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.
Probably you could put a greater part of Europe in Texas. I read England is about the size of just Washington State.
The ild lans out side urban areas don't mean much with out man and can not be all they can be with out man.
What good is a old growth forest, that shelters out all?When early Euro peoples came here the forest was clear under the tops of the old growth pines in New England. It was dark in day time, and not much grew for lack of light.
Where i live there are trails called mast road, where ships masts once grew. There is even a tree section still in Maine under shelter with the Engish broad arrow marking, amd many homes around here have wainscoating that was illegal by the Kings decree, pretty much any pine passing 20 inches diameter. Evidently sawyers and home owners didn't exactly see eye to eye with the Kings or they would have a wainscoat of some smaller dimension.
Urban, Suburban it's all the same thing to me i live rural. If you take my car, trucks and motorcycles and the roads i won't mind any, I'll get a horse.
If you cut off my oil and gas i will heat with wood 100%.
If you run a too fast train thru my woods and mountains I might rob it. It was a pretty good past time in the past.
Europe is a nice place to visit, but no one really wants to live there.
People live in suburbs for a variety of reasons. Many people work there. Living near your place of employment is a very environmentally sound kind of thing to do.
Look, I detest suburbs for an abundance of reasons. However, I think I detest the whiners who preach about how they need to "go away" even more.
Suburbs have been around since the beginning of organized settlements thousands of years ago. It's not a new concept although it has changed over time. The sprawl that we now associate with automobiles (again, not unique to the U.S.) is a result of a few decades of purely auto-centric planning (1950s-90s/present). You can't just make it disappear and you can't tell everyone in the suburbs they can't live the way they do. Suburbs aren't going anywhere and we shouldn't try to make them.
We (Americans) are starting to see progress in creating sustainable suburbs. What we need to do is take these auto-centric suburbs and modernize them. Suburbanites don't drive cars everywhere so they can wave a big middle finger at the environment, they do it because it's the easiest and most convenient way to get around. The problem there is that as suburbs grow, traffic gets as bad in the 'burbs as it is in the cities and people move further out (creating "sprawl"). What we need to focus on is making it easier for people to access the central cities from the suburbs.
Many suburbanites (and many conservatives) see the addition of public transit lines as an "attack on their freedoms." It's a shame that it has to be viewed that way. The goal shouldn't be to FORCE people out of their cars, it should be to encourage them to want be able to rely on public transit at times that are convenient. Public transit in many places is a hassle. It's easier to drive from the 'burbs to the city than it is to take a train (again, in most cases). We need to make it so people WANT to take public transit. Congestion is a nightmare in most major cities, every suburbanite can attest. If there were better options for them to get in/out of the city more quickly and conveniently, most people would utilize those options. If you make your transit convenient, people will want to use it. They don't need to give up their cars to use it either.
You can do this by creating transit hubs in suburbs (preferably around a small, new urbanist village center). It can be rapid transit, heavy rail, etc. The kicker is that you need to do it right. These lines can't be poorly done. They need to be fast, clean and efficient. They need to make suburbanites WANT to use them. IF you can make people want to use transit, you can reduce sprawl (if traffic and congestion aren't so bad, people won't sprawl outward as fast or as far). Better yet, you can reduce dependency on cars. The suburbanites can drive 2-3 miles to the nearest station, park in a garage and cruise comfortably into work on a clean train instead of sitting in 40 miles of traffic to drive downtown. I don't know a single person who would rather sit in traffic for two hours than take a comfortable, quiet train ride if it's convenient and affordable enough. If it's done REALLY well (like it has been done in Japan), you may even see transit lines that turn a profit. It's not impossible, it's a reality in a number of places. You can do all of this without making people give up the automobile.
The key word in the phrase "auto dependency" is dependency. Americans are dependent on cars. We need to change that; but not by forcing people to get rid of cars. We need to change it so that owning a car for most Americans is a choice, not something that they NEED to do. You don't do this by eliminating roads or hiking up taxes on cars or anything of that nature. Many of us non-drivers tend to forget that owning a car is already significantly more expensive than living car-free. People still pay because it's too difficult to live without one. You fix this by providing realistic, convenient alternate choices. If you have reasonable alternatives, many will give up their car. Many will still keep a car or two. That's not a problem. Cars are getting cleaner, safer and more efficient. The automobile is a relatively new technology and it will continue to improve. We need to parallel those improvements by improving our cities and suburbs so that citizens don't have to city in their car clogging streets (and emitting fumes) just to get to work everyday.
We're seeing a shift here. Most cities are working to expand their transit networks rather than build superhighways. Those like myself are finding that there are more options for living without cars. Those who prefer cars can still do so (and should be able to as the technology gets cleaner and other transit options arise).
There's no reason suburbs can't be done right. Not everyone has to live in dense cities. The big problem is our suburbs and their relationship to our core urban areas. We can fix that by providing MORE transit options, not eliminating them. There's no reason everyone can't get what they want with some work and cooperation. It's a lengthy process, but we're getting there.
I don't think the transit problem in most suburbs is getting to the core city. I think it's within and between suburbs. If I had worked in the central business district, I would have had mass transit options. But working in the suburb entails driving because of a lack of transit options.
I think suburbs should be pretty acceptable in the west and the sun belt; those areas are growing in population and the new people have to live somewhere. In cities with stable or declining populations - the Ohio Valley, the Great Lakes, the Midwest, the Northeast - suburbs are merely the result of politicians not being able to perform their jobs (not understanding the tax base; not making their cities more attractive to residents) and a bunch of whining, not-in-my-backyard, I-hate-any-change (especially new development), pseudo-liberals.
There's battles like this in Houston all the time. The 'progressive' residents of a neighborhood certainly don't want a Walmart, and would be happy as larks if it was built in some far-flung sprawling exurb instead, taking its local sales-tax and property-tax base with it. The fact that the urban property would sit vacant and unused for another few decades until an acceptable developer (re: hip, chic, etc.) were found would be a good thing to them. 'Progressive' residents in another urban neighborhood have taken on city council to prevent a high-rise.
Out in the sticks, there aren't a bunch of people to complain about their views being blocked or that a store isn't chic enough for them.
Americans tend to think that the city is evil and full of immigrants/minorities.
They've been brainwashed to think that owning a huge gas guzzling truck, living an hour away from work, and living in a planned community that decimates the local environment is somehow sustainable.
Many people won't want to admit it because some of it does come from an exceptionalist/nationalist and even religious fundamentalist mentality. It's a deep seeded cultural thing.
I live in the city but my relatives and old friends from high school all live in the sprawled out suburbs surrounding the city. When I tell them I live in the city, live not more than five minutes from work and that I never want a house. They freak out and think that I am Communist.
Well, I am not in debt for house, I do not need to constantly waste money on gas or maintenance on my car, I am healthier because I walk around everywhere, I am constantly stimulated with things to do around here, not bored to death and end up lethargic like some of my friends in the suburbs.
I really have to see it as a cultural thing that has been ingrained into the American mind. It's a rite of passage. When young people get married the first thing the parents expect is for them to buy a house, the SUV, and start having kids.
It's an American exceptionalist thing that relies on myth building as all of it entails the American Dream. People then become middle class snobs and will fight to keep that way of life, hence the large numbers of Republicans in the suburban areas (that is their core voting bloc), fighting the evil foreign ideas that foster in urban areas.
JR, I am not sure but think you misread.
North America 9,365,000 Sq. Miles
Europe 3,837,000 Sq. Miles
But that is all of N America not the just the USA.
I don't know what they count as Euro for that matter.
Then what is and what isn't Euro changes ever few years with one war or another.
One day long ago I typed in to google How Big is England? Some site popped up with a look a like to a National Geo site, and said England was about the same size as Washington State.
I was interested in the German Prisoners of War (WW-2) that were taken by non stop trains to camps in Az. It seems they became in awe for the time the train travelled to to get to Az.
More or less, I don't count any of Russia as Euro. What loosely I do count is all Gemany to England east west. Of course Spain Italy, and France (the trouble makers ) And the netherland countries west of Germany. They are trouble makers too, always telling us the USA how bad we are, but just look at who is tawkin'!
Over the years I have seen junk and trash in national Geo pictures of clogged water ways, filled with tires, metal items of no use, and read about toxins in that water. They have nothing on us in a better way of clean, far from it.
They don't use the lands they have any better, and if they did we wouldn't be exporting grains the way we have in the past 70 years. Hitler would never have owned a fleet of Ford trucks either.
Euro hasn't got the anything like the same resources we have, but some how they seem to know better than we what we have and a better way to use it.
Note: I wondered what the red dot was on the above site. With that red dot you can move the USA around and so match up whole countries with any states you like. Have fun with that ! LOL
I think most people realize/agree that urban living is the most sustainable choice.
But not everyone can live in the city. If that were the case, who would grow crops and raise cattle/chicken that supply us with food?
For me, the choice is either urban or rural. In fact, I plan on having a getaway property in the country one day - a place that my children and their children can go to explore, fish, go camping, and possibly even live/work.
However, I do not think that suburban living is required for the 'American Dream' to exist. There are plenty of people who are just as happy living in the city and/or in the country.
We have become selfish as a society - if you need testament to this fact, then just look at the US economy over the past two years.
Poor choices lead to poor circumstances. Let's hope that our childrens' children don't look back on our generation with disappointment.
JR, I am not sure but think you misread.
North America 9,365,000 Sq. Miles
Europe 3,837,000 Sq. Miles
But that is all of N America not the just the USA.
I don't know what they count as Euro for that matter.
Then what is and what isn't Euro changes ever few years with one war or another.
One day long ago I typed in to google How Big is England? Some site popped up with a look a like to a National Geo site, and said England was about the same size as Washington State.
I was interested in the German Prisoners of War (WW-2) that were taken by non stop trains to camps in Az. It seems they became in awe for the time the train travelled to to get to Az.
More or less, I don't count any of Russia as Euro. What loosely I do count is all Gemany to England east west. Of course Spain Italy, and France (the trouble makers ) And the netherland countries west of Germany. They are trouble makers too, always telling us the USA how bad we are, but just look at who is tawkin'!
Over the years I have seen junk and trash in national Geo pictures of clogged water ways, filled with tires, metal items of no use, and read about toxins in that water. They have nothing on us in a better way of clean, far from it.
They don't use the lands they have any better, and if they did we wouldn't be exporting grains the way we have in the past 70 years. Hitler would never have owned a fleet of Ford trucks either.
Euro hasn't got the anything like the same resources we have, but some how they seem to know better than we what we have and a better way to use it.
Note: I wondered what the red dot was on the above site. With that red dot you can move the USA around and so match up whole countries with any states you like. Have fun with that ! LOL
In this context, (talking about density of cities and rail travel) IMO, we're not comparing Europe and N. America, but Europe and the continental US. Canada and Mexico can take care of themselves. (or, at least Canada can...) Also, if you're going to throw out European countries that you don't think belong in this conversation, then I should throw out some other states, like: the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, etc.
I never claimed Europe was perfect. Their cities are more dense because they were mostly built long before the automobile was invented, not because they are smarter. I could be wrong, but I also believe that they didn't abandon their rail system, like we did, because they were poorer after WWII, and couldn't afford their own cars as easily.
But, many think the quality of life in Europe is higher than in the U.S. because they still have dense, vibrant cities, and aren't dependent on their cars.
Because there is big money in sprawl, as long as the big-money guys can bankroll politicians who will continue to subsidize that sprawl. The house builder and the car company can only sell their product if the government builds the highway system needed to make them useful, and of course you need them all to make a shopping mall, power center or office park work, especially if you're going to build it in a place with land cheap enough for all that "free" parking. Suburbs (and suburban retail establishments) are the ultimate consumer product--and, like other American consumer products, subject to the whims of fashion and ultimately disposable. But that all adds up to a hatful of money. And yes, for workers there would be just as much money building infill apartments as McMansions, as much money working on an assembly line building streetcars as automobiles, or laying track and overhead instead of building highways. But the real money is in turning cheap farmland into expensive subdivisions, and lending people the money to buy that cheap farmland at expensive-subdivision prices.
GM didn't destroy our streetcar systems, the government did, although auto makers certainly supported the effort. Our streetcar systems were owned and operated by private, for-profit companies, but they could not compete with the government-subsidized automobile. Streetcar and railroad companies had to pay for the repair and maintenance of their right of way--but public streets are paid for by taxes. At the time, streetcar companies were demonized as monopolistic "big business" and we decided that taxpayer-funded roads were a better idea. We just kind of ignored it when auto makers became a big business in their own right.
We didn't follow European examples because we weren't dealing with the same situation as Europe, where the land around cities was long since spoken for. Some will claim the Frederick Jackson Turner "Frontier Thesis" fills Americans with an urge for wide open spaces, despite the environmental problems or the effects on the folks who may already claim those spaces, but there are other more tangible reasons for suburban expansion.
Also, 19th century cities were pretty gross places to live--they generally had negative birth rates, if it wasn't for in-migration they would have lost population. No environmental laws, no flush toilets, often no sewers or running water, coal smoke everywhere. The move to suburbs were an effort to avoid the worst of cities' poisonous nature, at least for the wealthy and middle class. Some suburban ideas actually worked really well, like the "streetcar suburb," and other ideas about how to make cities work better helped usher in the golden age of American city building in the early 20th century, but the suburbs had other draws.
As time went on, a racial aspect was added to the move to the suburbs--most American suburbs were whites-only until the mid-1960s, and in much of the country the suburbs are still generally enclaves of whiteness (or at least enclaves of segregation.) Americans have been trained for generations to loathe city life, both for environmental reasons (even though, in the interim, we figured out how to make cities clean and livable) and racial reasons (even though segregation is illegal, its effects are still clear and obvious.) Public transit is now associated with the dangers of urbanity and the discomforts of racial integration.
Great post
Its about money. Sprawl means a lot of money for a variety of groups compared to urban planning.
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.
) And the netherland countries west of Germany. They are trouble makers too, always telling us the USA how bad we are, but just look at who is tawkin'! 
