Density, revisited. Third, (Blogging from Richardson, Texas)

discuss the claim that a compact city form will contribute to urban sustainability, link.

and,

how urban density intensifies traffic congestion (and area pollution), link pdf.



Technology will help the surburban dream sustain, in my opinion, if that is what many of us want, and not turning surburbia into "city," which seems to be the "driving vision" (that and justifying an exhorbitantly costly train dream).

I like my surbuban [suburban] life. If I wanted to live in a much more dense place I would have moved directly into the big city. I like my multi car garage, private parking, large well insulated single family home, productive garden, quiet neighbors, favorite haunts down the road, schools, short or no waiting lines most everywhere local. I don't want to live in a cracker box or next to any of these apartments that are four or seven times or ten or more times the population of the adjacent neighborhood.

People all over the world want the dreams available in suburbia and that includes (it should not exclude) the wife, the 1.8 (or more) kids, the dog (or monkey) and the two car garage in suburbia. And the willingness to work to get it, and more.

Don't judge me. And don't rob me and other suburbanites of the dream by changing it all to your high density dream (which is not all you are cracking it up to be, other than the money in the players' pockets thing, that part is accurate).

-Maggie May USA

A question of why wouldn't we consider the question of tax abatements upon employment base, tax base, congestion, and inconvenience? (Richardson, TX)

Dallas News reporter and blogger Ian McCann wrote today in the Richardson Blog, "Leaving out the question of tax abatements, tell us: Is building the employment base (and therefore the tax base) in Richardson worth the congestion and inconvenience that comes with it?"

His comments and question and those he points to in the Transportation Blog where editorialist Rodger Jones asks: What will the Texas Instruments plant do to traffic on Renner Road and Central Expressway? are ones I recommend reading and considering. Rodger's epic DARTMAN quest for a safe crossing (sidewalk) to service the PGBT Station unfortunately, fortunately continues.

The first, but not the only, main comment I make here to both the postings are, any answer leaving out a key component, the tax (and water) abatement policy, upon the tax base, employment base, congestion and inconvenience factors would not be a very meaningful answer. The abatements and arrangements regarding our tax and employement base are central in the first question of worth. (Most people will say, yes, to have jobs, we will put up with a lot, because we feel we have no serviceable choice. Do we know how much it fully costs, what the options are other than this vs. complete failure? Why the congestion and inconveniences are not or cannot be mitigated?) The second question and discussion regards TI, the City of Richardson (Collin County), and the sidewalk (not) connecting TI to the PGBT DART station, the underutilization of DART, the congestion, and inconvenience; the funding of, or lack of funding of the sidewalk. Why isn't it funded?

It is very appropriate that one of the posts is in the Transportation Blog. Is there a Water Policy And Development Blog? (Abatements in the case of TI included water abatement and use, and the implications that go with it. TI is Dallas' topmost water user.) Please see below previous blog postings that are on these topics.