Higher Density does not equal less driving

[TheNiche]

These days there are forces that create density rather than the necessity for it that existed in pre war times. Zoned and regulated land use that creates higher land value forces developers to make the most use of their footprint. That usually means incorporating and mixing recreation, housing, work or any other activity that subsidizes the expense of their available land. If this concept is repetitive in a certain area, density will follow and so will congestion and more drivers. In a perfect world, in an urban planning sense, more vehicular congestion will increase the demand for alternative transportation which surfaces more pedestrians in an environment and hopefully more sustainable modes of transport become more efficient and practical.

Actually...a land use requirement or density requirement that disallows the highest and best financial use of a property will necessarily cause a property's land value to drop. Land values can only be artificially manipulated upward by creating barriers to entry on a regional scale.

Also, in the real world, increased vehicular traffic seems to have many effects; employees move closer to work; employers move the workplace closer to where they live; inner city employment centers rely disproportionately on long-distance transit serving suburban and exurban areas rather than the urban core; people who live close to where they work continue to drive to where they work. This has all been borne out in the downtown Houston commuter survey from a year or so back.

Also, when you attempt to justify alternative transportation as becoming "more practical", it strikes me that what you really mean is "the least inconvenient". And it seems that a trend toward those ends is generally undesirable (except to tourists, and btw, _ tourists).

[WesternGulf]

Actually...a land use requirement or density requirement that disallows the highest and best financial use of a property will necessarily cause a property's land value to drop. Land values can only be artificially manipulated upward by creating barriers to entry on a regional scale.

Also, in the real world, increased vehicular traffic seems to have many effects; employees move closer to work; employers move the workplace closer to where they live; inner city employment centers rely disproportionately on long-distance transit serving suburban and exurban areas rather than the urban core; people who live close to where they work continue to drive to where they work. This has all been borne out in the downtown Houston commuter survey from a year or so back.

Also, when you attempt to justify alternative transportation as becoming "more practical", it strikes me that what you really mean is "the least inconvenient". And it seems that a trend toward those ends is generally undesirable (except to tourists, and btw, tourists).

Well if I were talking about Houston, I would be speaking hypothetically. My comment was based more on traditional built cities that have an indisputable established nucleus of activity. Driving to work eventhough you live within close proximity is not as universal in cities as you think. Trying to analyze how Houston operates may bust a head vessel.

[TheNiche]

Well if I were talking about Houston, I would be speaking hypothetically. My comment was based more on traditional built cities that have an indisputable established nucleus of activity. Driving to work eventhough you live within close proximity is not as universal in cities as you think. Trying to analyze how Houston operates may bust a head vessel.

I believe that growth is a good proxy for relevance, as the fastest growing areas are the only ones with the opportunity to implement long term change in urban characteristics. Stagnant areas cannot justify new construction. So here's a list of the fastest growing metro areas between 2000 and 2010. To which of the following do your comments apply?

1. Houston 1,231,393

2. Dallas-Fort Worth 1,210,229

3. Atlanta 1,020,879

4. Riverside, Calif. 970,030

5. Phoenix 941,011

6. Washington, D.C. 785,987

7. Las Vegas 575,504

8. New York 574,107

9. Miami 557,071

10. Orlando, Fla. 489,850

11. Austin, Texas 466,526

12. Los Angeles 463,210

13. San Antonio 430,805

14. Charlotte, N.C. 427,590

15. Seattle 395,931

16. Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fla. 387,246

17. Denver 364,242

18. Chicago 362,789

19. Sacramento, Calif. 352,270

20. Raleigh/Cary, N.C. 333,419

[WesternGulf]

I believe that growth is a good proxy for relevance, as the fastest growing areas are the only ones with the opportunity to implement long term change in urban characteristics. Stagnant areas cannot justify new construction. So here's a list of the fastest growing metro areas between 2000 and 2010. To which of the following do your comments apply?

1. Houston 1,231,393

2. Dallas-Fort Worth 1,210,229

3. Atlanta 1,020,879

4. Riverside, Calif. 970,030

5. Phoenix 941,011

6. Washington, D.C. 785,987

7. Las Vegas 575,504

8. New York 574,107

9. Miami 557,071

10. Orlando, Fla. 489,850

11. Austin, Texas 466,526

12. Los Angeles 463,210

13. San Antonio 430,805

14. Charlotte, N.C. 427,590

15. Seattle 395,931

16. Tampa/St. Petersburg, Fla. 387,246

17. Denver 364,242

18. Chicago 362,789

19. Sacramento, Calif. 352,270

20. Raleigh/Cary, N.C. 333,419

Well from that list, Chicago, D.C., NYC, and to a lesser extent Seattle comes to mind. By the way, my statements were based on the growth of certain areas within a city. Chicago lost over 200,000 people in the last decade, but that does not mean neighborhoods with high density such as The Loop and neighborhoods adjacent to it, did not experience growth to implement such elements. Chicago's example is carbon copied in many cities that have the characteristics that were mentioned in my last post.

[TheNiche]

Well from that list, Chicago, D.C., NYC, and to a lesser extent Seattle comes to mind. By the way, my statements were based on the growth of certain areas within a city. Chicago lost over 200,000 people in the last decade, but that does not mean neighborhoods with high density such as The Loop and neighborhoods adjacent to it, did not experience growth to implement such elements. Chicago's example is carbon copied in many cities that have the characteristics that were mentioned in my last post.

So. Out of the twenty fastest-growing metropolitan areas, your sentiment applies to selected neighborhoods within core municipalities in three and one half instances (of which I would dispute D.C. and Seattle). And you included one example where you mention that the municipality as a whole is hemhorraging population.

I think that either my point is proven or your comment is irrelevant.

Chicago's example is carbon copied in many cities that have the characteristics that were mentioned in my last post.

Interesting. Why aren't those cities on the list?

[WesternGulf]

So. Out of the twenty fastest-growing metropolitan areas, your sentiment applies to selected neighborhoods within core municipalities in three and one half instances (of which I would dispute D.C. and Seattle). And you included one example where you mention that the municipality as a whole is hemhorraging population.

I think that either my point is proven or your comment is irrelevant.

Interesting. Why aren't those cities on the list?

What I initially described is not representative of a whole metropolitan area. There are cities that struggle with the evolution I described in their very own cores. What I was trying to get across in my last post is the metropolitan area growth is irrelevant when dealing with how do municipalities manage sustainable growth within certain areas in a city and implementing and encouraging infrastructure that will support a density of a neighborhood. Density, the topic of this thread, is rarely a regional or metropolitan problem in the U.S. Sometimes it is not even a municipality wide problem. So yes my sentiments are being applied to selective neighborhoods within a city.

Edited August 27, 2011 by WesternGulf

[TheNiche]

What I initially described is not representative of a whole metropolitan area. There are cities that struggle with the evolution I described in their very own cores. What I was trying to get across in my last post is the metropolitan area growth is irrelevant when dealing with how do municipalities manage sustainable growth within certain areas in a city and implementing and encouraging infrastructure that will support a density of a neighborhood. Density, the topic of this thread, is rarely a regional or metropolitan problem in the U.S. Sometimes it is not even a municipality wide problem. So yes my sentiments are being applied to selective neighborhoods within a city.

You make it sound as though density is a facet of the urban experience that need only apply to the few, not the many. Do you believe that policies promoting density are and should be designed to cater to niche constituencies on the margins of the political spectrum? That's what it sounds like.

[Utinga]

You make it sound as though density is a facet of the urban experience that need only apply to the few, not the many. Do you believe that policies promoting density are and should be designed to cater to niche constituencies on the margins of the political spectrum? That's what it sounds like.

"My first 10,000 posts were dry and informative. Some people on here would disagree and I'd crush them intellectually with facts, raw data, and statisics...and with academic precision, sometimes going on for pages. It was my hobby. But there got to be a point where everything worth saying had been said. Newbies would come on and start up the same old arguments with me. Initially, I obliged. You might call the unfettered access to my brilliance a public service."

"Those days are over.". Ah, but are they?!?

"I've more recently concluded that being correct, intellectually honest, or brilliant doesn't mean that you win at an argument or at life in general. So I've stopped caring whether I win. Rather, my posts are more like a series of rhetorical bellyflops, brash masochistic verbiage laced with hints of intellectual substance. Those with the capacity to think will think; but everyone will pay attention."

Good for you as well.

[WesternGulf]

"My first 10,000 posts were dry and informative. Some people on here would disagree and I'd crush them intellectually with facts, raw data, and statisics...and with academic precision, sometimes going on for pages. It was my hobby. But there got to be a point where everything worth saying had been said. Newbies would come on and start up the same old arguments with me. Initially, I obliged. You might call the unfettered access to my brilliance a public service."

"Those days are over.". Ah, but are they?!?

"I've more recently concluded that being correct, intellectually honest, or brilliant doesn't mean that you win at an argument or at life in general. So I've stopped caring whether I win. Rather, my posts are more like a series of rhetorical bellyflops, brash masochistic verbiage laced with hints of intellectual substance. Those with the capacity to think will think; but everyone will pay attention."

Good for you as well.

Trust me. I'm fully aware of theNiche's devil's advocate postings. I don't have any justification for entertaining them this time though.

[TheNiche]

Trust me. I'm fully aware of theNiche's devil's advocate postings. I don't have any justification for entertaining them this time though.

I'm quite serious with my criticism on this one. Defend yourself or abdicate your position.

[Utinga]

I'm quite serious with my criticism on this one. Defend yourself or abdicate your position.

"I'm quite serious with my criticism on this one."

Don't piss down MY neck then tell me it's raining!"

"Defend yourself or abdicate your position"

As I am a s well, our most esteemed member. When one makes bold judgment calls on fellow members credibility and character, turns around and calls it a " fact" only to be followed by running away from a lively debate, begun by your own I'll- informed statements with his Faux Zappa hair between his legs, us noobies are left wondering about your " serious criticism"....... "I'm just saying."

Glen Andresun

Edited August 29, 2011 by Utinga

[samagon]

Did the subject change again, I'm trying to keep up.

[Utinga]

Did the subject change again, I'm trying to keep up.

Welcome. My bad at this, it was just me trying to chase down a stray. One never knows where they may take their next potty. Please forgive me. shalt happen again.

Glen Andresun

utinga@hotmail.com

1926 hardy #3 77026

[TheNiche]

"I'm quite serious with my criticism on this one."

Don't piss down MY neck then tell me it's raining!"

"Defend yourself or abdicate your position"

As I am a s well, our most esteemed member. When one makes bold judgment calls on fellow members credibility and character, turns around and calls it a " fact" only to be followed by running away from a lively debate, begun by your own I'll- informed statements with his Faux Zappa hair between his legs, us noobies are left wondering about your " serious criticism"....... "I'm just saying."

Glen Andresun

Your defense was ineffective. I am unzipping my pants. Prepare for rain.

[samagon]

Welcome. My bad at this, it was just me trying to chase down a stray. One never knows where they may take their next potty. Please forgive me. shalt happen again.

Glen Andresun

utinga@hotmail.com

1926 hardy #3 77026

oh, no worries, it looked like you and Niche were seeing who could piss higher on the wall in the boys room, and I was just wanting to make sure I hadn't skipped over some interesting point of view regarding density and people driving cars.

[Utinga]

Your defense was ineffective. I am unzipping my pants. Prepare for rain.

As I'm still awaiting your defense, I've nothing to defend. So for the moment you may keep your pants sipped-up, please.

Glen Andresun

utinga@hotmail.com

1926 Hardy #3 77026

Edited August 30, 2011 by Utinga

[TheNiche]

As I'm still awaiting your defense, I've nothing to defend. So for the moment you may keep your pants sipped-up, please.

Glen Andresun

utinga@hotmail.com

1926 Hardy #3 77026

tinkle tinkle

[Utinga]

tinkle tinkle

How many children have been displaced by your occupancy of a unit of affordable housing in an enclave within which families are evidently comfortable? You should have paid more for a unit of unaffordable housing in a neighborhood with fewer families, but which is also efficient so that others with lesser means and more children would have had the opportunity to exert a lesser impact by occupying your home.

Since you're anticipating our rebuttal, I'm going to anticipate yours. You will say that I am insane to believe that families could occupy 400 square feet. You will claim that it is inhumane. You will attempt to morally validate all of your opinions and your way of life through a narrow prism defined by a narrow view of reality and you will then declare victory in your mind, have a beer, and fall asleep feeling smug about yourself. You won't think critically about a damned thing. Hey, I could be wrong about you, but...nah, never mind. You can't admit that possibility, so neither will I.

feel I've just been "verbalized" by an "un-smug". As you know nothing about me I shall forgive your fearful, prejudiced rant towards me. Who I may add has a rather narrow view of MY reality. For ALL others on HAIF, my address is 1926 Hardy #3 77026. It is the $450.00 garage apt in the rear, you will see a 1989 Mitsubishi Eclipse, with a flat tire in the driveway. Forgive me the grass is in need of a mow, I need to walk to the gas station to purchase some petrol for the mower. I receive a $50 deduction in rent for mowing as well as minor maintenance on the other two units. Walk past the car, and please feel free to knock on my door (side door) and we can have a chat about my lifestyle choice. If you feel that my 384 square feet $500 - $50 deduction constitutes "affordable housing" please feel free to email me and I will give you Alicia's number. She may want to raise our rent a tad again. To be fair we do receive "free" cable and utilities here. The Landlady can not afford to separate-out the utilitities. You should have paid more for a unit of unaffordable housing" Before moving here I lived at 4420 Roseland #7 77006, in Montrose and paid $575.00 for 583 Sq feet. I and my 300.00 a pay check partner (sole bread-winner right now) receive zero subsidies, with the exception of Metro being our subsidized mode of transport at the moment. You may want to join me at le' Fiesta and I will be honored to show you how well we shop for food without food stamps. "so that others with lesser means and more children" I am a 400 to 500 a week unemployed courier driver. If you have a spare auto sitting around, I would be most grateful, or a cam , battery and spare tire would be most appreciated as well. Then perhaps you may have an unaffordable unit you might rent to us?

"Since you're anticipating our rebuttal, I'm going to anticipate yours. You will say that I am insane to believe that families could occupy 400 square feet. You will claim that it is inhumane." Ah, my new found un-prejudiced friend, how little you know, I don't know you enough to call "insane" ill- informed is all. I am of the tiny/small house movement. Have you read any of my post or viewed my fb page closely? It would be the likes of you that I am trying to "get to" I feel I may be talking to deaf ears, but if you are interested I've collected vast info on small house living. My neighbors to the South are a family of 8 in a two bedroom bungalow cut into 3 apts. with an un air-con garage apt. in the rear. On some evenings we sit outdoors and share our daily stories. On Sunday several other "displaced" families around us have a bbq at one of the homes on this block. Any of you are most welcome to join in on our festivities. We always shut down at 9 or 10 though, that may be too early for my new elitist screaming, buddy above. Never judge a person solely on his fb fotos, for those also, you know nothing either. But you too Mr. Zappa are welcome at our casa at any time.

I stopped playing these, "cat pushing a watermelon out of the lake", games a long time ago Niche.

You are still loved my twinkle twinkle little star.

'She made a bet with her sister who's a little dumb

She could prove it any time all men was scum!'

Glen Andresun

Utinga@hotmail.com

1926 Hardy#3 77026

Glen Andresun

Utinga@hotmai.com

1926 Handy #3 77026