Add Your Input to the Place Types

Broadly speaking, place types and their components are a useful tool for all entities from public to private at an individual to corporate scale to point to when it comes to understanding community oriented planning and development. What makes this framework well is the ability of components and their associated environments to be accurate descriptors of existing environments as well as be adaptive and have the ability to reflect unforeseen circumstances without completely changing the way we delineate and associate destinations and their uses. I see this comprehensive plan being able to effectively, efficiently, safely and thoughtfully being able to streamline the development process. Now specifically, in my perspective, I would argue that natural and open spaces could include development and each component could have a description. connectivity could include hiking trails, shelters and meeting points for travelers during intense weather situations, and small hubs for public transportation and parking. Adjacencies and Transitions could allow for this place type be encouraged to be located with every other place type and include amenities like natural barriers that preserve natural wildlife and more intense development. This place type would be suitable for development for polyculture activity that rely on both human and wildlife agents to be successful. These spaces would be suitable along important landmarks like rivers and streams.

I support a thoughtful and methodical land use plan. My concerns relate to ensuring there is public input for each phase of the plan (with sufficient and timely notice to the public and various ways for the public to provide input) and that there are environmental impact studies and plan adjustments in response to the results of those studies, especially as it relates to air pollution, water pollution, destruction of wildlife (plants and animals), water and other utility impacts (especially as city residents are expected to pay every-increasing costs) and quality of life. Attainable housing is not the same as AFFORDABLE housing.

Why not build taller—at least three mix used buildings between 35-40 stories in strategic areas? Building upward would create a more dramatic, modern skyline and free up ground space for parks and green areas. Let's elevate El paso and let developers go big, I'm just waiting the moment to buy a condo in a big tower in my hometown.