Bingo!TechnicalDisaster wrote:I use the term McMansion all the time, I'm not offended by it (I live in one) - but the term is slang and should not be used in professional writing.
Urban vs Suburban Debate
Moderators: Coyote, nebugeater, Brad, Omaha Cowboy, BRoss
Not in Omaha:StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Yes, but who's the judge of unbiased content? You? See, that presents a problem.
Joeglow, the subject of the thread is "urban vs. suburban", and as such, the last two articles I have posted are completely relevant. They're not trying to "prove" the superiority of urban living (that conclusion is left for the reader to arrive at), but merely showing and discussing what is occurring right now in the US in terms of land-use, crime, consumer preferences, etc.
http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Omah ... 66773.html
I thought the new figures were pretty low. Â I expected much more city growth, but after giving it some thought the condo "boom" we had mid decade was only a few handful of people compared to the entire city population. Â Omaha has grown in the past decades by suburban development and now that Omaha is covering a large area the new suburbs had to find somewhere else to go, namely Sarpy. Â
That will be the biggest question this decade does Omaha have the ability to become denser? Â Will future development's find funding like RFP or end up holes in the ground like Wallstreet or one story strip malls like 80 Dodge? Â I had imagined that Omaha had become a far more dense city especially east of 72nd street b/c of the AMAZING developments that the city has had, but then looking at all those fantastic projects the city has enjoyed during the 00's you begin to realize it is a very small start to what the city needs to do if it want's to continue to thrive.
Where did we think those 50,000 over estimated residents went? Â I will admit it was foolish to think a majority went to the actual city when there literally isn't the infrastructure or available housing in the city proper for that many people.
This needs to be Omaha's "Manhattan" point (I just made that up I decided it means the city has reached its physical land limits.) Â This will continue to be the trend if Omaha doesn't create the necessary infrastructure to support the growth it wants. Â Build the streetcars, find a way to help new projects off the ground, make it attractive/affordable to live from Midtown to the river and did I mention build the streetcars?
Until the city is even more aggressive than it is now about strengthening it's core it will continue to come up short.
And for the record I am ALL for the growth the surround cities are experiencing this was more just realizing how much farther the city needs to go even though it has seen amazing development the past 10 years.
(Sorry if that was rambling and didn't make a whole lot of sense I was planning on organizing my thoughts on the matter this weekend, but decided to spew it out now)
That will be the biggest question this decade does Omaha have the ability to become denser? Â Will future development's find funding like RFP or end up holes in the ground like Wallstreet or one story strip malls like 80 Dodge? Â I had imagined that Omaha had become a far more dense city especially east of 72nd street b/c of the AMAZING developments that the city has had, but then looking at all those fantastic projects the city has enjoyed during the 00's you begin to realize it is a very small start to what the city needs to do if it want's to continue to thrive.
Where did we think those 50,000 over estimated residents went? Â I will admit it was foolish to think a majority went to the actual city when there literally isn't the infrastructure or available housing in the city proper for that many people.
This needs to be Omaha's "Manhattan" point (I just made that up I decided it means the city has reached its physical land limits.) Â This will continue to be the trend if Omaha doesn't create the necessary infrastructure to support the growth it wants. Â Build the streetcars, find a way to help new projects off the ground, make it attractive/affordable to live from Midtown to the river and did I mention build the streetcars?
Until the city is even more aggressive than it is now about strengthening it's core it will continue to come up short.
And for the record I am ALL for the growth the surround cities are experiencing this was more just realizing how much farther the city needs to go even though it has seen amazing development the past 10 years.
(Sorry if that was rambling and didn't make a whole lot of sense I was planning on organizing my thoughts on the matter this weekend, but decided to spew it out now)
- nativeomahan
- County Board
- Posts: 5366
- Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:46 pm
- Location: Omaha and Puerto Vallarta
Are you sure it's not our "Sputnik moment?" Â :)iamjacobm wrote:This needs to be Omaha's "Manhattan" point (I just made that up I decided it means the city has reached its physical land limits.) This will continue to be the trend if Omaha doesn't create the necessary infrastructure to support the growth it wants. Build the streetcars, find a way to help new projects off the ground, make it attractive/affordable to live from Midtown to the river and did I mention build the streetcars?
There was a population "undercount" for Omaha during the 1980 or '90 census (I think it was about 20-30k short). It was officially revised a few years later by the census bureau. I think we might be dealing with the same thing now. I think it was revised when they looked at the number of residential water meters/electric power customers and factored in the average # of people per household, or something like that. Anyway, the numbers are important because of the way the Fed doles out 'revenue sharing' funds. An under-count means a loss of federal dollars.
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
No, not bingo at all! Are you serious? Slang shouldn't be used in professional writing? I don't think the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, et al. got the memo.Zilla wrote:Bingo!TechnicalDisaster wrote:I use the term McMansion all the time, I'm not offended by it (I live in one) - but the term is slang and should not be used in professional writing.
iamjacobm, there are actually some pretty amazing tools that planners and cities have at their disposal to conserve open space and encourage building within existing cities, namely using TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) which is really only in its youth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_o ... ent_rights
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Its actually possible to make money, at least in some ways, with an under count, if that's what happened. Â A slower growth rate and presumably a higher percentage of low incomes (if north and south Omaha were not shown as net losers of people) means more in the way of CDBG and others. Â Not that this is what anyone is hoping to achieve.ricko wrote:There was a population "undercount" for Omaha during the 1980 or '90 census (I think it was about 20-30k short). It was officially revised a few years later by the census bureau. I think we might be dealing with the same thing now. I think it was revised when they looked at the number of residential water meters/electric power customers and factored in the average # of people per household, or something like that. Anyway, the numbers are important because of the way the Fed doles out 'revenue sharing' funds. An under-count means a loss of federal dollars.
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
This is a good article that explains a lot of what's happening in cities and suburbs. I'm not looking for the firing squad, it's just a good, informative read.
http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2011/Mar/McMahonStrip
http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2011/Mar/McMahonStrip
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
-
- Parks & Recreation
- Posts: 1650
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:47 pm
- Location: In Suburbia Paradise
I agree. Excellent article - thanks for sharing.StreetsOfOmaha wrote:This is a good article that explains a lot of what's happening in cities and suburbs. I'm not looking for the firing squad, it's just a good, informative read.
http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2011/Mar/McMahonStrip
"This is America. Â It is my God given right to be loudly opinionated on issues I am completely ignorant of."
-
- Parks & Recreation
- Posts: 1650
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:47 pm
- Location: In Suburbia Paradise
Did Streets claim the article was about ditching cars?S33 wrote:Yeah, good article. Something that everyone here has agreed upon since I can remember. I still don't see anything in that article about everyone ditching their cars, though.
"This is America. Â It is my God given right to be loudly opinionated on issues I am completely ignorant of."
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
Well, I'm glad you guys enjoyed the read!
I agree, E, about wanting to see the raw data.
TechDis, thanks for your comment(s). That is just another in the myriad examples of where, regardless of what I say, S33 paints me as an extremist and can't get past his one-track mind of retaliation and provocation.
I agree, E, about wanting to see the raw data.
TechDis, thanks for your comment(s). That is just another in the myriad examples of where, regardless of what I say, S33 paints me as an extremist and can't get past his one-track mind of retaliation and provocation.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
How dare I suspect his motives are similar to the other 5,000 articles he's posted...on the same subject.TechnicalDisaster wrote:Did Streets claim the article was about ditching cars?S33 wrote:Yeah, good article. Something that everyone here has agreed upon since I can remember. I still don't see anything in that article about everyone ditching their cars, though.
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
And anyway... really? With all that talk (supported by economic data, expert opinions, and retail trends) of popular demand for walkability and the obsolescence of auto-oriented and -dependent strip centers and single-use suburban developments, you didn't catch that fairly obvious subtext?S33 wrote:Yeah, good article. Something that everyone here has agreed upon since I can remember. I still don't see anything in that article about everyone ditching their cars, though.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
StreetsOfOmaha wrote:And anyway... really? With all that talk (supported by economic data, expert opinions, and retail trends) of popular demand for walkability and the obsolescence of auto-oriented and -dependent strip centers and single-use suburban developments, you didn't catch that fairly obvious subtext?S33 wrote:Yeah, good article. Something that everyone here has agreed upon since I can remember. I still don't see anything in that article about everyone ditching their cars, though.
Enlighten everyone, Streets. Tell everyone what the obvious subtext is. And feel free to not sugar coat it.
Big E, I don't expect any sort of standards from anyone, as we are all obviously quite different. I just expect that if someone is going to constantly push an agenda, create a platform for debate, they should leave it open as a two-way discussion rather than the typical "well you don't have a masters in urban planning, so you wouldn't get it..."Big E wrote:Didn't you just call me out seeing if I practiced what I preached?
Why do you expect anyone to respond to you with anything other than d-baggery? Hold yourself to your own standards.
I would love to contribute to his articles and have a meaningful discussion because, believe it or not, I have plenty I would like to comment on, but it always turns into the same |expletive| |expletive| - there's only one right answer: his.
Really? You tell me how in the |expletive| there is no gray area in car ownership or residential density. If there is really no gray area, I won't bother commenting.
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
Oh my god, S33. What are you even talking about anymore???
You've turned into the sole "extremist" on the forum these days -- you're an extreme "StreetsOfOmaha-hater".
You've turned into the sole "extremist" on the forum these days -- you're an extreme "StreetsOfOmaha-hater".
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
Linkin, cut me some slack. You don't even know me. To say I have a big ego and won't admit when I'm wrong is really laughable. I mean really, I'm not being pretentious! (again, the forum is really bull-|expletive| when it comes to effectively communicating emotion, inflection, tone, and sincerity).
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
- chaoman45
- Home Owners Association
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:43 pm
- Location: Omaha Metro Area
That applies to most of the internet, as well.StreetsOfOmaha wrote:the forum is really bull-|expletive| when it comes to effectively communicating emotion, inflection, tone, and sincerity.
Anyway, it's good to see that planners are moving away from the sprawl and excessive retail space. I assume when they reference "retail" that food service stores are included - those always seem to go belly-up before other places.
That's a cop-out. For centuries the written word was the only form of distance communication, and people could convey all sorts of emotions, tones, and sincerity doing so.StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Linkin, cut me some slack. You don't even know me. To say I have a big ego and won't admit when I'm wrong is really laughable. I mean really, I'm not being pretentious! (again, the forum is really bull-|expletive| when it comes to effectively communicating emotion, inflection, tone, and sincerity).
Just because it takes more effort to communicate via text rather than speech does not make it impossible to do so.
That implies one doesn't think much before speaking.OmahaBen wrote:That's a cop-out. For centuries the written word was the only form of distance communication, and people could convey all sorts of emotions, tones, and sincerity doing so.StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Linkin, cut me some slack. You don't even know me. To say I have a big ego and won't admit when I'm wrong is really laughable. I mean really, I'm not being pretentious! (again, the forum is really bull-|expletive| when it comes to effectively communicating emotion, inflection, tone, and sincerity).
Just because it takes more effort to communicate via text rather than speech does not make it impossible to do so.
While that is probably more true today than centuries ago, is doesn't make your analogy a good comparison. Â Technology may have increased the speed and forms of communication but it hasn't improved people's ability to communicate effectively, especially when it involves strangers conversing over the internet. Â What written word communication from centuries ago would you say is analogous to modern internet forums where sarcasm is oft banned?
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
Haha. Thanks for the history lesson.OmahaBen wrote:That's a cop-out. For centuries the written word was the only form of distance communication, and people could convey all sorts of emotions, tones, and sincerity doing so.StreetsOfOmaha wrote:Linkin, cut me some slack. You don't even know me. To say I have a big ego and won't admit when I'm wrong is really laughable. I mean really, I'm not being pretentious! (again, the forum is really bull-|expletive| when it comes to effectively communicating emotion, inflection, tone, and sincerity).
Just because it takes more effort to communicate via text rather than speech does not make it impossible to do so.
But you're leaving out half of the equation; In order for the emotion, tone, and inflection to be conveyed, there needs to be an active, engaged reader on the other end. I can spend all the time in the world (and have) composing a thoughtful, sincere post only to have thoughtless, one-liner, d-baggeries fired off in return, which often times leads to the elimination of an entire chunk of a thread (if not the entire thread). And then all that thoughtful composition was for naught.
So where's the incentive to spend any time creating concise arguments for discussion? Yet that's exactly the standard those who engage in the thoughtless d-baggery seem to demand of everyone but themselves.
It's a little like the old saying about a tree falling in the woods with nobody there to hear it. Did it still make a sound?
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
No. They're just basic, important aspects of communication that aren't conveyed through typed media--again, especially when you can't count on a literate, engaged reader on the other end.
Joeglow, the debate is always in season--there are no re-runs.
Joeglow, the debate is always in season--there are no re-runs.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
The more you type is the more you prove my point. You're right, my "always predictable" comments are unnecessary.StreetsOfOmaha wrote:No. They're just basic, important aspects of communication that aren't conveyed through typed media--again, especially when you can't count on a literate, engaged reader on the other end.
- Bosco55David
- Parks & Recreation
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
- Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)
Pretty much. Most people like you and me can convey those things through text quite well. I wonder why Streets is so incapable.S33 wrote:The more you type is the more you prove my point. You're right, my "always predictable" comments are unnecessary.StreetsOfOmaha wrote:No. They're just basic, important aspects of communication that aren't conveyed through typed media--again, especially when you can't count on a literate, engaged reader on the other end.
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
Oh can you? LOL. Word to the wise: I wouldn't align yourself with S33 in any way if you have any desire to be taken seriously.Bosco55David wrote:Pretty much. Most people like you and me can convey those things through text quite well. I wonder why Streets is so incapable.S33 wrote:The more you type is the more you prove my point. You're right, my "always predictable" comments are unnecessary.StreetsOfOmaha wrote:No. They're just basic, important aspects of communication that aren't conveyed through typed media--again, especially when you can't count on a literate, engaged reader on the other end.
"The right to have access to every building in the city by private motorcar in an age when everyone possesses such a vehicle is actually the right to destroy the city."
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
Lewis Mumford, The Highway and the City, 1963
- Bosco55David
- Parks & Recreation
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:25 am
- Location: Tampa, FL (formerly Omaha and Council Bluffs)
Streets, I've ignored your |expletive| for a good week (which is a record for me), why start with the bullsh*t now? I'm beginning to think it's the attention you need.StreetsOfOmaha wrote: Oh can you? LOL. Word to the wise: I wouldn't align yourself with S33 in any way if you have any desire to be taken seriously.
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm
-
- City Council
- Posts: 6864
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:46 pm