Raleigh Durham Post from City Skip
mark alexander
M/20Instant MessageSend Message
Posted: Mar 12, 2006 9:30 AM
i have been to a very scary city in North Carolina. It's Raleigh Durham.as you drive for miles along I-40, there is no realization that youre in a city. only massive congestion over 8 lanes. it is very difficult to drive even towards I-85, the web of roads is as confusing as london.the roads tend to be extremely narrow. new developments in RTP and Cary ahve shown extremely limited foresight. also, town centres are located 5-10 miles from the interstate along what i saw were generic and identical roadways. In terms of segregation, this city is one of the worst ive ever visited. wealthy areas, prosperous areas due to high tech and education have no communication or connection to urban slums i saw in Durham. ironically, public transit is free in chapel-hill, perhaps the wealthiest area i visited. why not over the incredible distances that people are willing to travel to procure goods or complete daily activities. everything involves a pretty long drive.I realize that this problem exists in nearly every american urban area.but is anyone afraid specifically of development in raleigh Durham. it scared me enough not to want to go anywhere further south in the country.
Nikko
F/31NEW YORK,New YorkInstant MessageSend Message
Posted: Mar 13, 2006 9:18 AM
I've never been to Raleigh Durham, but I have heard about what you are describing. In the south (and in many areas of the west) most development occurred after World War II, after the car had become the dominant mode of transportation in the US. Ironically though, a lot of transit-centered/town center development prototypes have been pursued in these areas in more recent years (probably because the New Urbanism movement started in Florida and there is relatively cheap, available land in these areas, unlike the northeast).What do you mean by narrow roads? I would image that there would be a lot of suburban-style two-lane highways with a left turn lane in the middle. Although I have seen areas where developments went up along old farm roads that were never widened.
mark alexander
M/20Instant MessageSend Message
Posted: Mar 13, 2006 10:02 AM
in cary, most thoroughfares are simply agricultural roads where older homes can still be seen with large clearing over the distance. the main access road from cary to the airport is 2 lanes, becoming 4 lanes near the interstate junction (congestion here is heavy when the interstate is jammed), people seem to wait in never ending traffic. the RTP development is most surprising, the only thoroughfare is a two lane agricultural road leading to I-40 with gradual improvements, especially near the campuses of major companies, you dont see building, only forest and signs indicating driveways. road development is occurring right now, the shoulder remains unpaved and rough. and there is no bicycle access.otherwise major roads are identical 4 lane divided and undivided roads leading through miles of forests withe the occasional service station or waffle house. highway junctions do not often have amenities liek macdonalds and other restaurants near the highway, it usually involves a few miles drive. why hasnt any planning really taken lewis mumford's the highways and the city into context?
Nikko
F/31NEW YORK,New YorkInstant MessageSend Message
Posted: Mar 13, 2006 10:57 AM
I used to work as a planner in western New Jersey, where this kind of haphazard development has occurred. New Jersey is a home-rule state, meaning that land use is regulated on a local level, so as county planners all we could do is advise local officials on effective planning practices.As for the reason this kind of development occurs, in Jersey it’s very complex. First, it happens this way because it’s a simple way to develop land. You have a farm or meadow that a developer can go in and plop down some houses or some kind on non-residential use; they don’t have to worry about relating to the context beyond connecting to the closest road. And they don’t have to worry about the complexities of a mixed-use development (which, if you know what you’re doing, shouldn’t be that complex). Furthermore, this kind of development only requires simple land subdivision ordinances and a bare bones master plan to go with it – many rural municipalities don’t even have a full-time planner to attempt something more ambitious.Second, municipalities are hesitant to embark on more ambitious ordinances because of a fear of lawsuits by conventional, suburban-style developers who have an interest in maintaining the status quo.Third, property ownership rights drive the discussion on all levels. In order to create denser development in one area and preserve open space in another (i.e. create a town), you need to affect the land values of each area. The development potential (thus value) of the former area (the town) in most cases increases, while the development potential and value of the latter area (the open space) in most cases decreases. In New Jersey a new Transfer of Development Rights law was enacted to allow the development potential of one area be transferred to another, allowing land owners in both areas to be compensated equally (or as equally as possible). This requires a very long, expensive and often tedious planning process.Fourth, because of the top three issues, municipalities turn to environmentalism as a means to control development. They enact new ordinances that regulate the preservation of natural features (i.e. steep slopes, trees and woodlands, streams and rivers) to decrease the “impact” of development. In the end, this is a short-sighted, safe solution, since any kind of sprawling development affects a municipality’s infrastructure in the same way. On top of that, natural resource protection ordinances can be viewed as exclusive zoning, since they can increase the cost of development as well as the desirability of new development. In other words, these ordinances tend to produce luxury housing.Lastly, it is hard to get people to take the leap and change the way things are done. There are local officials who only know the status quo and want to stay in their comfort zone, as well as other community leaders, such as developers, realtors and bankers.They use the excuse of “this is the kind of development that people want because people are buying these properties” to justify keeping things as is. Views within the planning community have definitely changed, but it takes a lot to get bureaucracies to readjust themselves to a new paradigm.Damn.. guess this post got a little long..
mark alexander
M/20Instant MessageSend Message
Posted: Mar 13, 2006 12:51 PM
the fact that raleigh durham is a series of seperate municipalities, with seperate plans, creates a serious consideration. with the development of the RTP, a subsiduary development occured in the city of cary, its development being to house affluent software staff. If planning regulations are difficult in existing municiplaities, maverick new areas suddenly race to the bottom, consistently lowering standards and giving developers an easy ride to build whatever houses the market will bear.the social consequences are great, simply put, every software campus requires a huge amouint of staff for maintenance, gardening of the immense grounds and cooking for example. these people continue to live in less accesible affordable areas, with zero effective transit to work. this class is kept down by the need to drive.also, its funny to note that the corporate buzzwords of tehse companies often include terms such as (working with our local and environmental partners-cisco systems), yet theyve delocalized themselves entirely from the neighbourhoods as well as creating their own microcosm of nature.
M/20Instant MessageSend Message
Posted: Mar 12, 2006 9:30 AM
i have been to a very scary city in North Carolina. It's Raleigh Durham.as you drive for miles along I-40, there is no realization that youre in a city. only massive congestion over 8 lanes. it is very difficult to drive even towards I-85, the web of roads is as confusing as london.the roads tend to be extremely narrow. new developments in RTP and Cary ahve shown extremely limited foresight. also, town centres are located 5-10 miles from the interstate along what i saw were generic and identical roadways. In terms of segregation, this city is one of the worst ive ever visited. wealthy areas, prosperous areas due to high tech and education have no communication or connection to urban slums i saw in Durham. ironically, public transit is free in chapel-hill, perhaps the wealthiest area i visited. why not over the incredible distances that people are willing to travel to procure goods or complete daily activities. everything involves a pretty long drive.I realize that this problem exists in nearly every american urban area.but is anyone afraid specifically of development in raleigh Durham. it scared me enough not to want to go anywhere further south in the country.
Nikko
F/31NEW YORK,New YorkInstant MessageSend Message
Posted: Mar 13, 2006 9:18 AM
I've never been to Raleigh Durham, but I have heard about what you are describing. In the south (and in many areas of the west) most development occurred after World War II, after the car had become the dominant mode of transportation in the US. Ironically though, a lot of transit-centered/town center development prototypes have been pursued in these areas in more recent years (probably because the New Urbanism movement started in Florida and there is relatively cheap, available land in these areas, unlike the northeast).What do you mean by narrow roads? I would image that there would be a lot of suburban-style two-lane highways with a left turn lane in the middle. Although I have seen areas where developments went up along old farm roads that were never widened.
mark alexander
M/20Instant MessageSend Message
Posted: Mar 13, 2006 10:02 AM
in cary, most thoroughfares are simply agricultural roads where older homes can still be seen with large clearing over the distance. the main access road from cary to the airport is 2 lanes, becoming 4 lanes near the interstate junction (congestion here is heavy when the interstate is jammed), people seem to wait in never ending traffic. the RTP development is most surprising, the only thoroughfare is a two lane agricultural road leading to I-40 with gradual improvements, especially near the campuses of major companies, you dont see building, only forest and signs indicating driveways. road development is occurring right now, the shoulder remains unpaved and rough. and there is no bicycle access.otherwise major roads are identical 4 lane divided and undivided roads leading through miles of forests withe the occasional service station or waffle house. highway junctions do not often have amenities liek macdonalds and other restaurants near the highway, it usually involves a few miles drive. why hasnt any planning really taken lewis mumford's the highways and the city into context?
Nikko
F/31NEW YORK,New YorkInstant MessageSend Message
Posted: Mar 13, 2006 10:57 AM
I used to work as a planner in western New Jersey, where this kind of haphazard development has occurred. New Jersey is a home-rule state, meaning that land use is regulated on a local level, so as county planners all we could do is advise local officials on effective planning practices.As for the reason this kind of development occurs, in Jersey it’s very complex. First, it happens this way because it’s a simple way to develop land. You have a farm or meadow that a developer can go in and plop down some houses or some kind on non-residential use; they don’t have to worry about relating to the context beyond connecting to the closest road. And they don’t have to worry about the complexities of a mixed-use development (which, if you know what you’re doing, shouldn’t be that complex). Furthermore, this kind of development only requires simple land subdivision ordinances and a bare bones master plan to go with it – many rural municipalities don’t even have a full-time planner to attempt something more ambitious.Second, municipalities are hesitant to embark on more ambitious ordinances because of a fear of lawsuits by conventional, suburban-style developers who have an interest in maintaining the status quo.Third, property ownership rights drive the discussion on all levels. In order to create denser development in one area and preserve open space in another (i.e. create a town), you need to affect the land values of each area. The development potential (thus value) of the former area (the town) in most cases increases, while the development potential and value of the latter area (the open space) in most cases decreases. In New Jersey a new Transfer of Development Rights law was enacted to allow the development potential of one area be transferred to another, allowing land owners in both areas to be compensated equally (or as equally as possible). This requires a very long, expensive and often tedious planning process.Fourth, because of the top three issues, municipalities turn to environmentalism as a means to control development. They enact new ordinances that regulate the preservation of natural features (i.e. steep slopes, trees and woodlands, streams and rivers) to decrease the “impact” of development. In the end, this is a short-sighted, safe solution, since any kind of sprawling development affects a municipality’s infrastructure in the same way. On top of that, natural resource protection ordinances can be viewed as exclusive zoning, since they can increase the cost of development as well as the desirability of new development. In other words, these ordinances tend to produce luxury housing.Lastly, it is hard to get people to take the leap and change the way things are done. There are local officials who only know the status quo and want to stay in their comfort zone, as well as other community leaders, such as developers, realtors and bankers.They use the excuse of “this is the kind of development that people want because people are buying these properties” to justify keeping things as is. Views within the planning community have definitely changed, but it takes a lot to get bureaucracies to readjust themselves to a new paradigm.Damn.. guess this post got a little long..
mark alexander
M/20Instant MessageSend Message
Posted: Mar 13, 2006 12:51 PM
the fact that raleigh durham is a series of seperate municipalities, with seperate plans, creates a serious consideration. with the development of the RTP, a subsiduary development occured in the city of cary, its development being to house affluent software staff. If planning regulations are difficult in existing municiplaities, maverick new areas suddenly race to the bottom, consistently lowering standards and giving developers an easy ride to build whatever houses the market will bear.the social consequences are great, simply put, every software campus requires a huge amouint of staff for maintenance, gardening of the immense grounds and cooking for example. these people continue to live in less accesible affordable areas, with zero effective transit to work. this class is kept down by the need to drive.also, its funny to note that the corporate buzzwords of tehse companies often include terms such as (working with our local and environmental partners-cisco systems), yet theyve delocalized themselves entirely from the neighbourhoods as well as creating their own microcosm of nature.
posted by Marsab at 11:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home