Is minneapolis sprawled? (St. Paul, Brooklyn Park, White Bear Lake: foreclosure, credit, new house)

[Slig]

I'm in a similar situation to you. We have one car between us and both bike frequently. Our home was built in 1900 except it has a new furnace and new energy efficient windows A responsible 1380 sq ft of space is MORE than enough for 2 people to live in. From my suburb experience most people out there have way too much house for their living needs, my parents and other members of my extended family included.

[kuan]

We're a one car family too. One car plus bike(s) that is.

[SlyFrog]

Originally Posted by thedosius

i think remedial logic would be lost on you, so i'll drop it.

[insert generic insult regarding your stupidity and asserting my intellectual superiority.]

[MNNative]

**Thedosius & Slyfrog** Bringing back memories of school bus "I know you are but what am I?"/ "I'm rubber and you're glue..." arguments.

But seriously, this has been an interesting thread to read. I've never thought about "sprawl" and rarely think about whether the city is or isn't better than the suburbs. I think there is so much we can be doing to ensure a "healthier" environment for the future...but honestly, how much damage my dream home will cause upon the environment or the economy or "urban sprawl" never once crossed my mind. OK, I lie...my husband is up for making the house as green as green can be, so that HAS crossed our minds. But my husband and I are 100% the people who would live on a nice lot with a fabulous home (not colossal necessarily but upwards of 3,000 sq ft sure). I showed the photos in this thread to my husband and the second shot was one where we both went "Oh that's nice" (not to say shots 3 and 4 weren't desirable for their own reasons)...is that horrible of us? Our dream isn't going to change because some people take issue with "suburban lifestyles". And I think that's equally true for those whose dream homes lie in an urban environment.

Anyhow I think I sort of rambled and I'm not sure what my point really is aside from wanting to thank you all for opening my eyes to a different way of thinking.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by Camden Northsider

We have a small house on 1.5 lots with nine huge trees in the front, back, and side-yards, you can't get that in most suburbs. Houses being close together was a shock to me when I was eight, but you get used to it and realize that 90% of yards generally go unused/ unutilized most of the time, plus we have miles of park/ green space within a few blocks from us here in the city (much more than I've ever seen in a small town/ suburb), which really cancels out any need for even having a yard.


And I have also said before that I can respect/ appreciate that there are a number of people that live/ work in their suburb or very close by, but I think there many more that don't. And I know from experience that there are some great people and great businesses in Rosemount - Associated Wood, for example, is a great company.

As for you and your neighbors' green space being good for the environment....maybe...that is if you and all of your neighbors have decided to restore the native prairie and/or woodland habitat in all of your developments' yard spaces, and everyone is creating multiple rain gardens to offset all of the runoff coming from the gently sloped hills around your mcmansions. But I have a sneaking suspicion that a high majority of yours and your neighbors' yards consist of continuously and inorganically fertilized/ pesticized/ herbicized lawns set to be automatically watered every day - the stuff that ChemLawn salesmans' dreams are made of. I'm not saying that urban dwellers are all busy re-creating native habitats, but more of us are taking up less space, using less resources, and living in homes that have been here since before our own time. And in my own neighborhood, many folks are implementing measures to prevent water runoff and utilize ecologically-friendly plants in their yards.

And I just might take you up on that "big bucks" bet of yours that you have more trees/ plants in your yard than I do - over the past two summers, I have taken out a lot of lawn and planted about 60 new perennials/ bushes in its place (in addition to what was already here). Here are some pics of my latest project (small section of front yard and an example of our tree coverage), I'll wait for you to send some of yours GG.

Good job, Camden! I live on 1.5 city lots, too. It's on a corner, so we have 6 boulevard trees shading our house, and we have taken up about 40% of our lawn over the past few summers, too. We've replaced it with lots of shrubs and perrenials as well as a crab tree, a maple, a willow, a white pine, a juniper and a hawthorn tree. My neighbor has taken up all but about 10% of his lawn and his little (by suburban standards) lot is a virtual forest.

My plan is to eventually dump the Lawn Boy and get a manual mower.

[Slig]

Originally Posted by MNNative

I've never thought about "sprawl" and rarely think about whether the city is or isn't better than the suburbs. I think there is so much we can be doing to ensure a "healthier" environment for the future...but honestly, how much damage my dream home will cause upon the environment or the economy or "urban sprawl" never once crossed my mind. OK, I lie...my husband is up for making the house as green as green can be, so that HAS crossed our minds.

Just so you know, there are vacant lots in Minneapolis and St. Paul and the first ring suburbs where you could build your "dream house" or what have you. Any time there is an old dilapidated house bulldozed the lot is opened up for new construction. There is at least one vacant lot in my neighborhood for sale. If you build your home on a once used lot you aren't converting any wilderness and hence, being more green. Just something to consider when you build your new home.

[MNNative]

Originally Posted by Slig

Just so you know, there are vacant lots in Minneapolis and St. Paul and the first ring suburbs where you could build your "dream house" or what have you. Any time there is an old dilapidated house bulldozed the lot is opened up for new construction. There is at least one vacant lot in my neighborhood for sale. If you build your home on a once used lot you aren't converting any wilderness and hence, being more green. Just something to consider when you build your new home.

That is very true. Thanks for the suggestion. My husband considers himself quite the environmentalist (and I love him for it) so I'm sure he'll appreciate the idea (if he hasn't already considered it himself).

[Slig]

Originally Posted by MNNative

That is very true. Thanks for the suggestion. My husband considers himself quite the environmentalist (and I love him for it) so I'm sure he'll appreciate the idea (if he hasn't already considered it himself).

Well just know that we'd love to have you in the neighborhood if you're able to get ahold of one here

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by Slig

Just so you know, there are vacant lots in Minneapolis and St. Paul and the first ring suburbs where you could build your "dream house" or what have you. Any time there is an old dilapidated house bulldozed the lot is opened up for new construction. There is at least one vacant lot in my neighborhood for sale. If you build your home on a once used lot you aren't converting any wilderness and hence, being more green. Just something to consider when you build your new home.

There are also alot of double lots. It takes some working with the city in most instances, but dividing a lot can make alot of sense.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Slig

Just so you know, there are vacant lots in Minneapolis and St. Paul and the first ring suburbs where you could build your "dream house" or what have you. Any time there is an old dilapidated house bulldozed the lot is opened up for new construction. There is at least one vacant lot in my neighborhood for sale. If you build your home on a once used lot you aren't converting any wilderness and hence, being more green. Just something to consider when you build your new home.

But technically bulldozing an old house isn't considered "green" because the old house parts end up in a landfill. The accepted "green" procedure is to renovate the existing house using as much of that as possible.

Check out this house and it will give you an idea of what it takes to really build a 'green' house:

EcoDEEP Haus