[nndl] traffic and density

• interesting artwork/ architectural features


• landscape features  (is this correct?) which could include flowers, bushes-  how often I've seen people slow down to look at James n Maggie's flowers on Avenue G


• parking in the street  (not great but it does slow traffic as they navigate)

From: Sebastian Wren < [at] >
Subject: [nndl] Re: [NNADL] traffic and density
To: [at]
Cc: [at]
Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 7:44 AM -
To respond privately, use the "Reply" command.
To post to the list "Forward" to [at]
-Dear Mary, Martin and others,

Thank you for continuing this conversation.  I think it is important, and I think Martin has brought up some issues germane to the traffic calming conversation that is also going on.

The biggest obstacle to traffic calming initiatives is money -- the city has none.  In fact they are in debt.  So every time we ask for some traffic calming devices, we are given the polite run-around.  If we could generate our own funds (as some more affluent neighborhoods do) to help pay for the traffic-calming, we would be much more likely to see results quickly.

Martin brought up parking districts and neighborhood initiatives that actually generate
funds for the neighborhood.  There is a great deal of precedent for this, and it is a possibility that can accompany more dense development.  With new developments along Lamar, Koenig, and Airport, the neighborhood can negotiate things like parking districts, parking meters, park-dedication fees, and land-trades.  The funds and fees associated with that can create more green space, traffic calming devices, and more pedestrian-friendly modifications to our roads.

The ideal is to create pedestrian-friendly, dense developments along arterial roads (Lamar, Koenig, and Airport), and leverage that development to create improvements in the more residential streets in the heart of the neighborhood.

Mary brought up concerns that people moving here are not as involved in the community and are not as interested in getting to know their neighbors as other more "long-term" residents.  I don't know what can be done about this trend,
but I know that it is a universal trend experienced in ALL neighborhoods.  It is most troubling.

In suburban communities, where most people are owner-occupants, there seems to be a growing problem of community dis-interest.  People drive directly into their garage, enter their home through the garage entrance, and rarely go out and socialize with their neighbors.  Television, air conditioning, and a general mistrust of people have led to a world where people do not want to get involved and do not feel the need to meet their neighbors.

We have encountered many anecdotes of parents in suburban communities restricting the movements of their own children -- keeping them from walking to the park, walking to school, and exploring their environment -- out of fear and paranoia.  This is leading to childhood obesity, asthma, and rampant xenophobia.

If this is happening in the suburbs, it is happening just about everywhere
-- Americans are less social and less involved now than our parents and grandparents before us.

Curiously, people moving into more dense developments seem to get to know their neighbors a little better than people moving into more traditional homes buffered from neighbors by yards.  Proximity and opportunity for interaction help people who may be inclined to be somewhat "hermitic" (if that's a word) to, at least, get to know their immediate neighbors a little better.

If you walk around our neighborhood, one "community" that clearly works very well are the apartments at 53rd and Evans.  The doors are usually open, the children are always playing outside, the adults are often outside socializing and cooking and eating.  The people in that apartment complex may not be very involved with the rest of the neighborhood, but they are clearly involved in their own community.

I will also say that my next-door neighbor is not an
owner-occupant, and I know her quite well -- she and I look out for each other and chat all the time.  Most of my other neighbors are owner-occupants, and I don't know them at all.

I don't think we can control who moves into our neighborhood, nor do I really want to.  I think diversity is almost always good -- I like a neighborhood that is a mix of races, ages, incomes, etc.  I like housing options that are a mix of large, small, apartment, condo, etc.

The challenge is to encourage that density and diversity in a healthy way.  I don't think the Super-Two Stealth-Dorms are healthy.  A few of those would be fine (again, I like diversity), but we have too many.  I don't think the small apartment complex with a huge parking lot is healthy.  I don't think that the strip-center complex with acres of surface parking is healthy.  And I really don't think a sea of car lots and junk yards is healthy. 
That is what we have now, and we have that because we have never really pushed for anything better.

I think we need to unite in a vision of a healthier neighborhood -- when we unite and say, "Yes we support this development, IF YOU MEET SOME OF OUR DEMANDS..." then we are much more likely to get what we want.

If we just say "No," well... we don't get a voice.  The development happens anyway, but we don't have a voice in it.

I mean, does anybody even know what is happening at the old Parker Beauty Supply?

Cheers.___________________________________
Sebastian Wren, Ph.D.
http://www.BalancedReading.com

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
    Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
          ~ Groucho
Marx------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in messages are solely that of the author
and not of the list administrators nor Druma Inc (sponsor 14gram.com).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe & "howto" info, send a blank email to [at]
-