[Contrarian]

A bit more upbeat than Thundertubs (but I liked his too).

http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/skyline3.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/skyline6.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pig15.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pig14.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street12.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street11.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/skyline7.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street13.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/elk1.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street10.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/falls1.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street9.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/skyline5.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/skyline8.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street8.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rfp5.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rfp2.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street7.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street6.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/skyline4.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street5.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/river1.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/river2.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street4.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street3.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street2.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/river3.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/river5.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street15.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street17.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/river6.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street16.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/river4.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street18.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/street151.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/wallst.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/river7.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/rfp3.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/sunset1a.jpg

Moore-Turner Gardens:
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mt3.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mt4.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mt5.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mt6.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mt7.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mt10.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mt9.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mt2.jpg

Some HoopFest (annual 3-on-3 basketball tournament):
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/hoop3.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/hoop4.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/hoop6.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/hoop7.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/hoop8.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/hoop9a.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/hoop5.jpg

Some "Pig Out in the Park" (annual outdoor food fair):
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pig.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pig1.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pig2.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pig3.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pig5.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pig12.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pig6.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pig8.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pig11.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pig13.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pig16.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pig18.jpg


This 'n That:

http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/westmin1.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/uclifff1.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ucliff2.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pioneer3.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pioneer2.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pioneer4.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/patsy1.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/lobby1.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/corbin2.jpg
http://www.freespokane.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/riverpt1.jpg

[downtownpdx]

Nice pics of a pretty city! Thanks for sharing

[SpongeG]

nice pix

hows the apple store? still photographic evidence of it...

[James Bond Agent 007]

Great shots.

[ghost22]

Impressive Contrarian. One spot I haven't seen is the small alley with the two trees growing in it. Where is that at exactly?

[Contrarian]

ghost,

400 block W First

[whovean]

really nice photos, downtown spokane is nice but its to bad the rest of the city is left behind in slums.
poor street grids lead to slow backed up trafic
police whom set on there hands
and a really bad drug problem
really 2 bad becouse of what spokane could be :shrug:

[mhays]

Nice pictures. Lots to like about Spokane.

[mSeattle]

Very nice. Spokane is a gem. One of these days I'll get over there for some picture taking.

[stepper77]

Wow, for all the negative things I've heard of Spokane, you have certainly shown it in a new light. I love the gushing river through downtown. Great photos, thanks!

[mrnyc]

looks nice enough to me. another place that seems to go for streetlife and infill over towers and good for spokane!

[chepe]

Nice set, probably the best of Spokane I've seen on here. Amazing how much of a contrast it is with the other recent Spokane post.

[Metro-One]

Very nice pics, I need to get to Spokane one of these days. Thanks for sharing.

[InlandEmpire]

Awesome post! Giving Spokane some respect here.....

[bgriff4]

I would love to see those great pics of the downtown skyline with renderings of the VOX, and other proposed buildings (condos, etc) placed in. I think seeing it would be really cool. It would be a glimpse of what the future may hold for Spokane. I've tried to find these kind of renderings and they're just not out there. Does anyone have the skill/technology to create some of these pics?

[grayproduct]

really nice photos, downtown spokane is nice but its to bad the rest of the city is left behind in slums.
poor street grids lead to slow backed up trafic
police whom set on there hands
and a really bad drug problem
really 2 bad becouse of what spokane could be :shrug:

Are you sure you aren't confusing Spokane with your current city Springfield? I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Great photos!

[urbanlife]

Some great shots of the city, I always enjoy my visits there and have seen the city change so much in the past 10 years, it is really amazing to see how much progress has happened there with all the building renovations and new food places. Obviously downtown and Spokane has a long way to go, but it is definitely moving in the right direction.


Though to defend Spokane a little bit, poor street grid? It is a fairly easy and small city to navigate through, much of its traffic problems come from poorly timed lights, slow speed limits throughout the city, and a highway infrastructure that hasn't changed since 1950...though I personally would rather see the city invest in rail than a bigger highway system.

[Contrarian]

. . . though I personally would rather see the city invest in rail than a bigger highway system.

That's exactly what Spokane does not need, Urban --- more taxes to support more planners' boondoggles. Urban rail systems are losers in every city in which they operate, except San Francisco --- that's using a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis that considers "social benefits."

http://reason.org/news/show/122841.html#feature3

Spokane needs to make itself an attractive place to do business. You can't do that by imposing taxes to support shiny rail systems which stir planners' hearts, but which almost no one uses. (Portland's transit system carried 2.1% of motorized traffic in 1985, before the first light rail line was built, and still carried 2.1% in 2007).

[urbanlife]

That's exactly what Spokane does not need, Urban --- more taxes to support more planners' boondoggles. Urban rail systems are losers in every city in which they operate, except San Francisco --- that's using a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis that considers "social benefits."

http://reason.org/news/show/122841.html#feature3

Spokane needs to make itself an attractive place to do business. You can't do that by imposing taxes to support shiny rail systems which stir planners' hearts, but which almost no one uses. (Portland's transit system carried 2.1% of motorized traffic in 1985, before the first light rail line was built, and still carried 2.1% in 2007).

And I would dare say this is the reason why we will probably never see Spokane become a major city is because it has too many people that are holding it back...oh and thanks for the Libertarian think tank link...which I highly doubt a site like that is going to give any hard evidence to debunk any of their own theories.

You should probably pay close attention who funds garbage information like that...
Reason Foundation - SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation) It is important not to trust everything we read on the internet without doing proper fact checks first.

[Contrarian]

. . . I highly doubt a site like that is going to give any hard evidence to debunk any of their own theories.

If you have some actual "hard evidence" to the contrary, I'd love to see it. I've looked at this issue in some depth. Here are a couple of links:

http://www.freespokane.net/?p=90

http://www.freespokane.net/?p=58

[mSeattle]

Screw rail and welfare for big business. Spokane needs FUNK.

[whovean]

Are you sure you aren't confusing Spokane with your current city Springfield? I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Great photos!

nope i would never compare Springfield to the likes of Spokane.
springfield has better roads, heck it has 3 freeways, less crime, and southern hospitality. no comparison.

i will be honest there is no hiding it i hate Spokane, the 4 years i lived there was a living hell and people need to be warned!!!

[urbanlife]

If you have some actual "hard evidence" to the contrary, I'd love to see it. I've looked at this issue in some depth. Here are a couple of links:

http://www.freespokane.net/?p=90

http://www.freespokane.net/?p=58

Honestly, I really don't care about what kind of evidence you have to support your case, and I am sure you don't care what I would present you with. At the end of a long, pointless forum argument neither of us will change each others opinion and the reality is that it isn't even that important to try and change either one's opinion anyway. You have your reasons for the way you feel about things and I have mine.

My actual issue was with you giving me a link that was funded by the airline industry, the auto industry, and the gas and oil industry. Everything they are going to say is going to be only good things about their own industry and companies like that should never really be trusted because lets be honest, they only care about themselves not about you.

So the lesson to be learned is that you should always check where your information is coming from and who is funding that information to prevent making yourself sound like a puppet of special interest groups.


Screw rail and welfare for big business. Spokane needs FUNK.

Actually Spokane is already beginning to answer this one. I was up there for First Friday at the beginning of October and was shocked by the turn out to many of the art galleries, including the big art show at the end. My biggest surprise was the amount of people from 18-30 that were at this and how well the nightlife scene there has evolved over the past 5 years.

Funny thing about this recession that we are in is that it might actually be a good recession for Spokane in the way of culture. It was very common for kids to move out of Spokane after high school, go to college somewhere else that they felt was more fun, then maybe end up moving back to Spokane when it came time to start a family, thus meaning Spokane was missing out on that culture that people in their 20s tend to create for a city. Now it doesn't make sense for high school grads to move to more fun cities like Portland when Portland is suffering from such high unemployment, so therefore I have seen a solid foundation for a quality youth culture really starting to take off in Spokane. Five years from now, we could easily be talking about Spokane's underrated youth culture.


nope i would never compare Springfield to the likes of Spokane.
springfield has better roads, heck it has 3 freeways, less crime, and southern hospitality. no comparison.

i will be honest there is no hiding it i hate Spokane, the 4 years i lived there was a living hell and people need to be warned!!!

Gotcha, you hate Spokane....well like any city, Spokane might not be the right city for everyone, as it was clearly not the right city for you. Though I will say, the Spokane you lived in has gone through some serious evolving that I am sure you are probably unaware of or probably don't really care about to begin with, which is fine.

I am not going to bait this any or do any stupid bashing of Springfield because you don't like Spokane...honestly I know nothing about Springfield other than every state has one.

But this whole warning people of Spokane should be clarified to say you hated Spokane, so it might be wise for someone thinking of moving there to really visit the city for a period of time to see if it is the right city for them....but again, one could say that about any city. I have known a number of people who hated Portland...but for me, I have found it to be the perfect city for myself.

[Contrarian]

Urbanlife wrote,

My actual issue was with you giving me a link that was funded by the airline industry, the auto industry, and the gas and oil industry.

Well, the industries you cite are at least as trustworthy sources as "greenie" advocacy groups, transit bureaucracies, and transit unions.

But that is what is called an ad hominem argument. I.e., it attacks some characteristic of the source, rather than examine the truth or falsity of what is said. What matters are the data. But you said you aren't interested in that.

Good response to whovean, BTW. :-)

[urbanlife]

Urbanlife wrote,



Well, the industries you cite are at least as trustworthy sources as "greenie" advocacy groups, transit bureaucracies, and transit unions.

But that is what is called an ad hominem argument. I.e., it attacks some characteristic of the source, rather than examine the truth or falsity of what is said. What matters are the data. But you said you aren't interested in that.

Good response to whovean, BTW. :-)

It's not that I am not interested in that, I just see no point in arguing about it here because you are going to believe what it is that you want to believe, and I am going to continue the same...nothing either of us say is going to change the other person's opinion.

Actually if I were going to site anything it would be information from ODOT or sources similar to that, which would be simply doing data collections without and data opinion...but you are right, almost all information is being put up with an agenda in mind.


But I would ask you this, if Spokane were to go about trying to relieve any other traffic issues now or in the future, how would you suggest they go about it? My advocation for rail goes far beyond the number of people that use it. From what I have seen is that it better promotes denser, more walkable communities near stations as well as downtown which promotes people getting to where they are going by bike or foot rather than by train, bus, or car....and really the more important issue is to take people out of all three of those things. How much money do you waste each year with a car and living a good distance from work? (and I am not saying you personally, I am saying in general with people.)

I grew up in a city that was all about the car, the car was the only way to go. My daily commute to work took 30-45 minutes everyday without major traffic jams. Now my commute is a 7 minute bike ride in a city that is much easier to use bikes, walking, transit, or car. My old city I would of been run down by a car on my dangerous bike ride to work if I were ever too stupid to do something like that.

So if you aren't in the corner of rail and alternative forms of transportation, I am to assume that you believe the car is the only form of travel we should be using, then my question is, where should Spokane run its new interstates to help with traffic? The North South Expressway that the region wants to build will have almost zero impact on traffic alleviation in the rest of the city because it will be just for getting semi trucks off of Division. Spokane would need a proper highway that runs up through the actual city, as well as some form of beltway to allow better access to the north and south areas to the Valley. Which neighborhoods would you want to see these highways cut through?

There is a reason why SF looks the way it does, they didn't cut a highway through the city so people living in the Sunset neighborhood can get to downtown, they put in a rail line which did much less damage to its surroundings.

Also, where has adding more highways been good for a city? Has all the additional highways been good for Seattle? Would NYC still feel the same if they did all the cross island highways that were projected? Would Portland be the same city it is today if many of their inner neighborhoods were cut in half by proposed highways?

All I am saying is that cars and highways are not the only answers for a city and are often times some of the most expensive choices in initial cost and social damages that they cause. So there must be more than one option for a city and I think it is important for cities like Spokane to look at those options carefully and to better understand such challenges that an evolving city has to face because there is no one size fits all answer for any city out there.

[InlandEmpire]

I totally appreciate what you're saying urbanlife, but Spokane....well...any city in the 600k population range....doesn't really need rail. An efficient bus system would be great, but honestly, there is no traffic problem in Spokane. If there is traffic on I90,Division, or Sprague, a commuter may get delayed by a few minutes, but the volume is not what it is in larger cities. SLC has been highly successful with its light rail, but then again the Wasatch Front has a population nearing that of the Portland metro. Much larger than either Spokane or Boise. At least Spokane and CDA have bus services. The STA had a light rail proposal alive a few years ago, but has since died. I love light rail, but its not for everyone. It would not reverse I90 running through downtown or the NW freeway. Its just not realisitic.

[Contrarian]

Urbanlife,

Actually if I were going to site anything it would be information from ODOT or sources similar to that . . .

Most of the data O'Toole cited is from DOT sources. Some, such as the commuter transit use survey, was from local sources. That the data can be found on a web site doesn't make the site the source.

But I would ask you this, if Spokane were to go about trying to relieve any other traffic issues now or in the future, how would you suggest they go about it?

First, by doing a use survey. For bicycle lanes, for example, you count cycle riders on streets which are most heavily traveled by those users. If their fraction of all users justifies a dedicated lane for them, and would not displace more users than it accommodates, then you build it. Similarly with transit --- if the load factor for a route approaches saturation, assuming those users are paying the cost of their mode in its entirety, then you increase frequency or add parallel routes. In short, you allow actual demand to dictate supply.

My advocation for rail goes far beyond the number of people that use it. From what I have seen is that it better promotes denser, more walkable communities near stations as well as downtown which promotes people getting to where they are going by bike or foot rather than by train, bus, or car....and really the more important issue is to take people out of all three of those things.

I'm sure this is the heart of the disagreement. I don't believe planners and politicians should be "promoting" any particular transportation mode. They should be responding to the modes preferred by users, as demonstrated by their actual use. They don't need pols to do their thinking for them, or bureaucrats to inflict upon them whatever Utopian fantasy is currently trendy in planning schools. All those folks are public servants, not the public's masters, parents, gurus, or spiritual guides.

How much money do you waste each year with a car and living a good distance from work? (and I am not saying you personally, I am saying in general with people.)

Virtually none. People live where they do and pay what they do for transportation because the net benefits of those choices are positive for them. The planners assume auto travel is "inefficient" because they substitute their own abstract, collectivized goals for the highly individualized goals of actual users. Money spent on auto travel is not "wasted" if it best serves those latter goals. The planners' goals are irrelevant. (More on this here: http://www.freespokane.net/?p=58).

So if you aren't in the corner of rail and alternative forms of transportation, I am to assume that you believe the car is the only form of travel we should be using, then my question is, where should Spokane run its new interstates to help with traffic?

Not at all. If a demand for other modes manifests itself, the public rights-of-way should be configured accordingly. And if new freeways are needed you build them where they are needed.

[urbanlife]

I totally appreciate what you're saying urbanlife, but Spokane....well...any city in the 600k population range....doesn't really need rail. An efficient bus system would be great, but honestly, there is no traffic problem in Spokane. If there is traffic on I90,Division, or Sprague, a commuter may get delayed by a few minutes, but the volume is not what it is in larger cities. SLC has been highly successful with its light rail, but then again the Wasatch Front has a population nearing that of the Portland metro. Much larger than either Spokane or Boise. At least Spokane and CDA have bus services. The STA had a light rail proposal alive a few years ago, but has since died. I love light rail, but its not for everyone. It would not reverse I90 running through downtown or the NW freeway. Its just not realisitic.

I should clarify this one, I am not saying Spokane needs to build rail just because, nor have I said it should be built throughout the city. But what I will say is that Spokane still has the luxury of still having much of its streetcar routes still preserved and it would not be impossible to bring some of those back, of course bus systems are going to be the cheaper option and in Spokane's case often times the correct answer.

I would not be surprised to see a streetcar system running through downtown connecting Browne's Addition, downtown, the university area, and the near northside area together to better promote development. Or there would be a possibility of using transit to better help redevelop everything along 2nd and 3rd, which I seriously think is a very under used portion of the city that could easily become an urban neighborhood for the city within its future. Will that ever happen? Who knows, it really depends on timing and proper vision.

[urbanlife]

Urbanlife,



Most of the data O'Toole cited is from DOT sources. Some, such as the commuter transit use survey, was from local sources. That the data can be found on a web site doesn't make the site the source.



First, by doing a use survey. For bicycle lanes, for example, you count cycle riders on streets which are most heavily traveled by those users. If their fraction of all users justifies a dedicated lane for them, and would not displace more users than it accommodates, then you build it. Similarly with transit --- if the load factor for a route approaches saturation, assuming those users are paying the cost of their mode in its entirety, then you increase frequency or add parallel routes. In short, you allow actual demand to dictate supply.



I'm sure this is the heart of the disagreement. I don't believe planners and politicians should be "promoting" any particular transportation mode. They should be responding to the modes preferred by users, as demonstrated by their actual use. They don't need pols to do their thinking for them, or bureaucrats to inflict upon them whatever Utopian fantasy is currently trendy in planning schools. All those folks are public servants, not the public's masters, parents, gurus, or spiritual guides.



Virtually none. People live where they do and pay what they do for transportation because the net benefits of those choices are positive for them. The planners assume auto travel is "inefficient" because they substitute their own abstract, collectivized goals for the highly individualized goals of actual users. Money spent on auto travel is not "wasted" if it best serves those latter goals. The planners' goals are irrelevant. (More on this here: http://www.freespokane.net/?p=58).



Not at all. If a demand for other modes manifests itself, the public rights-of-way should be configured accordingly. And if new freeways are needed you build them where they are needed.


First off, much of what you are saying is a Libertarian Utopia that sounds great on paper but doesn't work in real life. Take the last paragraph for example, if new freeways are needed, build them where they are needed. So Division or Maple should be converted to a limited access freeway? Because Spokane could technically use a freeway through that portion of the city. The problem with that way of thinking is what has caused much of the mess we are in today with freeways, rich people don't want a freeway cutting through their neighborhood, but the poor can't afford to fit it, so who wins that need? and where does that highway end up cutting through?

Also, again, I grew up in a city that didn't bother to use proper planning for the past 50 years as the city grew from a rural city to a major city of over half a million people. Instead the city let the market dictate their planning and let the developers decide the road patterns and they are now finally working with planners to fix the mess that developers have caused within the city over the past 50 years and are finally starting to look at a better planned future for the city that might actually make living there much better. So you can say how horrible planners are and I will never ever believe you...figure I should warn you about that so you don't continue to disagree with me on that topic.

Have you ever stopped to think about how many hours of work it takes to pay for the cost of your vehicle you drive to work, how much the gas, maintenance, and insurance cost, let alone the amount of time spent on commuting? Sure you can call that "needed" but I am still going to call that "wasted" and again, based off my personal history with this issue, I am much happier with my life not having to spend 30-60 bucks a week in gas, or having to deal with a 20-40 minute commute each way...instead I find I have more than enough money to take 2-3 trips to different cities each year that I have always wanted to visit, not including my trips back to Spokane to visit family and the city...which I should point out that this thread was originally about the great pictures that were taken of Spokane, not these random topics that has seemed to follow.

So like I said in the beginning, you can tell me that I am wrong and you are right all you want, and I will never agree with you, much like you will never agree with me because no one actually wins these debates in online forums.

[kanhawk]

Contrarian, Thanks for the great tour. If I may add my own favorite building in Spokane when I used to live near there was this:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3308/3605176151_e19cc905cc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/31437246@N03/3605176151/)
IMG_0805 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/31437246@N03/3605176151/) by kanhawk (http://www.flickr.com/people/31437246@N03/), on Flickr

[Contrarian]

Urban,

Instead the city let the market dictate their planning and let the developers decide the road patterns and they are now finally working with planners to fix the mess that developers have caused within the city over the past 50 years

"Messes" tend to appear when planners arrive with their carpetbags and Utopian theories to point them out --- rather like Portland's Little Italy was transformed from a funky urban neighborhood to a "mess" when the PDC arrived on the scene. Or Detroit's Poletown.

Something that has always amused me is how historic neighborhoods and buildings, of which both Spokane and Portland have many, all developed with no guidance other than the imaginations of the developers and the demands of the market, and before either city had a single planner on the municipal payroll, are now considered "urban treasures" which must be preserved at all costs.

:-)

[Contrarian]

Addendum:

Urban,

I am much happier with my life not having to spend 30-60 bucks a week in gas, or having to deal with a 20-40 minute commute each way...

Not a thing wrong with that, Urban. My personal choices would be similar to yours. But others value different things, have different priorities, and make different tradeoffs, and I don't believe I'm entitled to impose my preferences on them. By (for example) increasing the commute costs and time of those who prefer suburban space and privacy so that Portland State students may ride a streetcar free for two blocks between classrooms.

[urbanlife]

Urban,



"Messes" tend to appear when planners arrive with their carpetbags and Utopian theories to point them out --- rather like Portland's Little Italy was transformed from a funky urban neighborhood to a "mess" when the PDC arrived on the scene. Or Detroit's Poletown.

Something that has always amused me is how historic neighborhoods and buildings, of which both Spokane and Portland have many, all developed with no guidance other than the imaginations of the developers and the demands of the market, and before either city had a single planner on the municipal payroll, are now considered "urban treasures" which must be preserved at all costs.

:-)

So just so we are clear here, you typically blame people for the mistakes their grandparents did right? You might as well sum up this entire post saying Obama is a bad president because of the "messes" Truman made.

Have you read anything from present day urban planning? You are aware that almost all the modern literature for planning talks about the mistakes that were made then and how not to repeat them? You are aware that when those neighborhoods were demolished, they were less than a 100 years old typically and were seen as blights to the city by everyone, not just politicians and planners? You are aware of the political movements that were going on at the time that saw leveling these rundown neighborhoods as a way to open up new land for future developers to bring in new business to very business hungry people? These "messes" were not solely the fault of planners and politicians, they were also the fault of developers and citizens who wanted to be apart of this movement into a modern era of city.

So feel free to pretend like those choices were simple choices and it was all the fault of one horrible little group, but truth be told, there were a lot more factors than what you are mentioning.

Also to add to this, urban planning is barely 100 years old and much of the mistakes then were because there was nothing to really base urban planning on at the time other than utopian ideas. Heck, one could argue that the towers in the park are successful when combined with higher income residents to provide a better financial net for upkeep.

One more thing to point out, the present day planners and architects were a small fraction of people that lobbied to save the Memorial Coliseum here in Portland because they felt that when this building is 100yrs old, Portlanders will be happy that someone stood up to save a building that was worthy of being historical...it is so much easier to look at any building that is 50yrs old and say tear it down because it is old and rundown, but it is much harder to say that about a building that is over 100yrs old. Much of what happened in the 50s was leveling buildings that were barely 50yrs old...think about that next time you find yourself saying someone should tear down some "ugly building from the 50s-70s."



Addendum:

Urban,



Not a thing wrong with that, Urban. My personal choices would be similar to yours. But others value different things, have different priorities, and make different tradeoffs, and I don't believe I'm entitled to impose my preferences on them. By (for example) increasing the commute costs and time of those who prefer suburban space and privacy so that Portland State students may ride a streetcar free for two blocks between classrooms.

Well first off, no one really rides the streetcar for two blocks between classrooms unless they are really lazy, most people on campus seem to walk that little bit of distance because the streetcar would actually be out of the way to use in that manner.

Basing this off personal choices, wouldn't it be equally important for the city to provide safe routes for people who wish to commute by bike or giving people the option to use bus or even rail when there is enough of a demand for such a thing? Saying you don't believe you are entitled to impose your preference on others means you support providing alternative forms of transportation and safe bike lines for others who do not wish to commute the same way you do by car...which is probably what might be confusing me the most because from what you have said so far, this seems to contradict everything.


I personally support my parents right to live in the suburbs and commute everywhere by car, but I couldn't stay in Spokane because I preferred using public transportation, bike, and walking and needed to live in a city that better catered to that...and like you pointed out at the beginning of all of this, even with Portland catering to people like me, there is still a very high number of people commuting by car, which means my personal preferences are not actually hindering their personal preferences and we are basically coexisting within the same system which is the kind of system I would like to see Spokane take on because that would help strengthen Spokane's growing youth culture that Spokane deserves to have.

[Contrarian]

Urban,

So just so we are clear here, you typically blame people for the mistakes their grandparents did right?

Only when they make the same mistakes their grandparents did. Which they do --- like their grandfathers and the Soviet economic planners, they continue to make the mistake of thinking they can plan a complex adaptive system. And they continue to get the same results --- shortages, mismatches between supply and demand, spiraling prices, black markets, perverse incentives, and wealth transferance to a political cadre and their private sector stooges and collaborators.

Have you read anything from present day urban planning?

Better than that --- I were one!

Much of what happened in the 50s was leveling buildings that were barely 50yrs old...think about that next time you find yourself saying someone should tear down some "ugly building from the 50s-70s."

I would never say that, because that is not my decision to make. It is the owner's. The Glass Palace is a public building, and so the public may do with it as they please. If they want to save a privately-owned building, however, they need to exercise eminent domain, acquire it for public use, and pay just compensation.

[urbanlife]

Urban,



Only when they make the same mistakes their grandparents did. Which they do --- like their grandfathers and the Soviet economic planners, they continue to make the mistake of thinking they can plan a complex adaptive system. And they continue to get the same results --- shortages, mismatches between supply and demand, spiraling prices, black markets, perverse incentives, and wealth transference to a political cadre and their private sector stooges and collaborators.


This comes off as more of a generalization of a profession and from what I have seen of what they are teaching urban planning students at PSU and my personal feelings towards urban planning in regards to my own personal career choices, I would have to simply disagree with you in saying not everyone in urban planning feels the same way as you do about this field. And I am merely guessing that you are an older person, and it is quite possible that your personal frustrations with urban planning stem more from that rather than what is being practiced.

And like any profession, there are always going to be people who are bad at it and people who are good at it.

[urbanlife]

At the end of a long forum argument neither of us will change each others opinion and the reality is that it isn't even that important to try and change either one's opinion anyway. You have your reasons for the way you feel about things and I have mine.


Just figured I would mention this again, just in case you were wondering if you have changed my opinion any on this topic.

[Sawtooth]

Great photos Contrarian. I am always impressed at how urban and dense downtown Spokane is for a city its size, your downtown has more of a big city feel than several much larger cities in the region which have larger metro areas, I am referring to larger cities than either Spokane or Boise.

Your river is beautiful, living in Boise I realize how much a river adds to the quality of life when it flows through a city, as well as having a Knitting Factory Concert House.

[Omaharocks]

Great pics of a very nice and under-appreciated inland northwest city!

Rather than get into the debate between you and urbanlife, I'll just politely mention that all of your sources are beyond questionable - they are from certifiable quacks. Sure, the data presented may come from real numbers, produced by the census, DOT or what have you, but any statistician will tell you that those numbers can be spun to promote any purpose.

Your mantra to me sounds like that of a typical traffic engineer, and recalls for me a story I bring up about a road project near I live. There was a community meeting held by a mix of planners and engineers to support a widening of an arterial road near a very suburban development (a strip center). One one side of this very busy road was a senior housing complex and on the other was a shopping center and grocery store. Many of the residents from the housing complex expressed the need for a pedestrian crosswalk/overpass as part of the overall road work so that they could safely get from one side to the other without getting in their cars. This idea was opposed by the traffic engineers who presented data that - and I'm not kidding - showed that very few people walked in this area and that there was "not sufficient demand for a pedestrian overpass."

Now, if you think about this from a purely data-driven perspective, sure this is true. But think about this objectively and the idea that providing a crosswalk is not necessary because no one currently walks there is just downright ridiculous. Now, I think this story has parallel with regard to your arguments about letting the market decide etc. There will always be forces that dictate how people travel and there has never been a case of a subsidy-less, free market transportation system... Oops, I guess I got into the debate!

[Contrarian]

Oops, I guess I got into the debate!

That's OK --- the more the merrier!

Sure, the data presented may come from real numbers, produced by the census, DOT or what have you, but any statistician will tell you that those numbers can be spun to promote any purpose.

No doubt that's true, but when you allege it, it behooves you to identify the "spin." Transit ridership figures, and subsidies per passenger mile, pretty well speak for themselves.

But think about this objectively and the idea that providing a crosswalk is not necessary because no one currently walks there is just downright ridiculous.

Well, if relying on the numbers is "ridiculous," upon what would you rely? Does the street not already have a painted crosswalk with a pedestrian signal? Should use of that not indicate the level of traffic? What is the positive justification for building an overpass?

In some cases it can make sense to provide some amenity and see how much use it gets, particularly if the project is not terribly costly. Bike lanes are a good example --- add bike lanes on a few streets where they will not cause congestion of auto traffic, but which seem to be efficient routes for cyclists. If they prove to be well-used, then add more on other streets. If they are not, don't add any more. You don't add them in order to fulfill some planner's fantasy, or to satisfy greenie ideology.

There will always be forces that dictate how people travel and there has never been a case of a subsidy-less, free market transportation system...

Well, yes, there are. Auto users mostly pay their own way, via fuel taxes and license fees (to be sure, they've been supplemented with pork projects in some cases, especially in the last few decades). Air travelers do also (most airports are funded with landing fees and other user fees). So were all mass transit systems until the 60s. On average transit users today pay about 15% of the cost of their mode. That is unprecedented in transportation history (at least in the US).

[urbanlife]

In some cases it can make sense to provide some amenity and see how much use it gets, particularly if the project is not terribly costly. Bike lanes are a good example --- add bike lanes on a few streets where they will not cause congestion of auto traffic, but which seem to be efficient routes for cyclists. If they prove to be well-used, then add more on other streets. If they are not, don't add any more. You don't add them in order to fulfill some planner's fantasy, or to satisfy greenie ideology.

It is comments like this from you that just drive me crazy over how you choice to bad mouth a profession you seem to disagree with for whatever reason. If you were to apply this logic to roads for cars, there would be a large number of roads in this country that would not exist today because of being underused.

Would you argue that if a road carries 5000 cars a day should be constructed, but a road that only services 5 cars a day should not? The problem with this argument is that if there wasn't roads provide for cars beyond the ones that were most important, people wouldn't be able to effectively drive where they needed to go...this same argument could be made for bike lanes...if there are not adequate safe bike lanes for someone to make a trip from point A to point B, they will just get in their car and drive instead, therefore taking away an option for the commuter and forcing them to have to commute using only one option.

I don't get your logic for these arguments about how stupid planners are when you are more than willing to fight for the car, but not for the bicycle, or train or bus...they are all forms of transportation and should all be equally available with efficient routes for everyone to use to be considered successful.

[Contrarian]

Urban,

Would you argue that if a road carries 5000 cars a day should be constructed, but a road that only services 5 cars a day should not?

First you have to distinguish between roads and rights-of-way. The ROW is the basic component of a transportation infrastructure. They are publicly-owned access corridors which provide access to every property.

Then the question becomes, "How should a particular ROW be configured and improved?" And the answer to that one is, "In whatever manner will best satisfy the needs and desires of its users."

So to answer your question --- a public ROW should be provided to every property. Whether that ROW should be graded and hard-surfaced, or remain a dirt trail, will depend on the traffic. And that is in fact how it works in most jurisdictions. If you live along an unimproved rural road and want it paved, you'll have to persuade the other property owners along it to chip in for an RID. The county will not likely foot the bill. If your road develops enough traffic to justify adding it to the county road network, then it will assume responsibility, since the road is now being used by more persons than just those who live along it.

if there are not adequate safe bike lanes for someone to make a trip from point A to point B, they will just get in their car and drive instead, therefore taking away an option for the commuter and forcing them to have to commute using only one option.

That is an oft-repeated meme among bike enthusiasts, but it is false. There are already hundreds of "safe" bicycle routes in every city. Every arterial street is paralleled a block away by a residential street that carries very little traffic and is perfectly "safe." And still cyclists make up less than 1% of commuter traffic in virtually all US cities. Bicycle proponents do not want "safe" routes. They want to be visible on arterial streets, in order to legitimize and promote their anti-auto ideology and displace the hated automobile.

Traffic engineers should ignore all that, and configure the public ROWs to achieve the greatest traffic throughput. You don't do that by devoting 10% of a ROW to a bike lane which will carry 1% of the traffic, and in the process reduce the traffic capacity of that ROW by 25% because you had to eliminate a traffic lane to create the bike lane.

they are all forms of transportation and should all be equally available with efficient routes for everyone to use to be considered successful.

False. They should not all be equally available, because the demand for them is not equal. Not even close. You make them equally equally available when the demand becomes equal, not before, in some arrogant effort to "convert" people. The system is efficient only when the ROWs are configured according to actual demand.

[urbanlife]

Urban,



First you have to distinguish between roads and rights-of-way. The ROW is the basic component of a transportation infrastructure. They are publicly-owned access corridors which provide access to every property.

Then the question becomes, "How should a particular ROW be configured and improved?" And the answer to that one is, "In whatever manner will best satisfy the needs and desires of its users."

So to answer your question --- a public ROW should be provided to every property. Whether that ROW should be graded and hard-surfaced, or remain a dirt trail, will depend on the traffic. And that is in fact how it works in most jurisdictions. If you live along an unimproved rural road and want it paved, you'll have to persuade the other property owners along it to chip in for an RID. The county will not likely foot the bill. If your road develops enough traffic to justify adding it to the county road network, then it will assume responsibility, since the road is now being used by more persons than just those who live along it.



That is an oft-repeated meme among bike enthusiasts, but it is false. There are already hundreds of "safe" bicycle routes in every city. Every arterial street is paralleled a block away by a residential street that carries very little traffic and is perfectly "safe." And still cyclists make up less than 1% of commuter traffic in virtually all US cities. Bicycle proponents do not want "safe" routes. They want to be visible on arterial streets, in order to legitimize and promote their anti-auto ideology and displace the hated automobile.

Traffic engineers should ignore all that, and configure the public ROWs to achieve the greatest traffic throughput. You don't do that by devoting 10% of a ROW to a bike lane which will carry 1% of the traffic, and in the process reduce the traffic capacity of that ROW by 25% because you had to eliminate a traffic lane to create the bike lane.



False. They should not all be equally available, because the demand for them is not equal. Not even close. You make them equally equally available when the demand becomes equal, not before, in some arrogant effort to "convert" people. The system is efficient only when the ROWs are configured according to actual demand.

How does one even respond to this? First off, it is obviously clear you are a full supporter of the car no matter what...what I am getting at is that that form of logic is wrong.

Your description of what ROW is focuses solely on the car, when in actuality, it should focus on walking.

City planning for transportation should go as follows:
1- Walking
2- Biking
3- Electric Rail
4- Bus/Car

Starters, there is only one true form of transportation that cost a city almost no money to maintain and uses no fuels other than food, which is walking. Walking is kinetic energy that no oil company can sell you. If everything you needed to travel to was within walking distance, you would reduce your carbon footprint, and create a different form of culture within the country that is foreign in most of this country.

Bikes allow man to maximize their kinetic energy and travel further distances without the need for fossil fuels, again it relies on an energy that an oil company cannot sell you.

Electric rail then provides a better connection to locations that are outside of easy walking distances without having to provide a large connection of roads and could also technically be run on renewable resources...which we seriously should be mostly getting our energy from solar and wind by now simply because the sun is giving us more energy than we will ever need.

Then after that, the final layer should be cars and buses...but if we lives in a world that functioned on the top three transportation modes, there would be little need for these items because everything you would need would already be within easy access.


Everything you have described ignores man's ability to walk or bike distances. Your suggestion about bikes having plenty of safe routes using neighborhood roads is also inaccurate because many times those neighborhood roads are not faster or easier routes for bicycles, leaving a cyclist to deal with challenges of getting to major traffic streets that provides no traffic lights for them to use.

Also to counter your continuous argument that only 1% bike, of course only 1% bike when we live in a country that is built around the car, no other form of transportation is more convenient because of this issue, which is basically what is wrong with our transportation systems. Basically all you are arguing is that this country is already fat, why bother going on a diet because that would be too hard and it is much easier to stay fat and continue using the drive thru's to get our double cheese burgers.


Switching to a walking/biking country is extremely hard to do and would take generations to take effect and properly move our country away from being fat. But it sounds like you are more than okay with sitting in cars for the rest of your life and forcing future generations to do the same. That is the argument you are making to me, you can spin it all you want and try to make it in your favor or tell me that I am wrong and you are right for whatever reason, but anything more that the use of human power for transportation is the wrong way to look at how cities handle transportation and it sounds like you care more about how the car gets people around than their own two feet.

Have you ever tried to walk or bike around in Spokane? I am sure you would see the issues the city has with it much easier than driving around and calling planners and bikers stupid. I love how people are often quick to judge a form of transportation without actually trying it. I would never complain about a city's traffic without first hand sitting in it and seeing what the problems really are. Whenever I travel I live under the idea that the only way to truly see a city is to walk in it, you miss so many things when you are in a car. Every city I have been to, I have walked a good portion of it, including Spokane, and outside of downtown, Spokane is not easy on foot, and that is an actual problem.

[downtownpdx]

"Bicycle proponents do not want "safe" routes. They want to be visible on arterial streets, in order to legitimize and promote their anti-auto ideology and displace the hated automobile."

Pleeeeease, Contrarian ... I don't ride a bike (I walk to work) so I'm not trying to defend anything here, but that is such a loaded statement. I know many people who bike to work, and I'm pretty certain that all of them are quite interested in getting around town safely, not going out of their way every morning to ride down the busiest street possible and protest the 'hated automobile'.

I drive a car occasionally, but I really don't understand this sense of hostility towards trying to design a city around alternate modes of transportation. My right to drive a car doesn't feel encroached upon because one lane of a street becomes dedicated to bicyclists. If the infrastructure continues to become more accessible to people who don't own a car ... then more people will see biking, walking, busing, etc. as a convenient alternative. And you won't have to drive in as much traffic.

"False. They should not all be equally available, because the demand for them is not equal. Not even close. You make them equally equally available when the demand becomes equal, not before, in some arrogant effort to "convert" people. The system is efficient only when the ROWs are configured according to actual demand."

Following that line of thinking, Portland back in the 1970s should have added another lane or two to I-84 rather than build a rail line -- there was no "demand" tracked yet for light rail, so why bother to build it? People just want to drive around town without ever having to stop in traffic, right, so once those extra lanes get too clogged, we should add a few more to relieve congestion and appease "demand," right? We could have torn into the surrounding neighborhoods until we had a 16-lane freeway ... then maybe there would be enough "demand" for light rail once Portlanders witnessed their communities being destroyed. :yes:

[Contrarian]

Urban,

First off, it is obviously clear you are a full supporter of the car no matter what...what I am getting at is that that form of logic is wrong.

Not correct. I'm a full supporter of whatever mode people choose to use. As long as most of them (by far) prefer autos to transit, bicycles, etc., then that mode should receive top priority by the pols and planners. If and when they show a preference for transit --- and a willingness to pay for it in full at the farebox --- then I'd support more transit routes.

Your description of what ROW is focuses solely on the car, when in actuality, it should focus on walking.

No, Urban. It should focus on the mode that travelers prefer. You, as a transportation planner, are a public servant. You work for the citizens of your city; they don't work for you. Hence they will tell you how to they want their ROWs configured; you don't tell them. Their percentages of body fat and endorphin levels are none of your business.

City planning for transportation should go as follows:
1- Walking
2- Biking
3- Electric Rail
4- Bus/Car

Starters, there is only one true form of transportation that cost a city almost no money to maintain and uses no fuels other than food, which is walking.

What could possibly be the basis of such an arbitrary decree, other than some trendy theory or ideological doctrine which are superfluous to your professional responsibilities as a municipal traffic manager? Somehow you've got in your head that those responsibilities involve prescribing how people ought to travel, rather than facilitating the methods they have freely chosen. That is a perfect illustration of the bureaucratic arrogance mentioned above.

If everything you needed to travel to was within walking distance, you would reduce your carbon footprint, and create a different form of culture within the country that is foreign in most of this country.

But everything is not within walking distance for most people, and they don't want it to be. Many of them --- the majority --- prefer to live in a more spacious, pastoral, and insular setting, and do their business in a more concentrated, hectic, and cosmopolitan setting. Your job as a planner is to accommodate those preferences, not to thwart them to impose your own. "Changing the culture" is within neither the job description nor the competence of pols and planners. That is megalomania.

BTW, Urban, as an advocate of walking, I'm surprised you support the Portland Streetcar. As a downtown-only, non-commuter conveyance offering free rides over most of its route, it is mainly an alternative to walking, not driving.

[Contrarian]

downtownpdx,

I know many people who bike to work, and I'm pretty certain that all of them are quite interested in getting around town safely, not going out of their way every morning to ride down the busiest street possible and protest the 'hated automobile'.

I'm sure that's true. Most people who actually prefer to bike find "safe" (and faster) routes on non-arterial streets. It is the bicycling ideologues who stump for bike lanes on arterials. Cyclists here in Spokane, and I'm sure in Portland also, have no trouble getting where they wish to go safely, except perhaps for certain downtown streets.

My right to drive a car doesn't feel encroached upon because one lane of a street becomes dedicated to bicyclists.

It may not. Bike lanes can be added to many streets without constricting auto traffic, because those streets do not carry much auto traffic. You will feel encroached upon, however, if some messianic planner decides to add a bike lane to the arterial you normally use for commuting, removing a traffic lane in the process, and thereby doubles your commute time. Especially after you observe, after a few weeks, that you pass perhaps 6 cyclists using the lane over the entire 4 mile trip. We have a marvelous case study here in Spokane. The Centennial Trail is a lovely, hard-surface pedestrian/bike trail which follows the Spokane River from Coeur d'Alene to downtown Spokane. It traverses the entire Spokane Valley, paralleling I-90. But while it is well used for weekend recreational riding, its share of daily commuter traffic is nil.

Following that line of thinking, Portland back in the 1970s should have added another lane or two to I-84 rather than build a rail line -- there was no "demand" tracked yet for light rail, so why bother to build it?

There still isn't. MAX has mainly drawn its ridership from former bus passengers. And the percentage of Portland commuters who use any form of transit has declined since the MAX line was built. Had the State added 2 lanes to the Banfield each way back in '86, and a few more buses on that route, they would be carrying about 20 times as many people every day as the MAX.

http://www.freespokane.net/?p=90

[urbanlife]

Urban,



Not correct. I'm a full supporter of whatever mode people choose to use. As long as most of them (by far) prefer autos to transit, bicycles, etc., then that mode should receive top priority by the pols and planners. If and when they show a preference for transit --- and a willingness to pay for it in full at the farebox --- then I'd support more transit routes.



No, Urban. It should focus on the mode that travelers prefer. You, as a transportation planner, are a public servant. You work for the citizens of your city; they don't work for you. Hence they will tell you how to they want their ROWs configured; you don't tell them. Their percentages of body fat and endorphin levels are none of your business.



What could possibly be the basis of such an arbitrary decree, other than some trendy theory or ideological doctrine which are superfluous to your professional responsibilities as a municipal traffic manager? Somehow you've got in your head that those responsibilities involve prescribing how people ought to travel, rather than facilitating the methods they have freely chosen. That is a perfect illustration of the bureaucratic arrogance mentioned above.



But everything is not within walking distance for most people, and they don't want it to be. Many of them --- the majority --- prefer to live in a more spacious, pastoral, and insular setting, and do their business in a more concentrated, hectic, and cosmopolitan setting. Your job as a planner is to accommodate those preferences, not to thwart them to impose your own. "Changing the culture" is within neither the job description nor the competence of pols and planners. That is megalomania.

BTW, Urban, as an advocate of walking, I'm surprised you support the Portland Streetcar. As a downtown-only, non-commuter conveyance offering free rides over most of its route, it is mainly an alternative to walking, not driving.

So do you actually listen to what it is that you say or do you simply repeat everything the auto industry tells you? If people are only given one option, which one do you think they will prefer? I like how you skated over my comments about being fat and just went with the points you think you can argue. If someone is fat from eating fast food cheese burgers for each meal because that is there only option, does that mean it is the right option because it is the only one given?

I am guessing you live in a very car focused part of the Spokane metro (which is basically all of Spokane,) I am gonna set a task for you, I want you to bike from your place to downtown and back, and tell me everything that was wrong with that bike ride, and then you might actually have some idea what bikers want to see more of in the terms of safety.

Also "arbitrary decree?" Are you kidding me?? My number one was WALKING, the two dangly appendages that you use for the gas and break pedals in your care were originally crafted for walkers...you would be amazing how far you are actually able to walk on those things.

And this demand that you keep talking about is actually convenience, if we build a city that is only convenient to get to everywhere by car, then that is going to be the preferred choice, but if a city is built in mind to get to almost everywhere you need by foot, then that would become the preferred choice because of its convenience.


And again, cause I like to drive this point home as much as possible, we are never going to change each others' minds because I clearly disagree with everything you are saying here and will proudly say I would much rather bike and walk to everywhere I need to go rather than drive, and if driving is such a great thing to do, why to people feel the need to preserve the walkability of our urban centers? But honestly, I really don't care what your answer is to any of these questions because you are not going to make me have that moment where I go "wow, I am such an idiot for thinking walking and biking was a better way to commute, now where is the nearest gas station." I will leave it to people like you to keep the auto industry and oil industry working hard and making them feel needed.

[urbanlife]

I'm sure that's true. Most people who actually prefer to bike find "safe" (and faster) routes on non-arterial streets. It is the bicycling ideologues who stump for bike lanes on arterials. Cyclists here in Spokane, and I'm sure in Portland also, have no trouble getting where they wish to go safely, except perhaps for certain downtown streets.

I dare you to bike from your house to downtown and back and tell me if you found no safety issues with that biking trip...seriously, walk a mile, or in this case, bike several miles in my shoes and tell me you still feel the same about biking...or keep driving to everywhere pretending like you are doing the preferred thing that the oil industry wants you to keep doing.

Let me know how that bike ride goes when you complete it, I am curious to see how that goes for you.

[Contrarian]

If people are only given one option, which one do you think they will prefer?

I don't understand that, Urban. They have all kinds of options. They may drive, use transit, bicycle, walk, or even rollerskate. Every street has sidewalks. Every city has a transit system. Every city has plenty of low-traffic streets which are perfectly safe for cyclists. Spokane has perhaps the longest paved urban bike path in the Northwest --- the Centennial Trail --- which virtually no one uses for commuting. Over the last 30 years every city has invested millions, if not billions, in transit improvements. Fares are heavily subsidized. Yet over that period usage has declined. It is absurd to say people have no choice but to drive. They have all kinds of alternatives --- and they don't want them. At least, 90+% of them don't.

I like how you skated over my comments about being fat and just went with the points you think you can argue. If someone is fat from eating fast food cheese burgers for each meal because that is there only option, does that mean it is the right option because it is the only one given?

Urban, that statement is even more absurd than the claim that there are no options to driving. How many restaurants are there in Portland? 2000? How many supermarkets carrying every foodstuff you can think of? How many options to Big Macs do you want? What can you possibly mean by asserting "there is only one option"?

And I didn't "skate over" your comment about being fat. I said what other people eat is none of your business. You are not their mother, you're not responsible for their health, and they are not in the least bit interested in what you think they should eat. They get to run their own lives and make their own choices, whether those conform to your values or not.

Also "arbitrary decree?" Are you kidding me?? My number one was WALKING . . .

It becomes an arbitrary decree when you set out to impose that preference of yours on others. Walk as often and as far as you like. Just keep in mind that others have different preferences, and they are just as entitled to act on their own preferences as you are. They don't need a "lifestyle coach." That is the arrogance I mentioned above.

I want you to bike from your place to downtown and back . . .

Certainly not. I live only 8 blocks from downtown Macy's, up a long hill. I can walk faster. If I'm gonna be carrying something large home, I drive. Bicycling is an utterly impractical mode for downtown shopping or browsing. Its also impractical for almost any other purpose, except recreational riding. That's why only 1% of urban residents use it.

[Austinlee]

Awesome. Nice city.

[urbanlife]

I don't understand that, Urban. They have all kinds of options. They may drive, use transit, bicycle, walk, or even rollerskate. Every street has sidewalks. Every city has a transit system. Every city has plenty of low-traffic streets which are perfectly safe for cyclists. Spokane has perhaps the longest paved urban bike path in the Northwest --- the Centennial Trail --- which virtually no one uses for commuting. Over the last 30 years every city has invested millions, if not billions, in transit improvements. Fares are heavily subsidized. Yet over that period usage has declined. It is absurd to say people have no choice but to drive. They have all kinds of alternatives --- and they don't want them. At least, 90+% of them don't.



Urban, that statement is even more absurd than the claim that there are no options to driving. How many restaurants are there in Portland? 2000? How many supermarkets carrying every foodstuff you can think of? How many options to Big Macs do you want? What can you possibly mean by asserting "there is only one option"?

And I didn't "skate over" your comment about being fat. I said what other people eat is none of your business. You are not their mother, you're not responsible for their health, and they are not in the least bit interested in what you think they should eat. They get to run their own lives and make their own choices, whether those conform to your values or not.



It becomes an arbitrary decree when you set out to impose that preference of yours on others. Walk as often and as far as you like. Just keep in mind that others have different preferences, and they are just as entitled to act on their own preferences as you are. They don't need a "lifestyle coach." That is the arrogance I mentioned above.



Certainly not. I live only 8 blocks from downtown Macy's, up a long hill. I can walk faster. If I'm gonna be carrying something large home, I drive. Bicycling is an utterly impractical mode for downtown shopping or browsing. Its also impractical for almost any other purpose, except recreational riding. That's why only 1% of urban residents use it.

Well, thank you for proving me right, neither of us are going to change each others' opinion because everything you are saying here is completely absurd.

[Sawtooth]

Dang, you guys are into a heated discussion.

Does Spokane have a visible bike culture? Does the Centennial Trail from Coeur d'Alene go all of the way into Spokane?

[Contrarian]

Sawtooth,

Does Spokane have a visible bike culture?

Yes, but small. As in most places.

Does the Centennial Trail from Coeur d'Alene go all of the way into Spokane?

Yes. In fact, all the way from Higgins Point on Lake CDA to Riverside State Park west of Spokane, although some portions west of downtown Spokane are on streets. The trail is hard-surfaced all the way, with numerous amenities.

http://www.spokanecentennialtrail.org/Page/Overview-Map.aspx

http://www.northidahocentennialtrail.org/

[Omaharocks]

Contrarian, I'd like for you to do a few things as you present your statements. Number 1, give me your sources - especially where you lay out claims that roads/highways are not subsidized, transit usage has gone down (where, specifically has transit usage declined with an increase of funding over the last, say 10 years?), that adding a bike land can lead to doubling your commute time, that only 1% of urban commuters go by bike (is this for averaging out all cities with over 100,000, the nation as a whole, only Spokane, etc), that biking is impractical for downtown shopping and only useful for recreationally riding (I know you can't back up that statement - it's completely absurd and goes against my own personal experiences which carry as much weight as your own), that the "majority" want to live in a pastoral setting and work in an urban one (again, a stat with more specifics - is this from an opinion poll based on the nation as a whole, from when, etc).

In other words, if you want to be believed as you pull out your own decree of self-righteousness (while claiming it's others who are "megalomaniacs" with a bent towards "changing the culture"), you've gotta at least go a bit further in backing up some of your claims. As it stands you sound about as credible as the political attack ads funded by unnamed sources seen every 3 minutes on my t.v.

[Contrarian]

Omaharocks,

Number 1, give me your sources - especially where you lay out claims that roads/highways are not subsidized, transit usage has gone down (where, specifically has transit usage declined with an increase of funding over the last, say 10 years?)

Sure.

For federal highway expenditures in 2008, $36.6 billion was collected from users, of which $30.8 billion was used for highway purposes. Most of the
rest was used to subsidize mass transit. But the feds also allocated $10.6 billion from "general fund appropriations" (pork). So the total used for highways was $35.4 billion. In net, users paid $1.2 billion more than they received in highway improvements, or 103.4% of federal highway costs.

The States collected $80.1 billion from users, of a total budget of $97.7 billion (not including federal transfer payments). So users are paying 82% of State highway costs (but a portion of the $97.7 billion is used not strictly for highways, e.g., law enforcement and "research").

Only local streets and roads are funded primarily with general revenues (property taxes, sales taxes, etc.). But those streets and roads are used for many purposes besides auto travel --- transit, pedestrians, cyclists, utility rights-of-way, etc. Auto users pay about 26% of local road costs.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/hf10.cfm

For transit, public transit's share of all trips declined from 3.4% in 1969 to 1.8% in 1990 to 1.6% in 2001.

http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf

For work trips, the transit share declined from 8.9% in 1970 to 4.7% in 2000 (US census).

http://www.bts.gov/publications/journal_of_transportation_and_statistics/volume_08_number_03/html/paper_03/table_03_02.html

Transit use got a boost in 2007 and 2008 when gas prices hit their high. It has since declined again (as % of total trips).

. . . . that adding a bike land can lead to doubling your commute time

It can lead to a doubling (or more) of commute time if a traffic lane is removed to accommodate the bike lane. That can cut the capacity of that roadway in half. But they can be added to many streets with no impact on auto traffic.

. . . that only 1% of urban commuters go by bike

http://www.cicle.org/news/earth_talk.html

. . .that biking is impractical for downtown shopping and only useful for recreationally riding (I know you can't back up that statement . . .

Perhaps you are more adept at lashing the new comforter, a couple pillows, your new overcoat, and a couple of Xmas gifts to your bike than I am. Plus the kids, if you're taking them along.

. . . that the "majority" want to live in a pastoral setting and work in an urban one

Where do you think all those commuters are coming from every morning? I'll let you research that one yourself. But you'll find that single-family homes, mostly in suburbs, outsell condos (mostly in inner cities) about 8-1 in any given month.

[Omaharocks]

^You seem to be missing the point here. Look again at what I asked you - I asked whether roads are subsidized (by non-users). A cursory glance at the links you posted show this to be true, but it's laid out a bit more clearly here - http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/highways/funding/ - which shows that roughly half of roadway funding is subsidized (user fees only make up 51%!). To go back a bit, your original comment was that automobile infrastructure is unsubsidized by non-users. This is blatantly false.

I'm well aware that transit shares dropped between 1970 and 2000 - your argument was that "every city" increased their funding to public transit only to see ridership fall. This may very well be - there was a massive emphasis on the car during that period you are focusing on, which has resulted in the massive bind we are now in with regard to are city infrastructure; fiscally, environmentally, and health-wise we will be seeing the effects for a long time to come. More to the point, for relevancy's sake I'm asking for data over the last 10 years and not sources that only reach up to 2001/2002.

I see the only additional point I brought up that you gave a source for is your claim that 1% of city residents commute by bike. Your stats are from 2005...

I realize the number of bike commuters in this country is far lower than pretty much anywhere else. But why exactly do you think this is, Contrarian? If you were to look at more recent stats for those cities that have invested in bike infrastructure (surely they were forcing it on people, right?) you'd see rather significant rises in the percentage of riders. I hate to go to the cliched Portland example, but a more recent stat I found shows the percentage of commuters going by bike to be 6.4% in 2008:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/bike_commuting_surges_in_portl.html

Since you'll probably mention that you believe only trendy hippies live in Portland, I'll add that per recent census data, a number of areas that have invested in bike infrastructure (Minneapolis etc) now have significantly more than 1% of commuters going by bike. Naturally, those that have not, such as my hometown of Omaha, have a very low percentage of bike commuters.

And again, since you're bringing up the point of how difficult it is in many places to use your bike to run errands, commute, etc I'll simply ask, can't you see the irony? Especially after all your comments about how you don't think we should be funding infrastructure for bikes because people aren't using bikes? Don't you see that that's a very blatant catch-22?

I mean, of course it's difficult for many folks - we built our cities around the car. If you look at data for the percentage of trips in say Copenhagen, Vancouver, Berlin....do you really think it's so difficult for all those without a car in those places to go about their daily errands?

[Contrarian]

Omaha,

You seem to be missing the point here. Look again at what I asked you - I asked whether roads are subsidized (by non-users). A cursory glance at the links you posted show this to be true, but it's laid out a bit more clearly here . . . which shows that roughly half of roadway funding is subsidized (user fees only make up 51%!). To go back a bit, your original comment was that automobile infrastructure is unsubsidized by non-users. This is blatantly false.

No, Omaha. The Pew summary lays it out much less clearly. They lump all categories of roads together, instead of breaking them out. And of course, local roads, being used for many purposes besides auto travel, have always been mainly financed with general revenues, as they should be (although auto users pay a good chunk of those costs also, in addition to the share they pay as property owners, etc.). State and federal highways, which are used primarily by auto traffic, are paid for almost entirely by their users. Payers of state and local taxes who do not drive are not "subsidizing" auto users on their streets. They are paying for their own uses of those streets. Auto users subsidize transit riders and cyclists, not the other way around.

I'm well aware that transit shares dropped between 1970 and 2000 - your argument was that "every city" increased their funding to public transit only to see ridership fall.

I didn't say that transit ridership "fell in every city." I said it's share declined nationally. Actually, ridership is up in many cities --- because trips are up. But while transit use increased about 3% in the last 10 years, auto trips increased 10%.

More to the point, for relevancy's sake I'm asking for data over the last 10 years and not sources that only reach up to 2001/2002.

Well, sorry, but the feds only collect that data every 10 years, with the census. So we will not have more comprehensive data until the 2010 census is compiled. Various agencies do collect info on trips, however, so we can compare their relative changes.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/001694-driving-and-transit-america-myths-down-under

The fact is that transit still represents <2% of all trips, despite the huge subsidies thrown at public transit bureaucrats over the last 30 years. That is one of the most egregious political boondoggles in an era of inane government boondoggles, prehaps exceeded in its idiocy only by the War on Drugs.

I hate to go to the cliched Portland example, but a more recent stat I found shows the percentage of commuters going by bike to be 6.4% in 2008:

I simply don't believe that. People will answer "yes" to a survey question if they ride their bikes to work on a few sunny summer days (which in Portland can be few indeed). Especially in Portland, where if you are not a greenie, you don't admit to it in public. You need to do actual traffic counts, on an annualized basis (during different seasons, different types of weather).

And again, since you're bringing up the point of how difficult it is in many places to use your bike to run errands, commute, etc I'll simply ask, can't you see the irony?

You think it is irony, Omaha, because you assume that the difficulty with using bikes is the lack of "infrastructure." That is not the problem. It is not the reason people do not use bikes for much of anything except recreational riding. They don't use bikes because you cannot carry the kids and all their gear to their soccer game on your bike, you can't carry home 4 sacks of groceries on your bike, you can't haul a sheet of plywood from Home Depot on your bike, you can't pick up the kids from daycare after work on your bike, you can't get from Liberty Lake to downtown Spokane in 15 minutes on your bike, you can't ride your bike when there is 2 ft of snow on the ground, and you won't want to ride it when it is pouring rain or 2 degrees below zero. You can build bike paths and bike lanes until you run out of asphalt, and it will not overcome those intrinsic drawbacks.

Especially after all your comments about how you don't think we should be funding infrastructure for bikes because people aren't using bikes? Don't you see that that's a very blatant catch-22?

You are overlooking the obvious, Omaha --- we have built the transportation infrastructure around the automobile, and not bicycles, because that is the mode travelers preferred to use, for all the reasons listed above. "Greenies" who champion bicycles, transit, etc., have swallowed a dogma, a myth, that inverts the chain of cause and effect. They imagine that some nefarious manipulators, usually "the oil industry," in cahoots with conniving politicians, foisted the automobile and its infrastructure on a clueless public, who were then forced to use that mode because all others were rendered impossible or impractical.

And that is utter nonsense. People began switching to the automobile because it offered obvious and incomparable advantages over other transport modes available at the time --- in speed, comfort, convenience, usability in any weather, carrying capacity, etc, etc. They bought and drove their Model T's when the only roads were rutted trails, and where there were no roads at all. They bought thousands and thousands of them, more every year. Only after the auto had begun to become the dominant mode of personal travel did the "good roads" movement gain steam in the US (it was actually initiated by bicyclists!) The automobile still has every one of those advantages, and as long as it does, people will not be returning to the technologies they abandoned, for good reason, 100 years ago. At least, not in any large numbers.

[downtownpdx]

downtownpdx,

Had the State added 2 lanes to the Banfield each way back in '86, and a few more buses on that route, they would be carrying about 20 times as many people every day as the MAX.

http://www.freespokane.net/?p=90

That is hilarious ... I really doubt that's the number transit officials were mulling over when they decided to build light rail. "Let's decrease future capacity by 20x -- nobody will mind." Maybe instead they were concerned with protecting surrounding neighborhoods from a huge freeway expansion.

A 2006 TriMet survey shows 66% of regional respondents strongly approve of the MAX system, while 51% strongly approve of the bus system. And I can't see tourists, who can jump on a train from the airport and go directly to the city center, really wishing they could instead be on a bus that sits in traffic on this dreamed-of 10-lane Banfield freeway.

[Contrarian]

downtownpdx,

And I can't see tourists, who can jump on a train from the airport and go directly to the city center, really wishing they could instead be on a bus that sits in traffic on this dreamed-of 10-lane Banfield freeway.

Heh. If the Banfield had 4 more lanes no one would be sitting in traffic. And the tourist would probably prefer to stop at the Avis counter at the airport and drive downtown (I have no stats on this, but I'd bet you'd find that is what 90% of tourists do).

[downtownpdx]

downtownpdx,



Heh. If the Banfield had 4 more lanes no one would be sitting in traffic. And the tourist would probably prefer to stop at the Avis counter at the airport and drive downtown (I have no stats on this, but I'd bet you'd find that is what 90% of tourists do).

Right -- cities like LA, who have generally subscribed to that philosophy with 18-lane freeways, have no one sitting in traffic. :haha: That's a good one. Bigger freeways to cure congestion = a looser belt to cure obesity. Don't work.

I have no stats on how many people rent a car vs. taking MAX from the airport, but you were making a point about bus capacity being "20 times" that of light rail. On that note, if someone wants to explore Portland and not do that in a car ... a light rail line that takes them directly and quickly to the city center, connects to several other lines plus a streetcar, and travels near most every major attraction beats navigating a bus system on a traffic-clogged freeway (yes, even with 4 more neighborhood-destroying lanes).

[Contrarian]

downtownpdx,

I have no stats on how many people rent a car vs. taking MAX from the airport, but you were making a point about bus capacity being "20 times" that of light rail.

No, that was the ratio of a mile of freeway lane vs a mile of rail line. One mile of freeway lane carries about 7.5 times as many passengers/hour as a mile of light rail line.

On that note, if someone wants to explore Portland and not do that in a car ... a light rail line that takes them directly and quickly to the city center, connects to several other lines plus a streetcar, and travels near most every major attraction . . .

Really? Rose Gardens? Pittock House? Forest Park? Med school? Council Crest? Mt Tabor? St John's Bridge? Sellwood? Sauvie's Island? How about an early morning run up to Timberline for breakfast? The tourist can get to all those places in his car, and any others he might wish to visit.

[downtownpdx]

No, that was the ratio of a mile of freeway lane vs a mile of rail line. One mile of freeway lane carries about 7.5 times as many passengers/hour as a mile of light rail line.

What is the point behind those numbers -- you claim that adding four lanes and more buses would increase capacity 20x over light rail. I didn't realize Portland was in need of that much more capacity along I-84... (and that adding asphalt was the only viable alternative.)

Really? Rose Gardens? Pittock House? Forest Park? Med school? Council Crest? Mt Tabor? St John's Bridge? Sellwood? Sauvie's Island? How about an early morning run up to Timberline for breakfast? The tourist can get to all those places in his car, and any others he might wish to visit.

Point taken -- you can't take a light rail train to Timberline. Just trying to point out that if a city/region steers away from this "A car is the easiest way so let's just keep laying more asphalt" mentality, and provides viable, accessibletransit alternatives, then people will use them. They don't have to-- nobody is forcing them out of their cars at gunpoint -- but if there is a comprehensive, convenient transit system that meshes with complementary zoning/land-use, then parking the car and taking a train/bus/streetcar becomes more of a common-sense option. Again, you don't have to subscribe to what you claim to be this "arrogant" approach to transit, but if we just keep sprawling and developing our cities like it's 1955 again, then the only viable option you leave people is to drive. Then see how much traffic you have to sit in. That's arrogance. (And by the way, most of the rest of those tourist spots you mentioned can be reached by bus, and the med school also by streetcar/aerial tram if so desired.) :)

[urbanlife]

At the end of a long, pointless forum argument neither of us will change each others opinion and the reality is that it isn't even that important to try and change either one's opinion anyway. You have your reasons for the way you feel about things and I have mine.


Well I figured I wanted to point this out that I mentioned at the very beginning because I am sure it still holds true.

But to follow it up with everything that has been said so far, I will proudly fight against ANYONE who's answer to all our traffic woes is more asphalt and more lanes and parking for cars.

Besides, you never answered my earlier question, where would you run freeways through Spokane to help its current traffic issues if you do not support doing so through alternative forms of transportation...and don't say you didn't say cities shouldn't use other forms of transportation because all you have pointed out is how pointless it is to try and use other forms compared to the superiority of the car.


You think it is irony, Omaha, because you assume that the difficulty with using bikes is the lack of "infrastructure." That is not the problem. It is not the reason people do not use bikes for much of anything except recreational riding. They don't use bikes because you cannot carry the kids and all their gear to their soccer game on your bike, you can't carry home 4 sacks of groceries on your bike, you can't haul a sheet of plywood from Home Depot on your bike, you can't pick up the kids from daycare after work on your bike, you can't get from Liberty Lake to downtown Spokane in 15 minutes on your bike, you can't ride your bike when there is 2 ft of snow on the ground, and you won't want to ride it when it is pouring rain or 2 degrees below zero. You can build bike paths and bike lanes until you run out of asphalt, and it will not overcome those intrinsic drawbacks.


Also, you seem to be missing the importance of a bike culture social city, you make this statement with this country's current flawed infrastructure system in mind rather than one that isn't focused solely by car.

It is a lie to say people do not bike for other means besides recreational because that is an insult to all the commuter bikers in this country. Also weather is little factor, you make it sound like people in Portland only bike two months out of the year which is complete BS, we bike 12 months out of the year and even some hardcore people continued to bike during our snow storms.

For starters, not everyone in this country has kids, nor are kids soccer games everyday, and no one here is saying you have to choice between biking and the car, why can't a family have one family car for things like this and use their bike for daily commuting, especially if kids are being taken to school by bus or living within walking distance to their school?

Actually one can carry home 5-6 sacks of groceries on their bike, two up front, three on the back wheel, and a backpack for another sack...it is possible to do with the right equipment and people do it all the time in Portland. Also, if a city was built for the bike and walking instead of the car, you would have much more convenient grocery stores that catered more to a clientele that had a short distance of travel. I currently do not need to drive to the grocery store because I live within a short walk or bike ride from it and can easily pass by it on my way home from work which is also within biking distance of my house.

Did you know that it is impossible to haul a sheet of plywood in a little Kia too...so are you saying I should sell it and buy a large extended cab truck to help haul plywood, something that I am pretty sure 95% of the people in this country do not do that daily.

Did you know that it is possible to walk with your kids from school to the house if you lived within walking distance to the school, which would be more the case if cities were built around the bike rather than the car...it is amazing to think that if this world decided to go against the car industry, we would have a much more bike friendly and much more livable communities than we do now.

Did you know that Liberty Lake and Spokane are quite a distance from each other and the only reason people would need to commute from such a distance is because they simply own a car...but if there were a train that traveled that distance, and you have pointed out that there is a trail that runs that length, it wouldn't be impossible to make such a commute, and coming from someone who likes to do a 45 mile bike ride from time to time to Sauvie Island, I have to say a long bike ride like that is much healthier for the body and mind, something that same car drive could never give me.

Actually it is possible to ride your bike on ice and snow, much like the studded tires Spokanites put on their car each year, there is winter tires for bikes that do the same thing...so you cannot say it isn't possible.



You can build bike paths and bike lanes until you run out of asphalt, and it will not overcome those intrinsic drawbacks.

You can build car paths and car lanes until you run out of asphalt, and it will not overcome those intrinsic drawbacks.


Weird, it is like listening to a record backwards, you could say the same thing about the car, you can built 20 lane freeways and it will not cure a city's traffic woes and your argument that the amount of space bikes need for lanes and the amount a car needs is purely laughable. If you removed all cars from this county's road system and called them all bike lanes, this would be the easiest traveled bike country. I need three feet wide of asphalt to ride my bike on, and I am pretty sure I could ride on that same stretch of asphalt a 1000 times and not do as much damage to it that a car would do with its 12ft width of asphalt. Also if you want to do the math, that 12ft for a car would be equal to 3 bike lanes, 24ft would give you three bike lanes in two directions, which is just pure luxury...but for a car to have a 6 lane road, it would need a minimum of 64ft width, so again, bikes look like they produce much less damage to their surroundings and consume much less space than what a car consumes.


And so you know, this world is changing and for every person that is telling us that the car is the only superior form of transportation, there is going to be plenty of us (that will be in much better shape physically) to tell you otherwise and tell you by actually showing you that it is possible to live a life without relying on a car by actually living that lifestyle...which yes living around a bike is a lifestyle much like it is living around your car, and if that is the way you wish to live your life, that is great, I am happy for you that you feel comfortable with your car, but do not tell me that my opinion doesn't matter because not enough people in this country bike, I do not recall me or any other bikers out there asking for more than what cars have, and the cost of a bicycle infrastructure is a fraction of the cost that it the car infrastructure receives.

[Contrarian]

Urban,

But to follow it up with everything that has been said so far, I will proudly fight against ANYONE who's answer to all our traffic woes is more asphalt and more lanes and parking for cars.

Didn't think you'd give up that easily. :-)

Besides, you never answered my earlier question, where would you run freeways through Spokane to help its current traffic issues if you do not support doing so through alternative forms of transportation...

Wherever they are needed, constrained by costs. The North-South freeway now under construction is probably not optimally routed for commuter utilization, but it will probably take 50-60% of the through traffic off Division and Hamilton Sts, and cut commute times from N. Spokane and NE suburbs in half. Another new freeway will probably be needed in NW Spokane at some point, but not now.

and don't say you didn't say cities shouldn't use other forms of transportation because all you have pointed out is how pointless it is to try and use other forms compared to the superiority of the car.

I didn't say cities shouldn't use other modes of transportation. They should build them wherever there is a demonstrated demand for them. And your phrasing of that statement indicates your focus, and the source of your errors. Cities don't "use transporation." The people living in them do. Cities should not build modes of transportation that people do not and will not use. Nor should they refuse to build the form of infrastructure people prefer to use in an arrogant attempt to force them to use the modes the planners and bureaucrats fancy.

Portland, for example, should have widened the Banfield, rather than built the MAX line. The rail line has mainly replaced buses for existing users of transit; it has diverted very few people from their cars, nor will it ever. And as result the commute to E. Portland and suburbs is more congested than ever. Planners imagine that making commutes unpleasant or impossible will force people to move into downtown condos. What it will actually do is force downtown employers to Vancouver (WA) or to Idaho.

Rail transit works well in a few places where there is very high density and where one's employer is fairly close to one's residence, e.g., Manhattan, central Toronto, etc. It makes no sense in most Western US cities.

Also, you seem to be missing the importance of a bike culture social city, you make this statement with this country's current flawed infrastructure system in mind rather than one that isn't focused solely by car.

"Bike culture"? You mean the 1% of people who ride bikes to work? However important that "culture" (actually a subculture, like the Amish with their horse-drawn buggies) might loom in some trendy social circles, it is negligible in the overall transportation picture in most cities.

It is a lie to say people do not bike for other means besides recreational because that is an insult to all the commuter bikers in this country.

I didn't say, that, Urban. A few people indeed do use bikes for commuting --- about 1% nationally. Cities' transportation infrastructures should be configured and their budgets apportioned accordingly. As I've said before, I have no objection to creating bike lanes per se. They are fairly low-costs improvements in most cases. The objection is to adding them to streets when they will displace many more travelers than they will ever carry, because some full-of-himself planner wants to "change the culture." No planner, pol, or bureaucrat is competent or legitimately empowered to do that.

For starters, not everyone in this country has kids, nor are kids soccer games everyday, and no one here is saying you have to choice between biking and the car, why can't a family have one family car for things like this and use their bike for daily commuting, especially if kids are being taken to school by bus or living within walking distance to their school?

Most of them will not use a bike for daily commuting, whether they have kids or not, because it would take them 4-5 times as long to get to work (from Gresham, say); because they will not want to arrive at work frozen, wet and exhausted; because they plan to do a few errands on the way home, such as picking up the dry cleaning or grocery shopping; or because the factory where they work is surrounded by an unpleasant neighborhood, and the women especially would not feel safe riding through it at night on the way home. To mention just a few of the reasons. And you persist in your arrogance: "Why can't they (do this or do that)?" Because they don't want to. And since it is their time, money, and comfort at stake, it is their choice to make, not yours. Not the choice of planners and pols.

Did you know that it is impossible to haul a sheet of plywood in a little Kia too...so are you saying I should sell it and buy a large extended cab truck to help haul plywood, something that I am pretty sure 95% of the people in this country do not do that daily.

That is why SUV's outsell Kias about 10-1. But they do not need to do it every day. They choose a vehicle for versatility, among other reasons --- one which will permit them to do whatever they are likely to want to do, even though they don't do most of them very often.

Did you know that it is possible to walk with your kids from school to the house if you lived within walking distance to the school, which would be more the case if cities were built around the bike rather than the car...

You continue to substitute fantasy for reality, Urban. Most people do not live near where they work, and they don't want to. Nor were cities "built around the car." That is greenie revisionist history. They were built where the people wanted to be --- where they always wanted to be, but could not be until first streetcars and then the auto came along. Most of them did not especially desire to live in Manhattan tenements, even in 1850. They dreamed of living in a country house, where the kids and the dog had room to play, where they could grow a few tomatoes, and where they could trust their neighbors. But they could not live in such a place in 1850. They could not afford it, and they would not have been able to commute to their jobs in the city. But rising incomes enabled them to buy a bigger place --- a single-family house --- and the streetcar enabled them to live further away. Continuing prosperity and the automobile allows them even bigger places, even further away. The automobile allows people to live where they prefer to live. It liberated them from living conditions most of them found oppressive.

Cities are always "built around" the desires of their inhabitants, insofar as the extent technology allows those preferences to be realized.

I've always thought it amusing that greenies who champion transit and bicycles regard themselves as "progressives," when they are in fact advocating a regression to technolgies and lifestyles people abandoned 100 years ago --- as soon as technology allowed them to do so.

[urbanlife]

Urban,



Didn't think you'd give up that easily. :-)



Wherever they are needed, constrained by costs. The North-South freeway now under construction is probably not optimally routed for commuter utilization, but it will probably take 50-60% of the through traffic off Division and Hamilton Sts, and cut commute times from N. Spokane and NE suburbs in half. Another new freeway will probably be needed in NW Spokane at some point, but not now.



I didn't say cities shouldn't use other modes of transportation. They should build them wherever there is a demonstrated demand for them. And your phrasing of that statement indicates your focus, and the source of your errors. Cities don't "use transporation." The people living in them do. Cities should not build modes of transportation that people do not and will not use. Nor should they refuse to build the form of infrastructure people prefer to use in an arrogant attempt to force them to use the modes the planners and bureaucrats fancy.

Portland, for example, should have widened the Banfield, rather than built the MAX line. The rail line has mainly replaced buses for existing users of transit; it has diverted very few people from their cars, nor will it ever. And as result the commute to E. Portland and suburbs is more congested than ever. Planners imagine that making commutes unpleasant or impossible will force people to move into downtown condos. What it will actually do is force downtown employers to Vancouver (WA) or to Idaho.

Rail transit works well in a few places where there is very high density and where one's employer is fairly close to one's residence, e.g., Manhattan, central Toronto, etc. It makes no sense in most Western US cities.



"Bike culture"? You mean the 1% of people who ride bikes to work? However important that "culture" (actually a subculture, like the Amish with their horse-drawn buggies) might loom in some trendy social circles, it is negligible in the overall transportation picture in most cities.



I didn't say, that, Urban. A few people indeed do use bikes for commuting --- about 1% nationally. Cities' transportation infrastructures should be configured and their budgets apportioned accordingly. As I've said before, I have no objection to creating bike lanes per se. They are fairly low-costs improvements in most cases. The objection is to adding them to streets when they will displace many more travelers than they will ever carry, because some full-of-himself planner wants to "change the culture." No planner, pol, or bureaucrat is competent or legitimately empowered to do that.



Most of them will not use a bike for daily commuting, whether they have kids or not, because it would take them 4-5 times as long to get to work (from Gresham, say); because they will not want to arrive at work frozen, wet and exhausted; because they plan to do a few errands on the way home, such as picking up the dry cleaning or grocery shopping; or because the factory where they work is surrounded by an unpleasant neighborhood, and the women especially would not feel safe riding through it at night on the way home. To mention just a few of the reasons. And you persist in your arrogance: "Why can't they (do this or do that)?" Because they don't want to. And since it is their time, money, and comfort at stake, it is their choice to make, not yours. Not the choice of planners and pols.



That is why SUV's outsell Kias about 10-1. But they do not need to do it every day. They choose a vehicle for versatility, among other reasons --- one which will permit them to do whatever they are likely to want to do, even though they don't do most of them very often.



You continue to substitute fantasy for reality, Urban. Most people do not live near where they work, and they don't want to. Nor were cities "built around the car." That is greenie revisionist history. They were built where the people wanted to be --- where they always wanted to be, but could not be until first streetcars and then the auto came along. Most of them did not especially desire to live in Manhattan tenements, even in 1850. They dreamed of living in a country house, where the kids and the dog had room to play, where they could grow a few tomatoes, and where they could trust their neighbors. But they could not live in such a place in 1850. They could not afford it, and they would not have been able to commute to their jobs in the city. But rising incomes enabled them to buy a bigger place --- a single-family house --- and the streetcar enabled them to live further away. Continuing prosperity and the automobile allows them even bigger places, even further away. The automobile allows people to live where they prefer to live. It liberated them from living conditions most of them found oppressive.

Cities are always "built around" the desires of their inhabitants, insofar as the extent technology allows those preferences to be realized.

I've always thought it amusing that greenies who champion transit and bicycles regard themselves as "progressives," when they are in fact advocating a regression to technolgies and lifestyles people abandoned 100 years ago --- as soon as technology allowed them to do so.

When this was written, it was out of quick thought and much more emotionally focused and not meant to be intended as an attack on anyone's personal points of views, but rather my own frustration from people who do not understand the importance of having a healthy biking community within urban cities.



That is the biggest bullshit comment on this entire post...cities are built around the car because you point it out in every statement...also you ignore the fact that car industries at one point began buying up all the streetcar routes in cities and closing them down so people would buy more cars...there was no, gee these car are much better, it was wow the train I use to use no longer runs....and oh look the government is giving me money to build a new house in the suburbs thanks to my time as war....those two factors are the driving force of this car culture you are so proud to be apart of.


And the North South Freeway will not alleviate any actual congestion from the city, so I again ask you, what new route would you actually be in favor of seeing that it would more than likely devastate a good number of the neighborhoods in Spokane. And again, I grew up in a city that's sole form of transportation is the car and they expanded the freeway and expanded the freeway to alleviate traffic, now they currently have a 12-14 lane monster running through their city that is currently full of cars creeping along during rush hours...thus not really fixing any real problems, just allowing the problem to get bigger.

I have yet to see expanding freeways as being the solution of our traffic problems and much of our poor neighborhood issues we are facing in cities is because of freeways that cut through them at one point or another.

In Seattle, 1-5 cut through the densest neighborhood in Seattle to provide a freeway for the metro....but why did they choose the most dense neighborhood to cut through? Could it be because it was the poorest.

Feel free to live in your "car is the greatest thing in the world" fantasy, some of us are realizing differently...and I am much healthier and happier riding a bike daily than I ever was driving a car....but you go on and keep telling me I am wrong for doing that because I am apart of some subculture...like women wanting to vote before the 1960s or something. :tup:

[urbanlife]

I was thinking about this topic earlier today, and I think there are some things that are being missed in the forum form that could be expressed better in a real conversation.

First off, this notion that the US is going to abandon its cars without a severe earth shattering change is probably never going to happen. I personally feel that this country would of been a much better country had we taken a direction away from cars, we would of had tighter knit cities, we would of better preserved urban fabrics that have been removed to be replaced with buildings and lots for cars. We would of preserved even more of our open space that we Americans love so much...and it would be easy to argue that we would of consumed less energy commuting and would of had better built communities.

Obviously that is all what ifs? What I can say is that it wouldn't kill developers to begin building subdevelopments that actually circle around the idea of a walking community because it makes no sense to have to drive outside of a neighborhood just to get basic needs and would actually strengthen a neighborhood by getting them out of a car more often and get people walking in their own neighborhoods...it is very common to find suburban streets void of life majority of the time.


Also there is another issue I am having with the numbers here. This 1% bike commuters seems to be thrown around a lot with little understanding of the number. You would be amazed at what 1% of the transportation budget can buy you when it comes to bicycle infrastructure because it is actually fairly cheap in comparison to the car to build and maintain. Also, you could argue that Portland's metro barely uses bikes for commuting, but I have never mentioned the suburbs of Portland, I have only been talking about Portland and Spokane...no suburbs are being mentioned in my part of the debate because almost all suburbs are completely auto focused and are generations beyond generations from ever being changed from being auto focused...basically I will be long dead before that happens.

With that said, in Portland we have about 5.8 percent of our commuters that commute by bike...before you try to debunk this with whatever you would plan to use, I said Portland commuters meaning this does not include people who live outside of Portland and choice to commute into Portland...though if I did, 5.8 percent would be a huge number. Almost 6% is a big enough number to not be ignored especially in a city that wishes to have that number be higher by providing more safety for people who could potentially bike but choice not to do to feeling unsafe in traffic.

This 5.8% of bike commuters in Portland have been given a plan that would expand our bike paths and safety features within 20 years and would cost between 225million to 582million, depending on which route is taken with funding...the 225 million dollar plan is called the 80% plan which would provide biking access to about 80% of all Portland residents...again remember that I said Portland and not Portland metro...big difference. Or a better way of looking at it is 225 million over 20 years or 11.25 million every year. Now comes the fun part with percentages, just so you can better understand my point and support for an actual bike culture...and I would say almost 6% of Portland's commuter population that bikes (again Portland, not the metro) is enough to actually call it a "bike culture." The state of Oregon's numbers for transportation infrastructure budget for 2009-2011 sits at a big 4.07 billion dollars, or for sake of argument 1.36 billion a year.

The Portland bike culture is hoping to get 11.25million from that 1.36 billion each year (I am simplifying this some because obviously some of that 11.25 million would be coming directly from the city of Portland through various projects and not all would come from ODOT.) Which if you do the math, this bike plan would actually be asking for less than 1% of that transportation budget, which would fall right in the middle of all your key factors...by providing a healthy bicycle infrastructure within a city like Portland or Spokane would cost a small fraction it would cost to continue spending for the car.

How you are going to argue that all this is wrong and the auto is the only way to go is beyond me because I am not asking you to give up your car for a bike, I am simply asking you to support those that do wish to give up their car for a bike by understanding that a bicycle infrastructure isn't going to financially kill any city.


The information that was used in this post came from a number of locations.

Portland's bike commuter percentages (http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/10/census_data_shows_more_missoul.html)

ODOT's 4.07billion budget report (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/COMM/docs/BudgetBooklet_09-11.pdf?ga=t)

Portland Bike Plan 2030 (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=44597&a=289122)

Portland Bike Count 2009 (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=44671&a=280429)


Each one of those links are links that you should take the time to check out and read, especially the 2030 plan because that is what I would like to see cities like Spokane implementing so that others like me are able to be given a real option for commuting by bike rather than the fictional one you are currently supporting.

Also when surveying Portlanders on if they would be willing to commute by bike, only 33% said no never, while 7% said they already do and 60% said they would consider it if conditions were safer for bikers...so again, there is that "bike culture" I keep talking about....or does 67% of the Portland population not count as a majority of commuters that support bike commuting?

[Jarrod]

Sorry I didn't read the comments. Wasn't really interested in them.

Anyway, Spokane looks like a really nice city. A lot of my co-workers go down there every year to go shopping for Christmas.

[Contrarian]

Urban,

Just 2 points, cuz gotta run. But more later.

What I can say is that it wouldn't kill developers to begin building subdevelopments that actually circle around the idea of a walking community . . .

It would kill them if they could not sell what they built. You've made a mistake common to the "anti-developer" crowd --- that developers build what and where they build for personal reasons, or even for ideological reasons. They don't. They build what they think people want to buy. Sometimes they're wrong, and they lose money. So they try not to be wrong. They do not, and will not, build what planners and various species of Utopians would like them to build, unless they think they can sell it. Or, as happens a lot in Portland, they get subsidies from the government to make up for the beating they would otherwise take in the market.

About 5 years ago here in Spokane a group of women bought an old downtown warehouse adjacent to the railroad viaduct and planned to redevelop it for condos. No local bank would finance their project, claiming there was no market in Spokane for that style of housing. Finally a small farmer's bank in Davenport, WA agreed to the loan. The women ("Oddgirls LLC") announced the project and that they had financing and a contractor lined up. They sold every unit within 60 days, before construction had even started.

Their success inspired a slew of similar projects --- at least a half-dozen similar conversions, plus about 5 new highrise projects. The first couple of conversions also sold well, but then the demand seemed to fade. The last couple conversions completed still have unsold units. One completed project has not sold a single unit. All of the highrises were cancelled. Another "micro housing" project was completed, and sold (I think) one unit. The developer is now offering the rest for rent.

There was a market in Spokane for downtown housing, but not as large as developers thought after the Oddgirls' success. But as the condo market here became saturated, the market for new homes in the suburbs remained strong, and remained so until the recession began.

You cannot just tell developers they "should" build this or that. You'll have to convince them that there is a market for the product you're recommending. The best way to do that is to put your money where your mouth is --- offer to invest in the project you're promoting.

How you are going to argue that all this is wrong and the auto is the only way to go is beyond me because I am not asking you to give up your car for a bike,

I never said that, Urban. I said that planners should not add bike lanes to streets where they will displace more auto travelers than the cyclists they accommodate. That is counterproductive. But bike lanes can be added to many streets with no adverse impact on auto traffic. A city can create bike lanes through a few selected corridors where they think there is a demand. If those prove to be well used they can add others. No city should have a "20 year bike plan." That begs the question. You build a few on non-arterial streets, see how well they are used, and if so, build more. You don't commit in advance to any 20 year plan. That is allowing ideology (or just wishful thinking) to drive development, not actual demand.

[bgriff4]

Urban,

I'm pretty sure most people reading these posts are with you. I hope. I'm from Spokane but have not lived there for 8 years. I've been in Seattle for the last four. During my time away I've seen Spokane take some great steps forward, albeit slow steps. I've read about exciting ideas to create the vibrancy and identity that any medium size city needs, including expanding bike access, rail, infill, etc, but never action. Seems those that make the decisions think more like our friend contrarian. But those progressive thinkers are there, and I believe that movement is growing in Spokane. It's possible that I'll be moving back there for a job, and in moving back I feel I have a responsibility to do my part to help move these kind of issues to the forefront. Spokane wants change, and there are plans being implemented today that are pushing us there. It has a great potential to be exciting, be competitive, and be a respected NW city. More people like yourself will need to live there, and be involved for it to happen. Keep it up.

[urbanlife]

Urban,

Just 2 points, cuz gotta run. But more later.



It would kill them if they could not sell what they built. You've made a mistake common to the "anti-developer" crowd --- that developers build what and where they build for personal reasons, or even for ideological reasons. They don't. They build what they think people want to buy. Sometimes they're wrong, and they lose money. So they try not to be wrong. They do not, and will not, build what planners and various species of Utopians would like them to build, unless they think they can sell it. Or, as happens a lot in Portland, they get subsidies from the government to make up for the beating they would otherwise take in the market.

About 5 years ago here in Spokane a group of women bought an old downtown warehouse adjacent to the railroad viaduct and planned to redevelop it for condos. No local bank would finance their project, claiming there was no market in Spokane for that style of housing. Finally a small farmer's bank in Davenport, WA agreed to the loan. The women ("Oddgirls LLC") announced the project and that they had financing and a contractor lined up. They sold every unit within 60 days, before construction had even started.

Their success inspired a slew of similar projects --- at least a half-dozen similar conversions, plus about 5 new highrise projects. The first couple of conversions also sold well, but then the demand seemed to fade. The last couple conversions completed still have unsold units. One completed project has not sold a single unit. All of the highrises were cancelled. Another "micro housing" project was completed, and sold (I think) one unit. The developer is now offering the rest for rent.

There was a market in Spokane for downtown housing, but not as large as developers thought after the Oddgirls' success. But as the condo market here became saturated, the market for new homes in the suburbs remained strong, and remained so until the recession began.

You cannot just tell developers they "should" build this or that. You'll have to convince them that there is a market for the product you're recommending. The best way to do that is to put your money where your mouth is --- offer to invest in the project you're promoting.



I never said that, Urban. I said that planners should not add bike lanes to streets where they will displace more auto travelers than the cyclists they accommodate. That is counterproductive. But bike lanes can be added to many streets with no adverse impact on auto traffic. A city can create bike lanes through a few selected corridors where they think there is a demand. If those prove to be well used they can add others. No city should have a "20 year bike plan." That begs the question. You build a few on non-arterial streets, see how well they are used, and if so, build more. You don't commit in advance to any 20 year plan. That is allowing ideology (or just wishful thinking) to drive development, not actual demand.

Well lets get one thing straight here, all a developer ever cares about is money, plan and simple. They want to make the most and spend the least, if a developer could, they would build every house out of cardboard and sell it for a million dollars. Do not try and defend developers to me, my family history as a long interaction with them and I have watched a number of developers steal and cheat to keep afloat. So the idea of trusting developers to do the right thing is like leaving your wallet on the table in a room full of thieves when you go to the bathroom...trust me, your money will disappear with them.


And the example you gave with your argument actually doesn't match up to the original point. I was talking about large developments, your second point is about small developments, which are two different things when it comes to developments. Large ones are actually planned at some level. All subdevelopments needed to be drawn up with a plan for roadways, how people get in and out of the neighborhood, locations of any open space, and property lines. All of that falls under the classification of "planning" because planning isn't actually the evil word you try and make it out to be, much like planning what you are going to do for the day or planning to put together a trip. Again, please read carefully what I am writing rather than picking out what talking points you want to argue.

So again, your example was pointless to the topic of subdevelopments because renovating a warehouse isn't considered a massive development, now if your example was Kendall Yards, then that would be more accurate, but even then, there is already a plan on how that is going to look.

Also another issue I take with this is you seem to be ignoring zoning when it comes to developing a city. Would you like a factory or a Walmart with a giant parking lot being built across the street from you house with all its parking lights on 24/7? I doubt it, you would want the city to properly plan where it is best to put new zones, which is why a developer can't buy up some unsold land in the middle of a neighborhood that is marked for residential and put in a sewage plant.

So there you go, planning still needs to be apart of everything on some form of level, which people in this country do enjoy the idea of "small town America" it was clear on all those arguments about Wall Street vs Main Street, and I would argue that you would find many people that would enjoy living in real communities and neighborhoods that offered a "small town" feeling. Which is all I am suggesting, The neighborhood my parents live in in North Spokane could of easily been built that way, but instead the commercial needs of the neighborhood were pushed to the outskirts of it, making it harder to walk a short distance to pick up anything that is needed, but if the neighborhood was properly planned, everything people needed there could of easily been designed to be within walking distance, which gets people out of their car more, which puts more interactions within a neighborhood, and in turn can make a neighborhood feel much safer as people within it get to know who lives around them better.


Again to point out, I am not talking about small renovation projects, I am talking about subdevelopments that are often times up to or over a mile big.


So no city should have a 20 year freeway plan either? You are aware none of our highway system was laid overnight cause that day someone felt we needed a new highway right? A 20 year bike plan is basically a "to do" list....have you ever made one of those? Actually you should read the 20 year bike plan because there is no talk of hurting traffic, like you keep suggesting over and over, it is about safer routes and providing bikers with safer commutes....which I don't think you are actually arguing against are you?? So please, please, please read the 20 year bike plan before you try and tell me it is a "load of BS and Amerikans shouldn't plan for nothin'."


Unless of course you can prove to me that our highway system was built overnight with zero planning involved...then I might start listening to you on you "planning bad, free development anywhere good, Hulk smash" ideology cause that way of thinking is also an ideology too, you are aware of that right?

[Contrarian]

bgriff4,

I've read about exciting ideas to create the vibrancy and identity that any medium size city needs, including expanding bike access, rail, infill, etc, but never action.

Sorry to disappoint you, bgriff, but cities do not gain "vibrancy and identity" from planners' boondoggles like light rail lines and bike lanes. They are grossly underused wherever they've been built, and survive only because they are heavily subsidized.

What imparts vibrancy and identity to cities is money. That is what is needed for arts and entertainment. That's what is needed to attract talented, creative people. You don't attract those people with planners' fantasies.

What brings money to a city is business. Seattle is a vibrant city with a distinct identity. What gives it that identity is Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, Amazon, and Nordstrom, among others. What gives it vibrancy is the money those companies bring to town --- not planners' fetishes-of-the-day and bureaucrats' featherbedding projects.

And you don't attract business to a city by taxing them to support those frivolities.

Better wake up and smell the Starbucks, bgriff.

[urbanlife]

bgriff4,



Sorry to disappoint you, bgriff, but cities do not gain "vibrancy and identity" from planners' boondoggles like light rail lines and bike lanes. They are grossly underused wherever they've been built, and survive only because they are heavily subsidized.

What imparts vibrancy and identity to cities is money. That is what is needed for arts and entertainment. That's what is needed to attract talented, creative people. You don't attract those people with planners' fantasies.

What brings money to a city is business. Seattle is a vibrant city with a distinct identity. What gives it that identity is Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, Amazon, and Nordstrom, among others. What gives it vibrancy is the money those companies bring to town --- not planners' fetishes-of-the-day and bureaucrats' featherbedding projects.

And you don't attract business to a city by taxing them to support those frivolities.

Better wake up and smell the Starbucks, bgriff.

So rich people are what makes cities vibrant...Spokane isn't vibrant because it lacks rich businesses. Portland must be a stale hell hole because we have an unemployment equal to DC and San Jose must be the greatest city in California because it is full of money....last time I checked people don't always need money to have culture and vibrancy in a city.

Wanna try that statement again???


By the way, great way to describing Portland, bike lanes and light rail are two assets that we Portlanders love most about our city.

[downtownpdx]

^^^ Exactly -- Portland's Pioneer Square, Waterfront Park, Riverplace, the Pearl District, and yes, the bike lanes, light rail and streetcar lines too ... are simply the result of having Nike and Intel nearby. The planning of these these "boondoggles" had nothing to do with it. We've had no say in the future of our city... It is corporations' money alone has given us our "distinct identity." :haha: And I always thought Seattle had a beautiful waterfront, mountains, and lakes ... but apparently its identity always came from Microsoft millionaires. I can't believe I've never toured their campus!

Don't get me wrong, I understand and appreciate the benefits to the local economy of employers like these, but it's absurd to act like a city becomes vibrant by throwing planning out the window, sprawling across every last piece of open land and pleading "Look corporate America, we have no commmunity values beyond economic prowess so please come here. Give us an identity. Make us vibrant."

[Contrarian]

Urbanlife,

Well lets get one thing straight here, all a developer ever cares about is money, plan and simple. They want to make the most and spend the least, if a developer could, they would build every house out of cardboard and sell it for a million dollars.

Well, that is pretty much the standard recitation of the anti-developer catechism planning schools peddle to their naive students. You've learned your lines well. It is true, of course, that developers are in business to make money, just as is everyone else in business. But I realize that lefties, greenies, and Utopians generally regard that motive as wicked. They believe developers should instead be (as you say) "doing the right thing," which means helping the Utopians realize their various fantasies.

Developers have built every block of every city in which you have ever lived, Urban. They have built all the buildings and neighborhoods you now cherish as Historic Districts and regard as urban treasures --- all without benefit of a single city planner carping from the sidelines. They would indeed build houses of cardboard and sell them for a million dollars if they could. But of course, they know they can't, because no one would buy them. That is the same reason they build suburban single-family subdivisions instead of the high-density "walkable" developments you prefer --- because they know they can sell the former, but not the latter. As I tried to explain to you before, developers work for their customers, not for pols and planners. They don't give a hoot about your preferences in urban design unless you are prepared to put your money where your mouth is. When you are willing to pay to realize your desires, they will build what you want. Until then you are the peanut gallery, and they will ignore you, and rightly so.

And the example you gave with your argument actually doesn't match up to the original point. I was talking about large developments, your second point is about small developments, which are two different things when it comes to developments. Large ones are actually planned at some level. All subdevelopments needed to be drawn up with a plan for roadways, how people get in and out of the neighborhood, locations of any open space, and property lines. All of that falls under the classification of "planning" because planning isn't actually the evil word you try and make it out to be, much like planning what you are going to do for the day or planning to put together a trip.

Let me clarify: when I refer to "planners," I mean city planners --- municipal employees who presume to plan the development of other people's property. You're certainly right that every project must be planned. The question is, Who does the planning? The person who is investing his time, land, and money to bring the project into being, some pol who has promised a constituent group a free lunch ("more affordable housing"), or some civil servant trying to apply some formulae he learned in planning school?


Again, please read carefully what I am writing rather than picking out what talking points you want to argue.

I can't respond to every sentence, Urban. If I seem to ignore something you think a key point, call it out and I'll try to answer.

Also another issue I take with this is you seem to be ignoring zoning when it comes to developing a city. Would you like a factory or a Walmart with a giant parking lot being built across the street from you house with all its parking lights on 24/7? I doubt it, you would want the city to properly plan where it is best to put new zones, which is why a developer can't buy up some unsold land in the middle of a neighborhood that is marked for residential and put in a sewage plant.

There is nothing wrong with zoning when it is intended and applied to forestall incompatible uses. And there is a ancient common-law test of whether one use is incompatible with another --- the "public nuisance" test. A new use is a nuisance if it interferes with existing uses of neighboring land, or disturbs neighbors' "quiet enjoyment" of their property. That was the aim of zoning laws when they were originally adopted. Subsequently they were seized upon to implement various other politically popular goals, such as keeping blacks out of white neighborhoods, keeping apartments (with their undesirable immigrants and transients) out of "respectable" neighborhoods, and recently, preventing WalMart from competing with Mom & Pop Hardware.

. . .people in this country do enjoy the idea of "small town America" it was clear on all those arguments about Wall Street vs Main Street, and I would argue that you would find many people that would enjoy living in real communities and neighborhoods that offered a "small town" feeling. Which is all I am suggesting . . .

Nothing wrong with that. And as developers perceive a demand for that style of housing they will happily provide it. But I suspect you imagine that demand to be rather greater than it actually is.

The neighborhood my parents live in in North Spokane could of easily been built that way, but instead the commercial needs of the neighborhood were pushed to the outskirts of it, making it harder to walk a short distance to pick up anything that is needed, but if the neighborhood was properly planned, everything people needed there could of easily been designed to be within walking distance, which gets people out of their car more, which puts more interactions within a neighborhood, and in turn can make a neighborhood feel much safer as people within it get to know who lives around them better.

It was "propertly planned," Urban. It was planned (by its developers) to satify the demand that existed at the time. The people who bought there did not want shops next door, or two doors down. And I'll give you 10-1 that if someone asked for a zoning change to open a 7-11 or a Subway in the middle of your parents' block today the neighbors would turn out *en masse* to protest.


So no city should have a 20 year freeway plan either?

Not unless they already know where new freeways are needed, and because it may take 20 years to build them, they need to plan how to spread that work over that period. They should not be planning for freeways for which no demand has manifested itself.

[Contrarian]

So rich people are what makes cities vibrant...Spokane isn't vibrant because it lacks rich businesses.

Exactly right. Especially rich businesses. That is where all the money that supports local arts, philanthropy, cultural events, etc., ultimately comes from. That is what brings the scientists, engineers, architects, designers of all kinds, financial and computer wizards, and entrepreneurs to town --- the folks who constitute the market for galleries, theaters, specialty retailers, and *haute cuisine*. That is where the endowment funds of colleges, museums, and theaters get their money. A local example --- an elderly local lady, Myrtle Woldson, daughter of a turn-of-the century railroad and mining tycoon, donated $3 million for restoration of the Fox Theater and $1.3 million for restoration of the Moore-Turner Gardens (of which there are some photos in my spread). Without her money, neither of those projects would have happened. The more Myrtle Woldsons you have in a city, the more culture and "vibrancy" you get.

See this:

http://www.freespokane.net/?p=134

[urbanlife]

Exactly right. Especially rich businesses. That is where all the money that supports local arts, philanthropy, cultural events, etc., ultimately comes from. That is what brings the scientists, engineers, architects, designers of all kinds, financial and computer wizards, and entrepreneurs to town --- the folks who constitute the market for galleries, theaters, specialty retailers, and *haute cuisine*. That is where the endowment funds of colleges, museums, and theaters get their money. A local example --- an elderly local lady, Myrtle Woldson, daughter of a turn-of-the century railroad and mining tycoon, donated $3 million for restoration of the Fox Theater and $1.3 million for restoration of the Moore-Turner Gardens (of which there are some photos in my spread). Without her money, neither of those projects would have happened. The more Myrtle Woldsons you have in a city, the more culture and "vibrancy" you get.

See this:

http://www.freespokane.net/?p=134

Well thank you for that morning laugh, it is always good to get in a good laugh each day to really make yourself feel good. I also enjoy the fact that you seem to love linking a Libertarian blog website to compliment your arguments, when the reality is I only take blog sites for face value because this is the internet and it is easy for someone to lie about the size of their penis on it. So of course everything on that site is going to agree with everything you are saying because the people are writing are writing it for people like you...Libertarians...which everything you say sounds like it comes straight from the Libertarian playbook...so again I point out, you are more than welcome to label me however you want, but just know those labels go both ways and doesn't mean you are 100% right.

Speaking of not being 100% right, I did point out that Portland's bike commuters was just under 6% and has been on the rise since the mid 90s which would mean there was an actual demand for a bike plan....unlike the 1% you have kept claiming it was...which is a fact you seemed to gloss over when I pointed that out.

Also, from the sounds of it you have yet to read the 20 bike plan that I posted, which is disheartening to this conversation because I take the time to read the links you post, fact check them, and find out where their funding comes from...I can only guess that you are not giving what I write the same respect seeing as it sounds like you are struggling to stick to your talking points only.

Another fact that you seem to gloss over is that often times developers are given tax breaks and government subsidizing to make large scale projects to happen...that is a given fact, and through zoning (which is a planning tool) the city and its citizens can better control the future growth of their city, I am sure you want to see Spokane grow in a positive direction that you approve of, which means citizens should have some form of say of their city's direction and image.

There is a lot of money to be made in gambling, so why not let a developer get rich by building a couple casinos downtown? You seem to like to speak like you think you have me all figured out and that I am just some kid that fully supports planning and hates all developers...which is far from the truth, I have no problems with developers, but I have seen what they can do to a city when you just hand them the keys and say build whatever you want.

You get the Hampton Roads Metro...which if you really want to see what a developer run city looks like, go drive around my hometown...and I do mean drive because their is no where within the metro you can get to on foot, bike, or even bus really without it taking all day to do a short trip....if you like that kind of city, you will probably be in heaven there. But for me, I would always laugh when it would rain and several high end neighborhoods would flood each time because it was a developer who convinced the city that they should build in a portion of the city that is a flood plan because there was a high demand for new housing in that area...the city let the developers have their way and now people whine every time their garage floods because of a developer who was trying to sell them a card board house and they bought it.


Another thing you keep pointing out is that it is all the rich people in Spokane that provide the actual culture, but that is only a true fact if a city is just full of rich, old people...what should people under the age of 40 do in Spokane if they are not rich and have no interest in doing what rich, old people like doing?

You long ago glossed over a point I made about this very topic, which I am more than happy to remind you about it. I have lived in Spokane for a couple years back in 2001-2003, before moving to Portland...but I still have family that lives in Spokane so I have been coming there 3-5 times a year since moving to Portland. Through that time I have seen a number of new small places start up, several little bars pop up, I have seen the effects the Community Center building on Main has had on that portion of the city. I have seen a number of small galleries open in Spokane, I have also seen a good number of new restaurants and shops open up within downtown and in several of the cities neighborhoods.

Much of what I have seen open in recent years have been things that cater to the under 40 crowd, and especially the under 30 crowd. This is where actual culture happens. When people talk about New Orleans culture, no one is talking about all the rich old people of New Orleans, they are talking about all the amazing, poor, black jazz musicians, and and the poor artists that helped create a vibrant culture within the city that has been so attractive to people over the years. To go with this, with this recession I have found that it is actually keeping Spokane's youth from moving away from the city straight out of high school which is actually starting to have a real positive effect on the city's nightlife and could in turn one day make Spokane a hot spot for young, creative people to want to move to, which is exactly what happened with Portland. Kids weren't moving here because of Nike, they were moving here because there was a culture here that catered to them....no one class is the defining definition of culture, culture can come from all forms of groups and can shape a city accordingly.



Also another point to make is that not all buildings were built by developers, actually all those old buildings that I enjoy so much and wish so many more of them would of been preserved instead of torn down for highways and parking lots, thanks to the auto industry and the government movements that helped the auto industry grow in this country, those old buildings were often times built by small business owners to house their business. There is a difference between a small business owner building themselves a building and a developer who's only interest is to make more money off of said building and move on.






I feel like I need to break this down into talking points.

-Everyone can be considered to be reading out of a playbook of any party sway.
-Just because it is your belief doesn't mean you are 100% right, and this goes for everyone.
-Portland bike commuters is actually just less than 6% not 1% like you keep saying.
-20 year bike plan is no different than spending 20 years to build a highway.
-Did you know the North/South Freeway has been in planning since the 50s?
-Developers and government often times help each other out to make developments happen.
-Developers care about money, citizens care about living qualities.
-Hampton Roads is a developer's wet dream and it is a nightmare of a city to deal with for citizens.
-Culture comes from all social classes, not just the elite ones.
-Small businesses are on the rise in Spokane, and cater to a younger crowd that isn't rich.
-Old buildings were actually built mostly by small businesses, not developers.



That way, if you don't actually feel like reading what I am writing, these talking points should help....also, I doubt you have yet to read the 20yr bike plan, but I read everything you post, so please do not be rude and take the time to read what I post for you. Portland has 6% of its population that commutes on bike, that percentage is growing, therefore would mean that if the city builds for it over the next 20 years, we will have a healthy bike community that the people of this city actually want, which is what you keep saying, the government should only do what the citizens and developers want...which is kind of confusing because citizens don't always want what developers want, which is why we have government to keep developers in check usually....but everything you say says that, yet you are also against that....that is like saying you hate to poop, but still need to poop.

[Contrarian]

Urban,

of course everything on that site is going to agree with everything you are saying

You bet. It's my blog. :-)

[urbanlife]

Urban,



You bet. It's my blog. :-)

That doesn't actually help your argument at all. Try giving me real links to factual sites if you wish to continue with any form of actual debate about any of these topics...

[Contrarian]

Urban,

Busy here, but I will take up some of your "talking points" later today.

[Contrarian]

Urban,

Speaking of not being 100% right, I did point out that Portland's bike commuters was just under 6% and has been on the rise since the mid 90s which would mean there was an actual demand for a bike plan....unlike the 1% you have kept claiming it was...which is a fact you seemed to gloss over when I pointed that out.

I never claimed the the rate in Portland was 1%. That is the national average. But the same answer applies: if 6% of the traffic on Portland's streets is cyclists, then the city should devote 6% of its street budget to those users. But it should not accommodate that those users by means which will displace several times that number of auto users, by, say, removing a traffic lane from an arterial street to add a bike lane.

Also, Urban, you cannot rely on survey results to get those numbers. You have to do actual counts on streets, on an annualized basis (all seasons, all kinds of weather).

Another fact that you seem to gloss over is that often times developers are given tax breaks and government subsidizing to make large scale projects to happen...that is a given fact, and through zoning (which is a planning tool) the city and its citizens can better control the future growth of their city, I am sure you want to see Spokane grow in a positive direction that you approve of, which means citizens should have some form of say of their city's direction and image.

No, they shouldn't. Cities are not collectives or giant communes. The land within them is not collective property and is not collectively owned by their residents. A city is simply a municipal corporation organized by the property owners in a certain geographic locale to provide a few public services --- streets, water and sewer, police, etc. Most of the property within it is privately and separately owned, by thousands of unique persons who have thousands of different hopes and plans for it, all of whom are entitled to pursue their various plans without interference from officious and presumptive neighbors, pandering politicians, or arrogant planners who think they know better how Smith's land should be developed than Smith does. Creation of a municipal corporation does not give any citizen a "say" in what other citizens do with their property, as long as the latter are not causing a nuisance.

Nor may you "control the future growth" of your city, other than, perhaps, by refusing to annex any more land into it, in which case it will grow anyway, just outside city limits. Controlling growth requires that you control how other people live their lives and deploy their resources --- to dictate where they may live, what sorts of accommodations they may choose, and how they use their own land, all of which are none of your business and not your decisions to make. Nor should a city government be handing over dollars seized from its citizens to "make large scale projects happen." Those projects will happen if there is a demand for them in the market. If there isn't, then they should not happen. Those projects require subsidies because they are not market-clearing, which means that they are not cost-effective. They are invariably projects which strike some pol's or planner's fancy, but which do not interest buyers in the market in sufficient numbers to induce them to freely hand over their money to pay for them. They are what are known as "dogs on the market." And the pols feed those dogs with money confiscated from citizens by force.

And no, I don't want to "see Spokane grow in a postive direction I approve of." I want it to be free to grow in whatever directions (and there will be many more than one) its 200,000 residents variously choose for their own particular parts of it. I have no ambition to be a "master of the world," a la Sim City. Real cities are not Sim Cities. They are complex adaptive systems which grow and evolve randomly, in directions which are the net product of the millions of interests and motives of their inhabitants as those vary from day to day. They are like natural ecosystems; they don't need a "master gardener" to prune them into some preconceived pattern, like a potted bonsai.

There is a lot of money to be made in gambling, so why not let a developer get rich by building a couple casinos downtown?

Sounds good to me.

Another thing you keep pointing out is that it is all the rich people in Spokane that provide the actual culture, but that is only a true fact if a city is just full of rich, old people...what should people under the age of 40 do in Spokane if they are not rich and have no interest in doing what rich, old people like doing?

You missed that point, Urban. Rich old people and rich businesses do not create the culture. They finance it, and they attract the people who provide the market for it. You begin to have galleries and artists to stock them when there are people willing to buy art. People become willing to buy art when they have disposable income. They have disposable incomes when they have good jobs. The good jobs come from the likes of Microsoft and Boeing. Those companies also become the sources of the millionaires who endow libraries, museums, and colleges. And such companies, if they are not homegrown, seek localities where they can operate at a profit.

Much of what I have seen open in recent years have been things that cater to the under 40 crowd, and especially the under 30 crowd. This is where actual culture happens. When people talk about New Orleans culture, no one is talking about all the rich old people of New Orleans, they are talking about all the amazing, poor, black jazz musicians, and and the poor artists that helped create a vibrant culture within the city that has been so attractive to people over the years.

I agree, having lived in NO for several years. But without the money flowing into the city from New Orleans' bustling port and cotton market in the 19th century, there would have been no one to buy that music or art, and no one to patronize Brennan's or Galatoire's.

Also another point to make is that not all buildings were built by developers, actually all those old buildings that I enjoy so much and wish so many more of them would of been preserved instead of torn down for highways and parking lots, thanks to the auto industry and the government movements that helped the auto industry grow in this country, those old buildings were often times built by small business owners to house their business.

Everyone who develops property is a developer, Urban. And the landmark buildings in this city and Portland were not built by small businesses. They were built by the biggest, wealthiest businesses in town. So were the neighborhoods, such as Browne's Addition, Corbin's Addition, etc. --- those developers platted the subdivision, laid out and sometimes paved the streets, and sold the lots, whose buyers then built what they wanted on them, perhaps subject to restrictive covenants. No bureaucrats were involved.

-20 year bike plan is no different than spending 20 years to build a highway.

Yes it is. The need for the freeway has been known for years, as evidenced by the traffic on Division St and later, Hamilton St. The extent of the need for bike paths has not been shown *from actual traffic counts*.

-Developers and government often times help each other out to make developments happen.

Yes, they do. Developers run to gummint when they cannot raise the capital they need for their project in the open market, because the demand is not there. Or simply because the local government is handing out money for some boondoggle. They are happy to take it.

-Developers care about money, citizens care about living qualities.

The developer has to care about living qualities in order to make any money --- the living qualities of the persons to whom he plans to market his properties. He does not care about the preferences and prejudices of neighbors whose names are not on his deeds and whose money is not on the table. Their right to exercise their preferences stop at their property lines, just as his does.

Think I covered most of it, Urban, but if I missed something you thought crucial, call it out.

[urbanlife]

I never claimed the the rate in Portland was 1%. That is the national average. But the same answer applies: if 6% of the traffic on Portland's streets is cyclists, then the city should devote 6% of its street budget to those users. But it should not accommodate that those users by means which will displace several times that number of auto users, by, say, removing a traffic lane from an arterial street to add a bike lane.

Also, Urban, you cannot rely on survey results to get those numbers. You have to do actual counts on streets, on an annualized basis (all seasons, all kinds of weather).

Reading over your past responses, I will give you credit, you never said Portland was 1% bike commuters, which again if the bike community in Portland was given even 3% of the transportation money we would be able to build a work class bike system...and speaking of things we never said, I never once said these bike lane should be on the busiest of roads. I would say it would be absurd to put bike lanes on Division in Spokane, I would want them to be like they are in Portland for Burnside, where the bike lanes are on the two parallel streets, Couch and Ankeny. The only time an actual car lane should be devoted to bikes are when the road is well below capacity, but typically most bike lanes need is a simple 6feet on each side, and side roads to be properly painted to make drivers aware that they are driving on official bike lanes.

I never said anything about relying on surveys for street counts, I said there was a survey that said more people would consider riding if it were safer to do...that makes sense, would you drive. People like to feel safe with anything they are doing, regardless if it is walking, biking, or driving. Actual street counts are much more important and Portland has been conducting those since the early 90s which has said that bike commuters have been on the rise since the beginning of the counting and the more money the city puts into the growing bike community the bigger it gets.

Which all of that you have to agree with...seriously, it is everything you are actually pointing out.


No, they shouldn't. Cities are not collectives or giant communes. The land within them is not collective property and is not collectively owned by their residents. A city is simply a municipal corporation organized by the property owners in a certain geographic locale to provide a few public services --- streets, water and sewer, police, etc. Most of the property within it is privately and separately owned, by thousands of unique persons who have thousands of different hopes and plans for it, all of whom are entitled to pursue their various plans without interference from officious and presumptive neighbors, pandering politicians, or arrogant planners who think they know better how Smith's land should be developed than Smith does. Creation of a municipal corporation does not give any citizen a "say" in what other citizens do with their property, as long as the latter are not causing a nuisance.

Nor may you "control the future growth" of your city, other than, perhaps, by refusing to annex any more land into it, in which case it will grow anyway, just outside city limits. Controlling growth requires that you control how other people live their lives and deploy their resources --- to dictate where they may live, what sorts of accommodations they may choose, and how they use their own land, all of which are none of your business and not your decisions to make. Nor should a city government be handing over dollars seized from its citizens to "make large scale projects happen." Those projects will happen if there is a demand for them in the market. If there isn't, then they should not happen. Those projects require subsidies because they are not market-clearing, which means that they are not cost-effective. They are invariably projects which strike some pol's or planner's fancy, but which do not interest buyers in the market in sufficient numbers to induce them to freely hand over their money to pay for them. They are what are known as "dogs on the market." And the pols feed those dogs with money confiscated from citizens by force.

And no, I don't want to "see Spokane grow in a postive direction I approve of." I want it to be free to grow in whatever directions (and there will be many more than one) its 200,000 residents variously choose for their own particular parts of it. I have no ambition to be a "master of the world," a la Sim City. Real cities are not Sim Cities. They are complex adaptive systems which grow and evolve randomly, in directions which are the net product of the millions of interests and motives of their inhabitants as those vary from day to day. They are like natural ecosystems; they don't need a "master gardener" to prune them into some preconceived pattern, like a potted bonsai.

You realize this is a giant bag of contradictions right? First question, define nuisance. I am sure everyone has a different definition for this, if your next door neighbor owns enough land for a drag strip and want to put one in, by your definition he should be allowed because you shouldn't be allowed to hinder his use of his land because you don't own it.

Cities have zoning laws and regulations of what can and can not be built to keep people from killing each other basically. You can argue all you want about that...my opinion is not changing.


You missed that point, Urban. Rich old people and rich businesses do not create the culture. They finance it, and they attract the people who provide the market for it. You begin to have galleries and artists to stock them when there are people willing to buy art. People become willing to buy art when they have disposable income. They have disposable incomes when they have good jobs. The good jobs come from the likes of Microsoft and Boeing. Those companies also become the sources of the millionaires who endow libraries, museums, and colleges. And such companies, if they are not homegrown, seek localities where they can operate at a profit.

I won't argue this statement because I think it is equally right, cities do need and tax income balance like this to stay afloat, but to say only rich companies bring culture to a city is false, a poor city can be filled with traditions and culture and truth be told, usually always is...so that is my point.


I agree, having lived in NO for several years. But without the money flowing into the city from New Orleans' bustling port and cotton market in the 19th century, there would have been no one to buy that music or art, and no one to patronize Brennan's or Galatoire's.

Yes and no, yes New Orleans grew because of its port and cotton market, but the music industry grew because there was a human need for such music and like music clubs today, it is the younger crowd that has a high disposable income that are going to these shows and hearing the new bands, not people like my parents. So again, money helps a city grow, but it isnt the end all to making a city cultural.


Everyone who develops property is a developer, Urban. And the landmark buildings in this city and Portland were not built by small businesses. They were built by the biggest, wealthiest businesses in town. So were the neighborhoods, such as Browne's Addition, Corbin's Addition, etc. --- those developers platted the subdivision, laid out and sometimes paved the streets, and sold the lots, whose buyers then built what they wanted on them, perhaps subject to restrictive covenants. No bureaucrats were involved.

Again, that is a technicality that isn't entirely true. I would not consider Nike to be a developer at all, but they have built probably a 100 buildings across the world and have a huge campus next to Beaverton...but I would call them first and foremost a business and a corporation, but not a developer. Or you can replace Nike with the Plaid Pantry or 7-11.

But you combine two different things into one to try and give your statement some truth which is false, neighborhoods such as Browne's, Corbin's, and so on were built by developers...and are you sure no bureaucrat was involved?? Especially during times like that when many early forms of local government in this country were ran like the mod, heck I bet if you really looked into the history of those neighborhoods and how they came about, it might actually shock you with how much back room dealing went on with streetcar lines and road improvements to make such neighborhoods more attractive with the help of a city. Many eastside neighborhoods in Portland happened because of lobbying for bridges and streetcar lines to help get people moving from their neighborhoods into where the jobs were, and I would bet some of the same things happened in Spokane.


Yes it is. The need for the freeway has been known for years, as evidenced by the traffic on Division St and later, Hamilton St. The extent of the need for bike paths has not been shown *from actual traffic counts*.

Before you start to sound like an ass, I probably should point out a link that I am sure you didn't click on.

Portland 2009 Bike Count (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=44671&a=280429)

This is something I posted earlier, but I am guessing you didn't click on or didn't read through, this is Portland's bike count of actual bike commuters that has been happening since the early 90s that not only counts the number of people who bike over our bridges, but several locations as well, as well as the gender and age of who is biking. It is an extensive traffic count that happens each year that has basically informed the city of Portland that bike commuting has been on the rise and continues to rise, thus justifies having a 20 year bike plan to handle this growth and demand...oh, and just so you know, traffic counting is a form of planning that allows planners actual data to make decisions of future plans and guidelines for a city so that they know where the city can most effectively improve traffic patterns and improve development in stagnant areas that would not improve without proper treatment.

Also, I hate to break it to you but the North/South Freeway will do nothing to alleviate traffic on Division or Hamilton...but it will further isolate the East Central neighborhood that I-90 currently cuts through and will make that neighborhood even more of a desolate part of town...oh and speaking of which, doesn't that mean that freeway will be a nuisance to the property owners that will soon have another highway cutting through their neighborhood? Again, there is no simple answer for a city to properly grow and protect everyone's rights in it...you make it sound like it is a cut and dry issue when it will never be that.


Yes, they do. Developers run to gummint when they cannot raise the capital they need for their project in the open market, because the demand is not there. Or simply because the local government is handing out money for some boondoggle. They are happy to take it.

Can we not use words like boondoggle anymore?? Seriously, it makes you sound like you like wearing a three point hat and a red, white, and blue jumpsuit....no offense to you in any way, that is just what I think of when I hear words like that....I would much rather have you cussing.

But I will point out something that I pointed out earlier and you shot down or at least sounded like you tried to shoot down. This statement points out that a developer is not concerned about the citizens' best interest (which is what we have governments for) and as you pointed out that developers are willing to take any handout that they are able to get to build their projects, should this be allowed? No, with the exception of when it is in the best interest of the citizens because the government should be working for its people. I will agree with you on this one for the most part, I personally think a sports team owner should pay for their own stadiums and would probably not require a new one to be built every 20years if that were the case, but in the best interest of the citizens, cities and states shell out a lot of money to build these new stadiums because we love our teams and don't ever want to see them move. Again, feel free to argue that one all you want, but society and how government and developers spend money probably will never change....heck, John McCain has been saying the government system is broken since he took office back in the 70s(I believe without actually looking it up?) If a politician tells you they are going to fix a "broken system" they are either lying to you or have no clue on how they are going to fix it or have no idea how it should properly be working because there is no correct answer on how a government should be run.


The developer has to care about living qualities in order to make any money --- the living qualities of the persons to whom he plans to market his properties. He does not care about the preferences and prejudices of neighbors whose names are not on his deeds and whose money is not on the table. Their right to exercise their preferences stop at their property lines, just as his does.

I would almost have to call you naive for thinking like this. In the late 80s there were stucco homes built in an area in Virginia Beach, which is a humid city and stucco is meant for dry climates. These homes sold at a high end value and the developer sold every last unit and moved on, from that moment on it was the property owners problem if anything were to happen...what the developer knew about that when building those homes is that stucco rots from the inside out in humid weather and after about 10years those homes needed massive help to fix the rotting issue, which at that point the developer was not at fault because of the amount of time that had passed. Should he of been forced to fix the damages that were caused because of a developer's poor choice to make money? Should the owners be punished for being idiots and buying a stucco home in a humid city? If you are the home owner, you would be pissed that you were basically lied to when buying your home, and if you were the developer you would be like that isn't my problem because you own the home now.

Again, nothing in this world is simple, nor is issues like this. And all a developer cares about is you buying their product...and that product only has to look good enough for you to buy, it doesn't have to last...and if a developer could make a million dollar home out of cardboard look like a million dollars, he would sell it to the biggest idiot he could find and no give a damn about what happens to that house.

Case is point, when Virginia Beach gets hit with a massive hurricane, expect to see massive amounts of damage from homes blowing over because of poor construction techniques and shotty construction with too many short cuts taken...I know this because I grew up in that city during its big build up and my mom worked for developers and contractors and I am very aware of all the short cuts that were taken to save a developer money....which is why I would never trust a developer without severe checks and balances in their work.

Again, feel free to argue about this all you want, but because of my first hand experience with this, I will never change my opinion about developers.

[whovean]

everthing anyone needs to know about wonderfull Spokane Washington.... i rest my case
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spokompton
:haha: :yes: :yuck: :slob: :lmao:

[Fresh]

Contrarian, do you really think that allowing the market to determine the entire shape of a city is a wise thing to do?

I don't know how you can look at all those blighted areas of what were once great cities and not at least shed a few tears for the devastation wrought by a ceaseless commitment to the automobile.

I live in Sydney and we love our cars here, indeed we are one of the few other country's in the world who can afford two-car families all over the place. However, we didn't rip up all our rail lines and build massive freeways and parking lots all over our downtown areas.

I think that's a good thing, whereas if we had allowed the whims of the market to run roughshod over our planning, we wouldn't have that at all

[urbanlife]

everthing anyone needs to know about wonderfull Spokane Washington.... i rest my case
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spokompton
:haha: :yes: :yuck: :slob: :lmao:

ATTENTION EVERYONE, WHOVEAN HATES SPOKANE.

Figured that should be pointed out, we get it, you hate everything about Spokane, yet you seem to go out of your way to post in every Spokane thread, so thank you for consistently voicing a pointless opinion that no one really cares about....not saying you are a bad guy, I am just saying I get annoyed seeing you always posting in Spokane threads to say how much you hate the city.

Just because you don't like the city should it mean that everyone must not like Spokane. I personally like the city, I am pretty sure Contrarian likes the city, and I am pretty sure plenty of other people on this forum like the city. So if you hate the city so much, could you please stop looking at Spokane threads.

[Contrarian]

Fresh,

Contrarian, do you really think that allowing the market to determine the entire shape of a city is a wise thing to do?

No. Cities also need some public spaces --- parks, squares, etc. But the market should determine non-public land uses, although zoning laws are useful to prevent incompatible uses (but not to dictate uses "desired" by planners).

I don't know how you can look at all those blighted areas of what were once great cities and not at least shed a few tears for the devastation wrought by a ceaseless commitment to the automobile.

You're misplacing the blame for "blight," Fresh. (I assume you consider parking lots to be "blight"). Parking lots, especially surface parking lots, are very low-intensity and low revenue uses. When you see a surface parking lot downtown, it means there is no other economically viable use for that land in that market. The parking lot at the time it was built was the "highest and best use." When an older building is demolished to make room for a parking lot it is because the building was at the end of its useful life. It could not be renovated or replaced at a cost which could be recovered in rents. Had the parking lot not been built that land would have remained a vacant lot, or the deteriorated building would not have been demolished at all --- it would have been abandoned. No one tears down a viable, profitable building to create a surface parking lot.

However, we didn't rip up all our rail lines and build massive freeways and parking lots all over our downtown areas.

Take a look at downtown Darwin in Google Earth. Downtown Melbourne has its share too.

[Contrarian]

Urban,

I'll respond to your latest later today.

[bgriff4]

Seriously whovean. Why take the time to post about the city at all. If you really didn't enjoy Spokane, move on man. Go somewhere you like, and then post about that place. The fact that you don't says you get some kind of satisfaction through negative posts, and maybe you have issues other than Spokane. It's people with your attitude that spread this image of Spokane that just isn't accurate.

The more people who live there take pride in the city and support the revitalization the better off Spokane will be. Look at the potential of the place, and what has already been done. Sure it's not perfect, but instead of bashing on it, help make it a better place. Spokane has come a long ways and has momentum moving forward. So stop trying to slow it down and either help out or focus your negative attitude elsewhere. Get excited about what's happening. I personally can't wait to move back.

[urbanlife]

No one tears down a viable, profitable building to create a surface parking lot.

Again, that is just a naive comment, there have been plenty of buildings that were not at the end of their usefulness that were torn down because a surface parking lot is actually worth more to a developer because it produces a high return with low costs to run and maintain.

Should the Davenport Hotel been torn down for a surface parking lot? Did the Rookery Building and the Mohawk Building need to be torn down for a surface lot. At one point there was tenants in both buildings that was keeping the building profitable, but the owner choose to kick out businesses for a tower that never happened, only to tear down two gems of classic architecture in the downtown...where exactly do you see the benefit for the city with that? Has that improved or hurt the downtown?


Another example, the Smith Tower in Seattle is under the same problem, with the residential boom the owners wanted to kick out all the tenants that were keeping the building profitable to turn it into condos to make it more profitable, but now the building is almost vacant, should the owner of that building be allowed to simply tear down his building due to a bad error on his part to put in a parking lot that would be much more profitable than the current building?

At what point should a city be allowed to tell a developer what they can and cannot do with a building when it is a part of the city's history and urban fabric?

Would you support the tearing down the Paulson Building in downtown Spokane if the developer found out he could be making three times as much money by replacing it with a parking garage?

And have you noticed a tread with these questions? Developers care about money, even you have indirectly stated that many times, citizens care about a healthy city...so who should be allowed to have a say in what happens with their city?

[whovean]

i do post about other citys most citys have great things to say about them. like Boise or Austin or even portland all wonderfull places but when it comes to spokane i think peaple should be warned before they move to a place like that so i posted the link to a site that talks about spokane thats all.

the town has a bad crime and drug problem more so than any place i have ever been, i mean most citys have bad parts of town but in spokane its all parts of town.

if someone was thinking of moving there they should have good folks like myself whom can warn them. why i am thinking of making a website about Spokane to do just that

doing my part to help;)

[urbanlife]

i do post about other citys most citys have great things to say about them. like Boise or Austin or even portland all wonderfull places but when it comes to spokane i think peaple should be warned before they move to a place like that so i posted the link to a site that talks about spokane thats all.

the town has a bad crime and drug problem more so than any place i have ever been, i mean most citys have bad parts of town but in spokane its all parts of town.

if someone was thinking of moving there they should have good folks like myself whom can warn them. why i am thinking of making a website about Spokane to do just that

doing my part to help;)

Grammar is not your friend is it? I am a strong believer that people should spend a good amount of time in any city they are planning to move to and people like different cities for different reasons, clearly you hate Spokane, but your opinion just comes off rude and pointless...so feel free to make a site on how much you hate Spokane, but could you please stop wasting everyone's time posting in Spokane threads.

[bgriff4]

Ok whovean. Do whatever it is you think you need to do.

[Contrarian]

Whovean,

No doubt you missed this when I posted it in the other thread. Or perhaps you're ignoring it:

Violent crimes per 100,000 persons, for all the cities you listed in that thread, plus Seattle and Portland:

Boise: 234.5
Portland: 268.5
Denver: 346.9
Austin: 356.1
Spokane: 377.2
Seattle: 384.3
Phoenix: 393.7
Houston: 706.8

Oh --- and Springfield, MO, is 423.2. You'd clearly be safer in Spokane.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_06.html

[whovean]

Contrarian: i did see your post but what you dont understand most citys police do report the crime numbers , Spokane police do not report ...
take theft : spokane will not report anything under 10,000 bucks most citys report all theft
this makes spokans numbers look low.

i lived there 4 years on the south hill (where they all told me was safe) and my house was broke into and the police would not even respond, sent me forms in the mail and when my car was Stolen it took them 5 hours to respond, funny that car was never found!!!! also you will find auto insurance rates are higher in spokane than say Boise becouse of theft numbers are higher and so in nonrecoverable.
look at this site if you need proof of how bad it really is http://www.spokanepolice.org/vehicles.htm the numbers are just for october!!!!!

so your numbers mean nothing.... sorry , keep your Rose Colored Glasses on to keep you in the dark on whats really going on in your town.

[urbanlife]

Contrarian: i did see your post but what you dont understand most citys police do report the crime numbers , Spokane police do not report ...
take theft : spokane will not report anything under 10,000 bucks most citys report all theft
this makes spokans numbers look low.

i lived there 4 years on the south hill (where they all told me was safe) and my house was broke into and the police would not even respond, sent me forms in the mail and when my car was Stolen it took them 5 hours to respond, funny that car was never found!!!! also you will find auto insurance rates are higher in spokane than say Boise becouse of theft numbers are higher and so in nonrecoverable.
look at this site if you need proof of how bad it really is http://www.spokanepolice.org/vehicles.htm the numbers are just for october!!!!!

so your numbers mean nothing.... sorry , keep your Rose Colored Glasses on to keep you in the dark on whats really going on in your town.

Again, you really should proof read what you post, it is really hard to read through what you are writing when there are a number of spelling grammars and poor sentence structure.

But you do raise a valid point, Spokane does have issues with theft that has been very rapid there, which has much to do with the meth drug problem within the city that the police have been facing an uphill battle with. Though with that said, I have never once felt unsafe in Spokane and have found it to be quite an enjoyable small city, which is my personal opinion...and again, people should do their own research and actually visit any city that they are planning on. It does suck that you have had such a horrible time while living in Spokane, and I can understand your joy with finding a better city for you to live in, but I have a cousin that hates Seattle with a passion and feels that anything and everything is wrong with the city, but me personally have never shared those same views or frustrations, so does that make Seattle a horrible city because someone doesn't like living there? Does that make any city a horrible city because someone doesn't like living there?

[whovean]

your right urbanlife i should be happy that i got away and that i am :tup:
BTW i always liked Seattle and Portland they were both great getaways and Coeur D Alene was just beautiful.

no more rants from me and i looked on line and there is already lots of blogs covering the subject so no need for me to make yet another

peace out :runaway:

[Contrarian]

Urban,

I never once said these bike lane should be on the busiest of roads. I would say it would be absurd to put bike lanes on Division in Spokane, I would want them to be like they are in Portland for Burnside, where the bike lanes are on the two parallel streets, Couch and Ankeny.

That makes sense to me. And if Portland is relying on actual counts to justify bike lanes, and locating them where they do not constrict auto traffic, then they are doing things right.

You realize this is a giant bag of contradictions right? First question, define nuisance. I am sure everyone has a different definition for this, if your next door neighbor owns enough land for a drag strip and want to put one in, by your definition he should be allowed because you shouldn't be allowed to hinder his use of his land because you don't own it. Cities have zoning laws and regulations of what can and can not be built to keep people from killing each other basically. You can argue all you want about that...my opinion is not changing.

"Nuisance" is an ancient concept in the law of equity, well-developed in the common law. As I said before, you create a nuisance when you use your land in such a way that it interferes in a material way with existing uses, or deprives neighbors of the "quiet enjoyment" of their property. Per that principle, you could not devote your land in a residential area to a use that (say) emits noxious odors (such as a rendering plant or fertilizer factory), disturbs the peace with noise (an auto wrecking yard, your drag strip or even a rowdy bar), invites trepassing or encroachments onto your property or blocks access to it (a "rave" venue or motor freight terminal), or similar offenses. A property owner could enjoin any of those uses in court, under common law principles.

Preventing those incompatibilities was the original justification for zoning laws. But as soon as they became available they were seized upon to deliver political payoffs, confer free lunches on various noisy or influential constituent groups, and impose the latest Utopian fantasies of planners on private property owners --- to enforce racial segregation, keep renters and immigrants away from white homeowners, keep strangers out of insular neighborhoods, and insulate local businesses from "outside" competition. E.g., forcing developers to include "affordable" (i.e., subsidized) housing in their apartment or condo projects, preserve views or "open space" and even easements on others' land, restrict or compel certain densities, and keep WalMart or Starbucks outa town. None of those latter would count as "nuisances" under common law.

But you combine two different things into one to try and give your statement some truth which is false, neighborhoods such as Browne's, Corbin's, and so on were built by developers...and are you sure no bureaucrat was involved??

Well, sort of. The city did have a City Engineer, who established standards for streets and utility connections. So if you wanted your new subdivision to be annexed to the City of Spokane and your streets and water lines to connect with the city's, you had to design to those standards. But it had no zoning law, and nobody ever heard of an "urban planner." (The first zoning law in the US was adopted in 1916, by New York City).

. . .heck I bet if you really looked into the history of those neighborhoods and how they came about, it might actually shock you with how much back room dealing went on with streetcar lines and road improvements to make such neighborhoods more attractive with the help of a city.

If developers wanted a streetcar line in their new subdivision they would have to negotiate with the operator of the streetcar system (which was, remember, privately owned and operated). Likewise with electrical service. The city had nothing to do with either.

Can we not use words like boondoggle anymore??

Why not? It denotes a project which is undertaken for political reasons but is either grossly inefficient or makes no economic sense. It accurately describes many government projects.

This statement points out that a developer is not concerned about the citizens' best interest (which is what we have governments for) . . .

I already responded to that. The developer who is not concerned with his customers' best interests will not be long in business. He is not concerned, however, with the best interests of the peanut gallery. He is obliged not to inflict a nuisance on them (see above), but he has no duty to cater to their aesthetic preferences, their social prejudices, or supply them with free lunches. Indeed, he has no duty whatsoever to satisfy their "best interests." If they want his help accomplishing what they consider to be in their best interests, they'll have to pay him for it.

A typical example I recall from a few years ago involved a group of neighbors who protested a subdivision application for a wooded tract across the road from their homes. Those neighbors complained that the development would destroy their views, eliminate "open space," add traffic to their road, and deny their kids a safe and fun place to play. Interestingly, 10 years earlier their own subdivision had been a virtually identical wooded tract. These hypocrites now wish to deny to others the same lifestyle they presently enjoy. And they assume that the owner of that wooded tract has some duty to devote his property to supplying them with pastoral views and their kids with a playground.

Well, the pols should be telling those hypocrites that if they want views and a playground, they'd better make the owner of that property an offer.

I will agree with you on this one for the most part, I personally think a sports team owner should pay for their own stadiums . . .

Yay!

. . . and would probably not require a new one to be built every 20 years if that were the case, but in the best interest of the citizens, cities and states shell out a lot of money to build these new stadiums because we love our teams and don't ever want to see them move.

Who is "we"? If sports fans want a new stadium, let them finance it with a surcharge on ticket prices. Leave the little old lady who has never attended a football or basketball game in her life, and never will, alone. By taxing her to subsidize sports nuts the city is hardly serving her "best interests."

Case is point, when Virginia Beach gets hit with a massive hurricane, expect to see massive amounts of damage from homes blowing over because of poor construction techniques and shotty construction with too many short cuts taken...

Were the homes not built to code, and did the developer claim that they were? If so, then he has committed fraud. If not --- if they met code and the developer made no false claims regarding them, then the buyers have no grounds for complaint. They got what they paid for.

[urbanlife]

Preventing those incompatibilities was the original justification for zoning laws. But as soon as they became available they were seized upon to deliver political payoffs, confer free lunches on various noisy or influential constituent groups, and impose the latest Utopian fantasies of planners on private property owners ---


This is what I mean about contradictions, I am confused on what you are trying to point out here. Zoning allowed the government to be paid off by influential groups to impose Utopian fantasies of planners on private property owners? This makes zero sense, planners are not the people who are doing political payoffs, wealthy developers are. For example, take the recent elections, there were a limited number of people and companies that poured millions into campaigns, not the general public. Your association with planners and what happens within cities seems to be a contradiction of itself.

to enforce racial segregation, keep renters and immigrants away from white homeowners, keep strangers out of insular neighborhoods, and insulate local businesses from "outside" competition. E.g., forcing developers to include "affordable" (i.e., subsidized) housing in their apartment or condo projects, preserve views or "open space" and even easements on others' land, restrict or compel certain densities, and keep WalMart or Starbucks outa town. None of those latter would count as "nuisances" under common law.

I am extremely confused by this section, are you saying planners are the fault of things like racial segregation or are you saying planners are the fault of trying to preserve views and easements and such? This statement just sounds like a jumble of contradictions that don't actually make sense. Forcing developers to include affordable housing is a tool to prevent people being priced out of their own city. Is it a perfect system, no but neither is letting your lower and middle class be priced out of cities.


Well, sort of. The city did have a City Engineer, who established standards for streets and utility connections. So if you wanted your new subdivision to be annexed to the City of Spokane and your streets and water lines to connect with the city's, you had to design to those standards. But it had no zoning law, and nobody ever heard of an "urban planner." (The first zoning law in the US was adopted in 1916, by New York City).

You are aware "urban planning" and the profession of planning is actually a young industry in the terms of city developments, but that doesn't mean planning never existed before planners. Philadelphia, Alexandria, VA, NYC, Back Bay in Boston, Savannah, GA and almost every city in this country was because of planning. Heck, modern day Paris is a planned city with its boulevard systems. Were there bad planners, sure, but any profession can say they have had bad people within them. Architecture, I feel that post modernism was pointless and produced utter crap, but that doesn't mean I think all architects are a bad profession.

By this way of thinking, car have only been around for roughly 100 years, but cities have been around for well over 1000 years and never needed cars until recently (figuratively speaking,) therefore we shouldn't be building cities around the car because we didn't need to before. But that is what I am hearing from statements like this, feel free to correct me with what you are trying to say.


If developers wanted a streetcar line in their new subdivision they would have to negotiate with the operator of the streetcar system (which was, remember, privately owned and operated). Likewise with electrical service. The city had nothing to do with either.

Thank you for proving my point, streetcar lines were privately owned, do you know why they disappeared? Car companies began to buy these streetcar lines and began shutting them down, making them less efficient. Now the question would be, why in the world would a car company want to make streetcars less efficient? Which I hope I don't actually have to answer this question for you, businesses do business to make money and the best way to make more money is to get rid of your competition so that you are the only place people can buy from. So do not live under the illusion that people magically found streetcars to be less efficient to cars.


Why not? It denotes a project which is undertaken for political reasons but is either grossly inefficient or makes no economic sense. It accurately describes many government projects.

The reason why I prefer you not to use words like boondoggle is because it is the same reason why I kept correcting whovean on his grammar, it is kind of annoying to read and I feel words like that are the words that new channels like to use to dumb down this country. I can't stop you from using words like that obviously, but this is how I am going to feel every time I hear it...nothing personal to you, this is just my personal opinion to how mass media choices to use certain words.


A typical example I recall from a few years ago involved a group of neighbors who protested a subdivision application for a wooded tract across the road from their homes. Those neighbors complained that the development would destroy their views, eliminate "open space," add traffic to their road, and deny their kids a safe and fun place to play. Interestingly, 10 years earlier their own subdivision had been a virtually identical wooded tract. These hypocrites now wish to deny to others the same lifestyle they presently enjoy. And they assume that the owner of that wooded tract has some duty to devote his property to supplying them with pastoral views and their kids with a playground.

Well I agree with you here, but this is a much bigger problem than anything a planner can and cannot do. You are talking about the same kind of people that say we should shoot all those "ragheads" and build a wall to keep the Mexicans out of our country....when this country was actually founded on immigrants that stole land from indians...so I guess you can say our country was founded on hypocrisy and that is actually the American way.

But in the comment of open space, there once was a time that if you were not rich, the only open space that was available to you were graveyards. Next time you are walking around Manito Park or driving through the tree lines streets of the South Hill you can thank planners for that (though more correctly you should thank landscape architects for the actual work, but through planning the city was able to use tax money to buy land to preserve as a park.)

You also raise another fact that I pointed out a long time ago, if this country wasn't so drunk on oil and we never whored ourselves out to the car, we could of had much more dense cities that did not need to sprawl outward and much of our open land in this country would still be preserved...but that is just a what if? kind of thing because I doubt we will ever see that kind of thinking in full force, with the exception of such cities like Portland.


Who is "we"? If sports fans want a new stadium, let them finance it with a surcharge on ticket prices. Leave the little old lady who has never attended a football or basketball game in her life, and never will, alone. By taxing her to subsidize sports nuts the city is hardly serving her "best interests."

haha, thank you for pointing this out, this is exactly the way stadiums should be financed...but this "we" is what we call demand. There is a large number of people who demand their sports team not relocate, therefore the city feels like it must do what it can to prevent that from happening, therefore the sports owner is given a new stadium through usually complicated loans and repayment systems, but that is besides the point.

Which I was going to ask you about your personal definition of demand? You kept mentioning that with highways and bike lanes and such (which did you read Portland's 20 year bike plan yet???), but the question is what demand warrants anything to happen. If the entire neighborhood demanded that the area next to their housing be preserved, is that enough of a demand to warrant the city to buy the land to preserve? What amount of demand would be needed to justify running a new 6 lane freeway parallel to Division, cutting through every neighborhood along the way? Would this demand have to be a majority of the citizens of the city or would it have to be the wealthy that you say brings the culture to the city or would it be the companies that bring in the jobs? And what about the people that live in those neighborhoods that would obviously oppose something like this, should their property rights be forgone because there is enough demand to justify such a project?

I only ask this because I want to point out that nothing with cities is simple, there is no one way to do anything and there is no one right answer on how to have a perfect city....anyone that tells you they have the answer to perfect a city is lying to you.


Were the homes not built to code, and did the developer claim that they were? If so, then he has committed fraud. If not --- if they met code and the developer made no false claims regarding them, then the buyers have no grounds for complaint. They got what they paid for.

First off the code laws there were effected by heavy lobbying from developers...not planners, but developers were the ones lining political pockets. Also, plenty of homes there either barely meet code or cut enough corners to not meet code, but if the city suffers the amount of damage that Hurricane Andrew caused southern Florida several years back, there would be little to prove such fraud was the case or even really be able to sue developers over something like this, especially when the houses are now 20-30 years old. Also at that point, the amount of corners that were cut would just fall onto the tax payers as a whole when the government stepped in to help with emergency funding to help a region in need (which I support our government in doing because that is what we pay them for.)


Also I have another question for you that I have been thinking about today, what is your personal definition of planning? And what form of planning are you referring to, and I want actual examples on this...I think there is a lot that is being lost in this conversation over confusions in what you are talking about when it comes to the role of a planner and what era of planning you are talking about because much of your arguments against planning seem to be focused on planners from the 50s-70s, which if that is the case, I can agree with you on much of that because like any new profession there were a number of struggles that went on at that time of trying to figure out how to best modernize a city to make them better attractive to private companies and private developers. Again, another no simple answer and there is no one right way for people to do this.





Oh and I feel like I should add a clause to the sports team comments, I am a diehard sports fan for the teams I support and in often cases, I could personally care less where the money is coming from to help keep my teams playing in the cities they play in...it is just the nature of professional sports. Sure it contradicts my opinions on sports teams, but dammit my Cleveland Browns have beating two hard teams like they were nothing and that is all I care about, I don't care about what Cleveland had to do to get a new team back in their city, all I care about is seeing the Browns one day win a Super Bowl, and that is a statement almost any big sports fan would make. But then again, that is the nature of professional sports because it was designed to be a distraction to everyday things.

[bgriff4]

Here's a partial article about the expansion of the convention center (need to purchase the whole thing from Journal of Business). So it's a bit of a tease:

http://www.spokanejournal.com/article.php?id=6547

[dawickham]

I cant believe what Im reading in this thread! I personally love Spokane. All cities have good and bad but let me say, I have lived here in the City of Spokane Valley since 1998. I love being in an area where I can be in Seattle Washington in 4 hours or Great Falls Montana in 6 hours.
Spokane has been very good to me and my family. For the states 2nd largest city, I give it kudos!
There is always something to do here. Pigout in the park, Hoopfest, and the largest foot race anywhere. I would expect to see great things come from here in the future

[mSeattle]

I cant believe what Im reading in this thread! I personally love Spokane. All cities have good and bad but let me say, I have lived here in the City of Spokane Valley since 1998. I love being in an area where I can be in Seattle Washington in 4 hours or Great Falls Montana in 6 hours.
Spokane has been very good to me and my family. For the states 2nd largest city, I give it kudos!
There is always something to do here. Pigout in the park, Hoopfest, and the largest foot race anywhere. I would expect to see great things come from here in the future

I can't believe I'm reading that we have a forumer in Spokane! Do you have a camera? Hopefully you are taking pictures of downtown and the area and will share them on the forum.

[bgriff4]

Spokane Public Market on its way!

http://www.spokanepublicmarket.org/index.html