Smart growth vs. stupid people

May 27th, 2008 9:04 am · 39 comments

Via Atrios, this one from the Allentown Morning Call:

For nearly a decade, tax-weary people from New Jersey and New York poured into the Lehigh Valley in search of a bigger home on a bigger lot, and developers couldn’t build so-called McMansions fast enough to meet demand. But as a credit crisis sweeps the nation, forcing a record number of homeowners into foreclosure, home building — especially construction of large homes — in the Lehigh Valley has slowed to a crawl.

A housing downturn that has made credit more difficult to get, combined with rising energy costs, is pushing the market away from the McMansions built in the Valley the past decade, and toward a more affordable version of the American Dream.

That may give Lehigh Valley Planning Commission members the opening they have been looking for to shift future development toward smaller, more affordable homes that chew up less open space.

The Planning Commission is reviewing more than 100 of the best development concepts used across the nation to build a new neighborhood model members hope they can sell to municipal leaders and developers across the region.

Though it will take at least a year to craft, the model probably will include cottage housing, clustered housing that preserves green space, zoning that encourages businesses and homes to occupy the same neighborhoods and incentives to developers to preserve open space.

Great idea.

But it will never happen.

Prediction: Those living in existing neighborhoods nearby will hate it, will fight it. Will complain that it infringes upon “their way of life,” whatever that means.

Will complain about traffic. Will wail that smaller houses will lower the value of their bigger houses.

Will get people elected who vow to oppose the whole thing.

And will ultimately get the idea tossed onto the trash heap.

”Don’t blame us, we’re just building what the current zoning laws allow,” said Chuck Hamilton, executive officer of the Lehigh Valley Builders Association. ”If a township requires 1-acre lots, no one wants to put a small house on that. If these planners allow smaller lots, we’ll be happy to build smaller homes, if people want them.”

“People,” as in buyers, may indeed be interested. But “people,” as in those who already live nearby, will never accept it, no matter how much sense it might make in the long run.

This is what happens when “smart growth” bumps up against naked self-interest. Self-interest wins - to the detriment of the more rational, sustainable whole.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  39 comments  Tags: Development

There are currently 39 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
ArtVandolay
5/27/08
9:17 AM
QUOTE(Lancaster Online @ May 27 2008, 09:05 AM) [snapback]393838[/snapback]


Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.




Won't all those owners of McMansions be leaving soon? Certainly many of those buyers bought more than they could afford. With the energy to run them, the Van, the sedan, the Hot tub, the HD TV, snowblower, John Deere and all the other stuff "needed" many of them will soon realize they are in deep poop financially. And no $ to put in the 401(k).





Plus the more units built as in smaller homes or condos, that should equal more tax $ for the townships. I am thinking the days of McMansions for the masses is gone. Who wants to be stuck with one, anyway?



Same thing happens in Lititz, MT, Hempfield.

Shawn
5/27/08
9:20 AM
QUOTE(Lancaster Online @ May 27 2008, 09:05 AM) [snapback]393838[/snapback]


Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.




QUOTE


Though it will take at least a year to craft, the model probably will include cottage housing, clustered housing that preserves green space, zoning that encourages businesses and homes to occupy the same neighborhoods and incentives to developers to preserve open space.



Great idea.

But it will never happen.





The model could work just fine, and won't be opposed if it adequately address all of the infrastructure concerns and effects on the community's quality of life as relates to the density of proposed developments. My guess is that they aren't going to come up with any proposal that is nearly as grandiose as what was proposed and defeated in East Hempfield township. Just because a plan has the word "dense" in it, doesn't necessarily mean it is "smart" growth. Dense can be done smart and it can be done dumb. It all depends on the planning.



Later...Shawn

Lancaster
5/27/08
9:51 AM
QUOTE(Lancaster Online @ May 27 2008, 09:05 AM) [snapback]393838[/snapback]


Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.




So now people who don't see things the way you do are 'stupid' Gil? Ok, Keep being that paragon of tolerance and diversity that you claim to be there, buddy dry.gif

grieker
5/27/08
9:56 AM
QUOTE(Lancaster @ May 27 2008, 09:51 AM) [snapback]393857[/snapback]




So now people who don't see things the way you do are 'stupid' Gil? Ok, Keep being that paragon of tolerance and diversity that you claim to be there, buddy dry.gif



Nope, just class envy.

runutz
5/27/08
9:59 AM
QUOTE(ArtVandolay @ May 27 2008, 09:17 AM) [snapback]393845[/snapback]
Won't all those owners of McMansions be leaving soon? Certainly many of those buyers bought more than they could afford. With the energy to run them, the Van, the sedan, the Hot tub, the HD TV, snowblower, John Deere and all the other stuff "needed" many of them will soon realize they are in deep poop financially. And no $ to put in the 401(k
Y'know, if they go empty, they're big enough to be halfway houses.

pml
5/27/08
11:46 AM
It has always surprised me how two people or in some cases one person somehow need a five bedroom 6000 square foot home with four bathrooms. Who cleans this stuff? What happens when jobs are lost. How do you resell that monster if things go wrong? I have coveted many things in my life but never a house that "owns me". I would love to have a swimming pool, but when I see the expense and work involved and then the fact that in Lancaster you only use it three months out of the year, it is just silly. People who think they need a certain kind of home in order to impress others is what is driving forclosures. About time the bank cuts off the tap and we get back to Lnacaster being an affordable place to live.
Shawn
5/27/08
11:53 AM
QUOTE(pml @ May 27 2008, 11:46 AM) [snapback]393923[/snapback]
It has always surprised me how two people or in some cases one person somehow need a five bedroom 6000 square foot home with four bathrooms. Who cleans this stuff? What happens when jobs are lost. How do you resell that monster if things go wrong? I have coveted many things in my life but never a house that "owns me". I would love to have a swimming pool, but when I see the expense and work involved and then the fact that in Lancaster you only use it three months out of the year, it is just silly. People who think they need a certain kind of home in order to impress others is what is driving forclosures. About time the bank cuts off the tap and we get back to Lnacaster being an affordable place to live.




What makes you think that everyone that has a house of this size can't afford it, or is trying to impress anyone? Maybe we should take a look at each and every one of your purchases and decide how much you really need them and who you are trying to impress by purchasing them. To me, it seems pretty silly to waste money on Cigarettes...trust me no one is impressed to see you with a cigarette in your mouth. How about your place at the beach. How much does that cost you? Do you really need that place at the beach? Seems like a bit of an extravagance.



Later...Shwn

lee41
5/27/08
12:52 PM
QUOTE
This is what happens when “smart growth” bumps up against naked self-interest. Self-interest wins - to the detriment of the more rational, sustainable whole.


Are you saying smart growth is devoid of any self-interest?

Is it rational to allow 3200 homes on 300 acres with no plan on how to make it work?

What exactly are we trying to sustain?

I have posted many simple questions that the smart planners are unwilling or unable to answer. Until they are answered, I am not convinced that smart growth is really all that smart. Perhaps it is really stupid growth vs smart people.


Lysol54
5/27/08
12:59 PM
QUOTE(Shawn @ May 27 2008, 11:53 AM) [snapback]393928[/snapback]




How about your place at the beach. How much does that cost you? Do you really need that place at the beach? Seems like a bit of an extravagance.



Later...Shwn





Yeah kind of funny coming from someone like PML. Who constantly complains about how little money they have, but can afford to have a trailer at the beach. Must be doing ok if you can do that. Lol she wants a swimming pool but can only use it 3 months out of the year? But then will pay to have a trailer at the beach? Shes too much, i mean does she even think before she starts typing. I'm sure she has some excuse for why they can afford it etc.

Beth
5/27/08
1:09 PM
QUOTE(pml @ May 27 2008, 11:46 AM) [snapback]393923[/snapback]

It has always surprised me how two people or in some cases one person somehow need a five bedroom 6000 square foot home with four bathrooms. Who cleans this stuff? What happens when jobs are lost. How do you resell that monster if things go wrong? I have coveted many things in my life but never a house that "owns me". I would love to have a swimming pool, but when I see the expense and work involved and then the fact that in Lancaster you only use it three months out of the year, it is just silly. People who think they need a certain kind of home in order to impress others is what is driving forclosures. About time the bank cuts off the tap and we get back to Lnacaster being an affordable place to live.

Knock it off you guys, PML has a good post here, pick it up later when she's on the smoking issue!

Frankly having a place near the shore, would be nice, you're all just green!

When I mention we have a place in the mountains, some turn green, til they see **it! It's just some place where the bill collector can't find us and cell phones are useless!

**No shower, tub, or television, radio(gets 3 stations somewhat!), closest place to eat is over 5 miles(dirt rd.) away. Oh, and did I mention no heat, unless you chop & carry! Baths may be taken nightly in local stream-50 degrees. wink.gif
anonymouse
5/27/08
1:11 PM
Don't be Dense!
Lysol54
5/27/08
1:15 PM
QUOTE(Beth @ May 27 2008, 01:09 PM) [snapback]393987[/snapback]

Knock it off you guys, PML has a good post here, pick it up later when she's on the smoking issue!

Frankly having a place near the shore, would be nice, you're all just green!

When I mention we have a place in the mountains, some turn green, til they see **it! It's just some place where the bill collector can't find us and cell phones are useless!

**No shower, tub, or television, radio(gets 3 stations somewhat!), closest place to eat is over 5 miles(dirt rd.) away. Oh, and did I mention no heat, unless you chop & carry! Baths may be taken nightly in local stream-50 degrees. wink.gif




Well then you shouldn't call it a cabin, you should just call it what it is. A shack. biggrin.gif I'm not green at all, i could care less. Just not my style to complain that i never have money, then mention i have a place at the beach. Then she comes down on people for doing the same thing she does??
Beth
5/27/08
1:19 PM
QUOTE(Lysol54 @ May 27 2008, 01:15 PM) [snapback]393993[/snapback]

Well then you shouldn't call it a cabin, you should just call it what it is. A shack. biggrin.gif I'm not green at all, i could care less. Just not my style to complain that i never have money, then mention i have a place at the beach. Then she comes down on people for doing the same thing she does??


[attachmentid=1990]
Lysol54
5/27/08
1:24 PM
QUOTE(Beth @ May 27 2008, 01:19 PM) [snapback]393994[/snapback]


[attachmentid=1990]




Ok well it isn't a shack smile.gif looks like a pretty place, how old is it??

Save-the-Land
5/27/08
1:36 PM
Gil - I'm glad you posted this.......this writer nails it on the head with this issue. Although written about the Lehigh Valley, just plug in E Hempfield Township.



I don't care for the characterization that these people are stupid. I don't think the folks opposing different forms of growth and development (including high density, walkable, TND style) are stupid people, although I do feel they are being selfish. They have their particular lifestyle locked in and now they want to close the door to development and any creative technique to accomodate additional growth.





gsmart
5/27/08
2:04 PM
QUOTE(Save-the-Land @ May 27 2008, 01:36 PM) [snapback]394006[/snapback]
Gil - I'm glad you posted this.......this writer nails it on the head with this issue. Although written about the Lehigh Valley, just plug in E Hempfield Township.



I don't care for the characterization that these people are stupid. I don't think the folks opposing different forms of growth and development (including high density, walkable, TND style) are stupid people, although I do feel they are being selfish. They have their particular lifestyle locked in and now they want to close the door to development and any creative technique to accomodate additional growth.









Nah, I just used that because it seemed like a natural for the headline. But in the actual piece I use the term "self-interest" because that's what it is.



Nevertheless, this is why I think "smart growth" is destined to fail - here, in the Lehigh Valley, everywhere. That's the subject of this weekend's print edition; we may like the theory of smart growth but as practiced, smart growth is simply too big a threat to the investment we've already made; and we'll fight it. The goal, then, becomes the perpetuation of what we've already got; even when what we've already got is tremendously inefficient, and unsustainable. Good money has to follow bad because it's our money; we've made the financial and emotional investment in suburbia as it exists right now. And no one will fight harder against the rethinking of the suburban idyll than suburbanites themselves.

Shawn
5/27/08
2:07 PM
QUOTE(gsmart @ May 27 2008, 02:04 PM) [snapback]394035[/snapback]

Nah, I just used that because it seemed like a natural for the headline. But in the actual piece I use the term "self-interest" because that's what it is.

Nevertheless, this is why I think "smart growth" is destined to fail - here, in the Lehigh Valley, everywhere. That's the subject of this weekend's print edition; we may like the theory of smart growth but as practiced, smart growth is simply too big a threat to the investment we've already made; and we'll fight it. The goal, then, becomes the perpetuation of what we've already got; even when what we've already got is tremendously inefficient, and unsustainable. Good money has to follow bad because it's our money; we've made the financial and emotional investment in suburbia as it exists right now. And no one will fight harder against the rethinking of the suburban idyll than suburbanites themselves.




"Smart Growth" will only fail if it fails to address the impact of high density on communities and resources. Do you consider Veranda to be "Smart Growth"? How about Florin Hill? How about Mill Creek?



Later...Shawn

Beth
5/27/08
2:10 PM
QUOTE(Lysol54 @ May 27 2008, 01:24 PM) [snapback]393998[/snapback]

Ok well it isn't a shack smile.gif looks like a pretty place, how old is it??

Okay, it's my fault we're off topic. The ground was originally leased from the State in the late '20's some of the cabin was started in 1929 in bits and pieces, as most hunting camps are, and finished over the course of the next 5-6 years. Very few changes have been made. We can boast of having electric and a fire place. Furnished mostly in "Early Attic". I've been going there for at least 40 some years! My, I'm old!

Leasing on State Game Lands comes with many restrictions. Most people don't want to put up with the hassle and hoops you have to jump through, "especially with no shower, etc. smile.gif
Lysol54
5/27/08
2:14 PM
QUOTE(Beth @ May 27 2008, 02:10 PM) [snapback]394043[/snapback]

Okay, it's my fault we're off topic. The ground was originally leased from the State in the late '20's some of the cabin was started in 1929 in bits and pieces, as most hunting camps are, and finished over the course of the next 5-6 years. Very few changes have been made. We can boast of having electric and a fire place. Furnished mostly in "Early Attic". I've been going there for at least 40 some years! My, I'm old!

Leasing on State Game Lands comes with many restrictions. Most people don't want to put up with the hassle and hoops you have to jump through, "especially with no shower, etc. smile.gif




Ok, yeah you usually don't see many stone cabins, at least not many of them. Pretty place though. Kind of reminds me up upstate NY.

gsmart
5/27/08
2:47 PM
QUOTE(Shawn @ May 27 2008, 02:07 PM) [snapback]394039[/snapback]




"Smart Growth" will only fail if it fails to address the impact of high density on communities and resources. Do you consider Veranda to be "Smart Growth"? How about Florin Hill? How about Mill Creek?



Later...Shawn





Yes and yes and yes, though all 3 are what we might call baby steps towards a broader goal.



My son has a friend who lives in Veranda. Great place. But - is there any shopping within the boundaries of the community? Not that I can tell. Well, why not? Might there be? What if we had a functioning, large-enough grocery store on that square that people could actually buy their week's groceries there? Some people within the community, at least, would take advantage of that - and that, then, gets traffic off Harrisburg Pike.



But here's the rub: that grocery store would indeed have to be "large enough." Not merely a Turkey Hill or something that size; something that would be viable. Maybe not a big box; maybe not the Stauffers of Kissel Hill now being costructed along Rohrerstown Road; but at least the size of the old SKH there.

Shawn
5/27/08
3:08 PM
QUOTE(gsmart @ May 27 2008, 02:47 PM) [snapback]394075[/snapback]

Yes and yes and yes, though all 3 are what we might call baby steps towards a broader goal.

My son has a friend who lives in Veranda. Great place. But - is there any shopping within the boundaries of the community? Not that I can tell. Well, why not? Might there be? What if we had a functioning, large-enough grocery store on that square that people could actually buy their week's groceries there? Some people within the community, at least, would take advantage of that - and that, then, gets traffic off Harrisburg Pike.


But here's the rub: that grocery store would indeed have to be "large enough." Not merely a Turkey Hill or something that size; something that would be viable. Maybe not a big box; maybe not the Stauffers of Kissel Hill now being costructed along Rohrerstown Road; but at least the size of the old SKH there.




I agree, and would consider all three of them to be "smart growth". In that regard, I find it a bit of a stretch to imply that "smart growth" is "failing". I think a grocery store of the size you are describing would be a tough sell. First of all, the grocery store would need a rather large volume of business to keep prices and selection competitive. I live within walking distance of a Weis Markets, but often end up going to Stauffers for our weekly shopping, because I like the selection better. I use Weis for odds and ends throughout the week, but don't usually do my weekly shopping there. Secondly, why would anyone want to spend upwards of a half mil on a house that is essentially in the parking lot of a grocery store? Perhaps people would be less inclined to live in Veranda if there was a big grocery store there, and that would defeat the ultimate purpose of such a neighborhood.



Do you feel that there is a level of density and commercial space that is just "too much" for a development? Or, do you feel that it is essentially an open ended propspect where there is no such thing as too much density?



I still don't understand why anybody would desire to spend the kind of money they are for a development as dense as Veranda, Mill Creek, Florin Hill, but I do think they are a good use of the space they occupy. It seems to me that if I was going to have such a small property, and live so close to my neighbor, I'd be better off buying into a less expensive town-house community. I wonder what the long-term turn over rate will be in these hoods as people start to feel the negative affects of living so close to their neighbors. I get claustrophobic just driving through these neighborhoods. I really can't imagine spending that kind of money to live like that.



Later...Shawn

Artie See
5/27/08
3:10 PM
QUOTE(gsmart @ May 27 2008, 02:04 PM) [snapback]394035[/snapback]
Nevertheless, this is why I think "smart growth" is destined to fail - here, in the Lehigh Valley, everywhere.
Question for Gil:

Is the entire concept of distant suburbs and McMansions on huge lots purely an American phenomenon? Or do other developed countries have similar housing developments?

Unfortunately, I've not been around the world enough to see how most of the people in the world live. Israel is the one place where I did spend some time, and they think nothing of spending a quarter of a million dollars or more to purchase an apartment.
anonymouse
5/27/08
3:20 PM
QUOTE(Shawn @ May 27 2008, 02:07 PM) [snapback]394039[/snapback]


"Smart Growth" will only fail if it fails to address the impact of high density on communities and resources. Do you consider Veranda to be "Smart Growth"? How about Florin Hill? How about Mill Creek?




Vernada is actually less dense than the density allowed in any other residential zone in East Hempfield Township, because of the open space. When fully built out, it will be well under the 3.5 houses per acre allowed by 12,000 square foot lots.



Don't be dense!



QUOTE(gsmart @ May 27 2008, 02:47 PM) [snapback]394075[/snapback]


My son has a friend who lives in Veranda. Great place. But - is there any shopping within the boundaries of the community? Not that I can tell. Well, why not? Might there be? What if we had a functioning, large-enough grocery store on that square that people could actually buy their week's groceries there? Some people within the community, at least, would take advantage of that - and that, then, gets traffic off Harrisburg Pike.




I live in Veranda. People drive their kids to the busstop. If there was a grocery store on the green, we'd drive to it rather than carry the groceries. Don't believe me. Go stand by the nested mailboxes and watch how many people drive 200 feet to get their mail. (I've never seen anyone else walk to get theirs) If it was 500 feet away people would make the kids drive and get it.

gsmart
5/27/08
3:29 PM
QUOTE(Artie See @ May 27 2008, 03:10 PM) [snapback]394086[/snapback]
Question for Gil:

Is the entire concept of distant suburbs and McMansions on huge lots purely an American phenomenon?


Actually, no. Though there's a case to be made that U.S. tax policy has done more to encourage sprawl here than elsewhere:

Although less direct in impact, tax policies have done more to promote sprawl in the U.S. than in Europe, he said. American taxes hit earnings and savings more than spending, thus encouraging consumption "especially of things like spacious housing and prodigious use of energy resources, Nivola noted. In Europe, however, homeownership does not get preferential tax treatment, and consumption, especially of energy, is heavily taxed and thus discouraged. High gasoline taxes explain why most Europeans "drive smaller cars, drive them a lot less, use mass transit more and, above all, live inside or closer to their town centers," Nivola said.

And if you've seen what gas costs in Europe vs. what it costs here, you'll understand why driving 100 miles round-trip to work would be seen as the idea of a madman.

Shawn: Look, I'm with you. I prefer my space. But then my choice was specifically to live in an older suburb, because I don't like the newer developments for a lot of other reasons (however big the home there's no shrubbery/mature trees/screening from the neighbors, meaning you can't sit on your back porch without everyone gaping at you, and no one ever seems to sit on their back porches besides).

But again, my point is to viability. If the goal of smart growth is to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the development vs. what would otherwise be generated by a "normal" development, then the shopping space within that development needs to be viable, needs to be big enough that people actually can forego those vehicle trips to Weis or SKH or wherever. I may not want to live in that sort of development (though I might), but others might; and shouldn't they have that option? Why should the neighbors prohibit such developments from being built, and such choices from being made available?

Well - traffic and "our way of life" and property values and all that.
anonymouse
5/27/08
3:32 PM
QUOTE(gsmart @ May 27 2008, 02:47 PM) [snapback]394075[/snapback]

What if we had a functioning, large-enough grocery store on that square that people could actually buy their week's groceries there? Some people within the community, at least, would take advantage of that - and that, then, gets traffic off Harrisburg Pike.




BTW everyone here takes Sylan Road (to Nolt then Centerville for Giant and to Spring Valley and Good for SKH) not Harrisburg Pike for the grocery store.

Mansfield
5/27/08
3:37 PM
QUOTE(anonymouse @ May 27 2008, 03:20 PM) [snapback]394087[/snapback]

I live in Veranda. People drive their kids to the busstop. If there was a grocery store on the green, we'd drive to it rather than carry the groceries. Don't believe me. Go stand by the nested mailboxes and watch how many people drive 200 feet to get their mail. (I've never seen anyone else walk to get theirs) If it was 500 people away we'd make the kids drive and get it.





Terrible, but at least there is the OPPORTUNITY, the POSSIBILITY to not driver, correct? This is the first step, we can't get there in one giant leap- this is why you'll see sidewalks to nowhere along busy streets- we've got to require them now, so they will get built parcel by parcel, and eventually connect.



There are studies underway in Portland, at my alma and other institutions to study the impact of Smart Growth, TODs, ect, in numerous ways- travel demand, housing costs, ect.



And to Shawn, I would agree that Density per se can't be the goal- look at the townhouse developments sitting in parking lots surrounded by fields, or otherwise not creating a walkable, livable neighborhood. I saw it in suburban Portland, as well, until better DESIGN standards were implemented.

The mantra: Density, Design, Diversity...and we end up with Lancaster City, circe 1960 or so, pub, church, sandwich shop and store on each corner! (I'm assuming this is a positive image to most!)

I could walk to one of these stores as a kid growing up in NE Phila, or later rode my bike a little further to the deli for meats, ect.



Density with planning and design gets you many of the most desirable places in the world to live, work, visit, ect. Because they are scarce, also very expensive...I'd be buying real estate in Lancaster City for the 20 year horizon, if I could.



Finally, we can REBUILD/Restructure these suburbs, and some have commented this will be a future economic engine, just like building them in the first place was. So, we'll be splitting the McMansions in half, installing sidewalks and bike lanes, and splitting lots and infilling with homes and corner cafes, and pretty soon, you have inner Seattle, or Portland, or Brooklyn Heights...

anonymouse
5/27/08
3:43 PM
QUOTE(gsmart @ May 27 2008, 03:29 PM) [snapback]394091[/snapback]

Shawn: Look, I'm with you. I prefer my space. But then my choice was specifically to live in an older suburb, because I don't like the newer developments for a lot of other reasons (however big the home there's no shrubbery/mature trees/screening from the neighbors, meaning you can't sit on your back porch without everyone gaping at you, and no one ever seems to sit on their back porches besides).




Your attitudes are typical of Lancaster County--and that's the problem. Veranda appeals, primarily, to people who aren't from here. When we do drive somewhere-it's often Phillie, DC or Baltimore. More of my neighbors work out of the county than in it. If you are coming here from the Washington area, $400,000 for a townhouse is a steal.



QUOTE(Mansfield @ May 27 2008, 03:37 PM) [snapback]394096[/snapback]
There are studies underway in Portland, at my alma and other institutions to study the impact of Smart Growth, TODs, ect, in numerous ways- travel demand, housing costs, ect.




Here's the Dun & Bradstreet take on Portland:



http://www.allbusiness.com/government/advo...n/838171-1.html
pml
5/27/08
3:48 PM
QUOTE(Beth @ May 27 2008, 01:09 PM) [snapback]393987[/snapback]

Knock it off you guys, PML has a good post here, pick it up later when she's on the smoking issue!

Frankly having a place near the shore, would be nice, you're all just green!

When I mention we have a place in the mountains, some turn green, til they see **it! It's just some place where the bill collector can't find us and cell phones are useless!

**No shower, tub, or television, radio(gets 3 stations somewhat!), closest place to eat is over 5 miles(dirt rd.) away. Oh, and did I mention no heat, unless you chop & carry! Baths may be taken nightly in local stream-50 degrees. wink.gif
Beth, I have been in the sun a lot lately, so I hope you were not being sarcastic with your support here. Yes we have a place at the RIVER not at the shore. It is a trailer, not a house and it is paid for in five minutes if we choose to do so. Right now we have a mortgage which is nowhere near the $4500 per monthj some of our friends pay for their Mac Mansions. Electric is like $50 per mon th because we only have air conditioning in the bedroom. We are in the middle of nowhere so you learn to stock up whenever travelling back and forth because of gas prices. But it is a little piece of Paradise and guess what we don;t have that the mansion owners do, we have no motorcycles, skateboards or screaming children running thru our yard. We have children here but they are courteous and well mannered. There are plenty of activities on the water so we never see nor hear them. We do not have fireworks every weekend nor do we have traffic jams i.e. Harrisburg Pike. When we go to Home depot, we are the only car on the road and one of 10 people in the store. It is so nice. I would much rather spend 5 months out of the year here than buy a mansion in Hempfield or Manheim TWP and have to live thru Giant's parking lot INSIDE the store every week. So make fn or criticize. My hubby and I do not live above our means. We may take gambles but the way we have worked it, we may lose the trailer if we get sick but we will not lose it because we over extended ourselves like those who buy places in Stone Harbor with inground pools as SECOND homes.
Shawn
5/27/08
3:58 PM
QUOTE(Mansfield @ May 27 2008, 03:37 PM) [snapback]394096[/snapback]

Terrible, but at least there is the OPPORTUNITY, the POSSIBILITY to not driver, correct? This is the first step, we can't get there in one giant leap- this is why you'll see sidewalks to nowhere along busy streets- we've got to require them now, so they will get built parcel by parcel, and eventually connect.

There are studies underway in Portland, at my alma and other institutions to study the impact of Smart Growth, TODs, ect, in numerous ways- travel demand, housing costs, ect.

And to Shawn, I would agree that Density per se can't be the goal- look at the townhouse developments sitting in parking lots surrounded by fields, or otherwise not creating a walkable, livable neighborhood. I saw it in suburban Portland, as well, until better DESIGN standards were implemented.


The mantra: Density, Design, Diversity...and we end up with Lancaster City, circe 1960 or so, pub, church, sandwich shop and store on each corner! (I'm assuming this is a positive image to most!)

I could walk to one of these stores as a kid growing up in NE Phila, or later rode my bike a little further to the deli for meats, ect.

Density with planning and design gets you many of the most desirable places in the world to live, work, visit, ect. Because they are scarce, also very expensive...I'd be buying real estate in Lancaster City for the 20 year horizon, if I could.

Finally, we can REBUILD/Restructure these suburbs, and some have commented this will be a future economic engine, just like building them in the first place was. So, we'll be splitting the McMansions in half, installing sidewalks and bike lanes, and splitting lots and infilling with homes and corner cafes, and pretty soon, you have inner Seattle, or Portland, or Brooklyn Heights...




This sounds good, but doesn't seem to be the current philosophy. The mantra being proposed is: Density, Density, Density. The feeling is that any proposal with the word "Dense" or "Smart" in the title should get a rubber stamp of approval, and anyone that asks the tough questions about impact and feasibility of the proposal is labled "dumb" or "pro-sprawl" or "anti-smart whatever". Has it been stated that the goal is to turn East Hempfield into downtown Seattle or Portland? I love those places. But, why not start with Lancaster city and turn it into downtown Portland/Seattle? Is the goal really to turn the suburbs into a center city?



What happened to the 1960s image of Lancaster city that is a positive image to most? Why is it no longer that way? Could it be an inherent byproduct of Density?



Later...Shawn



QUOTE(gsmart @ May 27 2008, 03:29 PM) [snapback]394091[/snapback]

But again, my point is to viability. If the goal of smart growth is to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the development vs. what would otherwise be generated by a "normal" development, then the shopping space within that development needs to be viable, needs to be big enough that people actually can forego those vehicle trips to Weis or SKH or wherever. I may not want to live in that sort of development (though I might), but others might; and shouldn't they have that option? Why should the neighbors prohibit such developments from being built, and such choices from being made available?

Well - traffic and "our way of life" and property values and all that.




Is that, or should that really be the goal? Is there documented proof or evidence that these types of trips are what is causing all of the traffic problems? When do most people do their shopping? I would venture to guess it is on the weekends. At least that is when we do ours. On any given weekend, we travel down the fruitville pike, centerville road, route 30 and the harrisburg pike to do our shopping. I really don't recall it ever being very bad. Now, if one tries to hit those roads during rush hour in the morning and evening during the week, it is a problem. But, is that really being caused by folks going to the grocery store? If what you state is the goal of "smart growth", then it seems like you might be trying to fix a problem that doesn't even exist.



What about people who work really hard, and want to buy a new house on a half acre or an acre in a development planned development? Why shouldn't they have the choice to do so without neighbors clamoring about sprawl? Luckily I finally found my piece of paradise on just under a half acre...construction should begin next month. Even that seems a little close to the neighbors, but I have a nice tree line in the back and on one side of the lot.



Later...Shawn

gsmart
5/27/08
4:25 PM
QUOTE(Shawn @ May 27 2008, 03:58 PM) [snapback]394102[/snapback]


What about people who work really hard, and want to buy a new house on a half acre or an acre in a development planned development? Why shouldn't they have the choice to do so without neighbors clamoring about sprawl?




I think the point is that different choices should be made available. Because up to now, most of the neighborhoods built in Lancaster County have been of the model you invoke. Good for those who, like you, want that; but not everyone wants that.

lee41
5/27/08
4:43 PM
You cannot have a grocery store every mile unless density supports it - A LOT denser than Independence.

Do you really believe the Kentland's has all of the commercial it does because there are 1800 houses? No. It is because within 3 miles of the center of The Kentlands there are 100,000 people with an average household income of $127,000. That meets the market analysis/site selection criteria for many chains stores. Retail within a TND relies on traffic from outside of the TND for 50% or more of its customers. Vehicular traffic.

A TND is not self-sufficient.

Many of the small shops in The Kentlands (the 'main street' shops as opposed to the 'strip mall') do not have enough business and are struggling. The problem: limited access and visibility to those outside of The Kentlands. Their plans to expand commercial and retail spaces within the Kentlands will require MORE vehicular traffic to support it.

Have you looked at a map and plotted a 3 mile radius from the center of 'Independence'? In order for retail in Independence to survive, it will rely on vehicular traffic from a 5+ mile radius on roads that the master planners have said cannot be widened to support the extra traffic that they believe will be minimal because everyone will be able to walk 1/2 a mile (or 2-3 miles, depending on how you measure it).

Mansfield
5/27/08
5:25 PM
QUOTE(anonymouse @ May 27 2008, 03:43 PM) [snapback]394098[/snapback]



Here's the Dun & Bradstreet take on Portland:


http://www.allbusiness.com/government/advo...n/838171-1.html




Well, actually, its Randall O'Toole's take on it. Soon as I saw his name, I didn't even bother reading on, same old stuff he's been writing for years.

Plus, now that I look again, it WAS written 7 years ago!!

lee41
5/27/08
7:24 PM
QUOTE(Shawn @ May 27 2008, 03:58 PM) [snapback]394102[/snapback]
I love those places. But, why not start with Lancaster city and turn it into downtown Portland/Seattle? Is the goal really to turn the suburbs into a center city?


Yes. It is social engineering. The car is evil. To fight this evil, you must increase density and divert roadway investment dollars to mass-transit and pedestrian and bike friendly improvements. As congestion increases, people will grow tired of the long commutes and move closer to their jobs or mass transit portals.
Shawn
5/27/08
7:37 PM
QUOTE(gsmart @ May 27 2008, 04:25 PM) [snapback]394118[/snapback]

I think the point is that different choices should be made available. Because up to now, most of the neighborhoods built in Lancaster County have been of the model you invoke. Good for those who, like you, want that; but not everyone wants that.




Thats why I'm perfectly ok with the fact that there is Veranda, Mill Creek, Florin Hill, the places at the corner of Fruitville Pike and Petersburg Road. They are indeed providing choice. I believe there are a few more of that scope being proposed as well. Keystone has also been taking crappy pieces of land and sticking tons of houses on them across all the townships. If you want a house in a dense development, that is one thing we are not lacking. However, try to find a new 2000-3000 square foot house on a half -3/4 acre and see how many options you come up with.



Later...Shawn

lee41
5/27/08
8:08 PM
QUOTE(Mansfield @ May 27 2008, 05:25 PM) [snapback]394132[/snapback]
Well, actually, its Randall O'Toole's take on it. Soon as I saw his name, I didn't even bother reading on, same old stuff he's been writing for years.

Plus, now that I look again, it WAS written 7 years ago!!


News article from 2005 in the Portland Tribune: Road to Ruin?

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=32908

Full Report:

http://www.edrgroup.com/edr1/consulting/2_...ongestion.shtml
lanzate
5/27/08
9:47 PM
In Tokyo the value of your house goes up exponentially as you get closer to a train station. My ideal lancaster would be to have a train system that runs a circle around the city. Have a about 10 stops around this circle, i.e. Park City, Millersville Uni, Central Park, HACC, Greenfield Industrial Park, Lancaster Shopping Centre, Red Rose Commons. Just have the trains going both directions all day like a subway, easy on easy off. Tokyo is set up like this and it takes about an hour to make the circle with 29 stops. Lancaster's circle would probably take about 20 min. With 2 trains going in each direction you would wait no longer than 10 min for a train and an average of 5. And then maybe a subway crisscrossing downtown. The stations in the circle would then connect spokes out to the towns in the county like our buses do now. Train stops in Tokyo suburbs are designed so that the fist 100 yards or so in any direction around the train stop was commercial or office space/businesses and then restaurants gradually give way to apartment buildings and then houses.

I know this is mostly a pipe dream that would never happen unless oil went x10 today's price. My wife and I lived 4 years in tokyo without a car. The key is the trains were built first and then development happened. I look at our budget now and I can't believe how much goes towards, gas, repairs, purchase price, insurance, licenses, and township taxes to keep a cars on the road. Tokyo is one of the most expensive places to live on the planet and we never came close to spending what we do here on transportation. In is no wonder why our economy is suffering when transportation costs are like a big ball and chain. Walkable/bikable communities work but we need better planning.
kwf1817
5/27/08
10:31 PM
Interesting discussion.

re: viablity of commercial interest. Let's face it the mantra of any commercial (retail) enterprise is locate where there is the traffic volume!! Grocery stores operate on a very small margin, and have heavy electric usage! Those freezers and refrigerators use a lot of electricity. They need the traffic(auto) volume both on the street and through the store (people /customers) for them to work.hence the need for them to locate on aterial or collector roads. Being an island in a residential area is not a viable option.

another option is 'Critical Mass" multiple stores that draw in traffic and every one hopes to grab some spill over. That's why once a McDonalds locates, it is often followed by Burger King, wendy's , KFC, etc. (Look at the "shoppes of Kissel Hill" as an example)

And our current landuse laws require a certain number of parking spaces based on the square footage of the stores. Thus the stores become surrounded by a sea of asphalt. ( I believe that the experts often cite that there are 5 parking spaces in a region for every registered auto.)

Wal-mart in some areas of new york is now building 2 story stores. Does anyone really have a problem with going up to the 2nd floor of Boscov's or J.C Penney's or Sears at Park City? Same Square footage, smaller Footprint.

In Providence, rhode Island, the 5 story Providence Place mall is whooping the butt off of the Suburban malls. Also neat trick the movie multiplex is on the fifth floor but you don't have direct access to it. You must go through the mall and up to it. Thus the spillover effect is in place and engineered as such.



One of the posters, noted his desire for "peace and quiet!" . No fireworks, loud mufflers, etc. Well he's right. Newly constructed dense housing requires the best soundproofing available! Since nobody sits on the porch or goes outside anymore, make that housing caccoon soundproof and everyone is happy.

When a builder "cheaps Out" that's when dissatisfaction sets in.

I know of one high end rental complex that has concrete floors on every level. no sound transmission from people walking around upstairs.



Living in the Burbs is not as idyllic as some would want you to believe. the sound of the lawn mowers on the weekend is deafening. neighbors who let their pets run loose(Pet disputes between neighbors is the cause of a lot of calls to the police), Atv owners who buy one and have no place to use it so they ride up and down the street. the house with 8 cars, and someone is always working on one in the street. loud stereos,



One of the concepts of dense development is that there should be housing choices for all income ranges, not just mc mansions as in the 'burbs". One just doesn't take the dive into homeownership with a $400k "starter" home.

And for all those people who say we should "stop growth" altogether, well if there is no growth, then your tax base is stagnate. Think about what your next property tax bill will be if there is no growth.





Mansfield
5/28/08
4:31 PM
QUOTE(lanzate @ May 27 2008, 09:47 PM) [snapback]394204[/snapback]
The key is the trains were built first and then development happened.




This is, in fact, the model that was attempted when the extension of Portland's first light rail line was planned and built. This line extended out to and thru the Beaverton and Hillsboro suburbs of Nike and Intel fame, as well as considerable open land. It got FTA approval because of the planning of the undeveloped areas around stations as high density TODs.



To answer Shawn's qwestion, the suburbs is where the bulk of new development is occurring, so it makes sense for any community/region to try to throw its best planning efforts and designs at these areas, while fostering existing areas, of course.



There are clearly fundamental philosophical differences that preclude agreement. I think one "bridge" is to discuss and agree on end goals, like "clean air and rivers" or "access to schools, and parks" and then outline and discuss and debate means to achieve these goals.

And most importantly are getting PRICES RIGHT- poorly designed low density suburbia, as well as blighted/abandoned inner areas, comes with costs, both monetary and psychic.

lee41
5/28/08
7:57 PM
Mansfield may not read these, but here it is for others to consider:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8463

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9420


View Topic | Comment on this blog