Ride an SUB not an SUV

"Pat" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 5, 8:09 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"George Conklin" wrote in message

link.net...







"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
news

"George Conklin" wrote in message
hlink.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.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I personally subscribe to the "You can't push one a string" school of
planning. It is similar to the "You can't Turn the River Around
School" but there are subtle differences. Neither are close to the
"I'm smarter than you and know what is better" school that most
planners subscribe to.

Planning doesn't, in general, work because planners are trying to tell
people what to do. You just can't do that with very much success.
The best you can do is to influence them is subtle ways to make things
closer to your ideal of better. If people want McMansions (hint, they
do) then you can' stop that. Them best you can do is have subtle
influence of how and where they are built. If you try too much, the
elected officials will (rightly) put the kabosh on what you want.
Also, if you try, smarter people (and there are always smarter people)
will find away around any reg you can imaging.


Actually look at the article on Sociation Today about why planning fails.
It fails because it is based on an obsolete model of how a city should look.
http://www.ncsociology.org/sociation...42/jentsch.htm

Jentsch is a former professor of planning who worked with Smart Growth in
various jurisdictions as a planner.




So if you tell people what to do, it won't work. If you reward people
for "good" actions, it might partially work. If you tryp to slightly
alter what people want to do, you might accomplish something. But if
people want to drive to homes in the suburbs, they will, no matter
what YOU want. That's the school I subscribe to.

"George Conklin" wrote in
news

"Chris" wrote in message
.. .
"George Conklin" wrote in
ink.net:


"Dave Head" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
wrote:


"Dave Head" wrote in message
.. .
My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all
corners
except
the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from
factories
all
over
that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk
to work.
There's
very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck
traffic
a
bit,
but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory
whistles,
and
use
them to tell time without your watch.

Dave Head

The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out
of
business
all over the place due to their inefficiency and global
competition.

And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work
exactly
how?

DPH



We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
close enough.





20 minutes by foot?? No, by automobile. We in the west are so
dependent upon our cars. 10 minuts by foot is about a mile away.

The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You cannot
have
a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was
impossible in 1890 too.




Your children, depending on your age, your grandchildfren will once
again see a 'walkable city' when the oil runs out

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

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

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
George Conklin wrote:

Smart Growth has one goal: infill. This means getting current
residents
out and moving in those with more money.

I thought Smart Growth's one goal was keeping kids out. Isn't that
what you said before?

It is keeping kids out in New Jersey. The census is about ready to
report
that in the 30 largest cities that Smart Growth replaces lower educational
levels of residents with higher educational levels, which is a proxy for
income. I attend demography conferences and see the data.

That is known as "correlation" not "causation." Could it be that people of
higher educational levels seek out more well-thought-out places?

"George Conklin" wrote in message
et...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

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

"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.

I suppose that's why you're so critical of those who think things could
be
improved.

Smart Growth is a step backwards into fake history. Its promised are
built on flat-out lies.



"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.

Then you should quit complaining that people on a forum called
alt.planning.urban want to discuss urban planning. If you have nothing
to
add to the discussion of the topic this was set up to discuss, why are
you
even here?

Urban planning is only about Smart Growth. We need to plan for what
people really want, not for what you want to do to them.


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?

What vocabulary? I simply asked you to point out a different school of
thought. Obviously that is completely beyond your capabilities.


The fact that you want a label pasted on planning shows you have no
ability to look at multiple facts and simply want a religion.

In other words "no, I can't answer your question." Thanks.

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

Regardless, I am not defending Smart Growth in this line of questioning.
I am simply asking what alternatives there are to look at for people who
would like to plan their communities. This seems to be far too difficult
a question for George (and apparently you) to understand.

Many communities don't need any more planning. What's happened is that
appropriate zoning is changed because developers always want to use land
for the most profitable use at each moment, rather than keep the current
zoning. During the dotcom boom, they wanted to convert industrial to
commercial. After the dotcom bust they wanted to convert the commercial to
high-density residential. These conversions are bad because they upset the
balance of different uses and hurt tax revenue.

So in other words the previous plan is not being adhered to. I think you're
off base about the reason why, though. In our area, the rezoning requests
are usually granted because they will result in an increase of tax revenue,
at least short term.

For example, an owner of a shopping center intentionally forces out
retailers by raising the rents and letting the center deteriorate. Once
the shopping center is mostly empty they go to the city council and
planning commission and claim that the center is obsolete, unleasable,
etc., and that they should be allowed to tear it down to build condos.
They promise a coffee house and dry cleaner on the bottom level, and
proclaim their plan as "Smart Growth." The revenue generated by
residential property tax doesn't cover the cost of services, so they put
bond measures and parcel taxes on the ballot to pay for this "Smart
Growth."

I would think that what actually hurts the tax base is the practice of
intentionally allowing structures to deteriorate. This is the opposite of
Smart Growth.

In my city, the developers and their politicians recently spent $100,000
to fund a study over what should be done with a large parcel of
industrial/commercial land in our city. The developers desperately want to
tear down all the buildings, most of them currently leased out, and build
condos. They invited citizens to serve on the panel, but deliberately
excluded everyone that's been fighting high-density housing, which is more
than 2/3 of the city. People showed up at the meeting to voice their
displeasure, but when the results of the study are released, there will be
a big push for high-density housing, under the mantra of "Smart Growth."

You continually point to your own town as the be-all and end-all of what
Smart Growth has the potential to be, while everything you say about what
happened indicates that they used the "Smart Growth" label without actually
employing any Smart Growth principles.

"Smart Growth" has become a code word for undesirable development. The
developers and politicians better coin a new phrase soon.

In your area, that label has been applied to something undesirable,
absolutely.

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

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

"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.

Yes they have tried to solve problems.

Developers have tried to solve THEIR problems: how to put more housing
on
less land and get YOU to believe they are doing it to help the world.

Odd that you think it's ok for developers to solve THEIR problems in a way
that others don't agree helps the community when you call it sprawl.

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

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..
....

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.

I hate to tell you this, but Queen Elizabeth lived longer ago than 150
years.

Some things never change. And the current vocabulary about "sprawl" was
firmly in place following some blasts in 1800s. The joke is that the same
vocabulary is now in place to criticize new buildings while the original
source of scorn is now seen as good. The goal is to be critical, but of
what? Anything convenient. You are a good example.

Please learn to snip.

You're damned right I will criticize a university professor who does not
know that Queen Elizabeth the First was WAY before the 1800's! Idiot.

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

I personally subscribe to the "You can't push one a string" school of
planning. It is similar to the "You can't Turn the River Around
School" but there are subtle differences. Neither are close to the
"I'm smarter than you and know what is better" school that most
planners subscribe to.

Planning doesn't, in general, work because planners are trying to tell
people what to do. You just can't do that with very much success.
The best you can do is to influence them is subtle ways to make things
closer to your ideal of better. If people want McMansions (hint, they
do) then you can' stop that. Them best you can do is have subtle
influence of how and where they are built. If you try too much, the
elected officials will (rightly) put the kabosh on what you want.
Also, if you try, smarter people (and there are always smarter people)
will find away around any reg you can imaging.


Actually look at the article on Sociation Today about why planning
fails.
It fails because it is based on an obsolete model of how a city should
look.
http://www.ncsociology.org/sociation...42/jentsch.htm

Jentsch is a former professor of planning who worked with Smart Growth in
various jurisdictions as a planner.

You know I find it impossible to take anything seriously in your little
newspaper. The editorial quality is a joke.

George Conklin wrote:

Well, busing is required by law in most of the United States and it is
going to remain that way too. Schools must balance race, class and other
variables.

They must balance it withing the school district. When you have
relatively small school districts, with race distributed fairly evenly,
there is little busing. There is no requirement for busing anywhere in
the U.S., there is a requirement for non-segregated schools. Busing is
the method used in many areas.

George Conklin wrote:

100% correct. Then they proclaim that they are making the world a better
place as long as they can make more money. Planners go right along with
them. I wonder how much money really changes hands under the table for such
recommendations.

It goes even beyond the planners and the developers. It goes to
corporations that, rather than make money providing a product or
service, decide to sell some real property every quarter in order to
boost their profits.

One of the deals we stopped in my city, involved a large corporation
trying to sell land to a developer. This corporation is doing the same
thing all over the country. They report good financial results, but a
large part of the results are the profits from land sales, rather than
from the sale of products and services. They recently sold a large
private campground in the mountains, one that they had owned for
decades, where employees and guests could go for camping, hiking, etc.
The employees (and retirees) were devastated by this sale, but the
company is no longer employee-centric, that disappeared when the
founders lost control. They sold all their recreation sites around the
world for a one-time financial gain.

The land they own could be used for retail, and some retailers are
interested, but the land is worth less as a retail site than as a site
for housing, hence the effort to get it rezoned. The company has
proclaimed that they will not sell the land to a retailer, even though
the city desperately needs land for more sales-tax generating retail.

Suffice it to say that the city's planning department is furious with
the residents for quashing their rezoning efforts. It's a badge of honor
to us.