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 see that's the thing, I feel like a lot of the time just because someone wants to live in a single family home with a yard, they get cased on for contributing to sprawl... It's just reality. Maybe I'm wrong.
It comes down to a matter of scale. A single-family home is fine if it is rightly sized and positioned. If you live in a house that has a smaller (but usable) yard, is positioned alongside other types of housing and isn't of McMansion proportions you aren't likely contributing to sprawl. (Much of south Mpls. is single-family homes, but few whould characterize it as sprawl) If the idea of the single-family home is a 3,500 foot whopper with a half-acre yard you are almost definately contributing to sprawl.
It comes down to a matter of scale. A single-family home is fine if it is rightly sized and positioned. If you live in a house that has a smaller (but usable) yard, is positioned alongside other types of housing and isn't of McMansion proportions you aren't likely contributing to sprawl. (Much of south Mpls. is single-family homes, but few whould characterize it as sprawl) If the idea of the single-family home is a 3,500 foot whopper with a half-acre yard you are almost definately contributing to sprawl.
Here again - I pose the question to you: What if - what if an individual WANTS to live in a 4,000 sq ft home - on 1/2, or larger, lot - so what? Would you, if you were in charge, stop them?
There's no lack of low density, suburban housing in this country. It probably makes up over 90% of the housing stock being used in the USA today.
I think the more valid concern is about people who wish to live in traditionally planned cities and villages. We are the ones who are really suffering from a shortage of available neighborhoods. You can go anywhere in the USA you want and find a suburban house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
And, what if the people do not want to live in the type of density you describe? What if they want their own, private backyard - with their own pool etc?
There's no lack of low density, suburban housing in this country. It probably makes up over 90% of the housing stock being used in the USA today.
I think the more valid concern is about people who wish to live in traditionally planned cities and villages. We are the ones who are really suffering from a shortage of available neighborhoods. You can go anywhere in the USA you want and find a suburban house.
The issue is, difference in desired lifestyles.
Here in the West, generally, we strongly oppose most high, or higher, density residential housing.
Most of our new residents come from higher density areas, like yours (New York) and they do not want to live like that anymore. They want the big backyard. They want their car - in their own garage. Heck, they want 2.2 cars!
Getting higher density - so called "walkable" areas, here in the West is not likely to happen very often.
I believe such a hosue could be zoned out of existence, but that is unlikely to happen in the VAST majority of towns throughout the country.
This is America you're free to do what you want. However we are still products of our environment. Americans, willingly or not, for the past 50 years have lived in a system where single-family homes, and the zoning that encourages their creation, are portrayed as the only real viable place to live, raise a family, and retire. This suburban nation that we have built is one of the main contributors to the increasing ammount of traffic/gridlock and dependence upon foreign oil (and therefore dependence upon foreign despots).
If you build walkable neighborhoods with higher density, and access to public transportation people can get out of their homes, walk more (which is better for everyone'e health; and this is especially important since we have an obesity epidemic in America right now) and rely less upon their cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
Here again - I pose the question to you: What if - what if an individual WANTS to live in a 4,000 sq ft home - on 1/2, or larger, lot - so what? Would you, if you were in charge, stop them?
Yeah that is until gasoline is being sold for $5-8 a gallon, then we'll see how much people enjoy riding around in their cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
The issue is, difference in desired lifestyles.
Here in the West, generally, we strongly oppose most high, or higher, density residential housing.
Most of our new residents come from higher density areas, like yours (New York) and they do not want to live like that anymore. They want the big backyard. They want their car - in their own garage. Heck, they want 2.2 cars!
Getting higher density - so called "walkable" areas, here in the West is not likely to happen very often.
Still, most people would not be within reasonable walking distance of work, and I don't think a lot of people were before suburbs either. The obesity epidemic has to do with the US relying on fast food and not having time or not caring to excersize, I've never seen statistics that show people are fatter in suburbs. I could be wrong.
Here in the West, generally, we strongly oppose most high, or higher, density residential housing.
Most of our new residents come from higher density areas, like yours (New York) and they do not want to live like that anymore. They want the big backyard. They want their car - in their own garage. Heck, they want 2.2 cars!
Getting higher density - so called "walkable" areas, here in the West is not likely to happen very often.
This is true. Even in oh-so-politcally correct Boulder, a proposal to turn an old, no longer used school into condos met with much resistance due to increased density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mead
I believe such a hosue could be zoned out of existence, but that is unlikely to happen in the VAST majority of towns throughout the country.
This is America you're free to do what you want. However we are still products of our environment. Americans, willingly or not, for the past 50 years have lived in a system where single-family homes, and the zoning that encourages their creation, are portrayed as the only real viable place to live, raise a family, and retire. This suburban nation that we have built is one of the main contributors to the increasing ammount of traffic/gridlock and dependence upon foreign oil (and therefore dependence upon foreign despots).
If you build walkable neighborhoods with higher density, and access to public transportation people can get out of their homes, walk more (which is better for everyone'e health; and this is especially important since we have an obesity epidemic in America right now) and rely less upon their cars.
We who live in the suburbs are not stupid, nor have we been duped into thinking this is best. We like it! We like having our own yards, where our kids can play and we can have a small pool, and a garden to GROW OUR OWN FOOD, which I do. There is considerable evidence that the so-called "obesity epidemic" (a term coined by the media, not used in health care) is worse, guess where? IN THE CITIES. Google it if you don't beleive me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metro223
Still, most people would not be within reasonable walking distance of work, and I don't think a lot of people were before suburbs either. The obesity epidemic has to do with the US relying on fast food and not having time or not caring to excersize, I've never seen statistics that show people are fatter in suburbs. I could be wrong.
I agree. I know people who live in Denver and drive to the burbs to work. Heck, my DH and I used to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metro223
Mead I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seems like your solution is that everyone moves into high density apartment buildings.
Yes, it seems that way to me, too, and I for one, want no part of it.
Here again - I pose the question to you: What if - what if an individual WANTS to live in a 4,000 sq ft home - on 1/2, or larger, lot - so what? Would you, if you were in charge, stop them?
Sorry, but I felt compelled to jump in here. This whole debate is clearly turning into an argument of consumer choice vs. responsibility to society. It's akin to the whole SUV vs. high fuel-economy vehicle debate, that "if I WANT to buy a vehicle that uses more fuel, then why shouldn't I?"
Sure, if you want to do these things, you can - but I think that's irrelevant here. Wanting and being legally allowed to do something doesn't mean it's not going to have a negative impact. In this case, it happens to be on the environment, as suburban sprawl (buying oversized homes on excessive plots of land) is not environmentally sustainable. I'm not saying I'm above this, because I'm as responsible as the next person, but I feel as though our country has to get over this entitlement "it's my right" mentality when it comes to things that affect society as a whole. We're only going to hurt ourselves in the long run.
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.
