12-28-2006, 03:09 PM
Aloha,
Well, not according to Merriam-Webster:
"Suburban:
1 a : an outlying part of a city or town b : a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city c plural : the residential area on the outskirts of a city or large town.
And your etymology is wrong too, though Realtors® would like you to belive they coined the word I'm sure:
"Etymology: Middle English suburbe, from Anglo-French, from Latin suburbium, from sub- near + urbs city"
Our descriptions of land use are so crude and crippled and disconnected from all reality but that of land speculators that indeed, the working definition of "rural" and "suburban" - even for planners who ought to know better - are based on nothing but lot size.
However I and the dictionary definition of "suburban" are pointing to the *movement patterns* as fundamental. Since we have major transportation issues arising from our suburban land use choices, it is movement patterns that show the functional nature of our houselots.
The movement patterns from the vast majority of bunches of houselots of *any* size on this island are suburban. Certainly here in Puna, which is functionally a suburb of Hilo, as the movement patterns and resultant suburban-typical traffic issues clearly show.
So it's fine if people want to continue to think they live "rural" because they have more than 1/2 acre lot when their entire lifestyle (movement pattern) screams "SUBURBAN" - however nothing will get better as long as this denial of what is continues. We can't make good decisions on bad (incorrect) information.
As for the ag land stuff, I'm just not interested in large scale energy and chemical-intensive commercial agriculture. It has no future, we simply can't afford it much longer.
I'm interested in local small farmers and foresters feeding and providing fuel and fiber to local communities. That's the only viable future, whether it needs ten or fifty years to be shown so.
If you think that's "not practical," just wait until the barges stop coming for a whole week or two (or a month, or nobody knows...) or the artificially cheap US food economy takes a dive and you'll wish we'd done everything we could right here right now to start making such a transition.
I don't follow your question. I do know that building on 5 of 20 acres is using way too much of that 20 acres, if the idea is to preserve ag land. An acre would do easily for all built farm infrastructure and housing. Two at most if very large roofed areas were needed for value added processing etc.
Again I don't get your context here. However high levels of population density on small areas of land is exactly what we need far more of. It's the opposite of the unaffordability (individual and societal) and inherent transportation problems of low-density (sprawl).
This (high-density/small land area) used to be called a "village," or if bigger a "town." It's where the true rural (not suburban) people all went once a week, on Sundays, for church and socializing.
Well, because that's what it's for and only for. If they're not going to do it themselves, they can lease it to someone else. If they don't want to lease or do, it can fallow and grow biomass.
The fundamental difference between you and me is that I don't think we have a future here if we keep doing what we're doing. And I know that there are infinite ways to do things differently and I don't see the value in constantly saying "no can" when obviously we can, if we want.
The people I know who are working, local, non-agribusiness/non-cash-export-crop farmers and gardeners and food-foresters and so on - these are the people folks will be begging for food from when the 90% imported food machine stops (or even stumbles for a couple weeks). And they are mostly kind and loving human beings who will probably share what they have, even with people who could have done something and yet did nothing to help them afford and preserve the land they needed to grow that food.
And some of them live in tents and shacks. I have no problem with that. Sometimes it's because that's all they can afford. I realize it's a crime to be poor in this country, but why add homelessness to poverty when there's no practial need to?
Some live like that because they just plain like it that way. It's their choice. Some live in unconventional dwellings because it's part of how they express their creativity and they just want to do it. They have to do it. They wouldn't want to live in a shizit-rock west-coast-container stick-box if someone gave it to them, and no one ought be be able to force them to.
There's an ancient rumor that this is a "free country" and if that rumor is true, then these folks have nothing to fear.
If that rumor is false, then we're all in trouble - because as the man said, sooner or later they'll come for you and there will be no one left to speak up.
a hui hou,
John S.
Edited by - johns on 12/28/2006 19:18:51
quote:
The first is that "houselot sprawl" on 20 acre parcels is very different from sprawl on half acre lots. The word "suburban" was coined to describe this difference from "rural" areas.
Well, not according to Merriam-Webster:
"Suburban:
1 a : an outlying part of a city or town b : a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city c plural : the residential area on the outskirts of a city or large town.
And your etymology is wrong too, though Realtors® would like you to belive they coined the word I'm sure:
"Etymology: Middle English suburbe, from Anglo-French, from Latin suburbium, from sub- near + urbs city"
Our descriptions of land use are so crude and crippled and disconnected from all reality but that of land speculators that indeed, the working definition of "rural" and "suburban" - even for planners who ought to know better - are based on nothing but lot size.
However I and the dictionary definition of "suburban" are pointing to the *movement patterns* as fundamental. Since we have major transportation issues arising from our suburban land use choices, it is movement patterns that show the functional nature of our houselots.
The movement patterns from the vast majority of bunches of houselots of *any* size on this island are suburban. Certainly here in Puna, which is functionally a suburb of Hilo, as the movement patterns and resultant suburban-typical traffic issues clearly show.
So it's fine if people want to continue to think they live "rural" because they have more than 1/2 acre lot when their entire lifestyle (movement pattern) screams "SUBURBAN" - however nothing will get better as long as this denial of what is continues. We can't make good decisions on bad (incorrect) information.
As for the ag land stuff, I'm just not interested in large scale energy and chemical-intensive commercial agriculture. It has no future, we simply can't afford it much longer.
I'm interested in local small farmers and foresters feeding and providing fuel and fiber to local communities. That's the only viable future, whether it needs ten or fifty years to be shown so.
If you think that's "not practical," just wait until the barges stop coming for a whole week or two (or a month, or nobody knows...) or the artificially cheap US food economy takes a dive and you'll wish we'd done everything we could right here right now to start making such a transition.
quote:
On the other hand if we have a 20 acre parcel (one of the most common lot sizes larger than five acres) then some portion of it would be designated a dwelling area and the remainder then would be designated "ag conservation" and never again be touched by a dwelling. How is this different from a planned development with, say, 15 acres of open space and 5 acres of intensively developed residences?
I don't follow your question. I do know that building on 5 of 20 acres is using way too much of that 20 acres, if the idea is to preserve ag land. An acre would do easily for all built farm infrastructure and housing. Two at most if very large roofed areas were needed for value added processing etc.
quote:
If the ag area is disassociated from the dwelling area, what is to prevent high levels of population density?
Again I don't get your context here. However high levels of population density on small areas of land is exactly what we need far more of. It's the opposite of the unaffordability (individual and societal) and inherent transportation problems of low-density (sprawl).
This (high-density/small land area) used to be called a "village," or if bigger a "town." It's where the true rural (not suburban) people all went once a week, on Sundays, for church and socializing.
quote:
What is to compel anyone to pursue ag activities on the remainder of the property for that matter?
Well, because that's what it's for and only for. If they're not going to do it themselves, they can lease it to someone else. If they don't want to lease or do, it can fallow and grow biomass.
The fundamental difference between you and me is that I don't think we have a future here if we keep doing what we're doing. And I know that there are infinite ways to do things differently and I don't see the value in constantly saying "no can" when obviously we can, if we want.
The people I know who are working, local, non-agribusiness/non-cash-export-crop farmers and gardeners and food-foresters and so on - these are the people folks will be begging for food from when the 90% imported food machine stops (or even stumbles for a couple weeks). And they are mostly kind and loving human beings who will probably share what they have, even with people who could have done something and yet did nothing to help them afford and preserve the land they needed to grow that food.
And some of them live in tents and shacks. I have no problem with that. Sometimes it's because that's all they can afford. I realize it's a crime to be poor in this country, but why add homelessness to poverty when there's no practial need to?
Some live like that because they just plain like it that way. It's their choice. Some live in unconventional dwellings because it's part of how they express their creativity and they just want to do it. They have to do it. They wouldn't want to live in a shizit-rock west-coast-container stick-box if someone gave it to them, and no one ought be be able to force them to.
There's an ancient rumor that this is a "free country" and if that rumor is true, then these folks have nothing to fear.
If that rumor is false, then we're all in trouble - because as the man said, sooner or later they'll come for you and there will be no one left to speak up.
a hui hou,
John S.
Edited by - johns on 12/28/2006 19:18:51