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.
However, the city is still trying to form itself. It is an old cow, logging town recently discovered by people from the urban areas of California. Yet, the people who moved there wanted 5-20 acres, a modest to huge house, and LOW taxes. So, it has rejected the metropolis idea until very recently, and you have a surprising amount of sprawl for a city of under 100k. In fact, today I drove by a strip mall made entirely of sheet metal buildings. Absolutely wretched. With its setting, it could be a very fine city if it had developed in an era when quality and architectural grace mattered, but alas that is not a concern now. It is quick mostly quick profit, libertarian squalor, I am afraid.
That's an interesting description.
I do find it funny, reading various forums. While no one wants to pay taxes, we still need to have a library, post office, paved roads, and workable bridges. (Most of our taxes actually go to military abroad, bases abroad, wars abroad, etc. by far anyways - so tea parties and whatnot should be focusing on that, etc.)
It is interesting just how many people in America want to pay NO taxes or next to ZERO taxes...basically they want America to turn into a third-world nation of all of us living in a jungle or outback or somewhere - BUT they want their huge houses with huge acres and extravagent wealth as well. The sustainability of that just doesn't work. Along the same lines of thinking, I guess that is where guns come in, as you don't want to have a police force to protect your wealth, as that causes taxes, so just take the law into your hands and get rid of them too.
Anyways, if I can tie this into 'suburban sprawl' and 'anywhere USA', it is terrible the way we are massively building up the country, but in such a negative way. Imagine if 'construction' and 'building' and such was in the form of creating the next Paris or Barcelona or amazingly structured organized and efficient cities.
Instead, creating all of these many sprawling 'anywhere u.s.a.' places...they are so easy to build, but almost impossible to reverse. The majority of these places will just become decay someday.
Imagine if 'construction' and 'building' and such was in the form of creating the next Paris or Barcelona or amazingly structured organized and efficient cities.
Instead, creating all of these many sprawling 'anywhere u.s.a.' places...they are so easy to build, but almost impossible to reverse. The majority of these places will just become decay someday.
Yes, it is interesting how much of this is just dumb luck. For instance, Pittsburgh boomed and busted years ago and has gorgeous archtecture. Today's boomtowns have come on-line in a time of gross sprawl. The crappy homes are symptomatic of something larger in American society, but I can't quite fully conceive it or articulate it...perhaps it is a capitalistic race to the bottom. Namely, if everthing comes down to the financial bottomline, architecture and beauty don't just don't pay. But they are an important part of civilization and well-being overall.
However, it goes deeper than architecture, I think. The mores and desires of the good life in America usually involve a chunk of land and a nice house. That is exactly what they are building in places like Raleigh and Redding. People might really like their little "ranchettes" but the public effect is depressing. Obviously our old model does not work well with 300 million people.
No history? Are you kidding? We went to a history museum in Charlotte. Charlotte has history going back to the early days of colonization of the Americas. If anything, its history is older than Pittsburgh's.
Are you kidding? My folks lived in Charlotte for several years where I, therefore, had to spend quite a bit of time. Of course lots of places have history going back to colonial days (after all, Native Americans were around doing stuff, and various pioneering/garrisoning activities were always trooping through). You can say the same about Atlanta, Houston, etc. But just because both places can identify activity that was going on in 1750 doesn't mean both are equally historic. Lots of significant events were happening in Pittsburgh right after independence (the area was a hub of trading, exploration, invention, civic innovation, etc.) whereas Charlotte was still a small, not particularly well-organized village with little in the way of formal structure or institutions. I don't think you can say Charlotte is historic in the way Pittsburgh is.
So one basic thing to note is that combining housing units in the form of townhouses and flats, combining open spaces in the form of parks, combining transportation into mass transit, planning denser mixed-use neighorboods with local walkable commercial districts, and so on all create efficiencies, and these efficiencies show up in the form of a surplus. In turn, that surplus can be used to make everything we are creating for ourselves--the housing units, the open spaces, the transportation, the commercial areas--much nicer. And they keep getting nicer and nicer over time, because the efficiencies come not just in the construction stage but also the operating and maintenance stages, and so the surplus just keeps adding up and adding up.
Now this is a really basic and fundamental point, and it provides a big part of the explanation of why the long-term trend not only in the United States but the entire world has been urbanization, and why the longer urban areas are around the nicer they tend to get, absent some intervening disaster. Conversely, it has only been a relatively short period of time that people in the United States have adopted an anti-urban sentiment that essentially denies or at least ignores this basic and fundamental point, and instead associates urbanism with crime, decay, inefficiency, [the wrong sort of people], and so on. But the fundamental dynamics can't be changed, and we are running up against the inefficiencies of the alternative models--in fact they would have been more apparent earlier if not for artificially cheap energy and easy credit, both of which factors have come to an end.
[Sidenote: not that everyone has to live in maximally dense areas, or that no one can live in low-density, non-mixed-use areas. But the notion that almost everyone can live in low-density, non-mixed-use areas is simply leaving way too many efficiencies on the table.]
So my feeling is that from a broader historical perspective, this era in the United States is just going to look like an anomalous and temporary eddy in the overall flow toward urbanization. There is just likely to be some lag culturally as people adjust to the new (actually old) realities.
So one basic thing to note is that combining housing units in the form of townhouses and flats, combining open spaces in the form of parks, combining transportation into mass transit, planning denser mixed-use neighorboods with local walkable commercial districts, and so on all create efficiencies, and these efficiencies show up in the form of a surplus. In turn, that surplus can be used to make everything we are creating for ourselves--the housing units, the open spaces, the transportation, the commercial areas--much nicer. And they keep getting nicer and nicer over time, because the efficiencies come not just in the construction stage but also the operating and maintenance stages, and so the surplus just keeps adding up and adding up.
Now this is a really basic and fundamental point, and it provides a big part of the explanation of why the long-term trend not only in the United States but the entire world has been urbanization, and why the longer urban areas are around the nicer they tend to get, absent some intervening disaster. Conversely, it has only been a relatively short period of time that people in the United States have adopted an anti-urban sentiment that essentially denies or at least ignores this basic and fundamental point, and instead associates urbanism with crime, decay, inefficiency, [the wrong sort of people], and so on. But the fundamental dynamics can't be changed, and we are running up against the inefficiencies of the alternative models--in fact they would have been more apparent earlier if not for artificially cheap energy and easy credit, both of which factors have come to an end.
[Sidenote: not that everyone has to live in maximally dense areas, or that no one can live in low-density, non-mixed-use areas. But the notion that almost everyone can live in low-density, non-mixed-use areas is simply leaving way too many efficiencies on the table.]
So my feeling is that from a broader historical perspective, this era in the United States is just going to look like an anomalous and temporary eddy in the overall flow toward urbanization. There is just likely to be some lag culturally as people adjust to the new (actually old) realities.
Nice to hear a big picture theory. I do agree that when pressures for concentrated living, architectural progress begins. This occurs at many scale. I have heard that the rigorous climate of New England resulted in the compact villages there.
However, I am not signing on just yet. I seems that architectural detail was very great over long period when the majority of people were rural. and even if efficiencies occur, they may or may not be reinvested in the cityscape. Though they often are. So I am not sure urbanization is the whole driver. But I would agree this is a major difference between Pittsburgh and Raleigh area. At least judging by my research and folks' comments.
I seems that architectural detail was very great over long period when the majority of people were rural.
So this occurred in basically two contexts: long-standing urban areas (consistent with the theory), and rural developments funded by hierarchical organizations (aristocracies, churches, and so forth). The latter weren't necessarily capturing any efficiencies, but they did benefit from a concentration of wealth that allowed for isolated pockets of architectural significance.
But that is still consistent with my proposed conclusion: you can't have everyone trying to live in country estates and achieve those effects, because you get neither the efficiencies nor the concentrations of wealth (although we faked it for a short time with easy credit and a lot of subsidies).
Quote:
and even if efficiencies occur, they may or may not be reinvested in the cityscape. Though they often are. So I am not sure urbanization is the whole driver.
Certainly there are many, many factors left out of my highly-simplified model. Still, over the course of world history this is a pretty robust observation. So you can have isolated pockets (in time and area) where other factors dominate and lead to a different result. But I do think that sooner or later (and I now think sooner with respect to the United States) the historical trend will reassert itself.
It will be interesting to see if you are right. Personally, I hope so.
However, we have a lot of space in an absolute sense,in the U.S., and farmland productivity is so high that, sheer area of farmland is not pressing at the moment. While I do think that eventually urbanization, or at least concentration. will ensue, I wonder if it will be before we have many more sprawlopolises across the country. My suspicion is that people will be more inclined to embrace the urban model if we incorporate nice parks and open space in the deal. I know that I have very little desire to live in concrete, commuter hell, and I suspect many share my inclinations.
While I do think that eventually urbanization, or at least concentration. will ensue, I wonder if it will be before we have many more sprawlopolises across the country.
To be clear, I am sure we will continue to develop suburban and exurban areas--although in some of those cases, I think we will see a continuing trend to more of a small-town model than a country-estate model. But in general, everything I am suggesting is intended in terms of percentage shifts, not absolutes.
Quote:
My suspicion is that people will be more inclined to embrace the urban model if we incorporate nice parks and open space in the deal. I know that I have very little desire to live in concrete, commuter hell, and I suspect many share my inclinations.
Absolutely! Parks at multiple scales, and even detached homes with small yards, are all consistent with this general idea. Specifically with reference to parks, part of the idea is that by combining at least some of our per-household open space together, it can give us convenient access to a greater variety and scale of outdoor spaces (including things like urban wilderness parks) than a yard-based model.
Again, for some people this won't be a substitute for having a big chunk of land for their exclusive ownership and use, which is fine. But for people who don't mind sharing a bit (or actually like being around their neighbors) this can be a real plus to well-designed urban living.
To be clear, I am sure we will continue to develop suburban and exurban areas--although in some of those cases, I think we will see a continuing trend to more of a small-town model than a country-estate model.
This would be a huge improvement. However, in the Triangle Area, I do think they are mass marketing the estate model. The homes are $500k and up, but you get much more land (1-5 acres) and home size than most of the target buyers can afford in the source areas of NYC, SF, and Boston, etc. Given that everyone drives these days, anything within 30 mile of the job site is fine. For me personally, that is both a draw and a repulsion. Yes, I would like a bit more space, but no I do not want to live in a sea of rural residential "estates" with HOA, gated communities with pretentious names, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Stranger things have happened!
Absolutely! Parks at multiple scales, and even detached homes with small yards, are all consistent with this general idea. Specifically with reference to parks, part of the idea is that by combining at least some of our per-household open space together, it can give us convenient access to a greater variety and scale of outdoor spaces (including things like urban wilderness parks) than a yard-based model.
Again, for some people this won't be a substitute for having a big chunk of land for their exclusive ownership and use, which is fine. But for people who don't mind sharing a bit (or actually like being around their neighbors) this can be a real plus to well-designed urban living.
I think this applies to us. We live in a tiny, homely house with a pretty nice, but small yard and two hyper dogs. At the end of our street is a city park and school yard to exercise the dogs and to let our son play. Also there is a bike path very close for walking, biking, and I am within walking distance of anything in our town, even wilderness trails heading up into the mountains. So, although my personal holding is small, I feel I have access to many more places to walk and jog than someone living out in the country on 5 acres, where the only places to walk without driving is a country road with no shoulder. So, paradoxically, I have found many rural residential areas would be more limiting to our lifestyle than our own neighborhood. I should add we live in a small, beautifully situated town, surrounded by public lands, so access to the outdoors is almost limitless, even though we live in town. I guess our town would fit your model of condensed rural city/ township, but it is so nice it has attracted wealthy exurbanites, essentially forcing locals to commute in from the cheaper rural residential areas.
I guess our town would fit your model of condensed rural city/ township, but it is so nice it has attracted wealthy exurbanites, essentially forcing locals to commute in from the cheaper rural residential areas.
This is a symptom of the fact that for various reasons we have simply underbuilt such areas relative to the potential demand. Really, there is no reason developing such areas should be particularly expensive--just the opposite, in fact. So if prices are getting out of control--as they are in many such cases--that means the supply is being artificially restricted in one way or another.
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.
