Urban Sprawl---A Blessing or a Curse? (metro, suburban, crime, highway)

[SteelCityRising]

I just finished poring over a thread in the Virginia forum in which a number of people expressed their disdain for how materialistic, congested, and redundant NOVA has become, more specifically in Loudoun and Fairfax Counties. Most posting on there were probably in the Baby Boomer generation, and they were lamenting how lands that they had once roamed and enjoyed and had hoped their children could enjoy are now home to vinyl-clad homes that are dominated by garages and look exactly the same and are situated on treeless lots. My family and I drove through the Leesburg area en route to Hampton Roads a couple of years ago, and I thought to myself "Gridlock, strip malls, and tract housing at every intersection. What a dump!" The folks in that thread also complained that their neighbors are very superficial and practically care more about outdoing each other in terms of material worth as opposed to getting to know each other on a personal basis.

There are some supporters of sprawl out there who have made some very valid points about consumerism, capitalism, and the ability for home buyers to be able to choose where they want to live without having to worry about the incessant ranting from crazy liberal environmentalists like me. They've also made claims of "You live in a house right now, and I'm sure there used to be trees there too!" Both of these arguments are credible, albeit flawed. The latter of the two can best be faulted by the simple fact that present growth policies FORBID mixed-use zoning, making a car a necessity (increasing our nation's dependency upon fossil fuels and contributing to global warming via increased carbon dioxide emissions), whereas urban planners of the early half of the 20th Century designed communities that were in close proximity (often within walking distance) to workplaces, stores, restaurants, churches, etc. Also, at what point do we draw the line between allowing people to make their own choices and putting a stop to them in order to do what's best for the future of our communities? I don't want us to sound like a Communist nation, but if everyone wants to live in suburban tract-housing, then who will populate our existing older communities? Do we just toss aside the old in favor of the new? How do we, as a society, account for all of that wasted open space?

Most suburbanites make claims that they relocate to tract housing because it is cheaper, safer, and friendlier than their former city locales. While that may be true in some urban areas, let's examine my own for a moment. Scranton is a city that is declining in population at one of the fastest rates in the nation due to urban sprawl. Is high crime a factor? This city of 70,000 residents hasn't had a single murder in two years; you be the judge. Is cost a factor? Scranton's property tax burden is among the lowest in the region and housing values are generally quite affordable in the
low-$100k range. Do you all think that is "excessive" and can justify relocation to the 'burbs? Finally, Scranton is the type of place where strangers will strike up conversations with you while you're in line at the neighborhood store and will still chat over backyard fences and from front porches. You don't see that in Scranton's suburbs, where neighborhood stores are replaced with impersonal big-box stores that are enshrouded by paved paradise, front porches have been phased out, and backyard fences are prohibited by homeowners' associations. People in the city seem to be more "down-to-earth" and care more about what you have to offer as a person as opposed to trying to upstage your new Audi A6 with an Audi A8.

Since I now see urban sprawl and its side effects becoming a HUGE topic all across our nation, from PA to VA to CA and everywhere in between, I'm just curious about your opinions as well. If you're a suburban dweller, why won't you move to the city? If you're a city-dweller, what is keeping you from fleeing to the 'burbs? If you're out in the country, why won't you move closer to civilization?

The way I see it, America is slowly yet surely resembling a Communist state. You can go to any given suburb of Detroit, Dallas, or Denver and see the same Wal-Marts, the same Lowe's, the same garage-dominated tract housing on cul-de-sacs, the same "Golden Arches", the same gridlocked roadways, etc. While our older cities, especially those in the Northeast and MidWest, used to strive to showcase magnificent architectural treasures, our suburbs just don't seem to give a flyin' hoot about architectural diversity or integrity in any way, shape, or form. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for America?

[Winston Smith]

Sprawl is only possible because of cheap oil for the past 50-60 years. Now that we're entering a brave new era of higher oil prices as world peak production approaches, sprawl as city design won't be sustainable any longer. In my local area of CA, west Ventura County, south Santa Barbara County, all cities are looking to a future of more compact design with transit, pedestrian and bicycle orientation. Services and jobs put close to where people live, with rail/bus/shuttle services to anything beyond walking distance. For driving, the idea is to park once and walk or ride. Welcome to the future.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by cre8

Sprawl is only possible because of cheap oil for the past 50 years. Now that we are entering a brave new era of higher oil prices as the world peak production approaches, sprawl as city design won't be sustainable any longer. In my local area, west Ventura County, south Santa Barbara County, all cities are looking to a future of more compact design of transit, pedestrian and bicycle orientation. Services and jobs close to where people live, and rail/bus/shuttle services to anything beyond walking distance. For driving, the idea is park once and walk or ride. Welcome to the future.

Interesting indeed. I find it humorous to hear my fellow suburbanites whining "I can't afford these gas prices." Nevertheless, they think nothing of moving to a cul-de-sac and then driving their Escalades and Navigators back and forth to the city several times per day for work, nightlife, meetings, worship, the theatre, etc. If they would trade their SUVs that are only used as "status symbols" around here for a pair of legs and be willing to move within walking distance of some of their amenities, they'd probably notice the hit in their pocketbooks lessening, our air quality improving, their waistlines receding, and their stress levels waning as they trade traffic for walking (or biking) beneath shade trees.

I'm tired of driving 300 miles per week between my home in the 'burbs and the city, and I'm also tired of being stuck in constant gridlock due to the incessant construction on I-81 that often stretches my 7-mile commutes to work to a half-hour or longer at a time. I'm tired of living in a yuppified enclave where people won't even wave to you as you drive by them and where people laugh at the notion of having an annual subdivision-wide block party. This is why I'm taking a leap forward by moving into the city of Scranton after graduate school, hopefully into one of the new downtown lofts so I could be within walking distance of most conveniences.

As far as "Welcome to the Future" is concerned, that may be the case in more progressive, liberal areas like CA, but in "Blast from the Past" states like PA, we probably won't "catch on" to such trends for decades. Hell, we're even watching in horror here in Scranton as a citywide smoking ban is about to be repealed in court because smokers outnumber non-smokers! It seems like anything and everything we try to do around here to be mindful of the environment, our health, public safety, tolerance, etc. in PA is shot down by the masses, and I think this is why you'll continue to see PA's cities crumbling into the streets while the suburbs continue to fill up with tract housing galore. We're a "reactionary" state---not a "pro-active" state.

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by ScrantonWilkesBarre

Interesting indeed. I find it humorous to hear my fellow suburbanites whining "I can't afford these gas prices." Nevertheless, they think nothing of moving to a cul-de-sac and then driving their Escalades and Navigators back and forth to the city several times per day for work, nightlife, meetings, worship, the theatre, etc. If they would trade their SUVs that are only used as "status symbols" around here for a pair of legs and be willing to move within walking distance of some of their amenities, they'd probably notice the hit in their pocketbooks lessening, our air quality improving, their waistlines receding, and their stress levels waning as they trade traffic for walking (or biking) beneath shade trees.

I'm tired of driving 300 miles per week between my home in the 'burbs and the city, and I'm also tired of being stuck in constant gridlock due to the incessant construction on I-81 that often stretches my 7-mile commutes to work to a half-hour or longer at a time. I'm tired of living in a yuppified enclave where people won't even wave to you as you drive by them and where people laugh at the notion of having an annual subdivision-wide block party. This is why I'm taking a leap forward by moving into the city of Scranton after graduate school, hopefully into one of the new downtown lofts so I could be within walking distance of most conveniences.

As far as "Welcome to the Future" is concerned, that may be the case in more progressive, liberal areas like CA, but in "Blast from the Past" states like PA, we probably won't "catch on" to such trends for decades. Hell, we're even watching in horror here in Scranton as a citywide smoking ban is about to be repealed in court because smokers outnumber non-smokers! It seems like anything and everything we try to do around here to be mindful of the environment, our health, public safety, tolerance, etc. in PA is shot down by the masses, and I think this is why you'll continue to see PA's cities crumbling into the streets while the suburbs continue to fill up with tract housing galore. We're a "reactionary" state---not a "pro-active" state.

More often than not, people lie to themselves about the true cost of owning and operating a car. You'll often hear people talk only about the cost of gas to drive from point A to B. In fact, gas is less than HALF the true out-of-pocket expense. I've been tracking my per-mile vehicle expense since 1998, and consistently, year after year, gas is around 1/3 to 1/2 of my total cost. At best, it costs me around 30¢ per mile to drive my own car.

Don't blame you for moving back to the center of town. That's what I did, too. I now walk to just about everything.

Good luck with getting up to date in PA.

[vegaspilgrim]

Originally Posted by ScrantonWilkesBarre

Since I now see urban sprawl and its side effects becoming a HUGE topic all across our nation, from PA to VA to CA and everywhere in between, I'm just curious about your opinions as well. If you're a suburban dweller, why won't you move to the city?

I am a first believer in the American Dream, in people owning their own homes on their own land, no matter how humble the size of that piece of land may be. This is a vast, incredible, beautiful country, a country that respects private property. This modern, democratic value, the foundation of our American civil society, is inscribed within the land itself. The entire central US, as well as valleys and flat regions within the Western US is divided into a perfect square mile grid, a system which affirms individual land ownership as the highest value. This is the checkboard you see when you fly over the country. The ultimate dream is to own your own piece of America.

Left wingers and new urbanists have their heads so clouded by a nostalgic, utopian 19th century notion of "town and country" that they have absolutely failed to interpret the complex landscape we actually live in. Cities are not just "downtowns," specific points on a map. When you understand how large and complex metropolitan areas are, including not just the core city but its secondary downtowns, suburbs, exurbs, satelite cities, local nature preserves, and local tourist attractions and getaways within several hours drive, involving an infinitely complex network of commuting, transportation, and logistics, to say that we should all "move to the city" is absurb. For many cities, like Phoenix, where I currently live, there is no "city," as you define it, to move to!

Personally, I think skyscrapers and "sky lines" are ugly and oppressive. Most "downtowns" are full of nothing but high rise, pin-shaped monstrosities, canyons of concrete, steel, and glass, with no trees or vegetation in sight. From my experience, most cities' "downtowns" are actually the least authentic part of the city! This is certainly true for Phoenix, and it is also true of Denver (where I grew up), IMO. Even for the Big Apple, the skyscraper capital of America, I've always felt that Brooklyn and Queens is more the real New York than Manhattan.

The most attractive areas of "the city" are areas that were fundamentally SUB-urban, upper class, white, and car-dependant, when they were built in the early twentieth century. For example, most of the old, cherished, beautiful neighborhoods in central Denver, like the D.U. area, Washington Park, Cheesman Park, Denver Country Club, and Cherry Creek, consist of large houses (the McMansions of the 1930s), set back from the street with trees and plentiful landscaping. The formula of having commercial properties laid out on a strip along the main highway through town (in Denver's case, Colfax Ave), with nothing but residential, single family homes in the blocks off the main drag, is not just a post-WWI "communist" zoning phenomenon, SWB; cities across America have been built like that for almost a century.

Also, I've always found it amusing that the tract homes of 100 years ago-- those Victorian bungalows and row houses, are the cherished "historic" districts of today. You need to give a neighbhood time to mature and for the individual property owners to rennovate and customize there properties. In Phoenix, you'll notice that certain well-maintained neighborhoods built in the 1950s and 1960s, while originally "cookie cutter," over time become more individually distinctive. I've also found it amusing how New Urbanist developments, with their funky designs that look like they were made by architects high on crack, and frequently energy inefficient all-glass designs, are some of the most characterless, out-of-place buildings being constructed today.

You may choose to see America as a generic "communist" nation that is the same from coast to coast. I say, though, that every square mile of this country is unique, with hidden surprises around every corner; you just have to dig deep and look at the subtleties to notice it.

[caution]

I don't really care because people just have to live with the choices they make.

I would add that I think much of the sprawl is driven by voluntary segregation (racial and economic). It is a tough thing to admit for many.

I doubt the sprawl will reverse much with urban renewal. I think the work will move to the workers, or the workers will telecommute in greater numbers (not from home, but from work centers in the 'burbs).

[Steve-o]

I seriously cant believe people voted to bring on Wal-Marts and tract housing. Just goes to show the vanilla-blandness that this country is puking forth everyday with boring homes and suburbs, boring shopping and boring lifestyles that are associated with boomburg towns. Shopping at Wal-Mart, then driving home down one of a gajillion streets that are all identical, in a gas-guzzling SUV that you dont need, while sippin Starbucks and then going into a house that looks identical to all the others in your town must be realllll exciting. I drive through these neighborhoods and everything is so planned out and the people all look/dress the same and all act like pre-programmed robots. I was actually surprised to see a few folks outside!! American Idol must not have been on yet.... LMBO The other day I was driving through Glen Ellyn, IL, and I was in heaven. Its such a beautiful town, with beautiful homes (which I could never even dream of affording) on oak tree-lined streets, with a quaint downtown with candy shops and ma n pa stores and a 1950's era (I think) movie theater... and I stopped the car, got out and had a smoke, and just took it all in, and by God did it feel great to see that communities like that still exist, and still thrived. Sure there are many more of them out here by me, but most of these boomtowns are boring tract homes, Wal-Marts and Home Depots, Starbucks and Krispy-Kremes, Qdobas and Chipotles, etc, etc,etc... Theres no flavor, just a sense of repetition as you drive from town to town, and its disgusting. Where is the America of the past? You know, where chain stores were few and far between, people actually spent time with their kids (and outdoors too!), and crime was so little that you could leave the keys in the car and your house unlocked! Id give anything for a time machine to warp myself (and wife n son too) outta this mess and back to the 40s/50s in a heartbeat. I would love to spend ONE DAY w/o hearing about Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan, or one day w/o hearing about an outrageous lawsuit, or one day w/o a... nevermind. Sorry for the book, Im just very anti-tract home/boomburg/Wal-Mart. Makes me wanna cry when I see beautiful prairie that harbored nature, gobbled up by boring homes and stupid/ugly Wal-Marts. GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

What happened to "living" anymore these days?!?!?!?!?

[mpope409]

It depends on how you look at it. A lot of northerners (I won't say most) continue to bicker about sprawl, but sprawl has always worked for me. I don't know anyone who would want to give up their big backyard, natural parks, and green spaces for a close cramped lifestyle. No thank you. I don't know what Los Angeles' excuse is, but I like the way cities down here have been able to maintain their southern charm in a way. Granted, if you're going to live where I live, you might long for a better transit system, but without it you will survive. I promise.

Now as far as the suburban living goes, I don't know what to tell you. I'm a city dweller myself, and there's nothing at all too bland about living within these urban limits. People who live in the suburbs are usually those interested in starting families, and they live there because they choose to. They no longer need all the urban ammenities. I will one day be that person, but if and when I move to the suburbs I would most likely choose an older, more established community with more character...and trees.

And just so you know, Wal-Mart is very very convenient.

[mpope409]

Steve-O, it's funny you mention the 50's because that's when the whole sprawl thing really started. That was the decade where it was hip to be just like everybody else. Women wore the same clothes, the same make-up, same hairstyles, same lifestyles. People lived in identical houses that lined plain, treeless roads. So the idea of the bland suburb is nothing new. People moved to the suburbs to escape the city, and that seems to be the general idea today.

[Steve-o]

Thats kinda true in the sense they kinda looked the same, but the values were higher, crime was lower, etc, etc. My ideal time frame to live in would be pre-WWII. I liked the 50s for the hot-rod scene, the essence of cool. And really, the only super sprawl I can think of in the 50s was probably SoCal...