Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
It has to do with this "sunbelt people rape their landscape" mentality of some rust-belt dwellers. This power plant is right next to the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore park. It is an area that should never had had a power plant built on it.
Phoenix is not all "Phoenix". It is also Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, etc. In other words, the city itself is not annexing land to fuel its population growth. That is an accusation of sunbelt/western cities that really annoys me. I live in metro Denver, and as I said, Denver has been prevented from annexing land since 1976, and in point of fact, has annexed very little since a major annexation in ~1900. That is an excuse some rust-belt newspapers like to play up. My parents (from Pittsburgh) were very surprised to learn that was not the case in Denver.
I'm not saying that they are annexing. I'm saying that the city limits are already large to begin with. Just look at the population densities.
This is how i feel about my corner of the Rust Belt...............keep your soulless shiny new cities! I'd rather live in an area that has character and a little "rust". I can't stand transient cities where people have no ties to the area and destroy the landscape and towns they inhibit. I think in the end the rust belt will have the last laugh. We've got the affordable homes (sometimes more than the new south) and the cultural institutions of much larger cities w/out the traffic and congestion.
Let's not forget that one time the Rust Belt cities were the boomtowns, full of transplants and new construction. It's all a cycle. One day the growth in the Sunbelt will slow down, the new stuff will become old and gain character, charm, and grit. I enjoy the Rust Belt cities for their mature built environments, and I enjoy the Sunbelt cities because I can see their potential being fulfilled right before my eyes.
It has to do with this "sunbelt people rape their landscape" mentality of some rust-belt dwellers. This power plant is right next to the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore park. It is an area that should never had had a power plant built on it.
Urban sprawl is a issue that is about 20 years old. Rust belt cities were built tight and compact. There is still sprawl there for sure. New Sun belt cities were built on sprawl. There is nothing wrong with stating that we as a WHOLE nation should try to end sprawl, and live a smarter lifestyle. This means living in compact developments (urban or suburban), and trying to be less reliable on the automobile. The rustbelt is perfect for this new/old way of living, as where new cities like Phoenix were not built for it.
Phoenix is not all "Phoenix". It is also Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, etc. In other words, the city itself is not annexing land to fuel its population growth. That is an accusation of sunbelt/western cities that really annoys me. I live in metro Denver, and as I said, Denver has been prevented from annexing land since 1976, and in point of fact, has annexed very little since a major annexation in ~1900. That is an excuse some rust-belt newspapers like to play up. My parents (from Pittsburgh) were very surprised to learn that was not the case in Denver.
Denver is the exception to what tends to be the rule in the West, though. The City of Denver has a land area of 154.9 sq. miles and a pop. density of 3,838/sq. mile.
Phoenix, on the other hand, has a land area of 517 sq. miles for a pop. density of 2,937/sq. mile. Thus, you really can't claim that with almost a thousand less people per sq. mile that the development/annexation patterns for Denver compared to Phoenix are comparable.
Especially when you compare that to a much older city like Cleveland (82.4 sq. miles and a pop. density of 6,166/sq. mile -- over twice as much as Phoenix), it is very apparent that development in a quintessential Sun Belt city is hardly comparable to that of a quintessential city in the Rust Belt.
This means living in compact developments (urban or suburban), and trying to be less reliable on the automobile.
For as much as we agree on other stuff, I've got to disagree with you on this.
People should have the freedom to live however they want, wherever they want when they are not directly hurting others. My car is my freedom and brings me great joy; I will never stop driving it, nor limit it.
For as much as we agree on other stuff, I've got to disagree with you on this.
People should have the freedom to live however they want, wherever they want when they are not directly hurting others. My car is my freedom and brings me great joy; I will never stop driving it, nor limit it.
I love driving too. Trust me, one of my favorite things to do is drive out of the city and go somewhere for a hike, canoe ride, etc.
However, lets be realistic. Not everybody in society can have a whole acre if we want to keep transportation efforts efficient, and have enough land for natural beauty.
Also, what I am talking about is buiding rail lines to towns like New Ken. I believe New Ken would be one hell of a beautiful town if it was brought back. The downtown architecture, the walkable streets, and the old houses are nice. I really believe if you ran a commuter train up the Allegheny valley, towns like New Ken, Verona, and others would pop back up to life. Going to work would be easy on a commuter train. (I use to ride the train to work in Philly. It was 100 x better than traffic), and people could still have a nice house with a nice yard. Yards in New Ken are a nice size.
Why do we need to live in subdivisions 10 miles away from a grocery store? Why are towns built like New Ken so horrible to most in society these days? If you ask me, the perfect suburban life would be in a town like that, and not isolated in a subdivision. These developers who create these subdivisions should be ashamed for creating such innefficent crap, when reviving towns like New Ken should be the first option.
I completely understand that not everybody can live in a highrise apartment in East Liberty or North Oakland. However as a society, why not build intelligently. Rebuild our small towns,and build intelligent mass transit links to them?
I love driving too. Trust me, one of my favorite things to do is drive out of the city and go somewhere for a hike, canoe ride, etc.
However, lets be realistic. Not everybody in society can have a whole acre if we want to keep transportation efforts efficient, and have enough land for natural beauty.
Agreed. I think there's WAY too much emphasis in American culture on everyone's "right" to consume whatever and however they want. That completely neglects the fact that consumption habits do indeed effect everyone when it comes to energy consumption and land use. I hardly consider it a "right" to misuse land and consume more than what is adequate for sustaining life.
Last edited by Duderino; 01-13-2009 at 11:17 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
