More Spokane

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

No, that was the ratio of a mile of freeway lane vs a mile of rail line. One mile of freeway lane carries about 7.5 times as many passengers/hour as a mile of light rail line.

What is the point behind those numbers -- you claim that adding four lanes and more buses would increase capacity 20x over light rail. I didn't realize Portland was in need of that much more capacity along I-84... (and that adding asphalt was the only viable alternative.)

Originally Posted by Contrarian

Really? Rose Gardens? Pittock House? Forest Park? Med school? Council Crest? Mt Tabor? St John's Bridge? Sellwood? Sauvie's Island? How about an early morning run up to Timberline for breakfast? The tourist can get to all those places in his car, and any others he might wish to visit.

Point taken -- you can't take a light rail train to Timberline. Just trying to point out that if a city/region steers away from this "A car is the easiest way so let's just keep laying more asphalt" mentality, and provides viable, accessibletransit alternatives, then people will use them. They don't have to-- nobody is forcing them out of their cars at gunpoint -- but if there is a comprehensive, convenient transit system that meshes with complementary zoning/land-use, then parking the car and taking a train/bus/streetcar becomes more of a common-sense option. Again, you don't have to subscribe to what you claim to be this "arrogant" approach to transit, but if we just keep sprawling and developing our cities like it's 1955 again, then the only viable option you leave people is to drive. Then see how much traffic you have to sit in. That's arrogance. (And by the way, most of the rest of those tourist spots you mentioned can be reached by bus, and the med school also by streetcar/aerial tram if so desired.)

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

At the end of a long, pointless forum argument neither of us will change each others opinion and the reality is that it isn't even that important to try and change either one's opinion anyway. You have your reasons for the way you feel about things and I have mine.

Well I figured I wanted to point this out that I mentioned at the very beginning because I am sure it still holds true.

But to follow it up with everything that has been said so far, I will proudly fight against ANYONE who's answer to all our traffic woes is more asphalt and more lanes and parking for cars.

Besides, you never answered my earlier question, where would you run freeways through Spokane to help its current traffic issues if you do not support doing so through alternative forms of transportation...and don't say you didn't say cities shouldn't use other forms of transportation because all you have pointed out is how pointless it is to try and use other forms compared to the superiority of the car.

You think it is irony, Omaha, because you assume that the difficulty with using bikes is the lack of "infrastructure." That is not the problem. It is not the reason people do not use bikes for much of anything except recreational riding. They don't use bikes because you cannot carry the kids and all their gear to their soccer game on your bike, you can't carry home 4 sacks of groceries on your bike, you can't haul a sheet of plywood from Home Depot on your bike, you can't pick up the kids from daycare after work on your bike, you can't get from Liberty Lake to downtown Spokane in 15 minutes on your bike, you can't ride your bike when there is 2 ft of snow on the ground, and you won't want to ride it when it is pouring rain or 2 degrees below zero. You can build bike paths and bike lanes until you run out of asphalt, and it will not overcome those intrinsic drawbacks.

Also, you seem to be missing the importance of a bike culture social city, you make this statement with this country's current flawed infrastructure system in mind rather than one that isn't focused solely by car.

It is a lie to say people do not bike for other means besides recreational because that is an insult to all the commuter bikers in this country. Also weather is little factor, you make it sound like people in Portland only bike two months out of the year which is complete BS, we bike 12 months out of the year and even some hardcore people continued to bike during our snow storms.

For starters, not everyone in this country has kids, nor are kids soccer games everyday, and no one here is saying you have to choice between biking and the car, why can't a family have one family car for things like this and use their bike for daily commuting, especially if kids are being taken to school by bus or living within walking distance to their school?

Actually one can carry home 5-6 sacks of groceries on their bike, two up front, three on the back wheel, and a backpack for another sack...it is possible to do with the right equipment and people do it all the time in Portland. Also, if a city was built for the bike and walking instead of the car, you would have much more convenient grocery stores that catered more to a clientele that had a short distance of travel. I currently do not need to drive to the grocery store because I live within a short walk or bike ride from it and can easily pass by it on my way home from work which is also within biking distance of my house.

Did you know that it is impossible to haul a sheet of plywood in a little Kia too...so are you saying I should sell it and buy a large extended cab truck to help haul plywood, something that I am pretty sure 95% of the people in this country do not do that daily.

Did you know that it is possible to walk with your kids from school to the house if you lived within walking distance to the school, which would be more the case if cities were built around the bike rather than the car...it is amazing to think that if this world decided to go against the car industry, we would have a much more bike friendly and much more livable communities than we do now.

Did you know that Liberty Lake and Spokane are quite a distance from each other and the only reason people would need to commute from such a distance is because they simply own a car...but if there were a train that traveled that distance, and you have pointed out that there is a trail that runs that length, it wouldn't be impossible to make such a commute, and coming from someone who likes to do a 45 mile bike ride from time to time to Sauvie Island, I have to say a long bike ride like that is much healthier for the body and mind, something that same car drive could never give me.

Actually it is possible to ride your bike on ice and snow, much like the studded tires Spokanites put on their car each year, there is winter tires for bikes that do the same thing...so you cannot say it isn't possible.

You can build bike paths and bike lanes until you run out of asphalt, and it will not overcome those intrinsic drawbacks.

You can build car paths and car lanes until you run out of asphalt, and it will not overcome those intrinsic drawbacks.


Weird, it is like listening to a record backwards, you could say the same thing about the car, you can built 20 lane freeways and it will not cure a city's traffic woes and your argument that the amount of space bikes need for lanes and the amount a car needs is purely laughable. If you removed all cars from this county's road system and called them all bike lanes, this would be the easiest traveled bike country. I need three feet wide of asphalt to ride my bike on, and I am pretty sure I could ride on that same stretch of asphalt a 1000 times and not do as much damage to it that a car would do with its 12ft width of asphalt. Also if you want to do the math, that 12ft for a car would be equal to 3 bike lanes, 24ft would give you three bike lanes in two directions, which is just pure luxury...but for a car to have a 6 lane road, it would need a minimum of 64ft width, so again, bikes look like they produce much less damage to their surroundings and consume much less space than what a car consumes.


And so you know, this world is changing and for every person that is telling us that the car is the only superior form of transportation, there is going to be plenty of us (that will be in much better shape physically) to tell you otherwise and tell you by actually showing you that it is possible to live a life without relying on a car by actually living that lifestyle...which yes living around a bike is a lifestyle much like it is living around your car, and if that is the way you wish to live your life, that is great, I am happy for you that you feel comfortable with your car, but do not tell me that my opinion doesn't matter because not enough people in this country bike, I do not recall me or any other bikers out there asking for more than what cars have, and the cost of a bicycle infrastructure is a fraction of the cost that it the car infrastructure receives.

[Contrarian]

Urban,

But to follow it up with everything that has been said so far, I will proudly fight against ANYONE who's answer to all our traffic woes is more asphalt and more lanes and parking for cars.

Didn't think you'd give up that easily. :-)

Besides, you never answered my earlier question, where would you run freeways through Spokane to help its current traffic issues if you do not support doing so through alternative forms of transportation...

Wherever they are needed, constrained by costs. The North-South freeway now under construction is probably not optimally routed for commuter utilization, but it will probably take 50-60% of the through traffic off Division and Hamilton Sts, and cut commute times from N. Spokane and NE suburbs in half. Another new freeway will probably be needed in NW Spokane at some point, but not now.

and don't say you didn't say cities shouldn't use other forms of transportation because all you have pointed out is how pointless it is to try and use other forms compared to the superiority of the car.

I didn't say cities shouldn't use other modes of transportation. They should build them wherever there is a demonstrated demand for them. And your phrasing of that statement indicates your focus, and the source of your errors. Cities don't "use transporation." The people living in them do. Cities should not build modes of transportation that people do not and will not use. Nor should they refuse to build the form of infrastructure people prefer to use in an arrogant attempt to force them to use the modes the planners and bureaucrats fancy.

Portland, for example, should have widened the Banfield, rather than built the MAX line. The rail line has mainly replaced buses for existing users of transit; it has diverted very few people from their cars, nor will it ever. And as result the commute to E. Portland and suburbs is more congested than ever. Planners imagine that making commutes unpleasant or impossible will force people to move into downtown condos. What it will actually do is force downtown employers to Vancouver (WA) or to Idaho.

Rail transit works well in a few places where there is very high density and where one's employer is fairly close to one's residence, e.g., Manhattan, central Toronto, etc. It makes no sense in most Western US cities.

Also, you seem to be missing the importance of a bike culture social city, you make this statement with this country's current flawed infrastructure system in mind rather than one that isn't focused solely by car.

"Bike culture"? You mean the 1% of people who ride bikes to work? However important that "culture" (actually a subculture, like the Amish with their horse-drawn buggies) might loom in some trendy social circles, it is negligible in the overall transportation picture in most cities.

It is a lie to say people do not bike for other means besides recreational because that is an insult to all the commuter bikers in this country.

I didn't say, that, Urban. A few people indeed do use bikes for commuting --- about 1% nationally. Cities' transportation infrastructures should be configured and their budgets apportioned accordingly. As I've said before, I have no objection to creating bike lanes per se. They are fairly low-costs improvements in most cases. The objection is to adding them to streets when they will displace many more travelers than they will ever carry, because some full-of-himself planner wants to "change the culture." No planner, pol, or bureaucrat is competent or legitimately empowered to do that.

For starters, not everyone in this country has kids, nor are kids soccer games everyday, and no one here is saying you have to choice between biking and the car, why can't a family have one family car for things like this and use their bike for daily commuting, especially if kids are being taken to school by bus or living within walking distance to their school?

Most of them will not use a bike for daily commuting, whether they have kids or not, because it would take them 4-5 times as long to get to work (from Gresham, say); because they will not want to arrive at work frozen, wet and exhausted; because they plan to do a few errands on the way home, such as picking up the dry cleaning or grocery shopping; or because the factory where they work is surrounded by an unpleasant neighborhood, and the women especially would not feel safe riding through it at night on the way home. To mention just a few of the reasons. And you persist in your arrogance: "Why can't they (do this or do that)?" Because they don't want to. And since it is their time, money, and comfort at stake, it is their choice to make, not yours. Not the choice of planners and pols.

Did you know that it is impossible to haul a sheet of plywood in a little Kia too...so are you saying I should sell it and buy a large extended cab truck to help haul plywood, something that I am pretty sure 95% of the people in this country do not do that daily.

That is why SUV's outsell Kias about 10-1. But they do not need to do it every day. They choose a vehicle for versatility, among other reasons --- one which will permit them to do whatever they are likely to want to do, even though they don't do most of them very often.

Did you know that it is possible to walk with your kids from school to the house if you lived within walking distance to the school, which would be more the case if cities were built around the bike rather than the car...

You continue to substitute fantasy for reality, Urban. Most people do not live near where they work, and they don't want to. Nor were cities "built around the car." That is greenie revisionist history. They were built where the people wanted to be --- where they always wanted to be, but could not be until first streetcars and then the auto came along. Most of them did not especially desire to live in Manhattan tenements, even in 1850. They dreamed of living in a country house, where the kids and the dog had room to play, where they could grow a few tomatoes, and where they could trust their neighbors. But they could not live in such a place in 1850. They could not afford it, and they would not have been able to commute to their jobs in the city. But rising incomes enabled them to buy a bigger place --- a single-family house --- and the streetcar enabled them to live further away. Continuing prosperity and the automobile allows them even bigger places, even further away. The automobile allows people to live where they prefer to live. It liberated them from living conditions most of them found oppressive.

Cities are always "built around" the desires of their inhabitants, insofar as the extent technology allows those preferences to be realized.

I've always thought it amusing that greenies who champion transit and bicycles regard themselves as "progressives," when they are in fact advocating a regression to technolgies and lifestyles people abandoned 100 years ago --- as soon as technology allowed them to do so.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

Urban,



Didn't think you'd give up that easily. :-)



Wherever they are needed, constrained by costs. The North-South freeway now under construction is probably not optimally routed for commuter utilization, but it will probably take 50-60% of the through traffic off Division and Hamilton Sts, and cut commute times from N. Spokane and NE suburbs in half. Another new freeway will probably be needed in NW Spokane at some point, but not now.



I didn't say cities shouldn't use other modes of transportation. They should build them wherever there is a demonstrated demand for them. And your phrasing of that statement indicates your focus, and the source of your errors. Cities don't "use transporation." The people living in them do. Cities should not build modes of transportation that people do not and will not use. Nor should they refuse to build the form of infrastructure people prefer to use in an arrogant attempt to force them to use the modes the planners and bureaucrats fancy.

Portland, for example, should have widened the Banfield, rather than built the MAX line. The rail line has mainly replaced buses for existing users of transit; it has diverted very few people from their cars, nor will it ever. And as result the commute to E. Portland and suburbs is more congested than ever. Planners imagine that making commutes unpleasant or impossible will force people to move into downtown condos. What it will actually do is force downtown employers to Vancouver (WA) or to Idaho.

Rail transit works well in a few places where there is very high density and where one's employer is fairly close to one's residence, e.g., Manhattan, central Toronto, etc. It makes no sense in most Western US cities.



"Bike culture"? You mean the 1% of people who ride bikes to work? However important that "culture" (actually a subculture, like the Amish with their horse-drawn buggies) might loom in some trendy social circles, it is negligible in the overall transportation picture in most cities.



I didn't say, that, Urban. A few people indeed do use bikes for commuting --- about 1% nationally. Cities' transportation infrastructures should be configured and their budgets apportioned accordingly. As I've said before, I have no objection to creating bike lanes per se. They are fairly low-costs improvements in most cases. The objection is to adding them to streets when they will displace many more travelers than they will ever carry, because some full-of-himself planner wants to "change the culture." No planner, pol, or bureaucrat is competent or legitimately empowered to do that.



Most of them will not use a bike for daily commuting, whether they have kids or not, because it would take them 4-5 times as long to get to work (from Gresham, say); because they will not want to arrive at work frozen, wet and exhausted; because they plan to do a few errands on the way home, such as picking up the dry cleaning or grocery shopping; or because the factory where they work is surrounded by an unpleasant neighborhood, and the women especially would not feel safe riding through it at night on the way home. To mention just a few of the reasons. And you persist in your arrogance: "Why can't they (do this or do that)?" Because they don't want to. And since it is their time, money, and comfort at stake, it is their choice to make, not yours. Not the choice of planners and pols.



That is why SUV's outsell Kias about 10-1. But they do not need to do it every day. They choose a vehicle for versatility, among other reasons --- one which will permit them to do whatever they are likely to want to do, even though they don't do most of them very often.



You continue to substitute fantasy for reality, Urban. Most people do not live near where they work, and they don't want to. Nor were cities "built around the car." That is greenie revisionist history. They were built where the people wanted to be --- where they always wanted to be, but could not be until first streetcars and then the auto came along. Most of them did not especially desire to live in Manhattan tenements, even in 1850. They dreamed of living in a country house, where the kids and the dog had room to play, where they could grow a few tomatoes, and where they could trust their neighbors. But they could not live in such a place in 1850. They could not afford it, and they would not have been able to commute to their jobs in the city. But rising incomes enabled them to buy a bigger place --- a single-family house --- and the streetcar enabled them to live further away. Continuing prosperity and the automobile allows them even bigger places, even further away. The automobile allows people to live where they prefer to live. It liberated them from living conditions most of them found oppressive.

Cities are always "built around" the desires of their inhabitants, insofar as the extent technology allows those preferences to be realized.

I've always thought it amusing that greenies who champion transit and bicycles regard themselves as "progressives," when they are in fact advocating a regression to technolgies and lifestyles people abandoned 100 years ago --- as soon as technology allowed them to do so.

When this was written, it was out of quick thought and much more emotionally focused and not meant to be intended as an attack on anyone's personal points of views, but rather my own frustration from people who do not understand the importance of having a healthy biking community within urban cities.



That is the biggest bullshit comment on this entire post...cities are built around the car because you point it out in every statement...also you ignore the fact that car industries at one point began buying up all the streetcar routes in cities and closing them down so people would buy more cars...there was no, gee these car are much better, it was wow the train I use to use no longer runs....and oh look the government is giving me money to build a new house in the suburbs thanks to my time as war....those two factors are the driving force of this car culture you are so proud to be apart of.


And the North South Freeway will not alleviate any actual congestion from the city, so I again ask you, what new route would you actually be in favor of seeing that it would more than likely devastate a good number of the neighborhoods in Spokane. And again, I grew up in a city that's sole form of transportation is the car and they expanded the freeway and expanded the freeway to alleviate traffic, now they currently have a 12-14 lane monster running through their city that is currently full of cars creeping along during rush hours...thus not really fixing any real problems, just allowing the problem to get bigger.

I have yet to see expanding freeways as being the solution of our traffic problems and much of our poor neighborhood issues we are facing in cities is because of freeways that cut through them at one point or another.

In Seattle, 1-5 cut through the densest neighborhood in Seattle to provide a freeway for the metro....but why did they choose the most dense neighborhood to cut through? Could it be because it was the poorest.

Feel free to live in your "car is the greatest thing in the world" fantasy, some of us are realizing differently...and I am much healthier and happier riding a bike daily than I ever was driving a car....but you go on and keep telling me I am wrong for doing that because I am apart of some subculture...like women wanting to vote before the 1960s or something.

[urbanlife]

I was thinking about this topic earlier today, and I think there are some things that are being missed in the forum form that could be expressed better in a real conversation.

First off, this notion that the US is going to abandon its cars without a severe earth shattering change is probably never going to happen. I personally feel that this country would of been a much better country had we taken a direction away from cars, we would of had tighter knit cities, we would of better preserved urban fabrics that have been removed to be replaced with buildings and lots for cars. We would of preserved even more of our open space that we Americans love so much...and it would be easy to argue that we would of consumed less energy commuting and would of had better built communities.

Obviously that is all what ifs? What I can say is that it wouldn't kill developers to begin building subdevelopments that actually circle around the idea of a walking community because it makes no sense to have to drive outside of a neighborhood just to get basic needs and would actually strengthen a neighborhood by getting them out of a car more often and get people walking in their own neighborhoods...it is very common to find suburban streets void of life majority of the time.


Also there is another issue I am having with the numbers here. This 1% bike commuters seems to be thrown around a lot with little understanding of the number. You would be amazed at what 1% of the transportation budget can buy you when it comes to bicycle infrastructure because it is actually fairly cheap in comparison to the car to build and maintain. Also, you could argue that Portland's metro barely uses bikes for commuting, but I have never mentioned the suburbs of Portland, I have only been talking about Portland and Spokane...no suburbs are being mentioned in my part of the debate because almost all suburbs are completely auto focused and are generations beyond generations from ever being changed from being auto focused...basically I will be long dead before that happens.

With that said, in Portland we have about 5.8 percent of our commuters that commute by bike...before you try to debunk this with whatever you would plan to use, I said Portland commuters meaning this does not include people who live outside of Portland and choice to commute into Portland...though if I did, 5.8 percent would be a huge number. Almost 6% is a big enough number to not be ignored especially in a city that wishes to have that number be higher by providing more safety for people who could potentially bike but choice not to do to feeling unsafe in traffic.

This 5.8% of bike commuters in Portland have been given a plan that would expand our bike paths and safety features within 20 years and would cost between 225million to 582million, depending on which route is taken with funding...the 225 million dollar plan is called the 80% plan which would provide biking access to about 80% of all Portland residents...again remember that I said Portland and not Portland metro...big difference. Or a better way of looking at it is 225 million over 20 years or 11.25 million every year. Now comes the fun part with percentages, just so you can better understand my point and support for an actual bike culture...and I would say almost 6% of Portland's commuter population that bikes (again Portland, not the metro) is enough to actually call it a "bike culture." The state of Oregon's numbers for transportation infrastructure budget for 2009-2011 sits at a big 4.07 billion dollars, or for sake of argument 1.36 billion a year.

The Portland bike culture is hoping to get 11.25million from that 1.36 billion each year (I am simplifying this some because obviously some of that 11.25 million would be coming directly from the city of Portland through various projects and not all would come from ODOT.) Which if you do the math, this bike plan would actually be asking for less than 1% of that transportation budget, which would fall right in the middle of all your key factors...by providing a healthy bicycle infrastructure within a city like Portland or Spokane would cost a small fraction it would cost to continue spending for the car.

How you are going to argue that all this is wrong and the auto is the only way to go is beyond me because I am not asking you to give up your car for a bike, I am simply asking you to support those that do wish to give up their car for a bike by understanding that a bicycle infrastructure isn't going to financially kill any city.


The information that was used in this post came from a number of locations.

Portland's bike commuter percentages

ODOT's 4.07billion budget report

Portland Bike Plan 2030

Portland Bike Count 2009


Each one of those links are links that you should take the time to check out and read, especially the 2030 plan because that is what I would like to see cities like Spokane implementing so that others like me are able to be given a real option for commuting by bike rather than the fictional one you are currently supporting.

Also when surveying Portlanders on if they would be willing to commute by bike, only 33% said no never, while 7% said they already do and 60% said they would consider it if conditions were safer for bikers...so again, there is that "bike culture" I keep talking about....or does 67% of the Portland population not count as a majority of commuters that support bike commuting?

[Jarrod]

Sorry I didn't read the comments. Wasn't really interested in them.

Anyway, Spokane looks like a really nice city. A lot of my co-workers go down there every year to go shopping for Christmas.

[Contrarian]

Urban,

Just 2 points, cuz gotta run. But more later.

What I can say is that it wouldn't kill developers to begin building subdevelopments that actually circle around the idea of a walking community . . .

It would kill them if they could not sell what they built. You've made a mistake common to the "anti-developer" crowd --- that developers build what and where they build for personal reasons, or even for ideological reasons. They don't. They build what they think people want to buy. Sometimes they're wrong, and they lose money. So they try not to be wrong. They do not, and will not, build what planners and various species of Utopians would like them to build, unless they think they can sell it. Or, as happens a lot in Portland, they get subsidies from the government to make up for the beating they would otherwise take in the market.

About 5 years ago here in Spokane a group of women bought an old downtown warehouse adjacent to the railroad viaduct and planned to redevelop it for condos. No local bank would finance their project, claiming there was no market in Spokane for that style of housing. Finally a small farmer's bank in Davenport, WA agreed to the loan. The women ("Oddgirls LLC") announced the project and that they had financing and a contractor lined up. They sold every unit within 60 days, before construction had even started.

Their success inspired a slew of similar projects --- at least a half-dozen similar conversions, plus about 5 new highrise projects. The first couple of conversions also sold well, but then the demand seemed to fade. The last couple conversions completed still have unsold units. One completed project has not sold a single unit. All of the highrises were cancelled. Another "micro housing" project was completed, and sold (I think) one unit. The developer is now offering the rest for rent.

There was a market in Spokane for downtown housing, but not as large as developers thought after the Oddgirls' success. But as the condo market here became saturated, the market for new homes in the suburbs remained strong, and remained so until the recession began.

You cannot just tell developers they "should" build this or that. You'll have to convince them that there is a market for the product you're recommending. The best way to do that is to put your money where your mouth is --- offer to invest in the project you're promoting.

How you are going to argue that all this is wrong and the auto is the only way to go is beyond me because I am not asking you to give up your car for a bike,

I never said that, Urban. I said that planners should not add bike lanes to streets where they will displace more auto travelers than the cyclists they accommodate. That is counterproductive. But bike lanes can be added to many streets with no adverse impact on auto traffic. A city can create bike lanes through a few selected corridors where they think there is a demand. If those prove to be well used they can add others. No city should have a "20 year bike plan." That begs the question. You build a few on non-arterial streets, see how well they are used, and if so, build more. You don't commit in advance to any 20 year plan. That is allowing ideology (or just wishful thinking) to drive development, not actual demand.

[bgriff4]

Urban,

I'm pretty sure most people reading these posts are with you. I hope. I'm from Spokane but have not lived there for 8 years. I've been in Seattle for the last four. During my time away I've seen Spokane take some great steps forward, albeit slow steps. I've read about exciting ideas to create the vibrancy and identity that any medium size city needs, including expanding bike access, rail, infill, etc, but never action. Seems those that make the decisions think more like our friend contrarian. But those progressive thinkers are there, and I believe that movement is growing in Spokane. It's possible that I'll be moving back there for a job, and in moving back I feel I have a responsibility to do my part to help move these kind of issues to the forefront. Spokane wants change, and there are plans being implemented today that are pushing us there. It has a great potential to be exciting, be competitive, and be a respected NW city. More people like yourself will need to live there, and be involved for it to happen. Keep it up.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

Urban,

Just 2 points, cuz gotta run. But more later.



It would kill them if they could not sell what they built. You've made a mistake common to the "anti-developer" crowd --- that developers build what and where they build for personal reasons, or even for ideological reasons. They don't. They build what they think people want to buy. Sometimes they're wrong, and they lose money. So they try not to be wrong. They do not, and will not, build what planners and various species of Utopians would like them to build, unless they think they can sell it. Or, as happens a lot in Portland, they get subsidies from the government to make up for the beating they would otherwise take in the market.

About 5 years ago here in Spokane a group of women bought an old downtown warehouse adjacent to the railroad viaduct and planned to redevelop it for condos. No local bank would finance their project, claiming there was no market in Spokane for that style of housing. Finally a small farmer's bank in Davenport, WA agreed to the loan. The women ("Oddgirls LLC") announced the project and that they had financing and a contractor lined up. They sold every unit within 60 days, before construction had even started.

Their success inspired a slew of similar projects --- at least a half-dozen similar conversions, plus about 5 new highrise projects. The first couple of conversions also sold well, but then the demand seemed to fade. The last couple conversions completed still have unsold units. One completed project has not sold a single unit. All of the highrises were cancelled. Another "micro housing" project was completed, and sold (I think) one unit. The developer is now offering the rest for rent.

There was a market in Spokane for downtown housing, but not as large as developers thought after the Oddgirls' success. But as the condo market here became saturated, the market for new homes in the suburbs remained strong, and remained so until the recession began.

You cannot just tell developers they "should" build this or that. You'll have to convince them that there is a market for the product you're recommending. The best way to do that is to put your money where your mouth is --- offer to invest in the project you're promoting.



I never said that, Urban. I said that planners should not add bike lanes to streets where they will displace more auto travelers than the cyclists they accommodate. That is counterproductive. But bike lanes can be added to many streets with no adverse impact on auto traffic. A city can create bike lanes through a few selected corridors where they think there is a demand. If those prove to be well used they can add others. No city should have a "20 year bike plan." That begs the question. You build a few on non-arterial streets, see how well they are used, and if so, build more. You don't commit in advance to any 20 year plan. That is allowing ideology (or just wishful thinking) to drive development, not actual demand.

Well lets get one thing straight here, all a developer ever cares about is money, plan and simple. They want to make the most and spend the least, if a developer could, they would build every house out of cardboard and sell it for a million dollars. Do not try and defend developers to me, my family history as a long interaction with them and I have watched a number of developers steal and cheat to keep afloat. So the idea of trusting developers to do the right thing is like leaving your wallet on the table in a room full of thieves when you go to the bathroom...trust me, your money will disappear with them.


And the example you gave with your argument actually doesn't match up to the original point. I was talking about large developments, your second point is about small developments, which are two different things when it comes to developments. Large ones are actually planned at some level. All subdevelopments needed to be drawn up with a plan for roadways, how people get in and out of the neighborhood, locations of any open space, and property lines. All of that falls under the classification of "planning" because planning isn't actually the evil word you try and make it out to be, much like planning what you are going to do for the day or planning to put together a trip. Again, please read carefully what I am writing rather than picking out what talking points you want to argue.

So again, your example was pointless to the topic of subdevelopments because renovating a warehouse isn't considered a massive development, now if your example was Kendall Yards, then that would be more accurate, but even then, there is already a plan on how that is going to look.

Also another issue I take with this is you seem to be ignoring zoning when it comes to developing a city. Would you like a factory or a Walmart with a giant parking lot being built across the street from you house with all its parking lights on 24/7? I doubt it, you would want the city to properly plan where it is best to put new zones, which is why a developer can't buy up some unsold land in the middle of a neighborhood that is marked for residential and put in a sewage plant.

So there you go, planning still needs to be apart of everything on some form of level, which people in this country do enjoy the idea of "small town America" it was clear on all those arguments about Wall Street vs Main Street, and I would argue that you would find many people that would enjoy living in real communities and neighborhoods that offered a "small town" feeling. Which is all I am suggesting, The neighborhood my parents live in in North Spokane could of easily been built that way, but instead the commercial needs of the neighborhood were pushed to the outskirts of it, making it harder to walk a short distance to pick up anything that is needed, but if the neighborhood was properly planned, everything people needed there could of easily been designed to be within walking distance, which gets people out of their car more, which puts more interactions within a neighborhood, and in turn can make a neighborhood feel much safer as people within it get to know who lives around them better.


Again to point out, I am not talking about small renovation projects, I am talking about subdevelopments that are often times up to or over a mile big.


So no city should have a 20 year freeway plan either? You are aware none of our highway system was laid overnight cause that day someone felt we needed a new highway right? A 20 year bike plan is basically a "to do" list....have you ever made one of those? Actually you should read the 20 year bike plan because there is no talk of hurting traffic, like you keep suggesting over and over, it is about safer routes and providing bikers with safer commutes....which I don't think you are actually arguing against are you?? So please, please, please read the 20 year bike plan before you try and tell me it is a "load of BS and Amerikans shouldn't plan for nothin'."


Unless of course you can prove to me that our highway system was built overnight with zero planning involved...then I might start listening to you on you "planning bad, free development anywhere good, Hulk smash" ideology cause that way of thinking is also an ideology too, you are aware of that right?

[Contrarian]

bgriff4,

I've read about exciting ideas to create the vibrancy and identity that any medium size city needs, including expanding bike access, rail, infill, etc, but never action.

Sorry to disappoint you, bgriff, but cities do not gain "vibrancy and identity" from planners' boondoggles like light rail lines and bike lanes. They are grossly underused wherever they've been built, and survive only because they are heavily subsidized.

What imparts vibrancy and identity to cities is money. That is what is needed for arts and entertainment. That's what is needed to attract talented, creative people. You don't attract those people with planners' fantasies.

What brings money to a city is business. Seattle is a vibrant city with a distinct identity. What gives it that identity is Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, Amazon, and Nordstrom, among others. What gives it vibrancy is the money those companies bring to town --- not planners' fetishes-of-the-day and bureaucrats' featherbedding projects.

And you don't attract business to a city by taxing them to support those frivolities.

Better wake up and smell the Starbucks, bgriff.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

bgriff4,



Sorry to disappoint you, bgriff, but cities do not gain "vibrancy and identity" from planners' boondoggles like light rail lines and bike lanes. They are grossly underused wherever they've been built, and survive only because they are heavily subsidized.

What imparts vibrancy and identity to cities is money. That is what is needed for arts and entertainment. That's what is needed to attract talented, creative people. You don't attract those people with planners' fantasies.

What brings money to a city is business. Seattle is a vibrant city with a distinct identity. What gives it that identity is Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, Amazon, and Nordstrom, among others. What gives it vibrancy is the money those companies bring to town --- not planners' fetishes-of-the-day and bureaucrats' featherbedding projects.

And you don't attract business to a city by taxing them to support those frivolities.

Better wake up and smell the Starbucks, bgriff.

So rich people are what makes cities vibrant...Spokane isn't vibrant because it lacks rich businesses. Portland must be a stale hell hole because we have an unemployment equal to DC and San Jose must be the greatest city in California because it is full of money....last time I checked people don't always need money to have culture and vibrancy in a city.

Wanna try that statement again???


By the way, great way to describing Portland, bike lanes and light rail are two assets that we Portlanders love most about our city.

[downtownpdx]

^^^ Exactly -- Portland's Pioneer Square, Waterfront Park, Riverplace, the Pearl District, and yes, the bike lanes, light rail and streetcar lines too ... are simply the result of having Nike and Intel nearby. The planning of these these "boondoggles" had nothing to do with it. We've had no say in the future of our city... It is corporations' money alone has given us our "distinct identity." And I always thought Seattle had a beautiful waterfront, mountains, and lakes ... but apparently its identity always came from Microsoft millionaires. I can't believe I've never toured their campus!

Don't get me wrong, I understand and appreciate the benefits to the local economy of employers like these, but it's absurd to act like a city becomes vibrant by throwing planning out the window, sprawling across every last piece of open land and pleading "Look corporate America, we have no commmunity values beyond economic prowess so please come here. Give us an identity. Make us vibrant."

[Contrarian]

Urbanlife,

Well lets get one thing straight here, all a developer ever cares about is money, plan and simple. They want to make the most and spend the least, if a developer could, they would build every house out of cardboard and sell it for a million dollars.

Well, that is pretty much the standard recitation of the anti-developer catechism planning schools peddle to their naive students. You've learned your lines well. It is true, of course, that developers are in business to make money, just as is everyone else in business. But I realize that lefties, greenies, and Utopians generally regard that motive as wicked. They believe developers should instead be (as you say) "doing the right thing," which means helping the Utopians realize their various fantasies.

Developers have built every block of every city in which you have ever lived, Urban. They have built all the buildings and neighborhoods you now cherish as Historic Districts and regard as urban treasures --- all without benefit of a single city planner carping from the sidelines. They would indeed build houses of cardboard and sell them for a million dollars if they could. But of course, they know they can't, because no one would buy them. That is the same reason they build suburban single-family subdivisions instead of the high-density "walkable" developments you prefer --- because they know they can sell the former, but not the latter. As I tried to explain to you before, developers work for their customers, not for pols and planners. They don't give a hoot about your preferences in urban design unless you are prepared to put your money where your mouth is. When you are willing to pay to realize your desires, they will build what you want. Until then you are the peanut gallery, and they will ignore you, and rightly so.

And the example you gave with your argument actually doesn't match up to the original point. I was talking about large developments, your second point is about small developments, which are two different things when it comes to developments. Large ones are actually planned at some level. All subdevelopments needed to be drawn up with a plan for roadways, how people get in and out of the neighborhood, locations of any open space, and property lines. All of that falls under the classification of "planning" because planning isn't actually the evil word you try and make it out to be, much like planning what you are going to do for the day or planning to put together a trip.

Let me clarify: when I refer to "planners," I mean city planners --- municipal employees who presume to plan the development of other people's property. You're certainly right that every project must be planned. The question is, Who does the planning? The person who is investing his time, land, and money to bring the project into being, some pol who has promised a constituent group a free lunch ("more affordable housing"), or some civil servant trying to apply some formulae he learned in planning school?

Again, please read carefully what I am writing rather than picking out what talking points you want to argue.

I can't respond to every sentence, Urban. If I seem to ignore something you think a key point, call it out and I'll try to answer.

Also another issue I take with this is you seem to be ignoring zoning when it comes to developing a city. Would you like a factory or a Walmart with a giant parking lot being built across the street from you house with all its parking lights on 24/7? I doubt it, you would want the city to properly plan where it is best to put new zones, which is why a developer can't buy up some unsold land in the middle of a neighborhood that is marked for residential and put in a sewage plant.

There is nothing wrong with zoning when it is intended and applied to forestall incompatible uses. And there is a ancient common-law test of whether one use is incompatible with another --- the "public nuisance" test. A new use is a nuisance if it interferes with existing uses of neighboring land, or disturbs neighbors' "quiet enjoyment" of their property. That was the aim of zoning laws when they were originally adopted. Subsequently they were seized upon to implement various other politically popular goals, such as keeping blacks out of white neighborhoods, keeping apartments (with their undesirable immigrants and transients) out of "respectable" neighborhoods, and recently, preventing WalMart from competing with Mom & Pop Hardware.

. . .people in this country do enjoy the idea of "small town America" it was clear on all those arguments about Wall Street vs Main Street, and I would argue that you would find many people that would enjoy living in real communities and neighborhoods that offered a "small town" feeling. Which is all I am suggesting . . .

Nothing wrong with that. And as developers perceive a demand for that style of housing they will happily provide it. But I suspect you imagine that demand to be rather greater than it actually is.

The neighborhood my parents live in in North Spokane could of easily been built that way, but instead the commercial needs of the neighborhood were pushed to the outskirts of it, making it harder to walk a short distance to pick up anything that is needed, but if the neighborhood was properly planned, everything people needed there could of easily been designed to be within walking distance, which gets people out of their car more, which puts more interactions within a neighborhood, and in turn can make a neighborhood feel much safer as people within it get to know who lives around them better.

It was "propertly planned," Urban. It was planned (by its developers) to satify the demand that existed at the time. The people who bought there did not want shops next door, or two doors down. And I'll give you 10-1 that if someone asked for a zoning change to open a 7-11 or a Subway in the middle of your parents' block today the neighbors would turn out *en masse* to protest.

So no city should have a 20 year freeway plan either?

Not unless they already know where new freeways are needed, and because it may take 20 years to build them, they need to plan how to spread that work over that period. They should not be planning for freeways for which no demand has manifested itself.

[Contrarian]

So rich people are what makes cities vibrant...Spokane isn't vibrant because it lacks rich businesses.

Exactly right. Especially rich businesses. That is where all the money that supports local arts, philanthropy, cultural events, etc., ultimately comes from. That is what brings the scientists, engineers, architects, designers of all kinds, financial and computer wizards, and entrepreneurs to town --- the folks who constitute the market for galleries, theaters, specialty retailers, and *haute cuisine*. That is where the endowment funds of colleges, museums, and theaters get their money. A local example --- an elderly local lady, Myrtle Woldson, daughter of a turn-of-the century railroad and mining tycoon, donated $3 million for restoration of the Fox Theater and $1.3 million for restoration of the Moore-Turner Gardens (of which there are some photos in my spread). Without her money, neither of those projects would have happened. The more Myrtle Woldsons you have in a city, the more culture and "vibrancy" you get.

See this:

http://www.freespokane.net/?p=134

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

Exactly right. Especially rich businesses. That is where all the money that supports local arts, philanthropy, cultural events, etc., ultimately comes from. That is what brings the scientists, engineers, architects, designers of all kinds, financial and computer wizards, and entrepreneurs to town --- the folks who constitute the market for galleries, theaters, specialty retailers, and *haute cuisine*. That is where the endowment funds of colleges, museums, and theaters get their money. A local example --- an elderly local lady, Myrtle Woldson, daughter of a turn-of-the century railroad and mining tycoon, donated $3 million for restoration of the Fox Theater and $1.3 million for restoration of the Moore-Turner Gardens (of which there are some photos in my spread). Without her money, neither of those projects would have happened. The more Myrtle Woldsons you have in a city, the more culture and "vibrancy" you get.

See this:

http://www.freespokane.net/?p=134

Well thank you for that morning laugh, it is always good to get in a good laugh each day to really make yourself feel good. I also enjoy the fact that you seem to love linking a Libertarian blog website to compliment your arguments, when the reality is I only take blog sites for face value because this is the internet and it is easy for someone to lie about the size of their penis on it. So of course everything on that site is going to agree with everything you are saying because the people are writing are writing it for people like you...Libertarians...which everything you say sounds like it comes straight from the Libertarian playbook...so again I point out, you are more than welcome to label me however you want, but just know those labels go both ways and doesn't mean you are 100% right.

Speaking of not being 100% right, I did point out that Portland's bike commuters was just under 6% and has been on the rise since the mid 90s which would mean there was an actual demand for a bike plan....unlike the 1% you have kept claiming it was...which is a fact you seemed to gloss over when I pointed that out.

Also, from the sounds of it you have yet to read the 20 bike plan that I posted, which is disheartening to this conversation because I take the time to read the links you post, fact check them, and find out where their funding comes from...I can only guess that you are not giving what I write the same respect seeing as it sounds like you are struggling to stick to your talking points only.

Another fact that you seem to gloss over is that often times developers are given tax breaks and government subsidizing to make large scale projects to happen...that is a given fact, and through zoning (which is a planning tool) the city and its citizens can better control the future growth of their city, I am sure you want to see Spokane grow in a positive direction that you approve of, which means citizens should have some form of say of their city's direction and image.

There is a lot of money to be made in gambling, so why not let a developer get rich by building a couple casinos downtown? You seem to like to speak like you think you have me all figured out and that I am just some kid that fully supports planning and hates all developers...which is far from the truth, I have no problems with developers, but I have seen what they can do to a city when you just hand them the keys and say build whatever you want.

You get the Hampton Roads Metro...which if you really want to see what a developer run city looks like, go drive around my hometown...and I do mean drive because their is no where within the metro you can get to on foot, bike, or even bus really without it taking all day to do a short trip....if you like that kind of city, you will probably be in heaven there. But for me, I would always laugh when it would rain and several high end neighborhoods would flood each time because it was a developer who convinced the city that they should build in a portion of the city that is a flood plan because there was a high demand for new housing in that area...the city let the developers have their way and now people whine every time their garage floods because of a developer who was trying to sell them a card board house and they bought it.


Another thing you keep pointing out is that it is all the rich people in Spokane that provide the actual culture, but that is only a true fact if a city is just full of rich, old people...what should people under the age of 40 do in Spokane if they are not rich and have no interest in doing what rich, old people like doing?

You long ago glossed over a point I made about this very topic, which I am more than happy to remind you about it. I have lived in Spokane for a couple years back in 2001-2003, before moving to Portland...but I still have family that lives in Spokane so I have been coming there 3-5 times a year since moving to Portland. Through that time I have seen a number of new small places start up, several little bars pop up, I have seen the effects the Community Center building on Main has had on that portion of the city. I have seen a number of small galleries open in Spokane, I have also seen a good number of new restaurants and shops open up within downtown and in several of the cities neighborhoods.

Much of what I have seen open in recent years have been things that cater to the under 40 crowd, and especially the under 30 crowd. This is where actual culture happens. When people talk about New Orleans culture, no one is talking about all the rich old people of New Orleans, they are talking about all the amazing, poor, black jazz musicians, and and the poor artists that helped create a vibrant culture within the city that has been so attractive to people over the years. To go with this, with this recession I have found that it is actually keeping Spokane's youth from moving away from the city straight out of high school which is actually starting to have a real positive effect on the city's nightlife and could in turn one day make Spokane a hot spot for young, creative people to want to move to, which is exactly what happened with Portland. Kids weren't moving here because of Nike, they were moving here because there was a culture here that catered to them....no one class is the defining definition of culture, culture can come from all forms of groups and can shape a city accordingly.



Also another point to make is that not all buildings were built by developers, actually all those old buildings that I enjoy so much and wish so many more of them would of been preserved instead of torn down for highways and parking lots, thanks to the auto industry and the government movements that helped the auto industry grow in this country, those old buildings were often times built by small business owners to house their business. There is a difference between a small business owner building themselves a building and a developer who's only interest is to make more money off of said building and move on.






I feel like I need to break this down into talking points.

-Everyone can be considered to be reading out of a playbook of any party sway.
-Just because it is your belief doesn't mean you are 100% right, and this goes for everyone.
-Portland bike commuters is actually just less than 6% not 1% like you keep saying.
-20 year bike plan is no different than spending 20 years to build a highway.
-Did you know the North/South Freeway has been in planning since the 50s?
-Developers and government often times help each other out to make developments happen.
-Developers care about money, citizens care about living qualities.
-Hampton Roads is a developer's wet dream and it is a nightmare of a city to deal with for citizens.
-Culture comes from all social classes, not just the elite ones.
-Small businesses are on the rise in Spokane, and cater to a younger crowd that isn't rich.
-Old buildings were actually built mostly by small businesses, not developers.



That way, if you don't actually feel like reading what I am writing, these talking points should help....also, I doubt you have yet to read the 20yr bike plan, but I read everything you post, so please do not be rude and take the time to read what I post for you. Portland has 6% of its population that commutes on bike, that percentage is growing, therefore would mean that if the city builds for it over the next 20 years, we will have a healthy bike community that the people of this city actually want, which is what you keep saying, the government should only do what the citizens and developers want...which is kind of confusing because citizens don't always want what developers want, which is why we have government to keep developers in check usually....but everything you say says that, yet you are also against that....that is like saying you hate to poop, but still need to poop.

[Contrarian]

Urban,

of course everything on that site is going to agree with everything you are saying

You bet. It's my blog. :-)

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by Contrarian

Urban,



You bet. It's my blog. :-)

That doesn't actually help your argument at all. Try giving me real links to factual sites if you wish to continue with any form of actual debate about any of these topics...

[Contrarian]

Urban,

Busy here, but I will take up some of your "talking points" later today.

[Contrarian]

Urban,

Speaking of not being 100% right, I did point out that Portland's bike commuters was just under 6% and has been on the rise since the mid 90s which would mean there was an actual demand for a bike plan....unlike the 1% you have kept claiming it was...which is a fact you seemed to gloss over when I pointed that out.

I never claimed the the rate in Portland was 1%. That is the national average. But the same answer applies: if 6% of the traffic on Portland's streets is cyclists, then the city should devote 6% of its street budget to those users. But it should not accommodate that those users by means which will displace several times that number of auto users, by, say, removing a traffic lane from an arterial street to add a bike lane.

Also, Urban, you cannot rely on survey results to get those numbers. You have to do actual counts on streets, on an annualized basis (all seasons, all kinds of weather).

Another fact that you seem to gloss over is that often times developers are given tax breaks and government subsidizing to make large scale projects to happen...that is a given fact, and through zoning (which is a planning tool) the city and its citizens can better control the future growth of their city, I am sure you want to see Spokane grow in a positive direction that you approve of, which means citizens should have some form of say of their city's direction and image.

No, they shouldn't. Cities are not collectives or giant communes. The land within them is not collective property and is not collectively owned by their residents. A city is simply a municipal corporation organized by the property owners in a certain geographic locale to provide a few public services --- streets, water and sewer, police, etc. Most of the property within it is privately and separately owned, by thousands of unique persons who have thousands of different hopes and plans for it, all of whom are entitled to pursue their various plans without interference from officious and presumptive neighbors, pandering politicians, or arrogant planners who think they know better how Smith's land should be developed than Smith does. Creation of a municipal corporation does not give any citizen a "say" in what other citizens do with their property, as long as the latter are not causing a nuisance.

Nor may you "control the future growth" of your city, other than, perhaps, by refusing to annex any more land into it, in which case it will grow anyway, just outside city limits. Controlling growth requires that you control how other people live their lives and deploy their resources --- to dictate where they may live, what sorts of accommodations they may choose, and how they use their own land, all of which are none of your business and not your decisions to make. Nor should a city government be handing over dollars seized from its citizens to "make large scale projects happen." Those projects will happen if there is a demand for them in the market. If there isn't, then they should not happen. Those projects require subsidies because they are not market-clearing, which means that they are not cost-effective. They are invariably projects which strike some pol's or planner's fancy, but which do not interest buyers in the market in sufficient numbers to induce them to freely hand over their money to pay for them. They are what are known as "dogs on the market." And the pols feed those dogs with money confiscated from citizens by force.

And no, I don't want to "see Spokane grow in a postive direction I approve of." I want it to be free to grow in whatever directions (and there will be many more than one) its 200,000 residents variously choose for their own particular parts of it. I have no ambition to be a "master of the world," a la Sim City. Real cities are not Sim Cities. They are complex adaptive systems which grow and evolve randomly, in directions which are the net product of the millions of interests and motives of their inhabitants as those vary from day to day. They are like natural ecosystems; they don't need a "master gardener" to prune them into some preconceived pattern, like a potted bonsai.

There is a lot of money to be made in gambling, so why not let a developer get rich by building a couple casinos downtown?

Sounds good to me.

Another thing you keep pointing out is that it is all the rich people in Spokane that provide the actual culture, but that is only a true fact if a city is just full of rich, old people...what should people under the age of 40 do in Spokane if they are not rich and have no interest in doing what rich, old people like doing?

You missed that point, Urban. Rich old people and rich businesses do not create the culture. They finance it, and they attract the people who provide the market for it. You begin to have galleries and artists to stock them when there are people willing to buy art. People become willing to buy art when they have disposable income. They have disposable incomes when they have good jobs. The good jobs come from the likes of Microsoft and Boeing. Those companies also become the sources of the millionaires who endow libraries, museums, and colleges. And such companies, if they are not homegrown, seek localities where they can operate at a profit.

Much of what I have seen open in recent years have been things that cater to the under 40 crowd, and especially the under 30 crowd. This is where actual culture happens. When people talk about New Orleans culture, no one is talking about all the rich old people of New Orleans, they are talking about all the amazing, poor, black jazz musicians, and and the poor artists that helped create a vibrant culture within the city that has been so attractive to people over the years.

I agree, having lived in NO for several years. But without the money flowing into the city from New Orleans' bustling port and cotton market in the 19th century, there would have been no one to buy that music or art, and no one to patronize Brennan's or Galatoire's.

Also another point to make is that not all buildings were built by developers, actually all those old buildings that I enjoy so much and wish so many more of them would of been preserved instead of torn down for highways and parking lots, thanks to the auto industry and the government movements that helped the auto industry grow in this country, those old buildings were often times built by small business owners to house their business.

Everyone who develops property is a developer, Urban. And the landmark buildings in this city and Portland were not built by small businesses. They were built by the biggest, wealthiest businesses in town. So were the neighborhoods, such as Browne's Addition, Corbin's Addition, etc. --- those developers platted the subdivision, laid out and sometimes paved the streets, and sold the lots, whose buyers then built what they wanted on them, perhaps subject to restrictive covenants. No bureaucrats were involved.

-20 year bike plan is no different than spending 20 years to build a highway.

Yes it is. The need for the freeway has been known for years, as evidenced by the traffic on Division St and later, Hamilton St. The extent of the need for bike paths has not been shown *from actual traffic counts*.

-Developers and government often times help each other out to make developments happen.

Yes, they do. Developers run to gummint when they cannot raise the capital they need for their project in the open market, because the demand is not there. Or simply because the local government is handing out money for some boondoggle. They are happy to take it.

-Developers care about money, citizens care about living qualities.

The developer has to care about living qualities in order to make any money --- the living qualities of the persons to whom he plans to market his properties. He does not care about the preferences and prejudices of neighbors whose names are not on his deeds and whose money is not on the table. Their right to exercise their preferences stop at their property lines, just as his does.

Think I covered most of it, Urban, but if I missed something you thought crucial, call it out.

[urbanlife]

I never claimed the the rate in Portland was 1%. That is the national average. But the same answer applies: if 6% of the traffic on Portland's streets is cyclists, then the city should devote 6% of its street budget to those users. But it should not accommodate that those users by means which will displace several times that number of auto users, by, say, removing a traffic lane from an arterial street to add a bike lane.

Also, Urban, you cannot rely on survey results to get those numbers. You have to do actual counts on streets, on an annualized basis (all seasons, all kinds of weather).

Reading over your past responses, I will give you credit, you never said Portland was 1% bike commuters, which again if the bike community in Portland was given even 3% of the transportation money we would be able to build a work class bike system...and speaking of things we never said, I never once said these bike lane should be on the busiest of roads. I would say it would be absurd to put bike lanes on Division in Spokane, I would want them to be like they are in Portland for Burnside, where the bike lanes are on the two parallel streets, Couch and Ankeny. The only time an actual car lane should be devoted to bikes are when the road is well below capacity, but typically most bike lanes need is a simple 6feet on each side, and side roads to be properly painted to make drivers aware that they are driving on official bike lanes.

I never said anything about relying on surveys for street counts, I said there was a survey that said more people would consider riding if it were safer to do...that makes sense, would you drive. People like to feel safe with anything they are doing, regardless if it is walking, biking, or driving. Actual street counts are much more important and Portland has been conducting those since the early 90s which has said that bike commuters have been on the rise since the beginning of the counting and the more money the city puts into the growing bike community the bigger it gets.

Which all of that you have to agree with...seriously, it is everything you are actually pointing out.

No, they shouldn't. Cities are not collectives or giant communes. The land within them is not collective property and is not collectively owned by their residents. A city is simply a municipal corporation organized by the property owners in a certain geographic locale to provide a few public services --- streets, water and sewer, police, etc. Most of the property within it is privately and separately owned, by thousands of unique persons who have thousands of different hopes and plans for it, all of whom are entitled to pursue their various plans without interference from officious and presumptive neighbors, pandering politicians, or arrogant planners who think they know better how Smith's land should be developed than Smith does. Creation of a municipal corporation does not give any citizen a "say" in what other citizens do with their property, as long as the latter are not causing a nuisance.

Nor may you "control the future growth" of your city, other than, perhaps, by refusing to annex any more land into it, in which case it will grow anyway, just outside city limits. Controlling growth requires that you control how other people live their lives and deploy their resources --- to dictate where they may live, what sorts of accommodations they may choose, and how they use their own land, all of which are none of your business and not your decisions to make. Nor should a city government be handing over dollars seized from its citizens to "make large scale projects happen." Those projects will happen if there is a demand for them in the market. If there isn't, then they should not happen. Those projects require subsidies because they are not market-clearing, which means that they are not cost-effective. They are invariably projects which strike some pol's or planner's fancy, but which do not interest buyers in the market in sufficient numbers to induce them to freely hand over their money to pay for them. They are what are known as "dogs on the market." And the pols feed those dogs with money confiscated from citizens by force.

And no, I don't want to "see Spokane grow in a postive direction I approve of." I want it to be free to grow in whatever directions (and there will be many more than one) its 200,000 residents variously choose for their own particular parts of it. I have no ambition to be a "master of the world," a la Sim City. Real cities are not Sim Cities. They are complex adaptive systems which grow and evolve randomly, in directions which are the net product of the millions of interests and motives of their inhabitants as those vary from day to day. They are like natural ecosystems; they don't need a "master gardener" to prune them into some preconceived pattern, like a potted bonsai.

You realize this is a giant bag of contradictions right? First question, define nuisance. I am sure everyone has a different definition for this, if your next door neighbor owns enough land for a drag strip and want to put one in, by your definition he should be allowed because you shouldn't be allowed to hinder his use of his land because you don't own it.

Cities have zoning laws and regulations of what can and can not be built to keep people from killing each other basically. You can argue all you want about that...my opinion is not changing.

You missed that point, Urban. Rich old people and rich businesses do not create the culture. They finance it, and they attract the people who provide the market for it. You begin to have galleries and artists to stock them when there are people willing to buy art. People become willing to buy art when they have disposable income. They have disposable incomes when they have good jobs. The good jobs come from the likes of Microsoft and Boeing. Those companies also become the sources of the millionaires who endow libraries, museums, and colleges. And such companies, if they are not homegrown, seek localities where they can operate at a profit.

I won't argue this statement because I think it is equally right, cities do need and tax income balance like this to stay afloat, but to say only rich companies bring culture to a city is false, a poor city can be filled with traditions and culture and truth be told, usually always is...so that is my point.

I agree, having lived in NO for several years. But without the money flowing into the city from New Orleans' bustling port and cotton market in the 19th century, there would have been no one to buy that music or art, and no one to patronize Brennan's or Galatoire's.

Yes and no, yes New Orleans grew because of its port and cotton market, but the music industry grew because there was a human need for such music and like music clubs today, it is the younger crowd that has a high disposable income that are going to these shows and hearing the new bands, not people like my parents. So again, money helps a city grow, but it isnt the end all to making a city cultural.

Everyone who develops property is a developer, Urban. And the landmark buildings in this city and Portland were not built by small businesses. They were built by the biggest, wealthiest businesses in town. So were the neighborhoods, such as Browne's Addition, Corbin's Addition, etc. --- those developers platted the subdivision, laid out and sometimes paved the streets, and sold the lots, whose buyers then built what they wanted on them, perhaps subject to restrictive covenants. No bureaucrats were involved.

Again, that is a technicality that isn't entirely true. I would not consider Nike to be a developer at all, but they have built probably a 100 buildings across the world and have a huge campus next to Beaverton...but I would call them first and foremost a business and a corporation, but not a developer. Or you can replace Nike with the Plaid Pantry or 7-11.

But you combine two different things into one to try and give your statement some truth which is false, neighborhoods such as Browne's, Corbin's, and so on were built by developers...and are you sure no bureaucrat was involved?? Especially during times like that when many early forms of local government in this country were ran like the mod, heck I bet if you really looked into the history of those neighborhoods and how they came about, it might actually shock you with how much back room dealing went on with streetcar lines and road improvements to make such neighborhoods more attractive with the help of a city. Many eastside neighborhoods in Portland happened because of lobbying for bridges and streetcar lines to help get people moving from their neighborhoods into where the jobs were, and I would bet some of the same things happened in Spokane.

Yes it is. The need for the freeway has been known for years, as evidenced by the traffic on Division St and later, Hamilton St. The extent of the need for bike paths has not been shown *from actual traffic counts*.

Before you start to sound like an ass, I probably should point out a link that I am sure you didn't click on.

Portland 2009 Bike Count

This is something I posted earlier, but I am guessing you didn't click on or didn't read through, this is Portland's bike count of actual bike commuters that has been happening since the early 90s that not only counts the number of people who bike over our bridges, but several locations as well, as well as the gender and age of who is biking. It is an extensive traffic count that happens each year that has basically informed the city of Portland that bike commuting has been on the rise and continues to rise, thus justifies having a 20 year bike plan to handle this growth and demand...oh, and just so you know, traffic counting is a form of planning that allows planners actual data to make decisions of future plans and guidelines for a city so that they know where the city can most effectively improve traffic patterns and improve development in stagnant areas that would not improve without proper treatment.

Also, I hate to break it to you but the North/South Freeway will do nothing to alleviate traffic on Division or Hamilton...but it will further isolate the East Central neighborhood that I-90 currently cuts through and will make that neighborhood even more of a desolate part of town...oh and speaking of which, doesn't that mean that freeway will be a nuisance to the property owners that will soon have another highway cutting through their neighborhood? Again, there is no simple answer for a city to properly grow and protect everyone's rights in it...you make it sound like it is a cut and dry issue when it will never be that.

Yes, they do. Developers run to gummint when they cannot raise the capital they need for their project in the open market, because the demand is not there. Or simply because the local government is handing out money for some boondoggle. They are happy to take it.

Can we not use words like boondoggle anymore?? Seriously, it makes you sound like you like wearing a three point hat and a red, white, and blue jumpsuit....no offense to you in any way, that is just what I think of when I hear words like that....I would much rather have you cussing.

But I will point out something that I pointed out earlier and you shot down or at least sounded like you tried to shoot down. This statement points out that a developer is not concerned about the citizens' best interest (which is what we have governments for) and as you pointed out that developers are willing to take any handout that they are able to get to build their projects, should this be allowed? No, with the exception of when it is in the best interest of the citizens because the government should be working for its people. I will agree with you on this one for the most part, I personally think a sports team owner should pay for their own stadiums and would probably not require a new one to be built every 20years if that were the case, but in the best interest of the citizens, cities and states shell out a lot of money to build these new stadiums because we love our teams and don't ever want to see them move. Again, feel free to argue that one all you want, but society and how government and developers spend money probably will never change....heck, John McCain has been saying the government system is broken since he took office back in the 70s(I believe without actually looking it up?) If a politician tells you they are going to fix a "broken system" they are either lying to you or have no clue on how they are going to fix it or have no idea how it should properly be working because there is no correct answer on how a government should be run.

The developer has to care about living qualities in order to make any money --- the living qualities of the persons to whom he plans to market his properties. He does not care about the preferences and prejudices of neighbors whose names are not on his deeds and whose money is not on the table. Their right to exercise their preferences stop at their property lines, just as his does.

I would almost have to call you naive for thinking like this. In the late 80s there were stucco homes built in an area in Virginia Beach, which is a humid city and stucco is meant for dry climates. These homes sold at a high end value and the developer sold every last unit and moved on, from that moment on it was the property owners problem if anything were to happen...what the developer knew about that when building those homes is that stucco rots from the inside out in humid weather and after about 10years those homes needed massive help to fix the rotting issue, which at that point the developer was not at fault because of the amount of time that had passed. Should he of been forced to fix the damages that were caused because of a developer's poor choice to make money? Should the owners be punished for being idiots and buying a stucco home in a humid city? If you are the home owner, you would be pissed that you were basically lied to when buying your home, and if you were the developer you would be like that isn't my problem because you own the home now.

Again, nothing in this world is simple, nor is issues like this. And all a developer cares about is you buying their product...and that product only has to look good enough for you to buy, it doesn't have to last...and if a developer could make a million dollar home out of cardboard look like a million dollars, he would sell it to the biggest idiot he could find and no give a damn about what happens to that house.

Case is point, when Virginia Beach gets hit with a massive hurricane, expect to see massive amounts of damage from homes blowing over because of poor construction techniques and shotty construction with too many short cuts taken...I know this because I grew up in that city during its big build up and my mom worked for developers and contractors and I am very aware of all the short cuts that were taken to save a developer money....which is why I would never trust a developer without severe checks and balances in their work.

Again, feel free to argue about this all you want, but because of my first hand experience with this, I will never change my opinion about developers.