In 100 years, Fort Worth will be dense and vertical. Freeways will be non existent. Neighborhoods like Walsh Ranch will be ruins. Is this a real possibility?
Will Urban Sprawl Survive to 2119
#1
Posted 02 February 2019 - 01:23 AM
#2
Posted 02 February 2019 - 09:06 AM
Not related to sprawl, but Texas/Oklahoma, perhaps Louisiana and Arkansas will have become a new nation-state. The U.S. cannot survive with its current federal government. The federal government's corruption, incompetence, spending habits, and outrage culture is not sustainable as it currently stands.
- renamerusk likes this
#3
Posted 02 February 2019 - 10:08 AM
- renamerusk likes this
#4
Posted 02 February 2019 - 11:08 AM
I think it's very difficult to predict or imagine what anything will look like in 100 years, but I would be surprised if sprawl is completely eradicated in that short of a time period. It takes an unbelievable amount of time and effort to undo a cultural habit like that. Sprawl has been going for 50-60 years (at least, I know that number is probably debatable) and, at least around here, it's still trending up.
- renamerusk, rriojas71, panthercity and 3 others like this
#5
Posted 02 February 2019 - 11:33 AM
No thanks, Texas is way better than any of those states. If Texas were to be a country again it should go it alone.
- renamerusk, Volare and txbornviking like this
#6
Posted 02 February 2019 - 12:19 PM
Sprawl to secession in two replies. That escalated quickly.
I think it's very difficult to predict or imagine what anything will look like in 100 years, but I would be surprised if sprawl is completely eradicated in that short of a time period. It takes an unbelievable amount of time and effort to undo a cultural habit like that. Sprawl has been going for 50-60 years (at least, I know that number is probably debatable) and, at least around here, it's still trending up.
Wow, nations states...interesting and very unexpected.
I actually believe the sprawl curve is bending downward due to the supporting structure for sprawl in the U.S., i.e. cheap fossil fuel, changing demographics, climate concerns, smaller families coming to the front of our lifestyle.
Yes, in isolated pockets where energy industry still remains preeminent, I would agree that it will linger to the end.
100 years ago (1919) sprawl was non existent. People lived in highly concentrated neighborhood with public transit as their primary or only means of transportation.
During the next 100 years, society should or must address social and cultural issues. I see evidence that they are being addressed by each new generation. After all, it was the post war generation which when force to face the new generation of the 60's chose to flee the concentrated inner city neighborhood to maintain its ideology of purity; where about sprawl became the illogical and devastating result. I will leave it at that for now and instead suggest that there is a more determinant factor than social issues and it is climate.
A London college which does not come immediately to mind has published a report that simply allowing the earth to reforest itself naturally will increase the absorption of carbon to such a degree that it will negate the impact on the climate during the industrial era. Trees and vegetation if allowed will save the planet along with the yet unborn generations to reduce their use and need for carbon based energy and products.
There seems to be only two choices: Allow sprawl to persist to hasten a catastrophic ending or change our American attitude about the value of sprawl.
#7
Posted 02 February 2019 - 06:56 PM
Not related to sprawl, but Texas/Oklahoma, perhaps Louisiana and Arkansas will have become a new nation-state. The U.S. cannot survive with its current federal government. The federal government's corruption, incompetence, spending habits, and outrage culture is not sustainable as it currently stands.
Sorry for the diversion. I had just seen the news and my teeth were clenching. Back to sprawl in 100 years - I just bought this book from the Star-Telegram that has these amazing pictures of Fort Worth from the early 20th century. Rosen Heights (a north Fort Worth neighborhood) was a distant suburb. So, I guess, as the book of Matthew says the poor will always be among you, so will sprawl. Look out Weatherford!
- renamerusk likes this
#8
Posted 02 February 2019 - 07:30 PM
We've discussed in the Forum in the past that the post WWII flight from the cities to the suburbs can be attributed partly to the GI Bill making housing affordable for the returning veterans and the Interstate Highway system for motor vehicles making it easy to commute from the cities to the suburbs.. The spreading out of population and economic development is the so-called urban sprawl. The period saw farms and ranches selling out to the residential sub-dividers. And commercial retail and public institutions supported these farther flung communities.
In our era and in our area of the country the Los Colinas-style high rise buildings are cropping up on the eastern side of the Metroplex and eventually will take place in the Mid-Cities area and west of Fort Worth. This is the modernization of communities, whether you call it sprawl or not. And its contributing to the expansion of regions. I think regional expansion here and elsewhere in the country will continue for the next hundred years. But the regions will be separated geographically by long-distance transportation systems, whether it's the airlines, high-speed rail, the hyperloop, or something technologically similar.
This may be a stretch in thinking but I believe municipalities and counties will eventually give way to regional governments. But I believe our federalist system (i.e. states and a central government) will survive.
Some thought that the new forms of communication--the Internet and smart phones--might be a check on the urban sprawl dynamics described above in that it would retard mobility. People would rather shop on the Internet and associate with others by cell phone or video communications rather than being physically there. But I don't think that has happened.
- renamerusk likes this
#9
Posted 02 February 2019 - 09:31 PM
.....The spreading out of population and economic development is the so-called urban sprawl.........I think regional expansion here and elsewhere in the country will continue for the next hundred years......This may be a stretch in thinking but I believe municipalities and counties will eventually give way to regional governments. But I believe our federalist system (i.e. states and a central government) will survive.
I actually fail to see the correlation of governmental realignment as to whether sprawl in its current iteration will last.
Sprawl is largely an American invention driven by the associated industries of the automobile , the fossil fuel, home builders and the settler's mentality to dispose of the old for the new or to plow into until recently thought to be an unlimited frontier. The American Dream has been to purchase a small house then upgrade ultimately to the "mansion" while deriving personal wealth along the way. This pattern has not be significantly replicated in places such as Europe where homes may be retained through the generations or these homes are recycled through the century or longer.
I don't get a sense that there is general acknowledgement on this Forum to the issue of "the irresistible force meeting the immovable object" often described and measured as a Change in Earth's Climate. Over the past 100 years, recognizable species of mammals and large ice mass are in precarious decline. These changes are not the result of dysfunctional government per se but the result of an increasing human population striving to achieve its own version of the American Dream that requires deforestation, damming of rivers, dumping PCBs in the Oceans, and the increasing global consumption of food produced in the "carbon chain".
Earth has been described as a hostile place for the survival of the human race; and in most ways it truly is.
Until humans realize that the Earth works on the principal of a balance physics and not on a theological principal, the planet will be relentless in seeking the 2B years of balance it settled into after being initially formed 4B years ago. How quickly the adjustment is being made is demonstrated by the unprecedented changes in the Climate since the onset of the Industrial Revolution and now as the Industrial Revolution spreads across the planet . The degradation of the oceans and the de-vegetation of the surfaces will lead sooner than later to the days (years) of reckoning with a majority of scientists forecasting that this reckoning is as near as the coming of the next 20 years.
If science is correct, sprawl will be stopped in its tracks well in advance of the next 100 years. As a resident of Fort Worth, I believe that there is within our traditional limits ample room to rebuild and reuse existing neighborhoods. Our leadership, like many other municipalities, is made up of developers or associates of the development industry; and time after time, decisions are approved for new development 10s of miles from the pre-1950 core.
As I observe my surroundings, the pressures that is being place upon our infrastructure, the strange weather; I believe more convincingly that sprawl is unsustainable. The one slimmer of hope that I hold onto is that the 15-25's age cohorts have become radically active in their fight to inherit a livable planet. They are already turning away from sprawl and choosing to live in denser areas and use forms of transportation that are friendlier to the environment.
- RD Milhollin and ACE like this
#11
Posted 04 February 2019 - 09:22 AM
No thanks, Texas is way better than any of those states. If Texas were to be a country again it should go it alone.
Not to mention that much of the share of all migration into Texas originates from these three states.
#12
Posted 04 February 2019 - 10:08 AM
Sprawl to secession in two replies. That escalated quickly.
And to climate change!
I can actually see the connection there.
- RD Milhollin and renamerusk like this
#13
Posted 04 February 2019 - 10:50 AM
Sprawl to secession in two replies. That escalated quickly.
And to climate change!
Okay..tree climbing crocodiles....what will it take?
https://www.bbc.com/...tralia-47112044
- ACE likes this
#14
Posted 06 February 2019 - 02:40 AM
https://www.wired.co...-out-of-people/
I wanted to mention this article, as though it doesn't pertain to the U.S. specifically, it does mention that the world population might actually go into decline (potentially starting in three decades or so), instead of growing. One of the reasons we see urban sprawl is population growth; that said, as long as we have enough immigrants continuing to come in to the country we can continue to have population growth in spite of lower birth rates. And a developed country like the U.S. is going to attract immigrants as long as it remains a desirable destination.
I foresee a cutting back of sprawl in the future. We've had cheap gasoline for way too long now, and something has to give sooner or later. Renewable sources of electric energy and electric cars may reduce the incentive to stop sprawl, especially as electric cars get longer ranges and shorter charge times. But there is one thing about sprawl that I despise, and that is the fact that long commutes translate to less time with family for those with families in the workforce. If people can live close to their jobs, and it is attractive to do so, then that is what people should be doing, though there are a lot of trade-offs involved. In such a scenario, homeownership may need to decline as a "parallel system" of sorts would allow people to relocate easily if their job takes them further away from their current residence, though that can mean a lot of upheaval for families with children who are established at a particular school and in a particular neighborhood, for example.
- renamerusk, johnfwd and CFerguson like this
Sydney B. Claridge
Proud Horned Frog (TCU Class of 2017) and lifelong Fort Worth resident with a hobby interest in urban planning and design.
Please consider following my Instagram page! I take a lot of pictures of scenery and urban environments, in addition to my interests in fashion.
#15
Posted 13 February 2019 - 03:28 PM
The folks out in Walsh seem to fear the possibility of "townhomes" being built... smh
https://www.star-tel...e226121630.html
#16
Posted 13 February 2019 - 03:44 PM
The folks out in Walsh seem to fear the possibility of "townhomes" being built... smh
.........
#17
Posted 13 February 2019 - 04:08 PM
#18
Posted 14 February 2019 - 01:55 PM
The folks out in Walsh seem to fear the possibility of "townhomes" being built... smh
...someone wants to build townhomes out there?
#19
Posted 17 February 2019 - 10:34 AM
I'll ask - is density in far flung locations such as this, without walkability or transit, a good thing?
It would seem that good design and planning would include a "center" that might serve as a commercial, civic and cultural/entertainment center, as well as a node for transit. Townhomes would make sense in such an area. But the usual auto-centric, cookie-cutter, winding streets and cul du sac neighborhoods with generic/pastoral-named streets (Brookwood...) is not the place for them.
- renamerusk likes this
#20
Posted 20 September 2019 - 08:32 AM
The recent postings on Tarleton State campus along the Chisholm Trail Parkway in south Ft. Worth once again has me thinking of the insane legacy annexation has brought to Ft. Worth. Growth in size for the sake of growth is simply fiscally unsustainable. Past city leaders sought to gobble up land in all directions in order to prevent new communities from taking our population (a goal I think we could argue the pro and cons of), our current city leaders are determined to fill this space, but often not with a green-belt nor sustainable development but a continued proliferation of low-rise developments, single family homes and strip centers.
At present, North to South our city boundaries stretch nearly 40 miles from Texas Motor Speedway to the new Tarleton campus. Nearly 35 miles East to West from Walsh Ranch to DFW airport.
Why does the city of Ft. Worth have one of the highest property tax rates in the state? It seems a simple answer, poor land use policies have created a situation where a (relatively) low value tax basis is now responsible for providing and maintaining city services over too large of an area.
How do we go about correcting this?
- RD Milhollin, renamerusk and CFerguson like this
#21
Posted 20 September 2019 - 09:18 AM
This is not answering your question, but more of a clarification. The southern city limits actually touches the Johnson County Line just east of the I-35W and TX 174 interchange in Burleson. This is south of Spinks Airport. This puts our southern boundary a few more miles south of the Tarleton Campus. The Fort Worth City Limits is in Tarrant, Parker, Wise, and Denton Counties.
#22
Posted 20 September 2019 - 09:20 AM
To correct this will require a Generational Change that I am sure will be more environmentally and less consumption oriented.
Fort Worth also stretches from Parker to Dallas County with the ambitions to spill over into Wise County.
#23
Posted 22 September 2019 - 02:52 PM
#1 .....Also, it's not accurate to call the development of a landlocked parcel sprawl. It's infill. Infill reduces sprawl by concentrating development within an existing boundary. Sprawl expands the boundary without fully realizing the potential within it.....
.#2... Past city leaders sought to gobble up land in all directions in order to prevent new communities from taking our population (a goal I think we could argue the pro and cons of), our current city leaders are determined to fill this space, but often not with a green-belt nor sustainable development but a continued proliferation of low-rise developments, single family homes and strip centers......Why does the city of Ft. Worth have one of the highest property tax rates in the state? It seems a simple answer, poor land use policies have created a situation where a (relatively) low value tax basis is now responsible for providing and maintaining city services over too large of an area.
How do we go about correcting this?
#1 - You are making my point easier to defend. The idea that you must or would want to develop this parcel of land derives from the sole objective of increasing the wealth for real estate investors. If there is any higher priority for Fort Worth than to infill the abundance of existing parcels of land within the core of the City. Incentivizing the core neighborhoods of the City is a more efficient way to provide public services and repairing existing infrastructure and will be far less damaging to the environment and a nod towards future generations.
#2 - Of course, this kind of past thinking is at the heart of today's global protestations by the Green Generation. I would say, that the Green Generation is prepared and more precisely fully understands that the sustainability of human life is being threatened by two centuries of the Industrial Revolution and the Post Industrial Revolution.
It is heresy to continue digging ourselves deeper in a hole when we must change our behavior and undertake wiser consumption patterns to mitigate the negative consequences of the status quo. I just learned an eye opening fact about the U.S. Border and migration that finds that, even though drugs and gang violence is a driving factor for Central Americans to migrate towards the U.S., an even greater driver is the water and food deprivation that millions of Central Americans are dealing with as a result of Climate Change. The Pentagon has designated Climate Change has the most likely national security issue that the U.S. faces.
So, yeah, understand that choosing to develop this parcel of land is what TOD is all about, however, it is also choosing to benefit a few at the expense of many more and is a missed opportunity to direct smarter development to where it is most needed: the Core of Fort Worth.
We do something to correct this now in 2019 and stop fiddling around with the Planet; or as was so poignantly inscribed on posters during the Student March for the Environment - "There is no Planet B!"
#24
Posted 22 September 2019 - 04:54 PM
#25
Posted 22 September 2019 - 07:47 PM
Google places the prairie land at 26-27 miles from Tarrant County Courthouse; and to me that qualifies as being distant from the Core of Fort Worth and is synonymous to sprawl. If the ultimate result of any TOD associated with DFW North Station is to be warehousing and trucks, all I can say is: "What a fine use of hard to get transit funds".
#26
Posted 17 December 2019 - 10:36 AM
In 100 years, Fort Worth will be dense and vertical. Freeways will be non existent. Neighborhoods like Walsh Ranch will be ruins. Is this a real possibility?
.....The spreading out of population and economic development is the so-called urban sprawl.........I think regional expansion here and elsewhere in the country will continue for the next hundred years......This may be a stretch in thinking but I believe municipalities and counties will eventually give way to regional governments. But I believe our federalist system (i.e. states and a central government) will survive.
....... As a resident of Fort Worth, I believe that there is within our traditional limits ample room to rebuild and reuse existing neighborhoods. Our leadership, like many other municipalities, is made up of developers or associates of the development industry; and time after time, decisions are approved for new development 10s of miles from the pre-1950 core.
As I observe my surroundings, the pressures that is being place upon our infrastructure, the strange weather; I believe more convincingly that sprawl is unsustainable. The one slimmer of hope that I hold onto is that the 15-25's age cohorts have become radically active in their fight to inherit a livable planet. They are already turning away from sprawl and choosing to live in denser areas and use forms of transportation that are friendlier to the environment.
Great vision as well as planning; Fort Worth is leading the way in Texas!
The Texas Standard - https://www.texassta...ct-open-spaces/
- RD Milhollin and johnfwd like this
#27
Posted 18 December 2019 - 12:13 PM
Interesting but rather brief article that invites questions. What is an "open space?" .Is the term defined in the City of Fort Worth's planning and zoning ordinance? Does the term include the east-side "green space," meaning that undeveloped forest land on the city's east side that the city wishes to preserve and protect to avoid Fort Worth urban encroachment on Arlington? Does "open space" refer to regulation of density downtown, such that parks are interspersed between buildings? Does the term apply to residential neighborhoods and, if so, how so?
Observation on a sentence in the first post of this thread: "Freeways will be non-existent." This pre-supposes the abolition of the motor vehicle or some such as a means of personal transportation from point A to B. What will replace the freeway? In a prior post, I speculate on inter-city rail, high-speed long-distance rail, or maybe even (a long-shot concept) the Hyperloop. Or maybe even a futuristic means of personal air transport.
#28
Posted 18 December 2019 - 12:54 PM
Observation on a sentence in the first post of this thread: "Freeways will be non-existent." This pre-supposes the abolition of the motor vehicle or some such as a means of personal transportation from point A to B. What will replace the freeway? In a prior post, I speculate on inter-city rail, high-speed long-distance rail, or maybe even (a long-shot concept) the Hyperloop. Or maybe even a futuristic means of personal air transport.
The all the upcoming innovation in transportation, I really do wonder why people believe that rail anything will be part of life in 100 years (other than bulk shipping). Think about the inflexibility of rail: locked onto tracks that operate only in two directions on a two dimensional plane. That doesn't seem like the future to me.
#29
Posted 18 December 2019 - 02:07 PM
Depends on whether or not density survives I'd guess. Rail can move absolutely massive numbers in a small space.
- renamerusk and Dylan like this
#30
Posted 18 December 2019 - 02:24 PM
(1) Does "open space" refer to regulation of density downtown, such that parks are interspersed between buildings? Does the term apply to residential neighborhoods and, if so, how so?
(2) "Freeways will be non-existent." This pre-supposes the abolition of the motor vehicle or some such as a means of personal transportation from point A to B. What will replace the freeway? .....
(3) .... I really do wonder why people believe that rail anything will be part of life in 100 years (other than bulk shipping).. ... That doesn't seem like the future to me.
(1) Yes. The concept applies to both Downtown and Neighborhoods.
(2) No. Freeways will still exist. The concept begins to reign in the auto centric infrastructure by emphasizing green fields over surface parking that is used about 8 hours daily and remain empty during the 16 hours. Look around and simply calculate how much space is dedicated to automobiles (streets, highways, parking garages, surface parking); it is not a stretch to calculate that these auto support structures take up more than 75% of the area in the City. Eliminating as much of this over supply of parking and car infrastructure as possible is the ultimate goal, but immediately, the City is thinking that the supply should not be increased as these auto infrastructure contributed to flooding, water contamination, urban heating, air pollution, etal. Encouraging new development to be vertical (housing atop of parking) can accommodate both the environment and the auto simultaneously.
On the other hand, green spaces store water, cool the urban climate, reduces air pollution, and saves the City millions of dollars in maintenance and water processing. Green spaces are healthy places for neighborhoods. Green spaces are good for nature.
The City is thinking about the future of Fort Worth and how it can evolve into a greener, healthier and controlling the costs of future water control.
(3) The future will be rail in many forms and will include an electrification personal transportation. I think those who are stuck in the fossil fuel mindset would not seemingly have a favorable view of that future.
#31
Posted 18 December 2019 - 03:31 PM
(3) The future will be rail in many forms and will include an electrification personal transportation. I think those who are stuck in the fossil fuel mindset would not seemingly have a favorable view of that future.
Not really sure what you mean by that, but I believe that fossil fuels and rail will seem equally antiquated as agents for people-moving in 100 years.
More likely, IMO, is something akin to what the film Minority Report showed. Autonomous vehicles moving around on roads or track-like lanes where the movement and rearrangement of individual cars is seamless and integrated into the programming of the network, taking into account each vehicle and its intended destination. While rail might technically be more efficient for moving large numbers of people (as per Austin55's comment), the world also evolves based on quality-of-life improvements...not just efficiency gains. Plus, a rail-based system generally needs to be laid out at or below ground level. Dense cities will likely operate in 3 dimensions by the end of this century, which puts rail at a disadvantage.
#32
Posted 18 December 2019 - 04:58 PM
(3) The future will be rail in many forms and will include an electrification personal transportation. I think those who are stuck in the fossil fuel mindset would not seemingly have a favorable view of that future.
Not really sure what you mean by that, but I believe that fossil fuels and rail will seem equally antiquated as agents for people-moving in 100 years.
..... Dense cities will likely operate in 3 dimensions by the end of this century, which puts rail at a disadvantage.
How old are the London Underground? New York Subway? Paris Underground? 150 years; 115 years; and 119 years respectively.
Rail antiquated? I think not.
By 2050, if the rise in the Earth's Avg Temperature is not held below a rise of 3 degrees, science is telling us that most of everything will become antiquated.
Fort Worth should be applauded for this first of many steps that society must take to avoid Climate Castrosphe. The preservation of existing green fields within the Fort Worth is a no-brainer. Tackling auto and sprawl infrastructure is too, a no-brainer. Fossil Fuel proponents are in denial, whereas a conservative lead city like Fort Worth is beginning to wake up to the costs associated with business as usual mindset that "the world also evolves based on quality-of-life improvements...not just efficiency gains" will not work for it in the future.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with managing growth with a smart and environmental approach.
#33
Posted 18 December 2019 - 05:08 PM
How old are the London Underground? New York Subway? Paris Underground? 150 years; 115 years; and 119 years respectively.
Rail antiquated? I think not.
Ironically, that timeframe dovetails pretty well with the rise of oil as the major global energy source. Nothing lasts forever.
#34
Posted 18 December 2019 - 05:19 PM
How old are the London Underground? New York Subway? Paris Underground? 150 years; 115 years; and 119 years respectively.
Rail antiquated? I think not.
Ironically, that timeframe dovetails pretty well with the rise of oil as the major global energy source. Nothing lasts forever.
Nothing lasts forever suggests that you can agree that the era of the rise of oil as the major global energy source will end.
Not only is Fort Worth, a city in the heart of the oil nest, realizing the end is coming; is making an effort to deal with the harmful side effects of an era where oil has been preeminent. It is not that Fort Worth is proposing zero growth, it is actually proposing that the city gets itself back into a better and more sensible balance with the environment.
If the cure seems daunting, then the prognosis should seem chilling.
#35
Posted 18 December 2019 - 05:43 PM
Yes, like I said in post #31, I think the notion of fossil fuels as an energy source will be obsolete in 100 years. Oil will go the way of wood and coal, and the West Texas oil baron will exist only in movies and books.
#36
Posted 18 December 2019 - 05:53 PM
I direct you to this posted in P#31:
.... but I believe that fossil fuels and rail will seem equally antiquated as agents for people-moving in 100 years
The obsolescence of rail was suggested.
Does this statement remain supportable?
#37
Posted 18 December 2019 - 09:26 PM
In 100 years, Fort Worth will be dense and vertical. Freeways will be non existent. Neighborhoods like Walsh Ranch will be ruins. Is this a real possibility?
I think in 100 years there will still be multi-lane limited access divided highways for single and multiple rider vehicles but significant tolls will be necessary to maintain them. Due to the costs of fuel or electricity or whatever powers the vehicles of the future there will not be the need for 16-lane wide highways running through the middle of cities.
#38
Posted 19 December 2019 - 07:48 PM
I direct you to this posted in P#31:
.... but I believe that fossil fuels and rail will seem equally antiquated as agents for people-moving in 100 years
The obsolescence of rail was suggested.
Does this statement remain supportable?
Yes.
#39
Posted 19 December 2019 - 07:54 PM
Bold prediction. I'm actually having a hard time finding evidence of rail transit being on the decline, in fact there is plenty evidence to the contrary.
#40
Posted 20 December 2019 - 12:41 PM
100 years is a long time. Today there is no evidence of natural gas as a power source being in decline, which is because it's not. Nat gas demand globally probably doesn't peak for another 20 years or so, based on the consensus views today. But the REASON why nat gas demand will peak in 20 years isn't because we don't need more power...it's because renewables will finally overtake fossil fuels as the most attractive solution. And when that happens, the death will be quick (in historical terms at least...like 50 years or less).
I remember reading about drone package delivery maybe 8 years ago and thinking "yeah, that will be the day." Today CVS is testing that technology in North Carolina by delivering medicine to customers via drone. Google operates driverless cabs in Phoenix today as well, which anyone can hail just like an Uber. This stuff is happening fast.
As for trains... The rapid shift to electric power in transportation is one of the main reasons I think rail goes away. It's just far more efficient to produce the power centrally and distribute it through the grid (to cars via home charging) than for every vehicle to be its own power plant (via the internal combustion engine/gasoline). So the efficiency advantage that trains hold over cars in today's world is going to be minimized as the EV buildout dominates autos over the next 20 years or so. By that time (20 years from now) cars will have the capability of being fully autonomous, so it becomes easy to imagine very small one-person cars, larger 2 or 4 person cars, etc., available depending on the need at that moment. And if the cars are talking with each other, and human error is generally eliminated on the roads, traffic jams go away, etc. I don't see passenger rail competing with that kind of flexibility.
Lastly, I think what we consider to be urban sprawl today will still exist in 100 years. The same efficiency gains that keep cars around over that time will make it more palatable for people to commute long distances into the city centers. Factor in remote working some of the time, etc. and I don't see suburban houses with yards going away any time soon. Just my opinion of course, likely wrong but who knows...
#41
Posted 20 December 2019 - 01:05 PM
Actually, it is not being suggested that abundance of fossil fuel is declining. Just last month, Iran announced the discovery of 50 billions new barrels of oil. Even though it may make Iran and international oil company wealthier, I don't believe it is a smart idea to profit off these discovery while Pacific Islands are being submerged in the sea; while Victoria Falls (Africa) is going dry; while typhoons are battering the Asian Continent. The issue is whether or whether not continuing to use fossil fuel even though its plentiful will eventual make the planet uninhabitable for billions of humans. At this exact moment, Australia is "On Fire!"
If you want to believe that we should continue the infrastructure mechanics of urban sprawl (fossil fuel, natural gas, etc) when the Climate Change is now happening, then have at it.
On the other hand, I think that electric rail coupled with higher density and more green spaces are some vital steps that must be taken to save the planet and ourselves. This is what I hope the next 100 years will produce and why Post#26 highlighting the steps now being taken by the City of Fort Worth is so encouraging. I remarked that XTO exiting Downtown Fort Worth has been a good thing overall for the City; it is hard to imagine that the City would be taking the steps that it is taking if XTO was still a very dominant employer in Downtown. In XTO place, there is a revival of Downtown into a place characterized by sectors more environmentally compatible.
#42
Posted 20 December 2019 - 01:52 PM
So I basically said that fossil fuels will be eliminated as an energy source because of DEMAND decline (not supply), and you rebut that by telling me that fossil fuel supplies aren't declining. Then you imply (again) that I'm pro-fossil fuels...when I've already stated multiple times in this thread that I fully believe fossil fuels are going away completely within the next century. Then you accuse me of believing that we "should" continue the mechanics of urban sprawl. I'm making predictions. If your initial question was about what "should" happen, perhaps I'd have a different answer. But given that you seem to prefer creating straw men and bashing them like a pinata, vs. actually reading others' posts and considering them carefully, I'll pass.
#43
Posted 20 December 2019 - 02:06 PM
So I basically said that fossil fuels will be eliminated as an energy source because of DEMAND decline (not supply), and you rebut that by telling me that fossil fuel supplies aren't declining. Then you imply (again) that I'm pro-fossil fuels...when I've already stated multiple times in this thread that I fully believe fossil fuels are going away completely within the next century. Then you accuse me of believing that we "should" continue the mechanics of urban sprawl. I'm making predictions. If your initial question was about what "should" happen, perhaps I'd have a different answer. But given that you seem to prefer creating straw men and bashing them like a pinata, vs. actually reading others' posts and considering them carefully, I'll pass.
I go back to my memory of what was expressed in many of your previous posts. I may be remembering them wrongly, but they generally left me with the impression that you are pro-fossil fuel. Just my interpretation from reading them from the past.
If you think sprawl will exist in 100 years, then I may infer that you think the basics building blocks of sprawl will exist also; one cannot exist without the other. Suggesting that rail is at a disadvantage is saying that rail cannot work in an environment of sprawl. I agree. However, rail is very efficient if you make TOD and high density your plan for the future. It is the inclusion of rail which stuck me as an unsupportable prediction gone too far.
Predictions may be interpreted in different ways; sometimes they are windows into what we actually prefer. If you are predicting urban sprawl to continue, then you are predicting things to continue as they are now and that looks to me as though you are throwing in the towel. Of course you have the right to your predictions; the responsibility for the outcome one way or another is your, mine and all of us.
#44
Posted 14 January 2020 - 03:06 PM
North Richland Hills rejects new development citing the lost of trees.
Current residents want to preserve the scenic beauty. What a breath of fresh air!
#45
Posted 15 January 2020 - 09:14 AM
.........More generally about city population density: if that is actually taken seriously, we should probably make an effort to promote accessory dwelling units, which could double density without over-concentrating it.
The fact of the matter is that Fort Worth is spread out and although we can and should create high density areas serviced by transportation,I don't think we'll be taking bulldozers to the thousands and thousands acres of suburban homes just because we can't service them with transportation.
What is an"accessory dwelling unit?"
Prior to World War 2, Fort Worth was a more densely populated city; then came the 50's with economic incentives and social unrest which caused many American cities to beconfigured differently. I do think in five decades, these thousands and thousands of acres of suburban homes will have aged and density will have increased.
And once again, I think it is time to remind us that we are living in an uncertain time about our climate. We will and must adjust to the new reality and its consequences.
Instead of freeways determining the design of the city, a smaller transit footprint (8 miles in diameter) network will drive the demand and desire for concentrated development and people will walk more and driving will be less than it is now.
#46
Posted 15 January 2020 - 10:16 AM
An accessory dwelling unit is just a typically small residential unit in the back yard. Some neighborhoods these are allowed, well, at least grandfathered, but most of our residential zoning specifically disallows building something that could act as a full separate dwelling, or allowing anyone to live full time in it -- the "single family" part of the name of the zoning. To enforce the single family nature of it, there are restrictions on how much kitchen can be there, and how the utilities feed in, etc.
Although it is nothing like the density of apartments, it can in theory meaningfully increase density in neighborhoods.
My point about that we are not going to bulldoze homes, is just that you'll have to attack your vision about small transit footprints in ways that do not require rewriting the history of our sprawl, perhaps we can knock down a few homes and put in scattered small grocery stores and such to make things more reachable -- but this is obviously a ways off. We see what happened to the neighborhood embedded Westcliff shopping center, which I really enjoyed as a kid, but now seems to struggle to exist.
- renamerusk likes this
#47
Posted 15 January 2020 - 10:33 AM
An accessory dwelling unit is just a typically small residential unit in the back yard. Some neighborhoods these are allowed, well, at least grandfathered, but most of our residential zoning specifically disallows building something that could act as a full separate dwelling, or allowing anyone to live full time in it -- the "single family" part of the name of the zoning. To enforce the single family nature of it, there are restrictions on how much kitchen can be there, and how the utilities feed in, etc.
Although it is nothing like the density of apartments, it can in theory meaningfully increase density in neighborhoods.
My point about that we are not going to bulldoze homes, is just that you'll have to attack your vision about small transit footprints in ways that do not require rewriting the history of our sprawl, perhaps we can knock down a few homes and put in scattered small grocery stores and such to make things more reachable -- but this is obviously a ways off. We see what happened to the neighborhood embedded Westcliff shopping center, which I really enjoyed as a kid, but now seems to struggle to exist.
Accessory dwelling unit. Yes that is actually happening. A new house is being built across from ours by new neighbors. Having the opportunity to get to know him, he was happy to talk about it with me. His wife and he are including an apartment suite within the house for their aging in-law who will live with them but yet be in her on efficiency space (bath,sitting room, bed).
Rewriting history is what city do and is what will be required in this new decade. By 2030, if cities do not reign in sprawl by rejecting the quick real estate prosperity game, then it will be too late to slow down the progression of the climate changing events. Now is the time to do what is required to preserve the quality of life, the food and water resources that the following generations will need to survive.
It is not to be dismissed what happened to the Amazon last year and what is currently happening in Australia this year.
#48
Posted 15 January 2020 - 12:30 PM
Typically what you see in Fort Worth for an ADU is a garage apartment. You are most likely to find these in the older neighborhoods with alleys. Typically there is a detached garage in the back of the lot and a little apartment is included as the second floor of the garage.
- renamerusk likes this
#49
Posted 16 January 2020 - 01:29 AM
What is an easy way to find out which neighborhoods allow building ADUs and which dont? (aside from calling the City and asking about specific houses?)
- renamerusk likes this
#50
Posted 16 January 2020 - 09:02 AM
put in scattered small grocery stores and such to make things more reachable -- but this is obviously a ways off. We see what happened to the neighborhood embedded Westcliff shopping center, which I really enjoyed as a kid, but now seems to struggle to exist.
Those days are never coming back. You can look at the older neighborhoods and see the small grocery building sprinkled throughout. They've mostly been converted to residential or other non-public use. South Hills had a shopping center, it's now a charter school. But setting up small grocery stores neighborhoods is no longer fiscally viable. They're not coming back.
- renamerusk and CFerguson like this
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users