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.
I have never - NEVER - in my life heard anyone (until now) claim that sprawl is good and more green than sprawl control.
That's it, now it is confirmed that there are posters here who exist just to rile up others. There is no other explanation
It's time to think outside the box when it comes to growth. Too many places focus on only building up the already dense areas, with the same poor end result. We were having a CALM & PLEASANT discussion on growth with no negative attacks. I would like to keep it that way, please.
There are those that live in an urban downtown setting and those that want to that think they have the best understanding of living green and think the actually live it. But, do they ever:
Go see a play
Go to the theater
Go to a museum
Go out to eat
Work somewhere they don't walk to
Blog
Watch TV
Use AC
Go to a ballgame
Go on vacation
Go to a concert
Go to a bar
etc
Taking part in all these things is NOT green. The travel to and from, the venue itself and the consumption are all not green. These are things the same people that claim to be green like to do. However, it seems that people that preach green think needing to be greener stops at their lifestyle. The only way to be completely green is to not work, stay at home, grow your own food, do not watch TV or use the computer and so on. How many people here live like that? Who has the say on how green is green enough?
Think about this:
If having employment opportunities, dining & shopping options, doctors & dentists and all the other things one needs to live is a good thing for downtown Durham & Raleigh, then why is not not a good thing for Holly Springs, Apex, Fuquay & Clayton? Why isn't it a good thing to create exactly what the green people are suggesting, just in another spot than just the downtown of a city?
The human population always grows. It will keep growing. Growth here will continue. You cannot stop it. How many people do you think can fit in Downtown Raleigh & Durham? 5 million? 100 million? At some point the growth has to go out. Why not create it the proper way be trying to have great companies like Novartis set up shop in places other than RTP? Spread the wealth and give people more choice than all flocking to the same areas to work.
Remember, no one lives completely green. They just like to preach how others do not live green enough.
Here's the thing: it's all relative. You can participate in all those activities whether you live in the city or in the suburbs. But if you live in the city, you can walk to all of those activities (which we do), thus cutting out the biggest carbon-emitting part of the activity (driving there).
Living in a city also makes things like AC and heat a lot more "green" -- it's much more efficient, per person, to have 20 units in an apartment building than it is to cool or heat 20 separate houses, for instance.
I understand that you want to rile things up and have unconventional ideas. That's cool. But the idea that sprawl is "greener" than urban living is not supported by research.
Here's the thing: it's all relative. You can participate in all those activities whether you live in the city or in the suburbs. But if you live in the city, you can walk to all of those activities (which we do), thus cutting out the biggest carbon-emitting part of the activity (driving there).
Living in a city also makes things like AC and heat a lot more "green" -- it's much more efficient, per person, to have 20 units in an apartment building than it is to cool or heat 20 separate houses, for instance.
I understand that you want to rile things up and have unconventional ideas. That's cool. But the idea that sprawl is "greener" than urban living is not supported by research.
The venue itself is not green. The concert itself is not green. The energy used to transport the musicians and equipment, the heating or cooling of the facility and the building of the facility itself are all not green. By taking part in all these activities, people foster the things that are not green, while they say they are green. That is the point I am making. You are correct that it is all relative, which is another point I was making. People think their way is green, when in reality it is not. And most people who live in Raleigh cannot walk to a concert at the RBC center.
The main point is that while people think the way the live is green, it is not as green as they think and there is more than one way to be green. Having companies like Novartis set up whop in different areas of the Triangle and then surrounding them with residential, retail and medical is the way to go. It allows ALL sides to have what they want and be the greenest we can realistically be. The fact of the matter is the population in the Triangle will continue to grow and will out pace any and all capacity of the cities. Then what? Why not take the opportunity to plan out the sprawl in such a way that it is self sufficient, where people can live in separate activity centers in each town, thus reducing the need for long distance travel.
Better to plan it now, because there are hundreds of thousands of us that will never live in the city and will always choose the green country or suburban living every time. We can't be forced to live where we don't want to.
The venue itself is not green. The concert itself is not green. The energy used to transport the musicians and equipment, the heating or cooling of the facility and the building of the facility itself are all not green. By taking part in all these activities, people foster the things that are not green, while they say they are green. That is the point I am making. You are correct that it is all relative, which is another point I was making. People think their way is green, when in reality it is not. And most people who live in Raleigh cannot walk to a concert at the RBC center.
The main point is that while people think the way the live is green, it is not as green as they think and there is more than one way to be green. Having companies like Novartis set up whop in different areas of the Triangle and then surrounding them with residential, retail and medical is the way to go. It allows ALL sides to have what they want and be the greenest we can realistically be. The fact of the matter is the population in the Triangle will continue to grow and will out pace any and all capacity of the cities. Then what? Why not take the opportunity to plan out the sprawl in such a way that it is self sufficient, where people can live in separate activity centers in each town, thus reducing the need for long distance travel.
Better to plan it now, because there are hundreds of thousands of us that will never live in the city and will always choose the green country or suburban living every time. We can't be forced to live where we don't want to.
So here's where you lost me. You agreed with my point that it's all relative when it comes to being "green" -- that is to say, it doesn't make sense to use "green" as an all-or-none term. Rather, it only makes sense in the context of Thing X being more or less "green" than Thing Y. For instance, keeping 20 condo units air conditioned is much more green than keeping 20 single-family homes air conditioned.
I'm sure you'd agree with me on this point: it makes no sense to say that an apartment is objectively "green" while a house is not -- certainly some houses, perhaps yours included, are more green than some apartments, and vice versa. It's all relative.
However, in literally the same post, you go on to say that a certain venue is not "green", and that a concert is not "green", as though it's all or nothing. But you just acknowledged that this is a relative term. What makes more sense is to say things like, "A concert to which everyone walks is more green than a concert to which everyone drives," for instance. And that's what I'm trying to argue.
Sprawl is not inevitable. I agree with you that it's ideal to have each town be a self-sufficient place where people can live and work nearby, but in practice, that isn't tenable. Once new jobs are introduced into a town, it will raise property values for nearby homes, driving people further away, so they can get more square footage for the money. It's an endless cycle.
The more jobs are decentralized to match decentralized residential patterns, the more people have to contemplate moving when they change jobs, or face longer commutes to or between "edge cities."
I still maintain that the areas around Raleigh and Durham are going to disproportionately hold on to knowledge jobs and creative-class jobs, period. Boosters who've moved out to places like HS because they're afraid to live inside a city might well want jobs to follow and raise their property values.
Well, hey, Holly Springs -- why don't you take on your share of public housing, and low-income families too? Like Knightdale -- oh, wait, Knightdale just said "no more low income housing" a few years ago.
Exurbs already free-ride for utility and road construction costs. No way should they get to cherry-pick jobs and industries, too.
So here's where you lost me. You agreed with my point that it's all relative when it comes to being "green" -- that is to say, it doesn't make sense to use "green" as an all-or-none term. Rather, it only makes sense in the context of Thing X being more or less "green" than Thing Y. For instance, keeping 20 condo units air conditioned is much more green than keeping 20 single-family homes air conditioned.
I'm sure you'd agree with me on this point: it makes no sense to say that an apartment is objectively "green" while a house is not -- certainly some houses, perhaps yours included, are more green than some apartments, and vice versa. It's all relative.
However, in literally the same post, you go on to say that a certain venue is not "green", and that a concert is not "green", as though it's all or nothing. But you just acknowledged that this is a relative term. What makes more sense is to say things like, "A concert to which everyone walks is more green than a concert to which everyone drives," for instance. And that's what I'm trying to argue.
Sprawl is not inevitable. I agree with you that it's ideal to have each town be a self-sufficient place where people can live and work nearby, but in practice, that isn't tenable. Once new jobs are introduced into a town, it will raise property values for nearby homes, driving people further away, so they can get more square footage for the money. It's an endless cycle.
My point being that those that scream everyone else needs to be green, won't go one step further themselves by avoiding venues that create an environmental issue, because THEY like going there. WE like being in the country and will not move to the city because we do not like city living. Everyone is willing to be green until it interferes with what THEY like to do. So I am saying let's make each living situation the best that IT can be, rather than forcing one group of people to live a way they hate, just because the other group of people like it.
Please explain to me what the urban green plan is when the next 10 million people arrive? How many people do you think can fit into one city's downtown area? Remember, Raleigh is very big and the overwhelming majority of people do not walk to and fro, but rather use their cars just like those of us that do not live in the city.
The thing I am happy about is that the city and town planners seem to be more in line with my way of thinking. This is why we have companies like Novartis and many others setting up shop in places other than just RTP and the cities. Urban, suburban and rural planning is what is needed, not just urban. The plan I have been pushing is the one that will move forward. I just want it to be done quicker and more complete.
My point being that those that scream everyone else needs to be green, won't go one step further themselves by avoiding venues that create an environmental issue, because THEY like going there. WE like being in the country and will not move to the city because we do not like city living. Everyone is willing to be green until it interferes with what THEY like to do. So I am saying let's make each living situation the best that IT can be, rather than forcing one group of people to live a way they hate, just because the other group of people like it.
Please explain to me what the urban green plan is when the next 10 million people arrive? How many people do you think can fit into one city's downtown area? Remember, Raleigh is very big and the overwhelming majority of people do not walk to and fro, but rather use their cars just like those of us that do not live in the city.
The thing I am happy about is that the city and town planners seem to be more in line with my way of thinking. This is why we have companies like Novartis and many others setting up shop in places other than just RTP and the cities. Urban, suburban and rural planning is what is needed, not just urban. The plan I have been pushing is the one that will move forward. I just want it to be done quicker and more complete.
Re: your first paragraph: You are speaking in such general terms that it is impossible to make a cogent argument for or against what you're saying. Some people who "scream that everyone else needs to be green" literally live off the grid, grow their own food, and do not own cars or eat out or go to concerts. Other people who talk about being green drive around in SUVs. Some people who never utter a peep about being "green" are extremely eco-conscious.
Everyone's different. I don't see your point.
Re: your second paragraph: build up, not out. People will switch from driving to walking once density reaches a certain point.
Re: your third paragraph: It's generally a bad sign for an argument when you're supporting it by saying "So-and-so agrees with me." There are literally millions of people who have gotten themselves into trouble this way. Better for your argument to stand on its own merits, regardless of who might or might not share your opinion.
For example: imagine it's mid-2006 and we're talking about buying real estate in suburban Phoenix.
"I think I should buy a house out here. $500,000 might seem like a lot of money for something that was worth $150k a year ago, but the market has nowhere to go but up! The thing I am happy about is that the realtors and lenders seem to be more in line with my way of thinking."
I picked the type of setting I did, because I enjoy it. Life is about enjoyment and I do enjoy everything. I am not going to live in an urban setting and hate it, just to make someone else happy. If employment opportunities expand, as I expect they will, I will consider working closer to home. I drive a low emission Honda Civic back and forth to work. I carpool almost everyday in it. When they come out with a mainstream electric vehicle, I will buy it. I grow my own veggies. I picked a development that left most of the trees and has deep woods for wildlife. I provide food for the wildlife. I recycle and use as many all natural products for my yard as I can. I add a ton of trees and shrubs to the landscape wherever I live. We plan out our daily travel routes to take care of errands all at once, reducing the need to travel extra distances and on weekends. I bought a house with proper design which allows me to run a high velocity fan at one end of the house to suck the hot air out, greatly reducing how often I need to run AC. We hardly use it. We do a lot of things to be green. We are nature lovers.
So why can't everyone else do this? If you are choosing to live your life exactly how you want, why can't other people do the same?
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.
