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.
I must say that I'm even more of an anti-sprawl activist today than I was as recently as yesterday, when an event further soured my opinion of the suburbs. While on my daily 5-mile run yesterday, which was a pretty warm and muggy day, I noticed that I was experiencing shortness of breath and having coughing fits so hard my stomach hurt. At first I just thought I might have been overdoing it, but then I looked around me and saw air pollution wafting by from the passing tractor-trailers that was likely infiltrating my lungs and making it difficult for me to breathe. Sometimes the air in my subdivision just reeks of diesel exhaust fumes and gasoline, and we have to keep our windows shut. Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, along with Pittsburgh, are two PA cities that are consistently ranked rather poor in air quality, as we're sandwiched between the BosWash commuter corridor and their CO2 emissions from the traffic, as well as the coal burning plants in the Ohio River Valley. Both seem to waft right over parts of PA, and where I live in the Wyoming Valley, a lot of it tends to just "linger" here.
What good are the suburbs if you can't even breathe in them? I'm not going on my runs today or tomorrow because it's going to be near 90 degrees, and I don't want to risk coughing up a lung again. Suburbs promote traffic congestion, which promotes air pollution, which detracts from our overall quality-of-life. I feel healthier running around the tree-lined neighborhoods of inner-city Scranton than I do running near the treeless four-lane commuter belt in front of my home. Suburbanites increase our dependency upon foreign fossil fuels, as residents here need to drive everywhere for everything, often appreciable distances. They often drive inefficient vehicles as "status symbols" (Hummers, Land Rovers, Escalades, etc.), and these vehicles emit enough CO2 to detract from our air quality. It has been proven that suburbanites tend to be heftier than city-dwellers because they are less-inclined (or incapable) of walking anywhere to get some exercise. There's just so many "cons" of living in our suburbs in PA that I don't know why the cities continue to decline as horribly as they have been in terms of population. Since when did smog become "fashionable?"
I must say that I'm even more of an anti-sprawl activist today than I was as recently as yesterday, when an event further soured my opinion of the suburbs. While on my daily 5-mile run yesterday, which was a pretty warm and muggy day, I noticed that I was experiencing shortness of breath and having coughing fits so hard my stomach hurt. At first I just thought I might have been overdoing it, but then I looked around me and saw air pollution wafting by from the passing tractor-trailers that was likely infiltrating my lungs and making it difficult for me to breathe. Sometimes the air in my subdivision just reeks of diesel exhaust fumes and gasoline, and we have to keep our windows shut. Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, along with Pittsburgh, are two PA cities that are consistently ranked rather poor in air quality, as we're sandwiched between the BosWash commuter corridor and their CO2 emissions from the traffic, as well as the coal burning plants in the Ohio River Valley. Both seem to waft right over parts of PA, and where I live in the Wyoming Valley, a lot of it tends to just "linger" here.
What good are the suburbs if you can't even breathe in them? I'm not going on my runs today or tomorrow because it's going to be near 90 degrees, and I don't want to risk coughing up a lung again. Suburbs promote traffic congestion, which promotes air pollution, which detracts from our overall quality-of-life. I feel healthier running around the tree-lined neighborhoods of inner-city Scranton than I do running near the treeless four-lane commuter belt in front of my home. Suburbanites increase our dependency upon foreign fossil fuels, as residents here need to drive everywhere for everything, often appreciable distances. They often drive inefficient vehicles as "status symbols" (Hummers, Land Rovers, Escalades, etc.), and these vehicles emit enough CO2 to detract from our air quality. It has been proven that suburbanites tend to be heftier than city-dwellers because they are less-inclined (or incapable) of walking anywhere to get some exercise. There's just so many "cons" of living in our suburbs in PA that I don't know why the cities continue to decline as horribly as they have been in terms of population. Since when did smog become "fashionable?"
some of what you might be seeing and feeling there could be carbon MONoxide, NOx, SOx, ozone, particulates (soot, e.g.), and some of their byproducts from the coal plants and the exhaust.
so what do you think goes into that? what's good and bad about it? is it more bad than good? what can be done about some of the bad?
More redevelopment needs to occur closer to the urban core. However, this will likely take a long time because many of the neighborhoods are quite old and not in good repair. I would also like the KC metro build more higher-end apertments, condos, and ranch houses closer to where people actually live in the suburbs. With gas prices increasing rapidly it be a good idea to increase the overall density of an area that is close to where many of the jobs, shops, and restaurants are located. Kansas City does not receive a lot of in-migration compared to other cities so the gentrification process in many of the older neighborhoods has been a very slow process if it has happened at all. Another factor leading to sprawl is that land prices were cheap, which allowed the suburban sprawl to continue.
Overall, I would like to see higher densities in suburban and urban areas with decent amounts of green space. I would also like to see impact fees implemented and have some exurban areas near the city zoned agricultural so that low density suburban sprawl would not be promoted as easily.
More redevelopment needs to occur closer to the urban core. However, this will likely take a long time because many of the neighborhoods are quite old and not in good repair. I would also like the KC metro build more higher-end apertments, condos, and ranch houses closer to where people actually live in the suburbs. With gas prices increasing rapidly it be a good idea to increase the overall density of an area that is close to where many of the jobs, shops, and restaurants are located. Kansas City does not receive a lot of in-migration compared to other cities so the gentrification process in many of the older neighborhoods has been a very slow process if it has happened at all. Another factor leading to sprawl is that land prices were cheap, which allowed the suburban sprawl to continue.
Overall, I would like to see higher densities in suburban and urban areas with decent amounts of green space. I would also like to see impact fees implemented and have some exurban areas near the city zoned agricultural so that low density suburban sprawl would not be promoted as easily.
is gentrification necessarily good? what can we - you, i, anyone else - do about the bad parts of sprawl that you say exist?
is gentrification necessarily good? what can we - you, i, anyone else - do about the bad parts of sprawl that you say exist?
That is really a tough question. A lot of the suburban sprawl is the result of developers and city planning commissions. Many of these cities are backed by pro-development people who think that the "growth at all costs method" seems to be a good idea. Maybe individuals should elect people to local government that represent their interests more when it comes to development issues and suburban sprawl. Another good idea would be not to move to far out suburbs or exurban areas unless it is absolutely necessary. A lot of homes in these outer-ring suburbs are cookie cutter houses anyway and built with cheap materials. In the end, the citizens make the decisions about where they want to live in relation to their jobs, schools, and other factors. My main concern that I am seeing right now in the KC metro area is in regards to the real estate market. More homes continue to be built in outer-ring suburbs while many homes in the inner-ring suburbs are up for sale and not selling fast at all. The supply and demand ratios do not seem to be very compatible considering that the slowing observed nationally in real estate.
I must say that I'm even more of an anti-sprawl activist today than I was as recently as yesterday, when an event further soured my opinion of the suburbs. While on my daily 5-mile run yesterday, which was a pretty warm and muggy day, I noticed that I was experiencing shortness of breath and having coughing fits so hard my stomach hurt. At first I just thought I might have been overdoing it, but then I looked around me and saw air pollution wafting by from the passing tractor-trailers that was likely infiltrating my lungs and making it difficult for me to breathe. Sometimes the air in my subdivision just reeks of diesel exhaust fumes and gasoline, and we have to keep our windows shut. Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, along with Pittsburgh, are two PA cities that are consistently ranked rather poor in air quality, as we're sandwiched between the BosWash commuter corridor and their CO2 emissions from the traffic, as well as the coal burning plants in the Ohio River Valley. Both seem to waft right over parts of PA, and where I live in the Wyoming Valley, a lot of it tends to just "linger" here.
What good are the suburbs if you can't even breathe in them? I'm not going on my runs today or tomorrow because it's going to be near 90 degrees, and I don't want to risk coughing up a lung again. Suburbs promote traffic congestion, which promotes air pollution, which detracts from our overall quality-of-life. I feel healthier running around the tree-lined neighborhoods of inner-city Scranton than I do running near the treeless four-lane commuter belt in front of my home. Suburbanites increase our dependency upon foreign fossil fuels, as residents here need to drive everywhere for everything, often appreciable distances. They often drive inefficient vehicles as "status symbols" (Hummers, Land Rovers, Escalades, etc.), and these vehicles emit enough CO2 to detract from our air quality. It has been proven that suburbanites tend to be heftier than city-dwellers because they are less-inclined (or incapable) of walking anywhere to get some exercise. There's just so many "cons" of living in our suburbs in PA that I don't know why the cities continue to decline as horribly as they have been in terms of population. Since when did smog become "fashionable?"
I know that we disagree in the Pennsylvania forum about migration into NEPA, and I disagree with your assertion here. What goes on in the Ohio Valley and the megalopolis has very little, if anything, to do with the air quality in the Wyoming Valley. First of all, the prevailing wind direction is usually west-to-east across the United States. Therefore, air, that you miraculously traced to a source 120-250 miles away from where you live, and could visibly see yourself breathing, probably had little, if anything, to do with why you had trouble breathing. You, yourself, admitted that it was a muggy day, and that you were surrounded by trucks, which could very likely explain why you were out of breath.
I don't know why you are so anti-suburban. It seems that as a result of the plight of Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, due largely to movement to outside of the area, and the resultant decay, has caused you to become the top anti-sprawl agent. Suburbanites are NOT the problem. I wish people would stop blaming people who move into homes to experience better quality of life for their families, and better schools for their kids, as being the impetus behind sprawl. I believe that people in these communities are smart enough to decided if the "suburban style" lifestyle is working for them, and to act accordingly if that's the case. It's the developers who should be blamed for urban sprawl, not the suburbanites. Many Americans believe that the American Dream can be achieved in suburbs, and establish lives in suburban communities. If people have trouble performing functions as routine as breathing in suburban communities, why do people continue to move there? Obviously, it's not as much of a problem as you make it out to be.
This is America, if people want to drive gas guzzlers and pay $50.00 at filling stations, they have the right to do so. When it becomes an issue for them, they'll trade their cars in for something cheaper. When driving on congested freeways and driving 10 minutes to a mall becomes unattractive, people will move to a walkable neighborhoods. Just because you, and others on here might not be attracted to neighborhoods like this, doesn't make them problem areas. Why should people who drive Land Rovers or Escalades care about our dependency on foreign oil, or gas prices? They shouldn't. This is America. If you're tired of the way our suburbs are designed, or our dependency on oil, you can always leave .
Lastly, you say it has been proven that suburbanites are heftier than urban residents. Who has proven this? Can you provides links? I highly doubt residents of Scottsdale weigh more than residents of Phoenix. I doubt that residents of Mahwah weigh more than residents of NYC. I dobut the residents of El Cerrito weigh more than residents of San Francisco. Public transportation does not make people skinny. Believe it or not, overweight people do exist in walkable cities. Philadelphia, a very walkable city, has high rates of obesity than Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Miami, all very car-oriented locales. Your logic is flawed, American people are more complex than you make them out to be, and aren't nearly as predictable.
I know that we disagree in the Pennsylvania forum about migration into NEPA, and I disagree with your assertion here. What goes on in the Ohio Valley and the megalopolis has very little, if anything, to do with the air quality in the Wyoming Valley. First of all, the prevailing wind direction is usually west-to-east across the United States. Therefore, air, that you miraculously traced to a source 120-250 miles away from where you live, and could visibly see yourself breathing, probably had little, if anything, to do with why you had trouble breathing. You, yourself, admitted that it was a muggy day, and that you were surrounded by trucks, which could very likely explain why you were out of breath.
>> first, i would personally not characterize an assertion of influence of air quality in a place west of a place that is east "miraculous", whether or not it is within hundreds of miles, and it seems worth noting that you do mention "prevailing wind direction is usually west-to-east" which, in general terms, is roughly correct. second, hot and muggy as well as automotive exhaust can and do conspire in ways that SWB describes.
I don't know why you are so anti-suburban. It seems that as a result of the plight of Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, due largely to movement to outside of the area, and the resultant decay, has caused you to become the top anti-sprawl agent. Suburbanites are NOT the problem. I wish people would stop blaming people who move into homes to experience better quality of life for their families, and better schools for their kids, as being the impetus behind sprawl. I believe that people in these communities are smart enough to decided if the "suburban style" lifestyle is working for them, and to act accordingly if that's the case. It's the developers who should be blamed for urban sprawl, not the suburbanites. Many Americans believe that the American Dream can be achieved in suburbs, and establish lives in suburban communities. If people have trouble performing functions as routine as breathing in suburban communities, why do people continue to move there? Obviously, it's not as much of a problem as you make it out to be.
>> to say suburbanites are unequivocally "not the problem" sounds rather presumptuous and absolute, almost as though you are unwilling to consider the potential contribution of suburbanites to sprawl and to pollution. don't get me wrong: i for one don't place wholesale blame on suburbanites, myself. but, i also don't completely discount the possibility of some responsibility or causality there.
This is America, if people want to drive gas guzzlers and pay $50.00 at filling stations, they have the right to do so. When it becomes an issue for them, they'll trade their cars in for something cheaper. When driving on congested freeways and driving 10 minutes to a mall becomes unattractive, people will move to a walkable neighborhoods. Just because you, and others on here might not be attracted to neighborhoods like this, doesn't make them problem areas. Why should people who drive Land Rovers or Escalades care about our dependency on foreign oil, or gas prices? They shouldn't. This is America. If you're tired of the way our suburbs are designed, or our dependency on oil, you can always leave .
>> a) perhaps some of the "unattractive" you allude to is already happening and thus this thread? b) yes, in America, people have the right to drive gas guzzling vehicles and spend $50 at a gas pump and so i suspect that you will agree that in America, people also have the right to critique it and potentially legislate around it if it is perceived as a violation and ultimately becoming a legitimate violation. c) it's not like the supreme court did not recently decide on CO2 as a pollutant, so, who knows, while you suggest the self-extradition of SWB, maybe the day is not so far off when the "pollution" of someone like yourself or others might result in enforced extraditions of sorts?
Lastly, you say it has been proven that suburbanites are heftier than urban residents. Who has proven this? Can you provides links? I highly doubt residents of Scottsdale weigh more than residents of Phoenix. I doubt that residents of Mahwah weigh more than residents of NYC. I dobut the residents of El Cerrito weigh more than residents of San Francisco. Public transportation does not make people skinny. Believe it or not, overweight people do exist in walkable cities. Philadelphia, a very walkable city, has high rates of obesity than Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Miami, all very car-oriented locales. Your logic is flawed, American people are more complex than you make them out to be, and aren't nearly as predictable.
>> first, i would personally not characterize an assertion of influence of air quality in a place west of a place that is east "miraculous", whether or not it is within hundreds of miles, and it seems worth noting that you do mention "prevailing wind direction is usually west-to-east" which, in general terms, is roughly correct. second, hot and muggy as well as automotive exhaust can and do conspire in ways that SWB describes.
There is no argument that the exhaust fumes from a nearby trucks, combined with muggy weather could cause shortness of breath. My assertion is that you cannot automatically pin pollution from sources hundreds of miles away as being the responsible agent, especially when pollution from an easterly location will not "waft" west, when the wind is blowing in a westerly direction. Air does not flow east and west at the same time. Exhaust from cars hundreds of miles away does not greatly diminish your air quality. Simply stating that the combination of nearby trucks and weather conditions, could easily explain health conditions.
Quote:
>> to say suburbanites are unequivocally "not the problem" sounds rather presumptuous and absolute, almost as though you are unwilling to consider the potential contribution of suburbanites to sprawl and to pollution. don't get me wrong: i for one don't place wholesale blame on suburbanites, myself. but, i also don't completely discount the possibility of some responsibility or causality there.
Suburbanites are not the problem. Their environments are socially-constructed by outside forces. The Range Rovers, Chevy Tahoes, Escalades, etc. are fuel-inefficient, not because of suburbanites, but because auto companies choose not to produce these SUV's to be more fuel efficient. They are often not allowed to do so, as many of the car companies have ties with oil companies. More fuel-efficient SUV's would reduce profits for oil companies. Suburbanites do not choose the set up of their communities, in which they hop on overloaded freeways to access their communities. Developers decide where communities are going to be built, and people simply move there. If you want to make more walkable cities, have municipalities regulate developers on where they can build. If you want to pin air quality problems of anybody, pin it on the car companies for building emissions heavy, fuel inefficient vehicles. People will drive what they are provided. If the U.S. was SO concerned with emissions and fuel prices, they would coordinate with auto companies to not only make fuel efficient cars, but SUV's as well. I'm sure if hybrid Suburbans and Tahoes were constructed, people would drive those. For the time being, we drive what we want and live where we want, and you cannot blame us.
Quote:
a) perhaps some of the "unattractive" you allude to is already happening and thus this thread? b) yes, in America, people have the right to drive gas guzzling vehicles and spend $50 at a gas pump and so i suspect that you will agree that in America, people also have the right to critique it and potentially legislate around it if it is perceived as a violation and ultimately becoming a legitimate violation. c) it's not like the supreme court did not recently decide on CO2 as a pollutant, so, who knows, while you suggest the self-extradition of SWB, maybe the day is not so far off when the "pollution" of someone like yourself or others might result in enforced extraditions of sorts
Believe me, if suburbanization was that unattractive, you would see a lot more vocalization by suburban residents. A thread on a message board hardly constitutes the general consensus on sprawl. If you look at Phoenix, Atlanta, and Los Angeles, you will still see a high percentage of growth, primarily in suburban communities. Those communties often are sprawling, but they're still adding residents. Why would people move into communities that they find unattractive?
Lastly, thank you for providing a link. I still don't see where the article says that suburban residents weigh more than city residents, which the originally poster so bodly asserted.
There is no argument that the exhaust fumes from a nearby trucks, combined with muggy weather could cause shortness of breath. My assertion is that you cannot automatically pin pollution from sources hundreds of miles away as being the responsible agent, especially when pollution from an easterly location will not "waft" west, when the wind is blowing in a westerly direction. Air does not flow east and west at the same time. Exhaust from cars hundreds of miles away does not greatly diminish your air quality. Simply stating that the combination of nearby trucks and weather conditions, could easily explain health conditions.
>> the previous posts mention both the bost-wash corridore and the ohio valley, and it appears that you are simply focusing on the bostwash corridore (here at least). not to mention that, while averaged winds may tend to be wesst to east in general (having a bit to do with altitude among some other things), things can and do "waft" east to west, locally and regionally. some exhaust from cars DOES result in transport around the globe, in fact. CO2 - now considered a "pollutant" - as well as some other exhaust gases are well mixed and tend to reside for a long time, for example, thus wafting in many directions for great distances.
Suburbanites are not the problem. Their environments are socially-constructed by outside forces. The Range Rovers, Chevy Tahoes, Escalades, etc. are fuel-inefficient, not because of suburbanites, but because auto companies choose not to produce these SUV's to be more fuel efficient. They are often not allowed to do so, as many of the car companies have ties with oil companies. More fuel-efficient SUV's would reduce profits for oil companies. Suburbanites do not choose the set up of their communities, in which they hop on overloaded freeways to access their communities. Developers decide where communities are going to be built, and people simply move there. If you want to make more walkable cities, have municipalities regulate developers on where they can build. If you want to pin air quality problems of anybody, pin it on the car companies for building emissions heavy, fuel inefficient vehicles. People will drive what they are provided. If the U.S. was SO concerned with emissions and fuel prices, they would coordinate with auto companies to not only make fuel efficient cars, but SUV's as well. I'm sure if hybrid Suburbans and Tahoes were constructed, people would drive those. For the time being, we drive what we want and live where we want, and you cannot blame us.
>> auto companies can and do influence people's choices, and vice versa. the federal government can shape market forces, while sometimes (often?) looking the other way in the face of industrial lobbying interests. and while you mention oil and auto ties, i agree that can be there, as can perhaps another few links in this web - oil and government, people and immediate gratification, and people and whom they elect and what they chose to buy or lobby for themselves. so could some of these "social constructs" or "outside forces" that suburbanites are not inextricable from be having anything to do with suburbia?
Believe me, if suburbanization was that unattractive, you would see a lot more vocalization by suburban residents. A thread on a message board hardly constitutes the general consensus on sprawl. If you look at Phoenix, Atlanta, and Los Angeles, you will still see a high percentage of growth, primarily in suburban communities. Those communties often are sprawling, but they're still adding residents. Why would people move into communities that they find unattractive?
>> perhaps this might be considered support for some arguements that suburbanites can be part of the problem. in other words, if they (some suburbanites) don't see it (the unattractive), and others do, then maybe they can be part of the problem, for instance. personally, i am not saying they are. and some of the cities you use as examples can actually be associated with suburbanites that DO complan about the sprawl of their cities. why move into an unattractive community? for some, maybe because economics forces you to, or maybe for others because that's just "what to do" - perhaps in part due to some commercial, policy, or peer influences - for example?
Lastly, thank you for providing a link. I still don't see where the article says that suburban residents weigh more than city residents, which the originally poster so bodly asserted.
>> your welcome! and thank you for sharing YOUR insights. the linked article states that RAND found that obesity and suburbanization can be correlated. you'll probably see it if you go back and read it again.
>> again, don't get me wrong. i am not tagging the blame wholely on any one particular. yet, it seems to me like you are seeking to remove the blame from some select particulars that we might not want to keep out of it.
One need not look further than to compare Montage Mountain, in the Scranton suburb of Moosic, with the downtown of the city itself, just a few miles away, to see just how wasteful and unnecessary urban sprawl truly is. Montage Mountain, as recently as the mid-1980s, was home to nothing but pristine wilderness, wildlife, and wetlands. The late-1980s brought the advent of both the Montage Mountain Ski Resort and Lackawanna County. While both projects were necessary for Montage Mountain due to the requirements of downhill topography and stadium footprint, respectively, these two projects laid the foundation for further sprawl that was nothing but needless.
Flash forward to the year 2007. Montage Mountain is now home to:
Shoppes @ Montage Lifestyle Center: A sprawling one-story outlet mall that was brought to our area through deception. The developer initially promised us that the center would bring unique, high-end retailers to our region and would not detrimentally impact the nearby downtown. As of right now, more than half of the center's tenants were already well-established in our area, proving to us that Moosic's elected officials were IDIOTS for not demanding a list of prospective future tenants before giving the project the "green light." Now, several stores at the downtown Mall @ Steamtown have shuttered their doors, and others are soon following suit---lured to the attractiveness of the new suburban facility and its proximity to the I-81 commuter belt. The Mall @ Steamtown serves as a major anchor for downtown foot traffic, and seeing it become a white elephant of sorts would make it extremely difficult for nearby smaller downtown businesses, which currently thrive off of the mall's exposure and traffic, to stay afloat. We transformed untold numbers of acres of trees into paved paradise here simply to kill off a downtown mall just three miles away? How is THAT "beneficial" to the region?
Siteplan for the Shoppes @ Montage.
Cinemark Movie Theater: Cinemark is routinely jam-packed with movie-goers while the downtown's Marquee Cinema continues to struggle to keep its head above water. Even the new theater in Downtown Wilkes-Barre is being hurt immensely by the attraction of suburban Cinemark. How is THAT "beneficial" to the region?
Glenmaura: The south end of the mountain is now home to Lackawanna County's version of "Beverly Hills." The Glenmaura has several seven-figure residential properties, as well as hundreds of higher-end homes and townhomes that sprawl out endlessly onto cul-de-sacs (which the developer renamed to "exclusive" names such as "Beckett Close" or "Emerson Close.") All of these higher-end residents could have found a similar lifestyle living in the city limits of Scranton, and the financial boon the city would receive via the 3.4% city wage tax that is levied upon residents would help to propel it into a new era of prosperity. Instead, Moosic is rife with cash while Scranton continues to face mounting debt. How is THAT "beneficial" to the region?
Heaven forbid one of the hundreds of these upper-class residents considers a move to a Victorian mansion in Green Ridge or "The Hill" in the city instead, right?
Corporate Goliaths: Thousands of local white-collar residents commute to work daily at shiny glass office buildings on the mountain, including major installations for Prudential Financial, CIGNA HealthCare, Bank of America, MetLife, etc. Meanwhile, office space vacancy remains an issue in Scranton's downtown, including in the newly-built building that was vacated immediately by the failed Southern Union project, among others:
The abandoned Connell Building along North Washington Avenue in Center City could have housed MetLife.
The abandoned Southern Union building along Lackawanna Avenue in Center City could have housed Prudential Financial.
http://www.sordoni.biz/re_details/glenmaura/re_images/gm_tier2_full.jpg (broken link)
Instead we needed to build half-empty suburban glass behemoths like these, right?
Lackawanna County Visitors' Center: Nothing sends mixed signals to tourists better than thinking that your own county comissioners are more inclined to invest in tourism in the suburbs before its hub city! The current visitors' center on Montage Mountain is rarely ever utilized and is poorly-positioned; it would have served a much better purpose being housed downtown, perhaps in the historic Central NJ Freight Station. By promoting downtown tourism, the commissioners could have shown our visitors that they were indeed committed to helping our city recover instead of simply jumping onto the "Sprawl Bandwagon." How is THAT "beneficial" to the region?
Lackawanna County's suburban visitors' center, which offers travelers NO incentive to head into our nearby downtown to experience all it has to offer. Luzerne County is currently building a major new visitors' center right in the heart of Downtown Wilkes-Barre to promote tourism in our inner-city. I suppose this is "Lackawanna Wonderful" from the perspectives of the Munchak & Cordaro team though, isn't it?
I could cite other examples as well, but I'll spare you all for the sake of brevity. There was simply no need for us to destroy the eco-system of Montage Mountain in order for Downtown Scranton to collapse in onto itself. The city limits had plenty of brownfield sites and abandoned dwellings to house EVERYTHING that currently exists on the mountain, save for the ski resort and the stadium.
http://www.glenmaurasales.com/images/overview.jpg (broken link)
Montage Mountain in its current state. The mountain is anticipated to continue growing at an explosive rate in the upcoming years, with a new Target and Lowe's Home Improvement also planned, along with further residential expansion of the Glenmaura community, and new restaurants. MiamiMan, convince me that Montage Mountain has been a benefit to Scranton, and I'll buy you a bridge in Brooklyn!
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.
At first I just thought I might have been overdoing it, but then I looked around me and saw air pollution wafting by from the passing tractor-trailers that was likely infiltrating my lungs and making it difficult for me to breathe. 
Sometimes the air in my subdivision just reeks of diesel exhaust fumes and gasoline, and we have to keep our windows shut. Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, along with Pittsburgh, are two PA cities that are consistently ranked rather poor in air quality, as we're sandwiched between the BosWash commuter corridor and their CO2 emissions from the traffic, as well as the coal burning plants in the Ohio River Valley. Both seem to waft right over parts of PA, and where I live in the Wyoming Valley, a lot of it tends to just "linger" here. 
Suburbanites increase our dependency upon foreign fossil fuels, as residents here need to drive everywhere for everything, often appreciable distances. They often drive inefficient vehicles as "status symbols" (Hummers, Land Rovers, Escalades, etc.), and these vehicles emit enough CO2 to detract from our air quality. It has been proven that suburbanites tend to be heftier than city-dwellers because they are less-inclined (or incapable) of walking anywhere to get some exercise. There's just so many "cons" of living in our suburbs in PA that I don't know why the cities continue to decline as horribly as they have been in terms of population. 
Since when did smog become "fashionable?"
Redevelopment
Sprawl is attractive to some
. 
