Ride an SUB not an SUV

On Apr 6, 7:40 am, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

oups.com...





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

hlink.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.

This should be an interesting read too...

Sprawl Costs Us All

Many people think that sprawl (or scattered growth) is an inevitable
result of an economic system that demands lower costs and efficiency.
But this is a myth: sprawl development costs more than careful
planning and development.

"Sprawl is cheaper for developers than careful planning because they
can pass much of the cost on to taxpayers. The real cost of sprawl is
dispersed through a range of other costs that we, as citizens and
consumers, have to pay."

http://www.smartergrowth.net/issues/...stofsprawl.htm

"George Conklin" wrote in
k.net:


"Tim McNamara" wrote in message news:timmcn-

. Seems to me that there are
just too many people, who all have to live somewhere and have as much
right to good housing as I have. There's no perfect solution- allow
sprawl and spend trillions of dollars subsidizing cars. Increase
density and get the problems of crowding- increased crime, pummeled
infrastructure, and a tendency towards a bleaker and more aggressive
life.

All the gloom and doom posted here does NOT reflect reality. Give
it up
boys...half the counties in the USA are losing population and the
people will move to the few areas where growth is happening. But stop
worrying about it. Just don't put everyone in a Russian-style
apartment building and remember that what Smart Growth now calls good
development was at one time condemned as bad.

My community has very similar issues as previously mentioned by other
posters. I am in Plymouth County, Massachusetts. Throughout the 20's &
30's Plymouth was the worse county in Massachusetts. Now, it is adding
population while some of the other counties are losing population.


Smart Growth over here means providing tax incentives to a developer that
sells a condo for $750k! It doesn't make much sense. They got a deal in
Norfolk County for a developer because the property was across the street
from a train station. However, the train station is completely fenced
off from the street. you have to use the INTERSTATE to get to the
entrance of the station and this requires at least five or six miles of
driving.

"Smart Growth" is a boondoggle in my area, which is manipulated by
developers and selectmen that have no clue.

Our real issue is that we have TOO many towns in Massachusetts. They are
too small to serve their population base and they are too small to allow
people to actually vote on things that effect their lives such as
traffic, water issues, sewer issues, and noise issues.

--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list
ICRR

On Apr 6, 8:55 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:

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?-

Well thought out and well walled too. They usually choose the latter
when they --the educated, a proxy for the prosperous-- stay behind.
Walled communities got things well planned...

FORTRESS AMERICA:
GATED AND WALLED COMMUNITIES IN THE UNITED STATES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gated communities can be classified in three main categories based on
the primary motivation of their residents. First are the Lifestyle
communities, where the gates provide security and separation for the
leisure activities and amenities within. These include retirement
communities; golf and country club leisure developments; and suburban
new towns.

Second are the Elite communities, where the gates symbolize
distinction and prestige and both create and protect a secure place on
the social ladder. These include enclaves of the rich and famous;
developments for the top fifth, the very affluent; and the executive
home developments, for the middle class.

The third type is the Security Zone, where the fear of crime and
outsiders is the foremost motivation for defensive fortifications.
This category includes the middle class perch, attempting to protect
property and property values; the working class perch, often in
deteriorating areas of the city; and the low income perch, including
public housing, where crime is acute.

There is little doubt that urban problems are the stimuli for this
wave of gating. The drive for separation, distinction, exclusion, and
protection, is fueled in part by dramatic demographic change in the
metropolitan areas with large numbers of gated communities. High
levels of foreign immigration, a growing underclass and a restructured
economy are rapidly changing the face of many metropolitan areas.

Gated communities are themselves a microcosm of the larger spatial
pattern of segmentation and separation. America is increasingly
separated by income, race and economic opportunity. Suburbanization
does not mean a lessening of segregation, but only a redistribution of
the urban patterns of discrimination.

Minority and immigrant suburbanization is concentrated in the inner
ring and old manufacturing suburbs. At the same time, poverty is no
longer concentrated in the central city, but is suburbanizing, racing
ever farther out in the metropolitan area.

http://www.cproundtable.org/cprwww/d...ity/05fort.htm

On Apr 6, 8:01 am, Chris wrote:

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

Or when Venezuela breaks relations with the US, the troops abandon
Iraq and the Oil Kingdom is toppled.

On Apr 6, 1:18 pm, Tim McNamara wrote:


Of course they claim to adhere to the "Smart Growth" principles. The
problem is you can't live in a vacuum. The loss of retail, industry,
jobs, and the increase in traffic and decrease in walkability are
going to be the fallout of "Smart Growth."

Our suburbs and exurbs are already unwalkable. In many cases there are
no sidewalks and you would have to walk in the street with all the
distracted soccer parents in SUVs talking on their cell phones and
eating fast food while driving. Neighborhoods are generally blocks upon
curvy blocks of nearly identical ticky-tacky houses that look more like
barns than homes. Businesses are generally in unpleasant strip malls
with cretinously designed parking lots and anonymous, homogenized
franchises.

Gee. Is that planned or unplanned? Either way it seems like a money-
making scheme.

Or is it the ultimate expression of freedom that people can readily
choose between McDonalds and Burger King when eating out?

donquijote1954 wrote:

You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry
children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq...

My favorite story was when the Sierra Club thought they had a deal where
the developers would pay $100 million dollars and in return the Sierra
Club would not oppose development in San Jose's Coyote Valley.

A Sierra Club member, upset by this extortion, leaked the story.

"http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/01/02/story2.html"

The whole thing collapsed when it was made public.

The city of San Jose, to their credit, is not letting developers build
housing in the Coyote Valley until the industrial and commercial space
is developed and sold (or leased). Both Apple and Cisco abandoned plans
for large campuses in that area. Apple sold the land and is adding a
campus in Cupertino (and they oppose the conversion of commercial to
residential) while Cisco may still own the land but has no plans to
develop it. The developers are chomping at the bit to build housing
there. They tried to elect a mayor that would eliminate the requirement
for intelligent growth, but they lost...for now.

"donquijote1954" wrote in message

Gated communities are themselves a microcosm of the larger spatial
pattern of segmentation and separation.

Well, you should look at South America and Europe, where houses have walls
along the street, a sure sign of European and South American segmentation,
right? No, wait a minute, everything they do in Europe is better, right?

First planners condemn houses with yards as selfish use of space.
They want it all open to the world, anyone can walk in.

Then if people put up a fence or a wall, they get mad. Can't have it both
ways boys.

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 5, 7:57 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message

. ..







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

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in
message
...

"George Conklin" wrote in message
thlink.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.

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

Or perhaps it's a syndrome of common sense when you have 6 and 1/2
billion inhabitants on this planet.


Irrelevant. With the densities the Sierra Club wants for an 'efficient
city,' you could put the entire world's population in the state of Texas.

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 5, 5:10 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

.. .





"George Conklin" wrote in
link.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.-

It didn't disappear, it was killed, just like the trolley.

By the way, in 1890 it was BICYCLES that ruled the roads...

It was the trolley which spread cities by a factor of 100 AND ended the
walkable city. Bicycles? They changed nothing.

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 6, 8:01 am, Chris wrote:

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

Or when Venezuela breaks relations with the US, the troops abandon
Iraq and the Oil Kingdom is toppled.


The anti-trolley people were saying the same thing: wait until the
trolley breaks down. That ended the walkable city, and the modern
industrial city could not exist without mechanized transport. If you are
talking about putting people back on farms, then most of us would die off
because it would kill the efficiency which we need to feed ourselves.
Walkable cities are non-sustainable.