Real talk about sprawl (Atlanta, Dunwoody: law, transportation, suburban)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting, but a few points in the video actually contradict (or at least don't support) the whole "live intown, not in the suburbs so you don't destroy the environment" concept.
- The drought that was mentioned in the video was not caused by "sprawl", but rather by rapid population growth without proper water supply planning. Whether the 5.7 million people in the metro area were living in their current configuration or they were all packed into highrises in downtown, they'd still be using the same amount of water for the most part- the only exception would be that there may be less lawn being watered. The drought was caused by poor planning of reservoirs, which should have happened decades ago, was talked about in earnest during the drought, and now has pretty much been forgotten about again since the drought ended, unfortunately.
- The video talks about the "heat island effect" which is caused by having too much heat-absorbing material in an area, thereby trapping the heat that builds up during the course of the day and releasing it at night. This is a much greater problem in dense areas, where a larger proportion of the total land area is covered by roofs and pavement, which don't reflect the heat during the day. Now, I know someone will bring up "but what about all the big parking lots and roofs at the suburban strip centers??". Even with those, there's a far greater concentration of hard surfaces in intown areas than in the suburbs, which is why the heat island effect is a bigger issue there, and was blamed for the tornado that swept through downtown in 2008 (not sure I'm buying that one, but whatever). This can be partly corrected by using light colored materials on roofs and roads when building new buildings, but there's still a large amount of existing surfaces to deal with.
- The video mentions pollution due to stormwater runoff, and specifically mentions "erosion from construction sites". I can tell you that there have been huge changes in the past decade regarding erosion control, and that's not as big an issue as the runoff from all the hard surfaces in densely populated areas. In less dense areas, you've got open ground areas that can soak up rainwater, whereas in densely developed spaces, the percentage of impervious surface is much higher. This causes three issues- it increases the volume of water that isn't absorbed by the ground in an area, it requires that all the water that hits those surfaces be stored, treated, and channeled to an area where it can run off, and it contaminates the rainwater when it picks up dirt, oil, etc., from the roads and roofs that it hits. If that contaminated water isn't treated, it ends up contaminating the groundwater.
By no means am I saying that the suburbs are immune from environmental impacts, but lets not make it a one-sided issue.
You almost have to wonder if somebody has been packing the head of the young woman in this video. They have far more tornadoes way out in the country where there is little or no development.
You almost have to wonder if somebody has been packing the head of the young woman in this video. They have far more tornadoes way out in the country where there is little or no development.
Must be the methane gas from the cows causing a heat island effect in the fields and generating tornados....
The drought that was mentioned in the video was not caused by "sprawl", but rather by rapid population growth without proper water supply planning. Whether the 5.7 million people in the metro area were living in their current configuration or they were all packed into highrises in downtown, they'd still be using the same amount of water for the most part- the only exception would be that there may be less lawn being watered. The drought was caused by poor planning of reservoirs, which should have happened decades ago, was talked about in earnest during the drought, and now has pretty much been forgotten about again since the drought ended, unfortunately.
I don't disagree with your point at all, but I'm pretty sure the drought was caused by 'Mother Nature'...or God/Vishnu/Xenu depending on your belief structure.
Where were the environmentalists when railroad barons broke through the pristine widerness of northern Georgia and raped the land with a Terminus of their railroads in Fulton County? Where were they when they clear cut the land and built a town named Marthasville? Where were they when this town became a city and this city became an industrial center with polution spewing factories for the Confederacy? Where were they when they rebuilt after the Civil War and moved further and futher out from this railroad junction? Where were they when they cut trees and rerouted streams and built streets and trolley cars and established (dare I say it) suburbs like Inman Park and Druid Hills and West End? Where is the outcry against how they damaged this beautiful, natural area with their industrial, commercial and residential sprawl? Where?
They were probably at Walden Pond. What is your point?
I don't disagree with your point at all, but I'm pretty sure the drought was caused by 'Mother Nature'...or God/Vishnu/Xenu depending on your belief structure.
Yes, the actual drought itself was caused by Mother Nature- what I meant was the effects of the drought were worsened by poor planning during the growth period. If more reservoirs has been built, rather than relying only on two Army Corps lakes as the main supply of water for the whole metro area, it wouldn't have been such a big issue, as there would have been more water available to use. Lanier and Allatoona would not have been drawn down to the incredibly low levels they were in that case.
If more reservoirs has been built, rather than relying only on two Army Corps lakes as the main supply of water for the whole metro area, it wouldn't have been such a big issue, as there would have been more water available to use. Lanier and Allatoona would not have been drawn down to the incredibly low levels they were in that case.
Add in consumer water conservation. Using native grasses that are drought tolerate, not watering lawns or watering during night hours to cut down on evaporation, car washing ban, and automatic sprinkler systems that are not running as it is raining. All these can reduce the wasteful use of water and conserve during non-drought events.
They were probably at Walden Pond. What is your point?
Is it that difficult to figure out? That some intown people with their holier than thou attitudes toward suburbanites don't see that the place where they live disrupted the environment as well. Dense concrete jungles are not natural and disrupt nature, just as much (if not more) than suburban subdivisions and strip centers. Bob Kovacs brings up this fact above.
As mentioned earlier, this argument is a philosophical issue. I have no problem at all with dealing with some of the negative effects of growth. A region SHOULD grow. To pass laws that favor the inner city and tell communities further out that they can't grow is ridiculous. To pass some sort of master plan for an entire region that isn't equitable won't happen. Some in this thread would love to do such.
Atlanta as a whole has grown in the space of only 175 years to a metro area of well over 5 million. 80% of that growth has happened in the last 50. Some decisions were made all along the way that weren't always the wisest for the long term, no doubt, but that can be said of the inner city all the way to the exurbs. My environmental philosophy is that this earth is rather hardy and will bounce back from whatever stupid stuff men do to it. That doesn't give us humans the right to rape it, we are to be good stewards, but we are to live off it and use it and it will be better for generations coming if we do so wisely.
However there is a tipping point that some would propose that won't fit in with our overall American ideal. Some here are so against that ideal that they take on a philosophy that only breeds resistance. I take issues on this forum with those ridiculous (dare I say socialist) ideals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
