From dequickert at omsoft.com Tue Jan 6 00:12:35 2004 From: dequickert at omsoft.com (Dan Quickert) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:12:35 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] density: apples and oranges are missing the point Message-ID: <01C3D3E9.CA06CD70.dequickert@omsoft.com> First I need to say that all this population density discussion is interesting, but to my mind a bit off the track. The lot sizes in College Park are roughly twice that of Old North on average (15,700 vs 8,666); but the population per lot is also roughly double (3.3 vs 1.5) ... if one believes the census density figures, which seem a bit low for my block (I won't get into computing that here). Even if there is no big difference between Old North and College Park in *population* density, there is a huge difference in *housing unit* density. We have twice as many dwellings per square mile. That means that neighboring buildings are much closer. That means that an increase in size of a neighboring building - or inserting another building - will have a much more dramatic effect. We could quibble about the population density and how it's measured, but what really counts (to me) is what kind of open space we have. Non-built space - where you can see the sky out your window, or the trees four houses down, or the sunset clouds, or the Swainson's hawks overhead. Where you can be in your backyard and not feel penned-in by buildings. Those are my metrics for 'density'. It really wouldn't be any good to me if the density was only 3,000 people per square mile, if those people were in very large houses that filled all the space. It really isn't about population density. We live in a rather unique neighborhood. The lots are mostly small, and the houses are mostly small. The houses and buildings are (or were) scaled to the lots, so that the outdoor area was left with proportionate space. We live in a neighborhood that is ideal for people who don't need a very big house, but who want some useable outdoor space. Good for a small family, with yards and open spaces for kids; for single people and older people who don't want to live in an apartment but don't want or need a large house - but want to be able to step outside and still be home. Housing like this is a rare resource - they're not making any more of it around here that I know of. It can only be lost by attrition if we allow 'densification' to be channeled here. Dan Quickert From dequickert at omsoft.com Tue Jan 6 00:35:23 2004 From: dequickert at omsoft.com (Dan Quickert) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:35:23 -0800 Subject: [OldNorth] R-2 Conservation District / City Council Message-ID: <01C3D3EC.F9678700.dequickert@omsoft.com> Dear neighbors, I may have written this previously, but want to be sure the thought gets out there: I think it could be a serious mistake to try to derail the passage of the R-2 Conservation District ordinance, or to open it up for major changes at this time. Passage of the ordinance will not change Old North to R-2, because it already is R-2. Delaying its passage could put it before a different set of council members; that would be a gamble. We worked long and hard to get the Neighborhood Guidelines in place; this ordinance implements them. If we don't support the ordinance as it is, we open the door to modifications that we may not want. The issue of R-2 vs R-1 is a valid one, and you all know how I feel about it. The 'densification' issue is very current in the city, and we need to be a strong part of the discussion and policymaking in that regard. There will be ample opportunity to address these things in the very near future. But we have the Guidelines ready to be codified right now. It may be our last and best chance to get them 'written in stone'. Well, maybe we already blew our best chance - it could have been passed when it was to come before the City Council last time. I would like the Old North Neighborhood Association to strongly endorse passage of the ordinance; and simultaneously ask for a commitment from the City to begin discussion/planning to consider changing the zoning to R-1. That would solidify our past efforts, and simultaneously prepare the ground for our next goal. Dan Quickert From zesmith at hotmail.com Tue Jan 6 09:54:05 2004 From: zesmith at hotmail.com (Z Smith) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 17:54:05 +0000 Subject: [OldNorth] Population density reported on Census website accurate to 10% (for Block) Message-ID: Everybody, John and I have spoken by phone about the finer points of calculating population density. Here's the scoop: The Census data he was able to download 2 years ago gave Block area in square miles to just two decimal places, and since a typical Block in Old North is just 0.00665 or 0.00550 square miles, the old datasets would show these all as just 0.01 square miles, and dividing the population of a block into 0.01 square miles would make the population density numbers off by something like 40%. The current website lets you view & download the population density and the population for each block. Dividing one by the other gives you the area they assumed. I did this and found that the areas they are using for blocks appear to be stored to 3 decimal places-- that is, they use 0.007 or 0.006 or 0.005 square miles as the area of various blocks. This introduces an error of up to 10% in the calculated density. For my work, I have in fact measured the dimensions of the blocks and streets of Old North and checked them against the city maps. From this work I was able to calculate the "true" density and compare it with the values reported by the Census website--again, they match to within 10%. I will be happy to send the spreadseet with all this data to anyone who'd actually like to see it. So, the bottom line is that the densities you find clicking around on the Census maps are probably good to + or - 10% for individual Blocks. The relative error is less when you look at groups of Blocks or whole Census Tracts. Z _________________________________________________________________ Enjoy a special introductory offer for dial-up Internet access ? limited time only! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup