density is good. The savings in commute time are probably worth it.

5/28/2006 1:31:26 PM

^^if you scaled that to avg income in the respective cities, it would be more telling.

5/28/2006 1:38:25 PM

If you take the property tax of $14.62 and scaled it by the difference in property values and then scaled it for the difference in incomes, I'm sure it becomes even more heinous. I'll see if I can get some numbers.

I should also point out that the higher wages in New York increase costs for businesses, especially those whose customers are in other lower income areas.

Also, many urban areas have additional taxes to raise revenues (sales and income taxes).

I defy you to show that the urbanization in New York City is cheaper than the sprawl in the Triangle.

[Edited on May 28, 2006 at 1:50 PM. Reason : ?]

5/28/2006 1:46:37 PM

raleigh does suck in a way, but i think it'd been awesome if I lived there with a wife and a kid and traveled often.

5/28/2006 2:36:11 PM

how tall is the RBC tower going to be?

5/28/2006 2:36:21 PM

HEY PATMAN

EVERYTHING IS NOT ABOUT MONEY, AS MUCH AS YOUR ASS THINKS IT IS






HAY GUYZ, LETS MAKE ALL OF RALEIGH LIKE CAPITOL BLVD!!! THAT WOUL DMAKE ECONOMIC SENSE!!!1

5/28/2006 3:10:51 PM

haha i think we have already concluded that urban sprawl sucks

5/28/2006 6:48:13 PM

No, everything isn't about money. However, putting up new buildings is all about money.

And keep in mind, I'm replying to a post posing the question about costs of sprawl vs. density. I don't see what's going to slow sprawl until it becomes profitable to do otherwise. If you want to prevent sprawl, buy a 900 s.f. condo downtown for $300k instead of a 2500 s.f. house in Johnston Co. for 180k.

[Edited on May 28, 2006 at 7:45 PM. Reason : ?]

5/28/2006 7:39:08 PM

Patman is right on the point

5/28/2006 8:57:49 PM

comparing Raleigh and the largest city in the country is always a good idea

5/28/2006 11:46:44 PM

^^^ money talks and bullshit walks

let's see how many of the anti-sprawl peeps buy downtown condos

5/28/2006 11:52:01 PM

he really really oversimplified his argument...

5/28/2006 11:54:05 PM

i still don't understand why the tallest building in raleigh won't be downtown and will be put by the crabtree mall

5/28/2006 11:58:30 PM

economics

5/28/2006 11:59:26 PM

yeah, I hate it that it is happening... but just too easy in raleigh to go further out.


and I agree with whoever that was that posted earlier about Dix... I really hope they dont waste that land by turning it into a "central park"

5/29/2006 12:00:09 AM

^^^ not all cities are concentric

^ maybe people are tired of land going to waste on strip malls and clothing stores and would like to have somewhere to go walk their dog, let their kids go play, or go for a run without having to drive 20 minutes. also might encourage downtown development, which encourages raleigh's overall economic development

case-in-point: the economic development on glenwood south. that street was a dive 10 years ago.

5/29/2006 12:04:59 AM

because dorothea dix is so far from pullen park

5/29/2006 12:20:23 AM

^ yeah

^^ you are clueless. Raleigh isnt some huge paved over metropolis where you have to drive 40 miles to see a tree... there are plenty of parks/green spaces all around and in raleigh. A city should be urban, and Raleigh needs a LOT more urban spaces. I didnt say one word about strip malls...

5/29/2006 12:23:30 AM

pullen park is tiny

btw, have you been to see the view on the dix land? too beautiful to waste for condos

5/29/2006 1:01:04 AM

Yes, I have been all over Dix, a park/running trails etc could definitely be a part of a plan there but Raleigh just doesnt need a park that big so close to downtown with so much development going further and further out. Would love for some mix used development to go in there, housing, commercial etc. And I would say that the view is perfect for people to actually live there and enjoy it everyday, not for a park where a few people would go every now and then

5/29/2006 1:23:10 AM

Quote :

"comparing Raleigh and the largest city in the country is always a good idea"

nobodys comparing raleigh to sitka, alaska



and about the sears tower thing. the height is to scale but thats it. the width of that building is wrong and it should be placed in front of the city and not behhind it.

5/29/2006 1:30:58 AM

^what?

5/29/2006 1:44:52 AM

Quote :

"comparing Raleigh and the largest city in the country is always a good idea"

I was comparing them in terms of infrastructure costs by comparing property values and taxes. It was proposed earlier in this thread that when you include things like the cost of infrastructure, urbanization could be cheaper than sprawl. My point is that if urbanization was cheaper, you would find lower taxes in urban areas than sprawled areas. However, I don't know of anywhere more urban than Raleigh with lower municipal & property taxes. I think it's striking that despite having huge property values, the property tax in NYC is 14 times Raleigh's property tax. In addition, NYC has a 4% income tax.

Here's some other comparisons (for a 250k home):

Atlanta $3645
Raleigh $2500
Madison, WI $5865
Charlotte $3142
San Francisco $2860 (not that you could buy a 250k home)

I should also point out that even here in raleigh, people in the municipal district (ie downtown) pay an extra 7.9 cents per $100.

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 10:02 AM. Reason : ?]

5/29/2006 9:40:47 AM

just pushing the fact that nyc is not the largest city in the us and its not the most densly populated either.

5/29/2006 12:29:31 PM

yes it is

5/29/2006 12:31:37 PM

^ you might want to check your sources there, lunchbox.

5/29/2006 12:34:37 PM

one thing is for sure - i love seeing all the trees in this pic

5/29/2006 12:36:35 PM

not even top ten in either. just ask ujustwait

5/29/2006 12:37:58 PM

5/29/2006 12:45:03 PM

Quote :

"just pushing the fact that nyc is not the largest city in the us and its not the most densly populated either."

it is not the most populated. it is the most densely populated though at 10,292 people/km² (with manhattan at 25,849/km²)

5/29/2006 12:52:32 PM

Quote :

"^ you might want to check your sources there, lunchbox."

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027.html
above is a link to a paper that did a study on populations of large cities, and guess what? right on top was good ol new york new york!
now that's just for the city itsself. as far as the urbanized area around the city, new york comes out on top again, even over the LA area.

also, it had the largest population density i saw.
granted, this paper was from 1990, but here are some more facts from other sources...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html
here is a link to more recent data that shows NYC has some 8.1 million citizens. MUCH higher than LA's 3.8

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 12:56 PM. Reason : ]

5/29/2006 12:55:42 PM

ahaha i love this block user feature

5/29/2006 1:05:08 PM

populations of cities all depends on the criteria for what a city is. is it the "metro area" or is it the technical boundaries of the city itself. only if the same criteria is used can populations be compared. but beyond all that, smath is right (after looking it up myself):

Quote :

"With over 8 million residents, New York City has a larger population than 39 U.S. states. It has more than twice the population of Los Angeles, the second largest city in the country, and more than 27 times the population of Buffalo, the second largest city in New York State."

i'd be willing to bet though, that LA has a larger population if you include all of the suburbs.

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

Quote :

"Rank Metropolitan Statistical Area State(s) and/or Territory 1 July 2004 Population Estimate 1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-PA 18,709,802 2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana CA 12,925,330 3 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet IL-IN-WI 9,391,515"

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 1:11 PM. Reason : checked it]

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 1:11 PM. Reason : /]

5/29/2006 1:07:11 PM

nope. NYC has the higher population in its metropolitan area as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_metropolitan_area

5/29/2006 1:11:13 PM

maybe if you guys came up with some formula to account for both density and size new york would have the highest, but thats where your're going wrong.

and you are right about metro area but the city alone is not even close.

off the top of my head

la, jacksonville, houston, sitka, jeneua are all larger than nyc (there are ALOT more)

the reason the metro area is so dense is because all these new jersey suburbs are more dense.
like...

union city, nj (most dense city in us)
west new york, nj
hoboken, nj

5/29/2006 1:38:24 PM

you are an idiot. shut up.

5/29/2006 1:42:17 PM

don't get mad because you're wrong

[Edited on May 29, 2006 at 1:49 PM. Reason : ag]

5/29/2006 1:48:29 PM

My company charges more to work downtown, because it's such a huge pain in the ass to move materials and equipment there. Multiply that times every contractor and supplier and you end up paying significantly more for your trendy downtown venture. If companies want to do it, more power to 'em, but I can't blame them in the least for seeking more suburban locations.

5/29/2006 1:52:49 PM

Quote :

"don't get mad because you're wrong"

please explain to me how I am wrong.

5/29/2006 1:56:40 PM

Christ, are you really this obtuse?

NYC is not the largest city in the US-- Sitka, Alaska is.
NYC is not the most densely populated city in the US-- Union City, NJ is.

If you still want to argue, then you can believe whatever the hell you want. I'm going to go play golf and not sit in front of a computer and be a fat fuck.

5/29/2006 2:05:19 PM

what in god's name are you talking about?

look, new york city has a higher population than the entire STATE of alaska. much less of some town nobody has ever heard of.

5/29/2006 2:19:37 PM

nobody said anything about nyc not having the highest population. its just not the most densly populated city and its nowhere near the largest city.

5/29/2006 2:31:21 PM

when you use the term "largest city" you are talking about population. if you are talking about land area, you would say land area or area or something to that effect.

5/29/2006 2:39:37 PM

Centennial Campus will soon be the Largest City in the US

5/29/2006 2:45:42 PM

semantics wins again

5/29/2006 2:49:12 PM

why does anyone care if our downtown isn't comparable to nyc, chicago, la, atlanta, charlotte, etc? y'all are looking at this like some pissing contest. i don't want a huge fucking downtown infested with crime, pollution, overpopulation, traffic nightmares, etc. i think raleigh is perfect for what raleigh is right now. y'all piss me off.

5/29/2006 4:45:53 PM

if people love new york so much

they should move there







problem solved

5/29/2006 5:26:26 PM

i love raleigh and i also think it could use its downtown more effectively.

also, this statement is retarded

Quote :

"i think raleigh is perfect for what raleigh is right now."

way to say nothing!

5/29/2006 6:00:09 PM

raleigh really doesn't need a bigger downtown, it's not like any commerce or business of any significant importance is there anyway (besides BB&T or Wachovia-which aren't even headquartered in raleigh anyway)

developers should be building highrises in RTP since it's closer to everything as a whole, instead of wasting money and trying to densify an area of town that's kinda dumb to densify anyway.

i mean if you really think about it, the only reason downtown raleigh exists in the first place is because of local government and the state capitol building. people need to realize that charlotte's skyline exists because of banking, not government.

there are other ways to reduce the sprawl of the triangle than building up a poorly designed section of raleigh. just look at the fucking names of the streets downtown...it's not like city developers ever planned on it being a hotspot to begin with...

5/30/2006 3:49:43 AM

^^ what the fuck are you buggerin' on about?

5/30/2006 5:50:03 AM