Ride an SUB not an SUV

"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
news
"George Conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...
To say that Smart Growth is the only way is like saying only
Chevrolet
makes cars.

I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only way
if
you
actually want to plan the future, vs.

Wrong again. Smart Growth has stated that they are the only way to
go,
like
Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is
not
what
some self-centered group wants it to be.

OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for other
ideas
on formulating urban plans?

Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean that
the
quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the planning
board
all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and then
spend
the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
happens
one decision at a time when the commands of Smart Growth violate
everyone's
common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream, things
get
changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite well,
even
owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we can
have
standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would do
(he
has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The commision?
5
to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by grand,
empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false) future.

So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.



You shound like Queen Elizabeth the First.

If Queen Elizabeth the first demanded that people who criticize offer some
better alternative, then she was one smart lady. I suspect she was, given
all she accomplished.

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
.. .

"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 4, 7:50 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:

So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should be
solved?

I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family housing
in
the
past 50 years is any kind of a problem. Smart Growth is a real
problems
since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a
carefully-constructed
lie.-

What does it bother you, the fact that it's smart and planned, versus
unplanned and stupid?

Smart Growth is stupid. You have it backwards. It is planning by
idiots
who lie to us.

Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who have
at
least tried to come up with solutions to problems,

You don't understand. The development of the past 50 years is NOT a
problem. Smart Growth tries to make it a problem. They have failed. In
fact, cities have evolved in the past 50 years very much like they did in
the previous 50, despite slogans and flame wars. Progress is made by
increments. It is harmed by ideologies like Smart Growth.

"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
.. .

"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 4, 7:50 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:

So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should be
solved?

I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family housing
in
the
past 50 years is any kind of a problem. Smart Growth is a real
problems
since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a
carefully-constructed
lie.-

What does it bother you, the fact that it's smart and planned, versus
unplanned and stupid?

Smart Growth is stupid. You have it backwards. It is planning by
idiots
who lie to us.

Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who have
at
least tried to come up with solutions to problems,

You don't understand. The development of the past 50 years is NOT a
problem. Smart Growth tries to make it a problem. They have failed. In
fact, cities have evolved in the past 50 years very much like they did in
the previous 50, despite slogans and flame wars. Progress is made by
increments. It is harmed by ideologies like Smart Growth.

Smart Growth wouldn't have any adherents if everything were as hunky dorey
with unplanned growth as you like to pretend. "The development of the last
50 years" is NOT a school of thought. I asked you for a school of thought.
Are you completely unable to formulate a reply to a simple question? Hint:
the answer to that one will be either yes or no. If no, you should provide
the requested school of thought.

Dave Head wrote:

The idea is to allow people to live where they can walk to as many things as
they wish, and especially work. To do that, you have to get rid of the zoning.

It's a great theory, but unfortunately people don't move every time they
(or their spouse) changes jobs. Even working for the same company you
can end up working in different locations. I.e. I worked for one company
in four different cities over a period of five years. First they outgrew
their building and moved to a larger building. Then they were acquired
and moved again. As the new owners destroyed the company, we moved two
more times before the whole mess collapsed.

What's happening in my area is that there was a huge surplus of
commercial industrial space for a while, so the building owners were
trying to get their land rezoned so they could tear down the buildings
and build condos. Now there isn't a surplus anymore and the housing
market has tanked, so all of a sudden the building owners are renovating
their buildings and leasing them.

In the areas of my city, where "Smart Growth" occurred, before we put a
stop to it, it caused excessive traffic, made the city less walkable,
less cyclable, and has encouraged more driving, especially to schools,
where the parents are now reluctant to let their kids walk or bicycle to
school. The additional housing, which was not accompanied by more
schools, caused the schools to pave over fields for portable classrooms,
which caused more traffic problems as school attendance went up.

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in
message
news
"George Conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...
To say that Smart Growth is the only way is like saying
only
Chevrolet
makes cars.

I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only
way
if
you
actually want to plan the future, vs.

Wrong again. Smart Growth has stated that they are the only way
to
go,
like
Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is
not
what
some self-centered group wants it to be.

OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for
other
ideas
on formulating urban plans?

Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean
that
the
quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the planning
board
all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and
then
spend
the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
happens
one decision at a time when the commands of Smart Growth violate
everyone's
common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream, things
get
changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite well,
even
owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we can
have
standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would do
(he
has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The
commision?
5
to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by
grand,
empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)
future.

So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.



You shound like Queen Elizabeth the First.

If Queen Elizabeth the first demanded that people who criticize offer some
better alternative, then she was one smart lady. I suspect she was, given
all she accomplished.



You need to look at the book "Sprawl: A Compact History." (University of
Chicago Press, 2005). Cities have always sprawled and the critics have
said the very same words for the past 150 years. But NOW they praise what
is 75 years old, while back then they hated that too. It is a syndrome of
hate which always praises the past.

Amy Blankenship wrote:

Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who have at
least tried to come up with solutions to problems, you have to advocate some
sort of solution yourself as an alternative (other than doing nothing)?

You don't have to have a solution to know what doesn't work. The "Smart
Growth" people have NOT tried to come up with solutions. The developers
conned them into believing that these developments will solve all these
alleged problems.

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
.. .

"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
.. .

"George Conklin" wrote in message
link.net...

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 4, 7:50 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:

So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should
be
solved?

I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family
housing
in
the
past 50 years is any kind of a problem. Smart Growth is a real
problems
since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a
carefully-constructed
lie.-

What does it bother you, the fact that it's smart and planned,
versus
unplanned and stupid?

Smart Growth is stupid. You have it backwards. It is planning by
idiots
who lie to us.

Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who
have
at
least tried to come up with solutions to problems,

You don't understand. The development of the past 50 years is NOT a
problem. Smart Growth tries to make it a problem. They have failed.
In
fact, cities have evolved in the past 50 years very much like they did
in
the previous 50, despite slogans and flame wars. Progress is made by
increments. It is harmed by ideologies like Smart Growth.

Smart Growth wouldn't have any adherents if everything were as hunky dorey
with unplanned growth as you like to pretend.

Critics have always had vague hates and need something to pin it on.
Happy people don't look for things to moan about, as in happy single-family
homeowner.


"The development of the last
50 years" is NOT a school of thought.

The critics have always had the same rant. They just love what happened
in the past, so they can criticize the present. As you do. Happy people
don't complain all the time.

I suggest again the book "Sprawl: A Compact History" to see how the
critics constantly change what they say to make the past seem good and the
future bad. The vocabulary you spout is about 150 years old. It is a
negative approach, and the rest of the world goes about its way ignorning
naysayers. Happy people don't develop and ideology like you demand.
Unhappy people do. Why are you so unhappy?

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Dave Head wrote:

The idea is to allow people to live where they can walk to as many
things as
they wish, and especially work. To do that, you have to get rid of the
zoning.

It's a great theory, but unfortunately people don't move every time they
(or their spouse) changes jobs. Even working for the same company you
can end up working in different locations. I.e. I worked for one company
in four different cities over a period of five years. First they outgrew
their building and moved to a larger building. Then they were acquired
and moved again. As the new owners destroyed the company, we moved two
more times before the whole mess collapsed.

What's happening in my area is that there was a huge surplus of
commercial industrial space for a while, so the building owners were
trying to get their land rezoned so they could tear down the buildings
and build condos. Now there isn't a surplus anymore and the housing
market has tanked, so all of a sudden the building owners are renovating
their buildings and leasing them.

In the areas of my city, where "Smart Growth" occurred, before we put a
stop to it, it caused excessive traffic, made the city less walkable,
less cyclable, and has encouraged more driving, especially to schools,
where the parents are now reluctant to let their kids walk or bicycle to
school. The additional housing, which was not accompanied by more
schools, caused the schools to pave over fields for portable classrooms,
which caused more traffic problems as school attendance went up.

Smart Growth does cause increased congestion. That has been shown to be
true. Further, schools are racially balanced by busing, so even if your
local school is walkable, most of the students will still arrive there by
bus.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Amy Blankenship wrote:

Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who have
at
least tried to come up with solutions to problems, you have to advocate
some
sort of solution yourself as an alternative (other than doing nothing)?

You don't have to have a solution to know what doesn't work. The "Smart
Growth" people have NOT tried to come up with solutions. The developers
conned them into believing that these developments will solve all these
alleged problems.

The developers simply used to wanted to build houses. Now they say they are
solving social problems by building houses!!! Really. Every time. Just
say, "Smart Growth," and you have a winner!!

George Conklin wrote:

Smart Growth does cause increased congestion. That has been shown to be
true. Further, schools are racially balanced by busing, so even if your
local school is walkable, most of the students will still arrive there by
bus.

No buses in my area, or at least very, very few. To racially balance the
schools in my area would require busing in vast quantities of
Caucasians, as the area is now very Asian, except for the old-timers
(who no longer have children).

The demographic changes have improved the area in many ways, including
better restaurants, better schools, and more care in taking care of
properties. However one negative is the tendency to be over-protective,
so walking or biking to school is not as widespread as it should be. I
see one guy driving his daughter about 300 feet to school almost every
day, it takes much longer to drive that distance than to walk it. Also,
the level of driving proficiency is not high, though it's not because of
race, it's because of many less years of driving experience, and an
attitude towards pedestrians and cyclists that originates from places
where cars have even higher priority. The daily minivan convention is
daunting, as many drivers don't stop for students in the crosswalks. I
carry a crossing guards stop sign with me every morning, and it's a big
help, but even with that some drivers ignore my son and I.

The "Smart Growth" has made it much worse because of the overcrowding it
brings. It's a domino effect where people are even less likely to walk
or bike because of the traffic congestion. The few stores that are part
of the high-density housing are not patronized much, and many have closed.