Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 09-16-2008, 07:24 AM
 
Location: Home is where the heart is
15,402 posts, read 28,848,410 times
Reputation: 19090

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
I'm anti-urban as I noted earlier. It would be better if the population were not so high and such large cities did not emerge, as they can never be contained. Cities inevitably create sprawl. The sprawl is the result of cities and will destroy us in the end.
OK, I think I got it. Your gripe isn't really against sprawl per se, it's against a growing population. You'd prefer the population to return to pre-industrial revolution levels, when most people were farmers and much of the country was frontier.

This is an interesting point of view. How would you like to see this done? Eliminating immigration, I presume, and probably also forced exodus of anyone who was born in a foreign country.

Also, I would imagine you'd want a law similar to the Chinese ban on having more than one child per married couple. And, like the Chinese, you'd have to have mandatory abortions for anyone who gets pregnant under the age of 21.

Maybe we could stop medical science from working to cure cancer. Prolonging lives just populates the world even more--nature meant for us to live about 40 years, and then make room for someone else. Natural tragedies like earthquakes and hurricanes would be hailed as "sad" but also "nature's way of reducing the population."

I don't know, this seems a little alarmist and extreme to me. Which is also how I feel about most of the issues people worry about when it comes to urban sprawl. But, I guess we all have different ideas of paradise. Personally, I prefer living in the present, not in the harsh world of the frontier (even though that was a time of abundant undeveloped land). I think the world can sustain it's growing population, and that it'll be a few centuries before we really have to worry about having no land to grow enough food for everyone. By then we will have figured out smarter farming and harvesting techniques.

Last edited by normie; 09-16-2008 at 07:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-16-2008, 07:35 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,376,086 times
Reputation: 11329
Quote:
Originally Posted by normie View Post
OK, I think I got it. Your gripe isn't really against sprawl per se, it's against a growing population. You'd prefer the population to return to pre-industrial revolution levels, when most people were farmers and much of the country was frontier.

This is an interesting point of view. How would you like to see this done? Eliminating immigration, I presume, and probably also forced exodus of anyone who was born in a foreign country.

Also, I would imagine you'd want a law similar to the Chinese ban on having more than one child per married couple. And, like the Chinese, you'd have to have mandatory abortions for anyone who gets pregnant under the age of 21.

Maybe we could stop medical science from working to cure cancer. Prolonging lives just populates the world even more--nature meant for us to live about 40 years, and then make room for someone else. Natural tragedies like earthquakes and hurricanes would be hailed as "sad" but also "nature's way of reducing the population."

I don't know, this seems a little alarmist and extreme to me. Which is also how I feel about most of the issues people worry about when it comes to urban sprawl. But, I guess we all have different ideas of paradise. Personally, I prefer living in the present, not in the harsh world of the frontier (even though that was a time of abundant undeveloped land). I think the world can sustain it's growing population, and that it'll be a few centuries before we really have to worry about having no land to grow enough food for everyone. By then we will have figured out smarter farming and harvesting techniques.
Modern agricultural methods are heavily reliant on petroleum. In fact without it there wouldn't be modern agriculture. For chemicals, fuel to run equipment, long distances to transport food, etc. As peak oil reduces the available oil it will start to fall apart and yields will be reduced greatly. I'm anti-abortion, just so you know, and the Chinese one child policy didn't really work. It may very well be that urban sprawl is what's gotten me worried over the population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Home is where the heart is
15,402 posts, read 28,848,410 times
Reputation: 19090
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Modern agricultural methods are heavily reliant on petroleum. In fact without it there wouldn't be modern agriculture. For chemicals, fuel to run equipment, long distances to transport food, etc. As peak oil reduces the available oil it will start to fall apart and yields will be reduced greatly.
Well, in that case I'm really thankful to own a small bit of land here in the 'burbs. I have a large vegetable garden. I built it because cooking and gardening are my hobbies... but hey, according to this scenario, I might need it!

Actually, I do have a few ridiculously abundant fruit trees and zucchini plants, so I produce enough that I could survive. It wouldn't be a healthy diet, but just in case the world's food supply comes to a halt due to petroleum shortages, I'm ok.

Just one more reason to thank god for my property out in the suburbs. If I was crammed into some high density concrete jungle, I'd be the first to starve. You can't grow much more than a single tomato plant from the balcony of an apartment building. And out here in the suburbs we have plenty of deer. Good news for me--if the world did have a desparate food shortage, I'd have a source of protein.

Anyway... I did want to say that I'm happy you've found a perfect solution. A self-sustaining piece of land in Alaska will keep you far away from urban sprawl. Your piece of paradise will probably never become over populated. It sounds like you'll find great happiness there. Congratulations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
2,290 posts, read 5,529,571 times
Reputation: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScranBarre View Post
Those who have known me since I joined this forum way back in mid-2006 have become accustomed to my occasional rantings on the issue of urban sprawl. I have seen firsthand in my own area how the flight of the middle-class from urban cores can decimate once-vibrant neighborhoods and lead to congestion and deforestation in newly-developing suburban areas. As energy prices continue to climb I think it will become less and less feasible for the trend of expanding our exurbs further and further away from our cities to continue. Here in the Poconos the growth in Monroe and Pike Counties has ebbed considerably over the past two years as people weigh the economic benefits of paying less for a home with the economic woes of paying so much for a four-hour round-trip commute into Manhattan as well as the sociocultural woes of not having enough time due to the aforementioned power-commutes to connect with the community.

What are others' opinions on this issue?
In my opinion, urban sprawl is predicated upon the prevalence of social division. There was a time when only the poorest lived in the wooded and country areas outside of our cities. However, as society progressed in terms opening up economic, educational and occupational opportunities, our living patterns changed. We realized that the if the laws didn't mandate who could live next to whom, then some of us would move farther away from our economic centers while doing whatever was necessary to ensure that the ability for mass transit did not follow. Well the plan worked. But was it really a good one?

Here in the metropolitan Atlanta area, there are still millions of people who would gladly endure a 4-hour round trip commute as long as it meant that they didn't have to live near too many of [these or those people]. Silly? Yes. Financially foolish? I think so. A detriment to the rest of society? Definitely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,088 posts, read 5,334,087 times
Reputation: 1621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
I can only speak with any knowledge about my region - and here, there is little farming - nothing but desert.

Two of AZ's cities, Phoenix and Tucson are actually growing towards one another - eventually, they will touch
And don't forget the northward spread towards Flagstaff! How many miles North of Phoenix, proper, is Anthem? The next "big" development will no doubt be even further north. . . we are looking at (at least 3 counties) strung together as a continuous "city" in the not too far distant future!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,244,119 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by normie View Post

So you're opinion is that inner city parents spend more time going to PTA meetings than suburban parents? That's an interesting thought. My observation has been the opposite, but maybe that's just life in Virginia. Does anyone have statistics on PTA attendance?
I don't have statistics, but my observations are the same as yours, normie. The same holds true for sporting events. When my DD played interscholasatic 8th grade soccer, she had one game at a school that would be considered "inner-city" for Boulder, CO. Even though it was at least 10 miles from our town of Louisville, CO, there were more parents from Louisville there than from the home school. The suburban schools tend to have more active PTAs as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backfist View Post
In my opinion, urban sprawl is predicated upon the prevalence of social division. There was a time when only the poorest lived in the wooded and country areas outside of our cities.

Have you ever been to Franklin Roosevelt's boyhood home in Hyde Park, NY? Its location fits the above perfectly, and he was not poor by any means. Many people had a "country home". The fabulously wealthy Heinz family in Pittsburgh lived on a farm in Fox Chapel, which is now owned by Theresa Heinz Kerry.

However, as society progressed in terms opening up economic, educational and occupational opportunities, our living patterns changed. We realized that the if the laws didn't mandate who could live next to whom, then some of us would move farther away from our economic centers while doing whatever was necessary to ensure that the ability for mass transit did not follow. Well the plan worked. But was it really a good one?

I really don't know where you're getting that. I grew up in an old "Streetcar Suburb", the kind that were served by public transportation. It was not considered desirable in the Pittsburgh area to live close to the mills. Many who could afford to, include lots of millworkers, moved to the burbs. Chicago has excellent public transportation out to the burbs, as does Denver.

Here in the metropolitan Atlanta area, there are still millions of people who would gladly endure a 4-hour round trip commute as long as it meant that they didn't have to live near too many of [these or those people]. Silly? Yes. Financially foolish? I think so. A detriment to the rest of society? Definitely.
I don't know why the motives of those who moved out should be impugned like that. Some just wanted a more "country" environmnet. Some wanted better schools for their kids. There are many motives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Atlanta, GA
2,290 posts, read 5,529,571 times
Reputation: 800
Katiana, I hear what you're saying about suburban choices. Heck, once upon a time I moved my family from the Wash Park area to Highlands Ranch. So I'm definitely not trying to impugn those who choose a suburban lifestyle. I currently live in suburban Atlanta and wouldn't have it any other way.

I was speaking to urban sprawl from a purely historical perspective.

Again, I did not mean to offend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Montana
1,219 posts, read 3,158,563 times
Reputation: 687
The aggravating part about urban sprawl is the effects it has on the people who lived in the areas overcome by growth before the growth started. I hear people talking about how "nice" a place is, then it's "we really need one of these like we had back home", and next thing you know, you have cookie cutter towns with the same restaurants, same stores, same street names, everything. Bye bye farms, ranches, mom and pop shops, etc... hello wal mart, crime and people looking for handouts.

Some might not think it's fair that people live in small towns and have the lifestyle they want. I say it's not fair for people to move in by the tens of thousands and change someone ELSES home into something it wasn't meant to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,244,119 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by backfist View Post
Katiana, I hear what you're saying about suburban choices. Heck, once upon a time I moved my family from the Wash Park area to Highlands Ranch. So I'm definitely not trying to impugn those who choose a suburban lifestyle. I currently live in suburban Atlanta and wouldn't have it any other way.

I was speaking to urban sprawl from a purely historical perspective.

Again, I did not mean to offend.
No offense taken. And yes, I am familiar with "white flight", but that is not the only reason people moved to the burbs in the 50s/60s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2008, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Home is where the heart is
15,402 posts, read 28,848,410 times
Reputation: 19090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timberwolf232 View Post
Some might not think it's fair that people live in small towns and have the lifestyle they want. I say it's not fair for people to move in by the tens of thousands and change someone ELSES home into something it wasn't meant to be.
Why not bring this up at a town council meeting? Towns have a certain amount of power in this regard. For instance, they can pass restrictions against businesses of a certain size, or businesses that are part of a chain. The citizens of Cleveland Heights, Ohio had a restriction for several decades that there would be no fast food restaurants in their town (eventually they changed their mind, but that's another story).
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top