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.
To an Urbanite a new Condo Tower on a vacant or low-intensity lot, for example, means the possibility of more goods and services nearby, more lively streets, more of the stuff that urbanites like to do with few none of the negative externalities. More people doesn't necessarily mean more cars in a dense walkable city - it means more people on the sidewalks. If frequently means a blighted area or block is turned into something vibrant. Even when it does increase traffic, it's never that bad because a well planned grid is effective at disbursing traffic. The more people the more likely there will be to get more transit options as well.
To an Suburbanite a new subdivision just down the freeway has all the negative impacts (all traffic feeds onto the same roads). New subdivisions are almost always build on greenfields - replacing country with sprawl. A new subdivision mean mean a new grocery store or shopping center, but the chances that it would be walkable or nearby are infinitely small and anyway, each new business increases already congested roads.
Just occurs to me why the discussions on density create such diametrically opposed views. If you live in a city, density offers a ton of benefits with few downsides. If you live in sprawl, adding people creates a lot of negative effects without the positive benefits.
You can't fix sprawl by adding density - it doesn't work. By contrast, density in the center cities is desirable and increases viability by creating the critical mass that makes cities come alive.
I know thousands of cases inside cities where the NIMBY crowd came out in force against developments that did not fit their "vision" of how things should be built near where they live.
I also know of MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of developments in suburban areas where people have flocked to new developments in suburban area.
There are no shortage of "urbanites" that (correctly) recognize density by itself is no guarantee of positive devlopments -- projects that do match the income of desired future direction of an area can result in EITHER overpriced in sellable units OR under-supported low income residents harming the attractiveness of area.
Similarly smart suburbanites that recognize some kinds of ammenities can only be supported by certain levels of population density work to attract the kind of developments that will enhance the quality of life for all residents.
New subdivisions are almost always build on greenfields
Well, that's certainly part of it.
Replacing a blighted, dilapidated building, or a littered, vacant lot with something more desirable is a different kettle of fish from replacing a cornfield with a warren of townhouses, an office park, and/or another half-empty shopping plaza.
Doing so also has very little impact on traffic, stormwater management, utilities, etc., where greenfield development can have huge impact.
People moving into a sparsely populated area always seem to want to be the last ones who move in.
Most urbanites tend to oppose new development if it happens immediately near them. However, given they are subsumed into a much larger polity (a city in the hundreds of thousands to millions, rather than a suburb in the thousands to tens of thousands), they have a lot less ability to block any particular project from happening.
I know thousands of cases inside cities where the NIMBY crowd came out in force against developments that did not fit their "vision" of how things should be built near where they live.
I also know of MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of developments in suburban areas where people have flocked to new developments in suburban area.
There are no shortage of "urbanites" that (correctly) recognize density by itself is no guarantee of positive devlopments -- projects that do match the income of desired future direction of an area can result in EITHER overpriced in sellable units OR under-supported low income residents harming the attractiveness of area.
Similarly smart suburbanites that recognize some kinds of ammenities can only be supported by certain levels of population density work to attract the kind of developments that will enhance the quality of life for all residents.
Of course I was generalizing. Of course there are counter examples to everything. This is a broad observation.
The perspective I was using was of an existing person - not someone new to an area. A person who already lives in a suburb and sees a sign that says "development coming soon" on what was until then a green field and will soon be filled with suburban homes and all the resulting impacts.
Most urbanites tend to oppose new development if it happens immediately near them. However, given they are subsumed into a much larger polity (a city in the hundreds of thousands to millions, rather than a suburb in the thousands to tens of thousands), they have a lot less ability to block any particular project from happening.
I disagree that most urbanites oppose new development. I think there is a very noisy class of NIMBY's who scream bloody hell every time, but I by no means believe they represent a majority of urbanites.
I disagree that most urbanites oppose new development. I think there is a very noisy class of NIMBY's who scream bloody hell every time, but I by no means believe they represent a majority of urbanites.
I disagree that most urbanites oppose new development. I think there is a very noisy class of NIMBY's who scream bloody hell every time, but I by no means believe they represent a majority of urbanites.
At the very least, the percentage in the average urban neighborhood who opposes new development usually isn't any higher than in a suburban one. It's just that the ruckus they raise isn't enough to defeat the development in the vast majority of cases.
Admittedly in cities with low rates of home ownership where rental churn is high (e.g., no rent control), it may also be the case that a lot more people shrug. If you're not planning on living in your current unit for more than a few years, you might care a lot less about parking/noise/whatever issues a new major development right near your creates.
But generally speaking, only die-hard urban planning geeks (and people involved in real estate) are psyched when new development comes into their neighborhood (unless it's a very depressed area desperate for dollars and jobs). Everyone else is blase to opposed.
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.
