Sprawl....what does it mean to you? (Houston, Dallas: houses, buying)

[N. Olikee]

Is it upwards.....or outwards. Mostly, by those who have built upwards, they think it is outwards.

But, I think it is both ways. There's a LOT of "sprawl" in NYC...upwards. Very unattractive to me. I think NYC is a very ugly city, but Chicago is quite nice. Doesn't Chicago have sprawl both upwards AND outwards.....hmmm?

I think Houston and Dallas get a bad "rap" for outward "sprawl" when compared to other cities.

[Matt Kim]

It's a code word for lefty resentment of families fleeing failing urban areas for safer environs.

[Lije Baley]

It's when your wrestling coach sees a double leg coming at your first tournament while you're in a super-tight tie-up and yells "SPRAWL!!" so you won't get taken down.

[N. Olikee]

Very good, Lige!

[Lije Baley]

Originally Posted by N. Olikee

I think Houston and Dallas get a bad "rap" for outward "sprawl" when compared to other cities.

OTOH .......sprawl could mean what happens here in Houston. Most of the time, except for places for the basics like groceries and buying a pair of running shoes, it seems like I have to drive 30 minutes to get everywhere else.

[N. Olikee]

Originally Posted by Lije Baley

OTOH .......sprawl could mean what happens here in Houston. Most of the time, except for places for the basics like groceries and buying a pair of running shoes, it seems like I have to drive 30 minutes to get everywhere else.

Well, I also just posted this to Houston's Forum to get the perspective. I don't think I ever spent 30 min. having to drive places.....always 20 mins. Here in Austin, about 15 minutos...mas o menos.

[homeinatx]

Sprawl: what it means to me - cheap and nasty new construction without craft or design value. Dormitories for families. Bad land use: no mixed development - miles and miles of cookie cutter houses with retail all in strip malls in between, with cheapness the only criterion for building. Entirely autocentric: very pedestrian unfriendly, no bike lanes, no public transportation. No sense of a public good at all. No trees, the natural environment strip-mined to provided maximum profit for developers, no consideration of environmental or historic regional concerns in architecture or planning - one size fits all. Minimal infrastructure, one road in, one road out, minimal side walks, street lights. In short, ugly, stupid and short on civility. Texas has too much of it: the ugliest middle class housing in the developed world: homogenous, unimaginative, grotesque and destined to be slums.

[N. Olikee]

Originally Posted by homeinatx

Sprawl: what it means to me - cheap and nasty new construction without craft or design value. Dormitories for families. Bad land use: no mixed development - miles and miles of cookie cutter houses with retail all in strip malls in between, with cheapness the only criterion for building. Entirely autocentric: very pedestrian unfriendly, no bike lanes, no public transportation. No sense of a public good at all. No trees, the natural environment strip-mined to provided maximum profit for developers, no consideration of environmental or historic regional concerns in architecture or planning - one size fits all. Minimal infrastructure, one road in, one road out, minimal side walks, street lights. In short, ugly, stupid and short on civility. Texas has too much of it: the ugliest middle class housing in the developed world: homogenous, unimaginative, grotesque and destined to be slums.

Can't tell you how many "cities" you have just described........loads.

[atxcio]

Sprawl to me means disposable suburb rings surrounding the central city, after one falls into disrepair, another grows even farther out. Cheap gas, tons of expanding arterial highways feed one cheaply built subdivision after another in every direction with no preservation of green space.

Unlike the city itself, sprawl does arrange itself naturally around a city center. Rather, it's a growth off the artery that feeds it, usually a highway. The effective city center for sprawl then becomes the grocery stores, retail, and restaurants that dot the highway. In Texas, that's usually stuff on the access roads of highways. That's the "downtown" in effect for the sprawl.

Another way to define it would be the lowest-density living which is not rural, but rather somewhat distantly connected to a larger "real" city, and it identifies itself with that city. In my opinion, taller buildings (higher density) is the opposite of sprawl. Typically these more dense places have a more natural city center, and they aren't dependent on an arterial highway to connect to their work and shopping.

As for Dallas and Houston, I believe honestly that "sprawl" is too mild of a word to describe the situation. Every city in America has sprawl to some extent, and sunbelt/newer cities have more sprawl. But a metro like Los Angeles or DFW, and maybe even Houston represent almost another level -- perhaps more accurately described as "megasprawl". Where people really push the limits of distance between what could be called a suburb and the actual center of the host city.

I realize I paint a bleak picture, and granted it's a biased one... but we all have our opinions. I'm not sure DFW and Houston necessary get a bad rap in all this, because clearly there are people who love the inexpensive housing and big roads.

[homeinatx]

Originally Posted by N. Olikee

Can't tell you how many "cities" you have just described........loads.

I agree. It is a major problem, but worse in the sunbelt U.S. than anywhere else. There are also many cities that boomed in the same era that managed to avoid the problems of sprawl. Vancouver would be the most obvious one. The lawsuits and bailout of the awful Circle C are the historical events that enabled Austin to sprawl in the hideous way it has.