With respect to the Portland vs. Houston thing on the first page of this thread, I think everyone should read this:
http://swamplot.com/comment-of-the-d...ng/2017-04-26/
The true urban history of Houston is more complicated than "hur dur no zoning". Houston does have land use regulations in the form of permitting rules for parking, for utility hookups, etc, that actually made the area inside the 610 much less dense that it would have been. And there is a strong NIMBY element in the kind of areas where rents and land prices would favor mid or high rise developments(Montrose).Those townhouses are lovely but they aren't going to turn Houston into Brooklyn, and you would know that if you actually visited some of those neighborhoods. There's little commercial activity as those areas still aren't that dense relatively speaking. The streets lack sidewalks nevermind some have edge ditches with culverts and overhead power lines. The high rise and mid rise growth in Uptown is very insular, with exclusive mall-esque retail courtyards below condos that are just vertically stacked gated communities.
Dallas' Uptown is immediately adjacent to Downtown rather than 5 miles away. It has zoning, but it is usually permissive. Dallas has greater built density closer to downtown and more commercial activities and services AND it has the same kind of urban townhouse development as Houston does.
Portland isn't just about zoning. Due in part to harmony between grassroots activists, mayors, and state leaders, Portland actively invested money and effort into things that would make the city appealing starting in the 1970s. And just good government and public services in general. Regular people don't care about esoteric arguments over urbanism and the economics of land use, what they want is potholes filled, parks hours, police response times, communication from city hall, civic pride, etc.
Houston had suburban interests focused mayors in the 70's through the 1990's who had to govern a rather rough city with racial and class divisions and southern good old boy corruption. Houston has a lot of extremes- wealthy, powerful, conservative, but also low educated, working poor and high poverty areas. It had high crime during the national crime epidemic of that era. Texan politics usually ignores voters in favor of power brokers, the state is often an adversary not something that helps people. Area US representatives would actively seek to derail anything benefiting the city at the federal level.
There is no "we" in Texas, so an opinion like "we should have better schools/transit/police/roads/etc" doesn't go far. It's why the Houston area is a balkanized region of suburban special districts(MUD's, ESD's) so that individual neighborhoods can have their own utility and fire protection. It's why there are a lot of charter schools and many aren't any better than the public schools. "I have mine, get your own."
...
Quote:
|
(portland, and every other far left, white majority city).
|
My unpopular opinion for this thread is, so the fuck what? Why is this now an insult?
Does being majority white automatically negate the accomplishments of progressive local government?
Should harmony be thrown away in favor of the toxic cultural anxiety that displaces economic and ethics issues in political campaigns? The antisocial divided society bullshit that fucks up the southern and eastern cities? Maybe more disinvestment and decay and suburban insularity is desired over having a nice city? Maybe instead of having cool leaders who do things like fight for internet privacy, healthcare, higher ed, etc, they should elect hateful leaders who represent oil and insurance companies and cut the rich's taxes creating deficits by distracting voters with bathroom bills and illegal immigration controversies? Would that be better for you?
Are bikes white? Are trees white? Is eating healthy white? Is being well read white? What the fuck does this mean?
Quote:
|
urbanists have such a hard on for the northwest, but its just because the topography is pretty.
|
IMO Portland and the NW's best quality isn't always about urbanism, its that relatively speaking there are more people who give a shit and things are kind of nice in a boring way. Nobody is under the illusion that Portland or Seattle are anything like Boston or Philly, there is a totally different historical and economic context that means they'll never be ultra urban. So what? Instead you should be happy that cities like Portland offer some element of urbanity along with other strengths, as part of a varied civic strategy.
Quote:
|
mega left cities try to operate as if its a nanny state
|
What the hell does this mean?
Quote:
|
portland planning policy and our city hall is making life here miserable, favoring pedestrians and cyclists over automobiles.
|
Cars have a monopoly on transportation nearly everywhere, even in Portland. Honestly, if you had to slow down from 40 to 35 mph over the course of a couple blocks, how does that effect your life? I don't think it does.
I live in a college town and use back streets as shortcuts. I just learn to accept that there are students on bikes or walking in the street and deal with it. I still only need 7 minutes to get to work, as opposed to those living in newer subdivisions 10 miles away who have to get on the damn freeway and spend 30 minutes in a car.
Prev
Linear Mode
