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.
Lol, some can of worms you're opening up here my friend. Should make for a fun debate. Be prepared for a barrage of stupidity and buzzwords about "sustainability", "vibrancy", "livability" among others who will do whatever possible to convince everyone that their model is the best.
Meanwhile, in reality...here's the fact: "Better" is not really a solid criteria to define a city type, but at best it's extremely subjective. What's better for you may not be better for me, vice versa....times that by everyone in society.
If you're looking for a vote type of thread, I'll be the first to say I'd rather live/work in the first type of city any day (sprawling) over the second type (compact) ANY day...however I do enjoy visiting the second type of city often. I live in a more sprawling part of NYC and I do visit Manhattan pretty regularly, but I would never want to live there and would only want to work there if the salary was so high that it was worth the commute. If I had to really choose, I would say I'll take low density large lot suburb any day over any type of "city".
Why?
I like having more space between things, it feels more comfortable...whether it's extensive landscaping, parking lots or roadways. I love driving and I prefer to get around by car over other modes of transportation, however I still enjoy a nice neighborhood walk, which despite the anti-suburb hyperbole rhetoric, is certainly possible in just about any and every low density residential neighborhood...sidewalks or not. I like big highways, car culture, single family homes and wide city streets separating giant glass box skyscrapers with abundant, cheap parking underground or next door in downtowns. I like being able to access things close to my house by car with abundant free parking and convenient locations near major commercial centers, I like having the option of going to an enclosed shopping mall (though I don't care for shopping much) so that I don't have to deal with the heat, cold, rain or snow nor do I have to even give a second thought about having to find a parking space. I like having a decent sized plot of land with a detached single family home, a big driveway, garage, pool, deck, lawn and whatever the hell else I want. I enjoy having all of this abundant space to do whatever I want with and know that it's mine. I also enjoy knowing that when I want to go experience the more compact, dense older cities like NYC, it's only a quick drive/transit ride away depending on where I am and I can experience all of it as much as I want and then go back home to my comfortable community.
Bottom line: I like all of this stuff for reasons that are my own, I don't have to justify them to anyone nor do I care that anyone else disagrees with my lifestyle choices because we clearly have a) plenty of people who feel the same way I do that live that way and b) plenty of people who don't agree with me and happily live in older, compact/dense cities. What I find hilarious is some folks who go on about how people like me are just so wrong and that we can't possibly enjoy that type of lifestyle, because it honestly makes me think that they have some kind of "urbanist insecurity" as if they've escaped suburbia because they found this cool urban lifestyle in Greenpoint or Hoboken, but deep inside they miss where they come from and feel the need to constantly lash out against anyone who admits that they actually don't agree that their version of lifestyle and urbanism isn't for everyone. This is not a statement to all of the pro-urban folks on this forum, but quite a few of you...yes, 100%
Last edited by KeepRightPassLeft; 10-15-2013 at 02:20 PM..
-Sprawling, lower cost of living, and car-centric (think Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, etc.)
-Compact, higher cost of living, green transportation is plentiful (think Boston, Portland, New York, etc.)
Actually, you can't really say sprawling cities have lower costs of living. It might be true now and in the US but in the future US (and in present Europe) sprawling cities are much more expensive than compact cities. For instance, the city I live in (Katowice, Poland) is quite sprawled as for European standards and even though people here have much higher income than people in Kraków or Wrocław (much more compact), they spend a lot of it on gasoline and the amount of disposable income is not any better (if not lower). I guess the same will happen to the US cities in the future.
Compact cities are more expensive in the US not because there is not enough supply of apartments there to meet the demand. American cities usually lack neighborhoods like this middle-high residential housing that is so common in European cities. Boston (and New York, obviously) has quite a lot of it alongside downtown but Portland for that matter looks like this just a few blocks from downtown.
What about the inbetween?
Chicago is compact, everything you need within walking distance, huge public transport options, but does not cost an arm and a leg?
Compact cities are more expensive in the US not because there is not enough supply of apartments there to meet the demand. American cities usually lack neighborhoods like this middle-high residential housing that is so common in European cities. Boston (and New York, obviously) has quite a lot of it alongside downtown but Portland for that matter looks like this just a few blocks from downtown.
Personally you couldn't pay my monthly rent and utilities and get me to live in that European neighborhood, but for the record I don't like neighborhoods like the Portland one either.
I'm glad that kind of development (the former) is the minority in the US, but there is some demand for it and it's being satisfied in cities from coast to coast.
I prefer more compact cities, as for which is better, that isn't an easy answer. I think grid cities are better in the sense that they are easier to plan and easier to work transportation options into than the cul-de-sac cities.
What about the inbetween?
Chicago is compact, everything you need within walking distance, huge public transport options, but does not cost an arm and a leg?
Even better, you don't have to live in cramped quarters to have access to quality public transit.
Portland isn't anymore compact than Houston and maybe Dallas. It does have a better downtown. By metrowide density, Boston is the lowest density among the four, but its core is relatively dense and compact.
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.
