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.
GOOD GOD! Comparing 2008 subdivisions in rural land that are linked to a major city 40 miles away, is not the same as comparing the development of the Lawerenceville neigbhorhood in Pittsburgh in the late 1800s. It is comparing apples and oranges. Yes We know that Cities in America use to be natural land before being developed. That doesn't equate to the fact that subdivision urban sprawl is the same.
Now calm down. There's really no difference at all. It's the process I'm talking about, not a specific suburb 40 miles from its city. Some people on this board seem to forget that all the land was undeveloped at some point in time. Where is a builder to build, if not on undeveloped land?
I think you make a very astute point about shoddy urban education. That, along with simply the advent of the automobile, is the impetus for a lot of flight from city cores. Fixing urban education is just such a huge issue to grapple with for a variety of reasons.
While I disagree with the wording of this question, I think the premise is important. I don't think people are "morally inept" for living in suburbs -- like some have noted, often times it is the cheaper option for families on a budget. You can't blame people for that.
However, that is not to say that more cannot be done to conserve land and curtail some consumption habits. There simply is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to planning how suburbanization occurs. I simply find it depressing when I see a subdivision after subdivision take up gargantuan amounts of farmland and countryside. We should be much more capable and creative when it comes to saving space than that -- and thankfully, I think housing developers are starting to keep that in mind in future projects.
The question of "consumption" should not castigate or accuse anyone, but we all need to be conscious of how our lifestyle habits -- whether in an urban, suburban, or rural setting -- affects the world around us.
See, I think that's a fair-minded and balanced approach to the subject. Nothing there I would disagree with. I think the original question and some of the posters on this thread are such narrow-minded ideologues that they cannot conceive of people living out in the burbs for true economic and lifestyle reasons--and, typically, these people don't have kids to raise. So basically, they are affronted by the aesthetics of the place and then equate it with moral squalor. I mean just look at the title of the thread as an example.
"According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "sprawl" first appeared in print in this context in 1955, in an article in the London Times that contained a disapproving reference to "great sprawl" at the city's periphery. But, as Bruegmann shows, by then London had been spreading into the surrounding countryside for hundreds of years."
Eh, suburbs are one thing, but really far-out suburbs and exurbs (that are built just like suburbs) are retarded. I just have no idea why anyone would want to live out there so far out from anything that's happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il?
So proximity to nature and the fact that I simply don't relate to the interests of many people of the gentrified neighborhoods of the city.
Just curious, why don't you relate to the people in the "grentrified neighborhoods of the city"? I'm not not saying there's anything wrong with that, I'm just curious. Proximity to nature I definitely understand, though.
yes, people who live in the urban sprawl suburbs (not the first ring of old street car suburbs) are morally inept, selfish people. They could careless about others in society, and only care what is good for them. That is why most of them could careless if a city library is closing and a poor city kid can't no longer get books for free. As long as they have Borders near by and a credit card, that is all they care about.
The first thing that a person can do to help society is to help themselves. They need to build themselves up and start contributing to society.
Calling a middle or working class person who is working 40 hours or more a week selfish because a city he or she does not live in closes a free public library is extremely unfair.
Start asking why the city chose to close a library (small potatoes in a big city budget) instead of confronting the political corruption, overpaid adminstrators and sheer waste of big city governments. Then maybe you can start to have an argument.
I'd like to get your thoughts on this one. For many of us, suburbs/exurbs seem to be a byproduct of conspicuous consumption. Some people actually do move out there for good schools, less crime, etc but then again there are people who just like a jumbo house to park their SUVs (and then complain about gas prices).
People are blaming urban/suburban sprawl (and yes cities are also sprawl) and missing the forest for the trees.
The real problem is population growth and over population. The irresponsibility of the Federal government and the way it is controlled by business interests (the need for cheap labor for instance). This country has gone in just 230 years from about 3 million to 300 million people. Do the math if we continue down the same road.
The fact of the matter is the US population is forecast to grow another 100 millionpeople in just the next few decades.
Even if it was possible to stuff these people into Manhattan type density cities (2 million or so on Manhattan) -- that would be FIFTY more Manhattans scattered around the country!
Instead like Canada, we could have opted for slower growth and we could have lived in nicer, better planned, more green, more liveable communities.
yes, people who live in the urban sprawl suburbs (not the first ring of old street car suburbs) are morally inept, selfish people. They could careless about others in society, and only care what is good for them. That is why most of them could careless if a city library is closing and a poor city kid can't no longer get books for free. As long as they have Borders near by and a credit card, that is all they care about.
Quite the generalization you make there. Seems a little bit like saying: people from the city are murderers, thieves and rapists (after all, you don't find that stuff in high suburbs).
People are blaming urban/suburban sprawl (and yes cities are also sprawl) and missing the forest for the trees.
The real problem is population growth and over population. The irresponsibility of the Federal government and the way it is controlled by business interests (the need for cheap labor for instance). This country has gone in just 230 years from about 3 million to 300 million people. Do the math if we continue down the same road.
The fact of the matter is the US population is forecast to grow another 100 millionpeople in just the next few decades.
Even if it was possible to stuff these people into Manhattan type density cities (2 million or so on Manhattan) -- that would be FIFTY more Manhattans scattered around the country!
Instead like Canada, we could have opted for slower growth and we could have lived in nicer, better planned, more green, more liveable communities.
I'm not sure where you found that forecast. The birth rate is barely at replacement rate. Immigrants birth rates go down after a generation or so. Gimme a break about Canada. This is not Canada. I suspect their climate keeps many from locating there in the first place.
I'm not sure where you found that forecast. The birth rate is barely at replacement rate. Immigrants birth rates go down after a generation or so. Gimme a break about Canada. This is not Canada. I suspect their climate keeps many from locating there in the first place.
Saw it the Times sometime last year. Barely mentioned anywhere else. More recently someone started a thread about it here on CD.
I know this is not Canada. Perhaps I am suggesting we could do better like Canada?
Saw it the Times sometime last year. Barely mentioned anywhere else. More recently someone started a thread about it here on CD.
I know this is not Canada. Perhaps I am suggesting we could do better like Canada?
I am suggesting they don't get the immigration that we do. Plus, I have been to Canada many times and don't see much to emulate.
BTW, no one predicted the drop in birth rates in Europe or Japan. All of a sudden, it just happened.
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.
