Spartan, your tag line is all wrong. You are ALWAYS enthusiastic ... about sniping and criticising!

Why do you take it personally that we would like to see some minor tweaks to what would then be an incredible project for the entire community?

As for elitist - I'll leave that to the people who support segregated zoning.

Nice one.

Why do you take it personally that we would like to see some minor tweaks to what would then be an incredible project for the entire community?

I'm curious,,as to when the "JTF-Spartan" development company will be staring up?

Maybe some people just support plutocracy and don't even realize it. TK is paying for it so it must be right and is beyond question.

I'm curious,,as to when the "JTF-Spartan" development company will be staring up?

Probably never, we would rarely agree on much. But if you're asking why people don't put their money where their mouth is, they do. There are a lot of people who practice what they preach when it comes to urban design standards, and they profit by making friends rather than enemies out of the many developers who routinely shirk design standards.

This is why design review is the name of the game. The sooner we get developer buy-in to design principles and have a clear understanding amongst developers of how the design review process is supposed to work, the more successful it will be in the long run. If you're supportive of the current design review system (or at least how it's supposed to work), then you should be supportive of it being applied fairly.

Probably never, we would rarely agree on much.

Lol, true as I wasn't sure if you two would agree on whose name I should put first for the title either.

I am actually very insulted that you went with his. I think I've been here longer, or we both came around the same year (2002?ish)

YIKES.

A man can accomplish a lot if he doesn't care who gets the credit. I have no problem working behind the scenes without any public recognition.

Me too. I wish we had come along sooner before we had to create improvement districts for I-240 and Meridian and spend billion fixing downtown which was working just fine before urban sprawl happened. Surely you aren't trying to argue that suburban design and sprawl is the best model for growth. Don't you find it sad and stupid that we have to spend so much money rebuilding stuff that was already built once?

As for elitist - I'll leave that to the people who support segregated zoning.

Kerry, the improvements being planned for I240 and Meridian are hardly going to create anything close to your idea of an urban paradise. There isn't an area in any city in the world that, at some point, doesn't need some upgrades, refurbishing, or replanning. Especially for Meridian, it evolved peacemeal because of it's proximity to the airport. You couldn't have moved the airport closer to the city to change that. Not everything can be in an urban area and the airport and it's environ's have nothing to do with urban sprawl. You occasionally make some good points but that isn't one of them.

The point I was trying to make is that the maintenance cost of sustaining suburbia is higher than it was to build it in the first place. No one would ever put up with that in their personal life. Would you spend more money maintaining your TV than you spent to buy it new? How about a house or car? But when it comes to a City, the sky is the limit on maintenance.

Things are built as cheaply as possible and when the owners get tired of maintenance cost they move to a new part of town and build everything new again, leaving the area they built 20 years ago to fall into ruin. Then this process repeats every 20 years. It becomes nothing but rolling ghetto.

The problem is the City (funded 100% by taxpayers) still has to maintain the roads, sewer lines, provide police and fire protection, code enforcement, etc. no matter how little tax revenue an area generates. It is a losing battle but for some reason people still want to 'grow' that way. To quote the W.O.P.R. computer, the only way to win is not to play.

Explain density pricing again.

I'm going to take the uncomfortable position and defend our ideal development standards. Compliance with good form in a highly-dense urban district as the OUHSC undeniably is isn't something that would devastate this project. It would make it better.

Nobody is saying that Toby Keith ever claimed to assert this design as the most pro-urban, so the issue isn't a matter of confrontation. It's a matter of applying a fair standard to all projects that fall within an urban district. For example, the OBI project should have also been held to a better standard.

I'm not complaining about how UGLY and bland the OBI building was (and this hotel actually has a kinda cool aesthetic), but instead pointing out the negative site layout. Parking can be just as functional in the back of a building. Fixing that should be cost neutral, and possibly even cheaper for moving automobile egress/ingress away from the main vantage point.

Spartan, I love you brother, but I think you're wrong on this one. I am the drive coordinator and Valet attendant at the Integris Cancer Center and ProCure building (Memorial & McArthur) and believe me that the parking and the the drop off are placed for the ease of the patient to be dropped off and picked up. I am confident the design is intentional in that regard.

I absolutely think that Spartan and JTF should start up a business together, or at least team up from their respective Starbucks in Canada and Florida to provide free design review for all OKC construction projects. There could be a Factual Spartan thread where developers (the good ones, you know, who really get it) could submit their proposed construction projects and Spartan and JTF could rip 'em to shreds with their little urban design halos shining brightly, lighting the way ahead for we few misguided slobs who choose to not live in an urban environment. or don't know the sidewalk setback target zone (no pun intended, of course, JTF -- I would never choose to liken your Father-in-law's Target store to something good -- even I know to spit and clear out my mouth every time I mention that American retailer).

This is a development forum, zrfdude? That must explain why it seems to be dominated by urbanism-man1 and architect2 (en masse and under multiple pseudonyms, I'm sure) who weigh in ad nauseum on every brick and EIFS construct yelling "Urban Design" from the rooftops, so that we will all see that OKC is a true urban mecca, or could be if we would only listen to them.

Spartan, I don't take it personally that you would propose a few "minor tweaks to what would then be an incredible project for the entire community." I'll bet, however, that the more productive way to focus energy to fixing what you see as a problem would be to get the medical district to establish a design requirement for new buildings in a certain area. Someone alludes to an OHC Master Plan (2007-2022). Does this building meet those design criteria? Good. No? It should be amended. Sure, in post 12, your stated that the parking should be moved (possibly even at no cost while in the design stage), and then you start taking it personally, defending urban design and slamming OKC (post 16) . Your diatribe in post 46 seemed to liken the design standard laid down by this project as poisoning the district around the HSC as well as making all of us obese. I basically agree with your points, Spartan. Its just that I strongly dislike your condescension and vitriol from on high. I don't take it personally, I just think that your tag line about lacking enthusiasm IS all wrong, as I stated in my comment. I don't think anybody on this board would say you don't know your facts (with the possible exception of defining OUHSC as a highly dense urban environment) and theory. I just don't know why you're never content to speak your mind and let it be. Instead you follow it up with venom and spite when anybody dares question your dictates of urban design.

No, JTF, I don't find it sad and stupid that we have to spend so much money rebuilding stuff that was already built once? As I've stated before, I'm a huge fan of free market capitalism. The glory of capitalism, is that failure doesn't mean the end of the road. Rebuilding is ALWAYS an option, and sometimes a better thing than the original. The ideal city was built several times, and just didn't catch on (see Brasilia, Brazil). History is good. A checkered history is sometimes better. Oh, and to save you the time of your knee-jerk reaction to my love of capitalism, I'll go ahead and make it here: "That's not capitalism when you let the money dictate the design, that's plutocracy." My knee-jerk reaction to that? Plutocracy? Just because someone chooses to build a building of their own design in an area void of design restrictions doesn't mean that the rich are going to run the world someday. Tuck that class-warfare word back in your pocket and bring it out when Montgomery Burns creates his super PAC to fund his election.

If it makes you feel any better, JTF, I also agree with you in my dislike of suburban sprawl. I was horrified to find out recently that I'm living within OKC city limits, now. I don't think it was like that when I moved there. I probably should have questioned my realtor a lot more, but there's a whole 'nother story there. Sid, I agree with you there, too, but did you ever consider that some of us out there don't want city services? Is there some reason why OKC has to spread out? Maybe there's something wrong with the municipal government, and not those of us who keep having to move farther and farther out to escape the dictates of the city.

You live in the outer fringe and hate urban sprawl, do you live on a farm?

SUBurban sprawl, and yes, I do.

SUBurban sprawl, and yes, I do.

Sorry, I missed the "sub" portion. It seems we are mostly in agreement. As long as the urban core of OKC is scaled to the automobile then sprawl (urban, suburban, ex-urban) is going to continue. Personally, I think the rural countryside should be saved for open space, farms, and nature. But in order for that to happen urban land-use has to be maximized. You can't maximize urban space and scale it to the car at the same time.

I just went throught this very discussion with my wife. We finally found a place we can agree to move to and started looking at housing size. She was concerned there wouldn't be enough cabinet space to hold thing like the bread maker. I told we aren't supposed to have a bread maker. If we want fresh bread we are supposed to go down to the corner bakery and buy it. Likewise with a cake. We go buy a cake from the bakery, not make it out of a box.
Doesn't that play against the whole sustainability/self-sufficient mantra?
:sofa::sofa::sofa:

Doesn't that play against the whole sustainability/self-sufficient mantra?
:sofa::sofa::sofa:

As long as the local bakery isn't owned by the government then where is the inconsistancy? Society, in all forms, is a blessing.


let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

Shouldn't you be making your bread & cake at home instead of buying something pre-made? LOL

Shouldn't you be making your bread & cake at home instead of buying something pre-made? LOL

Why bake for 2 hours when I can work at job for 30 minutes and earn enough money to buy the cake already made by a professional? I think maybe you are confusing the concept of individualism. Man was not meant to be an island in perpetual isolation from one another. We were meant to function as a society with each member performing to the best of their abilites in their chosen line of work. This is oppposed to a government that requires (and in many cases - manadate) the interaction. To paraphrase Thomas Paine - you are confusing society with government. Individualism doesn't mean that a person must operate in total independence - it means they are free to choose their own path and reap the rewards or suffer the punishment of their actions.

. To paraphrase Thomas Paine - you are confusing society with government. Individualism doesn't mean that a person must operate in total independence - it means they are free to choose their own path and reap the rewards or suffer the punishment of their actions.

Unless of course they choose to live outside of downtown. Those are evil people. Right JTF?

Unless of course they choose to live outside of downtown. Those are evil people. Right JTF?

People can live where ever they want, they should just have to pay the full cost of that decision. As for downtown vs 'not downtown', there are several areas in OKC that are coming close to restoring their traditional neighborhood model - so no, you don't have to live downtown to live an urban lifestyle.

As for the evil comment, I live in a subdivision and don't consider myself evil. Unfortunately, when I bought my home I was unaware of the many downsides to sprawl. For instance, I saw living on a cul-de-sac as a safe environment to raise children. I know see how that decision has led to a suspended state of childhood as they have gotten older.

My oldest son is 13 and he has never gone to the store by himself because the nearest store in 3 miles away (6 miles round trip). When I was 13 I routinely ran errands for my mom - taking deposits to the bank, picking up bread and milk at the store, walking to the post office for stamps, getting dog food, and even walking to our local restaurant to eat when she was working late. My kids do none of that - not because they are lazy or don't want to - but because they can't. Now that I see the error of my ways I am doing what I can to correct my mistakes.

never mind...

Sorry, I missed the "sub" portion. It seems we are mostly in agreement. As long as the urban core of OKC is scaled to the automobile then sprawl (urban, suburban, ex-urban) is going to continue. Personally, I think the rural countryside should be saved for open space, farms, and nature. But in order for that to happen urban land-use has to be maximized. You can't maximize urban space and scale it to the car at the same time.
But, until there is proper infrastructure in place, ie mass trans, there has to be an allowance for cars. Normally development follows infrastructure, not the other way around.

ah, fergitabout da parking format and lift a red solo cup high for the overall effort. I had thought the fundraising was farther along than it seems to be, but it'll get there.

But, until there is proper infrastructure in place, ie mass trans, there has to be an allowance for cars. Normally development follows infrastructure, not the other way around.

The problem is that it is difficult to implement mass transit in a world scaled to the automobile. Destinations and resources are simply spread too thin. The change has to start some time and there is no better time the present to start scaling development to the human and not something capable of 70 mph. To be successful, all mass transit trips must start with and end with walking.

The problem is that it is difficult to implement mass transit in a world scaled to the automobile. Destinations and resources are simply spread too thin. The change has to start some time and there is no better time the present to start scaling development to the human and not something capable of 70 mph. To be successful, all mass transit trips must start with and end with walking.

you can't just say .. no more 70mph ... and only 2 lane streets .. in the short and mid term you would crush economic development ... long term it might work ..

changing the "car" culture .. is going to be a long term process

you can't just say .. no more 70mph ... and only 2 lane streets .. in the short and mid term you would crush economic development ... long term it might work ..

changing the "car" culture .. is going to be a long term process

I actually expect it to happen naturally, whether we want it to or not. Every government in the US is going broke trying to support suburbia and gasoline prices are going to force the issue for us. So places can either make plans for that eventuality or they don’t. The ones that do will reap the economic rewards and the ones that don't will fade away into the sunset. Suburbia was created in 1945, urban living has been in existence since the dawn of time and is still the primary form development around the world.

I actually expect it to happen naturally, whether we want it to or not. Every government in the US is going broke trying to support suburbia and gasoline prices are going to force the issue for us. So places can either make plans for that eventuality or they don’t. The ones that do will reap the economic rewards and the ones that don't will fade away into the sunset. Suburbia was created in 1945, urban living has been in existence since the dawn of time and is still the primary form development around the world.

the oklahoma state and city govts .. are not "going broke"

the oklahoma state and city govts .. are not "going broke"

They just can't afford to repave P180 streets, fix a crumbling capitol building, or finish a museum.

Granted though, the problem is not as sever in Oklahoma as it is in a lot of places.

And now a story form the "No Duh" file.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-05-23/long-commute-poor-health/55162620/1


New evidence shows that a long commute by car not only takes hours out of your day, but could take years off your life.

A study published this month in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that the longer people drive to work, the more likely they are to have poor cardiovascular health.

"This is the first study to show that people who commute long distances to work were less fit, weighed more, were less physically active and had higher blood pressure," said Christine M. Hoehner, a public health professor at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and the study's lead author. "All those are strong predictors of heart disease, diabetes, and some cancers."

I think we need to bring this conversation back down to earth a little, or at least to a closer orbit..

Fixing the OK Korral would have involved some very minor tweaks. It would have been a very routine design review process, but the City did not chose to do that because they would have been perceived as anti-children's hospital. Honestly they could have spun it as working with the developer to help improve the project and bring even greater value to the community.

City codes shouldn't be treated as a nebulous scepter to cross your fingers to get around, just as city code shouldn't be something that we beat bad developers upside the head with. City code exists in the form that it does because we have determined, through a public process, that this is how we want our city to be built - they are constructive building guidelines that make the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

They just can't afford to repave P180 streets, fix a crumbling capitol building, or finish a museum.s.

fwiw, lacking the will/spine to make an unpopular or hard choice to take action is different than lacking the resources to fund the action. Could be wrong, but there seems to be more funding than will or spine available to many decision makers.

fwiw, lacking the will/spine to make an unpopular or hard choice to take action is different than lacking the resources to fund the action. Could be wrong, but there seems to be more funding than will or spine available to many decision makers.

You might be right about that but since the City, State, and Federal are not running surpluses they are spending the money on something. How much debt do you think the State would be in if they weren't getting funding from the federal government (who has to borrow all that money on the State's behalf)? That is kind of like a wife saying she isn't broke because her husband takes out a loan every month to give her spending money.

And now a story form the "No Duh" file.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-05-23/long-commute-poor-health/55162620/1

What is your point?

What is your point?

No point other than living in a car-culture is making us un-healthy. That wouldn't be a problem if taxes weren't spent building freeways, bailing out auto companies, having wars to ensure the free flow of oil at market prices, and then also having to pick up the healthcare cost of people who chose to drive to the store instead of walking to the store (of course they can't walk to the store even if they wanted to because modern planning has created an environment scaled to the automobile). The taxpayer is tapped out but we have a huge tax liablity overhead in place.

So people should just live in an urban setting as supposed to the suburbs because of these issues? I live in the suburbs and work downtown. So I commute everyday to work and I am in perfect health. However, I work out almost everyday and eat somewhat healthy. That has nothing to do with where I choose to live and how I choose to get to work. That article doesn't make sense in my world.

If you torture statistics hard enough, they will tell you anything you want to hear.

If you torture statistics hard enough, they will tell you anything you want to hear.

Amen, Lawdy-Mama

If you torture statistics hard enough, they will tell you anything you want to hear.
I think it was Mark Twain that said, "statistics are like a cheap whore, once you throw them down there, you can do about anything you want with them".

I guess holding such beliefs allows anyone to ignore anything that doesn't suit their needs. My guess is very few people commenting on statistics actually read the article. On a side note, I decided to take up smoking now that I can disregard all the crazy smoking statistics. Can anyone recommend a brand to a new smoker?

My reason for bringing statistics up is while the average driving distance increasing may play a part in obesity rates but it is by no means even close to the entire reason, driving certainly allows you to ignore the problem longer. The changes in diet, food available/promoted, activity levels on jobs, the jobs people do, activities around the house, time spent exercising have all dramatically shifted over the recent decades and play a part. Compared to twenty years ago the average commute in OKC is not a whole lot longer than it was then but the obesity rate is more than doubled over that time frame.

I guess holding such beliefs allows anyone to ignore anything that doesn't suit their needs. My guess is very few people commenting on statistics actually read the article. On a side note, I decided to take up smoking now that I can disregard all the crazy smoking statistics. Can anyone recommend a brand to a new smoker?

Perhaps a Joe 20?
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/outdoors/outdoor-living/ok-joe-longhorn-smoker-54083.html

oh, wait, you meant .... nevah mind.

Perhaps a Joe 20?
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/outdoors/outdoor-living/ok-joe-longhorn-smoker-54083.html

oh, wait, you meant .... nevah mind.

HAHA Good One.........

You may not be far off... while back there was some study that grilling/smoking meats only added to the suggested carcinogenic factors of eating red meat anyway...

... study that grilling/smoking meats only added to the suggested carcinogenic factors of eating red meat anyway...

one man's carcinogenic factors is another fella's flavor nodes.

I would be in the later :tongue:

Would the building at 802 NW 8th, built in 1910 be protected from being torn down if one was to buy it?

Are the SoSA people wanting to tear it down now?

You could probably buy it for pretty cheap, save for the typical SoSA land spec rates.

I watched a program last night on urban development and one thing I thought was a different approch to traffic problems was a city in South America (don't remember which one) implemented a bus rapid transit system and then started removing downtown parking spaces. Now they do not allow any more parking spaces to be built. To quote the mayor, he said people complain to him about not being able to a park their car, he tells them it is their car and their problem. They might as well complain to him that they don't have anywhere to hang their clothes either. In short, if you buy a private good the city has no reason to provide you a parking space for it. They provide mass transit, not parking spaces.

Of course, you can't do this in OKC yet because we don't have a regional mass transit system, but maybe some day.

Are you talking about TransMilenio? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransMilenio I think this is one of the better models for transportation infrastructure. It's almost as cheap as a bus route, with most of the advantages of rail.

Yes, TransMilenio. I am no fan of BRT, but that system is pretty good. As you said, as close to rail as you can get without actual rail. Even the 'bus stops' look and function like a rail stop. Sadly, not very good for TOD or development oriented transit though. Bogota is the city. The Mayor they interviewed in the documentary Urbanized was awesome. When asked about parking he said show me where there is a constitutional requirment to provide parking (once again just to be clear, I know you can't do this in OKC because there is no regional transit system). I need to watch the video again to see what city it was that bsically stopped making roads and now only makes sidewalks and bicycle paths. Cars driving in dirt and mud and bikes on nice 4 lanes paved paths. That might have been Bogota as well.

Sometimes I can't decide if you guys are promoting fascism or communism, but it sure goes beyond urbanism in a free society. When your ideals are more like South America, Africa or Russia I have to wonder.

The idea that you make cities more livable by taking away choices vs making intelligent infrastructure decisions is puzzling. The idea that you are going to force eliminate cars in the city is silly. I have been to many cities which have tried it and failed miserably...cities like Athens. But the cities who took the positive route of building world class mass transit systems found people would CHOOSE to use them. They didn't have to FORCE people by taking away all other choices.

Sometimes I can't decide if you guys are promoting fascism or communism, but it sure goes beyond urbanism in a free society. When your ideals are more like South America, Africa or Russia I have to wonder.

The idea that you make cities more livable by taking away choices vs making intelligent infrastructure decisions is puzzling. The idea that you are going to force eliminate cars in the city is silly. I have been to many cities which have tried it and failed miserably...cities like Athens. But the cities who took the positive route of building world class mass transit systems found people would CHOOSE to use them. They didn't have to FORCE people by taking away all other choices.

Why must you always inject into a conversation, the most cut-and-dry responses? LORD. Heaven forbid a couple posters have a small conversation on what other cities in the world are doing to uniquely combat overuse of the automobile versus the pedestrian or mass-transit. There is nothing wrong with that at all and yet, you somehow manage to get offended by it. I found it very interesting and not once did I think that they were actually advocating turning OKC into Bogota. Actually though, I like the idea of getting rid of MOST of the parking spaces downtown for automobiles. Obviously that won't work now or any time soon, but in the future I could see this being possible with a good mass-transit system. Thataway, we aren't "FORCING" people to choose, instead they can choose whether or not they want to visit downtown or the Shoppes at Moore. Lol. Of course, this would have to at a time when Downtown is well-supported by the local urban population and the inner-city and NOT by suburbanites. It's definitely an interesting topic that doesn't have to be confined by the principles of our country versus another.

Sometimes I can't decide if you guys are promoting fascism or communism, but it sure goes beyond urbanism in a free society. When your ideals are more like South America, Africa or Russia I have to wonder.

Have you ever been to any of those dark, distant places??

I agree with your caveat that you provide the choice, not the decision for people.. but I cringed at your first paragraph. My god. Suburban sprawl is derived from the ideals of socialists and communists like Le Corbusier... for the record Moscow is one of the coolest cities I've ever been to, and St. Petersburg one of the most cultured. In fact I'm not aware of many cities that are more cultural than SPB.

As for Latin America, the Bogota mayor is in fact awesome (as Kerry correctly pointed out) and was directing transit spending toward the highest utility. Far more people utilized his TransMilenio system than what comparable funding for traffic lanes would have done. Far more people whizzed by on bicycles on the newly-redesigned bicycle pathways that also enhanced safety in many areas of Bogota, than on the mud roads beside them.

Anti-internationalism is cut from the same cloth as anti-intellectualism, and I don't see the point in resorting to either. There is no such folly in consulting people who have studied a topic just as you can't go wrong in studying how other peoples have confronted similar urban problems. I'd argue that only through drawing inspiration from elsewhere can our beloved American exceptionalism be preserved. I also think people are people everywhere.. just because someone comes from a part of the world that has struggled with corruption or ideology shouldn't discredit good urban solutions. That's heinous.

Actually I have been to many of the cities and done business on site in about 30 different countries, mostly in their most urban cities. I know businessmen in many, if not most of them. None of them have been successful in eliminating autos. Most of the most urban cities in the world are full of cars and have huge requirements for parking. The idea that you are not going to affect commerce by strangling parking is an odd notion.

I think St. Petersburg is great...but you might want to learn how the wealth, art and culture actually was accumulated there. And the people I have known from Moscow think of it as anything but a cool city. When we visit we see a totally different side to it than when we actually live in it.

And, suburban sprawl is NOT advocated by communists. Communal living IS. Control of movement between communities is also a long standing way to control populations.

I in no way support either practically or ideologically the idea of urban sprawl. It is inefficient and in many, many ways unsustainable. It can be controlled and should be, but it will not be eliminated unless the population decreases or stays the same. I am on the same side as many, if not most, of the urbanists on this site. However, I bristle at the notion that we should start forcing the changes on the population. I also see a lot of things stated as fact on here that simply are not true. Some is manipulation of information/data, and some is simply myopathy. I actually respect Spartan's views greatly because he not only has read about it but has made the sacrifices and effort to go SEE what is happening in the world. I also respect many on here who are putting their money where their words are...taking the risks to prove their points. I hope they are amply rewarded for it.

I in no way support either practically or ideologically the idea of urban sprawl. It is inefficient and in many, many ways unsustainable. It can be controlled and should be, but it will not be eliminated unless the population decreases or stays the same. I am on the same side as many, if not most, of the urbanists on this site. However, I bristle at the notion that we should start forcing the changes on the population. I also see a lot of things stated as fact on here that simply are not true. Some is manipulation of information/data, and some is simply myopathy. I actually respect Spartan's views greatly because he not only has read about it but has made the sacrifices and effort to go SEE what is happening in the world. I also respect many on here who are putting their money where their words are...taking the risks to prove their points. I hope they are amply rewarded for it.

I think most people would agree with you on this Rover. I strongly believe we should redirect some of our resources to facilitate the rebirth of our American urban centers. I do not think we should continue to encourage further sprawl as we have nearly exclusively over the past 4 or 5 decades. I do not view living in an urban environment any more communal than living behind a wall in a suburban development.

There are no silver bullet solutions, nor are there any short term fixes. We have completely lost balance in our urban development and transportation policies; I think restoring balance is what many people would like to see. If we do this, we restore the choice of suburban or urban living. This will be a 10 year or longer process if it was started today - and the suburbs would still be available for those that choose that lifestyle.

To paraphrase the former Mayor of Bogota, a bus with 100 people is entitled to the same transportation funding and consideration as 100 single occupancy cars. Anyone else see the irony of calling Bogota socialist or fascist because it is easier to move around in than OKC? I imagine Rover isn't happy the government is making him buy health insurance but doesnt think twice about being forced to buy a car.

I think most people would agree with you on this Rover. I strongly believe we should redirect some of our resources to facilitate the rebirth of our American urban centers. I do not think we should continue to encourage further sprawl as we have nearly exclusively over the past 4 or 5 decades. I do not view living in an urban environment any more communal than living behind a wall in a suburban development.

There are no silver bullet solutions, nor are there any short term fixes. We have completely lost balance in our urban development and transportation policies; I think restoring balance is what many people would like to see. If we do this, we restore the choice of suburban or urban living. This will be a 10 year or longer process if it was started today - and the suburbs would still be available for those that choose that lifestyle.

Well said.

Holy crap. It would be "urban"



This, if it were just more Browntones or something similar in form, it would feel extremely European. I think that in itself would be quite a view, even if it's just a narrow view.

I don't know why you think I am not in support of urbanism. Yes it'd be urban, but if you have a 3 story house. And you are paying extremely good money, as these cost. A view of the back of an apartment complex (literally feet away) or the view of an alley. Those two views are non starters for the price point. But what do I know?