OMGosh.... what's wrong with keeping Bakersfield different than our larger city counterparts?  Still respecting your opinion, please let's consider this: let's NOT do any of those things you mentioned, not accommodate the L.A. commuters, NOT build "up" and destroy our view (albeit marred on occasion by smog) of the mountains, and let's not hurry to bring big retailers and stores to our town.  If a person wants all of that, perhaps that person doesn't really want to live in Bakersfield for all that she has to offer.

As a native of this city, I, for one, --and I realize this is just my opinion -- want to keep it small, want to keep the homes in the traditional ranch style instead of the cookie-cutter style of the L.A. homes, and I think our little downtown with its single story buidings is absolutely charming.

If progress is what one desires, then there are many cookie cutter cities in which to live.  I'm not knocking all that you mentioned; I'm merely stating the obvious: those of us who've lived here all of our lives sort of like the quaint, laid back, single story lives we have here.  Please don't wish any more progress on our small (but growing too quickly) town.  There are already many large towns in California to live if people want the big town appeal.

Just my two cents.

Dana and Robin, I appreciate the comments & opinions. Me and my family love Rosedale. I especially love Rosedale after buying my first home here with a huge backyard and a horse farm behind me. We lived over near the corner of Stockdale & Hwy 58 5 years ago and Rosedale is the country compared to there and Rosedale is a new world compared to the places I lived at in NY, NJ & NC. I don't want to move because I like my neighborhood and city. However, as a homeowner, I have deeply thought about the economy, social engineering, urban planning, and overall quality of life in the different areas of Bakersfield to develop some basic improvements because they affect me, you, and our children.
     In my first post, I provided a list without any reasoning behind the improvements that I suggested. I see that this has rubbed some people the wrong way. Some people made assumptions and drew conclusions without looking at the planning, modernization and problems that the planning commission creates when developing long term plans for our city.
     Aggravating homeowners and long-time residents was not my intention but rather to cause personal inquiries about the urban design & planning for the future of our great city, the people who are affected by those plans, and how the planning commission is drawing their conclusions, approving plans and the almost-obvious knowledge that the major land developers have major pull on the planning commission.
 
I am elaborating on the details which will clarify my suggestions. I am not writing to please any audience, but rather to bring into light, some of the pitfalls of urban planning & community development that has turned Bakersfield into that "cookie cutter" development mentality that happened to parts of the Los Angeles area as well as most major cities that are growing at fast rates.

Older communities are now surrounded by newer "walled-in" communities of homes with smaller yards, more amenities at high dollar prices per square foot. That decision has created a shift in the haves and have-nots. It has created a chasm in which our children will fall into by judging those who live in older pre 1960-1979 housing and that of the newer style gated & walled communities. The urban planning should of provided buffer zones and open planning that creates a socially balanced blend so that older homes with more land blend in with the newer walled communities without causing an unbalance in demographics that favor the newer homeowner.

By building two large high rise towers with the purpose of bringing in to town large IT & technology firms, creates a new marketplace that does not exist in Bakersfield. The tow towers should be built on the outer fringes of Bakersfield. Newer communities should be built along the major transportation routes to the technology centers that are separated by large buffers of public park spaces to enhance the wide open spaces of Bakersfield. Building these towers on the outer fringes of Bakersfield allows urban planners to rethink current methodologies and plan transportation routes that do not place too many 55 MPH two lane highway (streets) next to existing neighborhoods.

The idea is sound because:

    * It brings new jobs into our city
    * It does not overburden existing traffic routes with more congestion & pollution
    * Large public open spaces can be utilized for every possible type of recreation, & micro-environments for wildlife & fauna
    * Racetracks, Concert Halls, Theaters & Sports Arenas can be built without major impact on our burdened streets, routes & environment
    * Social engineering can be utilized to enhance older communities, keep intact the economic classes that occupy them, & ensure their charming traits, while forcing developers to delegate funding to improve the older communities while developing the newer ones.
    * Our downtown can be relieved of the overcrowding & traffic while the newer technology centers absorb the traffic and business development with ease.

Most cities build outward from the existing city centers in concentric rings like dropping a stone into a still pond. Redeveloping city & urban strategy to build from the outside inward causes economic growth & relieves pressures on over-crowded roadways, and encourages stabilization of existing community design & structures. The buffer zones enhance everyones life as they are public places that remain untouchable by the economic interests of land developers.

This article is written with the intention of gathering information not complaints, gathering facts, figures and analyzing our city, its planners, and our future as homeowners.

After reading your last post, I have just a couple of more comment to address, and then I think I've said enough on this topic.  Afterall, progress will be made whether one wants it or not.

Your opinion is that newer walled-in communities have created a shift in the "haves" and "have nots."  Well, if you'd lived here longer, you would realize that Bakersfield, along with every other city and town across America, has always had its sections of "haves" and "have nots."  There are factors besides new housing that determine who "has" and who "has not," and I am having trouble with your logic that somehow new construction homes are owned by the "haves" while people in older homes may be considered the "have nots."  Some of the wealthiest people I know live in homes that were built in the 1970s.  

It is not the city's responsibility to keep children from judging others, and city planning certainly won't stop it.  Parents have the responsibility to teach their children not to judge others, and the city planning committee should not be burdened by the idea that it is their social responsibility to ensure more blended demographics so that our children won't feel compelled to judge others less (or more) fortunate. 

As for the future planning for our city, why make it convenient or appealing for more people to move here?  If the original appeal of Bakersfield was its small town, quaint atmosphere, your ideas would change the complection of the city to which newcomers were initially attracted, and the city we "natives" have loved all of our lives.  If one were to follow your thumbnail sketch of how Bakersfield should be, there would be no small town Bakersfield life left.  Pushing your two towers to the outskirts of town would take away farm land -- oops! --there went our country atmosphere, our pumpkin patch, our grape vineyards.  But in your opinion, that's O.K. because it's all in the name of progress.  What about the farmworkers who lose their jobs because farm land was destroyed in the name of progress?  That's O.K., though, because the IT and technology firms will provide jobs for the farmworkers, right?

I realize that might sound extreme, that the chance of destroying acres of farm land for two towers, racetracks, concert halls, theaters, and sports arenas is remote.  But guess what?  When I was a teenager, no one EVER thought the almond orchards in the Northwest would be gone, and if you'd driven to Norris Rd., you were practically out of town.  My point is that it is highly likely that your ideas, no matter how well-meant, will just continue to destroy more of what we natives have thought of as OUR hometown since birth.  

Our traffic designs worked just fine until everyone started moving here.  If we improve them (which we need to do), more people will move here.  Pretty soon, those traffic plans will be obsolete and we will be having this discussion again.  Next thing you know, we'll be taking taxis where ever we want to go.  

Sound familiar?