Hi George, You have some good points about the inefficiency of sprawl, and I think we should take those points seriously for any new developments. But as far as destroying existing homes goes, I have some questions:
You wrote,"Imagine all the homes sprawled up West Hill, East Hill South Hill, and Snyder Hill, all of the Village of Cayuga Heights and Village of Lansing and all of the Big-Box development along Meadow street and Elmira Road replaced by farms, forest and meadow." So I did imagine this. But then some major obtacles appeared when I thought about how to carry out this vision, given our current economic system. People won't simply abandon their mortgaged homes. They're going to sell them to other people. Those neighborhoods would then be inhabited by the new buyers (many of whom would probably be fleeing big flooded coastal cities). Even if, at some point in the future, the government mandated evacuation of the suburbs, and somehow paid people to abandon their suburban homes and move into Ithaca townhouses, wouldn't it require lots of energy, and cause lots of waste, to destroy all those existing homes and roads? And how economically feasible is that assumed mandate anyway? I think it's more realistic to accept what has developed so far, but to try to transform it instead of destroying it. Some solutions (with which I'm sure you're familiar) include creating more bike lanes and Park 'n Rides, extending public transportation (buses, light rail), and promoting more backyard food production and renewable energy systems through education and outreach. It would have been wonderful if our county had developed the way your describe. But it didn't. Insisting on something unrealistic doesn't move us forward, and can even reduce the impact of your argument. Or can you explain realistically how your vision of surburban destruction would be carried out, in practical terms? I do agree with your model of townhouses and density for Ithaca proper, as the population increases. But I am questioning your vision of destroying the surrounding neighborhoods because you don't explain how that could happen. A home is an American's primary financial investment. If you are unable to resolve these questions, then the 'destruction aspect' of your vision will remain pure theory and will not be embraced. Jan Quarles ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Frantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Sustainable Tompkins County listserv" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 2:45 PM Subject: Re: [SustainableTompkins] Density, continued > Marlo, > > I just read your e-mail about your new carriage house. > > Congratulations! By adding a second dwelling in the manner that you are > doing, you are doubling the density of your lot! In a neighborhood such as > the Northside, with an existing residential density of about 9 dwellings per > acre, it would not take much more to reach that magic 12-15 dwellings per > acre threshold. > > This is one of the many, many ways in whch we can densify our cities and > avoid the Orwellian/1984/Frantzville (yes, F-R-A-N-T-as-in-Tea, Z) nightmare > scenarios I've apparently triggered in the minds of some of the list serve > members. (No apologies, by the way, to all I've traumatized.) > > It's an example of the evolution, not revolution, that I mentioned in my > earlier e-mail. > > Another example here in Ithaca is the new two-family townhouse on Lincoln > St. between Aurora and Lake. It has two very light and airy 1,750 sq-ft, 3 > bedroom, 2.5 bath dwellings each with a one-car garage. It's a townhouse, > just rotated 90 degress and featuring a roof-top deck off the 3rd floor > master bedroom suite. It is also the equivalent of 18 dwelling units per > acre. > > Then there is the Fairview Heights Apartments, inconspicuously located at > the corner of Dryden, Ithaca, Cornell and Maple Avenue above Collegetown. It > features 140 units in a garden-like setting that includes a combination of > 2-story townhouse units 7-story mid-rise building that nobody seems to even > notice. At 28 unites per acre is is probably the densest area of Ithaca > outside Collegetown, and not cheap housing either. It may not be everybody's > cup of tea, but it is an example of attractive urban living that would likley > better serve the living needs of young professionals and older empty-nesters > than a McMansion in the suburbs or psuedo-homestead in the country would. > > There are a number of other urban design concepts, such as those used at > Sunnyside, Radburn and the Greenbelt cities. These include arranging the > homes around a jointly owned interior lawn or greensward and orienting their > interior spaces inward. Children thus have a safe place to play, off the > street and within sight of many community eyes. > > There can be a variety of tenure arrangements in addition to the traditional > fee-simple/home mortgage or rental options: housing cooperative, > condominium, co-housing, elder cottage or life-rights, for example. > > By all means rest assured that a compact Ithaca covering just 3 square miles > instead of 11 square miles would definitely NOT limit access to rural areas. > In fact it would do the exact opposite. > > Density would draw the countryside into the city. Instead of a 1 to 3 mile > wide belt of suburban wasteland surrounding Ithaca, the countryside could > start at the base of West Hill, just beyond Six Mile Creek to the south, just > beyond College Avenue on East Hill and at the north edge of Fall Creek gorge. > Imagine all the homes sprawled up West Hill, East Hill South Hill, and > Snyder Hill, all of the Village of Cayuga Heights and Village of Lansing and > all of the Big-Box development along Meadow street and Elmira Road replaced > by farms, forest and meadow. > > All the city parkland that exists now would still exist, except that > outlying parks like McDaniels, Bryant, Strawberry Fields and others would be > integrated into a tight system within a five-minute walking distance of all > residents. Stewart Park and Cass Park are not disappearing either. > > Not only will there be fields to walk alone with the moon in, you won't have > to get in the car to drive to them. And without the two hundred plus miles > of streets and roads needed to support the suburban wastelands, and without > the need for huge shopping center parking lots lit to prison yard > intensities, thousands of streetlights and parking lot lights can disappear > and with them a major source of light pollution. We will be able to see the > stars again from our downtown homes. > > Nor will life be nearly as boring as feared. Actually anybody who lives > knows life is far from boring. Actually the primary catalyst for the past 50 > to 100 years of White Flight to the suburbs and now the countryside is that > the diversity of race and class within the city is just too damn unnerving to > the average white middle class American. > > As for me, my 140-year old, 1,200 square foot cottage on my 4,500 square > foot lot keeps me well occupied. Of course the lawn only takes 20 minutes to > mow if I take my time, so I lose out of the hours and hours of recreational > mowing my suburban and rural friends enjoy, and I can't pump nearly as much > greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere with a reel mower either. But I have > lots of trees, flowers and shrubs, and a stone retaining wall to finish. > > There are also things like taking my turn to mow my neighbor's lawn (free) > for her, because we all know that she had to move away temporarily to care > for her mother, and take my turn shoveling a couple of elderly neighhbors' > sidewalks, because we all know they can't do it and can't afford to hire > somebody to do it. Cass Park is a five minute walk down the public footpath > from Cliff Street. > > There never really is a dull moment, and I don't even have to resort to TV > to fill the time. > > Then there is that $1,400 per month my wife and I save because we don't have > to drive to work. > > There are a thousand different way in which we can let our cities evolve > into more compact, and more environmentally, economically and socially > sustainable communities in the coming decades. It will just take imagination > and creativity, an open mind, and a critical questioning of the fears, > prejudices and attitudes we carry, toward both the environment and our fellow > human beings. > > By moving back and densifying our cities, however, we will not only be able > to move toward a more sustainable society, people might start asking > themselves how they could have been so stupid as to not to embrace the > concept earlier. > > George Frantz >> _______________________________________________ For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
