In the words of Motley Crue, “Girl, don’t go away mad…Girl, just go away!!!”
5 Likes
When Stef stopped talking, MAB paused for a microsecond, didn’t respond at all to her, and simply moved onto the next person speaking. It was perfect.
13 Likes
I read her mind. She was thinking “Stef, you lost. You lost big. Go. Go on girl”.
4 Likes
I am hoping that this is a good place to add this:
1 Like
I was playing around with the Census numbers and the land areas of Raleigh back to 1890, and the story the numbers tell is fascinating.
| Year | Population | Area | Density |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1890 | 12,678 | 1.34 | 9490 |
| 1900 | 13,643 | 1.76 | 7765 |
| 1910 | 19,218 | 4.03 | 4773 |
| 1920 | 24,418 | 6.96 | 3508 |
| 1930 | 37,379 | 7.25 | 5153 |
| 1940 | 46,879 | 7.25 | 6463 |
| 1950 | 65,679 | 10.88 | 6035 |
| 1960 | 93,931 | 33.67 | 2790 |
| 1970 | 122,830 | 44.93 | 2734 |
| 1980 | 150,255 | 55.17 | 2724 |
| 1990 | 212,092 | 91.40 | 2321 |
| 2000 | 276,093 | 118.71 | 2326 |
| 2010 | 406,432 | 143.77 | 2827 |
Since 1890, Raleigh has never regained its density from that time. It’s easy to see the impact of WW2 and its post war boom, and it’s easy to see how the auto-oriented development model really changed the game between 1950 an 1960. Raleigh’s density was cut more than in half, and basically sat there for 2 decades. It then dropped again and sat there for another 2 decades. It wasn’t until the last decade or so that Raleigh’s density metric has significantly reversed itself for the first time since 1940! Depending on what we think the population is today (different sources), Raleigh’s density metric has increased by about 1000 ppsm this century alone.
14 Likes
@John I always appreciate your number crunching. This reiterates the affect of the auto on our city. Fingers crossed that in the next few generations we can turn the tide and redensify the city.
7 Likes
If we just got back to our 1930 density, Raleigh would be a city of 3/4 million.
7 Likes
But but…you have to go vertical to get density right? Nope. NYC’s density was higher in 1900 than it is today too.
1 Like
New York City is far more than just Manhattan, though, and it too experienced substantial suburban sprawl during the mid-20th century (in large part thanks to this guy and his pro-highway efforts). Queens, and especially Staten Island, have much lower density levels than the other three boroughs.
2 Likes
Well, tall office towers don’t house residents, but low rise apartment blocks do. So, there’s that.
4 Likes
Reading “Better Buses, Better Cities” and there’s an example from the Bay Area where the city allows denser zoning if the complex provides transit passes to residents. This seems like a perfect idea for the BRT corridors.
9 Likes
Great book & great idea
2 Likes
Helen Tart, who unsuccessfully ran for an at-large seat on the council, spoke at last night’s virtual council meeting. In the meeting, she went on rant about how Raleigh’s prioritizing new residents at the expense of existing residents, and how the city has plenty of land on which to build housing for tens of thousands in towers in places like the Western Blvd KMart site. It was classic NIMBY speak and almost dystopian if you ask me. For those who might want to find her speech, it was during the public comment section of the meeting at the beginning. I don’t know exactly how far into the meeting as I joined it live on YouTube somewhat after the meeting began.
2 Likes
First speaker last night was…guess who?
Stef Mendel???
This is the core of the NIMBY narrative. You hear it all the time when folks go up to speak out, typically against something, and they start with, “I’ve lived in insert neighborhood for X years” as if that gives you more say in matters versus someone who lived here for months or a few years.
10 Likes
I think this is the public feedback portion from that meeting. Interesting to watch our city’s first virtual council meeting too.
1 Like
Start listening at 31 minutes to not only witness her incapability to manage technology, but also her dystopian vision that she desperately tries to tie to BRT and housing affordability. It seems that she just wants the city to create new versions of massive, high density, “housing projects” that were erected in major cities in the middle of the last century for new residents that were displaced through so called urban renewal.
3 Likes
You know, no matter your faith, we all believe in something. These callers (and so many in other places) sound so negative and without faith in anything. How about at least some faith in humanity? Maintaining a positive attitude is our best first defense. I have to say that is one thing that has been refreshing about this forum. Upbeat. Not dwelling. So thank you.
I’ve noticed that the more positive my attitude, the more positive things I pick up on. I am not downplaying the impact of this virus on the world, but venting a little about how some are dealing with it. There are a lot of people hurting and a lot of social programs quickly being put into place to prop many up while they get back on their feet.
Needed to get that out. Sorry.
11 Likes
I also have to believe that “the council or no” narrative is trying to live on by leveraging this pandemic as a reason to not go forward with anything because “the money and focus is needed elsewhere”.
What I don’t understand is how these folks can ignore that growth is going to be necessary to put people back to work and lift up our economy and our citizens.
9 Likes