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.
What's not on topic? If someone--who happens to live in the country--believes that there's nothing wrong with living in the suburbs, and by extension, might have no problems with the current pattern of sprawl, are they OK with the distinct possibility that their home will become a casualty of that sprawl?
I have no problem with the current patterns of sprawl? Nope. Never said that.
I have no problems with the suburbs. I have a big problem with the sprawl that occurred during the housing boom. It was pure greed from the towns giving out permits like candy, the builders, the speculators. All of it disgusting.
And I know it's hard for some people to understand but not all suburbs are the same. Not all suburbs are horrible sprawl. So it's possible for me to defend other people's choice to live in a suburb and yet believe that SOME places patterns of sprawl were poorly planned.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
Note- I see your last response. Yes I do have something in common with urbanists. It's not change that bothers me. It's people criticizing other people's choices. It's thinking the suburbs are all selfish people driving Hummers. Most people who move to the suburbs are simply looking for a better life. They want to see their money go further. They have absolutely NO say in how a town grows. So I can understand having hatred for the patterns of growth in many places.
I don't see having hatred for the people who live there. Not saying you do, but I'm reading an overall vibe of resentment toward suburbanites. Nobody came to my house in Florida asking my opinion of what they could build. It certainly wasn't supply and demand from the people. I can go off all day on the greed of speculators and how they ruined so many places in Florida.
Last edited by Yankeerose00; 09-04-2011 at 12:33 AM..
What's not on topic? If someone--who happens to live in the country--believes that there's nothing wrong with living in the suburbs, and by extension, might have no problems with the current pattern of sprawl, are they OK with the distinct possibility that their home will become a casualty of that sprawl?
What's not on topic is endless analysis of some posters by unqualified people. This isn't the psychiatric forum; it's supposed to be the Urban Planning forum. We're supposed to be discussing "Seriously, what's wrong with living int the suburbs", not "I think Katiana is afraid of change", etc.
I have no problem with the current patterns of sprawl? Nope. Never said that.
I have no problems with the suburbs. I have a big problem with the sprawl that occurred during the housing boom. It was pure greed from the towns giving out permits like candy, the builders, the speculators. All of it disgusting.
And I know it's hard for some people to understand but not all suburbs are the same. Not all suburbs are horrible sprawl. So it's possible for me to defend other people's choice to live in a suburb and yet believe that SOME places patterns of sprawl were poorly planned.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
Note- I see your last response. Yes I do have something in common with urbanists. It's not change that bothers me. It's people criticizing other people's choices. It's thinking the suburbs are all selfish people driving Hummers. Most people who move to the suburbs are simply looking for a better life. They want to see their money go further. They have absolutely NO say in how a town grows. So I can understand having hatred for the patterns of growth in many places.
I don't see having hatred for the people who live there. Not saying you do, but I'm reading an overall vibe of resentment toward suburbanites. Nobody came to my house in Florida asking my opinion of what they could build. It certainly wasn't supply and demand from the people. I can go off all day on the greed of speculators and how they ruined so many places in Florida.
Generally, I think the people you're debating with here aren't aiming their dislike at the people living in sprawl, but the sprawl itself. (and yes, I'm changing the word I'm using from "suburb" to "sprawl," as that's what most of us are really talking about)
Maybe we should do a better job of explaining why sprawl is bad instead of just saying it is. (IMO, we already are, but I'm sure we could do better) After all, if more people fully understood the negatives of sprawl, they might choose something else. And, if fewer people chose to live in sprawl, maybe developers would think twice before building it.
I have no problem with the current patterns of sprawl? Nope. Never said that.
I have no problems with the suburbs. I have a big problem with the sprawl that occurred during the housing boom. It was pure greed from the towns giving out permits like candy, the builders, the speculators. All of it disgusting.
The suburbs as they exist today are the result of the sprawl that occurred since World War II, which happened primarily because of government regulations, subsidies and programs that made building new suburbs, outward onto greenfield, much easier, and made repairing urban neighborhoods nearly impossible. This resulted in the imbalance we see today: people choose the suburbs, not because they adore the idea of the suburbs, but because it's economically a better decision. But it is only that way because of decisions made when gasoline was cheap, nobody worried about pollution, and the top tax rate in the United States was 90%.
Quote:
And I know it's hard for some people to understand but not all suburbs are the same. Not all suburbs are horrible sprawl. So it's possible for me to defend other people's choice to live in a suburb and yet believe that SOME places patterns of sprawl were poorly planned.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
Nobody here is claiming all suburbs are the same. There are different kinds of suburbs, but the main types can be clumped into "streetcar suburbs" and "auto suburbs." They are separated primarily by the transportation network used during the era of their first construction. Streetcar suburbs tend to be transit-oriented and walkable, while auto suburbs tend to be car-centric and unwalkable. The idea is not to bulldoze the existing suburbs but to start building suburbs the way we used to before the era of big-government subsidy.
Quote:
Note- I see your last response. Yes I do have something in common with urbanists. It's not change that bothers me. It's people criticizing other people's choices. It's thinking the suburbs are all selfish people driving Hummers. Most people who move to the suburbs are simply looking for a better life. They want to see their money go further. They have absolutely NO say in how a town grows. So I can understand having hatred for the patterns of growth in many places.
Which is why the point of these "new urbanism" folks is not going around telling people in the suburbs that they're bad people, but changing the policies that regulate how a town grows. It's not about hatred at all, it's about the land use decisions we make in the coming decades.
Streetcar suburbs tend to be transit-oriented and walkable, while auto suburbs tend to be car-centric and unwalkable. The idea is not to bulldoze the existing suburbs but to start building suburbs the way we used to before the era of big-government subsidy.
And before anyone goes into how transit is a big-government subsidy - in the day of streetcar suburbs, transit systems were private enterprises. They only stopped being competitive as private enterprises when the government got into subsidizing highway construction.
nd yes, I'm changing the word I'm using from "suburb" to "sprawl," as that's what most of us are really talking about)
I think this makes a world of difference. Suburb and sprawl are two very different beasts, especially on the east coast. There are tons of neighborhoods that are, for all intents and purposes, the suburbs, however they are nothing close to sprawl.
When the suburbs are being bashed, you are talking about people's homes and their lives. It's very easy to see how they would get offended. If you change the word from "suburb" to "sprawl" and "poor planning" you are now shifting the blame from the residents to the planners, builders, towns, and you are going to see many people like myself getting less offended.
I don't know about other places, but in Florida, sprawl was built based on pure speculation. Not any kind of demand from the people. It was very much a "if you build it, they will come" mindset which is why to this day, there are loads of condos, and subdivisions of homes that were never sold. Some were never finished being built. Builders were giving all kinds of rebates to people to get them to buy a house. You can see how for a struggling person, moving to a warmer and cheaper state was very appealing. People moved trying to make a better life for their family. It's not the people's job to think of whether something was poorly planned or not. We rely on our well paid, and in some cases overpaid county and city planners to do that. I do my job. They need to do theirs.
When the suburbs are being bashed, you are talking about people's homes and their lives.
The "little city urchins" have homes and lives too.
Quote:
It's not the people's job to think of whether something was poorly planned or not. We rely on our well paid, and in some cases overpaid county and city planners to do that.
This statement pretty much covers why we get what we get, and why we are where we are as a nation and a society. This mentality only brings us down.
I did not read 500 posts. I think sprawl may be decided by the surrounding area. I live in Illinois. If you look closely it has large bodies of water around it and it is divided by a large river. With the exception of the PLains there is many natural and large green areas, forests and lakes, streams. and smaller rivers that flood from time to time. And we have pecan groves, oil fields, and 78,000 families that on an average farm 1000 acres. It leaves little room for cities too grow. Most of the inland communities are built in a square flat grid. However Peoria is the largest and oldest community on the Illinois River. The county that surrounds it sprawls 50 miles. within its own border. This not a flat county. There are ten major hills plus heave foliage. Between the city and county planning and zones, the growth, green space, subdivisions and commercial expansion has been shaped for many years. The end result has been a reasonably well balanced mix of living space, green space and business. Large commercial ventures are located several miles outside of the city limits. The old warehouse district is being converted into eco friendly lofts, green spaces and walkable areas. Time take time to pass. I believe the city is moving in the right directlon, albeit slowly considering the economy.
The "little city urchins" have homes and lives too.
go back and read that sentence in context. The word urchin was referring to the people who bash all suburbs and the people living in them. calling them greedy, selfish, materialistic people.
You said those people aren't here anymore. I said, I'm waiting for them to come back. And if it sounds better, let me change the word urchin to @sshole. Anyone who wants to make sweeping generalizations about the suburbs and the people who move there are @ssholes.
I have lots of family who still live in the city. I was born in a city. I would never mock on a person for simply living in a city. It's when they don't respect other people's choices to not live in a city that I have a big problem with them.
Quote:
This statement pretty much covers why we get what we get, and why we are where we are as a nation and a society. This mentality only brings us down.
You get what you put in. Put in nothing, you'll get nothing.
Not clear on this. You think that it's the residents job as well as the planners to plan how a town is built? Most of the time, the town is already built when the people move there.
I can tell you with Florida, there were LOTS of protests to building. They built anyway. It was actually pretty pitiful at how much the towns didn't care what people thought. Lots of people would show up at town meetings to protest more growth and it didn't make a difference. It got to be that the town meetings were more a formality to make the residents think they had a say in things, when really they didn't. Sprawl and poor planning falls squarely on the shoulders of the people who make the decisions.
I did not read 500 posts. I think sprawl may be decided by the surrounding area. I live in Illinois. If you look closely it has large bodies of water around it and it is divided by a large river. With the exception of the PLains there is many natural and large green areas, forests and lakes, streams. and smaller rivers that flood from time to time. And we have pecan groves, oil fields, and 78,000 families that on an average farm 1000 acres. It leaves little room for cities too grow. Most of the inland communities are built in a square flat grid. However Peoria is the largest and oldest community on the Illinois River. The county that surrounds it sprawls 50 miles. within its own border. This not a flat county. There are ten major hills plus heave foliage. Between the city and county planning and zones, the growth, green space, subdivisions and commercial expansion has been shaped for many years. The end result has been a reasonably well balanced mix of living space, green space and business. Large commercial ventures are located several miles outside of the city limits. The old warehouse district is being converted into eco friendly lofts, green spaces and walkable areas. Time take time to pass. I believe the city is moving in the right directlon, albeit slowly considering the economy.
Nice to know that there are some places that know how to grow without decimating everything around them. It's so obvious when a town has been well planned and growth has come slowly over time. As opposed to a town that sprung up what feel like overnight. Where I grew up in New Jersey is like this. The town has grown, but has very strict building codes. All growth has been kept on the highway that runs through town. When I go back I see farms that have been there since I was a child. They've done a great job at keeping the town's character.
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.
