30 Jul 14
Originally posted by sh76I personally enjoy living in the Suburbs. I like the extra space, the better schools, the increased privacy and the decreased pollution.
Great article in Time yesterday about suburban sprawl and the problem of the resources that are required to maintain it.
Are spread our suburbs maintainable? Should we all move to urban high rises?
What say you?
http://time.com/3031079/suburbs-will-die-sprawl/
The article seemed to indicate that one of the driving costs of suburbs were illogical regulations. Perhaps we should not take costly regulation which provides little benefits as a given.
30 Jul 14
2 edits
Originally posted by quackquackI think the article also distinguishes between suburbs that have relatively small properties and large properties. I also love living in the suburbs, but I don't see why everyone needs an acre of property. Though I have less, a village near mine requires that every single family home have at least 35,000 square feet of property (about 4/5 of an acre). The point of the article is that, while people have the right to do what they want, the property tax that people are willing to pay can't pay for that sort of lifestyle.
I personally enjoy living in the Suburbs. I like the extra space, the better schools, the increased privacy and the decreased pollution.
The article seemed to indicate that one of the driving costs of suburbs were illogical regulations. Perhaps we should not take costly regulation which provides little benefits as a given.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
30 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirHere is a wiki item on Los Altos Hills, CA.
What?
You have to have x-amount of land to live in that village???
Really?
"The town has no commercial or industrial zones. The town government contracts with Santa Clara County for police and fire services (making it a so-called "contract city" under California law). The town's only retail commercial operation is the book store on the campus of Foothill College. The town also does not have a post office, telephone exchange, or library. Mail delivery and telephone service are provided from nearby Los Altos, so the town shares ZIP codes and telephone exchange numbers with Los Altos. Town residents desiring library services must visit county-operated libraries in nearby Los Altos or Cupertino.
The town's zoning regulations are among the strictest in California, requiring a minimum lot size of one acre (4,000 m² ), setbacks from the property boundary, and easements for public pathways.[2][3] Landowners are limited to one primary dwelling per lot, which effectively bans multifamily housing; this ban and the minimum lot size were upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1974.[4] The ban on commercial zones was upheld by the California Court of Appeal (First District) in 1973.["
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by JS357I like the demographics.
Here is a wiki item on Los Altos Hills, CA.
"The town has no commercial or industrial zones. The town government contracts with Santa Clara County for police and fire services (making it a so-called "contract city" under California law). The town's only retail commercial operation is the book store on the campus of Foothill College. The town also does not h ...[text shortened]... ban on commercial zones was upheld by the California Court of Appeal (First District) in 1973.["
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Altos,_California
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by sh76You are certainly correct that there is huge variety in suburbs. I would not be surprised if certain suburbs (for example I live in Nassau County) is more densely packed than certain cities (I went to school in a small Midwestern city).
I think the article also distinguishes between suburbs that have relatively small properties and large properties. I also love living in the suburbs, but I don't see why everyone needs an acre of property. Though I have less, a village near mine requires that every single family home have at least 35,000 square feet of property (about 4/5 of an acre). The point ...[text shortened]... they want, the property tax that people are willing to pay can't pay for that sort of lifestyle.
I don't believe you meant for your statement "should we all move to urban high rises?" to be taken completely literally. Nevertheless, even a less radical question such as: should we encourage people to live in densely populated areas like (somewhere between Boston and DC) rather than less populated area (such as between the Appalachians and the Rockies) has implications far bigger than just property tax bills.
30 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirWell, you can rent a house. You don't have to own it, but yes, the house itself must be situated on a minimum amount of land.
What?
You have to have x-amount of land to live in that village???
Really?
http://ecode360.com/8769753
(The village I refer to has R-35 zoning)
Originally posted by EladarOf course, but the question is whether towns should build the infrastructure necessary to support these massive properties without a realistic chance of raising the revenues necessary to support it.
If you can afford it and want to do it, do it.
Better question is what sort of control freak would care what people do with their money and where they would choose to live? Oh yeah, a liberal.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by Krod MandoonBut would they like you? The Wiki article says "In 2013, Forbes ranked Los Altos Hills as the 2nd most expensive zip code in America with a median home price of $5.4 million."
I like the demographics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Altos,_California
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by sh76If the town decides to do it, great. If they don't, then great.
Of course, but the question is whether towns should build the infrastructure necessary to support these massive properties without a realistic chance of raising the revenues necessary to support it.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by sh76Locally the SF suburbs are seeing more multi-family construction (apartments and condos) near expanding rail commuter systems. Employment is gravitating toward SF and Silicon Valley, which are getting too expensive, housing-wise, to live in.
Great article in Time yesterday about suburban sprawl and the problem of the resources that are required to maintain it.
Are spread our suburbs maintainable? Should we all move to urban high rises?
What say you?
http://time.com/3031079/suburbs-will-die-sprawl/
30 Jul 14
Originally posted by JS357Those quiet upscale suburban communities surrounding San Franicsco/Oakland area that have rail commuter systems going through them are experiencing some problems as "urban youths" use them to take a quick trip in large groups and cause all manner of mayhem for a day's outing. Of course the media ignores it.
Locally the SF suburbs are seeing more multi-family construction (apartments and condos) near expanding rail commuter systems. Employment is gravitating toward SF and Silicon Valley, which are getting too expensive, housing-wise, to live in.
I'd post the videos but don't want to offend anyone.