Re: SG-W:/ Newmarket

[kris olsson <olssonk@umich.edu>]

I agree with your definition of sprawl.  The problem with Newmarket is, it
would plunk a high density (which I support), clustered small city-almost, in
an area that does not have the infrastructure (social, environmental, or
structural) to support it.  It's a conundrum, because right now townships feel
that they  face two choices:  either allow these kind of dense developments,
or control growth by requiring large lots.  Neither of these strategies
protects our water resoruces, wildlife habitat, rural character, air quality,
or quality of life.  Also, the conclusion that "if you want to protect it you
have to buy it" doesn't work (although it mayseem to be the only thing that
works) because in order to maintain even the current level of water quality,
environment, and qualityof life, you couldn't possibly buy all the land you
would need to buy.  There must be a third option - reasonable regional
planning so that townships and cities can work together to decide where to
ENCOURAGE (yes encourage) high intensity growth in order to leave open spaces
and farmland out in the country so they can continue to perform their
ecological, cultural, and economic functions.  In Michigan, this may be a
difficult row to hoe.  But I believe we must take the challenge and try.  Or
we will be faced with these Hobson's choices again and again - Newmarket vs.
McMansions.  Get involved with the Michigan Land Use Institute. Theya re
working for state wide policies that would make this kind of land use planning
pjossible.

Kris Olsson

"Kristen A. Gibbs" wrote:

> Regarding the Newmarket plan:
>
> I use a different definition of sprawl: instead of _any_ development in a
> rural/ag area, I think that sprawl is unplanned, low density pseudo-rural
> development. And it looks to me that Pittsfield is going through growth,
> whether we like or not. The question is then, do we want low-density
> pseudo-rural development, or do you want the people to be clustered
> together, permitting clusters of wildlife sanctuaries?
>
> While I am not a new urbanist, I do think that Newmarket would be an
> improvement over the type of development that will otherwise occur in the
> area. Drive around! See all those subdivisions? Sure, all the houses are
> big, have lots of space around them. They don't preserve the wildlife any
> better, they are probably worse. As the subdivisions go up, the strip
> malls will follow. That corner commercial lot will become a huge parking
> lot (because every one will have to drive) with a tiny one story building
> behind it housing an Einstein, a Starbucks, a 7-11.
>
> If you wanted to keep it as woods or open space, then buy it. Yes, it is
> hard, but that seems the only way to go about it.
>
> Pittsfield _will_ become a city in the future; there are too many exterior
> pressures for development not to happen. The only issue at hand is whether
> it will be typical sprawl or a real downtown.
>
> regards,
>
> Kristen
>
> ===============================================================
> smartgrowth-washtenaw:  Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
> sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
> County.
>
> Postings to:  smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net      For info, send
> email to majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
> smartgrowth-washtenaw"
> ===============================================================



===============================================================
smartgrowth-washtenaw:  Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
County.

Postings to:  smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net      For info, send
email to majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info
smartgrowth-washtenaw"
===============================================================