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.
It's all relative. You have several cities in your region with bombed out dead zones at their core at levels unheard of in the sunbelt, surrounded by huge suburban sprawl suburbs.
Sprawl enables single family homes, which take up much more land that could otherwise be used for farming or other uses. It also enables a car culture, and cars are the worst in terms of efficiency of transportation (I mean you could carpool but honestly, 99% of all cars I see on the road stuck in traffic have 1 occupant, or 1 adult and some kids). Sprawl also requires more infrastructure per capita (more roads, more sanitation, more sewers, water mains, more electric grids, more parking lots, etc.), which just adds to the issue I raised earlier.
If people hadn't spread out after WWII then we'd likely see more people living in dense urban centers, commuting to work in trains, or buses, and living in highrises. We wouldn't have smog issues like we have today. We wouldn't have to put up with the suburbanites requiring their goddamn HUGE SUVs getting 2 mpg and making them seriously overweight in the process of driving everywhere.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,997,570 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
This is a no-brainer.
Sprawl enables single family homes, which take up much more land that could otherwise be used for farming or other uses. It also enables a car culture, and cars are the worst in terms of efficiency of transportation (I mean you could carpool but honestly, 99% of all cars I see on the road stuck in traffic have 1 occupant, or 1 adult and some kids). Sprawl also requires more infrastructure per capita (more roads, more sanitation, more sewers, water mains, more electric grids, more parking lots, etc.), which just adds to the issue I raised earlier.
If people hadn't spread out after WWII then we'd likely see more people living in dense urban centers, commuting to work in trains, or buses, and living in highrises. We wouldn't have smog issues like we have today. We wouldn't have to put up with the suburbanites requiring their goddamn HUGE SUVs getting 2 mpg and making them seriously overweight in the process of driving everywhere.
Not that I'm saying what you are saying is wrong, but have you ever heard of the London Fog?
Sprawl enables single family homes, which take up much more land that could otherwise be used for farming or other uses. It also enables a car culture, and cars are the worst in terms of efficiency of transportation (I mean you could carpool but honestly, 99% of all cars I see on the road stuck in traffic have 1 occupant, or 1 adult and some kids). Sprawl also requires more infrastructure per capita (more roads, more sanitation, more sewers, water mains, more electric grids, more parking lots, etc.), which just adds to the issue I raised earlier.
If people hadn't spread out after WWII then we'd likely see more people living in dense urban centers, commuting to work in trains, or buses, and living in highrises. We wouldn't have smog issues like we have today. We wouldn't have to put up with the suburbanites requiring their goddamn HUGE SUVs getting 2 mpg and making them seriously overweight in the process of driving everywhere.
Sprawl easily does more damage. Plus density is much more desirable than urban sprawl.
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.