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.
Interesting subject, and one I'm intimately aware of. I live on the remnant of a Spanish land grant that once encompassed 11000 acres. We now have 6, and there is 'suburbia' 400 feet behind us, and 'suburbia' across the road. It MAY be thought of as good, or bad..but I believe it's more or less inevitable.
For those who are interested, I BELIEVE you'll find that one of the STRONGEST 'anti-sprawl' stances in any large city is that of Portland, OR..it's pretty 'cutting edge', took some years to 'sell' to the locals, and I THINK it encompasses a 5-county area. The entire area is under an 'umbrella' planning board, and its aim is to concentrate "residential" uses into relatively dense areas, and to go to great lenghts to keep farms, forests and vineyards "rural", even to the point of subsidizing this.
I don't know TOO much about it, or how many people "love it"..or "hate it"...or whether it's working out as it was envisioned. But as far as I know, Portland holds the place of the most "anti-sprawl" large city, and some have called it almost a "European" mindset, that couldn't be 'sold' to most American voters.
The only way urban sprawl can be stopped is by fundamentally altering people's ideas about how to live. One- and two-story single-family housing represents perhaps the most inefficient use of land we can have, that causes rapid deforestation, insane commutes, obesity, isolation, and pollution from cars. The only viable long-term alternative is the Hong Kong model -- increasing density through high-rise living and thereby preserving farmland and park space. However, today, most Americans will not even consider such an option. cut: orphaned [b]I think our greatest trials are still in the future. It will not be until s-loads of public money have been spent on propping up the current "American-dream" housing model, and a couple of major environmental catastrophes have befallen us, that people will consider a different approach to housing and home ownership.
mod cut: reprimanding comment removed
I also do not believe the sky is falling, and I fail to understand why some people seem to gleefully wait for some major catastrophe.
I think Normie had a good point earlier when she said she likes going to shopping centers where she can find a place to park. I agree. I've done the city thing. Fortunately, I never got mugged, but I just like the openness of the burbs better.
I agree with normie on the obesity issue. The highest rates of obesity are in the inner cities. This is particularly true of childhood obesity.
I read an article, I don't know where unfortunately, or I"d post a link, that said that suburban people are actually more engaged in civil affairs than city people. I can see that. The city of Denver has, I think, 13 council people and a mayor for >500,000 people. My little suburban city has a mayor and 6 council people for 20,000 people. That is a much smaller ratio.
In re: Portland, I've visited that forum, and it's not all roses there. People complain about the small yards, etc, that this urban boundary stuff brings. I also don't like disparaging Americans, as if we all think alike and are a bunch of dolts. I don't think that is in keeping with the purpose of this thread, either.
Last edited by scirocco22; 09-14-2008 at 06:35 PM..
Reason: report those posts if you don't believe the member is following the rules, please.
The only way urban sprawl can be stopped is by fundamentally altering people's ideas about how to live. One- and two-story single-family housing represents perhaps the most inefficient use of land we can have, that causes rapid deforestation, insane commutes, obesity, isolation, and pollution from cars. The only viable long-term alternative is the Hong Kong model -- increasing density through high-rise living and thereby preserving farmland and park space. However, today, most Americans will not even consider such an option. I think our greatest trials are still in the future. It will not be until s-loads of public money have been spent on propping up the current "American-dream" housing model, and a couple of major environmental catastrophes have befallen us, that people will consider a different approach to housing and home ownership.
The private ownership of land, no matter what size parcel, is the cornerstone of the American Dream.
Let's put everyone into friendly anti-sprawl zones and keep the pristine countryside from any sort of development and devoid of Jobs.
The anti-sprawl crowd has been trying to do just that in Northern New England. I's called RURAL CLEANSING!
I's nobody's business if I want to live in a 10,000 square foot house and want to buy a Hummer to go with my Escalade!
Last edited by scirocco22; 09-14-2008 at 06:36 PM..
Reason: quoted material edited
Sprawl isn't exclusive to surrounding areas of the larger cities. I live in what USED to be a small town outside Burlington, Vermont. I've always said it's the fastest growing community on the face of the earth. Almost everything everyone has said in this thread, applies to here in some way or another.
There are seperate neighborhoods everywhere; some connected by smaller roads, but some not connected at all.
Someone mentioned the growth process; houses first, then a grocery store or two, then strip malls, etc. over a period of time (10-15 years or so). Here that process is accelerated ten-fold. Within a year, there are new housing developements, shopping (they are actually trying to build a 'new downtown'), theater, restaurants, and business offices, all going in at a breakneck speed.
People aren't fleeing the city of Burlington. They are fleeing almost everywhere else in other states. People build a home, move here from somewhere else to 'get away' from one thing or another and seek the peace and pleasantness of small town living, and begin trying to change things to make it more like where they left. I once talked to a doctor and his wife about this. They moved from NYC or Boston, I don't remember, up into the woods. We were discussing the issue of seperating our town from the Union high school (five different communities empty their middle schools into one common high school). She was adament about keeping it big. She said that if that happened, and we were left with a new, VERY small high school, she would take her family and go back to the big city. "The bigger the better", she said.
So here we are, in little tiny Vermont, outside little tiny Burlington, growing by leaps and bounds in an area that can barely cope (in every way) with the influx of people, building and added vehicles.
As a result, the roadways cannot handle the increase of vehicles (in Vermont, there are only so many places you can put a road), and every speck of open land is being built on. There was a developer interviewed on the news a year or so ago, who said, "Some people might look at this (open land) as just an open field, but I see the largest development in the state."
I's nobody's business if I want to live in a 10,000 square foot house and want to buy a Hummer to go with my Escalade!
(Sighs and shakes head). It is everyone's business. Why, may you ask? Gasoline is a finite resource, is it not? What happens when rapidly depleting natural resources begin to become scarce due to increasing demand? Skyrocketing prices. The more people like you that are out there driving large vehicles that are inefficient and living in McMansions that have more living space that one could possibly ever find a use for (yet still has to be heated and cooled) the more likely we will be to face progressively higher and higher costs as a society.
I'm a proponent of the "Polluter Pays Principle" in that those who are buying large SUVs and living in suburban McMansions should pay penalties and fees to help mitigate their environmentally destructive decisions. The money reaped from these taxes should go towards research of alternative energy sources or to help provide a stipend to help senior citizens on fixed incomes heat their homes---homes that they may lose due to their inability to pay for increasing costs largely associated with the gluttony of the upper-middle-class in squandering our scarce resources.
Am I a communist? No. I am a proud utilitarian though---the greatest good for the greatest number. How is it benefiting others for you to be tooling around in a Range Rover and living in a sprawling McMansion subdivision? Doesn't anyone care about minimizing their carbon footprints anymore so that future generations can enjoy the same natural beauty that our present generations have been taking for granted? I may be jaded since I live on the outermost fringe of the NYC sprawl as it begins to creep into the Poconos, but I find it ironic that by moving further and further out from cities in ever-increasing concentric circles in order to have your own little chunk of "nature" we are making the trek between rural and urban further and further. One can now drive from Portland, Maine southwards to perhaps around Fredericksburg, Virginia (roughly the BosWash Corridor) and travel through a contiguous area of suburban/exurban development over hundreds of miles whereas even just two generations ago there were noticeable gaps between these distinctive metropolitan areas. I may live to see the day when the sprawl becomes so bad that York and Lancaster, PA are officially annexed into the Washington/Baltimore CSA, Allentown/Bethlehem/Easton is officially annexed into either the Philadelphia or NYC areas, and Scranton/Wilkes-Barre is devoured by the NYC CSA. Some people near me commute five-hours round-trip daily to work. That's just asinine.
The solution is simple, reduce the population. Using centralized planning is a bad, bad idea as it puts the power in the hands of corrupt people and drives up costs. We did not have "sprawl" before the automobile and oil, but cities were horrible places to live, as many still are. Today's solution is to decentralize industry and send those desk jobs home. I find suburbia limiting, but a city life is something I could not stand. Living in an apartment is just not worth it.
People live in the 'Burbs because cities are not good places to live and raise a family. This decline has been driven by the breakdown of society & loss of civic life in America. Big issues like homelessness, crime, drugs, gangs and dysfunctional schools that plague the city can all be tied back to this basic erosion in our national character. The rich insulate themselves from these issues with their money, the poor learn to suck it up, the young find the city exciting until they want to settle down. Everyone else leaves.
You want people to return to the cities? Restore the societal & legal obligation for personal responsibility. Strengthen discipline in schools. Bring order to public places & spaces again.
All the smart planning in the world is not going to change the way we build and live until these urban communities can prove they will offer the same sense of security, opportunity and freedom people currently feel they get in the suburbs. People don't live in the burbs because they need a Mcmansion or an SUV, they live here because it is safer, more family friendly and a better place to raise their children.
I live in what USED to be a small town outside Burlington, Vermont. I've always said it's the fastest growing community on the face of the earth.
I really enjoyed reading this post. It's interesting that so much growth is going on in Burlington. I'm curious why you think that's happening when the southeastern area (near Brattleboro) is having the opposite problem. My sister lives near Saxtons River and is worried about a possible job change. She doesn't think she can sell her house because there are a large number of properties for sale, and the whole area seems depressed lately.
Is it a matter of publicity? If Burlington has too many people pouring in, maybe the SE Vermont towns need to advertise in the Burlington papers and funnel some of the crowd down their way. The area's really pretty.
Or, did SE Vermont bring the problem on themselves by making it difficult for new businesses to move in? I remember somebody tried to open an inn there a few years back, and the town council gave them such a hard time they drove the place out of business. Now it's an abandoned building.
The money reaped from these taxes should go towards research of alternative energy sources or to help provide a stipend to help senior citizens on fixed incomes heat their homes---homes that they may lose due to their inability to pay for increasing costs largely associated with the gluttony of the upper-middle-class in squandering our scarce resources.
...of course, if a community used high taxes to force all those "gluttonous upper middle class people" to buy homes in the city, those same senior citizens would be even more likely to lose their homes. Why? Because the price of city real estate would run sky high and those seniors wouldn't be able to pay property taxes. And all those beautiful old houses that you love in Scranton would torn down to build high density luxury condos and parking garages.
Not to mention the thousands of people who would simply build their McMansions outside the taxed community. That would hurt your town's tax base, and make the commutes even longer.
Excellent post, normie; too bad I can't rep you yet. I think you bring up a good point: there are no easy answers. Out my way, jobs are not just coming to the burbs, they are IN the burbs, big time. I like the more decentralized approach. Where is it written that everyone has to work downtown?
I think tallrick made a good point about cities formerly being horrible places to live. In addition to the lovely Victorian homes that ScranBarre and others like to post, there were tenements. Disease was rampant. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia had extremely high tuberculosis rates, from over-crowded living conditions.
I am not anti-city. I lived in two, Denver and Pittsburgh, and I understand the attraction. Both have neighborhoods as nice as anything in the suburbs. In fact, in some cases, you don't know when you're in the city and when you've crossed the line into a burb.
Re: heating homes-there is no doubt that one of the advantages of new homes is that they are more energy-efficient. The older homes were built when energy was even cheaper.
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.
Civic Breakdown = Sprawl
