Is it just me or do most of the people who live in places like Riverside, Avondale and Springfield just think living in an Urban environment would be cool, but they really do not want to do it? After all, these places are only sort of urban. Many have driveways for their cars, the vast majority still drives wherever they go.
I know that in Springfield, the "cool kids" always said they wanted this walk-able and busy Main Street corridor with all these big named franchises here, but as I see how the residents of Riverside and Avondale reacts to real potential growth, I know Springfield would be exactly the same. This brings to mind the question of if an area has lost it's basic features needed to be truly walk-able, meaning in my mind, the mass transit, the density to support it without driving, then perhaps walk-able development needs to be redefined for today? That parking and driving must be an integrated function of modern urban development?
For instance, the Dancy Terrace area at Springfield. That cool cottage community everyone wants to save. It can be saved, but it will be nothing but low income without parking. Really low income. Then, of course, people will do nothing but complain about that. Including the ones that lead the fight to save it. So, unless parking is part of the plans, no one will be happy and the chance of truly saving the community will be less likely. Doesn't the same issue apply to the commercial areas?
I suspect places like Avondale and parts of Riverside are going to be the guinea pigs for what will be needed, but Springfield with it's current, well pretty much nothingness, is ripe for new ideas.