Urban Vs. Suburban

[mkjeeves]

You're well on your way to convincing me OKC needs to deannex me. I don't want your services and you can't have my money.

[heyerdahl]

You're well on your way to convincing me OKC needs to deannex me. I don't want your services and you can't have my money.

You could always vote with your feet, as they say.

[mkjeeves]

I'm not a quitter and I was here before you. Or are you like JTF and you don't live here either?

[OKVision4U]

If I'm picking a place, that little suburb called Malibu ain't bad.

That way I don't have to cross that 405. ...and I can get that In-n-Out burger off PCH & Washington in Santa Monica.

In reality, it would be something completely different.

[Just the facts]

If you took the $770 million from MAPS III and spread it evenly across 650 sq. miles over 12 years what could you build with it? Answer, nothing. I am not even sure you can plant and maintain grass for that price; but concentrate the majority of that money in a small area and you can change the whole City.

[mkjeeves]

You might want to take a look at that poll and see what people prefer on this heavily Urbanista infected forum. You might also consider how close the votes are on the Maps projects and then keep telling us how this is a mandate for your agenda. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Just the facts]

You could always vote with your feet, as they say.

Where would he go - the whole country is going new urbanism. Jacksonville is largest city in the US by land area and here is what was in our paper on Sunday.

Aundra Wallace: Downtown's transformation should mean great things throughout Jacksonville | members.jacksonville.com

Things will be great in Jacksonville in 2014 because downtown is undergoing a transformation that will be felt throughout the entire city. As urban renewal has become a priority for stakeholders on every level across the region, our collective efforts are beginning to yield powerful results.

It’s no secret that revitalizing downtown Jacksonville is essential in attracting jobs and a diverse workforce. Strong downtowns create a competitive advantage for developers and businesses looking to invest in a city by providing a high quality of life and live-work-play balance. Successful downtowns create a beneficial cycle where employers are attracted by the large pool of employable talent, and talent is drawn to the abundance of job opportunities.

The good news is that we know that downtown Jacksonville matters to the community at large. Jacksonville Community Council Inc.’s recent JAX2025 visioning process surveyed 14,000 people to determine what type of city we want to become. Downtown Jacksonville was overwhelmingly identified as both the biggest challenge Jacksonville faces, and the most pressing area where we want to see improvement.

[betts]

If you took the $770 million from MAPS III and spread it evenly across 650 sq. miles over 12 years what could you build with it? Answer, nothing. I am not even sure you can plant and maintain grass for that price; but concentrate the majority of that money in a small area and you can change the whole City.

What Mayor Cornett is already working toward is an RTD. That's not just spreading money over the city, but requires the suburbs to do the same. A rail and improved bus system would spread transit-oriented development through the city. That should be the next tax voters will be asked to decide upon. I don't think all the people in his neighborhood alliance are worried that he's going to let them rot. Not when we have tangible evidence that he's looking beyond downtown.

And why is MAPS for Kids always left out of the discussion, when it was not at all downtown-centric?

[flintysooner]

I've said before, people want their acreage but they don't want to pay the tax rate necessary to provide services to that acreage.

Where our farm is in Oklahoma City there is only one city service provided which is trash collection. There is no water or sewer. The city did not build the roads nor does the city maintain the roads. Police presence is nonexistent and very limited. Fire service is mainly interested in grass fire containment and often they can't get to the fire anyway. Ambulance will come though.

[PennyQuilts]

Urban sprawl is the worst thing that ever happened to animals. We destroy sq. mile after sq. mile to build suburbia, pollute the environment along the way, and allow private ownership of waterfront land. When you get to that grocery store 10 minutes away how big is the parking lot?

A lot of it depends on how much the environment is fractured. If you break it up so that migratory patterns are disrupted or if creatures' breeding grounds are broken up, you'll have a lot worse problem than a small area here and there they can work around. And a lot depends on where you are in terms of migration or sensitive animals. When I look at NYC, I am honestly aghast that the rich area it sits on was destroyed. It is right smack in the middle of a major coastal fly way for the entire east coast. There are plenty of areas where towns and villages here and there haven't caused much of a problem. But a city? Everything under it is pretty much dead. Coyotes and some small generalist mammals or birds might venture back but for the most part, you are looking at a post apocalyptic nightmare for wild things.

[Teo9969]

The conversation becomes non-starter at "If money were no object"

The question ought to be "given an amount (one which is rationally assumable) of resources you will acquire in your lifetime, what lifestyle would you choose to best maximize the value (not just monetary) you create for yourself and others?".

And at some point, a discussion needs to be had about the true costs of living (both low and high density) and the overall impact made by both types of living so that a consensus understanding of cost can factor into the answer.

[PennyQuilts]

I've said before, people want their acreage but they don't want to pay the tax rate necessary to provide services to that acreage.

Really? I haven't seen that. We have our acreage and haven't squawked over paying for it, notwithstanding that we don't get nearly the services out here.

[Just the facts]

RTD and the resulting TOD - yet more new urbanism. Good point about MAPS II, but keep in mind MAPS II was necessitated by sprawl in the first place as we abandoned existing schools and spent large portions of the school budget on new sprawling 20 acre schools and a fortune on a school bus system that is one of the most inefficient modes of transportation on the planet because it tries to service low density areas with mass transit.

[PennyQuilts]

If you took the $770 million from MAPS III and spread it evenly across 650 sq. miles over 12 years what could you build with it? Answer, nothing. I am not even sure you can plant and maintain grass for that price; but concentrate the majority of that money in a small area and you can change the whole City.

I live in the city far from DT - how would that change my life other than drive up taxes?

[Just the facts]

Really? I haven't seen that. We have our acreage and haven't squawked over paying for it, notwithstanding that we don't get nearly the services out here.

What if you had pay the true cost of a gallon of gasoline - which in 2012 was estimated to be $15.14 per gallon? Instead, you pay about $3.25 per gallon and the taxpayers and government borrowing cover the rest.

[David]

And why is MAPS for Kids always left out of the discussion, when it was not at all downtown-centric?

I have a feeling that that is a question that contains its own answer.

[Teo9969]

Everyone should be charged accordingly. On that note...we should assess a tax on every new downtown OKC resident to pay suburbia back for all the money we've handed over to revitalize downtown for them. $1 million a year per resident wouldn't begin to cover it for some years to come but it would be a good start.

Less the benefit that the entire city has gotten out of a revitalized downtown (including Moore/Edmond/Norman/etc) and $1 million/year per resident is simply not even close.

Building an arena on Reno/Harvey is not revitalizing downtown, it's revitalizing the entire OKC metro area from SE 119th and Post to NW 122nd and Council.

That's not a downtown project, it's a city project. Very few of the MAPS projects that have been located downtown can be fairly called "Downtown Projects" most of the are legitimately "Metropolitan Area Projects" because they best serve the entire city being located downtown.

How much a certain project serves downtown as opposed to the entire city is another discussion, but it is disingenuous to paint anything that occurs downtown as downtown centric.

And while we're at it, Devon has publicly stated that a move to Houston was likely had OKC not invested money in improving the city, and particularly downtown…and I suspect CLR would also no be here had that not happened. These types of realities heavily change the game in terms of what area of the city has contributed what amount of growth/value creation/etc.

[Plutonic Panda]

If you could come up with a way to charge people for the lifestyle/landuse decisions I would be all for it. Any idea what the real cost of a gallon gasoline is?

I would say around $6 a gallon. In Bahrain, gas is like 70 cents a gallon though(converted).

[PennyQuilts]

What if you had pay the true cost of a gallon of gasoline - which in 2012 was estimated to be $15.14 per gallon? Instead, you pay about $3.25 per gallon and the taxpayers and government borrowing cover the rest.

Why is that? I rarely even drive to OKC, proper, and they rarely send anything my way in terms of services, either (except water and electricity but I pay for them). I also live on a private road.

[mkjeeves]

Less the benefit that the entire city has gotten out of a revitalized downtown (including Moore/Edmond/Norman/etc) and $1 million/year per resident is simply not even close.

Building an arena on Reno/Harvey is not revitalizing downtown, it's revitalizing the entire OKC metro area from SE 119th and Post to NW 122nd and Council.

That's not a downtown project, it's a city project. Very few of the MAPS projects that have been located downtown can be fairly called "Downtown Projects" most of the are legitimately "Metropolitan Area Projects" because they best serve the entire city being located downtown.

How much a certain project serves downtown as opposed to the entire city is another discussion, but it is disingenuous to paint anything that occurs downtown as downtown centric.

And while we're at it, Devon has publicly stated that a move to Houston was likely had OKC not invested money in improving the city, and particularly downtown…and I suspect CLR would also no be here had that not happened. These types of realities heavily change the game in terms of what area of the city has contributed what amount of growth/value creation/etc.

Likewise for improving other parts of the city where people live, work go to school and generate the tax dollars that paid and pay for improvements to downtown.

[mkjeeves]

And why is MAPS for Kids always left out of the discussion, when it was not at all downtown-centric?

Wait. I thought when I voted for that I was sending a secret mandate for New Urbanism. Can I have a revote?

[Just the facts]

Why is that? I rarely even drive to OKC, proper, and they rarely send anything my way in terms of services, either (except water and electricity but I pay for them). I also live on a private road.

That just it though, at the base you are paying the average cost of providing electric and water to all people. If you had to pay the incremental cost of getting utilities to your house you couldn't afford it. That is why on my phone bill (and everyone else's phone bill) there is a line item tax for rural phone service. Otherwise, rural phone service would cost so much you couldn't have a phone.

It is really petty simple. Imagine 2 streets 1/2 mile long. The streets contain pavement, water lines, sewer lines, telephone lines, internet lines, electrical lines, and cable tv lines and residents along the street need police and fire protection. One street has high density housing along it and contains 1000 housing units, plus first floor retail and commercial services that allow the residents to walk to daily needs. The second street is low density and has 10 housing units, and is a single use area so residents have to drive for everything. If you take the cost of operating each which is cheaper on a per capita basis, the one where the cost of all the infrastructure is shared by 1000 units or the one where it is shared by 10 units? The obvious answer in the one with 1,000 people paying. So wouldn't it be fair if people paid the incremental costs of their housing choices? How much more would it cost if instead of 1000 housing units on a 1/2 mile street we all lived at the density of the second street?

No one is saying you can live on the 10 house street, we're just saying you should pay for that decision, and if you can't afford it what does that say about your housing choice? For nearly 60 years the federal government has spent trillions to make suburban living possible but that money is drying up. So what happens, do we keep piling up the debt or do we come up with plan B (which 60 years ago used to be plan A)?

[Just the facts]

I would say around $6 a gallon. In Bahrain, gas is like 70 cents a gallon though(converted).

In case you missed it in my other post - it is over $15 per gallon. The difference between what you pay and the $15 price is made up by the taxpayers and government borrowing.

[flintysooner]

That just it though, at the base you are paying the average cost of providing electric and water to all people. If you had to pay the incremental cost of getting utilities to your house you couldn't afford it. That is why on my phone bill (and everyone else's phone bill) there is a line item tax for rural phone service. Otherwise, rural phone service would cost so much you couldn't have a phone.

We have OEC for electricity. It is a co-op. We do not have city water but have our own wells. Actually we don't have telephone service.

It is really petty simple. Imagine 2 streets 1/2 mile long. The streets contain pavement, water lines, sewer lines, telephone lines, internet lines, electrical lines, and cable tv lines and residents along the street need police and fire protection. One street has high density housing along it and contains 1000 housing units, plus first floor retail and commercial services that allow the residents to walk to daily needs. The second street is low density and has 10 housing units, and is a single use area so residents have to drive for everything. If you take the cost of operating each which is cheaper on a per capita basis, the one where the cost of all the infrastructure is shared by 1000 units or the one where it is shared by 10 units? The obvious answer in the one with 1,000 people paying. So wouldn't it be fair if people paid the incremental costs of their housing choices? How much more would it cost if instead of 1000 housing units on a 1/2 mile street we all lived at the density of the second street?

No one is saying you can live on the 10 house street, we're just saying you should pay for that decision, and if you can't afford it what does that say about your housing choice? For nearly 60 years the federal government has spent trillions to make suburban living possible but that money is drying up. So what happens, do we keep piling up the debt or do we come up with plan B (which 60 years ago used to be plan A)?

Like I stated previously the roads were not provided by the City nor does the City maintain them.

There is virtually no fire or police service provided by Oklahoma City at least that can be counted on.

You should actually move to an ex-urban or rural area and try it out to see what the City services are.

[Just the facts]

flintysooner - if you can live far enough out to not use/require City services and are happy then by all means keep living out there. After all, T2 (rural) is still part of New Urbanism. The problem arises when people want to live in T2 (rural) but expect the amenities and services of living in the city.

Center for Applied Transect Studies

You know, maybe this is where the misunderstanding stems from. New Urbanism runs the range from T1 - Untouched Nature to T6 - Urban Core. New Urbanism principles simply try to create efficiency no matter which zone you choose to live in. You can be a New Urbanist and live in a cabin the woods. Even the Unabomber lived efficiently.