Quote :

"you people confuse me, like 80+% of the RTP is in durham county, yet its part of raleigh according to you"

that's the kind of non-water bound thinking that's holding us back

5/31/2006 7:02:28 PM

harharharhar. Go ahead and jest, but it's the truth. The only dense urban areas in the US are there because of geo-political restrictions.

Quote :

"Most businesses exist to make money. If a developer can make more money with a high density development, they'll do it in a heartbeat... or someone else will step in and get rich. One of the problems I see with condos in downtown Raleigh is they're only a few blocks away from houses that cost a lot less than the condos in the same neighborhood."

You are still brainwashed into the suburbia complex. A house isn't better just because it's a house. It's one of many fallacies in the "American Dream".

5/31/2006 7:18:07 PM

Quote :

"metro area"

actually you dumbfuck. durham and raleigh were split as seperate metro areas by maybe thecensus bureau?

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 7:34 PM. Reason : .]

5/31/2006 7:18:36 PM

Quote :

"You are still brainwashed into the suburbia complex. A house isn't better just because it's a house. It's one of many fallacies in the "American Dream"."

If we're brainwashed, were brainwashed by capitalism that says more is better. A big house and lots of land or a small condo for the same money. Maybe we just want for our children what we grew up with.

5/31/2006 7:21:14 PM

i could live there
garden slabs are a bit shallow, though

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 7:33 PM. Reason : ocd]

5/31/2006 7:31:54 PM

no guardrail either - no way you could build that in the US

5/31/2006 7:36:10 PM

hahahahahahahaha

Quote :

"actually you dumbfuck. durham and raleigh were split as seperate metro areas by maybe thecensus bureau? "

way to call someone a dumbfuck then have to edit your own comment because you referenced the wrong thing.

and i'll readily admit that i don't know the technical metro areas in the triangle. but i think it's totally reasonable to consider raleigh/rtp/durham as one metro area (particularly as all of these areas grow)

5/31/2006 7:36:47 PM

also, it'd be better if the southern louvers were horizontal

5/31/2006 7:39:15 PM

Quote :

" "One of the problems I see with condos in downtown Raleigh is they're only a few blocks away from houses that cost a lot less than the condos in the same neighborhood." You are still brainwashed into the suburbia complex. A house isn't better just because it's a house. It's one of many fallacies in the "American Dream". "

To whom are you replying? I didn't say a house is better because it's a house.

I looked at condos in downtown Raleigh before I bought my house. The condos were priced significantly more than single family homes only a few blocks away. Many of these units were on the market a long time and were not moving. I believe that's because they're overpriced for the location. Your mileage may vary.

[Edited on May 31, 2006 at 8:50 PM. Reason : bug with nested quotes]

5/31/2006 8:48:47 PM

I think there are condo people and house people

condo people are the type of people who lease cars because they worry about maintenance

5/31/2006 9:39:48 PM

you know you buy condos

5/31/2006 9:45:31 PM

what if you lease cause you want a new car every 2 years?

5/31/2006 9:47:13 PM

Quote :

"The condos were priced significantly more than single family homes only a few blocks away. Many of these units were on the market a long time and were not moving. I believe that's because they're overpriced for the location. Your mileage may vary."

Maybe a few miles away, not a few blocks at all. And few, if any of the condos downtown have even existed for more than a few years and they are from all accounts I've seen selling quite well.

Quote :

"I think there are condo people and house people condo people are the type of people who lease cars because they worry about maintenance "

More ignorance. There are quite a few absolutely financially respectable reasons to lease. Some people enjoy driving different cars.

5/31/2006 11:42:06 PM

Its sad when the tri-towers are one of the tallest buildings in raleigh

5/31/2006 11:49:19 PM

Quote :

"The only dense urban areas in the US are there because of geo-political restrictions."

that's pretty much the truth

NYC, SF, Philly, Chicago, and Boston are more compact because they are centralized near bodies of water or they're on an island

when you have all the room in the world like Houston or Phoenix what's the initial incentive to begin building upward, as opposed to outward?

6/1/2006 12:32:39 AM

http://www.school-house-rock.com/wav/elbo.wav

6/1/2006 1:12:00 AM

i would love to see a schoolhouse rock for 9/11-present day

6/1/2006 1:18:43 AM

density makes better targets for terrorists

6/1/2006 1:24:20 AM

Quote :

"If a developer can make more money with a high density development, they'll do it in a heartbeat... or someone else will step in and get rich."

haha tell that to neal coker and his coker towers project.

6/1/2006 2:58:59 AM

Quote :

"The only dense urban areas in the US are there because of geo-political restrictions."

I guess you're referring to the Urban Growth Boundaries used in Portland (and countless other metro areas throughout the country). It doesn't work exactly as intended, but its better than nothing. The National Association of Homebuilders hates UGB's, but everyone else in Portland sounds happy. They've been pretty successful (from what I've read) at maintaining small-town character on the urban fringe as well as protecting forestry and agriculture from development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGB

6/1/2006 9:41:46 AM

^I think thats what Vancouver has done.

6/1/2006 10:13:05 AM

by geo-political he meant "they didn't have cars or trains"

6/1/2006 10:18:25 AM

some of you people are pretty fucking stupid

6/1/2006 10:31:05 AM

^^No, I didn't actually. As you spout more mindless drivel. I really hope you fell down and bumped your head or something similar, because if these are in any way serious retorts, I've lost a great deal of respect for you.

6/1/2006 10:51:34 AM

do you honestly think the automobile was not the primary force behind urban sprawl?

6/1/2006 11:08:08 AM

the economic prosperity following world war two was what made possible the ability for masses of middle class people to buy cars, and suburbian homes.

6/1/2006 11:14:59 AM

Quote :

"Charleston is much smaller than Charlotte but its downtown and surrounding area are much more dense and filled with lots of shopping and resurants and bars."

I'd definitely rather see more of a Charleston impression unfold downtown than simply 8-5, nothing to see or do.

But that's Charleston, and that's what it's known for. I wouldn't exactly call it the norm for many cities...

And to whoever said the thing about downtown areas becoming ghetto and property value declining over time... i completely agree.

6/1/2006 1:50:29 PM

i think that was Robert Moses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses

6/1/2006 2:32:25 PM

^that guy was like, the biggest jerk of all time.

6/1/2006 9:10:20 PM

like totally.

6/2/2006 10:47:43 AM

If gas prices continue to be as high as they are, people are gonna have to live closer to where they work. Makes some think that we'll become like France, where the suburbs are the ghettos.

6/2/2006 4:23:40 PM

Quote :

"do you honestly think the automobile was not the primary force behind urban sprawl?"

Of course it was. You completely missed my statement. I said the reason the few dense urban cities exist is because they had unique geo-political circumstances. Having cars and trains did not create sprawl in these cities, they remain highly urbanized. In the absence of these special factors, every city in the US will sprawl exactly because of cars/trains.

6/2/2006 4:34:18 PM

^bingo

6/2/2006 4:37:50 PM

if urban density is so great why does it only happen if there's no other choice?

6/2/2006 4:41:31 PM

every american city has suburbs but the sunbelt sprawlers that boomed after the automobile age have nothing but sprawl - no dense core and no mass transit infrastructure

very few cities had enough laws to prevent sprawl until very recently, so I don't know where this "unique geo-political circumstances" talk comes from. Old cities are denser, deal with it.

6/2/2006 4:59:57 PM

So what about St. Louis, LA, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Houston, Miami, etc? All of these are "old" cities in US terms and they are all horribly sprawled.

Age has almost nothing to do with sprawl.

Quote :

"if urban density is so great why does it only happen if there's no other choice?"

Because people have been brainwashed into thinking that more land = better deal. It may be for SOME people, but the average joe would be much better off financially in a medium sized condo/townhome using mass transport or human powered transport in an urban area. Most people just have houses to put "stuff" in. Unless you have a shop, have a large family, raise animals or farm, you probably can't give any real justification to owning a house instead of a condo or townhouse.

6/2/2006 6:40:47 PM

Since we're on the suburb versus city tangent here, think how the Triangle is going to look in 10-20 years. Are we gonna become the next Houston? (that's not a good thing if you're wondering)

6/2/2006 7:39:50 PM

Quote :

"And to whoever said the thing about downtown areas becoming ghetto and property value declining over time... i completely agree."

15-20 years ago this was true.. at least in the northeast where I'm from. However, nearly every large city has made great strides to reinvigorate downtown areas (from Cleveland to Baltimore to Boston to Manhattan, etc, etc).. mainly by pricing out the riff-raff and rebuilding..

6/2/2006 8:03:50 PM

yea, if they had instituted anti-sprawl measures back in the 80's then none of that shit would have happened in the first place and it wouldnt be costing tax payers billions to bring the cities back.

6/2/2006 8:09:15 PM

alot of people think that making people live in the cities is a big liberal plot to fuck with our heads.

6/3/2006 9:52:18 AM

damn republicans. giving people freedom to live in houses

6/3/2006 9:59:07 AM

ha you can live in one of those if you're a farmer or if you living in Montana

6/3/2006 10:02:53 AM

Otherwise you're just a selfish fucker.

6/3/2006 10:58:41 AM

^exactly actually. People have so much more shit than they need or use. And I'm not talking about living in a hut in the woods. Who the fuck NEEDS a 10,000 sq ft house? Who the fuck NEEDS a 2 acre back yard? (and im not talking about people who own land and use it either)

What does every single person do when they buy a house? They scramble like fucking chickens to FILL IT WITH SHIT. Not because they NEED to, but because there is some insane idea that every room should be packed with useless shit just because it can be.

6/3/2006 3:35:44 PM

new york not including long or staten island, or most of the boroughs



raleigh

[Edited on June 3, 2006 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

6/3/2006 3:50:52 PM

wait... why the fuck are you comparing NYC to Raleigh again?

6/3/2006 3:57:50 PM

i have no idea

6/3/2006 3:59:41 PM

the sad thing is it's harder to get around downtown raleigh than NYC since you're car-bound. these buildings are just going to stress things with the parking and traffic, even if they are way out there next to the mall

have you ever tried to exit 440 and make a left to get into Crabtree Mall at 5pm? I'd rather drive across Manhattan, at least there you're not expecting to move quickly.

6/3/2006 4:01:28 PM

that is ridiculous.

6/3/2006 4:05:43 PM

HAVE U DRIVEN IN NYC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAAAAAAAAAVEEEEEEE YOU DRIVEN IN NYC!!!!!!!!!!!!
WWWWTTTTTTTTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

6/3/2006 4:06:29 PM