Central hubs for TODs

This is a photograph I took in Ballston in Arl...

More: people, vehicles, cost, etc.

Benefits are very questionable for coercing people into transit station areas.
Economic Development—while improving some areas, it can take capital and resources away from other areas; in other words redistribution. Areas that became “cheap” become more affordable to offer opportunity for investment. TIFs can take away future government revenue from normal services. Additional retail sales or similar in one area will mean less spending elsewhere. Read more of this post

Density aspects

Beyond land use and urbanization, density needs to be more closely examined to put things in perspective.  In addition to the higher efficiency for and availability of transit, high density has other advantages, which can basically be summed up by big cities have “more stuff.” Living in high density is a choice, and not for everyone though. The HDC (high-density coalition) seems to want to force that on everyone. Many people don’t want that crowdedness. The 2 charts below show urban areas, categorized by density & total size of the urban area. Data is from the 2000 Census, when national population was 281M. It should be noted that there is an apparent gap in the figures below for non-urban & earlier figures for rural. Those names do not mean the same thing. And the classifications are neither always used nor consistent. Between populations of 10,000 & 50,000 those areas are considered urban clusters, rather than being an urban area. Both are still urbanized. As for what constitutes an urban area, the core needs to have a minimum density of 1,000, counted by Census block, and nearby blocks of at least 500 density are included. For the charts, the number in (_) is the number of urban areas within that population range. Read more of this post

Density Comparisons

An aerial view of housing developments near Ma...

Crowded Boring

This title could instead have the word “versus,” but it’s not a contest, despite what some people think. There is a growing movement, claiming that suburbia is bad and wasteful. Peoples’ choices of lifestyle should not be at odds with one another. Central cities actually gain taxes and other revenue from those living in outlying areas, from those who go to central cities for employment and visitation. A push in urbanism these days is for higher densities, to be like the central cities, but with even better, user-friendly forms. A big problem with increasing density is that traffic increases, without improvement (more lanes) to roads. You cannot double density and expect people to drive half as much. There certainly are not enough people transferring to public transit. Read more of this post

Density Perspectives

Greater Tokyo Area, the world's most populous ...

What beauty w/many?

There are various types of thinking that are at odds with one another. Well, actually, one type is not at odds; they are not just concerning themselves with other people’s personal choices. Many people want to live a certain lifestyle. Other people think that lifestyle should be a certain way, even though the claim is to have many choices, supposedly available all of the time. In making choices, there are trade-offs. This paper examines the various trade-offs, with the pros & cons of the concentration of living. The foci for one point of view are analyzed, and what that entails. The importances of those foci are examined, acknowledging that people have different tastes, desires and priorities. The ramifications of certain choices are analyzed Read more of this post