Quote Originally Posted by Midtowner View Post
Nah, we just grew up in a suburban community full of low density development, live next to a city with high density development, which is for many of us only about a 10-15 minute drive away, so we're not interested in all of the noise and light pollution, increased traffic congestion, etc. which comes along with more high density development. Growth is good if you're making a buck off of it, but for everyone else, it's not necessarily something we're interested in seeing. This particular development doesnt' concern me as it's likely that any owners of these sorts fo homes are going to be seniors, so there's not much chance the increased density is going to impact our schools.



I've read a lot of urban designers over the years. There is an inherent bias towards increased density, even "green" development. You pooh-pooh the idea of suburban homes sitting on acres and acres with manicured lawns as wasteful and even harmful. Public transit is of course high on your list of priorities. You say you know Edmond, and that you've apparently travelled the world, so can you tell me in what part of the world are folks who live in suburban communities with lots in excess of 1/4 acre riding public transit? And since there's no current rail infrastructure in east Edmond, I suppose you think it would be cost effective to build rail lines out where there are homes sitting on 5, 10, 20 acres, and the land is still largely undeveloped?

Not everyone wants urbanism or urban planners to tell them how to live or what sorts or properties they should be allowed to own.
Exactly. Keep pushing the urbanization (or reurbanization) of downtown Edmond and the surrounding area (including UCO) which will make commuter rail to OKC/norman more viable. Leave the rest of Edmond alone. Most people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs…if they want to live in an urban area within Edmond…they’ll have that option too. Everyone wins.