(Photo nymag.com)How saturated do we want, can we as a city control, should we control, Richardson to be?
How packed, densely used, and tall, will Richardson likely be and how do we want Richardson to be?
There is already an idea in mind based on existing development rights and population and extrapolated growth, but often times developers ask for higher allowances on density and it is granted much of the time, offset to a fair degree by those not building to maximum permitted or identified density plans for the city.
"Control" is a combination of influences. In the future, when areas are redeveloped, torn down, additional density development rights will be sought if they are not already in place where desired. As a suburban city, Richardson is relatively low density, flat. Securing additional density allowance happens in a fashion that is determined largely by who is ready and wanting to do a certain project on a certain property. Development rights and guidelines are used, and altered to fit what is thought best. Development is sometimes brought maticulously, adhering to the comprehensive planning guide and code, and sometimes it involves quite a substantial amount of deviation from these, some very quickly crafted. It is usually somewhere in the middle.
Current daytime and nighttime population are about 150,000 and 100,000 for Richardson.
One question is, do we have to keep growing and growing in density (population/traffic/structure, etc.) in order to sustain, or do we just prefer living in a more densely filled environment? What is the economies of scale of density?Take NYC as a geopolitical entity, is it too dense overall or could it be more so? To be optimal, in your opinion? This ignores the crumbling above and below ground infrastructure, which needs funding, repair and replacement, for example. Does this suggest it needs more or does it need less people there to sustain it better? What about Dallas? Richardson?
Sometimes people want the population to increase in order to improve economies of scale. But is that perpetuating just more density and need for more people to come to a certain geopolitical area to support it?
How much people pay in taxes and "quality of life" come into play with this idea of optimal sustainability. So do subsidies given to cause development to happen, density to increase. So does management. Business loves the population to swell; more customers. It seems government does too; a larger base and more offerings for citizens requesting them. Do some governments manage this better than others?
(photo is of Tokyo)
Population growth spurs on the need to grow and grow and the interest rate monster does too. What are the limitation, the "wall" where we can't sustain, in relative peace (and comfort?), even with the aid of technology?
What is the size of your ideal town or immediate "live work play" environment? How does it feel?The planet's population is over 6.8 billion now (USA, 309M). (We haven't found or made another planet inhabitable). Go forth and multiply and seek new frontiers...
(photo: Tokyo metropolis has many monorails and other kinds of transportation, photocarsonline.com)
(photo: East Texas, Caddo Lake, Uncertain TX; Michael Stravato for The New York Times)
(it's east Texas week on the blog).
A few pictures of Richardson...(City of Richardson aerial photo of Main Street in Richardson, Texas, late 1950s. This was scanned from the Richardson Public Library local history archives, courtesy of the Richardson Historical and Genealogical Society.)
(Photo, Main Street /Belt Line in Richardson, Texas; heading east from Central Expressway towards Greenville Avenue. Photographed 14 January 2006 by Nathan Beach.
(Photo, Main Street /Belt Line in Richardson, Texas; heading east from Central Expressway towards Greenville Avenue. Photographed 14 January 2006 by Nathan Beach.
(Photo, Richardson, TX. Nortel Building, By GiangLe, Mar 2010 )
(Brick Row development, stock depiction, 2010 apartment listing, caption: "1 to 2 bedroom apartments, $773 to $1527")
