Suburbanization is an interesting subject; I'm grasping all of its underlying principles quite clearly, but for some odd reason, I'm still struggling to define the type of environment I personally grew up in. I often hear about Sugarland and The Woodlands near Houston, or Grapevine and Plano near Dallas -- but what is Amarillo? It seems that half of the Texans I meet don't even know where Amarillo is!
Amarillo is known for the Cadillac Ranch and the 72 oz. steak challenge at the Big Texan, but aside from these two attractions, it's usually just another place to pass through along the historic Route 66. For the people who live there, it's more about the steak and cars. Amarillo is home to approximately 200,000 people -- myself included.
.... Whether it's a city or suburb is what I don't really know.
The usage of the terms "urban" and "suburban" is quite
arbitrary. Given differences in the way cities and metropolitan areas
are governed, what is suburban in one city would be part of the central
city elsewhere. Los Angeles, covering an immense territory, has some suburbs
like Pasadena but also includes zones within its city limits which one
could reasonably consider suburban. Increasingly, "suburbs" are no longer
primarily residential areas. The growth of the suburban trend has led to environments that have become larger and more
economically important than the central city the suburb is attached to.
Perhaps the concept of the suburb is an outdated one. I often see "The City of Amarillo" plastered around Downtown,
but looking at the scale of Downtown Houston and Downtown Dallas in
comparison creates a striking contrast. Amarillo, in this case, would be more similar to the typical suburban character. I feel that I've grown up in a suburban area, but the correct classification seems to be a city. I ask myself, 'why is that?' It seems that the label for "the city" and "the suburb" is falsely understood. Do these words only represent a set of trends and statistics rather than a set of actual values? -- and if not values, then what do they represent?
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Good public policy promotes public interest.
Good public policy promotes public interest.
... But who, exactly, are we referring to when we speak of 'the public'?
To further investigate the subject, I referenced my roommates to capture a glimpse of their orientation on Austin's current approach to public policy and city planning. This morning, I took a three-mile morning jog to Lakeshore Park with my roommate, Johnny. Two miles doesn't seem too daunting, but a few hours later that day, I recalled some of the goals set by the city for residents and parks. The Austin City Council strives to achieve the possibility of having every resident live within walking distance from a park -- specifically, a quarter of a mile for the urban core and half of a mile outside of the urban core. Such an ambitious proposal made three miles suddenly seemed substantially excessive. A quarter of a mile to the park would be such a delight! Lakeshore Park had always been the apex -- the "stopping point" -- of Johnny and I's route, but how wonderful would it be to actually be able to engage with the park while jogging?
I asked another roommate, Bryan, if he would be more encouraged to go to the park if it was located within a quarter of a mile of walking distance. At the least, he could join Johnny and I on our bi-weekly jogging adventure.
He said no.
He further explained that, as a student, he was too overwhelmed by the pressures of schoolwork and that the park would be poorly utilized by the student housing complexes in the area surrounding Lakeshore Park. I viewed it from the contrary perspective: the close proximity of a nearby park could be an opportunity to escape from "the pressures of school" and catch a bit of fresh air. However, Bryan continued to insist that the extension of the park would be pointless. "I just wouldn't use it," he said.
Eventually, I conclude that it is the honest opinion of the user serves as the crucial component of city planning. A park may be implemented (or extended, in this case), but that isn't to say that it will be utilized for the sole fact that it is present.
On the other hand, perhaps it is reliant on the attitude of the individual.
I started to think about the new Boardwalk Trail at Lady Bird Lake, which seeks to close the southeasten gap of the hike and bike trail by connecting the current end of the trail by the Austin American Statesman Building to Lakeshore Park. Newspaper articles indicate that currently, pedestrians, runners and bikers are forced to use the Riverside Drive sidewalk over Interstate 35 to complete the 10.1 mile trail loop. And it's true -- I see these pedestrians, runners an bikers every single day, whether I'm on my way to school at 8:00 AM or on my way home at 8:00 PM. The attitudes of those people are certainly important considerations in city planning.
Maybe it isn't about good public policy and how it promotes public interest afterall. Maybe, instead, the focus is on defining what the public interest is, and how that it used to inform good public policy.
Because, in the end, good public interest promotes public policy.
... But who, exactly, are we referring to when we speak of 'the public'?
To further investigate the subject, I referenced my roommates to capture a glimpse of their orientation on Austin's current approach to public policy and city planning. This morning, I took a three-mile morning jog to Lakeshore Park with my roommate, Johnny. Two miles doesn't seem too daunting, but a few hours later that day, I recalled some of the goals set by the city for residents and parks. The Austin City Council strives to achieve the possibility of having every resident live within walking distance from a park -- specifically, a quarter of a mile for the urban core and half of a mile outside of the urban core. Such an ambitious proposal made three miles suddenly seemed substantially excessive. A quarter of a mile to the park would be such a delight! Lakeshore Park had always been the apex -- the "stopping point" -- of Johnny and I's route, but how wonderful would it be to actually be able to engage with the park while jogging?
I asked another roommate, Bryan, if he would be more encouraged to go to the park if it was located within a quarter of a mile of walking distance. At the least, he could join Johnny and I on our bi-weekly jogging adventure.
He said no.
He further explained that, as a student, he was too overwhelmed by the pressures of schoolwork and that the park would be poorly utilized by the student housing complexes in the area surrounding Lakeshore Park. I viewed it from the contrary perspective: the close proximity of a nearby park could be an opportunity to escape from "the pressures of school" and catch a bit of fresh air. However, Bryan continued to insist that the extension of the park would be pointless. "I just wouldn't use it," he said.
Eventually, I conclude that it is the honest opinion of the user serves as the crucial component of city planning. A park may be implemented (or extended, in this case), but that isn't to say that it will be utilized for the sole fact that it is present.
On the other hand, perhaps it is reliant on the attitude of the individual.
I started to think about the new Boardwalk Trail at Lady Bird Lake, which seeks to close the southeasten gap of the hike and bike trail by connecting the current end of the trail by the Austin American Statesman Building to Lakeshore Park. Newspaper articles indicate that currently, pedestrians, runners and bikers are forced to use the Riverside Drive sidewalk over Interstate 35 to complete the 10.1 mile trail loop. And it's true -- I see these pedestrians, runners an bikers every single day, whether I'm on my way to school at 8:00 AM or on my way home at 8:00 PM. The attitudes of those people are certainly important considerations in city planning.
Maybe it isn't about good public policy and how it promotes public interest afterall. Maybe, instead, the focus is on defining what the public interest is, and how that it used to inform good public policy.
Because, in the end, good public interest promotes public policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)