U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-20-2014, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,523,816 times
Reputation: 7830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marv101 View Post
The overwhelming majority of us have enough common sense to know what they want, where they can buy it, and whether or not they are willing to pay more for a gallon of milk at a 7-11 or a mom & pop convenience store a block or two from their house ($4.59 here in Los Angeles) or drive 5 minutes away to a shopping center with a Ralphs & CVS side-by-side, and buy the same gallon of milk for $3.39 and perhaps a few other things.

Suburbs are fine for those of us willing to improve our quality of life for ourselves as well as our kids, or for personal objectives such as buying a home in a good school district in a safe neighborhood.

Some urban planners are really full of themselves, and are constantly exposed as being extremely stupid and/or clueless about how frequently their 'bright' ideas turn out to be hysterically asinine when they're put into motion by local politicians, leaving their so-called 'projections' not being worth the paper they were written on, esspecially when you toss in their 'projections' when they're discussing transit-oriented developments.
Do you have any specific examples that you are referring to or is this a subjective post about preferring unplanned suburbs over planned suburbs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2014, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,062 posts, read 16,081,530 times
Reputation: 12641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
@i'm_a_lawyer: What a role model, that Greece!

Greek Unemployment Hits Record High
**ATHENS, Greece -- Unemployment in Greece rose to a new record high of 27.6 percent in May, leaving almost two thirds of young people without a job, the Hellenic Statistics Authority said Thursday.

The jobless rate rose from 27 percent in April and 23.8 percent in May last year. Young people were by far the worst affected, with unemployment among job-seekers aged 15 to 24 standing at 64.9 percent.
**

Yes, let's do what they're doing!
The better question is what exactly is it supposed to show anyway?

Gini coefficient is what it used to compare income inequality, period.
Gini before taxes and transfers
Greece: .436
US: .486

While that places Greece towards the bottom of income inequality of developed nations and the US towards thae top, there's not much difference. Nor is there any correlation. Italy (.534) and Mexico (.494) both top the US.

So yeah, not only is Greece's economy in the crapper, there's not even any relation between inequality and percentage of people working in small (<50 employee) businesses. In fact, the only correlation between corporate employment, income equality, and suburbs is that im_a_lawyer personally doesn't like them. Hopefully for his clients' sake his legal analysis is better than his grasp of statistics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/bu...=1&#map-search
No significant difference in social mobility between San Francisco, San Jose, or Sacramento. All three metro areas are among the highest in the nation for upward class mobility All of have essentially the same class mobility. Interesting differences between the West (especially CA/NV/AZ/CO) and NYC. In NYC, it doesn't much matter where your parents placed. You'll do slightly better than average in the U.S. Totally different here. If you're on the bottom, there's a lot more upward mobility here. If you're on the top, there's a lot more DOWNWARD mobility here. Much more of a meritocracy here which means less class stability. Less of a permanent parasite class and less of a generational wealth class than the US as a whole.

Too bad it doesn't differentiate between Riverside/Inland Empire, which beats Atlanta at sprawl so handily it isn't even funny, and LA. Greater LA has basically the same income mobility profile as the Bay Area does.

Last edited by Malloric; 02-20-2014 at 09:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2014, 10:32 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,002 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059
^^As I posted remarks yesterday, it did occur to me that correlation does not equal causation, so yeah, I agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2014, 05:10 PM
 
4,064 posts, read 3,097,353 times
Reputation: 5608
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsvh View Post
Why take care of something old when our highway, gas, and mortgage subsidizes allow you to move a few miles down the road and have a new house for the same price.

It is not a state of mind issue. It is a policy issue.
So everyone who lives in a suburb or small town is a mindless drone following the subsidy? Get real.

Government policies open up the option for people to live in sprawling environs but people choose to do so for a multitude of reasons:

(1) privacy
(2) elbow room
(3) personal space
(4) proximity to natural elements
(5) more quiet time during the day and night
(6) ability to grow things other than herbs and houseplants
(7) enjoy real, hardcore outdoor activities
(8) lower exposure to criminals
(9) fewer legal restrictions
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2014, 09:22 PM
 
229 posts, read 248,512 times
Reputation: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan View Post
So everyone who lives in a suburb or small town is a mindless drone following the subsidy? Get real.
Yes, it's one giant ponzi scheme.

A Complete Guide To The Ponzi Scheme That Is Suburban America - Business Insider

Do you know the total municipal debt in this country? It's trillions of dollars and that money will never paid because too many suburbs depended on taxes from future residents that never came. Look at what's happening in California.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan View Post
Government policies open up the option for people to live in sprawling environs but people choose to do so for a multitude of reasons:
and all those policies have failed and has caused the decline of this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2014, 09:36 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,002 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059
A Complete Guide To The Ponzi Scheme That Is Suburban America - Business Insider

Good Lord!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2014, 10:09 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,523,816 times
Reputation: 7830
The suburbs are total ponzi schemes that are parasites on rural land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2014, 10:11 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,168 posts, read 29,669,595 times
Reputation: 26656
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan View Post
So everyone who lives in a suburb or small town is a mindless drone following the subsidy? Get real.

Government policies open up the option for people to live in sprawling environs but people choose to do so for a multitude of reasons:

(1) privacy
(2) elbow room
(3) personal space
(4) proximity to natural elements
(5) more quiet time during the day and night
(6) ability to grow things other than herbs and houseplants
(7) enjoy real, hardcore outdoor activities
(8) lower exposure to criminals
(9) fewer legal restrictions
Government policy decreased the opportunity for people not to live in the suburbs.

Things are not also so binary. We have a big redwood forest in the middle of my city, and a ton of other green space. There are a couple of community gardens within a mile of my apartment, on the other hand other people on my block have yards and in the surrounding areas there are citrus trees all over the place.

There is a trend right now for people to live in more walkable places. Walkable urban and walkable suburban. It is not an either or proposition. There are people (like me) who prefer walkable urban places. I have other friends that want walkable suburban places.

Unfortunately the only areas we left walkable are pretty much urban areas. We took the walkable out of the suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2014, 10:21 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,168 posts, read 29,669,595 times
Reputation: 26656
That was one alarming article. And I can see that playing out many times over al over the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2014, 02:20 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee Ex-ex-ex-urbs
358 posts, read 415,759 times
Reputation: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
Is it just me, or is a big part of our sprawl problem that we seem to always have a need to have new and shiny things? In my state anyway, the older suburbs are starting to get neglected with roads falling apart. Instead of fixing the streets and sidewalks, seems like here, and seemingly everywhere else, decide that just building a new neighborhood is better than rehabilitating an existing one. Coupling that with American consumerist attitudes, can it be explained (whole or in part) that we Americans desire something "new and shiny" as opposed to old and renovated?
New and shiny is always exciting. But that doesn't mean it has to only be in the far reaches of a place.

There's nothing more fun for me (relatively) than seeing an old worn out bit of urban landscape get renovated and re-purposed into something new and shiny. Like the old Milwaukee Road shops in the city's Menomonee Valley become the industrial park. That has been really impressive.

The entire Valley is undergoing an elaborate transformation into a vibrant corridor of work and play.

Menomonee Valley Partners

I just strongly resent the knee-jerk, rote descriptions of "oh, sprawl. Oh, consumerism." Come up with something relevant on your own.

This isn't Europe. This is where my ancestors came to from Europe and everywhere else to build better lives. We are frontier people. We look for the edges and the wild places to live. This is who we are.

Suburbs weren't a government plot. They were the will of the people.

By the way. the US population when I was born was 179 million. Now it is 308 million. Gotta live somewhere.

Yeah, yeah, I already hear you.

I'm saying there is no sprawl problem or strip mall problem.

This isn't a debate either. I'm saying my piece and it's said. I hope it was on topic.

I'm out.

Last edited by mbradleyc; 02-22-2014 at 02:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top