http://www.idkfa.com/v3 idkfa: syndicated http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=3052 Even though I live 2 blocks from a metro station here, I still would prefer to use my car any day of the week if it is a logical option. It is just SO much more convenient to not have to work around the metro systems schedule, deal with late trains, deal with transfers to other lines, deal with having to carry everything I want to have with me on my shoulders.... etc etc etc... It is just SO much more convenient to have my car! (if only parking wasn't so expensive and biking so dangerous in the city...) But with that said, I accept the fact that most of the reason I feel that way is because of how I grew up. I have a lot of friends here who have absolutely no desire whatsoever to own a car. The hassle of having on is not worth the freedom it gives them to go places away from the metro. CapitolZebra@idkfa.com (CapitolZebra) Asked and Answered Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:19:56 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=3052 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=3051 It might have been great when you were here, but it has done nothing but go downhill since. Prices are skyrocketing every year, there are more escalators that do not work than there are that do, trains are falling apart, the stations have gotten dirty and they aren't hiring enough people to keep them clean, and they are cutting service so there are not as many trains running and some stations are even shut down on weekends. All of this while Metro leadership talks about how their ridership is declining. Well... isn't that shocking... It has gotten to the point where the only thing that makes driving more expensive than taking the metro is if I have to park somewhere that costs a lot. Otherwise, I will gladly sit in traffic rather than take the metro. And when public transit gets to that point, then what is the point? The problem is that any public transportation system not only needs to get the funding to get built, but it also needs to have enough funding to be maintained. And in order to do that, there has to be enough of a reason to use it so that people use it rather than driving. In Anchorage, people love their cars. And no public transportation system will ever be able to cover all of Anchorage - hillside, Potter Valley, Gov Hill, etc. So there is no way it would ever become vast enough to be viable for the majority - or even a large portion - of the city. In my opinion the only way something like light rail or other public transit would work would be if it was targeted to a specific population - like maybe specifically to get people from Eagle River into downtown and midtown or something like that. But then they would also have to build up all the side walks and bike paths around those areas so that people who don't work right next to the station would be able to travel to their work place in some way other than driving. CapitolZebra@idkfa.com (CapitolZebra) Asked and Answered Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:11:46 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=3051 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=3050 Even public transportation systems have their issues, though. Here in DC the metro system was initially developed only to get people in and out of the city center. It is beyond frustrating if you've just trying to get from one end of the city to another. And if you want to get from the outer parts of one line to the outer parts of another. And now one of the most rapidly growing areas right outside of DC is having to be completely ripped apart and re-done because it grew so fast without even an ounce of city planning that it was almost unsafe. And applying urban planning to such an old area is pretty difficult. So, I don't think Anchorage is alone in the problem. I think the problem is that it's hard to get people in Anchorage to commit to fund anything that would change the problem. As much as I love Alaska, we Alaskans do not like to part with our money even if it means to pay taxes that would fund improvements to the city. CapitolZebra@idkfa.com (CapitolZebra) Asked and Answered Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:59:01 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=3050 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2907 You know, I actually like lots of things about Spokane, and if you stick to downtown and Browne's Addition and lower South Hill it is pretty easily traversable. There's something really romantic or bohemian about all those abandoned warehouses and industrial buildings being converted into fancy lofts and trendy office spaces. If only the area outside of the 5 mile radius I'm talking about could modernize as well. Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Asked and Answered Tue, 24 May 2011 16:48:28 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2907 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2906 The whole "2 hours for a 30 minute trip" thing is exactly why public trans can never work in Anchorage. Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Asked and Answered Tue, 24 May 2011 16:46:21 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2906 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2867 2 hours in a bus to get across Anchorage. 1.5 hours in an airplane to get across the state... norwaygirl@idkfa.com (norwaygirl) Asked and Answered Thu, 19 May 2011 16:15:23 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2867 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2865 I was thinking the same thing. Especially since I can't read on the bus (get soooooo motion sick). Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Asked and Answered Thu, 19 May 2011 14:11:52 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2865 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2864 Wow, 2 hrs is a long time! I think I'd take a 20 min taxi ride rather than a 2 hr bus ride. norwaygirl@idkfa.com (norwaygirl) Asked and Answered Thu, 19 May 2011 12:03:01 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2864 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2858 Bus 7 (or 3, I can't remember which is Northern Lights and which is the airport...) runs from downtown to the Airport every hour. I take it on a fairly regular basis either coming or going from the slope when I can't get a ride in the middle of the day. The downside is that it takes almost 2 hours to get from my house to the airport...which sucks when you have a 10am flight, necessitating being at the airport about 730... akarmybrat@idkfa.com (akarmybrat) Asked and Answered Wed, 18 May 2011 18:41:43 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2858 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2857 Wish I could help you out... but wait, the REI anniversary sale starts this weekend maybe you can get a cheap tune up... or better yet ride to work on Friday (NATIONAL BIKE TO WORK DAY) and see if they'll do a quick tune on it. Here's a link to some of the commuter stations that I could find real quick. Last year I got a pretty extensive tune done at the REI corporate headquarters, and another quick tune on my hubs and headset done by some bike guy later on my route. MrFood@idkfa.com (MrFood) Asked and Answered Wed, 18 May 2011 14:18:42 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2857 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2856 Yeah, maybe I'm just jealous. I seriously need to get my bike tuned up. Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Asked and Answered Wed, 18 May 2011 13:56:30 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2856 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2855 Yeah whenever I went up there it was driving. And when we drove the AlCan we came down from the north via Spokane. It was shit. MrFood@idkfa.com (MrFood) Asked and Answered Wed, 18 May 2011 13:51:09 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2855 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2854 But there's an extensive skybridge network! I actually always hated that town, it felt like it was dying a slow and painful death. However, I never had to drive around in it, so I never hated it for the reasons you discuss. Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Asked and Answered Wed, 18 May 2011 13:25:16 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2854 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2852 Its not a stupid question. Erik is thinking like Erik, and not like an Alaskan. Your reasons are probably exactly the ones that public transportation isn't highly valued or being pursued. That's basically the reasons most anyone who chooses to not ride transit uses... I want to go where I want when I want, without waiting, and in a more or less direct line. People in cities like Portland, NYC, SF, Seattle even don't even want to own a car if they can help it and therefor expect the city to step in and get them places. MrFood@idkfa.com (MrFood) Asked and Answered Wed, 18 May 2011 12:16:38 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2852 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2850 RON PAUL 2012 BITCHES. DR. NO FOR PREZZZZZZZ. Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 23:56:22 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2850 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2849 Two things; First, have you been to Spokane? I mean, talk about complete lack of city planning: the city is arranged in a north/south strip along Division St making it nearly impossible to get from north Spokane to downtown; the downtown area is hemmed in by a river on one side, a hill on the other, and so it got stretched sideways making it a bitch to walk across; the roads on the south hill disappear and reappear at will, and there is basically only one traffic corridor into downtown; there are massive abandoned factories in the middle of town and bordering downtown, isolating that commercial district from the rest of the town. I could go on. Secondly, there kind of is a link between the airport and downtown. There is a rail link that is only used by a couple of cruise ship companies in the summer. Does anyone know why there isn't some sort of commuter rail run on that line more often? It seems like it could be profitable, especially in the summer. I used to get people asking me all the time how to get from downtown to the airport, and the only answer is "uh, a taxi?" Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 23:55:36 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2849 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2848 This is maybe a stupid question, but why are you arguing against cars, especially in a place like Anchorage? Mike is right in another post where he points out that some place like Portland (or DC, or NYC, or SF, or Boston) is going to have support for a comprehensive public transit system by virtue of the type of people living in those cities. I would suspect that, despite potential environmental gains to be had, most Alaskans would still choose to drive over public transit, if only because Alaskans are stubborn and like their freedom from other people's schedules. Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 23:48:28 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2848 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2847 I think Mike hit it on the head when he said, "It is poor planning in the idea that previous generations did not understand the finite possibilities of our energy sources." Because I'm really just arguing against the car. And we all know that you can't really go without a car in Anchorage, unfortunately. Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 20:19:48 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2847 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2846 Is high density development even a good idea for Anchorage considering the possibility of a declining oil industry? Low density housing is obviously unsustainable if the city continues to grow, but if it tops out and starts to decline having high density housing seems like the ideal recipe for underoccupied slums. Also just to try and compare what I know about Seattle to Anchorage, the trend is usually that its young single/couples professionals who choose to live in high density urban areas. Once people have kids the trend is to get the hell out of the "city" and get a house with a yard and shit. That and living in high density urban areas is just too expensive for average people on an average income, thus another push towards the suburbs. This is precisely why we live 15-25 miles from where we work. I agree that Anchorage does not, and probably never will have the population density to support good mass transit. Yeah I agree that its really really great. Hell I love mass transit, if I'm not on my bike, I take the bus every single day to work. I drive to work maybe, 1 work day every two months... maybe? But even here in Seattle its hard to support the transit programs we have, and with the current rough economic times there have been a lot of cuts to transit and there will be a lot more till things start to turn around and revenues are up. Sadly a lot of the routes getting trimmed are the long hauls from the suburbs, because they're expensive, to save the urban routes in the city where people could damn well walk if they wanted... oh well. Lastly, I have to disagree with Erik about poor urban planning. Anchorage was never meant to be a pedestrian city, so was never built like one, and it will never be changed to one. People moved there to have space, be freer, not have neighbors breathing down their necks, shit like that. Anchorage was a way different place before the oil fields were built. And even for that rapid expansion it has MrFood@idkfa.com (MrFood) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 19:14:30 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2846 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2845 i haven't used any west coast public transport as widely as i've used NYC, Boston, or DC, but from those experiences i'd say DC had it together the best, especially as far as cleanliness. and all of those places have their fair share of weird crazy shit too. kitacek@idkfa.com (kitacek) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 18:59:46 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2845 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2844 Haha oh I know, I was being fascetious. I like Ron Paul, but I would never vote for him because his ideology is a little too extreme. But that's why I like him: unyielding when it comes to his self-proclaimed manifesto. And because he makes people think, at least. Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 18:45:19 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2844 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2843 My argument is not really based on a single point comparison to Portland, as you have actually described yourself: "It's not as simple as just adding one link." Indeed, it takes planning from the beginning, planning that (as uninformed as I am) seems to not have taken place. So, really, when I describe how much of a paradise Portland is in terms of public transportation, that is only one spoke in what makes the city work so beautifully; although I do object to their lax stance on hobos and some of the general weirdness that abounds. Seattle's system is also being improved, and I bet it is quite glorious as well. Maybe they started planning things in Anchorage in 2001, but back when the city was truly growing, I doubtthey had an "Anchorage 2000" Plan. It certainly is nice that they have a manifesto nowadays, I should probably check it out so I don't hate too hard on the sprawling suburbia that Anchorage embodies. However, I will concede that, as ignorant as I am (basing my argument off of observation), that the only way I could really defeat your argument is if there was an example of a town that rapidly expanded (like Anchorage), but was more organized - maybe Spokane (practically the same size as Anchorage)? They boomed in the... 70s? Due to logging, I believe? And they seem to have their shit together a bit more than Anchorage. But then again, that place has a much different history and climate than Anchorage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spokane,_Washington#20th_century), although there was a focus on urban planning/development for a time. And they had a World Fair... huh. They do have an extensive skywalk network, though! Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 18:43:11 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2843 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2842 I like clean water, clean air, civil rights, the national parks, food safety standards, medical practice standards, separation of church and state, etc - too much. Also, add a /sarcasm to the private roads comment. People bitch about the subsidies to public transit without understanding how roads get constructed and maintained. Green Man@idkfa.com (Green Man) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 18:11:55 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2842 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2841 "...and I would call that poor urban planning." Hindsight is 20-20. It is easy to dismiss the rapid development of our urban infrastructure (across the country) as poor urban planning. The fact is, most of our cities were developed on a grid system after the propagation of the automobile. It is poor planning in the idea that previous generations did not understand the finite possibilities of our energy sources. Cities that grew organically over hundreds and thousands of years are constructed and planned on a human scale, and it is a natural progression to move back to such density and development as we learn more about our world (encouraging walking and biking for healthier lives, reducing dependence on the single person automobile). I guess I just take issue with an outright dismissal of the Anchorage planning process (see: Anchorage 2020, the municipalities comprehensive master plan adopted in 2001) based on a single comparison to Portland. That is just like comparing apples to oranges - neither community has the same history or socio-economic background, the planning process of either is often mired in a quagmire of bureaucracy, shifting political strata (each new mayor dismisses previous commissioners and department heads, changing long range planning with every new administration) , the demands of the populace, and the needs of the time. Portland has a population density 23 times greater than Anchorage (~4,000/sq.mile versus ~171). There is a hierarchy of needs that doesn't make sense when it comes to public transportation; it's one of the reasons our buses in town run well below capacity. It is impossible to compare the two cities based on this alone. I'm with you on the fact that Anchorage is in an unfortunate place for the long term future. The city grew pretty organically in an automobile world with a populace that demands individuality (land, car, etc). It's the reason there is still actual debate on a billion Green Man@idkfa.com (Green Man) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 18:07:54 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2841 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2840 For Eagle River, my point was that their is traffic at rush hour. I don't think I agree with you in saying that the city was planned well (for cars), but rather that it ended up working because there was so much open space and not a tremendous amount of people. Maybe the wide spaces were purposeful, but I don't think anyone can argue that it was good planning (since wasted space doesn't really serve a function, right?). If planning had taken place, I think there would measures in place for careful growth as it happens, and also measures for if (when) the population decreases. In the hodgepodge way this town is put together (two city councils notwithstanding), I just think that the town grew out in whatever way it could during the boom times in the 70s and 80s. You said it yourself, "Development in Anchorage happened without consideration for rail lines or efficient bus routes" - and I would call that poor urban planning. But, I suppose we might have to agree to disagree, because it does depend on whatever axioms you held dear to consider the planning good or bad - although I also think it might be easy to argue that there was very little planning done (if I was more informed). Given that Anchorage will probably dwindle when the oil is gone, you might be right in saying that it's a lost cause - but I would still hope that cities of any kind would try and make use of responsible efficiencies (like light rail to downtown and south anchorage, linking to the airport, or some such thing - we do have a fair amount of tourism, afterall). But it probably just boils down to money, and lack thereof. Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 17:21:00 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2840 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2839 Looks like somebody wants to stick it to the man with a vote for Ron Paul... Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 17:07:39 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2839 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2838 I'm also not even bringing up the disparity in the population of the Pacific Northwest versus Alaska. You're comparing a liberal bastion willing to embrace community needs with end of the roaders that want nothing more than to be left alone on their piece of land and monster truck. Oddly enough, the latter embraces the free market with wild abandon, yet demands the government do something about the price of gasoline. If only private corporations built our roads, too. Green Man@idkfa.com (Green Man) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 15:34:44 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2838 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2837 What I'm saying is that the times dictate decision making (see: master planning). You're comparing a city that arose in the mid 19th century to one that began to flourish well after the automobile became the dominant form of transportation. We're talking 60 years after GM (or rather, a conglomerate of automobile corporations) bought the railroad and trolley companies in LA and dismantled the infrastructure for asphalt roads. Development in Anchorage happened without consideration for rail lines or efficient bus routes. Why think of bus lines when we can just add lanes to relieve congestion? It is also extremely difficult to compare commuting to a bedroom community with the rest of Anchorage. You're talking about a geographically constricted corridor with a poorly thought out transition (i.e. stoplights between the Glenn and New Seward). As much as that drive sucks, I guarantee rush our wait times are nothing like Houston, Phoenix, Atlanta or L.A. (barring winter accidents and construction). You're preaching to the choir concerning wanting public transportation; anyone who has lived or visited somewhere with transit quickly finds the joys in it. It makes life easier, putting some individualistic responsibility and putting it on society - affordably helping everyone. Imagine a city without neighborhoods with nothing but garage facades and driveways. You could walk to your local grocer. Bike to the park without crossing 80 feet of uninterrupted dangerous asphalt intersections. Ride the train from downtown after a night of drinking. I guess what I'm arguing is that it is easy to decry the state of things and write it off as poor urban planning. You've said it yourself, though - what constitutes thoughtful urban planning today might be thought of as a series of poor decisions thirty years from now. Also, to reinforce the closing of my last post; I would guess that this city cannot support the level of transit investment Green Man@idkfa.com (Green Man) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 15:31:20 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2837 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2836 There was a bit that was basically downtown anchorage, fairview, and mountain view, and then everything else was the Greater Anchorage Borough, which was everything else that is currently the extents of the muni of anchorage. kitacek@idkfa.com (kitacek) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 14:38:39 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2836 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2835 Hmmm, didn't know that. If the current policital shenanigans are any sort of hint, then it certainly would not have helped! Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 14:25:38 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2835 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2834 Well, to me, it would seem that since the city is fairly young that is should have better urban planning! But, really, what I say is good urban planning and what they presumed was better urban planning back in the 70s and 80s are probably much different things. And there are clogs in plenty of places during rush hour; and you have to remember, we're a city of only 291,826 municipal residents in 2010 (374,553 residents within the metro area - wiki numbers), so we're like pseudo- big city. I don't know the last time you drove to eagle river during rush hour, but I can tell you - it sucks. However, I will agree, the city was designed around cheap energy and the automobile; I couldn't imagine living in this city without a car. Really, my point is that the city should put more emphasis on public transportation. Then again, with the rich oil baron populace and sprawling infrastructure, this would probably be a futile task to try and implement. I was simply impressed by Portland's infrastructure, in that I got off an airplane, took the metro from the airport to the city center (which 15 miles or so apart, I'd figure) with an all-day pass that was less than $5, met with some friends and saw a movie, then got back on and was back at the airport with time to spare for my flight. In Anchorage, this would have been much more expensive and complicated. Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 14:24:47 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2834 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2833 You're also trying to compare Portland to a city that is largely not much older than the state oil boom. For a city built and planned around the automobile, we have surprising connectivity. You'd be surprised at how many cities give you few options for traveling along their axis - in Anchorage you are not constricted to just the New Seward in order to get from South Anchorage to Downtown or on the Glenn. C Street, Minnesota, Elmore help spread the flow of traffic through the North-South corridor. The same applies for East-West. Traffic congestion is almost limited to accidents rather than the regular 5:00 rush that other cities of comparable size experience. I imagine the city could and should ramp up alternative transportation methods; including bike trails, bus routes, and even light rail. But you can't simply look at one facet of urban planning to solve all the problems - everything is interrelated. Zoning laws restricted development and discourage walkability. Shitty low density housing development and maximum sized parking lots encourage sprawl. Building on wetlands is an earthquake and water hazard. Expanding the ETJ towards Eagle River means extending services that tax payers fund (roads, sewer, electricity, fire, police, schools) - further encouraging traffic congestion. Mixed use and building density are some of the first steps to address in order to create better urban planning as you call it. The issues that arises is our individualistic society puts little value on living close to retail or employment, and more on private space (houses, cars). Anchorage isn't a master planned city born of designed foresight. It's a product of cheap energy, rapid growth and individual freedoms. Alaskans will never fully embrace the shared space public transit truly demands until it is just too expensive to fuel our personal vehicles. By that time I imagine the city itself wont need to exist to support the kind of population an oil Green Man@idkfa.com (Green Man) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 13:37:42 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2833 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2832 well up until 1975 there were two local governments here in the anchorage bowl, so that definitely didn't help with urban planning. kitacek@idkfa.com (kitacek) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 13:24:36 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2832 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2831 Anchorage has the shittiest urban planning I have ever seen. Everything is so spread out! It would be almost impossible to develop any kind of efficient public transportation... maybe I'm just jealous of Portland, since that system is cheap to ride on and incredibly functional. Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Asked and Answered Tue, 17 May 2011 12:59:29 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2831 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2827 I actually kinda feel the opposite... Anchorage is starting to slowly run out of wide open spaces. And unless some strict urban planning is initiated, there won't be anywhere for the city to expand, considering it is cornered by bases, mountains, and water. As far as I understand, this is the precise reason for the rapid and steady increase in property prices in Eagle River and other communities in that general direction. CapitolZebra@idkfa.com (CapitolZebra) Asked and Answered Mon, 16 May 2011 22:30:09 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2827 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2826 My aunt (in law?) stayed at the Dimond Center Hotel when she came up to Anchorage for my aunt's wedding a few years ago. I was really weirded out by it because I too agree that it is just strange to have it there, but she said it was really nice. And she is so OCD and anal retentive that she makes me look like I'm on xanax 24 hours a day. Though, I do understand that one in the context of when people come in to Anchorage from the villages to do their shopping. It's conveniently located for that. I just wish there were more hotels in south Anchorage in less awkward locations. CapitolZebra@idkfa.com (CapitolZebra) Asked and Answered Mon, 16 May 2011 22:25:45 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2826 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2468 Could you draw what you'd like Anchorage to look like on my arm? (I watched (500) Days of Summer last night.) Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Asked and Answered Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:12:40 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2468 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2438 Maybe it's because we have lots of space left, but at least we aren't as bad as the lower 48 where as you have apartment/condos and a business park right in the middle of them. It makes sense.. I guess, but still, I find it extremely odd. Governator@idkfa.com (Governator) Asked and Answered Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:09:32 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2438 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2436 (nods) I see what you mean. Anchorage is only a step above Wasilla in that regard. Which is saying that Anchorage is still for-shit when it comes to building community design. We're just a Walmart town on a bigger scale. There's also that these hotels, while perhaps serving a function for tourists and/or business travelers, are places that a) I will never use, b) never go into, and c) likely never be able to identify a community benefit. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Asked and Answered Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:50:21 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2436 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2435 > More seriously, I guess the hotels' presence makes me feel like I'm back in Arizona, with pattern-stamped community planning fraught with unoriginality. The majority of neighborhoods, districts and office complexes of Anchorage can easily be described the same. There is little that gives this city genius loci - a sense of place. Prefabricated, contractor designed (lack of design) homes, windowless strip malls, big box stores - it is all a direct, homogeneous result of a society completely dependent on the automobile and cheap energy. Architectural vernacular is no longer dependent on form that was derived from the functionality of passively heating and cooling a space - high ceilings that direct humid air out of clerestory windows in the southeast are no longer necessary. Pump up the A/C, maw! My point is that nowdays it is easy to construction cheap, shitty buildings that do not reflect the climate and geography of the local region...giving the build environment a distinct identity. Our homes and offices are not crafted from local supplies responding to local conditions. It's a much larger discussion on the build environment, and thankfully an awareness of the costs, uses and depletion of energy sources has a direct influence on what and how we build. Designers are understanding that people want to live in these spaces, not just exist. And that means create identity, often born straight out of regional geography and historical context. Santa Fe crafted extremely strict building codes - way back in 1912 - to regulate the look and feel of their city. As a result the town attracts tourism purely for it's colonial pueblo style. I imagine if someone was placed in midtown Anchorage in the middle of a hot summer day, with no context and identifiers (licence plates, signs, etc), they would not be able to determine where the hell they were. Just as someone would at a strip mall in Texas. tl;dr: this isn't a problem unique to Green Man@idkfa.com (Green Man) Asked and Answered Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:28:47 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2435 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2433 Hmm. Alright. Maybe I just wish they were something else. Like Fry's Electronics. Or the ever-elusive Olive Garden. More seriously, I guess the hotels' presence makes me feel like I'm back in Arizona, with pattern-stamped community planning fraught with unoriginality. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Asked and Answered Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:19:01 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2433 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2432 Proximity to things. Those mid-town hotels are next to International, which swiftly connects to the airport. Sometimes that is more convenient than staying downtown, especially if the offices you are visiting are peppered throughout midtown. Those restaurants are usually the egg that follows the chicken...adjacent to those hotels for walkable meals. The hotels on C-Street can offer cheaper rates than downtown as well, and don't have to run at capacity to make consistent profit (I theorize, anyway). I also know my friend who works in Seattle for Alaska Structures (based up here), stayed at the Diamond hotel - along with a dozen of his coworkers. That leads me to believe there is other year round demand from industry with offices in South Anchorage. Also, get ready for more hotels in midtown. That giant cleared area west of the existing slew of hotels is for another group of hotels and some restaurants. I did the landscape plans for two hotels and wetlands mitigation plan for the entire development. Green Man@idkfa.com (Green Man) Asked and Answered Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:07:51 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2432 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2431 I guess more specifically: Why are huge hotels placed in really, really strange places? Who wants to stay at the Dimond Mall? Or Mid-town? Are tourists really interested in the Bush Company? Or Appleby's? kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Asked and Answered Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:57:27 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2431 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2430 Why have so many huge hotels inexplicably popped up around Anchorage in recent years? Perhaps it hasn't been quite so sudden, or I'm just super unobservant, or I only notice now that I drive C Street every day. But from what I understand, tourism in Alaska has been in decline the last few years, and I've yet to identify another industry that requires huge amounts of temporary lodgings. Here's what I mean: The Fairfield Suites and Motel 6 right next to each other on C Street and International. Homewood Suites (Hilton, two large buildings), Hampton Inn around C Street and Tudor. The (weird) Dimond Center Hotel in the Dimond Mall parking lot. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Asked and Answered Tue, 05 Apr 2011 18:30:41 -0800 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=2430&msg_id=2430