The Depressing Reality About Dallas in the New U.S. Census Numbers (Houston: condo, houses)

[rabbit33]

Originally Posted by godrestores

Well no because those cities each have their own distinct identities and Dallas can accomplish the same thing. It started out as an urban town did it not?

And yes, for many people, increased population density and walkable development does create a superior city experience. There are still plenty of suburbs to choose from for those who prefer that, but I do believe the central city should try to make better use of available land.

Check your premises. WHY do you believe that increased density, more people, is something "Dallas can accomplish [if they'd just try hard enough]"? WHY do you believe this is a positive goal to strive for? I don't.

I don't even know what "it started out as an urban town did it not" is supposed to mean. Dallas started as a hamlet like many others, a trading post at the ford of a river; then it grew when two railroads were built through it. I rather doubt that the Dallas of 1900 would look very "urban" to anyone today.

[LocalPlanner]

Because of the increased construction costs, more vertical construction is typically only going to happen when it's economically justified, generally due to growth in the local economy and sufficient market demand from occupants that can afford the necessarily higher prices of occupancy (commercial or residential). I would say there's a generally similar correlation with general density (for for-sale residential, people finding the community so economically attractive that they're willing to trade some private space to be able to afford to live there vs. some other lower density place that has a lower price per acre/sq.ft.).

In general, more vertical construction and density is a natural economic outcome / evolution of an economically successful city. If a city isn't getting that, assuming that such evolution is being allowed by government (as of course it should), then it's fair to question whether that place is economically healthy.

[Leonard123]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

No one was trying to take this political. He was talking about the racial/ethnic diversity.

Why should anyone care or even measure it if that's the case? Their culture, ideas, attitudes, and behaviors are what need to define diversity.

Originally Posted by godrestores

Well no because those cities each have their own distinct identities and Dallas can accomplish the same thing. It started out as an urban town did it not?

And yes, for many people, increased population density and walkable development does create a superior city experience. There are still plenty of suburbs to choose from for those who prefer that, but I do believe the central city should try to make better use of available land.

What available land?

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Because of the increased construction costs, more vertical construction is typically only going to happen when it's economically justified, generally due to growth in the local economy and sufficient market demand from occupants that can afford the necessarily higher prices of occupancy (commercial or residential). I would say there's a generally similar correlation with general density (for for-sale residential, people finding the community so economically attractive that they're willing to trade some private space to be able to afford to live there vs. some other lower density place that has a lower price per acre/sq.ft.).

In general, more vertical construction and density is a natural economic outcome / evolution of an economically successful city. If a city isn't getting that, assuming that such evolution is being allowed by government (as of course it should), then it's fair to question whether that place is economically healthy.

Again, to do that, you have to have the land in the first place. Vertical construction still has to start from the ground on land that can structurally accommodate it.

[godrestores]

Originally Posted by Leonard123

What available land?

Again, to do that, you have to have the land in the first place. Vertical construction still has to start from the ground on land that can structurally accommodate it.

It sounds like you're saying there isn't any, and I'd like to hear more about this. I honestly don't know what you mean.

[Leonard123]

Originally Posted by godrestores

It sounds like you're saying there isn't any, and I'd like to hear more about this. I honestly don't know what you mean.

In general, densely populated urban centers and downtown areas aren't going to have vacant, buildable land. I can't speak specifically to the entirety of downtown Dallas today, but I would venture to guess they would have to get rid of something existing with a lower density in order to add something new with a higher density. If they had vacant land suitable for such construction, or if they have buildings suitable for demolition, then that's all good and well, but then what?

Seriously, though, the idea that a city just needs to keep growing forever is nuts. The goal for any city, big or small, should be to grow at a sustainable rate and to eventually stabilize.

Land is a finite resource, not to mention the utilities that supply it. Even at the state level, the state of Texas as a whole cannot continue to generate enough water and electricity for everyone who wants to come.

[hbdwihdh378y9]

Originally Posted by Texas100

Please embrace diversity.

No. Diversity is conflict.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9

No. Diversity is conflict.

Deep diversity is conflict. Surface diversity is not.

Surface diversity involves only matters of skin color, clothing, music, food.

Deep diversity involves concepts of good and evil, honor and dishonor, truth, justice, gender relationships, and such.

Nobody, really, wants deep diversity. The Left lies about that...they don't want diversity of those concepts either.

[TheOverdog]

Deep diversity involves concepts of good and evil,

LOL at any society that tries to equalize 'good' and 'evil' people, and not just perceptions of 'evil' or 'good' based on their affiliations. Like do you want to spend all your time and energy actually fighting? Because that's what you get.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

Deep diversity is conflict. Surface diversity is not.

Surface diversity involves only matters of skin color, clothing, music, food.

Deep diversity involves concepts of good and evil, honor and dishonor, truth, justice, gender relationships, and such.

Nobody, really, wants deep diversity. The Left lies about that...they don't want diversity of those concepts either.

OK, so, religion, basically. The U.S. was founded on the premise of religious freedom (including having no faith commitment). So was the entire premise of the country invalid?

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Leonard123

In general, densely populated urban centers and downtown areas aren't going to have vacant, buildable land. I can't speak specifically to the entirety of downtown Dallas today, but I would venture to guess they would have to get rid of something existing with a lower density in order to add something new with a higher density. If they had vacant land suitable for such construction, or if they have buildings suitable for demolition, then that's all good and well, but then what?

Seriously, though, the idea that a city just needs to keep growing forever is nuts. The goal for any city, big or small, should be to grow at a sustainable rate and to eventually stabilize.

Land is a finite resource, not to mention the utilities that supply it. Even at the state level, the state of Texas as a whole cannot continue to generate enough water and electricity for everyone who wants to come.

The idea that you need vacant land for densification is bunk. Houston is constantly evolving proof of that! There's sites that have been redeveloped as many as 3 times within my lifetime alone.

Your understanding of real estate and land economics is, uh, questionable...