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.
There's actually a lot of physical room in most American cities that's not being used, or not effectively used. For example, most retail structures are single-story. This is nuts. Either the shopkeepers or somebody else should be living in second- and third-floor apartments above the stores. This would also provide a powerful force to stop building such ugly retail structures, and to make the areas around them actual neighborhoods rather than wastelands of parking and access roads. (We could start by repealing the ADA as it applies to upper stories of privately-owned buildings.)
It should also be pointed out that ending sprawl does NOT mean everybody has to pack into the big-city cores. Instead of building suburbs, we could build actual self-contained towns, connected to one another and the cities by public transportation, but each one its own dense bead of businesses, residences, and small-scale institutional amenities.
Excellent post! I'm not familiar with the ADA law--something to do with stairs, perhaps? What else would need to change to enourage suburban developers to build housing units on top of stores (because it seems like developers would WANT to do that, it means extra $$$ for them).
Maybe communities could offer a tax break to anyone who buys a condo in a unit that has stores on the first level?
I happen to be a person who works above my business--but I'm lucky. I own a small business that I can run from the first floor of my house (family lives on the second floor, and we use the basement to store inventory). The problem is, few people own their own business--most people work in an office. I suppose one solution would be to encourage telecommuting.
I would encourage those who don't mind to move into townhouses, small lots, or even residential skyscrapers. While the lot we lived on in Queens was unusable, we should make single household lots smaller than they tend to be. Nobody needs an acre lot, pets or no pets, kids or no kids. People seem to think that suburbs with their spaces are a lot better for raising kids, but I disagree. As a kid I certainly didn't care if I lived on 1 or 1/4 acre homes, or even in a small townhouse without a private yard. That's what parks were for. The city my parents live in could quadruple its population by just having 1/4 acre lots like in much of California.
This is such a good post--very rich in thought, and some good ideas. I have a feeling I will be returning to it a few more times to discuss various points. But for now, let's start with this one.
I agree that smaller lots have many advantages. How would you achieve changing a suburb that has currently been built with 1/2 acre or acre-sized lots to one that has 1/4 acre or smaller lots? Would you encourage people to sell their back yard to a developer? Or create tax incentives for people who split their 4,000 sf home into multiple sections and rent it out?
If the answer is to split houses, here is something to consider. In Virginia, we have a problem with multiple families staying in certain houses. Sterling Park has this situation and correspondingly has had a sharp increase in crime, gang related problems, unkempt properties (broken windows that never get repaired, unmowed lawns with junk cars, problems with vermin and the like). What measure would you take to avoid these problems?
Remember, you haven't really changed a situation simply by encouraging people to move back to the city... you have to change existing lots and structures. Or do you? What do you think? Perhaps the solution would be to encourage 1/4 acre lots in new construction only?
If the answer is to split lots, here is another case study to consider: When I lived in Redondo Beach (a beach town south of L.A.) the public outcry was all about how people were buying sfrs on a half acre lot, razing the structure, and then splitting the lot into 2 or 3 parcels and building townhouses. The concern was about environmental damage from too much concrete covering the soil, congested traffic, and increase in crime. Also, many people thought these buildings made Redondo Beach ugly. People who lived in the small homes that were quickly being surrounded by these tall new buildings complained about claustrophobia, air circulation and mold problems, and the many problems related to structure blocking sunshine. Trees died and fell over.
Have you ever noticed that people in the suburbs pop out kids left and right but people in the city don't?
Hmmm, sounds like you believe in "if you build it, they will come..."
People don't just move to the suburbs and then "shaza-a-am" become consumed with a desire to have children.
People have children for a variety of reasons, being in a city won't change those reasons. And it won't change the desire to have children. A dwelling situation that was so extreme it actually influenced whether or not people had children would be considered inhumane.
I don't think that where one lives plays any bearing on the desire to have children. I know loads of people who have kids who live in the city. Now, more people tend to move to the suburbs because it is perceived that it is easier to raise children in the suburbs, and in some instances, they are right, and in some instances, they are wrong. There are more children in the suburbs, that is very true, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is something in the water in the suburbs that makes people suddenly consumed with the desire to procreate, it is because that the suburbs are perceived as a more desirable place to raise children.
There are more children in the suburbs, that is very true, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is something in the water in the suburbs that makes people suddenly consumed with the desire to procreate, it is because that the suburbs are perceived as a more desirable place to raise children.
Shhhh, don't tell anyone but you've uncovered a giant govt. conspiracy...
now the truth is out--they put nooky juice in the water supply...
If you believe the root cause for overpopulation is immigration, rather than natural increase, then read on: http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/threecauses.html (broken link)
The sprawl issue, IMO, can be directly correlated to our open door immigration policy. This problem must be corrected first.
I don't think that where one lives plays any bearing on the desire to have children. I know loads of people who have kids who live in the city. Now, more people tend to move to the suburbs because it is perceived that it is easier to raise children in the suburbs, and in some instances, they are right, and in some instances, they are wrong. There are more children in the suburbs, that is very true, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is something in the water in the suburbs that makes people suddenly consumed with the desire to procreate, it is because that the suburbs are perceived as a more desirable place to raise children.
In most big cities, it's the school systems that attract or repel parents. People look at test scores. Guess which districts always come out on top? Homogenous, white, upper income suburban districts. In cities with diverse populations in terms of income levels, language fluency, etc. you get a weighted test score for its district that just can't compare with the compartmentalized suburbs.
If you believe the root cause for overpopulation is immigration, rather than natural increase, then read on: http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/threecauses.html (broken link)
The sprawl issue, IMO, can be directly correlated to our open door immigration policy. This problem must be corrected first.
Wrong, Mike. Sprawl and "overpopulation" are not synonymous. You can have sprawling, depopulated areas, just as you can have non-sprawling populous areas? And immigration? What's that got to do with the topic at hand?
In most big cities, it's the school systems that attract or repel parents. People look at test scores. Guess which districts always come out on top? Homogenous, white, upper income suburban districts.
ITA that school scores attract new residents. The schools in Loudoun County are one of the biggest reasons people move here. However, I do get tired (VERY tired) of people assuming that the suburbs are homogenous and white. As a black woman, I find this insulting... not to mention ridiculous. Suburban America might have been lily white 40 years ago, but people of all races and all kinds of personalities appreciate living in nice neighborhoods with low crime and good schools.
This is such a good post--very rich in thought, and some good ideas. I have a feeling I will be returning to it a few more times to discuss various points. But for now, let's start with this one.
I agree that smaller lots have many advantages. How would you achieve changing a suburb that has currently been built with 1/2 acre or acre-sized lots to one that has 1/4 acre or smaller lots? Would you encourage people to sell their back yard to a developer? Or create tax incentives for people who split their 4,000 sf home into multiple sections and rent it out?
If the answer is to split houses, here is something to consider. In Virginia, we have a problem with multiple families staying in certain houses. Sterling Park has this situation and correspondingly has had a sharp increase in crime, gang related problems, unkempt properties (broken windows that never get repaired, unmowed lawns with junk cars, problems with vermin and the like). What measure would you take to avoid these problems?
Remember, you haven't really changed a situation simply by encouraging people to move back to the city... you have to change existing lots and structures. Or do you? What do you think? Perhaps the solution would be to encourage 1/4 acre lots in new construction only?
If the answer is to split lots, here is another case study to consider: When I lived in Redondo Beach (a beach town south of L.A.) the public outcry was all about how people were buying sfrs on a half acre lot, razing the structure, and then splitting the lot into 2 or 3 parcels and building townhouses. The concern was about environmental damage from too much concrete covering the soil, congested traffic, and increase in crime. Also, many people thought these buildings made Redondo Beach ugly. People who lived in the small homes that were quickly being surrounded by these tall new buildings complained about claustrophobia, air circulation and mold problems, and the many problems related to structure blocking sunshine. Trees died and fell over.
In Seattle, the popular thing is teardowns. There are still alot of single-family neighborhoods in Seattle proper. What they are doing is tearing down the single family house and building a multi family unit (townhomes or duplex/quadplexes) on the lot (but not necessarily divding the lot into two or more). This better utilizes the available land, without having to build housing projects in the middle of a residential neighborhood. The impacts have been mostly positive (aside from increased traffic and some tacky designs like you mentioned).
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.
