Single family home versus higher density housing (Austin, Spring: rent, condos)

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by scm53

Let me move that mirror from in front of you, OK?

Are you denying that urbanization causes urban heat islands, changes rainfall patterns, increases flooding, or increases air pollution levels? So who's the one with "facts", and who the one with "over-reactions"?

I get that you think you are on the side of the angels. Demonizing those that make other choices may be emotionally satisfying. Hard on the discourse.

"urbanization" and "urban" are not synonyms. Areas referred to as "urbanized" are in fact typically characterized by low density sprawl -and - in fact contribute amazingly to heat island effects - parking lot aprons absorb a lot of heat.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

If obesity was being caused by sprawl in any significant way, why is it highest in areas of the country that have had little growth--and little sprawl--like Louisiana and Mississippi? And why is the sprawliest state in the country one with the lowest rate?

Not to weigh in on the obesity issue (I think good urbanism is its own reward and we don't need to rely on tangential benefits that are hard to prove and harder still to convince others of) - but your assertion that the south has had little sprawl is flat out incorrect. In fact, the sprawl-iest areas of the country correspond almost identically to that map.

(Now, it also corresponds even better to consumption of sugar, which I'm convinced is the true bad guy in the obesity epidemic gripping the country - but that is entirely a different debate for a different forum).

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by petro

Yeah, I can see that. The key word here is "attempting." Whether we can follow in the footsteps of a smart-growth city like Portland, remains to be seen. I choose to be optimistic.

So far it's smoke, no fire.

That said, the market is clearly indicating there is an enormous pent up demand. I believe over time policy will catch up to where the market is heading. Question is - will it be too late. I'm afraid it's looking that way.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Not to weigh in on the obesity issue (I think good urbanism is its own reward and we don't need to rely on tangential benefits that are hard to prove and harder still to convince others of) - but your assertion that the south has had little sprawl is flat out incorrect. In fact, the sprawl-iest areas of the country correspond almost identically to that map.

(Now, it also corresponds even better to consumption of sugar, which I'm convinced is the true bad guy in the obesity epidemic gripping the country - but that is entirely a different debate for a different forum).

Yeah. OF course Alabama and Mississippi have more sprawl than California and Florida.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by Komeht

NO ONE - not a single person here or anywhere - contends you must give up the life you like. It's about providing choice and options for all lifestyles, including, you know, people who don't need to live as you do in the middle of the city.

Well then, it would be nice if the hardcore urbanites wouldn't treat the suburbanites as pariahs & disdain their lifestyle.
Personally I don't care if someone desires to live in a beehive, a cookie cutter tract house, or a McMansion.
To each his own.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Gestbsjgd

Correlation ≠ causation

Just because a higher percentage of obese people live in the suburbs in certain areas, doesn't necessarily mean living in the suburbs causes you to become obese. That seems a little absurd.

Exactly. That's a logical fallacy that many fall prey to - post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this).

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Yeah. OF course Alabama and Mississippi have more sprawl than California and Florida.

Most sprawled cities - 2010:

Atlanta, GA
Hickory, NC
Winston-Salem, NC
Charlotte, NC
Nashville, TN
Greenville, SC
Chattanooga, TN
Fayetteville, NC
Baton Rouge, LA

The U.S. Cities That Sprawled the Most (and Least) Between 2000 and 2010 - CityLab

Sprawl is concentrated in the South East as is the obesity epidemic.

But as I said before, this is more a factor of consumption of Big Gulps than sprawl. I don't need to add obesity to the list of horribles created by sprawl to make the case for urbanism.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

Well then, it would be nice if the hardcore urbanites wouldn't treat the suburbanites as pariahs & disdain their lifestyle.
Personally I don't care if someone desires to live in a beehive, a cookie cutter tract house, or a McMansion.
To each his own.

My disdain is reserved for the people who seek to to enforce suburban auto-oriented codes on the urban core. The more good urbanism we build where it is most needed (roughly central Austin 183 to BWB), the less crap that will accumulate on the fringes.

Oh, and the pariahs, are the ones who abandoned the core a long long time ago for the outermost exurbs, yet continue to weigh in on how terrible all this density in the urban core is and who seek to impose auto-dependent lifestyle on the people who are opting to not live in sprawl.

[Rynldsbr]

Hmmm... most sprawled cities are in locations with lots of real estate (or in the case of Baton Rouge, the inability to build bigger on their soil). Highest density locations are in areas that have run out of real estate, population exceeds capacity of available ground.

Austin and surrounding areas are not out of available ground yet, therefore will continue to sprawl.

People in surrounding communities do have skin in the game in many cases since we are forced out of the city core because we cannot afford to live there anymore. Our (anyone's) housing choice is dictated by the regional real estate market, so we do have a valid opinion on the discussion, it doesn't have to be just the residents of Austin proper.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Rynldsbr

Hmmm... most sprawled cities are in locations with lots of real estate (or in the case of Baton Rouge, the inability to build bigger on their soil). Highest density locations are in areas that have run out of real estate, population exceeds capacity of available ground.

Austin and surrounding areas are not out of available ground yet, therefore will continue to sprawl.

People in surrounding communities do have skin in the game in many cases since we are forced out of the city core because we cannot afford to live there anymore. Our (anyone's) housing choice is dictated by the regional real estate market, so we do have a valid opinion on the discussion, it doesn't have to be just the residents of Austin proper.

So wrong on so many levels:

1. Sprawl isn't a function of space, it's a patter of development exactly to code. The reason SE cities sprawl massively is because they have a 100% auto-oriented culture. The older cities that had the good fortune to develop pre-war when codes didn't mandate sprawl are much more urban. That hasn't stopped auto-dependent coding from creeping in and ruining many of those cities (see, e.g., Detroit).

2. The reason Austin is becoming unaffordable is the because of these same regulations that are forcing sprawl. This is not two different problems - it's the same exact problem.