Ride an SUB not an SUV

"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.

"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...

"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.

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.

"Dave Head" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:03:13 GMT, "George Conklin"
wrote:


"Dave Head" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:02:12 -0500, "di" wrote:


"Dave Head" wrote in message

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

That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd
rather
see 3
- 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town.

DPH

I don't live anywhere near where I work, drive about 30 minutes each
way,
but I do live where I want to and that's how it's going to be.
Guess
you'll just have to get use to it.

Get back to me when your 30 minute drive starts costing you about $30
each
way
for gasoline.

Why not be reasonable and say $100?



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.

Dave Head


Put Mr. Head to work in an auto factory and make him live in the
basement.

Across the street would be fine. I lived across the street from the
National
Carbon Company in Fostoria, and, once we got 'em to clean up some
particularly
nasty particulates, it was just great.

Dave Head

Most people don't want lower class housing.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
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.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
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).

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.

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
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.

You have to get rid of more than zoning. You have to get rid of
companies which move. You have to make it possible for all working
family members to work in the same community. You have to either have
long-term jobs or make moving one's home much easier.

You would need a czar of employment and housing and make companies
provide housing for their workers. That used to be called a mill town, and
they exploited the workers horribly. So does Smart Growth.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.





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. 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."

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."

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

As long as the only thing the APA will look at is more and more housing
on less and less land, everyone involved in the process is happy. Only the
public gets had.

"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.