View Single Post
  #20006  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2022, 6:17 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
I don't read it that way at all. It's a complaint over car congestion and suggests that developments which will likely stand for a century or more should be scaled down even though we can still (and absolutely should) do all those improvements. There are cheap things the city could do now like changing free parking to pay and using a lot more curb space for passenger loading/unloading that would be helpful. And yes, I'd like the city to start building a new green line station at Elizabeth pretty much yesterday and they should be able to pay for it out of a TIF.
Sorry, I agree with you that the Crain's article is pearl-clutching/fearmongering when it should be constructive about the best way for the city to accommodate the growth.

The article has a kind of fatalist attitude that too much growth will just lead to gridlock, without acknowledging the many steps the city could take to ensure smart growth. This kind of growth is par for the course in cities like Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, even NYC or Boston. If you leave the Midwest you see cities handling this kind of growth and the sky hasn't fallen. It's really weird for Crain's honestly, since they are usually such a cheerleader and promote the benefits in terms of tax revenue, job/population growth, developer contributions to Invest South/West, etc. I wonder who got to them?
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote