Urban Sprawl---A Blessing or a Curse? (Walmart, subdivision, square, metro)

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by metroplex2003

I think our country is nice b/c it does give you the option. The traditional "Northern" cities do allow you the opportunity for urban living...living in the urban core...etc...but the Sunbelt cities do a fantastic job at suburban planning...ie DFW, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix. THere as you have all discussed are pro's and benefits of both. Personally I do prefer the sunbelt cities. Now both DFW, Houston, and Atlanta are adding the urban core option to their cities relatively rapidly (DFW is adding 26 currently, with another 25 more highrises planned), but are still at least a decade or two away from being on par with the Northern cities: CHicago, Philly, Boston, DC, NYC, SF.

I think this is a good point - we don't live in a vacuum in our home region anymore. Just because the largest city that you live closest to isn't growing doesn't mean that you don't have the option to go to a place such as NYC if you want dense urban living. You might wish that the city closer to you were more vibrant, but that doesn't mean people are abandoning the urban lifestyle elsewhere.

[miamiman]

ScrantonWilkesBarre, I can understand that your wishes and dreams of Scranton's revitalization clouds your general understanding and tolerance of reality, but again, sprawl is profitable. The commissioners of Lackawanna County evidently do not share your vision of a "grand" Scranton. They have left Scranton to sit and decay, and have focused on many "suburban" developments as you call them (it's really just focusing development in other parts of the county). Lackawanna County is not just Scranton, but a series of communities in which people live, work, and shop. Much less than half of the population of Lackawanna County lives within the city limits of Scranton, so why should commissioners focus primarily on downtown development, while ignoring areas where the majority of county residents actually live and work? You, yourself, admit that migration patterns in Lackawanna County are increasingly out of the city and into adjacent communities and suburban areas. If that is the trend, why not focus development outside of the city?
Why should they focus on urban development in an area with a declining population, rather than suburban development which is rapidly growing? Just because you want to see Scranton rise again? Because it's the "moral" thing to do? Please explain to me how suburban development is "immoral". . Scranton, at it's current rate, could, unfortunately, be on the same path as Detroit has been over the past 35-45 years. Many residents of Lackawanna County are making a statement that they would rather live in suburban developments than in the existing housing stock in Scranton. I do not see why they should be pressured or forced to move into Scranton, a city in which they do not want to live, to save Scranton from ultimate decay, and to stop what you, yourself, have termed "immoral" development.

Agreed. It was solely constructed for their detriment, as the downtown theater is now struggling to remain afloat.

This is a primary example of the reactionary attitude that you have because of your dreams for Scranton. I'm sure the commissioners sat down when Cinemark was on the drawing board, and thought to themselves "how can we further destroy Scranton?" Please. They targeted an area, which again was predicted to grow rapidly as development started going up around Glenmaura, and that was the most acceptable to the greatest
number of people around the region. Cinemark was not built for the sole benefit of Scrantonians, or any resident of Lackawanna County communities. As I mentioned with my Carbon County example, the theater draws people from as much as a 50 mile radius, who are likely very attracted that they do not have to navigate far off of the freeway to reach Cinemark, and related development.

That's not saying much. Have you been to Northern Carbon County lately? It's quite rural and Cinemark might just be the closest theater to them.

It's not. Those NY/NJ residents who you speak so negatively of have "poured" into that area. There are smaller theaters scattered throughout Carbon County, in the Stroud Mall, in Northampton County, and of course, the theater in Downtown Wilkes-Barre. Why do you think the theater is Moosic takes away customers from the theater in Downtown Scranton? Umm, maybe because people feel Cinemark is more accessible, maybe because they do not have to drive through a town a stop at numerous traffic lights to reach the theater, maybe because they don't have to worry about on the street parking, in which they would have to feed a meter, or maybe they don't feel safe leaving their cars unattended in an area in which barely a sole walks the streets.

The existing Marquee Cinemas downtown is a decent size.

Well, I guess because you believe Marquee theater is a decent size, everyone should feel the same way, and just pour into the theater.

Explain. How can a downtown just one mile off I-81 not be as accessible as a suburb just three miles away?

Maybe because Cinemark is closer to 81 than the theater downtown. Maybe because people have to stop at at most 2 traffic lights between the freeway and the theater. Maybe because you have to factor in more complicated parking in downtown Scranton. Maybe because you have to drive on the pothole-ridden Central Scranton Expressway, and the horrid streets of the city of Scranton just to access the area. Maybe because the huge parking lot outside of Cinemark ensures that patrons will have parking when they're running late for a movie, and is FREE!

The sky is falling. The sky is falling." Oh please! I'm a suburbanite myself and my friends and I have no reservations about walking around Downtown Wilkes-Barre at night after a film at their downtown theater, even though Wilkes-Barre has a higher crime rate than Scranton. When was the last time you heard about someone getting mugged in either downtown?

Again, so I guess since you and your friends feel safe in downtown Scranton, everyone should feel/would feel safe there, as well? People are not mindless drones. You come from a suburb, and you're familiar with Scranton. What about some of those people from rural areas, who are not so familiar with the area?! Give me a break. Not everyone is as aware as you of the crime statistics of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre. Some people become nervous when they are out of their element, especially with deserted "city" streets.

Will it make perfect sense when fuel prices hit $4/gallon? Won't it become more attractive to utilize mass transit options into the city instead?

People will still be driving when gas hits $4/gallon. Not everyone in the country is feeling the "pain at the pump." Believe me, if you can afford to live in a one million dollar McMansion in Glenmaura and Clarks Summit, you can afford four dollar gas.

Scranton is faltering because suburbanites are fat buffoons that worship chain stores. Yep. Sounds about right

I really wish you wouldn't call us suburbanites "buffoons." Just because you disapprove of where we live, and what types of stores we patronize, does not warrant name calling. Not everyone wants to live in some crusty, decaying town.

Originally Posted by miamiman
A theater in Scranton would demand the construction of ugly parking deck, or complicated on the street parking, and subsequent walking, which could prove to be frustrating and tiring.

This is different from the "Shoppes @ Montage" how...? You have to park your car and walk all around there as well, and when Cinemark is packed on the weekends, you often have to walk what seems like 1/4 mile through paved paradise to the entrance. Also, what's wrong with the possibility of an undergound parking garage?

Umm, because you don't have to feed a meter, you don't have to park in a deck due to lack of space, you don't have to walk from wherever you're lucky to find a parking space. I'm sorry that walking 1/4 mile through a parking lot proves to be frustrating and tiring for someone who runs five miles a day, but it's a lot more attractive than having to find parking, park four blocks away from a theater, and then cross busy streets.

I know it must be frustrating to see Scranton in decay and ruins, but I think becoming angry at county commissioners for locating amenities in profitable locations is not the right place to direct your anger.

Well then where should I be directing my frustrations? Aren't the commissioners the ones responsible for setting the county on the right path for a brighter future? How is encouraging urban sprawl at the expense of the struggling county seat an example of positive leadership?

Maybe you should become frustrated that commissioners are directing their priorities to where the majority of county residents live and are moving (outside of Scranton). They are certainly leading the county toward a brighter future, by focusing establishing and encouraging economic development in suburban areas. Again, why focus energy in an area that people are moving away from? Sorry. Try again.

Then why have single-family property values in the city risen by 1/3 between 2003 and 2006? Why did Scranton/Wilkes-Barre dominate the poll when I asked people on the PA forum "Where in PA Are You Planning to Move To?" Why is Lackawanna County's population growing again? Why did Scranton just land its first Wall Street West firm in its downtown? Why is the enrollment at Scranton's public schools increasing? Why does Scranton now host the annual Fiesta en Scranton, La Festa Italiana, Scranton Jazz Festival, Electric City Film Festival, and upcoming Gay Pride Festival? Why was Scranton chosen as the setting for "The Office?" Why did Paul and Mira Sorvino choose Scranton for their new film office?

How many people in your poll are actually moving to the city of Wilkes-Barre, or the city of Scranton? Not many. I thought we settled the issue concerning the extremely small growth in Lackawanna County. Easily explained by a combination of natural population growth, in addition to fewer people moving out of the county. Why is the county's population growing, while Scranton's population is declining? Maybe there are children in the city attending public school. Seeing as catholic and private schools in the city are closing left and right. Maybe the city leaders of Scranton are desparate to make Scranton attractive. Sorry. Not happening. People are still leaving.

I'm sure "Miami" is much better with its gang warfare, illegal immigration, humidity, and rednecks, right?

Please do not attack Miami when your own city is in shambles. At least Miami is growing. We all know that EVERYONE is South Florida is illegal. We all know the northeast Pennsylvania NEVER experiences humidity. Rednecks? Are you serious?!? Have you seen the local population around your area? Mullets and missing teeth are considered high fashion there. I'm sure to seeing a large Cuban and African-American population automatically equates to the city being plagued with illegal immigrants and gangs . Please share your small-town, close-minded views with someone else. You need to focus and waste your energy fighting for your town, which people are fleeing left and right.

END

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by hello-world

i agree there is some reflection of people's seemingly innate and natural wants in some of this. at the same time, i'm not necessarily talking about people being directly manipulated into buying certain homes, per se. i'm talking about something more subtle and maybe more deep rooted. i'm talking about some of the things that shape our national or contemporary consciousness(es?), for example. from emphases on the individual's consumptive habits to shaping of those habits by marketing (and market) "forces" or "trendiness" or hollywood - maybe not so seperable from one another - in subtle and not so subtle ways that can be commercially, economically, politically, and yes, inherently driven (again not so seperable in some ways, though seemingly worth a look as the power of these things while "feeling good" for example may not feel so good in the longer run, e.g.). a more concrete example might concern rumblings you may hear about GM and petroleum allies stearing public transit in America's past (and perhaps present) for the profit of GM and those allies. of course, modes of transportation not only have huge implications for some people's and organizations' profit, but for how we the people can go about living our lives. and it's no secret that advertisers (via TV etc) go to significant lengths to shape our thinking for their profit. not by "go buy houses that look like this over there" (though there has in fact been some of that as you might recall from old clips from the 50s and 60s), but by stearing our wants which can ultimately result in some bigger scale trends such as the big box stores, the SUV phenom, and ... the mcmansion. not necessarily direct, maybe quite subtle or just a little subtle, but with huge payoffs ... and costs. in some cases these things may be unintentional - simply fairly typical cultural morphology that can result in some good, and some very not so good things that can undo a culture - and in others, maybe quite intentional. another way to look at it might be: do you think "big oil" minds if we're addicted to it's products - it's gasoline, it's plastics, it's asphalt, etc.? do you think policy is shaped at all by that "not minding"? do you think that, if our main mode of transport was the train and not the automobile, the layout of our communities and the tendencies of our habits might be different? do you think people are "well attuned" to how their individual consumption, when "aggregated" over the masses of millions of people like themselves, may play out in terms of environmental fallout, geopolitics, or war? or, for that matter, to some of the influences of their peers, of commercial interests, etc.? in my own view, it seems that these things quite certainly have some influence, maybe huge influence: but even without them, the "attuned" you allude to seems at least somewhat dubious to me - i'd agree that many people are "well attuned" to their own more immediate "needs" aka "wants" or "desires", but not that they're necessarily "attuned" to how their "needs" or "desires" could, in aggregate sum, turn around to bite them (and some others).

Of course, one could argue the exact opposite with these influences. In the latest Census, we passed the mark where more Americans live in suburban areas than in any other type of environment. Yet, when you survey the movies and TV shows put out by Hollywood, they are disproportionately set in glamorous cities (NYC and LA in particular and Chicago, San Francisco or Washington for politically-based entertainment to a lesser extent) while the suburbs are usually cast as vacuous wastelands (i.e. American Beauty, Desperate Housewives, etc.). I also don't see how the media supports the suburban lifestyle over the urban lifestyle - if anything, there is a lot more criticism of suburban life in the mainstream media than the other way around.

On a related note, there might be some regions that simply aren't suited to have dense urban environments. If there isn't a comprehensive public transportation system in a region, that takes away a lot of the allure of living in a city. From my view, it's going to be very hard for urban cores that don't have a public transportation infrastructure (and specifically trains for larger cities) to achieve the population density that they want. When I lived in some of the densest urban neighborhoods that you'll find anywhere in the country in Chicago, one of the best attributes was the ability to walk around and get onto a train to take me around a huge city without needing a car. However, in other cities where you really do need a car to get around, what's the concrete advantage of living in a dense neighborhood? Is driving around a dense neighborhood really an improvement over driving around a suburban neighborhood? A lot of people would answer in the negative or say that it's even worse. Without access to public transportation, urban living is a much harder sell to the average person. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, but rather looking at this from a realistic standpoint of what would spur someone to choose to live in a dense neighborhood.

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

Of course, one could argue the exact opposite with these influences. In the latest Census, we passed the mark where more Americans live in suburban areas than in any other type of environment. Yet, when you survey the movies and TV shows put out by Hollywood, they are disproportionately set in glamorous cities (NYC and LA in particular and Chicago, San Francisco or Washington for politically-based entertainment to a lesser extent) while the suburbs are usually cast as vacuous wastelands (i.e. American Beauty, Desperate Housewives, etc.). I also don't see how the media supports the suburban lifestyle over the urban lifestyle - if anything, there is a lot more criticism of suburban life in the mainstream media than the other way around.

On a related note, there might be some regions that simply aren't suited to have dense urban environments. If there isn't a comprehensive public transportation system in a region, that takes away a lot of the allure of living in a city. From my view, it's going to be very hard for urban cores that don't have a public transportation infrastructure (and specifically trains for larger cities) to achieve the population density that they want. When I lived in some of the densest urban neighborhoods that you'll find anywhere in the country in Chicago, one of the best attributes was the ability to walk around and get onto a train to take me around a huge city without needing a car. However, in other cities where you really do need a car to get around, what's the concrete advantage of living in a dense neighborhood? Is driving around a dense neighborhood really an improvement over driving around a suburban neighborhood? A lot of people would answer in the negative or say that it's even worse. Without access to public transportation, urban living is a much harder sell to the average person. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, but rather looking at this from a realistic standpoint of what would spur someone to choose to live in a dense neighborhood.

i don't think i'm looking at this from a non realistic standpoint. i'm curious about what might and seems to underly some of the "bad stuff" (as perceived by some of the "masses" of us) and so what may then shape any move away from the "bad stuff" and towards some "better" (as perceived by more of the masses) - more sustainable, for instance - ways. but hey, if people don't mind increasingly sprawling situations that consume more and more and more and some of the ramifications thereof, and people don't want to look at things from the bird's eye, and if i'm just missing the boat entirely, more power to us all. but, i have read and thought a lot about a lot of this, and find the opinions and facts shared here interesting and valuable, so...

i'm not saying that media supports suburban lifestyle. i think it's more deep rooted and often, perhaps, indirect than that - maybe more subtle, though certainly less subtle or more easily identified in things like the GM rumblings example i provided. some of the "bad parts" of suburbia (what some of the thread is about - i do grant that suburbia may have it's good parts, as well, at least when not "ill-conceived") coming only in part as a result of some more deep rooted affects of the overall psyche - of individuals, of the national or contemporary consciousness - that can come of hollywood, that can come of political and marketing influences of much larger interests than the individual, and that have shaped us through a long time, not just today or this decade for instance. yes, media can also critique the present, or the past, maybe especially sometimes if such critique has finally entered some of the collective consciousness as well. and no, i am certainly not saying that driving around urbanity is "better". i do agree that the walking, public transport, the density of amenities, the rejuvenation of what already is, for example, can be worth looking at relative to the sprawl, waste, and additional use of resources that can come of suburbanity.

either way, i personally wonder how healthy suburban living is (see some RAND studies that suggest that more poor physical health, for example, correlates with suburban populations, or others indicating some of the health effects of any additional air pollution), how sustainable it is (see sources concerning western water rights/grabs towards filling those pools, watering those lawns; consumption of other natural resources towards the "more and bigger and now" mentality), and how much of this is shaped by things that shape our collective thoughts in more general ways (see the GM/petroleum interests example, or 50s and 60s pushes for suburbanization, and more indirect things such as marketing for general consumption and Hollywood influences over time, even well previous to now that might shape people's perceptions ["i 'need' three cars and a big space and a pool and to look and act enough like the joneses to 'fit in' and 'look the part', but not too much so i can set myself apart as 'successful', maybe, a little"]). interestingly, i am seeing what seems like a sort of TV-like quality in more urban folks and their dwellings, too, which seems to touch upon your comment concerning people's preferences in the more urban real estate market.

in terms of the more obvious and immediate, i do think that public transport can "catch on" (as more people tend to perceive it as a "better" thing to do) and be of benefit (in terms of air quality, for example). you don't need a train, necessarily, though trains tend to be an option; busing can also "catch on", as can bicycling, as can "more thoughtful" reinvention of cities proper (and where and how things are situated) to provide some more obvious examples. maybe some more emphasis on substance versus sound bytes - in the media, in politics, e.g. - could be of benefit, too: hard to understand some of the subtleties and essence of some things and how they affect people when sound bytes are what people are used to and crave.

additionally, "urban" is not necessarily the answer in my opinion. i suppose some shift in the overall mentality could be good; less "need" (i.e., want) for bigger dwellings, bigger cars, bigger hiways, bigger pools, immediate gratification, seeking of isolation from what seems "worse", etc..

[hello-world]

Public Transportation - The Great American Streetcar Scandal
Taken for a Ride - How General Motors (GM) Conspired to Destroy Rail Trolley Systems

these are links to one of the more concrete and less subtle examples of manipulations (quite covert at the time) of, in this example, the transportation system and so, to a substantial degree, eventual community layouts (suburbia...and more "need" for cars and petroleum and petrol-products - plastics, gas, oil, asphalt, etc. - and so more access to things "off-corridore", and so more growth "off-corridore", and so more "need" for cars and petroleum/petrol-products ...).

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by hello-world

i don't think i'm looking at this from a non realistic standpoint. i'm curious about what might and seems to underly some of the "bad stuff" (as perceived by some of the "masses" of us) and so what may then shape any move away from the "bad stuff" and towards some "better" (as perceived by more of the masses) - more sustainable, for instance - ways. but hey, if people don't mind increasingly sprawling situations that consume more and more and more and some of the ramifications thereof, and people don't want to look at things from the bird's eye, and if i'm just missing the boat entirely, more power to us all. but, i have read and thought a lot about a lot of this, and find the opinions and facts shared here interesting and valuable, so...

i'm not saying that media supports suburban lifestyle. i think it's more deep rooted and often, perhaps, indirect than that - maybe more subtle, though certainly less subtle or more easily identified in things like the GM rumblings example i provided. some of the "bad parts" of suburbia (what some of the thread is about - i do grant that suburbia may have it's good parts, as well, at least when not "ill-conceived") coming only in part as a result of some more deep rooted affects of the overall psyche - of individuals, of the national or contemporary consciousness - that can come of hollywood, that can come of political and marketing influences of much larger interests than the individual, and that have shaped us through a long time, not just today or this decade for instance. yes, media can also critique the present, or the past, maybe especially sometimes if such critique has finally entered some of the collective consciousness as well. and no, i am certainly not saying that driving around urbanity is "better". i do agree that the walking, public transport, the density of amenities, the rejuvenation of what already is, for example, can be worth looking at relative to the sprawl, waste, and additional use of resources that can come of suburbanity.

either way, i personally wonder how healthy suburban living is (see some RAND studies that suggest that more poor physical health, for example, correlates with suburban populations, or others indicating some of the health effects of any additional air pollution), how sustainable it is (see sources concerning western water rights/grabs towards filling those pools, watering those lawns; consumption of other natural resources towards the "more and bigger and now" mentality), and how much of this is shaped by things that shape our collective thoughts in more general ways (see the GM/petroleum interests example, or 50s and 60s pushes for suburbanization, and more indirect things such as marketing for general consumption and Hollywood influences over time, even well previous to now that might shape people's perceptions ["i 'need' three cars and a big space and a pool and to look and act enough like the joneses to 'fit in' and 'look the part', but not too much so i can set myself apart as 'successful', maybe, a little"]). interestingly, i am seeing what seems like a sort of TV-like quality in more urban folks and their dwellings, too, which seems to touch upon your comment concerning people's preferences in the more urban real estate market.

in terms of the more obvious and immediate, i do think that public transport can "catch on" (as more people tend to perceive it as a "better" thing to do) and be of benefit (in terms of air quality, for example). you don't need a train, necessarily, though trains tend to be an option; busing can also "catch on", as can bicycling, as can "more thoughtful" reinvention of cities proper (and where and how things are situated) to provide some more obvious examples. maybe some more emphasis on substance versus sound bytes - in the media, in politics, e.g. - could be of benefit, too: hard to understand some of the subtleties and essence of some things and how they affect people when sound bytes are what people are used to and crave.

additionally, "urban" is not necessarily the answer in my opinion. i suppose some shift in the overall mentality could be good; less "need" (i.e., want) for bigger dwellings, bigger cars, bigger hiways, bigger pools, immediate gratification, seeking of isolation from what seems "worse", etc..

The "keeping up with the Jones'" aspect is everywhere, whether it's in the suburbs, cities (Upper East Side of New York) or even rural areas (check out Jackson Hole, Wyoming these days). I understand that no one should pray to the materialistic god, but again, I don't think it's necessarily the fault of the media or corporations that humans want "more". Once we get past having the basic necessities of food, water and shelter, people tend to want the "good life", whether it's a large house in the suburbs or a penthouse suite overlooking Central Park. Do we "need" these things? Certainly not, but the ability to have these things is what separates advanced societies from third world countries.

I think the "bad stuff" is much more concrete than the accumulation of energy or automobile industry policies made decades ago. One very clear item is public schools - in many metro areas, suburbs tend to have higher quality public schools. Sure, we all hear the arguments that "if your kid is smart, he/she is going to do well in a rich school or an inner city school no matter what", but that doesn't change the fact that top suburban school districts are better funded/managed than a lot of city school districts.

From a societal perspective, we might step back and accuse people that move families out of cities of "running away from the problem" instead of trying to fix it. However, it's one of the most basic human instincts to provide the best for your child, so are caring parents going to take a gamble to wait around to see if things are going to get better or are they going to go to where stability is more or less guaranteed if the opportunity presents itself? Unattached singles coming out of school in their 20s are more willing to take risks in moving to different areas, but it can't be denied that people fundamentally change when they start families - few people are going to take risks with the education of their children. I think you're going to find a lot of people (myself included) that loved living in the city but the state of the school system became the #1 reason to move (as opposed to having a bigger space or any of the other material reasons). People might call that avoiding the "bad stuff", but it's tough to wait around in one place when there's an alternative that would fit your needs right away.

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

The "keeping up with the Jones'" aspect is everywhere, whether it's in the suburbs, cities (Upper East Side of New York) or even rural areas (check out Jackson Hole, Wyoming these days). I understand that no one should pray to the materialistic god, but again, I don't think it's necessarily the fault of the media or corporations that humans want "more". Once we get past having the basic necessities of food, water and shelter, people tend to want the "good life", whether it's a large house in the suburbs or a penthouse suite overlooking Central Park. Do we "need" these things? Certainly not, but the ability to have these things is what separates advanced societies from third world countries.

I think the "bad stuff" is much more concrete than the accumulation of energy or automobile industry policies made decades ago. One very clear item is public schools - in many metro areas, suburbs tend to have higher quality public schools. Sure, we all hear the arguments that "if your kid is smart, he/she is going to do well in a rich school or an inner city school no matter what", but that doesn't change the fact that top suburban school districts are better funded/managed than a lot of city school districts.

From a societal perspective, we might step back and accuse people that move families out of cities of "running away from the problem" instead of trying to fix it. However, it's one of the most basic human instincts to provide the best for your child, so are caring parents going to take a gamble to wait around to see if things are going to get better or are they going to go to where stability is more or less guaranteed if the opportunity presents itself? Unattached singles coming out of school in their 20s are more willing to take risks in moving to different areas, but it can't be denied that people fundamentally change when they start families - few people are going to take risks with the education of their children. I think you're going to find a lot of people (myself included) that loved living in the city but the state of the school system became the #1 reason to move (as opposed to having a bigger space or any of the other material reasons). People might call that avoiding the "bad stuff", but it's tough to wait around in one place when there's an alternative that would fit your needs right away.

you raise some very important and interesting points, seems to me.

i can understand the not wanting to "wait around". to me, it seems that as the population continues to grow and demographics continue to shift, some of this will pan out on a more cultural versus individual level, and that conversations like these are all part of it. of course, individual awarenesses do feed culture and vice versa. i wonder if it might be worth considering this relationship in evaluating the "good" in schools. what might be missed by students that see more uniformity in appearance, in thought, in perspective, e.g.? how might the "addictions" to material wealth that can and do have very important consequences in terms of environment, public health, etc. be passed down generations if children's worlds become segregated, plastic, etc.? seems like cognizance of that feedback - the culture/individual or big/little picture one - could be of value in considering how taxes are levied and appropriated, thinking about what we really need and how what we as a society consume may pan (environment, war and culture conflict, public health...), or whom and what to vote for. i can understand the temptation for more immediate escapes - and "returns"! - though. i just hope people, self included, remain (or become) aware of how that might play out.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by miamiman

ScrantonWilkesBarre, I can understand that your wishes and dreams of Scranton's revitalization clouds your general understanding and tolerance of reality, but again, sprawl is profitable. The commissioners of Lackawanna County evidently do not share your vision of a "grand" Scranton. They have left Scranton to sit and decay, and have focused on many "suburban" developments as you call them (it's really just focusing development in other parts of the county). Lackawanna County is not just Scranton, but a series of communities in which people live, work, and shop. Much less than half of the population of Lackawanna County lives within the city limits of Scranton, so why should commissioners focus primarily on downtown development, while ignoring areas where the majority of county residents actually live and work? You, yourself, admit that migration patterns in Lackawanna County are increasingly out of the city and into adjacent communities and suburban areas. If that is the trend, why not focus development outside of the city?
Why should they focus on urban development in an area with a declining population, rather than suburban development which is rapidly growing? Just because you want to see Scranton rise again? Because it's the "moral" thing to do? Please explain to me how suburban development is "immoral". . Scranton, at it's current rate, could, unfortunately, be on the same path as Detroit has been over the past 35-45 years. Many residents of Lackawanna County are making a statement that they would rather live in suburban developments than in the existing housing stock in Scranton. I do not see why they should be pressured or forced to move into Scranton, a city in which they do not want to live, to save Scranton from ultimate decay, and to stop what you, yourself, have termed "immoral" development.

It's "immoral" and morally-reprehensible to continually bulldoze vast acreages of our pristine woodlands for new homes, strip malls, office parks, etc. when there are hundreds of vacant homes, office buildings, industrial flex-buildings, etc. sitting just miles away. How can we, as a society, justify using up more of our limited open space so needlessly? If our metropolitan area has been shedding tens of thousands of residents for several decades, then why did our overall land usage grow by 20 square miles during that SAME period? All we did was take a dwindling population and spread it out futher and further from existing urban centers, which increased our traffic congestion, infrastructural needs, commute times, etc.

At the very least, since Scranton's housing vacancy rate is now at well over 10%, why don't the commissioners somehow justify this urban sprawl by bulldozing ALL of the vacant homes in the city and replacing them with urban green space? The clered city lots could even be offered for sale to adjoining property owners to give them more of a yard and elbow room while the county recoups its demolition expenditures from tearing down the vacant homes. If you're so gung-ho about promoting deforestation on Montage Mountain and The Abingtons, then isn't that the least that could be done to minimize the negative impact the city is facing?

Originally Posted by miamiman

This is a primary example of the reactionary attitude that you have because of your dreams for Scranton. I'm sure the commissioners sat down when Cinemark was on the drawing board, and thought to themselves "how can we further destroy Scranton?" Please. They targeted an area, which again was predicted to grow rapidly as development started going up around Glenmaura, and that was the most acceptable to the greatest
number of people around the region. Cinemark was not built for the sole benefit of Scrantonians, or any resident of Lackawanna County communities. As I mentioned with my Carbon County example, the theater draws people from as much as a 50 mile radius, who are likely very attracted that they do not have to navigate far off of the freeway to reach Cinemark, and related development.

They're not only "my" dreams anymore. Check out Rediscover Scranton: Rediscover Scranton We're Electric , Scranton Tomorrow: Welcome to Scranton Tomorrow! , etc. to see that there is a growing number of younger people in our area who don't want to sit and let Scranton become "the next Detroit." The city used to be the 36th-largest in the nation at its peak, and it has the capacity to be that way again. Why not try to improve upon our existing infrastructure before spending millions upon millions of dollars to develp new suburban and exurban areas like Montage and The Abingtons?

Originally Posted by miamiman

It's not. Those NY/NJ residents who you speak so negatively of have "poured" into that area. There are smaller theaters scattered throughout Carbon County, in the Stroud Mall, in Northampton County, and of course, the theater in Downtown Wilkes-Barre. Why do you think the theater is Moosic takes away customers from the theater in Downtown Scranton? Umm, maybe because people feel Cinemark is more accessible, maybe because they do not have to drive through a town a stop at numerous traffic lights to reach the theater, maybe because they don't have to worry about on the street parking, in which they would have to feed a meter, or maybe they don't feel safe leaving their cars unattended in an area in which barely a sole walks the streets.

I speak so negatively about them because not a single one of them has any interest in moving to Luzerne/Lackawanna Counties other than for their own selfish personal financial gain. You don't hear about ex-NYC/NJ residents moving to Tobyhanna, Gouldsboro, Moscow, etc. in order to improve the quality-of-life in our area; they simply want "more bang for the buck" in terms of the size of the home and lot they can purchase on their budget while still commuting back to Manhattan for a lucrative salary (driving up the cost-of-living for we PA natives who don't desire the 4-hour round-trip commute in the process). Member "ScrantonVideoProductions" is probably the only local NYC transplant I can name off of my head who has moved into the city of Scranton for a reason other than greed; he's launching new efforts to help bring the city back using his own talents. We need more transplants like him---not the money-grubbing, power-commuting types who don't give a damn whether the area sinks or floats as long as they can "live cheaply on their NYC incomes." Most of them are nice people I'm sure, but I could never envision myself moving to a community and not ever wanting to foster a sense of involvement, which is the case with a lot of these commuters (they're probably too stressed from their power-commutes to volunteer to make NEPA a better place). My ex-boyfriend hailed from one of those ex-NYC families in Tobyhanna, and he honestly didn't know any of his next-door neighbors. Is THAT the future we want for NEPA? I sure as hell don't!

Originally Posted by miamiman

Well, I guess because you believe Marquee theater is a decent size, everyone should feel the same way, and just pour into the theater.

Yep. Exactly. Bigger isn't always better. Just look at the tiny Dietrich Theater in Tunkhannock. Residents there are just 30 minutes from Cinemark, yet they still choose to patronize that rinky-dinky small-town theater. Why? They have hometown pride, something that is apparently lacking in Scranton if its own residents pass by the downtown Marquee en route to a theater out in the suburbs. By your logic, shouldn't the Dietrich also be "belly-up" with Cinemark nearby?

Originally Posted by miamiman

Maybe because Cinemark is closer to 81 than the theater downtown. Maybe because people have to stop at at most 2 traffic lights between the freeway and the theater. Maybe because you have to factor in more complicated parking in downtown Scranton. Maybe because you have to drive on the pothole-ridden Central Scranton Expressway, and the horrid streets of the city of Scranton just to access the area. Maybe because the huge parking lot outside of Cinemark ensures that patrons will have parking when they're running late for a movie, and is FREE!

"Pothole-ridden Central Scranton Expressway?" Please don't comment on issues like that if you haven't been to the area in years, as that entire roadway was completely repaved a few weeks ago and is smooth-sailing now. Jefferson Avenue near the University of Scranton and the Colonnade is a pothole-ridden mess, but most other city streets are in adequate shape. By the way, what do you call the Mall @ Steamtown's massive free parking garage, which is just across the street from the theater?

Originally Posted by miamiman

Again, so I guess since you and your friends feel safe in downtown Scranton, everyone should feel/would feel safe there, as well? People are not mindless drones. You come from a suburb, and you're familiar with Scranton. What about some of those people from rural areas, who are not so familiar with the area?! Give me a break. Not everyone is as aware as you of the crime statistics of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre. Some people become nervous when they are out of their element, especially with deserted "city" streets.

You can't be serious. Scranton should suffer economically because the locals are "Chicken Littles" who can't get over the fear of being murdered walking across the street from the parking garage to the downtown theatre in a city of 70,000+ that hasn't had a single homicide in years? Yes, I am from a suburb and am very familiar with both Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, as I'm in both cities on a near-daily basis. "Deserted" city streets? Parts of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre are sketchy at night (especially near King's College in Wilkes-Barre), but Lackawanna Avenue in Scranton and South Main Street in Wilkes-Barre are two formerly-crime-ridden areas that are now safe, well-patrolled, and have steady foot traffic to deter criminal activity. By the way, Cinemark was the site of a recent "smash-and-grab" car theft spree, and other suburban chain stores in the Highland Park area of Wilkes-Barre Township frequently have drug busts and purse-snatchings in their parking lots. The suburbs aren't quite as safe as what you might like to portray. While working at our Lowe's store last year I had a guy trying to kill his wife in the parking lot while several customers and I tried holding him at bay with my box cutter until police arrived. I'll take a charming downtown over THAT anyday!

Originally Posted by miamiman

People will still be driving when gas hits $4/gallon. Not everyone in the country is feeling the "pain at the pump." Believe me, if you can afford to live in a one million dollar McMansion in Glenmaura and Clarks Summit, you can afford four dollar gas.

Agreed. However, our local median household income is ABYSMAL---somewhere around $34,000 I believe. The Abingtons and Glenmaura are two "blips" of unparalleled wealth on an otherwise lower-middle-class radar, and the latter will not be able to tolerate such high fuel prices for very long before cutting back on their driving and/or spending on luxury goods. It's simple economics. If the price of one essential good (gasoline) goes up while your real wages remain flat (or even decline), then you'll have to cut back on consuming that good or cut out an unrelated luxury good to free up money in your budget for it. Just because we have perhaps 10,000 out of the 200,000 residents in Lackawanna County who are driving Mercedes-Benzes and sipping premium Italian wine every evening doesn't mean that the other 190,000 won't be cutting back on driving in order to put food on the table.

Originally Posted by miamiman

I really wish you wouldn't call us suburbanites "buffoons." Just because you disapprove of where we live, and what types of stores we patronize, does not warrant name calling. Not everyone wants to live in some crusty, decaying town.

As long as you suburbanites continue to act "above" we current and future city-dwellers (you just exemplified this with your "crusty, decaying town" comment directed at city-dwellers), then I'll continue to likewise act above the SUV-driving, materialistic, "keeping up with the Jones's", fast-food-obsessed, tract-housing-dwelling, Abercrombie & Fitch wannabe suburbanites (which MOST of you---not all---are). I find Scranton to be quaint, historic, cute, and a dream come true. I'd love to chat with the neighbors over backyard picket fences, throw block parties, walk to everyday conveniences, etc. Don't fault me for trying to do something to help the environment and community for a change. I've grown up in the suburbs, and we still don't know any of our neighbors. I wave to them while driving by or running by, and they don't wave back. Suggestions of block parties are sneered at. You can take these "too good for you" types and shove 'em!

Originally Posted by miamiman

Umm, because you don't have to feed a meter, you don't have to park in a deck due to lack of space, you don't have to walk from wherever you're lucky to find a parking space. I'm sorry that walking 1/4 mile through a parking lot proves to be frustrating and tiring for someone who runs five miles a day, but it's a lot more attractive than having to find parking, park four blocks away from a theater, and then cross busy streets.

It's more attractive to walk across one street from the mall parking garage to the theater, mostly under cover, than it is to walk 1/4 mile through a suburban parking lot where you're a target for elderly drivers who don't look before backing out of parking spots as well as being exposed to the elements.

Originally Posted by miamiman

Maybe you should become frustrated that commissioners are directing their priorities to where the majority of county residents live and are moving (outside of Scranton). They are certainly leading the county toward a brighter future, by focusing establishing and encouraging economic development in suburban areas. Again, why focus energy in an area that people are moving away from? Sorry. Try again.

I'll agree that the image of the county is better than it has ever been since our heyday, especially with the new film office, "The Office", the NY Yankees affiliation, the upcoming medical school, upcoming commuter rail to NYC, etc. However, other struggling cities have had major successes with downtown redevelopment initiatives. Just look at Center City Philadelphia, Downtown Pittsburgh, Historic Downtown Bethlehem, etc. for a few examples from right here in the Keystone State. We can encourage people to move to the city of Scranton and make it a 24/7 city again; it doesn't have to be an example of futility.

Originally Posted by miamiman

How many people in your poll are actually moving to the city of Wilkes-Barre, or the city of Scranton? Not many. I thought we settled the issue concerning the extremely small growth in Lackawanna County. Easily explained by a combination of natural population growth, in addition to fewer people moving out of the county. Why is the county's population growing, while Scranton's population is declining? Maybe there are children in the city attending public school. Seeing as catholic and private schools in the city are closing left and right. Maybe the city leaders of Scranton are desparate to make Scranton attractive. Sorry. Not happening. People are still leaving.

The WAGE TAX is what has people leaving. Why pay a 3.4% "fee" to live in the city limits when you could move to neighboring Dunmore and pay just 1% of neighboring Taylor and not even have any property taxes altogether? The city isn't shedding people because it's an undesirable place to live on the surface---the underlying economics of the city are driving people away. I think initiating a 1% city sales tax to raise revenues while repealing the 3.4% city wage tax would be a better solution. In this sense, everyone who shops, dines, plays, etc. in the city, including suburbanites and tourists, would be subject to an additional $0.01 tax on every dollar they spend in the city while homeowners in the city could breathe easier without that 3.4% city wage tax. After all, it seems as if more suburbanites utilize Scranton's services, businesses, etc. than city residents themselves---why shouldn't they pay a little bit for those benefits instead of expecting overburdened city residents to pick up the slack?

Originally Posted by miamiman

Please do not attack Miami when your own city is in shambles. At least Miami is growing. We all know that EVERYONE is South Florida is illegal. We all know the northeast Pennsylvania NEVER experiences humidity. Rednecks? Are you serious?!? Have you seen the local population around your area? Mullets and missing teeth are considered high fashion there. I'm sure to seeing a large Cuban and African-American population automatically equates to the city being plagued with illegal immigrants and gangs . Please share your small-town, close-minded views with someone else. You need to focus and waste your energy fighting for your town, which people are fleeing left and right.

"Mullets and missing teeth?" Perhaps in Plymouth, Nanticoke, and other nearly-dead coal towns where just about nobody cared enough about their futures to go to college or progress out of the 1980s, but I find most locals nowadays to be properly-groomed and attired, even just to go shopping. Most of the customers at Lowe's are DIY couples where the husband wears an IZOD polo shirt and beige slacks while the wife wears some sort of skirt and blouse from JCPenney. The "mullet and missing teeth" crowd is confined mostly to our contractors.

On this note, please share YOUR anti-urban renewal, pro-urban sprawl mindset with someone else as well!

[hello-world]

does this dialogue look to anyone else like that between drug addicts and their families?

honestly don't mean to be melodramatic, but, take a look back at some of the posts.

[TheHarvester]

My 2 cents:

Our lifestyle is unsustainable beyond a couple generations. There are too many people, and no matter how intelligently we try to manage resources and land usage, we're going to face a huge "slimming down" of humans on this planet within the next couple centuries. Ecosystems are collapsing in the infinitesimal time span of a human life.

But about cars and suburbs, I so loathe the 'burbs that I'm considering getting rid of my car and spending the $700-800 a month I would save on the car for an urban condo that is within walking distance of most of what I need. I can use public transit or borrow a car for those occasions when I need alternatives to walking. But I don't have kids so my choices are simpler.