Comments on: Failing the Density Test: Our Biggest Goblin http://citiwire.net/post/1446/ Our mission... to reflect a new narrative for 21st century cities and regions. Leaving behind the 20th century pattern of cheap energy, endless automobility, burgeoning suburbs, threatened inner cities. To a challenge-packed 21st century: energy prices headed north, perilous carbon emissions, deepening have-have not divisions, excruciating social problems and deep challenges in education. But a time of exciting promise, too. Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:15:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Bob Voelker http://citiwire.net/post/1446/comment-page-1/#comment-1060 Bob Voelker Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:27:53 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=1446#comment-1060 Density is a Big Goblin for a number of reasons -- not the least of which is the NIMBY reaction of most suburbs to any mention of density -- which conjures up visions of rental apartments (and the types of people who might occupy them, impact on schools, traffic, crime, etc.) -- coming to towns of low density, higher income, high cost homes (and notwithstanding the needs of these cities for retail, restaurant, school, police, firefighter, etc. lower income workers). These attitudes will unfortunately change slowly, but the change will accelerate as the GenY/Millenium Generation, who are more comfortable with intercultural, inter-city, dense living come of age. Density is a Big Goblin for a number of reasons — not the least of which is the NIMBY reaction of most suburbs to any mention of density — which conjures up visions of rental apartments (and the types of people who might occupy them, impact on schools, traffic, crime, etc.) — coming to towns of low density, higher income, high cost homes (and notwithstanding the needs of these cities for retail, restaurant, school, police, firefighter, etc. lower income workers). These attitudes will unfortunately change slowly, but the change will accelerate as the GenY/Millenium Generation, who are more comfortable with intercultural, inter-city, dense living come of age.

]]> By: Erik Harper http://citiwire.net/post/1446/comment-page-1/#comment-925 Erik Harper Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:40:16 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=1446#comment-925 Agree with everything you said. I want to bring up population forecasts because anytime I read something about the projected increases in population for a given area, they all seem to just keep pointing more and more upward and I have to ask, do you agree that there isn't enough questioning of these projections? A lot of experts out there, mainly a lot of peak-oilers and various futurists would say that populations worldwide will be on the decline due to diminishing resources, and by that they mainly are talking about fossil fuels. It's pretty apparent that our current population can be directly attributed to fossil fuel usage over the past century, so in a future with less and less of that fuel being used, wouldn't you conclude that there will be less people as a result? Think about it, much of our mainstream agricultural system (the life support system for our abundant population) is based on fossil fuel for much of its input. Take those inputs away, and you lose the ability to support as much life. I think these kind of future projections of populations may be a little on the high side, and maybe that is a good thing when you're trying to address something like sprawl because of the damaging effects of that on land use and many other issues, but do you think that a lot of these issues may be negligible as we see populations start to decline? Agree with everything you said. I want to bring up population forecasts because anytime I read something about the projected increases in population for a given area, they all seem to just keep pointing more and more upward and I have to ask, do you agree that there isn’t enough questioning of these projections?

A lot of experts out there, mainly a lot of peak-oilers and various futurists would say that populations worldwide will be on the decline due to diminishing resources, and by that they mainly are talking about fossil fuels. It’s pretty apparent that our current population can be directly attributed to fossil fuel usage over the past century, so in a future with less and less of that fuel being used, wouldn’t you conclude that there will be less people as a result? Think about it, much of our mainstream agricultural system (the life support system for our abundant population) is based on fossil fuel for much of its input. Take those inputs away, and you lose the ability to support as much life.

I think these kind of future projections of populations may be a little on the high side, and maybe that is a good thing when you’re trying to address something like sprawl because of the damaging effects of that on land use and many other issues, but do you think that a lot of these issues may be negligible as we see populations start to decline?

]]> By: Neal Peirce http://citiwire.net/post/1446/comment-page-1/#comment-924 Neal Peirce Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:40:59 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=1446#comment-924 Comment from Harold Woodridge: Enjoyed the oped, agree with all you wrote. Only troubling aspect was lack of statement of higher density will be required as gas goes to 20/gallon in the next xx years & of course, as we go to 400 million in the next 25-30 years. Comment from Harold Woodridge:
Enjoyed the oped, agree with all you wrote. Only troubling aspect was lack of statement of higher density will be required as gas goes to 20/gallon in the next xx years & of course, as we go to 400 million in the next 25-30 years.

]]> By: George A. Laigle http://citiwire.net/post/1446/comment-page-1/#comment-920 George A. Laigle Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:17:10 +0000 http://citiwire.net/?p=1446#comment-920 Mr. Newberg: You may be the person I have been looking for, for several years now. Your posting about the obvious benefits of high density housing with easy access to rail transport shows that you truly understand what must happen in the world, and especially in the USA, if we are to have the ability in the next decade to travel at an affordable cost to the average citizen. Our unbelievable urban sprawl will, very soon, become a gargantuan millstone around our necks. I live in Houston, and the sprawl 20 to 40 miles out from the city center must be seen to be believed. McMansions as far as the eye can see from the top of one of the many "freeway" overpasses as you go west, south, east and north. But to get to the main reason for my message; I am an engineer by inclination, talent, and training, with a B.S in Mechanical Engineering from Rice University, class of 1951. My wife and I have traveled for many years to Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, and one trip each to some of the significant cities in South America, and China. Also one very memorable trip to Leningrad in 1978, when the cold war was still very much alive. From my many observations of the well known cities of the world, I began to see that NONE were ever planned for their eventual (current) population. (Also, a great many were located one, to maybe five centuries ago, for reasons that now no longer exist). Thus, in every city I have ever visited, there are always areas under reconstruction, since as population grows, infrastructure ALWAYS becomes insufficient to service the citizens. ( Here in Houston, it is considered "normal" for major thoroughfares, highways, streets, sewers, communication infrastructure, etc. to be rebuilt every 20 to 30 years. [An incredibly large portion of our electric grid had to be rebuilt just last year after the hurricane IKE.] I have personally seen a major boulevard near my home of 40 years, 6 lanes, completely repaved lane by lane with concrete, over a period of 2 years, and then completely torn up again in less than 6 years, to install a giant underground storm sewer.) To finally get to the point of my message: I have done a many years of brainstorming on a plan to build a city that WORKS. By that, I mean it solves 80% to 90% of the problems common to EVERY major city in the world today. I began many years ago, starting by compiling a complete list, and the exact nature of the many ills common to all cities and their extended urbanized areas. (As an engineer, I learned that the first step in solving problems is to know and understand exactly what those problems are.) Since I will be 80 years old in a few months, it is clear to me, that if I cannot find someone who is passionate about, and learned, if not formally trained, in urban planning, to whom I can leave my body of work, it will all have been for naught, as it will be thrown out in the trash if I die before giving it away. So, I am hoping that I might open a dialogue with you by e-mail and phone, with my goal being the eventual selection of an individual or group with enough knowledge and incentive to appreciate my work and plans, and build on it. In one or two phone calls, I could summarize what I have to give away, so that you could make an informed decision as to whether you might wish to give me some advice, or ideas, as to how I might locate such a person or group. It is obvious to me, and should be to any objective person, that if we can plan and send a man to the moon, we can plan a very livable, sustainable city, designed for a specific maximum number of citizens, that works very well, (and I know that I have developed that plan). If you could spare 30 minutes or so for a phone call, I could give you a fairly complete picture of what I have to give away. If not a phone call, I could send you a very long letter, but I can talk a lot faster than I can type, and a phone call would give you the opportunity to ask questions. I, for one, appreciate very much the wisdom and common sense displayed in your posting - thank you. Sincerely, George A. Laigle phone 713-621-4197 5414 John Dreaper, Houston, Tx. 77056 Mr. Newberg:
You may be the person I have been looking for, for several years now. Your posting about the obvious benefits of high density housing with easy access to rail transport shows that you truly understand what must happen in the world, and especially in the USA, if we are to have the ability in the next decade to travel at an affordable cost to the average citizen. Our unbelievable urban sprawl will, very soon, become a gargantuan millstone around our necks. I live in Houston, and the sprawl 20 to 40 miles out from the city center must be seen to be believed. McMansions as far as the eye can see from the top of one of the many “freeway” overpasses as you go west, south, east and north. But to get to the main reason for my message; I am an engineer by inclination, talent, and training, with a B.S in Mechanical Engineering from Rice University, class of 1951. My wife and I have traveled for many years to Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, and one trip each to some of the significant cities in South America, and China. Also one very memorable trip to Leningrad in 1978, when the cold war was still very much alive. From my many observations of the well known cities of the world, I began to see that NONE were ever planned for their eventual (current) population. (Also, a great many were located one, to maybe five centuries ago, for reasons that now no longer exist). Thus, in every city I have ever visited, there are always areas under reconstruction, since as population grows, infrastructure ALWAYS becomes insufficient to service the citizens. ( Here in Houston, it is considered “normal” for major thoroughfares, highways, streets, sewers, communication infrastructure, etc. to be rebuilt every 20 to 30 years. [An incredibly large portion of our electric grid had to be rebuilt just last year after the hurricane IKE.] I have personally seen a major boulevard near my home of 40 years, 6 lanes, completely repaved lane by lane with concrete, over a period of 2 years, and then completely torn up again in less than 6 years, to install a giant underground storm sewer.) To finally get to the point of my message: I have done a many years of brainstorming on a plan to build a city that WORKS. By that, I mean it solves 80% to 90% of the problems common to EVERY major city in the world today. I began many years ago, starting by compiling a complete list, and the exact nature of the many ills common to all cities and their extended urbanized areas. (As an engineer, I learned that the first step in solving problems is to know and understand exactly what those problems are.) Since I will be 80 years old in a few months, it is clear to me, that if I cannot find someone who is passionate about, and learned, if not formally trained, in urban planning, to whom I can leave my body of work, it will all have been for naught, as it will be thrown out in the trash if I die before giving it away.
So, I am hoping that I might open a dialogue with you by e-mail and phone, with my goal being the eventual selection of an individual or group with enough knowledge and incentive to appreciate my work and plans, and build on it. In one or two phone calls, I could summarize what I have to give away, so that you could make an informed decision as to whether you might wish to give me some advice, or ideas, as to how I might locate such a person or group. It is obvious to me, and should be to any objective person, that if we can plan and send a man to the moon, we can plan a very livable, sustainable city, designed for a specific maximum number of citizens, that works very well, (and I know that I have developed that plan). If you could spare 30 minutes or so for a phone call, I could give you a fairly complete picture of what I have to give away. If not a phone call, I could send you a very long letter, but I can talk a lot faster than I can type, and a phone call would give you the opportunity to ask questions.
I, for one, appreciate very much the wisdom and common sense displayed in your posting – thank you. Sincerely, George A. Laigle phone 713-621-4197
5414 John Dreaper, Houston, Tx. 77056

]]>