Bob Forsythe Coordinator
     member is offline
No one is above the rules.
Joined: Jul 2009 Gender: Male  Posts: 4,374
|  | Income Inequality As Seen From Space « Thread Started on Jun 4, 2012, 9:16pm » | |
First thing - I do not believe this is based upon income inequality - I think most of it has to do with old, built-out neighborhoods that due to poor planning were given density without any consideration to parks. Normal Heights north of Adams is a pretty decent neighborhood but still has a serious park land deficit and that's due to the north city burbs getting developer bucks for parks than it is to any sort of income inequality - we're just older and developed multi-family housing during the '60s and '70s when Pete Wilson was willing to give away our land for nothing. Still, Lakeside, which is considered "slum and blighted" by the Feds, has an incredible amount of acres of park land, which is why I do not believe it's an income equality issue. But it is an issue for the Mid-City:
http://persquaremile.com/2012/05/24/income-inequality-seen-from-space/
=Bob
|
The future always arrives too soon and in the wrong order - John Brunner |
|
aztecwin Coordinator
     member is offline
![[avatar] [avatar]](http://i325.photobucket.com/albums/k387/aztecwin/th_Annoyer-1.jpg)
It is hard to be humble when you are an Aztec
Joined: Jul 2009 Gender: Male  Posts: 9,817 Location: Valley Center/Escondido
|  | Re: Income Inequality As Seen From Space « Reply #1 on Jun 5, 2012, 3:20pm » | |
I think what those images show is individual lots with trees and shrubs rather than how open space was allotted. Larger lots with room for landscaping are prone to be more expensive than smaller lots. Your point is worth discussing however but not what was trying to be shown in the photos.
|
It's hard to be nostalgic when you can't remember anything.
Did I get stiffed on a shirt? |
|
Bob Forsythe Coordinator
     member is offline
No one is above the rules.
Joined: Jul 2009 Gender: Male  Posts: 4,374
|  | Re: Income Inequality As Seen From Space « Reply #2 on Jun 7, 2012, 7:51pm » | |
Jun 5, 2012, 3:20pm, aztecwin wrote:| I think what those images show is individual lots with trees and shrubs rather than how open space was allotted. Larger lots with room for landscaping are prone to be more expensive than smaller lots. Your point is worth discussing however but not what was trying to be shown in the photos. |
|
I offered it to discuss planning, rust belts and any number of things people might want to offer in response. Larger lots aren't necessary more expensive - the price depends on the location. After all, how much land do you have at Castle Creek and how much does the golf course add to the value?
But again, I do not agree that it's all about income inequality. A ton of first ring burbs have been gentrified and with gentrification comes the demand for parks, libraries and other infrastructure. Where the question lies is how much capital a city has given to 3rd ring burbs at the expense of the urban core.
Just a thought.
=Bob
|
The future always arrives too soon and in the wrong order - John Brunner |
|