McMansions

Post by William
Recently in Minneapolis house owners have been tearing down there hand
built 100 year
old houses and building McMansions in replacement. This may benefit
the owner of the newly built McMansions who obviously does not
appreciate history and old hand built architecture, but to the
community and the city as a whole, it does not. They swallow up the
whole yard, front and back, they don't fit with the community of
beautiful old houses around it, they tower over the whole
block and stick out like a sore thumb and it's like destroying the
history of the city. Here are the policies the city is making to fight
back.http://www.planetizen.com/node/25252

Thats too bad. People tend to just over look old architecture and
replace it with there
massive but unbelievably cheap houses that take up all but about a few
feet on the perimeter around the house.
So in other words, theres no front or back yard. I don't see why
people would rather have a massive cheaply built house then a gorgeous
old house that has a colonial style for example.

Zach

2007-07-16 22:32:13 UTC

Jack May

2007-07-17 01:24:34 UTC

Post by Zach

What proof do you have that expensive houses are cheaply built, I am
renovating my house with the highest quality construction. Obviously you
have no ideal what you are talking about

Post by Zach
So in other words, theres no front or back yard. I don't see why
people would rather have a massive cheaply built house then a gorgeous
old house

Prove that your stupid statement is true. You can't do it

I am constantly running into old house crap construction

george conklin

2007-07-17 01:25:49 UTC

Post by Zach

What proof do you have that expensive houses are cheaply built, I am
renovating my house with the highest quality construction. Obviously you
have no ideal what you are talking about

Post by Zach
So in other words, theres no front or back yard. I don't see why
people would rather have a massive cheaply built house then a gorgeous
old house

Prove that your stupid statement is true. You can't do it
I am constantly running into old house crap construction

Absolutely. Before codes, some of what went on was disgusting. That is why
codes came about...

Jack May

2007-07-16 22:33:52 UTC

Cities are dynamic evolutionary structures, not static museums. What you
are really saying is you want to be a dictator over a city with only your
point of view.

We know from real data collected by a National Lab (I think it was Los
Alamos) that cities either decline into slums or they grow at rapid rate to
become major innovation centers.

Sounds like you demanding more slums

M***@gmail.com

2007-07-16 22:43:17 UTC

Cities are dynamic evolutionary structures, not static museums. What you
are really saying is you want to be a dictator over a city with only your
point of view.
We know from real data collected by a National Lab (I think it was Los
Alamos) that cities either decline into slums or they grow at rapid rate to
become major innovation centers.
Sounds like you demanding more slums

Yea buddy just because someone would rather have a nice colonial style
etc then this
Loading Image...

doesn't mean there a dictator.
And new innovation isn't always necessary. I mean take rural
America for example.

Jack May

2007-07-17 01:29:35 UTC

Cities are dynamic evolutionary structures, not static museums. What you
are really saying is you want to be a dictator over a city with only your
point of view.
We know from real data collected by a National Lab (I think it was Los
Alamos) that cities either decline into slums or they grow at rapid rate to
become major innovation centers.
Sounds like you demanding more slums

Yea buddy just because someone would rather have a nice colonial style
etc then this
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1016/794pxbiggersinglefamilyyp9.jpg

Bland, no style, no nothing

Post by M***@gmail.com
doesn't mean there a dictator.

He wants to dictate only one period of time style, That is a dictator

Post by M***@gmail.com
And new innovation isn't always necessary. I mean take rural
America for example.

Of course innovation is totally un-American,.

M***@gmail.com

2007-07-16 22:47:42 UTC

Post by Jack May
Sounds like you demanding more slums

So constantly replacing more older designed buildings and
houses with the latest and "greatest" is the key to success? Have you
ever been to Europe before man? Preserving history is a *good* thing.

Jack May

2007-07-17 01:17:52 UTC

Post by Jack May
Sounds like you demanding more slums

So constantly replacing more older designed buildings and
houses with the latest and "greatest" is the key to success? Have you
ever been to Europe before man? Preserving history is a *good* thing.

Give us proof that only the past is good and change is always bad.

The quality of many old houses is really bad. Talk to people that renovate
them or just watch the house renovation shows on TV

In other words you want everything to be stagnant and decaying in society

george conklin

2007-07-17 01:26:57 UTC

Post by Jack May
Sounds like you demanding more slums

So constantly replacing more older designed buildings and
houses with the latest and "greatest" is the key to success? Have you
ever been to Europe before man? Preserving history is a *good* thing.

Give us proof that only the past is good and change is always bad.
The quality of many old houses is really bad. Talk to people that
renovate them or just watch the house renovation shows on TV
In other words you want everything to be stagnant and decaying in society

Years ago someone argued against Wal-Mart because they would only be in a
building up to 30 years. I wondered if that was too long. Somehow planners
seem to think that industry must be stagnant. It is not going to happen in
any case.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-17 01:31:34 UTC

Post by Jack May
Sounds like you demanding more slums

So constantly replacing more older designed buildings and
houses with the latest and "greatest" is the key to success? Have you
ever been to Europe before man? Preserving history is a *good* thing.

Give us proof that only the past is good and change is always bad.
The quality of many old houses is really bad. Talk to people that
renovate them or just watch the house renovation shows on TV
In other words you want everything to be stagnant and decaying in society

It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

Jack May

2007-07-17 05:16:58 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.

Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding. To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.

Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.

The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured data is
at

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-the-lifeblood-of-cities.html

Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck, The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.

An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

Baxter

2007-07-17 15:02:54 UTC

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Jack May
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding. To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.

The materials used in some of the old houses was far superior to that in
today's houses. Some of those old houses were built to stand for centuries,
while virtually none of today's houses are built to outlive their mortgage.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-17 15:09:28 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society _you_ live in, but where I live, we consider it a
competitive advantage to have lovely historic homes and other buildings that
attract people to the area. Katrina destroyed a lot of that advantage for
us, but I find it difficult to conceive of a community that destroys its
history deliberately or through carelessness.

BTW, one of the things that impressed me most about both San Jose and San
Francisco was that they did clearly have a lot of old historic buildings
that the new construction somehow didn't conflict with, despite the fact
that it was very modern looking. San Jose blew my mind because there are
clearly a lot of people working there ever day (the building we were
visiting has _7_ floors of parking), yet very little traffic.

-Amy

Jack May

2007-07-17 16:56:37 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
I don't know what society _you_ live in, but where I live, we consider it
a competitive advantage to have lovely historic homes and other buildings
that attract people to the area. Katrina destroyed a lot of that
advantage for us, but I find it difficult to conceive of a community that
destroys its history deliberately or through carelessness.

New Orleans is and was an impoverished city with no future. That is what
has been found out as typical for cities that don't have an aggressive push
towards innovation for the future. Cities that do not create jobs locally
do not have a future except for decay. That is what the measured data
clearly says. Cities that think they can sit back and just attract in
people are not competitive and decline over time, again as clearly shown
from measured data

Your comment about "competitive advantage to have lovely historic homes and
other buildings " has been clearly shown to be without any basis in the
National Lab research and clearly leads to the decline of the city.

Post by Amy Blankenship
BTW, one of the things that impressed me most about both San Jose and San
Francisco was that they did clearly have a lot of old historic buildings
that the new construction somehow didn't conflict with, despite the fact
that it was very modern looking. San Jose blew my mind because there are
clearly a lot of people working there ever day (the building we were
visiting has _7_ floors of parking), yet very little traffic.
-Amy

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-17 17:50:07 UTC

I don't live in New Orleans. New Orleans has problems because it kept
electing mayors who weren't qualified to hold the job based on the color of
their skin, and still does. As I understand it, most of the historic
buildings in New Orleans are still standing, since the floods did not touch
the Quarter.

Post by Jack May
Your comment about "competitive advantage to have lovely historic homes
and other buildings " has been clearly shown to be without any basis in
the National Lab research and clearly leads to the decline of the city.

Tell that to Edinburgh, Paris, Copenhagen, etc. None of these places is in
decline, nor is San Jose or San Francisco.

Just because *you* are unable to value history and historic objects does not
mean that they should be destroyed willy-nilly.

-Amy

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-17 19:43:03 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

Great, but can't we trust homeowners to decide that for themselves?

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-17 20:00:05 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something
that cannot be replaced.

Great, but can't we trust homeowners to decide that for themselves?

According to Jack, no. The people in his town are apparently ripping down
its history fairly recklessly. When you have something that is completely
irreplaceable, as historic things are, there should be some sort of review
process to make sure that things aren't destroyed that will be needed and
wanted later. After all, after the review process whatever you wanted to
destroy can still be destroyed, but the opposite is not true.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-17 20:13:03 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something
that cannot be replaced.

Great, but can't we trust homeowners to decide that for themselves?

Well I believe that people can decide for themselves whether or not they
wish to rebuild or preserve history. If the building is truly of historical
value, such as Mark Twain's birthplace, then eminent domain may be
appropriate. But otherwise, it should be left up to the owner. We're all
adults here, after all.

george conklin

2007-07-17 21:19:44 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something
that cannot be replaced.

Great, but can't we trust homeowners to decide that for themselves?

According to Jack, no. The people in his town are apparently ripping
down its history fairly recklessly. When you have something that is
completely irreplaceable, as historic things are, there should be some
sort of review process to make sure that things aren't destroyed that
will be needed and wanted later. After all, after the review process
whatever you wanted to destroy can still be destroyed, but the opposite
is not true.

Well I believe that people can decide for themselves whether or not they
wish to rebuild or preserve history. If the building is truly of
historical value, such as Mark Twain's birthplace, then eminent domain may
be appropriate. But otherwise, it should be left up to the owner. We're
all adults here, after all.

Cities cannot become stale museums. Every building is not historical just
because it was built.

William

2007-07-22 19:03:43 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something
that cannot be replaced.

Great, but can't we trust homeowners to decide that for themselves?

According to Jack, no. The people in his town are apparently ripping
down its history fairly recklessly. When you have something that is
completely irreplaceable, as historic things are, there should be some
sort of review process to make sure that things aren't destroyed that
will be needed and wanted later. After all, after the review process
whatever you wanted to destroy can still be destroyed, but the opposite
is not true.

Well I believe that people can decide for themselves whether or not they
wish to rebuild or preserve history. If the building is truly of
historical value, such as Mark Twain's birthplace, then eminent domain may
be appropriate. But otherwise, it should be left up to the owner. We're
all adults here, after all.

Cities cannot become stale museums. Every building is not historical just
because it was built.

Well Georgia considering that most of these houses being replaced are
neither historical nor decaying means that your post was quite a waste
of cyberspace.

William

2007-07-19 02:40:17 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

Great, but can't we trust homeowners to decide that for themselves?

Wait, but wasn't it the "homeowners" who claimed that if sidewalks
were put in there suburb
then gang members from Chicago 60 miles away would walk down them?
Yea, not sure If I want to trust the homeowners on this one. If we
could trust homeowners, then there would be no need for policy making
would
there? Plus, we've already seen homeowners violate the trust you have
given them.

William

2007-07-18 00:23:43 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding. To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.
Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.
The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured data is
at
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-...
Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck, The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.
An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

Okay this talk about decaying and such is quite ignorant. And I take
the blame. The houses were talking about that are being replaced are
around 1-10 Million Dollar homes. There a lot nicer then anyone here
owns, and there far from decaying.

William

2007-07-18 13:34:44 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding. To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.
Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.
The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured data is
at
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-...
Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck, The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.
An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

The houses that are being replaced could easily out live the
McMansions replacing them. Decaying is
not an issue. And the problem isn't about the houses that are being
destroyed, it's with the ones being built there.
They are oversized, they stick out like a sore thumb because they
are over towing the whole block. Sorry to all you relativistic and
globalized people, but the City of Minneapolis and the residents don't
want their city to look ugly. Thus there making policies to prevent
them. This time people, I have to city of Minneapolis on my side.

george conklin

2007-07-18 14:19:25 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding.
To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.
Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.
The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured data is
at
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-...
Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck,
The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.
An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

Your posting reveals class envy, saying the houses are "too big." What do
you want? McShacks?

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-18 14:30:34 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding. To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.
Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.
The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured data is
at
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-...
Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck, The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.
An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

Your posting reveals class envy, saying the houses are "too big." What do
you want? McShacks?

You'd dead set against it if they wanted a smaller house with a horse in the
back yard ;-). You're the king of class envy.

george conklin

2007-07-18 14:56:08 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding. To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.
Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.
The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured data is
at
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-...
Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck, The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.
An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

Your posting reveals class envy, saying the houses are "too big." What
do you want? McShacks?

You'd dead set against it if they wanted a smaller house with a horse in
the back yard ;-). You're the king of class envy.

You are making up your usual fairy tales again. Ever consider writing
fiction? It seems to be your forte.

If you consider the so-called McMansions William is moaning about, you will
probably find that the new developments, using so-called smart growth
principles, have large houses on small lots too. It is what planners want.
Brier Creeek, near us, has just that. Prices? Well, aboaut $1 million but
almost nothing to mow. Across the county line, you can still get a nice
house for $160,000.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-18 18:36:44 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding. To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.
Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.
The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured data is
at
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-...
Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck, The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.
An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

Your posting reveals class envy, saying the houses are "too big." What do
you want? McShacks?

I wonder what ol' William would say if this was the later 19th century and
people were building tons of Victorian Manors and such? He'd probably be
bitching just the same.

george conklin

2007-07-18 20:49:22 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding. To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.
Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.
The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured data is
at
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-...
Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck, The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.
An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

Your posting reveals class envy, saying the houses are "too big." What
do you want? McShacks?

I wonder what ol' William would say if this was the later 19th century and
people were building tons of Victorian Manors and such? He'd probably be
bitching just the same.

It looks that way. I am not sure what he is happy about.

William

2007-07-19 17:58:52 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding.
To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.
Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.
The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured data is
at
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-...
Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck,
The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.
An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

Your posting reveals class envy, saying the houses are "too big." What do
you want? McShacks?

Well don't you think using 95% of a 1/4th of an acre lot is just
a little to close to your next door neighbor there Georgia?

george conklin

2007-07-19 22:19:44 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding.
To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.
Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.
The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured
data
is
at
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-...
Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck,
The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.
An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

Your posting reveals class envy, saying the houses are "too big." What do
you want? McShacks?

Well don't you think using 95% of a 1/4th of an acre lot is just
a little to close to your next door neighbor there Georgia?

That kind of land use is encouraged under smart growth rules now coming
into force all over the USA.

William

2007-07-21 03:17:26 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding.
To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.
Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.
The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured
data
is
at
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-...
Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck,
The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.
An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

Your posting reveals class envy, saying the houses are "too big." What do
you want? McShacks?

Well don't you think using 95% of a 1/4th of an acre lot is just
a little to close to your next door neighbor there Georgia?

That kind of land use is encouraged under smart growth rules now coming
into force all over the USA.

Well thats a good point there Susana but Minneapolis does not happen
to be
a modern suburb or undeveloped land now does it?

2007-07-20 03:39:28 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding.
To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.
Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.
The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured data is
at
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-...
Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck,
The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.
An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

Your posting reveals class envy, saying the houses are "too big." What do
you want? McShacks?

Well don't you think using 95% of a 1/4th of an acre lot is just
a little to close to your next door neighbor there Georgia?

Maybe you prefer townhouses which exceed 95% coverage.

george conklin

2007-07-20 11:24:01 UTC

Post by RJ

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying
something
that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay
competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding.
To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to
be
evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.
Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.
The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured
data
is
at
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-...
Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck,
The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.
An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

Your posting reveals class envy, saying the houses are "too big." What do
you want? McShacks?

Well don't you think using 95% of a 1/4th of an acre lot is just
a little to close to your next door neighbor there Georgia?

Maybe you prefer townhouses which exceed 95% coverage.

Planners and the Sierra Club both support townhouses as the norm for
everyone. No single-family, except for the rich, and they get an exception.

William

2007-07-22 19:14:47 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding.
To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.
Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.
The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured data is
at
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-...
Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck,
The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.
An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

Your posting reveals class envy, saying the houses are "too big." What do
you want? McShacks?

Hey Georgia you know how theres a middle area between geniuses
like Albert Einstein and dense dull-witted slow simpleminded vacuous
vapid idiotic imbecilic abtuse dimwitted people like yourself? Well
it just so happens that there also is a middle area between
excessively and dangerously large and unstably small.

george conklin

2007-07-22 23:45:55 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

I don't know what society you live in, but in the US economy we are
constantly tearing things down and starting over to stay competitive,
There is also a big danger in bring too timid and not taking action to
implement change to stay ahead in a competitive world. Here in Silicon
Valley we are constantly tearing down and rebuilding again.
Obviously homes are more stable because of the expense of rebuilding.
To
consider McMansions or any other potential new trend in housing to be evil
because it does not match the past is a loser's game and must be avoded.
Even in the planned city I live in, even though it leads to a very
beautiful, stable community, the city is constantly doing a lot of tearing
down and building up to have dynamic city that is constantly changing to
adapt to changes in technology growth and new competitive areas.
The article on the structure of growth of real cities from measured
data
is
at
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426051.400-ideas-...
Even though I am a New Scientist subscriber, their archive is having
problems in my part of the world and ai have not been able donwnlod the
article for us to discuss, Maybe somebody else will have more luck,
The
key thing is that city growth and resulting innovation is a function of
interconnectivity of people and organization.
An interesting effect is that fuel consumption grows more slowly than
population growth and is not caused by transit .

Your posting reveals class envy, saying the houses are "too big." What do
you want? McShacks?

And you are the one who knows what is best, and you are going to let
everyone know. Sad.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-18 18:35:47 UTC

Post by William
The houses that are being replaced could easily out live the
McMansions replacing them. Decaying is
not an issue. And the problem isn't about the houses that are being
destroyed, it's with the ones being built there.
They are oversized, they stick out like a sore thumb because they
are over towing the whole block. Sorry to all you relativistic and
globalized people, but the City of Minneapolis and the residents don't
want their city to look ugly. Thus there making policies to prevent
them. This time people, I have to city of Minneapolis on my side.

What you need to do is establish a fund that buys these houses and rents
them out to people who wish to preserve the historical character of them.
The government telling people what and what not to do with their property is
a form of oppression IMO.

Jack May

2007-07-19 01:14:15 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
What you need to do is establish a fund that buys these houses and rents
them out to people who wish to preserve the historical character of them.
The government telling people what and what not to do with their property
is a form of oppression IMO.

People that love old house will probably preserve them. The problem we are
having is some people are being forced to preserve old houses that are
nothing special

george conklin

2007-07-19 12:07:03 UTC

People that love old house will probably preserve them. The problem we
are having is some people are being forced to preserve old houses that are
nothing special

People today are preserving early gas stations, for example. They are
examples of mass consumption and mass production. Look at the so-called
antique malls. They are selling mass produced glass from the 1930s and even
used oil cans.

William

2007-07-19 18:28:00 UTC

People that love old house will probably preserve them. The problem we are
having is some people are being forced to preserve old houses that are
nothing special

You guys are missing the point entiryly. Most of the houses being
replaced are not that old or historical, it's the houses that replace
them thats the problem.
http://twincities.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2007/02/26/daily33.html?surround=lfn

William

2007-07-19 18:02:47 UTC

Right, thats why the city is making policies to prevent houses
from using up there whole lot and leaving no grass. Go ahead and call
in the Marines there Joana.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-19 21:03:25 UTC

Right, thats why the city is making policies to prevent houses
from using up there whole lot and leaving no grass. Go ahead and call
in the Marines there Joana.

I never said it was that kind of oppression. What is the big deal with
houses using up their whole lot anyway? The houses here in Allston do that.

William

2007-07-21 03:22:56 UTC

Right, thats why the city is making policies to prevent houses
from using up there whole lot and leaving no grass. Go ahead and call
in the Marines there Joana.

I never said it was that kind of oppression. What is the big deal with
houses using up their whole lot anyway? The houses here in Allston do that.

Most likely because "Allston" is home to the kind of white trash I
would like to keep *out* of my city.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-21 03:36:48 UTC

Post by William
Most likely because "Allston" is home to the kind of white trash I
would like to keep *out* of my city.

Do you have any idea where Allston is?

george conklin

2007-07-21 11:26:38 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
I never said it was that kind of oppression. What is the big deal with
houses using up their whole lot anyway? The houses here in Allston do that.

Most likely because "Allston" is home to the kind of white trash I
would like to keep *out* of my city.

Oh yes, the revanchist city post. I knew you would come back to that.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-17 19:41:10 UTC

Post by Jack May
Sounds like you demanding more slums

So constantly replacing more older designed buildings and
houses with the latest and "greatest" is the key to success? Have you
ever been to Europe before man? Preserving history is a *good* thing.

Give us proof that only the past is good and change is always bad.
The quality of many old houses is really bad. Talk to people that
renovate them or just watch the house renovation shows on TV
In other words you want everything to be stagnant and decaying in society

It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

True, but can't we trust landowners enough to be able to decide for
themselves what they want to do with their own property?

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-17 20:03:53 UTC

Post by Jack May
Sounds like you demanding more slums

So constantly replacing more older designed buildings and
houses with the latest and "greatest" is the key to success? Have you
ever been to Europe before man? Preserving history is a *good* thing.

Give us proof that only the past is good and change is always bad.
The quality of many old houses is really bad. Talk to people that
renovate them or just watch the house renovation shows on TV
In other words you want everything to be stagnant and decaying in society

It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

True, but can't we trust landowners enough to be able to decide for
themselves what they want to do with their own property?

There are a lot of cases where the State takes an interest in what you do on
your property. For instance, in many areas it is illegal to burn trash. It
is illegal to dump hazardous chemicals in your yard. You can't just leave
piles of junk moldering on your property even if the junk is also your
property (in some areas). You can't put up a boarding kennel in the middle
of most residential neighborhoods. Sometimes government does need to step
in and set limits on what people do with their property, because often
people have no concern about how the decisions they make with their property
affect others.

-Amy

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-17 20:15:05 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
There are a lot of cases where the State takes an interest in what you do
on your property. For instance, in many areas it is illegal to burn
trash. It is illegal to dump hazardous chemicals in your yard. You can't
just leave piles of junk moldering on your property even if the junk is
also your property (in some areas). You can't put up a boarding kennel in
the middle of most residential neighborhoods. Sometimes government does
need to step in and set limits on what people do with their property,
because often people have no concern about how the decisions they make
with their property
affect others.

So you're comparing polluting your property, which can affect your neighbors
in measurable ways, to preventing people from altering their property
aesthetically? That's insane. Building kennels affects people in physical,
measurable ways as does pollution. Aesthetic concerns do not.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-17 20:19:28 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
There are a lot of cases where the State takes an interest in what you do
on your property. For instance, in many areas it is illegal to burn
trash. It is illegal to dump hazardous chemicals in your yard. You
can't just leave piles of junk moldering on your property even if the
junk is also your property (in some areas). You can't put up a boarding
kennel in the middle of most residential neighborhoods. Sometimes
government does need to step in and set limits on what people do with
their property, because often people have no concern about how the
decisions they make with their property
affect others.

So you're comparing polluting your property, which can affect your
neighbors in measurable ways, to preventing people from altering their
property aesthetically? That's insane. Building kennels affects people in
physical, measurable ways as does pollution. Aesthetic concerns do not.

The additional stormwater, for instance, resulting from larger impervious
structures affects people in physical, measurable ways. Having a wall up
next to your window isn't just an aesthetic nuisance. And if you destroy
the reason someone moved to a neighborhood (for instance by cutting off a
view they originally had), you are destroying part of THEIR property value
and should compensate them accordingly.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-17 23:48:13 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
There are a lot of cases where the State takes an interest in what you
do on your property. For instance, in many areas it is illegal to burn
trash. It is illegal to dump hazardous chemicals in your yard. You
can't just leave piles of junk moldering on your property even if the
junk is also your property (in some areas). You can't put up a boarding
kennel in the middle of most residential neighborhoods. Sometimes
government does need to step in and set limits on what people do with
their property, because often people have no concern about how the
decisions they make with their property
affect others.

So you're comparing polluting your property, which can affect your
neighbors in measurable ways, to preventing people from altering their
property aesthetically? That's insane. Building kennels affects people in
physical, measurable ways as does pollution. Aesthetic concerns do not.

You do not have the right to a view. If you did nothing would get built,
EVER.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-18 00:52:31 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
There are a lot of cases where the State takes an interest in what you
do on your property. For instance, in many areas it is illegal to burn
trash. It is illegal to dump hazardous chemicals in your yard. You
can't just leave piles of junk moldering on your property even if the
junk is also your property (in some areas). You can't put up a
boarding kennel in the middle of most residential neighborhoods.
Sometimes government does need to step in and set limits on what people
do with their property, because often people have no concern about how
the decisions they make with their property
affect others.

So you're comparing polluting your property, which can affect your
neighbors in measurable ways, to preventing people from altering their
property aesthetically? That's insane. Building kennels affects people
in physical, measurable ways as does pollution. Aesthetic concerns do
not.

You do not have the right to a view. If you did nothing would get built,
EVER.

Actually pretty much everything I can see is mine :-)

William

2007-07-22 19:05:11 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
There are a lot of cases where the State takes an interest in what you
do on your property. For instance, in many areas it is illegal to burn
trash. It is illegal to dump hazardous chemicals in your yard. You
can't just leave piles of junk moldering on your property even if the
junk is also your property (in some areas). You can't put up a boarding
kennel in the middle of most residential neighborhoods. Sometimes
government does need to step in and set limits on what people do with
their property, because often people have no concern about how the
decisions they make with their property
affect others.

So you're comparing polluting your property, which can affect your
neighbors in measurable ways, to preventing people from altering their
property aesthetically? That's insane. Building kennels affects people in
physical, measurable ways as does pollution. Aesthetic concerns do not.

You do not have the right to a view. If you did nothing would get built,
EVER.

If it's not broken, why fix it? These houses are not decaying nor will
they anytime in the near
future.

george conklin

2007-07-22 23:50:51 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
There are a lot of cases where the State takes an interest in what you
do on your property. For instance, in many areas it is illegal to burn
trash. It is illegal to dump hazardous chemicals in your yard. You
can't just leave piles of junk moldering on your property even if the
junk is also your property (in some areas). You can't put up a boarding
kennel in the middle of most residential neighborhoods. Sometimes
government does need to step in and set limits on what people do with
their property, because often people have no concern about how the
decisions they make with their property
affect others.

So you're comparing polluting your property, which can affect your
neighbors in measurable ways, to preventing people from altering their
property aesthetically? That's insane. Building kennels affects people in
physical, measurable ways as does pollution. Aesthetic concerns do not.

You do not have the right to a view. If you did nothing would get built,
EVER.

If it's not broken, why fix it? These houses are not decaying nor will
they anytime in the near
future.

Billy-boy, many of them are past their useful age without spending more
money fixing them with new utilities and floors and roofs than they are
worth.

William

2007-07-23 00:51:28 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
There are a lot of cases where the State takes an interest in what you
do on your property. For instance, in many areas it is illegal to burn
trash. It is illegal to dump hazardous chemicals in your yard. You
can't just leave piles of junk moldering on your property even if the
junk is also your property (in some areas). You can't put up a boarding
kennel in the middle of most residential neighborhoods. Sometimes
government does need to step in and set limits on what people do with
their property, because often people have no concern about how the
decisions they make with their property
affect others.

So you're comparing polluting your property, which can affect your
neighbors in measurable ways, to preventing people from altering their
property aesthetically? That's insane. Building kennels affects people in
physical, measurable ways as does pollution. Aesthetic concerns do not.

You do not have the right to a view. If you did nothing would get built,
EVER.

If it's not broken, why fix it? These houses are not decaying nor will
they anytime in the near
future.

Billy-boy, many of them are past their useful age without spending more
money fixing them with new utilities and floors and roofs than they are
worth.

This is entirely your speculation. In the word of your buddy Joe,
"Prove It". Show me some
data of this. You cant just say make a blanket statement like that and
not be expected to prove it.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-23 03:18:25 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
There are a lot of cases where the State takes an interest in what you
do on your property. For instance, in many areas it is illegal to burn
trash. It is illegal to dump hazardous chemicals in your yard. You
can't just leave piles of junk moldering on your property even if the
junk is also your property (in some areas). You can't put up a boarding
kennel in the middle of most residential neighborhoods. Sometimes
government does need to step in and set limits on what people do with
their property, because often people have no concern about how the
decisions they make with their property
affect others.

So you're comparing polluting your property, which can affect your
neighbors in measurable ways, to preventing people from altering their
property aesthetically? That's insane. Building kennels affects people in
physical, measurable ways as does pollution. Aesthetic concerns do not.

You do not have the right to a view. If you did nothing would get built,
EVER.

If it's not broken, why fix it? These houses are not decaying nor will
they anytime in the near
future.

Ask the owners.

William

2007-07-19 02:46:24 UTC

Post by Jack May
Sounds like you demanding more slums

So constantly replacing more older designed buildings and
houses with the latest and "greatest" is the key to success? Have you
ever been to Europe before man? Preserving history is a *good* thing.

Give us proof that only the past is good and change is always bad.
The quality of many old houses is really bad. Talk to people that
renovate them or just watch the house renovation shows on TV
In other words you want everything to be stagnant and decaying in society

It certainly makes sense to be cautious before destroying something that
cannot be replaced.

True, but can't we trust landowners enough to be able to decide for
themselves what they want to do with their own property?

Just because someone temporarily owns something(resident), doesn't
mean they'll take good care of it and doesn't mean that there the only
ones who will suffer if they ruin whatever they own(City). Ahem*The
whole point of public policy cough*

Baxter

2007-07-17 02:56:58 UTC

Post by Jack May
Sounds like you demanding more slums

So constantly replacing more older designed buildings and
houses with the latest and "greatest" is the key to success? Have you
ever been to Europe before man? Preserving history is a *good* thing.

Give us proof that only the past is good and change is always bad.

Give us proof that change is always good.

Post by Jack May
The quality of many old houses is really bad. Talk to people that
renovate them or just watch the house renovation shows on TV

And some things about old houses AND the old Urban Form were worthwhile and
should be retained.

Post by Jack May
In other words you want everything to be stagnant and decaying in society

You haven't understood anything about cycles, have you?

george conklin

2007-07-16 22:51:39 UTC

Cities are dynamic evolutionary structures, not static museums. What you
are really saying is you want to be a dictator over a city with only your
point of view.
We know from real data collected by a National Lab (I think it was Los
Alamos) that cities either decline into slums or they grow at rapid rate
to become major innovation centers.
Sounds like you demanding more slums

Just because something is old does not make it good.

William

2007-07-16 22:57:53 UTC

Cities are dynamic evolutionary structures, not static museums. What you
are really saying is you want to be a dictator over a city with only your
point of view.
We know from real data collected by a National Lab (I think it was Los
Alamos) that cities either decline into slums or they grow at rapid rate
to become major innovation centers.
Sounds like you demanding more slums

Just because something is old does not make it good.

Fair enough, but the places I'm talking about where these things are
happing are in the richest parts of the cities.
If I have the chance I'll take a picture or find one of the
general area I'm talking about

george conklin

2007-07-17 00:40:50 UTC

Cities are dynamic evolutionary structures, not static museums. What you
are really saying is you want to be a dictator over a city with only your
point of view.
We know from real data collected by a National Lab (I think it was Los
Alamos) that cities either decline into slums or they grow at rapid rate
to become major innovation centers.
Sounds like you demanding more slums

Just because something is old does not make it good.

Well, if someone wants to turn a city into a museum, then they had better
be prepared to pay for it themselves.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-17 19:32:52 UTC

Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against people
doing what they want with their own land that they pay taxes on.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-17 20:06:03 UTC

Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against people
doing what they want with their own land that they pay taxes on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so that they
can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in and also for the
additional stormwater infrastructure required by filling the lot with
impervious surfaces. That might actually have the desired effect, as well
as being fair to everyone involved.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-17 20:15:50 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against people
doing what they want with their own land that they pay taxes on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so that
they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in and also for
the additional stormwater infrastructure required by filling the lot with
impervious surfaces. That might actually have the desired effect, as well
as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-17 20:26:17 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against people
doing what they want with their own land that they pay taxes on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so that
they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in and also for
the additional stormwater infrastructure required by filling the lot with
impervious surfaces. That might actually have the desired effect, as
well as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put more of a
strain on the environment and infrastructure than people who don't, you
might possibly get them to make different building decisions without flat
out telling them they can't do it. By the same token, if you make them pay
the cost of changing the character of a neighborhood in the form of buying
out their neighbors who are driven out by their decisions, they might also
make decisions to build more in keeping with the existing neighborhood
structures. Neither involves a direct mandate that you can't do what you
want on your own property, but they provide incentives to me bore
considerate of the neighbors and the community at large.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-17 20:58:50 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against people
doing what they want with their own land that they pay taxes on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so that
they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in and also
for the additional stormwater infrastructure required by filling the lot
with impervious surfaces. That might actually have the desired effect,
as well as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put more of a
strain on the environment and infrastructure than people who don't, you
might possibly get them to make different building decisions without flat
out telling them they can't do it. By the same token, if you make them
pay the cost of changing the character of a neighborhood in the form of
buying out their neighbors who are driven out by their decisions, they
might also make decisions to build more in keeping with the existing
neighborhood structures. Neither involves a direct mandate that you can't
do what you want on your own property, but they provide incentives to me
bore considerate of the neighbors and the community at large.

Sorry, that's "be more" not "me bore" :)

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-17 23:50:11 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against people
doing what they want with their own land that they pay taxes on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so that
they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in and also
for the additional stormwater infrastructure required by filling the lot
with impervious surfaces. That might actually have the desired effect,
as well as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put more of a
strain on the environment and infrastructure than people who don't, you
might possibly get them to make different building decisions without flat
out telling them they can't do it. By the same token, if you make them
pay the cost of changing the character of a neighborhood in the form of
buying out their neighbors who are driven out by their decisions, they
might also make decisions to build more in keeping with the existing
neighborhood structures. Neither involves a direct mandate that you can't
do what you want on your own property, but they provide incentives to me
bore considerate of the neighbors and the community at large.

You do not have the right to retain a "neighborhood" character. You do not
have the right to dictate your neighbor's "infrastructure". If their
property in some way damages your's in a real, measurable way, then that's
one thing. But McMansion's do not fit that criteria.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-18 00:54:30 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against
people doing what they want with their own land that they pay taxes
on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so that
they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in and also
for the additional stormwater infrastructure required by filling the
lot with impervious surfaces. That might actually have the desired
effect, as well as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put more of a
strain on the environment and infrastructure than people who don't, you
might possibly get them to make different building decisions without flat
out telling them they can't do it. By the same token, if you make them
pay the cost of changing the character of a neighborhood in the form of
buying out their neighbors who are driven out by their decisions, they
might also make decisions to build more in keeping with the existing
neighborhood structures. Neither involves a direct mandate that you
can't do what you want on your own property, but they provide incentives
to me bore considerate of the neighbors and the community at large.

I disagree. Of course communities have the right to tax those who place a
bigger strain on infrastructure more heavily than those who place a lower
strain on it. They also have a right to maintain a specific character,
especially if that character has an economic value.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-18 18:33:31 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against
people doing what they want with their own land that they pay taxes
on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so that
they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in and also
for the additional stormwater infrastructure required by filling the
lot with impervious surfaces. That might actually have the desired
effect, as well as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put more of a
strain on the environment and infrastructure than people who don't, you
might possibly get them to make different building decisions without
flat out telling them they can't do it. By the same token, if you make
them pay the cost of changing the character of a neighborhood in the
form of buying out their neighbors who are driven out by their
decisions, they might also make decisions to build more in keeping with
the existing neighborhood structures. Neither involves a direct mandate
that you can't do what you want on your own property, but they provide
incentives to me bore considerate of the neighbors and the community at
large.

You do not have the right to retain a "neighborhood" character. You do
not have the right to dictate your neighbor's "infrastructure". If their
property in some way damages your's in a real, measurable way, then
that's one thing. But McMansion's do not fit that criteria.

The whole idea of retaining a "character" is arbitrary and ridiculous. And I
don't see how one type of development would put more strain on
"infrastructure" than another. Are we talking about McMansions here or not?

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-18 19:45:10 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against
people doing what they want with their own land that they pay taxes
on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so
that they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in and
also for the additional stormwater infrastructure required by filling
the lot with impervious surfaces. That might actually have the
desired effect, as well as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put more of
a strain on the environment and infrastructure than people who don't,
you might possibly get them to make different building decisions
without flat out telling them they can't do it. By the same token, if
you make them pay the cost of changing the character of a neighborhood
in the form of buying out their neighbors who are driven out by their
decisions, they might also make decisions to build more in keeping with
the existing neighborhood structures. Neither involves a direct
mandate that you can't do what you want on your own property, but they
provide incentives to me bore considerate of the neighbors and the
community at large.

You do not have the right to retain a "neighborhood" character. You do
not have the right to dictate your neighbor's "infrastructure". If their
property in some way damages your's in a real, measurable way, then
that's one thing. But McMansion's do not fit that criteria.

I disagree. Of course communities have the right to tax those who place
a bigger strain on infrastructure more heavily than those who place a
lower strain on it. They also have a right to maintain a specific
character, especially if that character has an economic value.

The whole idea of retaining a "character" is arbitrary and ridiculous. And
I don't see how one type of development would put more strain on
"infrastructure" than another. Are we talking about McMansions here or not?

Impervious surfaces do place more of a strain on stormwater infrastructure
than porous surfaces, as I said earlier. Please pay attention.

When you have a lot that, from the air, is mostly roof and driveway, it will
have a greater runoff than a lot that is mostly trees and grass. In
addition, that lot will reflect more heat at its neighbors, raising their
electricity bills. It will also use more energy in heating and cooling,
affecting the CO2 signature of the community. For all of these reasons (and
more), there _is_ a measurable effect of putting up a house that covers more
area per person housed with impervious surface.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-18 20:30:19 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against
people doing what they want with their own land that they pay taxes
on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so
that they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in
and also for the additional stormwater infrastructure required by
filling the lot with impervious surfaces. That might actually have
the desired effect, as well as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put more of
a strain on the environment and infrastructure than people who don't,
you might possibly get them to make different building decisions
without flat out telling them they can't do it. By the same token, if
you make them pay the cost of changing the character of a neighborhood
in the form of buying out their neighbors who are driven out by their
decisions, they might also make decisions to build more in keeping
with the existing neighborhood structures. Neither involves a direct
mandate that you can't do what you want on your own property, but they
provide incentives to me bore considerate of the neighbors and the
community at large.

You do not have the right to retain a "neighborhood" character. You do
not have the right to dictate your neighbor's "infrastructure". If
their property in some way damages your's in a real, measurable way,
then that's one thing. But McMansion's do not fit that criteria.

I disagree. Of course communities have the right to tax those who place
a bigger strain on infrastructure more heavily than those who place a
lower strain on it. They also have a right to maintain a specific
character, especially if that character has an economic value.

The whole idea of retaining a "character" is arbitrary and ridiculous.
And I don't see how one type of development would put more strain on
"infrastructure" than another. Are we talking about McMansions here or not?

Impervious surfaces do place more of a strain on stormwater infrastructure
than porous surfaces, as I said earlier. Please pay attention.
When you have a lot that, from the air, is mostly roof and driveway, it
will have a greater runoff than a lot that is mostly trees and grass. In
addition, that lot will reflect more heat at its neighbors, raising their
electricity bills. It will also use more energy in heating and cooling,
affecting the CO2 signature of the community. For all of these reasons
(and more), there _is_ a measurable effect of putting up a house that
covers more area per person housed with impervious surface.

Errr, if you say so. This might be covered by the increase in property tax
rates anyway. I doubt it would amount to much.

george conklin

2007-07-18 20:51:38 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against
people doing what they want with their own land that they pay taxes
on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so
that they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in and
also for the additional stormwater infrastructure required by filling
the lot with impervious surfaces. That might actually have the
desired effect, as well as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put more of
a strain on the environment and infrastructure than people who don't,
you might possibly get them to make different building decisions
without flat out telling them they can't do it. By the same token, if
you make them pay the cost of changing the character of a neighborhood
in the form of buying out their neighbors who are driven out by their
decisions, they might also make decisions to build more in keeping with
the existing neighborhood structures. Neither involves a direct
mandate that you can't do what you want on your own property, but they
provide incentives to me bore considerate of the neighbors and the
community at large.

You do not have the right to retain a "neighborhood" character. You do
not have the right to dictate your neighbor's "infrastructure". If their
property in some way damages your's in a real, measurable way, then
that's one thing. But McMansion's do not fit that criteria.

I disagree. Of course communities have the right to tax those who place
a bigger strain on infrastructure more heavily than those who place a
lower strain on it. They also have a right to maintain a specific
character, especially if that character has an economic value.

The whole idea of retaining a "character" is arbitrary and ridiculous. And
I don't see how one type of development would put more strain on
"infrastructure" than another. Are we talking about McMansions here or not?

What we see posted here on urbanization is really anti-urban. To say
that a larger house puts more of a strain on the water or sewer is open to
question, and may even be more ecologically sound if it is built according
to modern standards. It used to be said that 4" of dead air space was the
best insulator going. Of course, that is an obsolete concept, but that is
all they had in the early1900s, when the so-called best houses were built.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-18 20:55:02 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against
people doing what they want with their own land that they pay taxes
on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so
that they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in
and also for the additional stormwater infrastructure required by
filling the lot with impervious surfaces. That might actually have
the desired effect, as well as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put more of
a strain on the environment and infrastructure than people who don't,
you might possibly get them to make different building decisions
without flat out telling them they can't do it. By the same token, if
you make them pay the cost of changing the character of a neighborhood
in the form of buying out their neighbors who are driven out by their
decisions, they might also make decisions to build more in keeping
with the existing neighborhood structures. Neither involves a direct
mandate that you can't do what you want on your own property, but they
provide incentives to me bore considerate of the neighbors and the
community at large.

You do not have the right to retain a "neighborhood" character. You do
not have the right to dictate your neighbor's "infrastructure". If
their property in some way damages your's in a real, measurable way,
then that's one thing. But McMansion's do not fit that criteria.

I disagree. Of course communities have the right to tax those who place
a bigger strain on infrastructure more heavily than those who place a
lower strain on it. They also have a right to maintain a specific
character, especially if that character has an economic value.

The whole idea of retaining a "character" is arbitrary and ridiculous.
And I don't see how one type of development would put more strain on
"infrastructure" than another. Are we talking about McMansions here or not?

I never considered that... could the "facts" used to denigrate McMansions
also be used to denigrate urban buildings as well? I mean, I live in one the
most urbans areas in the US and I don't see much yard space around here.

george conklin

2007-07-18 21:10:29 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against
people doing what they want with their own land that they pay
taxes on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so
that they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in
and also for the additional stormwater infrastructure required by
filling the lot with impervious surfaces. That might actually have
the desired effect, as well as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put more
of a strain on the environment and infrastructure than people who
don't, you might possibly get them to make different building
decisions without flat out telling them they can't do it. By the
same token, if you make them pay the cost of changing the character
of a neighborhood in the form of buying out their neighbors who are
driven out by their decisions, they might also make decisions to
build more in keeping with the existing neighborhood structures.
Neither involves a direct mandate that you can't do what you want on
your own property, but they provide incentives to me bore considerate
of the neighbors and the community at large.

You do not have the right to retain a "neighborhood" character. You do
not have the right to dictate your neighbor's "infrastructure". If
their property in some way damages your's in a real, measurable way,
then that's one thing. But McMansion's do not fit that criteria.

I disagree. Of course communities have the right to tax those who
place a bigger strain on infrastructure more heavily than those who
place a lower strain on it. They also have a right to maintain a
specific character, especially if that character has an economic value.

The whole idea of retaining a "character" is arbitrary and ridiculous.
And I don't see how one type of development would put more strain on
"infrastructure" than another. Are we talking about McMansions here or not?

What we see posted here on urbanization is really anti-urban. To say
that a larger house puts more of a strain on the water or sewer is open
to question, and may even be more ecologically sound if it is built
according to modern standards. It used to be said that 4" of dead air
space was the best insulator going. Of course, that is an obsolete
concept, but that is all they had in the early1900s, when the so-called
best houses were built.

I never considered that... could the "facts" used to denigrate McMansions
also be used to denigrate urban buildings as well? I mean, I live in one
the most urbans areas in the US and I don't see much yard space around
here.

The New York Times did have an article saying that buildings in NYC are some
of least efficient around. They seem to be efficient only because people
have such tiny living areas. So, yes, both physically and in terms of
"character," the rant against McMansions could be used to criticize all
urban development. And don't forget that the tiny lot sizes those
McMansions are on is just exactly what the planning community endorses as
"efficient" use of land. It is all so contradictory, no?

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-18 21:12:06 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against
people doing what they want with their own land that they pay
taxes on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so
that they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in
and also for the additional stormwater infrastructure required by
filling the lot with impervious surfaces. That might actually have
the desired effect, as well as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put more
of a strain on the environment and infrastructure than people who
don't, you might possibly get them to make different building
decisions without flat out telling them they can't do it. By the
same token, if you make them pay the cost of changing the character
of a neighborhood in the form of buying out their neighbors who are
driven out by their decisions, they might also make decisions to
build more in keeping with the existing neighborhood structures.
Neither involves a direct mandate that you can't do what you want on
your own property, but they provide incentives to me bore considerate
of the neighbors and the community at large.

You do not have the right to retain a "neighborhood" character. You do
not have the right to dictate your neighbor's "infrastructure". If
their property in some way damages your's in a real, measurable way,
then that's one thing. But McMansion's do not fit that criteria.

I disagree. Of course communities have the right to tax those who
place a bigger strain on infrastructure more heavily than those who
place a lower strain on it. They also have a right to maintain a
specific character, especially if that character has an economic value.

The whole idea of retaining a "character" is arbitrary and ridiculous.
And I don't see how one type of development would put more strain on
"infrastructure" than another. Are we talking about McMansions here or not?

What we see posted here on urbanization is really anti-urban. To say
that a larger house puts more of a strain on the water or sewer is open
to question, and may even be more ecologically sound if it is built
according to modern standards. It used to be said that 4" of dead air
space was the best insulator going. Of course, that is an obsolete
concept, but that is all they had in the early1900s, when the so-called
best houses were built.

I never considered that... could the "facts" used to denigrate McMansions
also be used to denigrate urban buildings as well? I mean, I live in one
the most urbans areas in the US and I don't see much yard space around
here.

Note that my statement was on a per person housed basis. For more info, see
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/protect_water_higher_density.pdf

george conklin

2007-07-18 21:15:15 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against
people doing what they want with their own land that they pay
taxes on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so
that they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in
and also for the additional stormwater infrastructure required by
filling the lot with impervious surfaces. That might actually
have the desired effect, as well as being fair to everyone
involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put more
of a strain on the environment and infrastructure than people who
don't, you might possibly get them to make different building
decisions without flat out telling them they can't do it. By the
same token, if you make them pay the cost of changing the character
of a neighborhood in the form of buying out their neighbors who are
driven out by their decisions, they might also make decisions to
build more in keeping with the existing neighborhood structures.
Neither involves a direct mandate that you can't do what you want on
your own property, but they provide incentives to me bore
considerate of the neighbors and the community at large.

You do not have the right to retain a "neighborhood" character. You
do not have the right to dictate your neighbor's "infrastructure". If
their property in some way damages your's in a real, measurable way,
then that's one thing. But McMansion's do not fit that criteria.

I disagree. Of course communities have the right to tax those who
place a bigger strain on infrastructure more heavily than those who
place a lower strain on it. They also have a right to maintain a
specific character, especially if that character has an economic value.

The whole idea of retaining a "character" is arbitrary and ridiculous.
And I don't see how one type of development would put more strain on
"infrastructure" than another. Are we talking about McMansions here or not?

What we see posted here on urbanization is really anti-urban. To say
that a larger house puts more of a strain on the water or sewer is open
to question, and may even be more ecologically sound if it is built
according to modern standards. It used to be said that 4" of dead air
space was the best insulator going. Of course, that is an obsolete
concept, but that is all they had in the early1900s, when the so-called
best houses were built.

I never considered that... could the "facts" used to denigrate McMansions
also be used to denigrate urban buildings as well? I mean, I live in one
the most urbans areas in the US and I don't see much yard space around
here.

Note that my statement was on a per person housed basis. For more info,
see http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/protect_water_higher_density.pdf

Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the smallest amount
of land possible. That leaves no space for yards or runoff, except the
sewer system.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-18 21:19:31 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against
people doing what they want with their own land that they pay
taxes on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so
that they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in
and also for the additional stormwater infrastructure required by
filling the lot with impervious surfaces. That might actually
have the desired effect, as well as being fair to everyone
involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put more
of a strain on the environment and infrastructure than people who
don't, you might possibly get them to make different building
decisions without flat out telling them they can't do it. By the
same token, if you make them pay the cost of changing the character
of a neighborhood in the form of buying out their neighbors who are
driven out by their decisions, they might also make decisions to
build more in keeping with the existing neighborhood structures.
Neither involves a direct mandate that you can't do what you want
on your own property, but they provide incentives to me bore
considerate of the neighbors and the community at large.

You do not have the right to retain a "neighborhood" character. You
do not have the right to dictate your neighbor's "infrastructure".
If their property in some way damages your's in a real, measurable
way, then that's one thing. But McMansion's do not fit that
criteria.

I disagree. Of course communities have the right to tax those who
place a bigger strain on infrastructure more heavily than those who
place a lower strain on it. They also have a right to maintain a
specific character, especially if that character has an economic value.

The whole idea of retaining a "character" is arbitrary and ridiculous.
And I don't see how one type of development would put more strain on
"infrastructure" than another. Are we talking about McMansions here or not?

What we see posted here on urbanization is really anti-urban. To say
that a larger house puts more of a strain on the water or sewer is open
to question, and may even be more ecologically sound if it is built
according to modern standards. It used to be said that 4" of dead air
space was the best insulator going. Of course, that is an obsolete
concept, but that is all they had in the early1900s, when the so-called
best houses were built.

I never considered that... could the "facts" used to denigrate
McMansions also be used to denigrate urban buildings as well? I mean, I
live in one the most urbans areas in the US and I don't see much yard
space around here.

Note that my statement was on a per person housed basis. For more info,
see http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/protect_water_higher_density.pdf

Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the smallest
amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards or runoff, except
the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb the
runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent to it.

george conklin

2007-07-18 21:30:32 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back
against people doing what they want with their own land that
they pay taxes on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors
so that they can move to a neighborhood they are more
comfortable in and also for the additional stormwater
infrastructure required by filling the lot with impervious
surfaces. That might actually have the desired effect, as well
as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put
more of a strain on the environment and infrastructure than people
who don't, you might possibly get them to make different building
decisions without flat out telling them they can't do it. By the
same token, if you make them pay the cost of changing the
character of a neighborhood in the form of buying out their
neighbors who are driven out by their decisions, they might also
make decisions to build more in keeping with the existing
neighborhood structures. Neither involves a direct mandate that
you can't do what you want on your own property, but they provide
incentives to me bore considerate of the neighbors and the
community at large.

You do not have the right to retain a "neighborhood" character. You
do not have the right to dictate your neighbor's "infrastructure".
If their property in some way damages your's in a real, measurable
way, then that's one thing. But McMansion's do not fit that
criteria.

I disagree. Of course communities have the right to tax those who
place a bigger strain on infrastructure more heavily than those who
place a lower strain on it. They also have a right to maintain a
specific character, especially if that character has an economic value.

The whole idea of retaining a "character" is arbitrary and
ridiculous. And I don't see how one type of development would put
more strain on "infrastructure" than another. Are we talking about
McMansions here or not?

What we see posted here on urbanization is really anti-urban. To
say that a larger house puts more of a strain on the water or sewer is
open to question, and may even be more ecologically sound if it is
built according to modern standards. It used to be said that 4" of
dead air space was the best insulator going. Of course, that is an
obsolete concept, but that is all they had in the early1900s, when the
so-called best houses were built.

I never considered that... could the "facts" used to denigrate
McMansions also be used to denigrate urban buildings as well? I mean, I
live in one the most urbans areas in the US and I don't see much yard
space around here.

Note that my statement was on a per person housed basis. For more info,
see http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/protect_water_higher_density.pdf

Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the smallest
amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards or runoff,
except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb the
runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent to it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-18 21:35:48 UTC

Post by george conklin
Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the smallest
amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards or runoff,
except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb the
runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent to it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

We're all going to crowd into a tight little urban neighborhoods, live next
to our gay, hip post-punk neighbors and be forced to drink overpriced lattes
in "independent" coffeeshops. I can hardly wait!

george conklin

2007-07-18 23:16:31 UTC

Post by george conklin
Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the smallest
amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards or runoff,
except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb the
runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent to it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

We're all going to crowd into a tight little urban neighborhoods, live
next to our gay, hip post-punk neighbors and be forced to drink overpriced
lattes in "independent" coffeeshops. I can hardly wait!

Your forget that all those downtown bars in Portland (30+) which provide
a nice public place to drink and promote family values at 3 AM.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-19 01:34:04 UTC

Post by george conklin
Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the smallest
amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards or runoff,
except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb
the runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent to it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

We're all going to crowd into a tight little urban neighborhoods, live
next to our gay, hip post-punk neighbors and be forced to drink
overpriced lattes in "independent" coffeeshops. I can hardly wait!

Your forget that all those downtown bars in Portland (30+) which
provide a nice public place to drink and promote family values at 3 AM.

How do you think Mom and Dad met?

george conklin

2007-07-19 12:05:30 UTC

Post by george conklin
Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the smallest
amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards or runoff,
except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb
the runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent to it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

We're all going to crowd into a tight little urban neighborhoods, live
next to our gay, hip post-punk neighbors and be forced to drink
overpriced lattes in "independent" coffeeshops. I can hardly wait!

Your forget that all those downtown bars in Portland (30+) which
provide a nice public place to drink and promote family values at 3 AM.

How do you think Mom and Dad met?

What about like me, in class? We were both students. My wife does not
drink.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-19 14:05:16 UTC

Post by george conklin
Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the
smallest amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards or
runoff, except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb
the runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent to it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

We're all going to crowd into a tight little urban neighborhoods, live
next to our gay, hip post-punk neighbors and be forced to drink
overpriced lattes in "independent" coffeeshops. I can hardly wait!

Your forget that all those downtown bars in Portland (30+) which
provide a nice public place to drink and promote family values at 3 AM.

How do you think Mom and Dad met?

What about like me, in class? We were both students. My wife does not
drink.

So you don't know of a single family where the parents met in an
establishment that was open to 3 am?

george conklin

2007-07-19 14:34:47 UTC

Post by george conklin
Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the
smallest amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards
or runoff, except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb
the runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent to it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

We're all going to crowd into a tight little urban neighborhoods, live
next to our gay, hip post-punk neighbors and be forced to drink
overpriced lattes in "independent" coffeeshops. I can hardly wait!

Your forget that all those downtown bars in Portland (30+) which
provide a nice public place to drink and promote family values at 3 AM.

How do you think Mom and Dad met?

What about like me, in class? We were both students. My wife does not
drink.

So you don't know of a single family where the parents met in an
establishment that was open to 3 am?

I am not sure in southern culture people would be likely to admit to any
such thing. It would be an embarrassment. Public drinking is not highly
valued and is not encouraged for good reasons. We had such a place open in
Durham last year and after several people got shot, the cops closed it down.

Baxter

2007-07-19 19:19:42 UTC

Post by george conklin
I am not sure in southern culture people would be likely to admit to any
such thing. It would be an embarrassment. Public drinking is not highly
valued and is not encouraged for good reasons. We had such a place open
in Durham last year and after several people got shot, the cops closed it
down.

Police in Oregon are threatening to close down a park on the Clackamas river
because of drinking and a number of fights. Seems this crime spot is in the
country and not the city.

William

2007-07-19 21:12:31 UTC

Post by george conklin
Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the
smallest amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards
or runoff, except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb
the runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent to it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

We're all going to crowd into a tight little urban neighborhoods, live
next to our gay, hip post-punk neighbors and be forced to drink
overpriced lattes in "independent" coffeeshops. I can hardly wait!

Your forget that all those downtown bars in Portland (30+) which
provide a nice public place to drink and promote family values at 3 AM.

How do you think Mom and Dad met?

What about like me, in class? We were both students. My wife does not
drink.

So you don't know of a single family where the parents met in an
establishment that was open to 3 am?

33 people have already gotten shot inside Chicago's public
school's walls. I don't see the police closing those down?

george conklin

2007-07-19 22:20:29 UTC

Post by george conklin
Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the
smallest amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards
or runoff, except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb
the runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent
to
it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

We're all going to crowd into a tight little urban neighborhoods, live
next to our gay, hip post-punk neighbors and be forced to drink
overpriced lattes in "independent" coffeeshops. I can hardly wait!

Your forget that all those downtown bars in Portland (30+) which
provide a nice public place to drink and promote family values at 3 AM.

How do you think Mom and Dad met?

What about like me, in class? We were both students. My wife does not
drink.

So you don't know of a single family where the parents met in an
establishment that was open to 3 am?

33 people have already gotten shot inside Chicago's public
school's walls. I don't see the police closing those down?

I don't see the schools serving liquor to make the students more friendly,
do you?

William

2007-07-21 03:20:07 UTC

Post by george conklin
Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the
smallest amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards
or runoff, except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb
the runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent
to
it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

We're all going to crowd into a tight little urban neighborhoods, live
next to our gay, hip post-punk neighbors and be forced to drink
overpriced lattes in "independent" coffeeshops. I can hardly wait!

Your forget that all those downtown bars in Portland (30+) which
provide a nice public place to drink and promote family values at 3 AM.

How do you think Mom and Dad met?

What about like me, in class? We were both students. My wife does not
drink.

So you don't know of a single family where the parents met in an
establishment that was open to 3 am?

33 people have already gotten shot inside Chicago's public
school's walls. I don't see the police closing those down?

I don't see the schools serving liquor to make the students more friendly,
do you?

Thats real interesting there Britney but have you ever thought about
the
fact that it's illegal may make it just a little hard to serve liquor
to high school students?

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-23 03:41:04 UTC

Post by george conklin
Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the
smallest amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards
or runoff, except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb
the runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent
to
it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

We're all going to crowd into a tight little urban neighborhoods, live
next to our gay, hip post-punk neighbors and be forced to drink
overpriced lattes in "independent" coffeeshops. I can hardly wait!

Your forget that all those downtown bars in Portland (30+) which
provide a nice public place to drink and promote family values at 3 AM.

How do you think Mom and Dad met?

What about like me, in class? We were both students. My wife does not
drink.

So you don't know of a single family where the parents met in an
establishment that was open to 3 am?

33 people have already gotten shot inside Chicago's public
school's walls. I don't see the police closing those down?

I don't see the schools serving liquor to make the students more friendly,
do you?

My husband's school did in Edinburgh.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-23 03:40:05 UTC

Post by george conklin
Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the
smallest amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards
or runoff, except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to
absorb the runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or
adjacent to it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

We're all going to crowd into a tight little urban neighborhoods,
live next to our gay, hip post-punk neighbors and be forced to drink
overpriced lattes in "independent" coffeeshops. I can hardly wait!

Your forget that all those downtown bars in Portland (30+) which
provide a nice public place to drink and promote family values at 3 AM.

How do you think Mom and Dad met?

What about like me, in class? We were both students. My wife does not
drink.

So you don't know of a single family where the parents met in an
establishment that was open to 3 am?

I am not sure in southern culture people would be likely to admit to any
such thing. It would be an embarrassment. Public drinking is not highly
valued and is not encouraged for good reasons. We had such a place open
in Durham last year and after several people got shot, the cops closed it
down.

That's odd. I saw lots of people drinking in public last night in
Birmingham, AL.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-19 20:54:22 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't know of a single family where the parents met in an
establishment that was open to 3 am?

No. I take you like being hit on at the local meat market? Most ladies I
know don't and consider it sleazy (with good reason).

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-23 03:42:58 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't know of a single family where the parents met in an
establishment that was open to 3 am?

No. I take you like being hit on at the local meat market? Most ladies I
know don't and consider it sleazy (with good reason).

I'm married. But in my day I didn't mind having men run into walls because
they were too busy looking at me to watch where they were going.

Stephen Sprunk

2007-07-19 21:08:25 UTC

Post by george conklin
Your forget that all those downtown bars in Portland (30+) which
provide a nice public place to drink and promote family values at 3 AM.

How do you think Mom and Dad met?

What about like me, in class? We were both students. My wife does not
drink.

So you don't know of a single family where the parents met in an
establishment that was open to 3 am?

I know several married couples that met in bars; however, none of them admit
that to their kids, coworkers, or random acquaintances. They typically
concoct a story of how they met based on one of their early dates, to make
sure they are consistent on the details. Ditto for people that meet in
mundane places like supermarkets, or even some that meet online. Gotta have
a great, romantic tale to tell people...

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-23 03:44:30 UTC

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by george conklin
Your forget that all those downtown bars in Portland (30+) which
provide a nice public place to drink and promote family values at 3 AM.

How do you think Mom and Dad met?

What about like me, in class? We were both students. My wife does not
drink.

So you don't know of a single family where the parents met in an
establishment that was open to 3 am?

I know several married couples that met in bars; however, none of them
admit that to their kids, coworkers, or random acquaintances. They
typically concoct a story of how they met based on one of their early
dates, to make sure they are consistent on the details. Ditto for people
that meet in mundane places like supermarkets, or even some that meet
online. Gotta have a great, romantic tale to tell people...

The point is that a culture that caters to singles does, eventually, promote
family values. Those singles aren't crowding around in bars and other
establishments because they want to stay single.

William

2007-07-19 17:55:03 UTC

Post by george conklin
Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the smallest
amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards or runoff,
except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb the
runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent to it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

O yea man extinct entrepreneurs we want big corporations only!
Kill the underground promote the mainstream! Mass produced and
commercialized is the way to go!

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-19 21:02:11 UTC

Post by george conklin
Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the smallest
amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards or runoff,
except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb the
runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent to it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

O yea man extinct entrepreneurs we want big corporations only!
Kill the underground promote the mainstream! Mass produced and
commercialized is the way to go!

It was satire. And I have nothing against independent anything, I just don't
like overpriced coffee. ;)

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-19 01:33:18 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back
against people doing what they want with their own land that
they pay taxes on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors
so that they can move to a neighborhood they are more
comfortable in and also for the additional stormwater
infrastructure required by filling the lot with impervious
surfaces. That might actually have the desired effect, as well
as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put
more of a strain on the environment and infrastructure than
people who don't, you might possibly get them to make different
building decisions without flat out telling them they can't do
it. By the same token, if you make them pay the cost of changing
the character of a neighborhood in the form of buying out their
neighbors who are driven out by their decisions, they might also
make decisions to build more in keeping with the existing
neighborhood structures. Neither involves a direct mandate that
you can't do what you want on your own property, but they provide
incentives to me bore considerate of the neighbors and the
community at large.

You do not have the right to retain a "neighborhood" character.
You do not have the right to dictate your neighbor's
"infrastructure". If their property in some way damages your's in
a real, measurable way, then that's one thing. But McMansion's do
not fit that criteria.

I disagree. Of course communities have the right to tax those who
place a bigger strain on infrastructure more heavily than those who
place a lower strain on it. They also have a right to maintain a
specific character, especially if that character has an economic value.

The whole idea of retaining a "character" is arbitrary and
ridiculous. And I don't see how one type of development would put
more strain on "infrastructure" than another. Are we talking about
McMansions here or not?

What we see posted here on urbanization is really anti-urban. To
say that a larger house puts more of a strain on the water or sewer
is open to question, and may even be more ecologically sound if it is
built according to modern standards. It used to be said that 4" of
dead air space was the best insulator going. Of course, that is an
obsolete concept, but that is all they had in the early1900s, when
the so-called best houses were built.

I never considered that... could the "facts" used to denigrate
McMansions also be used to denigrate urban buildings as well? I mean,
I live in one the most urbans areas in the US and I don't see much
yard space around here.

Note that my statement was on a per person housed basis. For more info, see
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/protect_water_higher_density.pdf

Smart growth pushes to put as many people as possible in the smallest
amount of land possible. That leaves no space for yards or runoff,
except the sewer system.

You're forgetting that there is then more open green space to absorb the
runoff naturally _around_ the high density area, or adjacent to it.

You mean like in New York City? All the grass there?

I guess you didn't read the article, then, or didn't understand it. I'm
assuming if you can't understand what the EPA docs say, there's no point in
paraphrasing for you.

Joe the Aroma

2007-07-18 21:15:34 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
I never considered that... could the "facts" used to denigrate McMansions
also be used to denigrate urban buildings as well? I mean, I live in one
the most urbans areas in the US and I don't see much yard space around
here.

Note that my statement was on a per person housed basis. For more info,
see http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/protect_water_higher_density.pdf

I can't believe my tax dollars goes to support such nonsense.

William

2007-07-22 19:18:12 UTC

Post by Joe the Aroma
Wow, I'm so glad the government is finally fighting back against
people doing what they want with their own land that they pay taxes
on.

I suppose you could tax them enough to buy out their neighbors so that
they can move to a neighborhood they are more comfortable in and also
for the additional stormwater infrastructure required by filling the
lot with impervious surfaces. That might actually have the desired
effect, as well as being fair to everyone involved.

What?

If you tax people more heavily for building decisions that put more of a
strain on the environment and infrastructure than people who don't, you
might possibly get them to make different building decisions without
flat out telling them they can't do it. By the same token, if you make
them pay the cost of changing the character of a neighborhood in the
form of buying out their neighbors who are driven out by their
decisions, they might also make decisions to build more in keeping with
the existing neighborhood structures. Neither involves a direct mandate
that you can't do what you want on your own property, but they provide
incentives to me bore considerate of the neighbors and the community at
large.

You do not have the right to retain a "neighborhood" character. You do
not have the right to dictate your neighbor's "infrastructure". If their
property in some way damages your's in a real, measurable way, then
that's one thing. But McMansion's do not fit that criteria.

Really? Because the law begs to differ.
http://www.planetizen.com/node/25252

george conklin

2007-07-22 23:49:45 UTC