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)
 
Old 05-01-2015, 08:01 AM
 
526 posts, read 467,072 times
Reputation: 1386

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
So, do you believe we'll become even more dependent on the automobile?

How do we combat the ugliness of our surroundings, that is common with sprawl? (although, most people seem to have grown numb to this, so maybe it won't be an issue)
I don't think most everyday people care to be honest. I think everyone is so used to how suburbs look that they simply expect this and don't ever question it. They do not picture sprawl as ugly b/c they don't know anything different! If masses of people thought sprawl was ugly they wouldn't want to live in it and we wouldn't be expanding our metro areas in this way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-01-2015, 08:08 AM
 
526 posts, read 467,072 times
Reputation: 1386
Quote:
Originally Posted by stateofnature View Post
If that's true, then why don't all the dozens if not hundreds of large financial, fashion and other types of business firms still headquartered in Manhattan relocate to somewhere else where the costs of commercial space are a heck of a lot cheaper? They don't because for those companies there are many tangible and intangible benefits to be located in the place that is historically the center of their industry. These are benefits that go way beyond "good views," like having more industry credibility and being able to easily meet with clients and others.

This isn't just a NYC thing either. Here in Washington, DC, if you're a lobbying firm, you're going to get a lot more credibility if your office is on K Street in downtown DC rather than out in Gaithersburg, Maryland, for example, even though Gaithersburg would save a lot of money in rent.
I certainly do not want CBDs to go away, I work in one in a skyscraper actually and i love it don't get me wrong. I get what you are saying and I agree 100% mostly. However, look nationally at how many new non-residential skyscrapers are being built. Then look nationally at how many large suburban office parks are being built. It is easy to see where the BULK of the demand is. There will always be demand for skyscrapers and key locations, I am just simply saying there is less demand for new construction than for the latter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,902 posts, read 7,694,030 times
Reputation: 4523
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02blackgt View Post
I don't think most everyday people care to be honest. I think everyone is so used to how suburbs look that they simply expect this and don't ever question it. They do not picture sprawl as ugly b/c they don't know anything different! If masses of people thought sprawl was ugly they wouldn't want to live in it and we wouldn't be expanding our metro areas in this way.
Well, there are masses of people who don't want to live in a sprawl environment. They either live in the city, or are forced to live in a suburban environment because they can't afford to live in the city. (or need good schools, want less crime, etc.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 11:50 AM
 
2,831 posts, read 3,372,810 times
Reputation: 3045
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
Well, there are masses of people who don't want to live in a sprawl environment. They either live in the city, or are forced to live in a suburban environment because they can't afford to live in the city. (or need good schools, want less crime, etc.)
Well you can't always get what you want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 12:39 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,016,522 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Well you can't always get what you want.
Interestingly, one rarely hears that argument going the other way, against suburban construction and in favor of urban construction. Which is part of the problem in the first place; we build so much more of the one than the other, keeping urban supply scarce while flooding the market with very-low-density suburban construction, then make the argument that urban living is just too expensive.

If we built at, on average, mildly higher densities, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But people hear "density" and think skyscrapers, of Manhattan, SF's financial district, Singapore, Beijing, etc. Most would be surprised how suburban 7-10k ppsm looks [1]. Hell, many of SF's rowhouse neighborhoods, only 2-3 floors tall, are at 10-20k ppsm [1][2][3].
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 03:08 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 84,269,361 times
Reputation: 18061
Face it people did not moved off the farm for just pleasure; economic reasons. Just as when you see lifestyle as intolerable for you; you leave if you can; plain and simple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 03:46 PM
 
2,831 posts, read 3,372,810 times
Reputation: 3045
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Interestingly, one rarely hears that argument going the other way, against suburban construction and in favor of urban construction. Which is part of the problem in the first place; we build so much more of the one than the other, keeping urban supply scarce while flooding the market with very-low-density suburban construction, then make the argument that urban living is just too expensive.

If we built at, on average, mildly higher densities, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But people hear "density" and think skyscrapers, of Manhattan, SF's financial district, Singapore, Beijing, etc. Most would be surprised how suburban 7-10k ppsm looks [1]. Hell, many of SF's rowhouse neighborhoods, only 2-3 floors tall, are at 10-20k ppsm [1][2][3].

There really wasn't "the other way". The posters here were lobbying against "suburban" development whatever that is supposed to mean. The anti-suburbanists seek to impose constraints on how and where other people are supposed to live and work.

The term "we" crops up in these urban threads as if all the real estate was somehow the property of some collective that the urbanists believe they are representative of. However, the property belongs to individuals who are more than capable and welcome to decide for themselves how to develop their property and how and where to live and work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,902 posts, read 7,694,030 times
Reputation: 4523
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
There really wasn't "the other way".
That's what darkeconomist said.

Quote:
The posters here were lobbying against "suburban" development whatever that is supposed to mean. The anti-suburbanists seek to impose constraints on how and where other people are supposed to live and work.
I believe this is called a straw man.

Quote:
The term "we" crops up in these urban threads as if all the real estate was somehow the property of some collective that the urbanists believe they are representative of. However, the property belongs to individuals who are more than capable and welcome to decide for themselves how to develop their property and how and where to live and work.
I find your objection to the word "we" a bit odd. Using the word "we" is common in conversation. It could refer to the participants of that conversation. It could refer to a larger group of people that the participants of the conversation are a part of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 04:56 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 84,269,361 times
Reputation: 18061
No; I do not agree its a straw point at all if you look at their agenda. Otherwise they would not fight people moving to burbs or even care. But then they need to face reality of what is happening by people choosing on their own. In fact as 26% of population in boomers retires for next to two decade and take even younger workers to service their needs and wants even the burbs will suffer loses ;IMO. Look at the last census and its just starting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Florida
5,383 posts, read 3,092,130 times
Reputation: 9758
Riots make living in any big city unthinkable.
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
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