The Ember

[PhiAlpha]

Nah, we just grew up in a suburban community full of low density development, live next to a city with high density development, which is for many of us only about a 10-15 minute drive away, so we're not interested in all of the noise and light pollution, increased traffic congestion, etc. which comes along with more high density development. Growth is good if you're making a buck off of it, but for everyone else, it's not necessarily something we're interested in seeing. This particular development doesnt' concern me as it's likely that any owners of these sorts fo homes are going to be seniors, so there's not much chance the increased density is going to impact our schools.



I've read a lot of urban designers over the years. There is an inherent bias towards increased density, even "green" development. You pooh-pooh the idea of suburban homes sitting on acres and acres with manicured lawns as wasteful and even harmful. Public transit is of course high on your list of priorities. You say you know Edmond, and that you've apparently travelled the world, so can you tell me in what part of the world are folks who live in suburban communities with lots in excess of 1/4 acre riding public transit? And since there's no current rail infrastructure in east Edmond, I suppose you think it would be cost effective to build rail lines out where there are homes sitting on 5, 10, 20 acres, and the land is still largely undeveloped?

Not everyone wants urbanism or urban planners to tell them how to live or what sorts or properties they should be allowed to own.

Exactly. Keep pushing the urbanization (or reurbanization) of downtown Edmond and the surrounding area (including UCO) which will make commuter rail to OKC/norman more viable. Leave the rest of Edmond alone. Most people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs…if they want to live in an urban area within Edmond…they’ll have that option too. Everyone wins.

[Crocodile Tears]

Nah, we just grew up in a suburban community full of low density development, live next to a city with high density development, which is for many of us only about a 10-15 minute drive away, so we're not interested in all of the noise and light pollution, increased traffic congestion, etc. which comes along with more high density development. Growth is good if you're making a buck off of it, but for everyone else, it's not necessarily something we're interested in seeing. This particular development doesnt' concern me as it's likely that any owners of these sorts fo homes are going to be seniors, so there's not much chance the increased density is going to impact our schools.



I've read a lot of urban designers over the years. There is an inherent bias towards increased density, even "green" development. You pooh-pooh the idea of suburban homes sitting on acres and acres with manicured lawns as wasteful and even harmful. Public transit is of course high on your list of priorities. You say you know Edmond, and that you've apparently travelled the world, so can you tell me in what part of the world are folks who live in suburban communities with lots in excess of 1/4 acre riding public transit? And since there's no current rail infrastructure in east Edmond, I suppose you think it would be cost effective to build rail lines out where there are homes sitting on 5, 10, 20 acres, and the land is still largely undeveloped?

Not everyone wants urbanism or urban planners to tell them how to live or what sorts or properties they should be allowed to own.

Why is it that in the area of the the city that keeps throwing up multiple high density projects after another we never hear any complaints about the potential increased traffic congestion these projects will bring?

It is ironic that the people of Edmond oppose almost all new development in a futile attempt to avoid traffic congestion while it continues to get worse regardless of the opposition. Meanwhile the core experiences almost zero congestion while cheering on every inch of increased density. This is the real world consequences of poor planning and poor design.

Higher density simply does not cause increased traffic congestion.

[Crocodile Tears]

Exactly. Keep pushing the urbanization (or reurbanization) of downtown Edmond and the surrounding area (including UCO) which will make commuter rail to OKC/norman more viable. Leave the rest of Edmond alone. Most people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs…if they want to live in an urban area within Edmond…they’ll have that option too. Everyone wins.

This is spot on. This is exactly the way Edmond should move forward.

[Midtowner]

Why is it that in the area of the the city that keeps throwing up multiple high density projects after another we never hear any complaints about the potential increased traffic congestion these projects will bring?

Not having a traffic study in front of me, I'd say that particular area is well suited for high density projects because it has a more urban grid than any other part of Edmond. The roads are not on the section lines and pretty much all of the neighborhood roads run parallel and dump out on the arterial roads. That would be unlike other parts of town where everything is built only on the section lines.

And this little project is only a few houses, it's not a mid rise apartment complex. We're talking probably tens to less than tens of cars versus hundreds of new cars with other developments coming and going every day. That's going to contribute to congestion, light and sound pollution, etc.

And yeah, Edmond is a very poorly planned city. If we wanted to have an urban city througout, we'd have to go back about 50-60 years and make different choices. The die is cast now and it is likely always going to be a mostly suburban community no matter how many 'urban planners' want to tell us how wrong that choice is.

It is ironic that the people of Edmond oppose almost all new development in a futile attempt to avoid traffic congestion while it continues to get worse regardless of the opposition. Meanwhile the core experiences almost zero congestion while cheering on every inch of increased density. This is the real world consequences of poor planning and poor design.

Higher density simply does not cause increased traffic congestion.

I'm not sure there's anything ironic about it. The core of Edmond is a very different makeup versus Danforth and Santa Fe, for example. Eastern Edmond is also very different from Danforth and Santa Fe. There are all kinds of options in this community. Loads more than there were when I grew up and went to undergrad here, but we're probably not ever going to be, or at least not in my lifetime are we going to be a thriving urban metropolis connected by convenient public transit options. At least not now when I can hop in my personal car and be in downtown OKC in 15-20 minutes depending on traffic.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ I agree there

[Shortsyeararound]

Yeah all of us racists who grew up in Edmond with our racist families and friends who post on okctalk, yet are all somehow completely ignorant to the modern wonders of urban design, would never allow such a thing as light rail in our city despite the “fact” that it’s so obviously cost effective and feasible.

Please, O great urban design king, please use your infinite knowledge of Edmond and urbanism to show us the errors in our ways…we know not what we do.

…Who the hell is this guy?

I am confused by your post PhiAlpha- where did the racist thing come from?

[chssooner]

I am confused by your post PhiAlpha- where did the racist thing come from?

A post earlier on was deleted (rightfully so) that equated NIMBYISM to racism.

[Shortsyeararound]

A post earlier on was deleted (rightfully so) that equated NIMBYISM to racism.

Ah- gotcha, thanks. I was lost much like his analogy.

[TheTravellers]

A post earlier on was deleted (rightfully so) that equated NIMBYISM to racism.

And Edmond used to be a "sundown" town.

[Bowser214]

I think every town used to be a sundown town especially in the south.

[jerrywall]

I think every town used to be a sundown town especially in the south.

But not every town had a KKK chapter, or a Chamber that promoted/advertised the town as being all white. I don't believe (or at least I've never found any documentation) that there was ever an official ordinance but in every way that matters Edmond was a strong sundown town.

I will also say though - this was largely, to my understanding, the case in the 1920s-1940s (although it's effects certainly lingered). Eventually, in the 1970's Edmond's demographics began to change. We're not the great American melting pot yet, but the city is thankfully a lot different than it was 50 years ago, and even 20 years ago.

It would probably help with the perception if every public discussion of affordable housing wasn't met with complaints equating low income and urban populations to crime.

[chssooner]

What a turn this thread has taken....

[Rover]

A post earlier on was deleted (rightfully so) that equated NIMBYISM to racism.

NIMBYISM is agnostic to race. People don’t want things around them for many reasons totally unrelated to race.

However, as regards Edmond, its big growth was spurred by white flight. Because OKC initiated bussing, Edmond school districts became popular as a way for many to avoid having their kids going to school with less privileged children. Many around here didn’t want their kids in forced integrated schools in OKC district.