A monday thought about houses etc

[moonfroggy]

my community can't grow. there is not enough water for it to grow and so people move away to other communities. unless the water treatment here changes it will not grow and most people who live here don't want it to grow people here want the forest, lagoon all the wildlife to have it's space. i want to own a house and since they are so expensive in my community i plan to move to a different one but i will be nearby and will be able to ride my bike here and that will be nice.

it is a bit sad that people who have grown up here can't afford to stay here and have to leave but that the wildlife gets to stay wild seems worth it.

the population here is around 2000

[Crankin]

There really isn't any room for growth here. I live in a town of about 25,000 that does have 2 town centers. I live just a bit too far to walk there quickly (just under 4 miles), but it is perfect for a bike trip/errands. We have lots of protected conservation land and people generally go nuts and protest any new growth or change.
What bugs me is they are protesting even some of the "smart" growth ideas that CC mentioned, such as smaller homes/townhomes in closer proximity to each other. These are people who are supposedly into "the environment," but they really want to keep their suburban-semi rural environment the way it is. Since moving to MA, we have lived in 2 other towns that were decidedly more rural. Neither had a town center and it was 6-7 miles to a grocery store. The first town did have shopping on the edge of town, that bordered a large mall/shopping area in Nashua, NH. It brought a lot of $ into the town from taxes, but caused congestion.
Generally, towns here that have some type of central shopping area and might be bikeable/walkable are expensive and don't have a variety of housing. And I agree with Deb. Bike commuting was awesome for me when it was 6.7 miles. When it became 13.5 miles, I did it, but it was less enjoyable and required more planning. I am hoping to find a commutable job when I graduate in 2011, but it is not going to be the deciding factor.

[tc1]

I'm in Seattle, where squabbling about density is a pastime enjoyed by people of all political persuasions.

Basically, the urbanites want more density in town, which is good. But they fight against any kind of infrastructure to support that density tooth and nail.

The Vulcan/Lake Union redevelopment is a perfect example of the Seattle schizophrenia. The developer offered twice to turn it into a Central Park kinda thing, if the city would also put up some money. So the city put it to a vote, twice, and it failed, twice. So now it is being heavily developed with biotech, and we are all complaining about the development.

The local alternative paper actually gave grant money to an obstructionist !@$%^&* that doesn't want a major through highway rebuilt, because it is in her neighborhood, even though the highway was there decades before she was. And she is publicly admired! !@#$$ oughta be in jail.

20 years from now, I hope the sensible people rule, and we keep the main arterials, and add some more light rail to them, and get an east/west bike route from North Seattle to Ballard that isn't the Burke-Gilman trail. That is the main problem with our suburbs, they aren't served by rail yet.