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 05-02-2015, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,323,056 times
Reputation: 13779

Advertisements

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.
Actually, they do. The suburbs are filled with people who lived in cities and found them unsuitable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2015, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,323,056 times
Reputation: 13779
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.)
Ahem. Instead of worrying about curbing suburban growth, maybe you and your fellow urbanists should worry about fixing the problems in cities that drive the people who want to live there out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,323,056 times
Reputation: 13779
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].
It looks like Buffalo, NY: tens of thousands of old frame two family houses with no redeeming architectural value squeezed onto tiny 25 or 30 foot by 100 foot lots with tiny yards, no driveways, hearing your neighbors' toilets flushing in the summer, and not getting your street plowed in the winter because the plows can fit with all the cars parked on the street.

There are entire neighborhoods of old houses like this in Buffalo that are abandoned. Thousands of houses nobody wants in neighborhoods that nobody wants to live in. The parts of the city that are gentrifying are those where the existing homes have some historical and/or architectural merit. It's also where there's been some successful new construction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 11:05 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Yet there are somewhat similar neighborhoods around here that are doing fine, though I wouldn't describe them in negative terms. Buffalo had a huge economic decline.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3275...JkerJkzmQw!2e0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 12:59 PM
 
Location: bend oregon
929 posts, read 843,132 times
Reputation: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
Ahem. Instead of worrying about curbing suburban growth, maybe you and your fellow urbanists should worry about fixing the problems in cities that drive the people who want to live there out.
I'm waiting for a earthquake to take out all the freeways, then there will be access to the river and it will be quiet
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 02:15 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,981 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
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.
My issue with "we" as used on this board, or any board when there is, ahem, "discussion" going on is that "we" implies to me the existence of a sort of cabal of people who are all in agreement. It's like a group all got together to decide what's acceptable. I always like to ask "who's this "we" kemosabe?" I presume people are speaking for themselves unless otherwise indicated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,057 posts, read 16,066,811 times
Reputation: 12630
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].
I don't know how surprised or not people are by things. That kind of density is very common in the suburbs of San Francisco. Most of Daly city is around there. Hell, take Mountain View 94040. The entire ZIP code has a population density of around 9,000 and it includes A bunch of land gobling mega strip malls and a big hospital. The actual high density residential part is in the 25-50k per square mile range. It's pretty surburban looking to me.
High density residential:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mo...3377a57616b5d8
Mixed use strip malls with apartments going in:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4043...JASEtXpzcA!2e0
Low density residential typical neighborhoods:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mo...3377a57616b5d8

There's a good mix of housing stock to choose from, typical of most of the Peninsula and South Bay. There's not much in the way of very high density, but lots of mid density in many places. It's all really expensive. It isn't this story your painting about pent up demand for mid density with cheap low density. A 2bd apartment in Mountain View might go for $3,000/mo but then the dumpy mid century ranches nobody likes are in the $1.5-2 million and up range as well. It's just expensive. Comparatively, you'll get more house renting in the high density areas than you would buying in the adjacent lower density neighborhoods.

Last edited by Malloric; 05-02-2015 at 03:39 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 05:23 PM
 
4,832 posts, read 10,887,085 times
Reputation: 1290
As long as I'm not living more than about 20-30 minutes from work, I am okay with sprawl. I liked sprawl because it meant cheaper housing, but now suburban communities away from the hustle and bustle and and still close to the beach has equated into non-affordable housing and now I wish we had less sprawl and more higher density development.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 06:14 PM
 
2,701 posts, read 2,365,718 times
Reputation: 3103
It's obviously a balance. When the tipping point is reached, you get more vertical development, or more clusters of walkable, dense "downtown-like" areas away from traditional city centers (think Buckhead in Atlanta, or Bellevue in Seattle).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,318,926 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
I'm becoming more and more curious-how much longer can urban sprawl continue before it can stretch out no further? As suburbs are built further and further out, commutes will get longer and longer. The distance that this continuous urban land can spread increases as more and more jobs spread further out, and as highways are upgraded, but how much further can it go before it reaches critical mass? Eventually sprawl will have to reach a point where parts of the metro are so far from one another that they can no longer be considered suburbs or even exurbs. So how will urban sprawl play out once this "critical mass" is reached?
Ever seen a satellite map of Tokyo?

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.
I think you have "suburb" mixed up with "metro", my friend.

With very few notable exceptions, most metro areas are dirty, noisy, and overcrowded with serious crime, gang and homeless problems. Gang tags and spray-painted graffiti aren't what most intelligent people consider "art" and prefer to live in areas that aren't covered in them. As such, I would take my 1960's era suburb over the toilet of downtown Toronto any day of the week.
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