Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Urban Sprawl


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 djold1

djold1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76179

Posted 17 April 2004 - 04:08 AM

What is called Urban Sprawl seems to be right up there with killing baby seals and global warming as a negative concept.

I think I understand the term as more or less uncontrolled horizontal growth in housing and services for an increasing population of any given area. This growth covers previously undeveloped land, sometimes including potentially fragile areas or features.

If my definition is more or less correct, then what are the practical alternatives? And what are the negatives to these alternatives as well as the advantages? Why is urban sprawl a negative concept when something like vertical stacking may be equally as onerous to some?

My personal viewpoint is sprawlish, primarily because I don't particularly like the alternatives that I am aware of. However, it is quite possible that I am overlooking something.

Anyone want to talk about this as it relates to the Fort Worth situation?

Pete Charlton
The Fort Worth Gazette blog
The Lost Antique Maps of Fort Worth on CDROM
Website: Antique Maps of Texas
Large format reproductions of original antique and vintage Texas & southwestern maps
 


#2 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 17 April 2004 - 06:28 AM

I'll go along with that definition.

I think America get sprawl from our roots. The promise of land and one's own space was a powerful draw for many settlers. Of course, what was really being promised (and realized for many) was self-determination. Being able to raise your own food on your own land was pretty unusual in feudal Europe.

So land and freedom are linked in our national psyche. That's why home ownership is still the "American Dream." The ideal home is also associated with a yard (gotta have some land). But the land is now being used in a different way than how we got its value originally, and people are doing different things to feed themselves. Instead of staying on their land and raising food and making their clothes, they leave their land every day to go to work, shop, recreate, etc.

The space used by all those yards spreads everyone out. And since they are spread out they need individual transportation. I struggled with providing bus service in suburban layouts, which in Fort Worth's case includes all but the most central part of the city. There's a time and distance problem that cannot be surmounted.

In order to get enough people on a bus to make it worth running, the bus has to travel farther and farther as homes are spread farther apart (i.e. have bigger yards). That longer route means that passengers have to spend more time on the bus before they get where they are going. If their time is valuable enough, they will choose individual transportation (i.e. a car, most of the time).

In my thinking, the problem with sprawl in a place like Fort Worth doesn't have much to do with the land being used. After all, grazing cattle on prairie is a pretty low-value activity, even if you like cattle as much as I do. The issue is the damaged air quality resulting from all the cars running around to make the sprawl model of land use work. And until we're all in hybrid vehicles, promoting sprawl, or even just facilitating it, works agains our right to clean air.

#3 djold1

djold1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76179

Posted 17 April 2004 - 07:54 AM

Good start...

Your premise is that the worst result of sprawl in the Fort Worth area is that it may enhance atmospheric contamination and that public transportation which might reduce the emissions is not practical in this situation..

So....

What are the alternatives?

Pete Charlton
The Fort Worth Gazette blog
The Lost Antique Maps of Fort Worth on CDROM
Website: Antique Maps of Texas
Large format reproductions of original antique and vintage Texas & southwestern maps
 


#4 Sam Alcorn

Sam Alcorn

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts
  • Location:Denver (but grew up in Fort Worth)

Posted 19 April 2004 - 03:10 PM

Atmospheric contamination is only the beginning of the problems associated with suburban (or exurban) sprawl. ghughes already mentioned the transportation issue (which of course ties in with the air pollution). If I could just expand on that: our patterns of development over the last half-century (longer than that, really, but the boom really began after WWII) have made the personal ownership of an automobile not a luxury, but a necessity. Before our highway building boom began in the 50s, almost every city in America (FW included) possessed a viable trolley system. Most of these were privately owned, much like most of the early highways, canals, railroads, etc., and thus were completely unable to compete with the federal highway system, which has cost American taxpayers billions, even trillions of dollars over the years. Contrast this with our federal support of inter-city and intra-city rail transportation, for instance, which can probably be measured in the millions.

Basically, sprawl makes it IMPOSSIBLE to exist without your own car or truck. In how many neighborhoods around FW can one do something as simple as walk to the corner store to get some milk? None that I can think of. You've got to get in your car and drive, sometimes a matter of miles. What if you're a child or an elderly person who can no longer drive? What are we saying to those populations by requiring them to rely on other private citizens to give them rides everywhere?

This forced driving is also a result of our zoning laws, which require that residential
neighborhoods (if you can call them that; how many people in suburbia actually know their neighbors as well as they could?) be separated completely not just from industrial uses, which makes sense, but also from commercial districts. Here in Denver, I live in an actual neighborhood, where I can walk across the street to get my groceries or visit one of many restaurants and shops. Granted, I still have to drive to work (or ride my bike), and there is plenty of suburban sprawl surrounding Denver, but lots of people actually live within the city. (By that I mean not the city limits, but the part of the city that actually resembles a city.) The same could be true in Fort Worth, which I am proud to call my home town. Our land use is increasing at a much greater rate than population growth would suggest. (This is not unique to FW, of course). There is room for tens of thousands more people without building any new suburbs.

Another issue that suburban sprawl presents us with is water usage. Fort Worth is not a very water-rich place. Not desert, not as dry as it is here in Denver, but FW still uses much more water than it gets in rainfall every year. The primary contributor to this excess water use is watering lawns. Is it really necessary to have a lush green lawn in the middle of the plains? Perhaps you've noticed that the natural habitat around FW is not green. Amazingly, though, many "neighborhood covenants" require that their residents maintain green lawns of grass, which must be watered, even fertilized. Thus, through suburban sprawl we are even further lowering the water table, adding more pollution to the water, and taxing the sewer system such that it's got probably twice as much capacity as it really needs to support the population.

I suppose one of my biggest concerns about suburban sprawl is that it represents an abandonment of the more central city, and those who still live there. There are literally thousands of acres sitting vacant in the middle of Fort Worth, which could be developed into viable, pleasant neighborhoods, if only developers would be willing to consider options other than doing exactly the same thing that they've been doing for the last half century.

Instead, they don't even consider building in the city, because they might have to invest a few more dollars than they would if they built on a greenfield site where the future residents would have to drive an hour every day, just to get to work, or shop, or go to school, or visit friends, etc., etc.

The problem seems to be that nobody is willing to think outside the next few months or the next few years. What's the total cost of this pattern of development? Sure, it might seem cheaper today and maybe next week, but what about 20 or 30 years from now? Think about the greatly increased cost of transportation, the increased water use, the increased traffic as a result of more cars being on the roads longer each day, and the time that that wastes.

Think about the sense of community that is lost when people are separated by half-acre lots from one another, and strictly segregated by house prices so that all the residents have roughly the same income. Think about how impossible it would be to find your way around a city that was composed entirely of cul-de-sacs! Think about the children. How easy is it for kids to find friends and play together around the neighborhood anymore?

Think about the elderly: do you really want them to live way out in the suburbs where they're stuck there (assuming they can't drive) and have to depend completely on their friends and family for support, instead of being able to exist more independantly like they would if they could walk anywhere?

Just think about it.

#5 djold1

djold1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76179

Posted 19 April 2004 - 03:42 PM

Some interesting thoughts Sam..

I agree with a number of them but I also think that some of your reasoning is based on urban legend that is either not true or only partially true. However, you did cover the compression argument pretty thoroughly. I hope that others will add to that.

Now, having stated the problem with sprawl, what are the possible solutions? Other than all of us just migrating back into the city center as some have already done? What are the problems that compression would bring and can these problems be solved so that it is feasible for average residents and their families to consider doing this? It's easy to say we should unsprawl or not sprawl at all, but the doing is tougher than the saying.

As I have said before, I tend to be sprawlish. But my mind is not closed and I recognize that unlimited expansion is not always beneficial.

Convince me..

Pete Charlton
The Fort Worth Gazette blog
The Lost Antique Maps of Fort Worth on CDROM
Website: Antique Maps of Texas
Large format reproductions of original antique and vintage Texas & southwestern maps
 


#6 hipolyte

hipolyte

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Interested in history, art & architecture, classic automobiles, good food, music & live theater.

Posted 19 April 2004 - 04:45 PM

Two points to consider.

I know several retired couples who have moved out to Aledo. After having worked diligently all their lives, they were ready to leave the congestion of the inner Fort Worth suburbs, and to retire to their dream home in the country. They commute regularly into the city for supplies. Inevitably, they will become the isolated 'elderly' previously referred to, with no resources within walking distance. But it was their own decision.

Next, because of major retailer infiltration into rural areas (Walmart etc.), smaller rural business are no longer viable. Leaving no option other than moving into urban areas to take what jobs are available,swelling the population, adding to the congestion. Small towns are drying up, and larger towns are 'sprawling'.

So, dreams, economics. Maybe the TRE should run on out to Aledo & Weatherford.

#7 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 19 April 2004 - 05:45 PM

Aledo does not look to me as if it's "drying up."

#8 djold1

djold1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76179

Posted 19 April 2004 - 06:54 PM

OK: Here's the first active "solution"
Maybe the TRE should run on out to Aledo & Weatherford

Anyone have any ideas about alternatives to sprawl rather than just saying that sprawl is not good which has been the theme of many here? And how to unsprawl realistically?

Pete Charlton
The Fort Worth Gazette blog
The Lost Antique Maps of Fort Worth on CDROM
Website: Antique Maps of Texas
Large format reproductions of original antique and vintage Texas & southwestern maps
 


#9 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 19 April 2004 - 07:20 PM

Good questions, djold1. Because a changing living pattern certainly has the opportunity to lower the quality of life. After all, sprawl is also a reaction to the bad living conditions that were present in cities before all this started. And even some of the problems that our cities have now.

If a city is going to densify, it needs to provide for it. For example, it needs to develop a lot of parks within an easy walk. Gross acreage is not the most meaningful measurement of a park system in that case. Police need to patrol on foot or on bikes and have a closer relationship with residents. Fort Worth has done well in that regard except when listening to consultants. Code enforcement needs to be strict, apartment standards need to be enforced, etc.

Those are provisions and mechanisms that allow people to live in closer proximity to one another and still enjoy their lives.

#10 normanfd

normanfd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Location:Fort Davis

Posted 19 April 2004 - 08:44 PM

The idea of sending the TRE out to Aledo or Weatherford is an excellent suggestion, but one that the politicos unfortunately won't countenance. It would allow the old downtowns of both towns to preserve historic buildings and their rural charm, and encourage the development of urban villages in their downtown areas to support a wide variety of local businesses there. This would be a big plus for formerly rural towns that now find themselves being transformed unrecognizably into exurban areas.

The problem that I see with cities that have essentially outlawed sprawl such as Boulder and Portland is that property prices have soared beyond belief. Sure, they're wonderful, pedestrian-friendly places to live, if you can afford to live there. But they have reached that form of renewal by forcing many families to move away who could no longer afford high taxes brought on by high property appraisals on otherwise very modest homes. So, in the end, both cities have lost tremendous diversity. Everyone is affluent, and any diversity that exists must be heavily subsidized through affordable housing programs. They've also ironically created a situation where it's low income workers who can no longer afford to live close to jobs and contribute to congestion and pollution by commuting from distant areas far beyond the reach of the cities' planning and zoning authorities.

Another problem that the "new urbanism" way of developing needs to address is how to accommodate families with children. Building loft apartments and restoring houses from the 1920s may appeal to singles, empty nesters, gays, and retired people, but the homes are often perceived to be much too small for two parents with kids with everyone's often duplicated appliances and technologies. Let's face it, the people who built family homes in the early part of the last century could never have forseen that children would have their own televisions, stereos, computers, and telephones, that all of these would be again duplicated in the living room, and that kitchens would need space to accommodate automatic dishwashers and microwaves.

Fort Worth has been able to reverse urban blight and make central neighborhoods attractive again because the suburbs compete with the central city for housing value, and this keeps the central city affordable for its fixed income elderly and diverse
families who allow these neighborhoods to sustain the charm that makes them attractive in the first place.

To reach a solution, we need to find a way to make central urban areas attractive to families with children and encompasses lifestyles that suburban families take for granted such as recreating at playgrounds, ballparks, picnic tables and barbecue grills at or near homes.

#11 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 26 April 2004 - 11:12 AM

The growth in North Fort Worth (sprawl) is driven by cheap housing (prices starting to rise) and good schools (Keller, Eagle Mtn-Saginaw, and Northwest schools).

It is going to be difficult to get families to move closer into the city until Fort Worth ISD makes dramatic improvement.

Peace

B)

#12 mikedsjr

mikedsjr

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Location:Fossil Creek
  • Interests:Photography, Ecology, Church

Posted 26 April 2004 - 11:43 AM

I don't have a problem with sprawl except for the fact that there needs to be zones where no sprawl is allowed to help protect the ecology of regions. Farm land and ranches are a great asset to the ecology. Sprawl isn't.

#13 hipolyte

hipolyte

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Interested in history, art & architecture, classic automobiles, good food, music & live theater.

Posted 26 April 2004 - 07:36 PM

Well, I have to agree with people moving out of Fort Worth to avoid the school system, because that's exactly what my wife and I did when our first child reached school age.
We lived in an older neighborhood near downtown in a house we remodeled to address the exact issues discussed. It was no real problem to update the amenities. It was compact, but fully equipped.
But as our children arrived, we checked out the quality of schools in the area, and felt compelled to bail.
My son, now nine, has perfect attendance, straight A's, and is in 'advanced' curiculae.
I no longer live in Fort Worth, exactly, but have no regrets. :huh:

#14 Nick

Nick
  • Guests

Posted 26 April 2004 - 08:12 PM

Well, I have to agree with people moving out of Fort Worth to avoid the school system, because that's exactly what my wife and I did when our first child reached school age.
We lived in an older neighborhood near downtown in a house we remodeled to address the exact issues discussed. It was no real problem to update the amenities. It was compact, but fully equipped.
But as our children arrived, we checked out the quality of schools in the area, and felt compelled to bail.
My son, now nine, has perfect attendance, straight A's, and is in 'advanced' curiculae.
I no longer live in Fort Worth, exactly, but have no regrets. :huh:

Hey more power too you.You got to do what you got to do ! Southwest and Paschal are good schools tho.Is that not right Johnny ? :huh:

#15 djold1

djold1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76179

Posted 27 April 2004 - 06:16 AM

So far the replies to this thread have been mostly about the growth of the the city area and the reasons that it continues to grow outwardly, even though central Fort Worth is making good progress in some areas in housing, etc.

The sub-theme of the of thread is Alternatives. Are there practical, workable, affordable alternatives to this expansion mode for the Fort Worth area? If so what are they?

Pete Charlton

Pete Charlton
The Fort Worth Gazette blog
The Lost Antique Maps of Fort Worth on CDROM
Website: Antique Maps of Texas
Large format reproductions of original antique and vintage Texas & southwestern maps
 


#16 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 27 April 2004 - 10:28 AM

Again, my answer to the problem is to improve the inner city schools!

People are moving to Far North Fort Worth and SW Fort Worth so that their kids can go to Keller/Northwest/Eagle MTN-Saginaw and Crowley schools. Most of the 20K kids in Keller ISD live in Fort Worth. Two of the Keller ISD high schools are within the Fort Worth city limits. North Crowley High is in Fort Worth! Our inner schools have to improve.

Peace

:huh:

#17 hipolyte

hipolyte

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Interested in history, art & architecture, classic automobiles, good food, music & live theater.

Posted 27 April 2004 - 12:47 PM

Inner city schools are a reflection of the surrounding neighborhood. Economically depressed neighborhoods will not supply well scrubbed, well fed children who are ready to learn, with support from concerned parents at home. At least not in large enough numbers to overcome the distraction of those without a stable home.
How to improve an entire neighborhood overnight? Wasn't that the original intention of the TIFs?

Some years back I went to a planning meeting for Fort Worth, where the plans for the TRE, the Intermodal Station, the Lancaster corridor, and many other concepts were introduced to the public.
I listened carefully to the presentation of the many citywide improvements, then pointed out that they seemed to have overlooked all of Fort Worth East of I-35, including East Lancaster, Meadowbrook, Sycamore Heights, Woodhaven, Handley, etc.
After some embarassed paper shuffling, they admitted there were no plans at all for the East side. None. Not even any far-flung into the future, pie-in-the-sky plans. Nothing.
So we moved.
Into a newer (50's as opposed to 20's) house, a better maintained neighborhood, more reliable utilities and plumbing, schools within walking distance, and the Mayor lives a block away.

But as a suburbanite, I still feel like I live in Fort Worth, and contribute my share to the local economy.
As a suggestion for remedies, what about branch neighborhood cityhalls, like the sub-courthouses, libraries, and mini-Police Stations? A more localized, situation aware, reactive advocacy station where ordinary citizens can air their ideas and complaints, and perhaps get to personally know their local city council member?
Okay, I'm rambling.

#18 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 27 April 2004 - 04:38 PM

I think sprawl in moderation is necessary. Growth would be extremely sluggish if it was all just infill in the central city (even though that's good). Cities have essentially sprawled since they were founded, but some densified and others didn't. I doubt FW will ever see the widespread densification of cities like Philly or Boston or NY, but as long as we keep our sprawl under control I don't see much harm to it. It definately hasn't hurt downtown, in fact most of the people I know that live out here do all their entertaining downtown and would gladly move there in a heartbeat.

As to alternatives, well, all we can do is keep promoting downtown as a nice place to live, work, and play and I think we're good. But one thing that should be happening in the suburbs, not necessarily to make them less sprawly, is more parks! We need public greenbelts, mature trees, ballfields, etc. I just love green space, and if there was more of it in the suburbs they wouldn't seem so dismal.

Oh, and I can't beleive I forgot to mention MASS TRANSIT. Connect the suburbs to downtown and the rest of the central city through something other then highways and roadways! Not only is it more ecological, but pretty darn convenient compared to the parking lots that our freeways will become as we continue to grow outwards.

#19 normanfd

normanfd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Location:Fort Davis

Posted 27 April 2004 - 04:49 PM

Sometimes generalizations and perceptions can be misleading. I remember during the Stonegate-Ripley Arnold controversy, parents of Tanglewood students were worried about what the impact on their school would be, despite the fact that the TEA had rated Nash Elementary, not Tanglewood, as a "recognized" school.

I suspect many suburban parents develop some level of complacency based on the perception that their children attend good schools without having a true sense of the quality of instruction or level of drug use occurring within their schools. At the same time, I'm sure many people prejudge schools in depressed neighborhoods to be bad, and people not associated with those schools may be unaware of effective partnerships in some of those schools between teachers dedicated to their students' education and parents who overcome hardships to become deeply involved in their childrens' schools in order to ensure that children have greater opportunities.

We can all see the physical environments surrounding schools, but we can't always see the efforts and dedication within the school walls.

#20 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 27 April 2004 - 06:46 PM

Of course, Tanglewood is rated Exemplary. But the only concern I heard from Tanglewood parents was that the school needed to make sure to welcome the children.

The issue of schools is probably the most critical one for the urban core after crime and decay are taken care of.

#21 normanfd

normanfd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Location:Fort Davis

Posted 28 April 2004 - 01:05 AM

Greg, was that also true at the time of the controversy? I'm happy to hear that Tanglewood is rated exemplary. I wish that most schools in the city were even rated recognized. I've also watched the current administrative broohaha about the present superintendant and board, and I wonder where these people's priorities are.

#22 mikedsjr

mikedsjr

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Location:Fossil Creek
  • Interests:Photography, Ecology, Church

Posted 28 April 2004 - 07:09 AM

I think you are going to find that most Suburban School around any major city is going to have better schools than the major city.

I don't neccesarrily view the schools of FW as bad. More diverse. Suburbs are not diverse. They are full of Middle to Upper class students that typically don't have money problems on the whole.

And certainly most parents rather like a more non-diverse ISD because they feel everyone basically in the same class. And those classes are thought to be better and safer than lower class, which we all know that the classes are not that different, just the sophistication of how people try to get away with things. Lower classes are more obvious than middle and upper class at doing the wrong things. And upper class is the most sophisticated at ruining lives in a way that makes people think its more isolated and rare and won't happen to them, when its not true.

But the bottomline to the suburbs is cleanliness. FW is going to be more rough around the edges because its older and not as well kept in all its residential areas. If FW was cleaner all over, which i think downtown is great, it would attract more people inward.

#23 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 28 April 2004 - 12:33 PM

We still need to have higher standards for our schools!

#24 hipolyte

hipolyte

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Interested in history, art & architecture, classic automobiles, good food, music & live theater.

Posted 28 April 2004 - 05:36 PM

Mass transit can only help, even if it doesn't quite make it to Aledo. The TRE is a good start, but it needs to resemble the old Tarantula railroad map: radiating out in ALL directions, not just toward Dallas.

#25 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 10:02 PM

Fort Worth schools are better than people think.

For an honor student, Paschal is better than any of the suburban schools.

Southwest, Heights and Western Hills compare about equally to Brewer or North Crowley. Boswell and Aledo are a little better.

North Crowley has a higher percentage of low-income students than Southwest.

The perception of better suburban schools is mostly an illusion, at least by the high school level.

#26 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 28 April 2004 - 11:02 PM

At the time of the controversy the primary issues were about crime and questions regarding "premium" housing being bought and used for public housing. There were also fears of property values being hurt in nearby upscale housing. Those of us who were looking at public transportation also noted that there was none convenient to the location. I had T staff check to see if the route that serves Hulen could be detoured but it was not practical. the housing authority actually violated a significant guideline by not assuring public transportation, but that was their call, I guess.

School issues were centered on making sure the kids weren't hurt by anything and some questions about services. (Low income schools tend to have services available that are more often needed by low-income students. Tanglewood did not have those services in place, so kids that might need them would be at some risk in that regard).

#27 mosteijn

mosteijn

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,908 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FW/Cincy
  • Interests:Architecture, Photography, Swimming, Soccer, Spanish

Posted 29 April 2004 - 06:15 PM

Buck has a point. FW schools just get a bad rep because they're "inner city", for the most part. Even the "urban" schools in FW are in some ways better than the "suburban" ones. For example, Paschal has much more academic opportunities than any other in FW and it's inner city. That's the reason I transfered there (I would have gone to Southwest otherwise :roflol: ). Some numbers to prove it:

-14/19 National Merit Scholar Semi-Finalists in FWISD are from Paschal (this year).
-This year Paschal had about 450 Radio Shack scholars (I think the criteria was a GPA of 4.0 or higher)

#28 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2004 - 10:08 PM

Diversity... what is it worth?

Consider that the US is becoming culturally diverse, especially in the south and southwest. Kids who miss out on living (and going to school) in a diverse setting will be less capable of working productively in the world they will inherit. Granted, one should not sacrifice academics. As Johnnyrules points out, one can have both diversity and educational excellence.

But not in suburbia!

#29 Guest

Guest
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2004 - 08:39 AM

So far we have a few reasons for controlling the expansion of an area, specifically Fort Worth.

1. Diversity

2. Conservation of scarce resources

3. Reduction of pollution

Most of the other issues raised like transportation and support of the elderly and the development of neighborhoods which some think have value are not direct issues. They are probably responses, instead. Only two of the above three are core issues the other is social.

How much should a governmental body attempt to regulate the mores and morals of its population?

What else? Have I missed anything?

#30 djold1

djold1

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 689 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76179

Posted 30 April 2004 - 08:41 AM

So far we have a few reasons for controlling the expansion

Sorry.. I added the reply above without logging in

Pete Charlton

Pete Charlton
The Fort Worth Gazette blog
The Lost Antique Maps of Fort Worth on CDROM
Website: Antique Maps of Texas
Large format reproductions of original antique and vintage Texas & southwestern maps
 


#31 Urbndwlr

Urbndwlr
  • Guests

Posted 01 May 2004 - 04:30 PM

RE: New Urbanism, public spaces, and Normn's comment about New Urbanism's failure to accommodate families with children.

Normn,

New Urbanism doesn't simply suggest that all people live in high density districts in lofts or compact apartments. New Urbanism does acknowledge that certain people have needs for more space than others. The idea is that neighborhoods should be designed to accommodate those needs, creating high quality, easily accessible PUBLIC spaces that families, for example, to which families can take their kids to play. The premise is that if public spaces are of high enough quality, residents will actually prefer to spend thier leisure time in them.

This is not to say that no house in a New Urbanist community would have a backyard or sufficient amount of space. They could - just not massive ones. Think of small European towns - some private yards in back, but excellent, spacious public spaces. Closely oriented houses that are all within walking distance of town ammenities.

Over the next decades, we need to reverse the attitude in Fort Worth (same goes for other cities in the Southwest) that public spaces are all somehow dangerous. The more we get out and use them, the more comfortable others are using them too.

Next time you feel like going for a run, walk, or bike ride, hit the Trinity Trails instead of heading for your gym. It's more pleasant and your use of the parks is good for our community.

#32 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 02 May 2004 - 05:54 AM

Good point about the trails. They are a significant asset that help provide a good quality of life in the core of the urban area. Sure, suburbanites can drive to the trails, but we who live near them can make use of them very easily without getting in a car.

As to the government regulating morals and mores, it's all a matter of how directly. My diversity comments relate to one effect of sprawl. To the extent that our govenments encourage sprawl one could say they encourage a lack of diversity if one believes the connection. Likewise, by reducing sprawl diversity is encouraged. Does that mean that limiting new highway expansion into open fields is attemting to regulate morality, or that providing the mechanisms for people to self-assimilate instead of living in neighborhoods that look like the U.N. is attempting to regulate mores? No, those are downstream effects. However, knowing the effects it is important for us to include them in our reasoning and decision making.

The diversity issue is one that helps me shape my opinion of sprawl. But there are plenty of sprawl opponents who do not care about the diversity questions because that issue is not at the top of their thinking. In fact, if some of them considered that aspect of the sprawl issue it might make them less opposed to outward expansion. :cheez:

#33 redhead

redhead

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 718 posts
  • Location:Cultural District

Posted 03 May 2004 - 05:16 PM

Schools??? I think you guys are way off base! Nationally, the return to the inner cities is a bimodal distribution of young people (when there is affordable housing) and empty nesters. Schools are not a dominant factor in the general decision of whether or not to move into town. However, safety IS---in fact a recent Yankelovitch national survey found that safety was the most important factor 86% of the time.

As for diversity, look at Atlanta. Urban densification has an ugly by-product: urban gentrification. As the costs skyrocket in urban housing, the central cores become white ghettos---sad but true. Atlanta recognized this too late, as has Charlotte and Baltimore. Baltimore is not as far lost, however, as more of the older housing stock has been retained and there are several forms of higher education in the city that attract a culturally diverse population.

To make any inroads for urban housing to really take off, there needs to be more development flexibility. The suburban guidelines for say the dedication of park space does not really work in an urban setting. It's one thing to require for every X number of units built, Y number of acres must be set aside for parkland. Just think of the implications for a site like that of The Tower, had it been started from scratch.


Just a few thoughts...

#34 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 03 May 2004 - 06:07 PM

Very good points, redhead.

I think the schools question and demographics of who moves back is kind of a chicken and egg thing, however. The reason the empty nesters et al move back is because they don't care about the schools... no kids! But in the long run the city's ability to educate will affect everyone in less direct ways. It will determine what kinds of businesses are attracted or retained and it will affect the quality of employees in government service.

Certainly the gentrification issue is real and long-standing on a national level. We aren't quite faced with that, yet, but the time could come and we should look to solutions before the problem is upon us. Frankly, I don't know much about what to do, though.

#35 Rob1316

Rob1316

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 08 May 2004 - 07:16 PM

As I read this tread I was suprised to see the varied responses. The question that was asked was what is the alternative to sprawl. I would answer "smart growth". No growth is an option that I like in theory, but to stop growth is a social / political issue that should be discussed in other appropriate arrena's. So that leave us with Smart Growth.

A lot of Smart Growth strategies have been already been discussed, such as higher density housing, preservation of open space, infill development.

To stop sprawl and promote smart growth we must make growth pay it's own way. This means we should charge developers impact fees high enough to prevent current residents from paying for public services (new roads, sewers, or just utility upgrades) required soley to serve the new development. Why should my tax dollors pay for a sewer upgrade if a developer wants to develop the open space behind my house?

Once growth is slowed to an acceptable pace, we must make sure that the growth is good growth. Growth is like fat, some is good, some is bad. To encourage smart growth, "good growth" we must develop Growth Boundaries and green belts If we limit development via growth boundaries developers will be forced to develop infill sites, or redevelop ageing neighborhoods.

The most import thing is long term vision. We must envision what we want Fort Worth to look like in 50 years, than address the issues in that content. Urban Sprawl is very complicated and as you can see their is not one or two things to do that will solve this problem. It is a regional issue, and Fort Worth can not solve this issue without help from all the towns in Tarrent County.

#36 Nick

Nick
  • Guests

Posted 08 May 2004 - 08:15 PM

The most import thing is long term vision. We must envision what we want Fort Worth to look like in 50 years, than address the issues in that content. Urban Sprawl is very complicated and as you can see their is not one or two things to do that will solve this problem. It is a regional issue, and Fort Worth can not solve this issue without help from all the towns in Tarrent County.

Rob your right. I think people in Fort Worth are in two camps.Some want us to stay the way we are. Or to become A Internation City. Hmmm? Sounds like a good poll question? Anybody up too it?

I said something just like Rob.Fort Worth need to focus more on towns in Tarrant County .And thos around and near our ETJ.

#37 Buck

Buck

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 09 May 2004 - 09:25 AM

Rob, growth represents success.

I don't know anybody who wants Fort Worth's economy to stop growing.

The people who call for "Smart growth" usually want "no growth." I agree that there are rational ways to manage development, but not if the goal is to slow down economic growth.

The power of impact fees is limited. Flower Mound tried to gouge developers and lost its case in the Court of Appeals last week.

Any new attempt to stymie growth would be quickly outlawed by the Texas Legislature.

Remember that an individual's choice of where to live -- and what to build on private property -- are First Amendment freedoms that can only be limited to enforce "orderly" growth.

I agree that some of our growth has not been orderly, and I am not opposed to some of the smart-growth ideas about preserving quality of life.

But preventing economic growth is not "smart."

#38 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 09 May 2004 - 01:06 PM

There's a difference between gouging and levying justifiable charges. Certainly if Fort Worth continues to add low-density residential development on its outskirts we will continue to see our costs of services go up. And since only the highest-priced new development pays its own way in property taxes, those of us who are already here wind up subsidizing most of the new development though higher property taxes (or reduced services).

One of the problems with labels is that they are so easily manipulated. Yes, many of the alternatives to sprawl are known as "Smart Growth," but discussing the ideas is valid while discussing who lumps what into a label is just a semantic exercise and useless.

#39 Rob1316

Rob1316

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 09 May 2004 - 08:01 PM

Buck, be careful what you say. Not all types of growth are good nor are they wanted.

Your next comment is that nobody wants to limit economic growth, and I would agree with that 100%. The topic is sprawl and when I talk about limiting growth I'm referring to the development of large tracts of open space a distance from a urban core, or sprawl.

ghughes summed up your the issue of levying fees towards development. Anything Fort Worth attempts to do to limit sprawl will have minimal impact if the issue is not addressed in a regional way.

Let's drop the term "Smart Growth" if that will get us past the stigma. I don't want to stop delevopment I want development that will improve the lives of those already here.

A lot of the ways to do this have been addressed, and I suggessted a few more. I'd love to hear what people invision Fort Worth to look like in 50 years. I don't know how to create a poll, but would if someone showed my the light.

#40 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2004 - 07:00 AM

One of the drivers of sprawl is the need for good affordable housing. The home prices in the best inner city neighborhoods are, in many cases, well over $100 per sq ft. While it is still possible to find "inside the loop" property in a good neighborhood in the $60-$80 per sq ft range, those are becoming rare or need a lot of work. As they are bought up and put into good condition they will also climb in value and out of reach for many residents.

While the higher valuations in the inner city are good for the tax base and for the reputation, they make it difficult for those with lower incomes to live close to the two largest job centers (downtown and in the medical district). So they buy new tract homes on the outskirts and commute.

One aspect of that kind of sprawl (as opposed to that caused by the wealthy building estates) is that many of those tract home neighborhoods decline in value over time. That is where the city is looking at requiring larger lot sizes as a partial solution. But the real problems involve low-quality construction and competition.

The quality issue is obvious, but what many don't realize (especially the home-buyers) is the effect of the competition aspect of continual building. Let's say you buy a new home in the Alliance area, or Crowley, or Aledo, it doesn't matter where. Nice, 3-2-2, yard, new schools. Then, a few years later, it's time to move (job change, family change, sick of commuting, whatever). So you put your house on the market expecting to get more for it than you paid. Not a whole lot more, but at least 6% to pay the Realtors.

The problem is, the house you are selling is very much like the house someone can buy new a short distance away. And they can spec that new house with their choices of floor plan, materials and colors. Beyond that, since many homebuilders have their own mortgage companies, the financing on the new home can be worked more easily. So it's likely you'll have to sell at a discount, or start your new career as a landlord.

But selling at a discount does more than cause you financial pain. That sale can show up in appraisals of other nearby properties as one of the comparable properties (comps). If it does, it will drive down the valuation of those other properties, or at least keep them from appreciating.

As long as the builders can keep their prices flat, the most affordable housing will be suburban and sprawl will continue. If we can develop methods for providing safe lower cost housing in the inner city we can pull in some of that sprawl. But unfortunately the most affordable areas of the inner city are not perceived as safe, which in itself deserves another posting.

#41 Rob1316

Rob1316

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 31 May 2004 - 09:52 AM

Quality of a home is a big factor contributing to the appreciation of houses, but quality is a broad topic. Quality of construction is of course a major issue, and one that needs to be addressed, but what about the quality of the neighborhood. A larger tract of land does not mean (in my mind at least) that the neighborhood is more desirable. In a quality neighborhood a house will appreciate.

So what make a quality neighborhood? Good planning, access to parks, open space, walking trails, playgrounds ect. City amenities such as a library, a community center. These are some planning issues that can be addressed and fit in with this site.

Other ammenities that contribute to a quality community are policy driven, such as good schools, and a low crime rate. Although I believe designers can design a safer community, that promotes education it takes local grass root activity to follow up and demand that good policy is practiced in each community.

Speaking as one looking to buy a house quality of life (quality of consrtuction and of the nieghborhood the house is constructed in) is right at the top of my list of priorities.

#42 normanfd

normanfd

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Location:Fort Davis

Posted 31 May 2004 - 12:48 PM

Rob, in addition to the things you list as constituting a quality neighborhood, I would add close proximity to retail and employment centers. Unfortunately, zoning has too often been used to keep residences and commercial enterprises separate.

#43 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 31 May 2004 - 03:52 PM

One of the drivers of sprawl is the need for good affordable housing.


I think one of the best solutions to low-cost housing is manufactured housing, a.k.a mobile homes. They have a bad reputation and some negative stereotypes - and like most stereotypes, there is a certain amount of truth mixed in with a certain amount of unjust prejudice.

I think mobile homes are a much better alternative to poorly constructed permanent housing and consumers of low-cost housing get much more for their money with manufactured housing. The nice thing about manufactured housing is that it is ultimately a disposable product. After they reach their functional lifespan, they are carted away for scrap and are not necessarily doomed to become slum property.

There are two common objections to mobile homes - they have a negative impact on the tax base and mobile home parks are sometimes trashy.

The negative tax base issue is a serious concern because local governments depend so much on property taxes. Since mobile homes do not cost as much as permanent construction and depreciate in value like cars do, mobile home communities tend to be a tax drain on local school districts and governments, etc. The solution to this problem is to simply fix the tax system so that such residents pay their share of the load. My thought is that a tapered property tax system with higher percentage rates at the bottom end and lower percentage rates at higher ends would help solve this problem. However, I suspect some would rabble rouse the issue to death because such a system would not be viewed as "progressive."

As to the concern about mobile home parks being trashy - well, some are and some aren't. There are parks that have the equivalent of a homeowners' association which enforces strict guidelines requiring things like matching window shades, minimum landscaping requirements of lots and prohibiting scrap vehicles, appliances and such from being visible and many even prohibit homes from being rented out. Because such parks are private property, establishing certain behavioral guidelines is much easier and less complicated as it is merely a contractual matter and not a freedom issue as it would be if a governmental body were imposing such requirements.

As to getting people to move into the central city - well, one of the things that prevents that from happening now is the public education system. When people with children shop around for a place to live, finding the least awful public school district is often just as, if not more, important than finding the right house. If you are a parent, one of your single most important responsibilities is to make sure your child gets the best education possible. People are NOT going to willingly sacrifice their children's minds and their future by moving to some place where their kids' education is going to be determined in large part by political power struggles and politically correct social engineering. Fort Worth apparently has a better public school system than does a lot of other large cities. But look at the Dallas ISD and how everything on that school board's plate tends to be subordinated to the agendas of various political pressure groups. Would you want YOUR child's education and future to be subordinated to the demands and whims of those who win political battles by shouting the loudest or to whatever social engineering experiment happens to be in vogue at the moment in academia?

The solution is to replace the current system with one of vouchers and/or tax credits and let parents send their kids to whatever school they wish. Suddenly, finding a decent education for one's children will no longer be a matter of geography. And it will, once and for all, end the "one size fits all" model of education. Even the best public school systems suffer from the need to be all things to all people. Look at it this way: there are plenty of people out there who can find the vast majority of everything they will ever need to buy at a Wal-mart Supercenter - and good for them. On the other hand, there are many others who have more specialized tastes and needs and will want to shop at specialty stores or higher end retailers. Some people - for example myself when it comes to buying music - have a hard time finding what they are looking for at any store and end up making a lot of purchases from online retailers who tend to serve highly specialized markets. Imagine if all retail was suddenly taken over by local governments which basically operated only giant Wal-mart like Supercenters. The better governments might make an admirable effort to try and stock more specialized items - just as the better public school systems try to have honors programs and magnet schools for things like the arts, science, business etc. But the fact remains that there is a significant limitation to just how far such a Supercenter can go towards fulfilling every special need that exists - and so it is the case with even the better ISDs.

Implement a voucher system and it will not only improve the general education level of the population as a whole (which is currently quite disgraceful as evidenced by the large number of young people who are utterly incapable of communicating in writing even the most elementary of thoughts - let alone actually having an original thought of their own) and provide new hope and opportunity for kids born into generational inner city poverty, it will also make it possible for many people with families to live closer to work.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#44 ghughes

ghughes
  • Guests

Posted 01 June 2004 - 06:29 AM

A bit of definition for clarity: a "progressive" tax has nothing to do with "progress," although that is a common mistake. The term means that the tax rate changes (progresses) depending on the income. So lower incomes pay at a lower rate and higher incomes at a higher rate.

The inverse proposed (higher rates on lower-value) would fall most heavily on the poorer as a percentage of their income, and that is where the objections would arise. Taxes that have that sort of impact, whether by design or not, are known as regressive. Sales taxes, in general, fall into that category.

But as to the standards proposed for mobile home parks: they might be contractual but they would not happen without govenment mandate.

Ultimately, while mobile homes have seemed good in theory they just haven't worked in practice. The worst thing one can do with money is put it into a deteriorating product (i.e. spend). The best thing is to put it into an appreciating product (i.e. invest). Mobile homes have been sold for years to the unwary as a way to own a home when in reality they are just a way to spend money.

#45 Dismuke

Dismuke

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,098 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Interests:Late 19th/early 20th century history, popular culture architecture and music. Collecting 78 rpm records from the 1900 - 1930 era.

Posted 01 June 2004 - 10:26 AM

The inverse proposed (higher rates on lower-value) would fall most heavily on the poorer as a percentage of their income, and that is where the objections would arise. Taxes that have that sort of impact, whether by design or not, are known as regressive. Sales taxes, in general, fall into that category.

Your explanation of the terms "progressive" and "regressive" in this context are quite accurate. However, the reason I put "progressive" in quotes in my original posting is because I reject the premises behind those who advocate "progressive" taxation.

The argument that some taxes are a higher percentage of lower income people's total income happens to be true for any expenditure on necessities. For example, the cost of food and clothing and shelter also take up a larger percentage of the total income of people with lower incomes than they generally do those with extremely high incomes. But that does not mean that there is anything "unfair" about such a situation - unless, of course, one perverts the concept of fairness into meaning that nobody should be better or earn or accomplish more than anyone else.

The reason I advocate the so-called "regressive" approach with regard to property taxes is because it eliminates the current problem in cities such as Fort Worth which have a very wide range of property value where a great many properties consume more in city services than they pay in taxes. This means that some homeowners are forced to subsidize the city services of others - which I consider to be inherently unjust. It also makes the city less attractive to buyers of high end homes because the tax rates tend to be higher than in other areas where property values are more equal.

With mobile homes, the low and declining property value makes mobile home parks a net tax drain. As a result, some cities try to ban them altogether. But with a "regressive" property tax, the problem could be easily solved. Sure, mobile home residents would end up paying higher taxes than they do now. But considering the lower cost of mobile homes, they are still a bargain even with the higher taxes - and without such higher taxes, because of the bans they might not even have that option open to them.

My proposed regressive tax would work something like this (my numbers here are completely made up and arbitrary - I am just trying to demonstrate the approach):

$0 - $50,000 - 1.5% tax rate. ALL homeowners would pay this rate on the FIRST $50,000 of value. On any value above that up to $100,000 one would pay 1%. On any value above that up to $250,000 one would pay 0.8%. On any value above that up to $500,000 one would pay 0.5% etc.

Under such a proposal, higher value property owners would still pay more - which is fair based on the premise that they might use more services and have much more value that needs to be protected by the police, fire dept. etc. It also reduces the problem of some people being force to provide and subsidize the city services of others.

Ultimately, while mobile homes have seemed good in theory they just haven't worked in practice. The worst thing one can do with money is put it into a deteriorating product (i.e. spend). The best thing is to put it into an appreciating product (i.e. invest). Mobile homes have been sold for years to the unwary as a way to own a home when in reality they are just a way to spend money.


You might have a point if that is indeed the sales pitch prospective mobile home buyers are given. But I disagree that is the worst thing one can do with one's money. Of course it makes more sense to put one's money into an appreciating property if possible. But for many who purchase mobile homes, that is not an option. Their choice is usually between a mobile home and paying rent. They are usually looking at mobile homes because they either cannot afford a permanent home or because they can get something nicer with a mobile home than with the cheap starter homes that they might be able to afford.

Sure, a mobile home depreciates over time. It is a consumable item. But for many it is still a far better option than renting because it enables them to lock in a monthly payment that WILL NOT go up other than for the cost of taxes and insurance. If they rent and the market for rental property goes up and/or there is currency inflation, they can count on having rent increases on a regular basis and in the end will find themselves paying MUCH more. Plus a quiet mobile home park is often a MUCH nicer place to live than a crowded inexpensive apartment complex. And if they ultimately decide to move, they will have at least SOME value left in their mobile home - though it will not be as much as what they put into it. If one rents and decides to move, the best that one can hope for is to get one's deposit back.

Also, it is not always automatic that a purchase of a permanent house will appreciate in value. We tend to think of it that way because that is what has happened in this area over the past few decades. Part of that appreciation is not appreciation at all but simply the result of currency inflation. Home owners still benefit from this because they are able to pay their notes off with cheaper dollars - but that is NOT the same thing as appreciation in terms of real dollars. Sometimes homes DO appreciate in real dollars because the area is growing and a given neighborhood is considered especially attractive. But the simple fact of the matter is that permanent homes are also consumable items and, just as they tend to deteriorate over time, so they also tend to depreciate over time in terms of real dollars. What appreciates is not so much the value of the home as the value of the real estate.
Radio Dismuke
1920s & 1930s Pop & Jazz
24-Hour Internet Radio
www.RadioDismuke.com


#46 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,786 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Funkytown

Posted 01 June 2004 - 03:07 PM

My comments about schools is more about the school districts versus an individual school.

While I attended the High School for Engineering Professions magnet at Dunbar in the 80's, we had more National Merit Scholars than any school in Fort Worth. We also beat Pascal pretty badly in debate competitions.

Peace

:blink:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users