Which US metropolitan areas would benefit from controlled growth? Are there any that exist right now that would really be hampered by an increased population?
Bascially, are there places where growth may well be a negative because of:
• topography: hilly or mountainous land, water restrictive or intrusive sites
• climate: smog inversions, water limitations, etc., coastal plane development
• Fragile environment
• growth and layout based on car and sprawl...continuing sprawl outward with little public transportation to tie area together
• current population has high density: additional density brings in quality of life issues
• urban planning has already been based on growth restriction so that change to growth may be looked at as a step backwards (Portland, OR, model)
etc.
Values, of course, are so much a part of the equation so it is also a legitimate perspective to think that no US city needs to be restricted by growth.> |
0 comments:
Post a Comment