<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Researching Irvine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://planning-research.com/researching-irvine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://planning-research.com/researching-irvine/</link>
	<description>essays on urban studies</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:39:58 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: randall crane</title>
		<link>http://planning-research.com/researching-irvine/comment-page-1/#comment-86</link>
		<dc:creator>randall crane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://planning-research.martacrane.com/?p=23#comment-86</guid>
		<description>The 2007 incarnation of the sprawl class met with Mr. Waldie last month in Lakewood City Hall.  He is a great talker about things suburban, with stronger and more incisive views than his writings tend to convey -- especially on governance issues.  I asked his thoughts on Irvine, which turned out to be extensive.  His main points were that (a) Lakewood developers had tried to keep the development unincorporated, to maintain more control, but quickly failed and that (b) the Irvine company tried very hard to apply this lesson, and keep the development unincorporated, but failed just as quickly.  The latest version of this strategy is a massive expansion of Las Vegas that is purposely included in the city, but in a way to dissipate the development&#039;s political power by dividing it among 5 council districts.  As for Irvine today, he is generally sympathetic with its efforts at &quot;place-loyalty,&quot; though these are done more by the developer than by city hall.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 2007 incarnation of the sprawl class met with Mr. Waldie last month in Lakewood City Hall.  He is a great talker about things suburban, with stronger and more incisive views than his writings tend to convey &#8212; especially on governance issues.  I asked his thoughts on Irvine, which turned out to be extensive.  His main points were that (a) Lakewood developers had tried to keep the development unincorporated, to maintain more control, but quickly failed and that (b) the Irvine company tried very hard to apply this lesson, and keep the development unincorporated, but failed just as quickly.  The latest version of this strategy is a massive expansion of Las Vegas that is purposely included in the city, but in a way to dissipate the development&#8217;s political power by dividing it among 5 council districts.  As for Irvine today, he is generally sympathetic with its efforts at &#8220;place-loyalty,&#8221; though these are done more by the developer than by city hall.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

