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.
Also consider that high-density urban areas tend to be WAAAY more expensive, so you have to work more (presumably having more impact on the environment) to afford that hyper-urban home (especially now that you can't just get an infinity dollar mortgage anymore). I never see this get addressed in the mix but it can't be ignored.
The answer is, it depends on whom you ask. Which is why there's still ongoing debate.
Urban areas can be much more expensive if you are trying to find a condo of the same size as a suburban home.
If you try to own two cars in an urban setting it is more expensive, but if you choose to live with one car the extra savings can be upwards of six figures over the lifetime of a mortgage. Even in major coastal cities like San Francisco, Washington and Boston it does not necessairily cost substantially more to live in the city.
There is also a big difference in the price of downtown-style condos compared to denser city neighborhoods with older apartment blocks and smaller single-family homes.
Even if you do live in an urban area and still drive, at least you have many other modes of transportation, unlike most suburbs in the United States.
The suburb where I live has bus service, and people use it! It is a generalization to say that all suburbanites drive everywhere, few people walk (also untrue here), and the like. Most larger ciites have suburban bus service. And if you don't use the public transportation, so what if it's available? You are still polluting if you drive.
I know people in the city who drive to the suburbs to work, as well as people who drive from suburb to city, and burb to burb. This isn't 1950, it's 2008! Jobs have been decentralized, retail has been decentralized, ditto health care.
Also consider that high-density urban areas tend to be WAAAY more expensive, so you have to work more (presumably having more impact on the environment) to afford that hyper-urban home (especially now that you can't just get an infinity dollar mortgage anymore). I never see this get addressed in the mix but it can't be ignored.
The answer is, it depends on whom you ask. Which is why there's still ongoing debate.
I have to agree with Minnehahapolitan on this one. Unless you're trying to live it up in the city with an expensive condo and lifestyle you can afford to live in the city (a dense city) on a smaller budget than in the burbs. I was looking in a MN apartment guide and I found out the average place in Minneapolis usually rented for the same amount--sometimes cheaper--than the burbs. Also, factoring in transportation and resources, I realized I'd spend more to maintain my lifestyle in the burbs than I would in the burbs.
I have to agree with Minnehahapolitan on this one. Unless you're trying to live it up in the city with an expensive condo and lifestyle you can afford to live in the city (a dense city) on a smaller budget than in the burbs. I was looking in a MN apartment guide and I found out the average place in Minneapolis usually rented for the same amount--sometimes cheaper--than the burbs. Also, factoring in transportation and resources, I realized I'd spend more to maintain my lifestyle in the burbs than I would in the burbs.
Perhaps true (only you know for sure), but this is supposed to be a thread about environmental issues, not cost.
The suburb where I live has bus service, and people use it! It is a generalization to say that all suburbanites drive everywhere, few people walk (also untrue here), and the like. Most larger ciites have suburban bus service. And if you don't use the public transportation, so what if it's available? You are still polluting if you drive.
I know people in the city who drive to the suburbs to work, as well as people who drive from suburb to city, and burb to burb. This isn't 1950, it's 2008! Jobs have been decentralized, retail has been decentralized, ditto health care.
Except for some suburbs of Phoenix and Dallas, I can't think of too many suburbs that have no bus service of any sort. People may even choose to take the express bus into work, in Mpls. these buses are over capacity. The same bus stop on a Saturday prob. won't have anyone at it. The true test of a transit system is how it is used at noon on a Sunday. For around the clock bus service, there is a required level of density that most modern suburbs lack. I can only judge places I have seen, and I am at least passingly familiar with most metropolitan areas in the Midwest and East and a couple in the West. Most newer suburbs in these areas lack a critical mass of pedestrian activity. Unless you can get to the stop, wait for fifteen minutes, and get a bus somewhere what one really has is an elaborate shuttle system that cannot be depended on for more than that monotonous commute to a long predetermined place. Again, I can only speak for cities I have seen when I say that most people do not go shopping at Target and walk down the street and through the parking lot to get there. Just as driving and parking is almost prohibitively inconveniet for me, walking to errands or appointments is inconvenient in most (not all, maybe not your) suburbs.
You are correct about Target; the same is true for the Targets in the city such as the one where my daughter who lives in the city (Denver) shops. Ditto Home Depot, grocery stores, etc.
Here, that varies. There is a Target that is technically within the city that gets little pedestrian traffic. There is also a Target downtown that relies exclusively on pedestrians and office workers. Finally, there is a Target in the center of a dense city neighborhood. It has a parking lot, but is also near a train line. People go through the lot on foot because there is a dense, urban area nearby.
I am not anti-suburb, I am against suburban design. It is one thing to have a large home and large lot, but another to segregrate land uses and create superblocks of homes that force residents to drive. One can have a large yard and still have more than a couple trees. It is very possible to create low-density areas that are still walkable.
Most US cities aren't dense at all on a global scale; if the OP is trying to compare the environmental impact of dense cities why is the OP discussing them at all? Denver has a rather small density difference between its suburbs and city, so you wouldn't find much environmental impact differences within the metro.
Square footage used per person is not land use per capita; I'm not sure what square footage per person tells us environmentally.
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.
