 |
I don't know. If they maximize the saucy wench factor, I'd try it . . . |
Posted on 08/14/2004 11:16:56 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
Summary: SANTA CRUZ, Calif. -- The transportation options available in feudal society are only quaint in hindsight. Smart Growth calls for a reversion to the limited mobility of the pre-automotive society.
Full text: Transit-oriented developments (TODs) are a failure in modern society.
The reason I say it this way is because the idea of a transit-oriented development is not new, but has arisen naturally as transportation has evolved. TODs are an artifact from the pre-automotive society and their failure in modern implementation is due to this fact.
It helps to define a TOD... Transit-oriented developments are optimally self-sufficient nodes on the network of a larger transportation infrastructure. In Smart Growth usage, they are transit-friendly and auto-repellent. They have very little room for resident parking (if there is any, it can be costly and is generally in open, burglary-prone lots). TODs are intended to include mixed-use development with retail space where residents can purchase the necessities of daily life without having to go anywhere. Modern TODs sometimes have social services built in, such as child care centers (e.g. the Via del Mar TOD near downtown Watsonville).
None of these ideas are new. The modern TOD is a throwback to medieval society.
In medieval times, when the average citizen had to walk to get anywhere and even horses were a luxury affordable only for a few, villages were naturally built to accommodate transportation time. Generally, villages and cities were shaped like a wheel, with a church at the hub and streets jutting out from there like spokes, all of it encircled by some sort of defense system or by agricultural fields. Shops were all located near the center of the village; proprietors and their families lived upstairs. Without any affordable and widely available means of traveling any distance farther than a day's walk, the necessities of daily life had to be easily accessible. TODs worked within this societal framework.
However, as technology progressed through the industrial revolution and beyond, and as personal mobility became more affordable and accessible to even the poorest residents, the need for this type of development lessened. Retailers could open up larger stores (generally at the edge of town, where less expensive land was available). With increased mobility, residents were free to avail themselves of greater retail choice, leading to competition among retailers. Recreation became an option as they could venture into the country to see the sights and have a picnic without considerable effort or investment.
By promoting TODs everywhere, Smart Growth has taken a sentimental view of the "old country" and the "good 'ole days" and is forcing it on modern society.
Though it is certainly nice to have all the necessities of life available within walking distance, to do should not require us to give up the freedom of mobility and the increased affordability that results from choice. Smaller retail locations, though they provide unique wares, often cannot provide low prices because they cannot buy at bulk. Fewer retailers often means less competition on the market, decreased quality of service and less options for customers. A lack of available parking (called a "disincentive" to driving by urban planners) increases the cost and efficiency of daily transportation. Because of the increased cost of living, two income families are the norm, so child care is necessary (it's generally government-subsidized as well).
To top it all off, TODs are generally unsafe, because of how the community is designed. "Permeability", a desired feature of New Urbanist (NU) neighborhoods, has been cited even by Smart Growth proponents in Housing and Urban Development (HUD) -- as well as private studies -- as a contributing factor in neighborhood crime. Quite simply, permeability translates into more escape routes for criminals. The "vibrant" social atmosphere called for by NU is essentially a mix of familiar faces (locals) with unfamiliar faces (people in the neighborhood for work, shopping or criminal activities), making a cohesive sense of community almost impossible -- and reducing community awareness of criminal activity.
In medieval society, the TOD was the norm; everybody lived there except for the richest lords and rulers. In modern society, however, TODs appeal to one sector of the general population -- young adults. Young adults are looking for nightlife. They enjoy meeting new people. They stay up late. They don't mind noise right outside their bedroom windows. They don't need private, safe outdoor space for unsupervised children (they don't usually HAVE children). They don't have a lifetime's worth of accumulated material goods that they would be sorry to see stolen.
This is a very long way of saying that TODs are successful only in very limited circumstances: when they (1) involve the modern usage of old development, as in the downtown areas of large European cities; and (2) are inhabited by a young, generally childless, and materially careless population. Even with these conditions satisfied, TODs require heavy subsidies, because of public transit. Though transit systems in some of the densest cities in the world approach self-sufficiency, I know of none that is not subsidized.
If success for TODs is defined as occupancy, then yes, there are some successful TODs. A few. But if success is defined as high occupancy, greater ease and affordability of life for residents and no subsidy from the rest of society, then there isn't a single successful TOD in the world.
FYI
This is why I intuitively designed my TOD to limit "permeability." That is, while the community was organized around an underground shuttle, each "stop" had control over who might have access.
While my "utopia" was definitely a dystopia, crime was not generally a large problem for a number of reasons, one of them being that you could control who came to your door.
This article is total hyperbole. And as for "choice", property owners, developers and home buyers haven't had a choice for nearly 40 years as to what type of housing and developments to build/buy due to very restrictive zoning and land use laws. And we've been subsidizing developers to build ONLY sprawl for decades. There has been no choices. So there is no argument for choice vs. no choice. There hasn't been "choice" in zoning and land use for decades ... so choice is a bogus issue.
New Urbanism promotes different zoning restrictions and land use policies than what we had previously. It is not more restrictive, it is different restrictive.
So, the only valid argument against New Urbanism is that ZONING itself (no matter what its form) is too restrictive. The only valid argument that can be made is to eliminate zoning and land use laws. That would provide true "choice" in what developers can build, how land ownercs can develope their lnadn and where people chose to live. The market will decide.
Furthermore, we have all paid to subsidize the oder planning decisions by taxes on roads, fuel etc. It is not true, as the author infers, that public subsidies for planning decisions are only for new urbanism.
If CHOICE is the issue, get rid of zoning and land use regulations period. Otherwise, the argument the author is making is for governements to continue to mandate the status quo zoning and land use.
|
I don't know. If they maximize the saucy wench factor, I'd try it . . . |
I'm so glad I live out in the country. I would really hate to have to use public transit systems to get around.
Thanks for the Ping
Why? I live in an circa 1890's-1920's neighborhood built around a commuter train stop. I don't have to own a second car, and can read, sleep, or just relax on my way to and from work. And I don't have to pay to park when I get there. Frankly, having tried driving for many years, this is much nicer. And I can of course easily drive OR walk to the gorcery store or to Church or to the park. So I can enjoy a nice day outside, or I can stay dry and out of the rain in my car.
What's not to like about having a choice?
PLEASE CHECK OUT ARCOSANTI
. . . a unique planned community between Phoenix and Flagstaff.
It's more of a hippie-ish etc. toned place than I'd prefer but their ideas and structures for a community taking up a small footprint on the land and providing all needed within a 10 min or so walking distance--those ideas and structures are impressive, to me.
http://www.arcosanti.org/
And, given the remoteness and all living within a very short distance from one another--outsiders prone to crime would tend to find a united front against them. Problems internally seem to be dealt with rather cooperatively, so far.
I don't think it will work having a Pentecostal living on the other side of a wall from a Wiccan--but I hope that hasn't happened . . . yet.
I do think that a community with significant numbers in a small space will need to be fairly homogeneous philosophically.
Boy this is really over the top!
The "stack-'em and pack-'em" mentality is from land use controls where large portions of the developable land are taken "off the table" by the government with regards to development. It has nothing to do with transit oriented development.
I have lived in several neighborhoods now of single family homes on tree-lined streets near to a commuter rail station. We don't have crime, we have space, we can use a car, and we have yards. But we also don't have to always use a car, but have the choice of walking around on sidewalks or riding the train to go downtown. It is the natural development pattern in this country up until the institution of zoning and government-controlled, auto-oriented growth after WWII.
Why are you against people having choices like that? The market sure isn't given the prices you have to pay in many of these neighborhoods.
Don't forget the open sewers.
The idea that a developer would be subsidized at all came in through Lyndon Johnson and his "great society"
New Urbanisms "different" zoning restrictions are the implementation of social engineering to create a socialist society out of a free society.
New Urbanist's goal is not to continue the protection and defense of individual freedoms, but to remove them from the table altogether.
The new urban developments are not about giving you a choice, they are about limiting them.
Some of the complexes go so far as having the tenant sign an agreement they won't own a car in order to live in one.
All complexes are given subsidies to build fewer parking spaces than state mandates, so the complex will open with insufficient parking. They also limit the size of the parking space which controls the size of the vehicle that can use it.
Transportation councils limit your choice further, by eliminating parking for public facilities and changing street parking limits so you have to move your car every couple of hours, or get a whopping ticket.
Just because you have a situation that appeals to you, what kind of an American would want to force his fellow citizens to live the same way he does?
What*s not to like about having a choice?
Choice is good. That*s why I live out in the country, it*s my choice. I*ve lived in big cities before and it was OK. Now, I can step out my back door and target practice if I want to, couldn*t do that in a big city.
I get to own one of those obnoxious, gas guzzling SUV*s. You know, the kind that drive the environ_mental_ists wild. LOL! Actually, it gets very good mileage, but I would never tell a liberal that. :-) There*s a Walmart Super center and a mall about 15 min from my house, so it*s a breeze to go shopping. I don*t need another car because it*s just me, and I don*t have to work, so I don*t have to drive to work. America*s great, and it offers us the choice of living in a big city or living in the country. My choice (for now anyway), is to live in the country.
When the your fellow Americans are paying through their taxes for the government to control the issuance of permits to high density, and when the developer gets incentives paid for by the taxpayer, that is a huge problem.
Also, many people that now promote "new urbanism" really want to return an almost pre industrial state, where indivuals didn't have the freedom of mobility a technological society gives them.
If you read about traffic calming, you'll see that vehicles are slowed to the speed a pedestrian walks, by using speed humps, negating their usefulness as an efficient mode of transportationThis will make you 'choose' to ride a train instead. This creates a hobson's choice, which is no choice at all, really.
so choice is a bogus issue.
ONLY if you have chosen to live is such an area!
Most of the "RED" areas, the one that voted conservative in the last election, do not suffer such socialist/communist ideals. Only the socialist city hive structures need suffer that indignity.
"what kind of an American would want to force his fellow citizens to live the same way he does"
I don't know. That's why I live in a relatively free city, not a condominium, restricted development, or homeowners association development.
The only requirement like this that my city (Philadelphia) has, is a requirement that new construction and major rennovations include off-street parking. Kind of the reverse of these wierd requirements you cite. We try to encourage people to have more choices in an old city, not build something new without choices.
Many people don't want the maintenance chores associated with home ownership. This will increase as Baby Boomers become senior citizens and move to more convenient accomodations: apartments, townhomes, condos, etc. Safe, but densely populated neighborhoods where shopping/entertainment are within easy walking distance will appeal to many.
I have no problem whatsoever if people want to live in tiny boxes stacked atop each other. What I object to is the government - meaning unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats on regional planning commissions - forcing their choice on me. You want an anthill existence - go for it.
Our socialist governor is trying to push "cool cities" on the citizens. It's nothing more than a big money grab by the collectivists who have ruined the cities with bureaucracy, high taxes and socialist boondoggles.
The cool cities utopia, as defined by these dreamers, can be boiled down to one sentence: Attract young people to reinvigorate the crumbling cities by offering youthful amenities built around a base of entrepreneurship. Oh, yeh? How? Quite simply, government doesn’t have a clue on how to build “cool.” People making individual choices build “cool.”
By doing a perfunctory examination of the top 40 cool cities, as determined by Forbes magazine, it’s possible to assemble a cool city:
If you want to get murdered, live in a cool city. If you want to breath pollution in and out, live in a cool city. If you want to engage in daily conversations with bums and winos, live in a cool city. If you want to see your wallet picked by tax loving socialist politicians, live in a cool city. If you want to hang your hat in overpriced, tiny gerbil boxes called lofts, live in a cool city. If you want to get mugged, live in a cool city. If you want hoards of buzzing bureaucrats minding all your business, live in a cool city.
Now, is that cool or what?
The cynic might say cool cities has little to do with cool, but it’s merely a happy-face scheme that the governor has concocted to pay off the big city politicians that elected her. A different cynic might suspect that cool cities is a scam, a con to dump useless, crumbling big city white elephant property onto unsuspecting suckers looking to drink the governor’s cool-aid.
As soon as the elephant is sold, the big city seller merrily packs his suitcase and skips off to the suburban countryside to buy an acre with a white picket fence.
A government engaged in social engineering and bureaucratic soviet central control is not “cool.” “Cool” is built by citizens exercising individual rights on private property. A government encouraging citizens to exercise individual freedoms is “cool.” Combine the two and “cool” cities will build themselves.
A semi-example of "smart growth" development here in San Jose could be Santana Row. http://www.santanarow.com/ Though the prices of the flats/lofts/villas/townhouses are a little pricey (and what isn't in the Bay Area), it is certainly a more dense development then any other place that isn't, some sort of dangerous ghetto (one of the 'hipiest' places in the Bay Area certainly). Mixed development with housing over retail. And not crappy discount shops either. Highend stores, and restaurants line the streets. On any given day (even weekdays), you will find TONS of people just strolling the area. Heck, there are even plans for grocery store on site so that people living here don't have to travel far for their grocery needs. Santana Row is certainly a wonderful place to shop, and maybe even live.
Now, it is not a Transit Orientated Development since there are no mass transit system in the area (other then the crappy bus system). Not even our light rail system goes near it (our crappy, money money losing light rail [even the 4-mile historic streetcar 'F' Line in San Francisco has a higher ridership then the 20 mile or so light rail system here]). But still, a more dense development for a surburban city like San Jose.
Now, on the topic at hand, as for more dense development, I'm a little bit on both sides. Yes, I don't believe people should be FORCED into these kinds of developments (something liberals would love to have us do), but at the same time, I don't believe that we could continue to sprawl like there is no tomorrow either. Yes, the modern area is known for greater moblity with the automobile, the idea of owning your own home, and development geared towards that freedom. But traffic is already terrible in the Bay Area. Do you want to build even FURTHER out, and make the commute even longer? There needs to be an alternative for people. And if this means building up and not out, building more mass transit, I'm all for it.
But again, being forced into it to appease some socialist wetdream of their cruddy version of utopia, not something I'd want either. Just that, there needs to be a choice. And in this case, the middle ground is probably the best ground.
Irony of course, San Francisco pretty much has no choice in the matter and if they want to increase the housing there, they HAVE to build up. But guess what? These so-called "progressives" are stopping EVERY move to build up (heck, they don't really want ANY development if they had their way). liberal NIMBYs are so funny. They don't seem to practice what they preach.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.