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 05-25-2014, 07:06 PM
 
4,064 posts, read 3,096,505 times
Reputation: 5608

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
Personally, I'd love for more urbanization and density to take hold, but for that to happen you can't force it on people. You have to convince them to like it first, and give them good reasons to live in those environments. And of course there's absolutely nothing wrong with a low density suburb. I'll take a walkable suburb over a pedestrian-hostile skyscraper land any day of the week.
I agree with the above. My community is an old small, New England town dating back to the 1790s that has since been absorbed into the exurban ring as Boston's metro expanded. It is a large lot community interspersed with small farms. I would strongly support making the community more walkable. I'm honestly in favor of making all environments more walkable. In the case of my community I would do it through the addition of sidewalks and paved trails carved between existing lots that could also accommodate bicycles.

The only concepts that I have encountered in this forum and in real life that I do not like are skyscrapers, urban canyons and commuter trains but everything else I would certainly try out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-25-2014, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,377 posts, read 59,836,421 times
Reputation: 54020
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
I think the problem that many have with sprawl is the fact that it seems counterintuitive to construct new homes further away from the center of the metro (close to and in which jobs are usually located) when there are homes already available closer in and cheaper. I don't necessarily feel this way, because I understand that there are other factors when purchasing a home (space, safety, amenities, shopping, etc.) besides distance from employment
You're conveniently forgetting and/or deliberately omitting that there are those who do not work in the city's center, or even in the city itself.

Quote:
but I do think we should try harder to fill in the gaps we have in our cities and metro areas
You go right ahead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 08:33 PM
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
45,988 posts, read 41,959,650 times
Reputation: 14805
I don't understand why it's so difficult to actually respond to the post of the OP, rather than finding new things to argue. Yes, threads sometimes go off topic eventually. But at least start on the topic that was the purpose of the thread. Try reading the thread title before posting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 08:34 PM
 
1,224 posts, read 1,494,434 times
Reputation: 817
Additionally to suburban (housing) sprawl, workplaces should also be distributed across the town. This way the whole population will not go north in the morning, while everyone go south in the evening. The downtown should be more for shopping and evening hangout place, not a block of offices and factories.
Right now there are forces to push EVERYONE, at least everyone in the younger generations the first home buyers to settle in the downtown. In the Bay area and most US cities the downtowns are not comparable to Paris or London or Munich or Berlin or Edinburgh downtown. I would love to live in downtown Paris, but downtown Sunnyvale???
One thing to make sprawl walkable, is to make local downtowns in each neighbourhood, with shops, supermarket, restaurants and pubs. Located around a centre point like old European cities, not a strip mall along a road. Even strip malls by themselves are not walkable, they are too long in one direction. A circular arrangement would mean you can walk across in 10 minutes and get to any of the 100 shops or restaurants. And of course the sidewalks.

Back to the original topic:
The bay area governments aggressively push against sprawl, their reasoning is the CO2, that's it. They keep talking about the CO2... Their argument can be reversed with mine. They did not consider technology, solar energy, electric cars and home energy storage. With that considered they are defeating their purpose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 08:42 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,674,551 times
Reputation: 1838
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan View Post
I agree with the above. My community is an old small, New England town dating back to the 1790s that has since been absorbed into the exurban ring as Boston's metro expanded. It is a large lot community interspersed with small farms. I would strongly support making the community more walkable. I'm honestly in favor of making all environments more walkable. In the case of my community I would do it through the addition of sidewalks and paved trails carved between existing lots that could also accommodate bicycles.

The only concepts that I have encountered in this forum and in real life that I do not like are skyscrapers, urban canyons and commuter trains but everything else I would certainly try out.
And that's totally fair. Everyone has preferences when it comes to density and transit, but who's against walkability? You can't go wrong with any kind of community so long as it's walkable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 08:45 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,674,551 times
Reputation: 1838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81 View Post
You're conveniently forgetting and/or deliberately omitting that there are those who do not work in the city's center, or even in the city itself.
I said "in and around" the metro's center. Jobs aren't always downtown or in city limits, but usually they're closer in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 11:18 PM
 
Location: Oceania
8,623 posts, read 6,250,311 times
Reputation: 8318
WHO are we allowing to plan how we want to live? WHY are we allowing them to regulate and legislate this stuff into action? Every house has solar paneling...if the technology was truly advanced - just like 50 mpg carburetors - it might be reasonable. Who thinks the oil companies are going to let solar energy slash their profits? Quell R&D of solar cells and put the companies out of business.

Solyndra comes to mind. They had a different type of photovoltaic circuit in that the panels were cylindrical and each encased within specially formulated glass tube a rather than flat. They could put a lot of panels in the space of a single flat one and get far more current. That entire venture was literally tossed in the trash and hauled to the dump. They were never to succeed as it was.
How's that whole wind power thing going? why can't they get the output of a hydroelectric generator from one of those? Government has no business funding every new idea to come down the pike. There shouldn't be incentives - money - offered to corporations or individuals for their choice of vehicles. They will soon offer a limited selection to us.

As has been going on this entire century, the federal government is merely handing over money to people for doing nothing. Once that money changed hands the solar facade was no longer needed so they scrapped it.
Once again, somebody got paid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2014, 03:59 AM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,265,973 times
Reputation: 2924
Make cities that are walkable and transit-oriented so people wouldn't have to drive to everywhere they go, and there would be less pollution. And people would also be a lot healthier if they walked more. Putting solar panels on every roof and buying everyone an electric car, is not a realistic solution. And electric cars do nothing to help solve the obesity problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2014, 06:26 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,002 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
Make cities that are walkable and transit-oriented so people wouldn't have to drive to everywhere they go, and there would be less pollution. And people would also be a lot healthier if they walked more. Putting solar panels on every roof and buying everyone an electric car, is not a realistic solution. And electric cars do nothing to help solve the obesity problem.
Despite MUCH popular opinion to the contrary, there is no correlation between car ownership and obesity in the US or other high-income countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2014, 11:38 AM
 
8,328 posts, read 14,563,164 times
Reputation: 4048
Quote:
Originally Posted by buenos View Post
A lot of people oppose urban sprawl for various reasons. Probably the most common reason is pollution.
Now what if we could decrease pollution with more sprawl?

In sprawling suburbs the typical house is a large single family home. These homes can allow for a huge surface area of solar panels. Electric cars are becoming more common and cheaper. So, the concept is to fully cover the roof of SFHs with solar panels (or solar shingles), place a large energy storage device (kinetic or batteries) buried or put in a silo in the back yard. Then use electric cars for commute, that are charged overnight from the storage device that was charged by the sun during the day. Basically suburbs would act as point of load power plants. This could not be done in a dense inner city neighbourhood, as each family in the city has access to a lot less roof surface are for solar panels. So inner city residents could not charge their cars using solar energy. If they choose to use public transport, then the public transport vehicles go with fossil fuel (directly or converted for railways). Even the public transport companies would not have access to enough solar panel area to charge/run all their vehicles on clean energy, as there is no space in the city for that. This way inner city living needs fossil fuel consumption, while suburban living could possibly go without any fossil fuels, and therefore no pollution.
If electric cars are possible, why not electric buses? Or, maybe, some kind of "electric bus" that runs on rails, so it requires less power, and powered with some kind of wire above the rails so it doesn't need batteries? Call it a "trolley" or something.

Only about one-third of the pollution from a car comes out of the tailpipe. If you hang out near a freeway, most of the little bits of black stuff raining down around them is actually bits of tire and brake pads, which make up another third of the pollution. The final third is the pollution caused by the manufacturing of the car itself, and its disposal once it is worn out.

Why can't central city neighborhoods be powered by solar arrays? There is a tacit assumption that solar power can only work connected to the roof of one's own house--but existing solar power facilities work like any other power plant, a single central plant that distributes power through a network. My local utility has a program that lets residents purchase all their power from renewable sources--solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal. My city powered its streetcar network with hydroelectric power 120 years ago, with enough left over for industrial, residential and street lighting uses. Why can't it work that way today?

There is also an issue you're failing to address--per capita use of power. Someone who lives in an apartment and walks to work uses less energy than someone who lives in a single-family home and drives, even if the car they drive is electric. So they save on power generation, and don't need as much "roof space" per capita--and, as pointed out just above, the "roof" where the power is generated doesn't need to be on top of their house. And, like with automobiles, suburban homes also have an energy footprint, the energy used to build and demolish them, and the waste products created in their upkeep. Urban buildings have a lower per-capita cost in all regards. Also note that the chemical fertilizes used to keep those suburban lawns looking nice are made from fossil fuels--and result in pollution of waterways.

It sounds like your argument is based on some factually incorrect assumptions--urban transit doesn't need to be powered by fossil fuels, solar power collectors don't need to be on top of your own roof to power your house, electric cars and suburban homes are not without economic consequences. The same solutions that can make suburban living greener also make urban living greener--giving multiple choices. Urban living just has a better environmental payoff, all else being equal.
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