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.
Well there are urban cores in the south and they sprawl.
Places with strong urban cores certainly have sprawl in their regions - look at the Chicago area, where Will County is one of the fastest-growing counties in the country and is a quintessential example of outward exburban expansion. My point is that even though a place like the Chicago area is sprawling out rapidly, it's doesn't have any effect on the health of the urban core since it's strong enough on its own (that is, people are still living and buying in the city in large numbers concurrently with the exurban expansion - it's not a matter of one or the other).
In contrast, you see the St. Louis area sprawling out, but it's coming as a result of people pouring out of the city while relatively few people are moving into the city to replace them. That's an instance where you can argue that the sprawl is having a direct negative effect on the health of the urban city.
The large cities in the South and Southwest are growing so rapidly that they are really more like huge suburbs - it's so inexpensive to buy land when compared to the coasts that there aren't significant cost savings to buy condos or other units in multi-family buildings (whereas a condo itself in downtown Chicago or Manhattan is expensive enough while trying to get a single-family house in those urban cores would require independent wealth beyond the reaches of all but a handful of people).
Places with strong urban cores certainly have sprawl in their regions - look at the Chicago area, where Will County is one of the fastest-growing counties in the country and is a quintessential example of outward exburban expansion. My point is that even though a place like the Chicago area is sprawling out rapidly, it's doesn't have any effect on the health of the urban core since it's strong enough on its own (that is, people are still living and buying in the city in large numbers concurrently with the exurban expansion - it's not a matter of one or the other).
In contrast, you see the St. Louis area sprawling out, but it's coming as a result of people pouring out of the city while relatively few people are moving into the city to replace them. That's an instance where you can argue that the sprawl is having a direct negative effect on the health of the urban city.
The large cities in the South and Southwest are growing so rapidly that they are really more like huge suburbs - it's so inexpensive to buy land when compared to the coasts that there aren't significant cost savings to buy condos or other units in multi-family buildings (whereas a condo itself in downtown Chicago or Manhattan is expensive enough while trying to get a single-family house in those urban cores would require independent wealth beyond the reaches of all but a handful of people).
Exactly, Frank! Many people here seem to confuse the areas within the limits of the central city with the urban core.
Quite honestly, the only southern city I am aware of with a strong urban core is, yes, Houston, the underdog. True, it annexes some of its suburbs, but the majority of the city limits is not suburban (contrary to what you will hear a lot of on this forum from those who haven't even been there). Dallas, Atlanta, and Miami..yeah, yeah. Those cities are largely dependant on their surrounding areas. What's generally coined as Dallas' workload is really split with an entire other major city, the City of Atlanta only takes up about one tenth of its entire metro, and I don't know what's going on with Miami. Houston, on the other hand, could hold its own if all of its suburbs were wiped out and would still maintain that mass power and influence it has. This is one good reason I moved here in the first place. Sprawl is irrelevant when in a city with more than enough unique and exclusive things to do.
And newer things within the urban limits does not always equal suburban. Younger cities that are relatively new to being major have to start somewhere. When you want something with older character, look for it down here and you will find it. Chain restaurants, strip malls, shopping malls, and cookie cutter homes are just the facade of some truly unique Sunbelt cities.
I would have also liked to live in the 50's in Florida. Everything seemed to beautiful then, and I enjoy the modern architecture. But there's something nice about a genuine city, built without a "master plan" and built around real industry. I am mostly against suburban living because it has become so communist, but I could never live in a city. My preference is for the real, rough-around-the-edges rural living. I am against commuting. My theory is to "live where you work". In the information age, commuting to sit at a desk makes no sense. Towns built for the housing of factories make sense. Cities at the center of trade and commerce also make sense. But here in Florida there are whole areas with no real commercial activity, just homes, thanks to zoning. In my ideal world there would be no government planning, just build what you want. But who would build in the boondocks instead of being close to their source of income? Less regulations would allow people to conduct business at home. Zoning makes land artificially expensive.
Cities do become obsolete, and that's why historical buildings are demolished to make way for new ones. The problem is that what usually replaces them is cheap and ugly. In an ideal situation I would require salvage of all buildings before demolition. Also would remove property taxes from buildings where the owner(s) are willing to restore them for further use. Cities have to be attractive to business to survive. Suburban areas would form, of course, but would be tied to train stations and connected to the city.
As for me, I would live on my farm and be content to visit the city on rare occasions! Just need a good fiber-optic link for the servers and phone system.
In terms of water supply, sprawl is a curse. In many communites, wells are drying up and those that are working have water that cannot be used to drink or cook in. Sprawl means the rain does not go into the ground, but rather down a drain. In terms of heat, we will find out soon enough if the loss of the great eastern forests on the east coast have a effect on the overall climate. Statistically, where I am, it was hot in the day, but at night it would cool down; something it does not do to the extent it did a few decades ago.
Well, as a happy resident of one of the most sprawled/suburbanized cities around--Denver--I voted 'yes.' Sprawl--the expansion of large-lotted homes, families, and commerce--is not in and of itself bad. But sometimes a city can lose itself in the vortex of sprawl and cause a lot of community problems. That's why neighborhood organizations, local parks, school stuff, and especially churches are so vital to keep suburbs grounded. I think it's worked pretty well in Denver, anyway.
URBAN SPRAWL is a curse--NO matter where it is. The strip malls, the "Cookie Cutter" houses, the "Gated Communities", the total lack of any character and sense of community.
I HATE sprawl. Ugly, soulless, bland, big-boxed chains where you have to drive EVERYWHERE. It eats up our land, pollutes our air, requires us to buy more oil from countries like Iran who hate us, and is warming our earth. Disgusting.
The only way to attack it and prevent it is to increase the cost of oil in relation to it's actual cost to society. Look at Europe.
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.
, and I don't know what's going on with Miami. Houston, on the other hand, could hold its own if all of its suburbs were wiped out and would still maintain that mass power and influence it has. This is one good reason I moved here in the first place. Sprawl is irrelevant when in a city with more than enough unique and exclusive things to do.
