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.
All the problems listed are worse under suburban sprawl than with dense walkable urban growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerbear30
I don't know if the city will "decrease" its current sprawl, but it may certainly decrease the rate of sprawl going forward. I also think the city will definitely increase density going forward and that's a good thing. If you're for Houston becoming more like a northeastern city in the conventional mold, it's probably not going to happen--I'll grant that--but there's no reason that we can't get smarter and more careful about our planning going forward.
The lack of zoning means that such density can be executed in Houston legally. The only hindrance would be the mindset of the population, as well as those minimum parking and setback requirements as discussed by the article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwarnecke
As for dense communities being more flood-resistant...it's complicated. Less sprawl is good in the macro sense, but less impervious cover (associated with higher density) is generally not good in a micro sense. Higher property values associated with higher density should theoretically generate more money for flood control infrastructure, but I wouldn't hold my breath for the tax revenues to actually flow in that direction...
Reduction of impervious cover is huge in terms of the amount of water absorbed. Also, with higher density, you are looking at that much more people in a smaller, more manageable area for flood control.
All the problems listed are worse under suburban sprawl than with dense walkable urban growth.
Just because you claim so, does not mean it is so.
Does not really matter if it's urban or sprawl, human overpopulation is causing all of the problematic issues we see on earth including the current 6th Mass Extinction...i.e. The Holocene extinction.
Just because you claim so, does not mean it is so.
Except that the facts support my claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Intensive urban growth can lead to greater poverty, with local governments unable to provide services for all people.
Concentrated energy use leads to greater air pollution with significant impact on human health.
Automobile exhaust produces elevated lead levels in urban air.
Large volumes of uncollected waste create multiple health hazards.
Urban development can magnify the risk of environmental hazards such as flash flooding.
Pollution and physical barriers to root growth promote loss of urban tree cover.
Animal populations are inhibited by toxic substances, vehicles, and the loss of habitat and food sources.
Local governments that support social benefits and services (as many in urban areas support) help to combat such poverty.
Walkable urbanity constitutes far less of a energy usage, ecological impact, and footprint compared to suburban sprawl. Less automobiles required as there would be greater public transit, more intact natural landscape since there will be less sq miles of land built up, etc.
Quote:
Does not really matter if it's urban or sprawl, human overpopulation is causing all of the problematic issues we see on earth including the current 6th Mass Extinction...i.e. The Holocene extinction.
I've not seen one fact presented by you...only opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Walkable urbanity constitutes far less of a energy usage, ecological impact, and footprint compared to suburban sprawl. Less automobiles required as there would be greater public transit, more intact natural landscape since there will be less sq miles of land built up, etc.
False
Quote:
The conversion of Earth’s land surface to urban uses is one of the most irreversible human impacts on the global biosphere. It hastens the loss of highly productive farmland, affects energy demand, alters the climate, modifies hydrologic and biogeochemical cycles, fragments habitats, and reduces biodiversity.
Now compare the air quality and negative environmental impacts in the 3 most populated countries. China and Pakistan are highly urbanized and hosts some of the worst air quality on the earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
That's a worldwide matter which developed nations like the US barely contribute to.
You clearly don't pay attention to which countries populations are on a straight trajectory upward.
The US is is one of them. We are the 3rd most populated country behind China and Pakistan.
Again, both sprawl and urban development will require alterations to nature, that's a given. But the point is, walkable urban development has far lessof an impact to nature than suburban sprawl, for reasons already mentioned (less square miles of land built up, less energy consumed, etc).
Quote:
Now compare the air quality and negative environmental impacts in the 3 most populated countries. China and Pakistan are highly urbanized and hosts some of the worst air quality on the earth.
The pollution in those developing countries comes from their poor quality of fuel sources (coal) and waste treatment (burning piles of garbage in open air fires), as well as the usage of automobiles (which would be worse if they were built in a suburban pattern). Nothing to do with their density specifically.
Quote:
You clearly don't pay attention to which countries populations are on a straight trajectory upward.
The US is is one of them. We are the 3rd most populated country behind China and Pakistan.
If your concern is overpopulation on Earth, then you have to actually look at which countries have the highest birth rates. And you won't find the US, or other developed nations, anywhere near the top. Top births by raw numbers will come from large developing nations like India: https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2054rank.html
But this discussion is moot. First, it's not related to the topic of this thread. Also, it still fits my point: high density urbanity will be a far more efficient management of Earth's space in dealing with overpopulation than far-flung suburban sprawl would.
Instead of dodging and evading my point that you have only offered opinions vs. facts, why not offer up facts to support that all problems associated with urban development are worse under "suburban sprawl"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Again, both sprawl and urban development will require alterations to nature, that's a given. But the point is, walkable urban development has far lessof an impact to nature than suburban sprawl, for reasons already mentioned (less square miles of land built up, less energy consumed, etc).
I suggest you take the time to actually read the study I linked. It busts every myth you've just posted. If the only pomp pomp you have to wave is urban development is good because "it's walk-able", then you really have no argument and don't fully understand the negative impacts associated with urban development.
From the link:
The conversion of Earth’s land surface to urban uses is one of the most irreversible human impacts on the global biosphere. It hastens the loss of highly productive farmland, affects energy demand, alters the climate, modifies hydrologic and biogeochemical cycles, fragments habitats, and reduces biodiversity (Seto et al., 2011)
We see these effects (environmental impacts) on multiple levels. Future urbanization will, for example, pose direct threats to high-value ecosystems: the highest rates of land conversion over the next few decades will likely take place in biodiversity hotspots that were relatively undisturbed by urban development in 2000 (Seto et al., 2012).
Within cities, the nature of urban growth is also an important determinant of urban dwellers’ vulnerability to environmental stress (Güneralp and Seto, 2008).
The environmental impacts of urban expansion reach far beyond urban areas themselves. In rapidly urbanizing areas, agriculture intensifies on remaining undeveloped land and is likely to expand to new areas, putting pressure on land resources (Jiang et al., 2013).
Furthermore, urban areas change precipitation patterns at scales of hundreds of square kilometers (Kaufman et al., 2007) . Urban expansion will affect global climate as well.
Direct loss in vegetation biomass from areas with high probability of urban expansion is predicted to contribute about 5% of total emissions from tropical deforestation and land-use change (Seto et al., 2012).
Although many studies have described how urbanization affects CO2 emissions and heat budgets, effects on the circulation of water, aerosols, and nitrogen in the climate system are only beginning to be understood (Seto & Shepherd, 2009).
I have linked several peer reviewed published papers. Perhaps you can learn how urban development is not good for earth, environments, ecosystems, climate...etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
The pollution in those developing countries comes from their poor quality of fuel sources (coal) and waste treatment (burning piles of garbage in open air fires), as well as the usage of automobiles (which would be worse if they were built in a suburban pattern). Nothing to do with their density specifically.
False. Hong Kong is not developing...it's been a graduated developed economy since 1997. Air pollution in Hong Kong is considered a serious problem. Visibility is less than eight kilometres for 30% of the year. Cases of asthma and bronchial infections have soared in recent years due to reduced air quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
If your concern is overpopulation on Earth, then you have to actually look at which countries have the highest birth rates.
No that's not what you look at as many developing nations have high birthrates but also high birth death rates.
The United States has the largest population in the developed world, and is the only developed nation experiencing significant population growth. Its 300 million inhabitants produce greenhouse gases at a per-capita rate that is more than double that of Europe, five times the global average, and more than 10 times the average of developing nations. The U.S. greenhouse gas contribution is driven by a disastrous combination of high population, significant growth, and massive (and rising) consumption levels, and thus far, lack of political will to end our fossil-fuel addiction.
But this discussion is moot. First, it's not related to the topic of this thread.
The only thing moot in this discussion is unsubstantiated claims. Human overpopulation is directly tied to the need for Urban development. Most folks have little desire to live stacked on-top of each other with concrete all around them and human filth piled up in alleys and on the street. Take a good look around SF and NYC and you will see plenty of urban filth that typically goes hand in hand with urban living.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texyn
Also, it still fits my point: high density urbanity will be a far more efficient management of Earth's space in dealing with overpopulation than far-flung suburban sprawl would.
Again, I suggest you take the time to learn about the damaging effects of urban development and stop spreading unsubstantiated claims. I've posted enough peer reviewed papers to get you started.
The first sentence in the post I quoted said "name a city that is dense and affordable".
That'd be Chicago...
Then you should have quoted ONLY that sentence. How is anyone else supposed to divine that your answer was to one of two sentences quoted (not to mention which one)?
Instead of dodging and evading my point that you have only offered opinions vs. facts, why not offer up facts to support that all problems associated with urban development are worse under "suburban sprawl"?
Because I already have. Numerous times. Again, put on your bifocals and try again.
Quote:
I suggest you take the time to actually read the study I linked. It busts every myth you've just posted. If the only pomp pomp you have to wave is urban development is good because "it's walk-able", then you really have no argument and don't fully understand the negative impacts associated with urban development.
From the link:
The conversion of Earth’s land surface to urban uses is one of the most irreversible human impacts on the global biosphere. It hastens the loss of highly productive farmland, affects energy demand, alters the climate, modifies hydrologic and biogeochemical cycles, fragments habitats, and reduces biodiversity (Seto et al., 2011)
We see these effects (environmental impacts) on multiple levels. Future urbanization will, for example, pose direct threats to high-value ecosystems: the highest rates of land conversion over the next few decades will likely take place in biodiversity hotspots that were relatively undisturbed by urban development in 2000 (Seto et al., 2012).
Within , the nature of urban growth is also an important determinant of urban dwellers’ vulnerability to environmental stress (Güneralp and Seto, 2008).
The environmental impacts of urban expansion reach far beyond urban areas themselves. In rapidly urbanizing areas, agriculture intensifies on remaining undeveloped land and is likely to expand to new areas, putting pressure on land resources (Jiang et al., 2013).
Furthermore, urban areas change precipitation patterns at scales of hundreds of square kilometers (Kaufman et al., 2007) . Urban expansion will affect global climate as well.
Direct loss in vegetation biomass from areas with high probability of urban expansion is predicted to contribute about 5% of total emissions from tropical deforestation and land-use change (Seto et al., 2012).
Although many studies have described how urbanization affects CO2 emissions and heat budgets, effects on the circulation of water, aerosols, and nitrogen in the climate system are only beginning to be understood (Seto & Shepherd, 2009).
I have linked several peer reviewed published papers. Perhaps you can learn how urban development is not good for earth, environments, ecosystems, climate...etc.
In all the sources you have posted so far this thread, the "urban development" that they are referring to is simply growth in general, regardless of whether it is dense walkable or sprawling suburban. I've already acknowledged that both forms of development will have impact to nature. Therefore, your sources don't bust anything I've said.
Since it's established that both forms will impact nature, it's best to choose the form with least impact if you want more of the landscape intact. And that form would be walkable development.
Quote:
False. Hong Kong is not developing...it's been a graduated developed economy since 1997. Air pollution in Hong Kong is considered a serious problem. Visibility is less than eight kilometres for 30% of the year. Cases of asthma and bronchial infections have soared in recent years due to reduced air quality.
No, China as a whole is still a developing country, given low per-capita GDP and incomplete market reform: China Overview
Hong Kong is but one city in China, which happens to have special autonomous functions to render it distinct from the rest of the country. The pollution that occurs there isn't from dense urbanity either, but rather, from geography; smog from mainland China blows down to Hong Kong during the winter monsoon, which then gets trapped by the mountains surrounding the city. The area still has the issue of poor fuel sources (coal-burning) that plague the rest of China, along with pollutants from traffic (again, which would be far worse if it were sprawled out).
And now to address your off-topic points:
Quote:
No that's not what you look at as many developing nations have high birth rates but also high birth death rates. The United States has the largest population in the developed world, and is the only developed nation experiencing significant population growth.
So the death rate has to be high enough to offset the birth rate by a good margin in order to prevent the problem. But India, which has a far larger population than the US (over a billion), not only has a much higher birth rate (as shown by my link), but also a lower mortality rate. Look at India, and countries like it if you want to truly see where "overpopulation" issues are the biggest: https://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=26
As far as population growth in the US, immigration constitutes a large component of that.
Quote:
Its 300 million inhabitants produce greenhouse gases at a per-capita rate that is more than double that of Europe, five times the global average, and more than 10 times the average of developing nations. The U.S. greenhouse gas contribution is driven by a disastrous combination of high population, significant growth, and massive (and rising) consumption levels, and thus far, lack of political will to end our fossil-fuel addiction.
.... Which comes from the US being way more sprawling and autocentric compared to the dense, walkable Europe. If it's cities were less sprawled out, then there would be less consumption and fossil fuel use, since masses of automobiles would be replaced by the more energy efficient public transit. So once again, your post supports my point.
Quote:
Human overpopulation is directly tied to the need for Urban development. Most folks have little desire to live stacked on-top of each other with concrete all around them and human filth piled up in alleys and on the street. Take a good look around SF and NYC and you will see plenty of urban filth that typically goes hand in hand with urban living.
Still would be preferable compared to the natural landscape all being used up, paved over, and polluted with loads of car exhaust, as would come with far flung, soulless McMansion sprawl. High density, regardless of its issues, would be a much more efficient way to manage high populations.
Plus cleanliness and stacked density aren't mutually exclusive, as shown by areas like Chicago, London, etc.
Quote:
The only thing moot in this discussion is unsubstantiated claims.
Quote:
Again, I suggest you take the time to learn about the damaging effects of urban development and stop spreading unsubstantiated claims. I've posted enough peer reviewed papers to get you started.
The thread is about Houston and the dense growth pattern in needs post-Harvey. Your overpopulation argument does not relate to that, and so is off-topic.
My claims either fall under common sense, or are obvious conclusions reached once you actually think things through. Your fake news links don't change that.
In all honesty, Houston has quite a pleasant natural setting and climate, great for growing live oaks and other evergreen trees. But the unbridled sprawl diminishes this beauty, as well as the ability to enjoy it.
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.
