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 10-07-2018, 05:33 PM
 
12,999 posts, read 18,811,640 times
Reputation: 9236

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
The point is, and always has been that, although urban development also displaces farmland, or undeveloped land, urban development uses that land more efficiently than suburban development. Ten households on one acre (which is more "streetcar suburban", but rather urban by US standards) is more efficient than ten households on five or ten acres.
Certainly for utilities such as electric or gas. High density means more customers per mile. Less maintenance per customer. It is not offset by customers using more energy. True, water and sewer lines may not exist on a low density development. It takes longer for fire trucks to get there. One reason many require homeowners to have fire sprinklers.

If farmland were really scarce, there would be plowing of urban vacant lots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-17-2018, 12:31 AM
 
105 posts, read 75,031 times
Reputation: 144
Its almost like they hate nature and do the colder sack thing as an excuse to chop everything down pave over everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2018, 06:21 PM
 
Location: Mid-Atlantic
32,778 posts, read 36,022,033 times
Reputation: 43493
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyWifiGoesSlow View Post
Its almost like they hate nature and do the colder sack thing as an excuse to chop everything down pave over everything.
There's not always something to cut down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-18-2018, 08:34 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 4,419,241 times
Reputation: 3633
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
The point is, and always has been that, although urban development also displaces farmland, or undeveloped land, urban development uses that land more efficiently than suburban development. Ten households on one acre (which is more "streetcar suburban", but rather urban by US standards) is more efficient than ten households on five or ten acres.
Only when your definition is self-fulfilling density for density sake.
It's not efficient if impermeable cover is an issue.
It's not efficient when open space is an issue - but of course density advocates oppose open space.
It's not efficient if you have to rework utility infrastructure to handle pumping to heights.
Perhaps you should define what you mean by "efficient".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2018, 08:36 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
5,496 posts, read 9,442,272 times
Reputation: 5604
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Only when your definition is self-fulfilling density for density sake.
It's not efficient if impermeable cover is an issue.

That's what storm drainage systems are for, if really necessary. Around here, impermeable cover is a bigger issue in the suburbs, where all the big box stores are surrounded by seas of asphalt parking.



Quote:
It's not efficient when open space is an issue - but of course density advocates oppose open space.
I can only speak for myself, but one thing I like about increased density, is that it helps preserve open space. Natural land, and farm land (which I also find is rather picturesque, here in Ohio) isn't covered with suburban sprawl.



Quote:
It's not efficient if you have to rework utility infrastructure to handle pumping to heights.
Perhaps you should define what you mean by "efficient".
Increasing the capacity of existing infrastructure is more efficient that building hundreds or thousands of miles of new infrastructure.


If municipal water service is going to be pumped to higher elevations, I'm not sure that density matters. The water still has to be pumped, whether there are a few widely spread-out houses, or a group of closley spaced houses. But then, I'm not an engineer. If you're talking about providing sufficient water pressure to supply a high rise building with water, that's done with equipment in the building, provided by the building's owner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2018, 06:27 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 4,419,241 times
Reputation: 3633
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
That's what storm drainage systems are for, if really necessary. Around here, impermeable cover is a bigger issue in the suburbs, where all the big box stores are surrounded by seas of asphalt parking.
As opposed to your downtown area which is a concrete and asphalt desert? Come on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
I can only speak for myself, but one thing I like about increased density, is that it helps preserve open space. Natural land, and farm land (which I also find is rather picturesque, here in Ohio) isn't covered with suburban sprawl.
It doesn't preserve anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
Increasing the capacity of existing infrastructure is more efficient that building hundreds or thousands of miles of new infrastructure.
1. What infrastructure? Telephone? Gas? Water? Wastewater? Roads? Which of these are municipal responsibility?
2. Local government is often not responsible for infrastructure including utilities except in larger cities so not an issue. When it does see #3
3. Utility companies and local governments typically require the developer to install the infrastructure which the local government or utility assume responsibility for - so again not an issue as presented

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
If municipal water service is going to be pumped to higher elevations, I'm not sure that density matters. The water still has to be pumped, whether there are a few widely spread-out houses, or a group of closley spaced houses. But then, I'm not an engineer. If you're talking about providing sufficient water pressure to supply a high rise building with water, that's done with equipment in the building, provided by the building's owner.
At some point you have to have a separate plant and it isn't possible to simply add capacity where one plant is nor should a decent design be so centralized or dependent upon a centralized source that would require all infrastructure to be upgraded. Finally it's a poor idea to have a design that requires tearing up asphalt and concrete in the most expensive areas of town and most traffic congested area of town due to a need to "increase capacity". Distributed systems or separate independent systems are often considerably better choices than "increasing capacity" of a singular or unitary system. We'll have to disagree that the simplistic assessment you posed accurately reflects reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2019, 11:58 AM
 
3,205 posts, read 2,604,456 times
Reputation: 8565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
This also squeezes a lot of people into small lots and looks and feels a heck of a lot better to me.
While the included picture looks lovely, it’s about as handicap-unfriendly as anything I’ve ever seen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2019, 12:42 PM
 
3,205 posts, read 2,604,456 times
Reputation: 8565
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovelondon View Post
Actually, I don't really care. I have siblings who live in the suburbs and I myself grew up in a low-density, car-dependent suburb. All I am doing is voicing how amazing London is.

Anyway, another gorgeous neighbourhood pub in London: Churchill Arms in Notting Hill!



Notting Hill is an upscale, well-to-do village in London. Even wealthy neighbourhoods in London have their own local pub -- and it's right in the middle of the residential area! Quick -- call the zoning police!
You can call this a neighborhood pub all you want, but without the tourist trade and the uniqueness of it being a British pub with a Thai restaurant, it would be a cell phone store or a Pakistani restaurant, just like many of the pubs in London would be. The division of the entirety of London into neighborhoods isn’t fooling anyone. If you want to see what a real neighborhood pub is like, head out for the out of way towns and stop in the place with the simple sign out front. You walk in and every head turns your way to see if you are friend or foe. If you are a stranger, you and they alike KNOW you are a stranger. THAT’S a neighborhood pub.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2019, 02:38 PM
 
24,512 posts, read 18,011,396 times
Reputation: 40204
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Just like you have free will to continue living in London.



That may be but the picture you are responding about isn't from London. Venues that generate smells and noise after hours or attract drunks and misdemeanor types might be popular in London residential areas but they don't tend to be welcome in U.S. residential suburbs.


See above.


... and you may find plenty of "pubs" near downtown areas or in commercial developments - not so often in residential developments in "suburban" developments in the United States. In addition at least some of the "business relationships" you find okay in London is illegal throughout virtually all of the United States and generally unwelcome near residential suburbs as is any establishment attracting such "business".


Fortunately your preference as to what people carry is not binding on anyone in this country and the options aren't exactly mutually exclusive. In your country carrying a gun is not really an option due to governmental restrictions?

Looking at the age and genders in your picture - it's pretty obviously more of a singles bar than a family place. You will find them in "downtown" areas but typically not near residential subdivisions in the U.S.

You'll probably find those "Purtians" from America will be more than happy to have you hauled out of the residential neighborhood if you are openly drinking on public streets/sidewalks - at least in cities or areas where the local government isn't exclusively focused on other criminal activity.

I don't think you comprehend the culture. In the UK, the local pub in a village acts as the community center. You'll see children there and 90-year-old pensioners all watching their Premier League team on a Saturday.



Back to cul du sac....


I live on a short private lane. The first 20 feet of my front yard is a right of way for my neighbor next to me. We both drive over a couple other right of ways to get to the paved street. This is how a cul du sac started before the fire department got into the planning business and insisted on a certain width to the lane, a fire hydrant, and a turn-around space at the end of the lane. A few years back, I had a chat with the water department about putting in a larger water line from the street to boost my water pressure. They said sure, but I'd have to install a real water main at my expense with a hydrant to meet town code if I wanted to change my water line. There is a hydrant near my house already on the paved street so this is just crazed local bureaucracy.



I like living on a little private lane. My house is invisible from the street and I don't hear any road noise other than the garbage and recycling trucks once per week. I don't have to worry about my cat getting squashed flat or getting chased by an off-leash dog (not legal but happens) from the constant dog walkers on the paved street. I have all the privacy from the street but don't need 3 or 4 acres of land to get it. I'm in a coastal New England village that is high density suburban with good walkability. I can walk or bicycle to do most of my life things. I wouldn't want to be on a modern cul du sac with the huge turn-around and the hydrant since it's way too much asphalt but I really like my little private gravel lane.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2019, 05:41 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 4,419,241 times
Reputation: 3633
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
I don't think you comprehend the culture. In the UK, the local pub in a village acts as the community center. You'll see children there and 90-year-old pensioners all watching their Premier League team on a Saturday.
I think the response was generally directed to the poster's negatively provocative comments regarding the U.S.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
Back to cul du sac....


I live on a short private lane. The first 20 feet of my front yard is a right of way for my neighbor next to me. We both drive over a couple other right of ways to get to the paved street. This is how a cul du sac started before the fire department got into the planning business and insisted on a certain width to the lane, a fire hydrant, and a turn-around space at the end of the lane. A few years back, I had a chat with the water department about putting in a larger water line from the street to boost my water pressure. They said sure, but I'd have to install a real water main at my expense with a hydrant to meet town code if I wanted to change my water line. There is a hydrant near my house already on the paved street so this is just crazed local bureaucracy.
Not sure what this has to do with a cul-de-sac
They are generally non-thru streets terminating in a circle with a diameter greater than the width of the street to permit changing direction without multi-point turns.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
I like living on a little private lane. My house is invisible from the street and I don't hear any road noise other than the garbage and recycling trucks once per week. I don't have to worry about my cat getting squashed flat or getting chased by an off-leash dog (not legal but happens) from the constant dog walkers on the paved street. I have all the privacy from the street but don't need 3 or 4 acres of land to get it. I'm in a coastal New England village that is high density suburban with good walkability. I can walk or bicycle to do most of my life things. I wouldn't want to be on a modern cul du sac with the huge turn-around and the hydrant since it's way too much asphalt but I really like my little private gravel lane.
Yep don't understand the whine from the car haters. Cul-de-sacs offer a bit of isolation from the main thoroughfares and some serenity. Nothing wrong with them.
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