth boundary around a metro area promotes infill both in the principal city and surrounding cities--the idea is to stop horizontal greenfield expansion and promote infill, not the other way around. Suburbs tend to be most resistant to dense building, or they consider "high density" to be anything denser than quarter-acre lots or two-story office "parks." 8000 people per square mile works out to 12.5 people per acre, or only about 5-6 residential units per acre--not exactly "high density" unless you're used to multi-acre lots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2011, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C.
13,713 posts, read 15,659,858 times
Reputation: 4063
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Who thinks growth should mainly be in the principal city? An urban growth boundary around a metro area promotes infill both in the principal city and surrounding cities--the idea is to stop horizontal greenfield expansion and promote infill, not the other way around. Suburbs tend to be most resistant to dense building, or they consider "high density" to be anything denser than quarter-acre lots or two-story office "parks." 8000 people per square mile works out to 12.5 people per acre, or only about 5-6 residential units per acre--not exactly "high density" unless you're used to multi-acre lots.
Well actually its some urban planners that feel developments like "Science City" being built in Gaithersburg should be built closer to DC. They feel that the planned 57,000 jobs and 9,000 additional housing units mainly highrise should not be built in Gaithersburg which is 20 miles from DC.

As for density, Gaithersburg is already one of the densest incorporated cities in the metro area. It has a population of 60,000 in 10.2 square miles. The population is expected to rise to 90,000 without annexation by 2030 with multiple new urbansim developments already underconstruction. The density is predicted to be over 8,000 people per square mile in the city which many urban planners aren't happy about. They want that type of growth only in DC and edge cities. The thing is, Gaithersburg is getting its own lightrail through the city with 8 stops planned. The city is not a bedroom community.

I could understand if it was an infrastructure problem but its not. From a transit perspective Gaithersburg will have:

8 Lightrail stops connecting to Metro at shady grove
3 Commuter Rail stops
4 BRT routes
13 bus routes

Last edited by MDAllstar; 07-12-2011 at 01:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-12-2011, 01:51 PM
 
8,680 posts, read 17,234,581 times
Reputation: 4685
Okay, in other words, what you're talking about is an "edge city" if the jobs:resident balance is any indication. Is this being done in conjunction with a regional planning agency? Is there a regional plan? What are the projected effects of the project on the DC core? is it expected to steal existing jobs from DC proper? If so, I can see why they might be worried about it.

60,000 in 10.2 square miles is a touch less than 6000 people per square mile...I wouldn't call that particularly dense, nor 8000.

Who are these "some urban planners" and "many urban planners" you keep talking about? Or are they a secret shadow cabal of Urban Planners Who Shall Not Be Named?
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top