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.
As I travel the country I am almost brought to tears as I view what was once our legacy cities becoming wastelands. As a country we need to ask why in the year 2012 are so many living in deplorable housing some without water, electricity or heat ?? This problem isn't new but to me it seems like it is getting worse. Urban sprawl has allowed our core cities to be vacated and left to the very poor. By doing this crime has increased into the stratosphere and the educational system in these areas due to the lack of tax dollars is crumbling. I look at the landscape of theses cities with abandoned storefronts, crumbling streets and homes, dilapadated schools and ask myself how this was allowed to be. Would it be better to control Urban Sprawl, to tear down the wastelands and build new in the existing footprint ? America does this sprawl better than anyother country, our throw away society encourages you to pick up and move. We leave once vibrant communities due to the lack of jobs. Corporate America in many ways is responsible, building in areas of the country which make no sense. I am throwing it out for discussion, what do you think of Urban Sprawl ? I am sure this will attract the lunatic fringe and the haters , I truly hope it also attracts the thinkers and future urban planners.
I am uncertain that this is what people would see in Pittsburgh in general, but if you look at the big picture, I would say the infrastructure in the US is going downhill because our military budget is so wildly high. No one actually knows how huge the budget is. The war in Iraq was over and above our so-called budget and how much is hidden with the $50 cokes and $1000 toilets? There is no money left. Also our debt load is so huge, we really only fix things up with borrowed money. It is a mess and isn't going to change in the next 4 years, nor will it probably change in most of our lifetimes.
Bringing this thread back to Pittsburgh, I would say we as a city are fairing very well.
Plenty of people I know with families (myself included) would prefer to live in the city if it weren't for two things- space for kids to run and play, and school quality. Not everyone wants to cram their kids into apartment-style living and send them to crappy schools to have the "urban experience". Plus, a lot of people grow up in suburban developments, get out of school and run as fast as they can to a city for some urban living, and then go back to the 'burbs when they start raising a family. Sure, if you have megabucks you can get a nice house in Shadyside and send the kids to an expensive private school, but that is not an option for most people. Take a look at where the best schools are in PIttsburgh-they are all (with the possible exception of Mt Lebanon) in "sprawly" suburbs. (And even Mt Lebo has some '60s and '70s "sprawl" developments as you get away from the center of town).
I don't think that the suburban lifestyle is going away anytime soon. If anything it's getting better- better restaurants, better housing, etc. My only wish is that instead of pushing the development even further out, they would concentrate on modernizing/improving the existing housing in the suburbs already there. Unfortunately what prevents this from happening in places like Bethel Park, Upper St Clair, and the like is Allegheny County taxes. Many would rather hop across the border and get a new house with lower taxes than a 40 year old one with AC taxes.
again, people who are advocates for voicing opinions against urban sprawl are not "urban elitist". I always was a big advocate against sprawl since I was a kid and seen acres of forest burned and destroyed where I lived for Maronda homes. I am not an "elitist", pretty much a run of the mill guy feeding my family. I also live in a small walkable town, not an urban place.
I agree with everything else you say. However, I always thought that if I was a kid I would rather have Frick or Schenely park to go to than my own private yard.
The school issue is true. I think it is a chicken or the egg argument. Did the upper middle class people flee to the burbs with their taxes and create better schools there? Or did the schools get bad in the city and force the people with a higher tax base out?
I agree with the schools. I seen a few people on these forums take down people who don't live in the city because they are afraid of the city. I agree, I am not going to use my son as a guinea pig to help create a change. But I will not move to a newly developed post war area that I personally do not find desirable since this is the only locations with schools. I feel the school issue will eventually go through major changes down the road.
Plenty of people I know with families (myself included) would prefer to live in the city if it weren't for two things- space for kids to run and play, and school quality.
Taking the last issue first, there is no fundamental reason for the quality of schools "in the city" to be systematically lower than the quality of schools in lower-density autocentric areas. So the reason why that has nonetheless happened in many U.S. metros is that other policies have favored such a result, and with changes to those policies school quality patterns can change--and in fact some cases already are.
The first issue can potentially be a little more fundamental, but of course the standard urban answer is to have convenient public parks where kids can run and play. Potentially that is a more kid-friendly answer than each house trying to provide its own little mini-park, since public parks can potentially have much better amenities, provide more opportunities for interaction, and so on. But to make this work, parents need to trust that parks are safe, including eventually for older children to go to unsupervised.
Again, the reasons why that has not always been the case with urban parks are not really inherent to the urban form of development, and it is the sort of thing that can change, and actually is changing.
None of this is to suggest there is no market at all for autocentric low-density developments. But there is very likely less fundamental demand for such areas than current development patterns would suggest, because people are not being given an adequate supply of the alternatives, which is why the prices for the reasonable alternatives are so high. And citing things like school quality as a main factor is actually confirmation that many of the main issues driving people to such developments are not really inherent to the form of those developments.
The school issue is true. I think it is a chicken or the egg argument. Did the upper middle class people flee to the burbs with their taxes and create better schools there? Or did the schools get bad in the city and force the people with a higher tax base out?
Obviously if you have hyperlocal financing and control of schools, then once it gets started, it is a vicious feedback cycle. But as for how it got started, I don't think you can overlook "white flight" as an instigating cause, compounded by a variety of other anti-urban policies that were not specifically about education but nonetheless helped push the more mobile urbanites into new low-density autocentric developments.
Generally, it is a bit of a puzzle why U.S. cities followed a different track from a lot of their developed world peers in the decades after WWII, although there are signs that the U.S. is becoming less exceptional. Unfortunately, it is likely a lot of the answer has to do with our particularly troubled race relations.
Generally, it is a bit of a puzzle why U.S. cities followed a different track from a lot of their developed world peers in the decades after WWII, although there are signs that the U.S. is becoming less exceptional. Unfortunately, it is likely a lot of the answer has to do with our particularly troubled race relations.
Actually, it seems that other countries are seeing this sort of sprawl as well nowadays. The reason it started in the U.S. first is because we have had a very high standard of living that allowed people to buy more stuff, want more space/property etc., and we have a big country with lots of land to build on.
I used to travel to China quite a bit a few years back when the huge China boom started. It was actually funny the number of new American-style suburban developments I saw popping up there. Don't be fooled into thinking its only Americans who like the idea of suburban lifestyle.
Actually, it seems that other countries are seeing this sort of sprawl as well nowadays.
Sprawl exists in other developed countries, but not on the scale seen in the United States, nor is it typically as low-density and autocentric as in the United States. Here, for example, is a comparison of sprawl between Europe and the U.S.:
The reason it started in the U.S. first is because we have had a very high standard of living that allowed people to buy more stuff, want more space/property etc., and we have a big country with lots of land to build on.
No, that's probably not it. Having more to spend on housing doesn't tell you what development forms people will prefer, and in fact wealthier people in both other developed countries and now in some parts of the United States typically prefer housing in denser areas, not necessarily because of the density per se, but rather because it is associated with locational premiums. In other words, location can matter as much or more to wealthy people as a larger yard (again, larger yards are usually what you sell to people when you don't have something better to offer), so the upshot is there really isn't any particular relationship between something like per capita national income and development patterns.
Land availability on a national level doesn't really explain development patterns on a metro level, and in fact metros in other developed countries are usually also surrounded by potentially developable farmland and such, just like in the United States.
Quote:
I used to travel to China quite a bit a few years back when the huge China boom started. It was actually funny the number of new American-style suburban developments I saw popping up there. Don't be fooled into thinking its only Americans who like the idea of suburban lifestyle.
I think this contradicts your idea that richer nations equate with more sprawl, since by developed world standards, China is still very poor. In any event, China has done a lot of building without their necessarily being a market, so I would be cautious about concluding anything about potential demand in China from what they build:
You can't say just a larger yard is the only (or even primary) selling point to those moving to the suburbs. Reduced crime for example is high on their list of reasons not to live in the city & is something that is under the purview of the city's control (and yes I am saying that the city is failing areas such as Homewood in combatting criminal activity as are the residents of the area)
Eh, some do, but larger yards were basically an amenity that developers tried to sell people on for lack of anything else to market. The truth is that most people spend very little time in most of their yard, and that largely unused land becomes just an added expense/inconvenience to home ownership.
Speaking for myself, I love having a large yard.
And even if I didn't use it, I like the buffer that it provides between myself and others. I like that when I look out of my windows I see nature, and that I don't hear cars and trucks all the time.
Give me suburbs/country with a decent chunk of land anyday over crammed together in a row house where I can hear when my neighbor sneezes!
You can't say just a larger yard is the only (or even primary) selling point to those moving to the suburbs. Reduced crime for example is high on their list of reasons not to live in the city
The distinction between those two factors is the first is something that is fundamentally associated with low-density development, and the second is not. And in fact crime rates have been coming down at a dramatic rate in many central cities, faster on average even than outside of central cities, cutting greatly the difference between many central cities and their suburbs. And in fact many central cities now actually have lower crime rates than their suburbs did as recently as the 1990s.
Quote:
& is something that is under the purview of the city's control
Of course many factors go into crime rates, and cities are not in control of all of those factors.
I think a contributing factor due to the advent of the automobile is the shopping center and mall. Taking the downtown of not just Pittsburgh but McKeesport, Wilkinsburg, Aliquippa and others. The Box Stores are great but they could of been woven into the cities. Parking is a major draw back in Pittsburgh as it is yet another cost to be added to your daily expense. But in cities like Manhattan use of a car or owning a car is a joke. I just feel another 100,000 Robinson Towne Centres aren't the answer. The Regional Shopping Centers are killing local economies throughout our area.
With some luck The Cracker will be built in Beaver County, if expectations come to fruition there will be a huge increase in manufacturing facilities and jobs. Hopefully this will create a demand for housing throughout the area. I would like to see that housing being built in river town communities. Tearing down deplorable abandoned neighborhoods and making new planned communities in their foot print or renovation similar to the Mexican War streets on the North Shore which unfortunately hasn't spread throughout the North Shore. The gentrification of these abandoned neighborhoods is instrumental to the region as a whole. Every neighborhood and community is entitled to its own distinction but ghetto or hood is not the identities we need. If new housing was built in many of these existing communities we could reopen schools. Lets not encourage developers to build 30 miles away from the job centers just because it is open green land.
STOP THE SPRAWL
Last edited by PGHPA611; 09-05-2012 at 03:47 PM..
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.
