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.
Actully, London does it quite fine (8 million people in the area of the same size as the beltway), but I don't expect everyone to live like I do or like a Londoner. That is silly. 169 was a ****ty road 20 years ago, and it deserved to be fixed. It should not be a 8 lane highway. The cities can expand halfway to Des Moines if it does it RIGHT. You live in Dakota County GolfGirl, wouldn't it be nice of something besodes Cedar or 35 could get you into the cities when traffic is bad, like a side road? There are none. Lousy planning. Expanding 35 would not do half as much as making a bridge for Nicollet Avenue over the river. Cars could use it as an alternate route, buses could get off 35. There would be more options for both our wants. That is just one example. There are, in fact, two types of suburbia. The new, new kind like Lakeville and the old kind like Bloomington. I support the type of growth that Bloomington gave us. It extended major streets coming from the city, people got fairly large lots. It is pretty walkable. You get well sized homes, transit, parks, schools. A place like Bloomington gives the best of both worlds. Obviously that wasn't good enough. Then we had to create suburbs with acre parking lots, acre lots, no transportation, no future hope of it, confusing streets, et. cetera. This was a lost opportunity, but we have yet to correct it. If the development of the cities would have looked like East Bloomington, everything would be fine. We will have millions of people in the next fifty years moving to Mpls. Where are 6, 8, 10 millin people going to live with the current form of development. We would meet Chicago half-way. For what? So you can get basically the same house?
to respond to some particular points
--Why not move businesses to meet suburbia?
Fine, move Target HQ to Burnsville, what about someone who lives in Blaine, their commute is longer.
-- I never will get people's aversion to their neighbors. If you don't like seeing them build a fence and plant some shrubs. Living in anything vaguely resembling a city takes at least some sacrifice. That is your sacrifice until the shrubs grow. I live on a tenth of an acre lot and I never see someone elses' backyard.
--Cobblestone lake is quite expensive, so while the lot may be undesirable, you get a trade off. Your house isn't built like crap
--Apparently the 2 acre lot has not fallen from vogue. In many outer ring suburbs, it is mandated by code. Lake Hugo, Stillwater Twp. I'm sure places like Medina won't allow a house on a quarter acre. Your experience may be different, but I am looking on a metro-wide scale.
--Tim the Guy - Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything remotely close to global warming. Personally I could care less. Ultimately, It becomes an economic issue. What happens to a city when you can't drive it. Think what happens to a place like Los Angeles, people hate the drive and move. It works for the individual in the particular house, but on the whole, it is expensive and unsustainable.
-- Fleeing companies do not cause urban blight. They cause commutes that can only be made by car, a less functional transit system. Industrial companies are usually justified in suburbanizing since they use alot of land. Target is not justified in building on acres of cornfields because of fiat.
--No one said ANYTHING about high rises. Some of the loveliest parts of the city are old SPRAWL. But it was done right. People got a house and a yard, they could walk places, they could take a trolley when needed, they had a garage for their car. Look at south Mpls. people had personal space, but they didn't feel it necessary to turn their backs on public spaces and amenities. Even on a larger scale with larger homes and lots, this would have been sustainable.
Finally, it is interesting that you denote the urban boundary by a suburban landmark. Richfield used to be suburban, but now that is supposedly urban by your standards. That brings me to yet another point, but I have to go.
Actually we have several options to get into the city if need be--Cedar, 35W, 35E, 52, Pilot Knob, Hwy 3 and several variations of the above and other streets. Quite frankly there is very little difference between say Apple Valley and Bloomington other then the trees are a lot bigger.
Most of the qualities you list about Bloomington are found here in Rosemount. We have extensions of major roads coming out of the cities (3, 52 specifically), our community is as walkable as Bloomington and probably more so because it isn't as spread out, most of the town is with in walking distance to the grocery store, etc. We also have a transportation center on the edge of town and one in Apple Valley AND Eagan so public transportation is pretty easy for those working in Minneapolis/St. Paul and based on the number of cars in the lot at the centers they are well used.
As far as the aversion to the neighbors, I have no issue with having neighbors what so ever, I DON'T want to hear their TV while I am sitting in my kitchen and that is what happens when your houses are only 5 feet apart like they are in Cobblestone. I would also like to say that the construction quality there is not even close to good, but most people think if you pay a lot it must be good. I have several friends that live there and they ALL complain about construction defects, major ones.
Yes Tim and GolfGal, who cares about open space for agriculture and nature, and who cares if we grow together as one big traffic clogged megalopois stretching from New York to L.A. Who cares about the huge waste of energy that this type of development creates and the huge environmental impacts it has. As long as we can have our big yards in the suburbs right? We have to have the best perfect suburban life for us and our children now, we dont care about the world that they will have to live in in the future. We should all dive SUV's case there comfey for us and the kids. We can feed them with ethanol grown from corn that would otherwise feed the sarving in poor countires. Who cares about them as long as we, the privliged suburban americans that use 25% of the world energy, but make up 5% of the worlds population, can have our big yard in the suburbs.
While, the first point was my fault. When I refer to the city, I am always referring to Mpls. My point remains, 200,000 people work in downtown Mpls. If you live in Dakota County you have two ways to get there. I used to drive it everyday. If Apple Valley were like Bloomington, there would be a corner called 160th and 34th Avenue. It would have a bus stop that came at least every hour. If AV were like Bloomington, the streets would be straight and orderly. They would have a city (not commuter) bus schedule. It goes back to a previous argument we had golfgirl, buses are of no use to alot if they come once a half-hour for 4 hours a day, five days a week. If Cobblestone is that bad, it is then not the type of development I am proposing. Mainly because, while I looks "old" and I thought they were better built than they are (I admit fault here), they remain inherently suburban in a bad way. I've never heard my neighbors TV. Remember my overall mantra. Suburbs are not inherently bad, the way we choose to build them is.
Yes Tim and GolfGal, who cares about open space for agriculture and nature, and who cares if we grow together as one big traffic clogged megalopois stretching from New York to L.A. Who cares about the huge waste of energy that this type of development creates and the huge environmental impacts it has. As long as we can have our big yards in the suburbs right? We have to have the best perfect suburban life for us and our children now, we dont care about the world that they will have to live in in the future. We should all dive SUV's case there comfey for us and the kids. We can feed them with ethanol grown from corn that would otherwise feed the sarving in poor countires. Who cares about them as long as we, the privliged suburban americans that use 25% of the world energy, but make up 5% of the worlds population, can have our big yard in the suburbs.
First of all, our government PAYS farmers NOT to plant corn because there is an over abundance of corn and other products in the US. The starving people of the world are that way because of the GOVERNMENT in THEIR Country, not because someone in the US drives an SUV. If the farmers in the US planted all their fields all the time they could feed the world the problem is that food often sits in warehouses and never gets distributed to the people that need it the most. Also, the best way to solve the hunger problem is to TEACH those people that need it the most HOW to grow food, find food, etc--or teach them a trade so they can buy what they need.
I am still trying to figure out the "big waste" that happens in the suburbs that doesn't happen in the city. I would also venture to guess that the twisting roads in the suburbs actually hold MORE houses/development then the block format in the cities.
Our so called "big" yards also help the environment by having plant life growing in our yards. We have trees, grass, shrubs, flowers, etc. all necessary for a healthy environment. Concrete sidewalks certainly don't help that situation much.
Again, our commutes are VERY short and would be LONGER if we lived in Minneapolis so how is that saving energy and helping the environment again?
Minnehahapolitan--again, I can take 52 to 94 and get to Minneapolis, I can take 3 to 494 or 94 or 110 and take any number of roads off these roads. I can take 52 to 55 or 3 to 55 or Pilot Knob to 35 to 494 to 55 or 5 or 94 or I can take Pilot Knob to Lexington to 55 or 494 or 13--these are all just out of Rosemount alone. There are any number of roads that we can take into the cities, both Minneapolis and St. Paul. Also, I know several people that take the commuter bus to Minneapolis and the buses come every 5 minutes in the morning rush hour and in the evening rush hour. After that it is less frequent but after that, you don't need the bus, we have everything we need here.
The main roads in Apple Valley and Rosemount are neat and orderly--they go in numerical order north to south. Yes, the roads in the developments are twisty/turny but the main travel roads are just fine. A lot easier then the roads in St. Paul!
Let me correct those statements GolfGirl. By using what I have learned by my personal experience of being in the planning field and when working on my masters degrees in urban planning and geography. First of all Our metro area is becoming less dense. Every year, the amount of land used by the metro area increases way more than the population. Your theory that says that the suburbs hold more houses than a well planned grid type development used in Mpls/ St. Paul and Richfield is absolutly not true. The grid pattern is able to hold a much more dense populaiton and allow for easier travel with less bottle necks.
Your theory that suburbs are not a waste of energy is absolutly wrong. Cities that are planned smarter (yes more dense) but still contain single family residential neighborhoods and stores closer to where people live as in Europe, Canada, etc. use much less energy because they offer more mass transit options to their residents and the way they are planned allow people to walk to meet their daily needs rather than an automobile that demands high energy.
As far as suburbs being good for the environment?? Please! You are saying that clogged freeways, stip malls, parking lots, and cookie cutter subdivisions (that also require a lot of fertilizer and water for their lawns) are better for the environment than natural open space?
I find it hard to belive that our countrys farm fields are able to feed the entire world population of 6.5 billion about 20 times the populaiton of the U.S. even though the slightest demand for ethonal is already driving up our food prices? I had a geography professor tell me once that we would have to plant the world in corn 4 times over, just to produce enough fuel for the american fleet of vehicles, and thats if we all dont eat.
Your personal commute may be short, but all studies indicate that the aveage commute in the Twin Cities and every other metro in the U.S. is increasing by leaps and bounds due to our de-centrialization and sprawl of our metro areas as is clearly evedient by our increased times sitting in traffic.
I can go up the I-35 to get to Saint Cloud, but for some reason I don't. Anyways, (an in another incorrect "venture") the city DOES hold more units per mile. If a simple perusal of a map did not tell you this, I did some math for you. Apple Valley has 16536 housing units and about 17 square miles (972 units per mile) Mpls. as a whole has 168606 units and 54 miles (3122 units/mile). Before you say wait a minute, Minnehahapolitan, that takes downtown into account, read on. Kenny, by my personal guess the least dense area residential area of the city, has, generously, 1 uch less than 972. Let me continue, debunking takes a long time. While St. P may have been laid out by Drunken Irishmen, that drunkard was still smarter than the four year-old daughter of the Apple Valley city planner, whom he (or she) apparently took inspiration from. Spaghetti is not a proper layout. For example, if my friend lives on "Eveleth Avenue" (off J. Cake and McAndrews) I would have to take Ethelon, past Essex to either Euclid or Everest before turning on to Eveleth. I can see why that is so easy, but you never leave a main road. Another surprise, your back yard isn't nature. It is an artificial sod prairie interrupted by a tree or two, maybe a shrub. It has no ecosystem, no biodiversity, nothing that would denote "nature" . Pretty to look at, sure. Making up for the lost quarter acre of farmland, prob. not. Sidewalks make up for their degredation to nature by promoting miles of walking, health and window shopping's economic gains. Your cul-de-sac (which takes up equally as much blacktop) does none of that, neither does a three lane highway. YOUR commute may be very short, but most aren't. Then there would be no need for your suburb. The big waste in suburbs comes in many forms. Miles of driving and time lost. Paved surfaces which are not made up for in use due to underpopulation, billions spent on roads which could otherwise to to a plethora of uses, loss of farmland, unaccounted economic loss, decades of maintenence costs which again are not made up for because of underpopulation, safety in driving, gas consumption. In bare essence, you are building everything needed for a large city and not fully populating it. That is not gluttunous at all. The greenest city in the country is New York. Per capita, they consume less, take less land, use less gas, walk more, et. cetera. The worst part, however, is that there is nothing in the suburbs which the city gave you before it was abandoned. I keep hearing how nice a big backyard is. It doesn't make you more money, doesn't make your kids smarter, doesn't make you healthier, get you more friends. the extra thousand feet in your home don't make it more impressive, nicer or worth extra. Downtown has the same Target. The city has the same Cub. Your parks aren't any nicer. Even your much touted schools don't make it worth while. Southwest will teach an eager student just as much. If I want, I could send a kid down the Nicollet bus to DeLaSalle with the money I saved from not needing a second car. Or Minnehaha or Blake. Your neighbors aren't more friendly, The park preserve down the road isn't a place where you can have a Thoreauan experience in nature any more than Wirth Park is. It isn't any quieter. It isn't cheaper. Minnetonka, Bloomington, Maplewood, Shakopee and Burnsville all had more murders than Linden Hills. Do they pump LSD into the water to make everyone happy? I got it, my street was plowed sooner when I lived in Lakeville, there's the appeal. All the strip malls are spelled Centre instead of Center. Developers tout "european elegence" to city councils. Know what makes Europe so loved, its cities are great. Paris is built on a boring plain, but the city is gourgeous and is loved for it, they get tourism from thousands of miles away for it. Old Minneapolis, I don't feel, was any less appealing. The difference is that us brilliant people chose to spread out like cannon fodder at the peril of the city. America is the only place that needs a backyard more than a city. Ever wonder how everyone else lives in a 200 meter flat on a busy street? They wonder the opposite. Every other nation in the world has its rich living in the city. They left sprawl for the barrios, favelas, townships and ghettos because that is the only group befitting of it. We know better.
It is just very plain you don't like the suburbs and you BOTH have a lot of misconceptions about people that live in the suburbs for what ever reason. You don't know me, you have never been to my house to watch the ducks swim in our pond or the crane that visits our deck to sun itself.
Again, the US could feed the world EASILY with the farmland that it has--do some research into the subject. Don't get me started on fertilizers when the worst abusers of fertilizers are farmers. Isaysos, tasted the water in Marshall lately? Don't tell me that all the scum in the city water comes from lawns. SW MN has the highest rate of cancer/capita in MN, don't tell me that comes from your neighbor killing a few weeds in their lawn. Up until your last post I thought you were a 22 year old college student, btw and seeing as you are not there is a very good chance we know each other. Out of curiosity, what kind of car do YOU drive?
Again, I come back to the point that both of you fail to answer, if we don't live in the suburbs, WHERE are we supposed to live. There is a very good reason for the suburbs, the cities are FULL.
Yes Tim and GolfGal, who cares about open space for agriculture and nature, and who cares if we grow together as one big traffic clogged megalopois stretching from New York to L.A. Who cares about the huge waste of energy that this type of development creates and the huge environmental impacts it has. As long as we can have our big yards in the suburbs right? We have to have the best perfect suburban life for us and our children now, we dont care about the world that they will have to live in in the future. We should all dive SUV's case there comfey for us and the kids. We can feed them with ethanol grown from corn that would otherwise feed the sarving in poor countires. Who cares about them as long as we, the privliged suburban americans that use 25% of the world energy, but make up 5% of the worlds population, can have our big yard in the suburbs.
First off as a free markets supporter I am anti-ethanol (even though my grandmother owns 2 farms in western MN). Secondly who says the U.S. has to support every straving poor person in the world?? Thirdly why do you keep trying to compare us to Europe? Do they have the vast expanses of open land like the U.S.? Minnehaha uses London as an example?????
We are the U.S.A. We have lots of money. We can afford to live in something bigger than a 500 sq. foot apartment. We are a big land, with big people, big cars, big houses on big lots. The "common-folk" in other places in the world can't afford to live like we do.
Where I live we have lots of open space for nature and agriculture. We are surronded by both in Hastings. We also have an easy commute to St. Paul and the surrouding areas in the SE metro. If I or my wife worked in downtown MPLS I probably would not live where I do. I would choose another suburb on that side of town.
You get a little doomsdayish with your thoughts of surbuban sprawl from here to Chi. or NYC to L.A ....please! Let's be a little more realistic. There could maybe be a narrow corridor of sprawl from MPLS to St. Cloud, but beyond that...
Remember, GolfGal, that I lived in Lakeville for ten years. I have some idea of what I am talking about. The city is full is thousands move, but YOU are just one. You could move if you wanted to. If many people chose to live in the city, free markets would accomodate that growth (and very quickly) like they accomodated sprawl. Nothing on here is making any attempt to pass judgment on you, rather, the suburbs in which you live. Note that distinction. People control their environment, not the other way. You were not forced, by an inanimate city, to move twenty miles from it. It was a communal choice. People left because they wanted a big yard, big house or "contact with nature". Suburbs, meant to be the idealized concoction of city and nature, serve neither those parts. You cannot have both. That crane you so admire is actually rather lost in the absence of trees, natural ponds or prairie. He is on your deck only because you chose to build your house on his. Lastly, just because we can feed the world, doesn't mean we do. Our farm bills are written by ADM, Cargill and ConAgra. They could care less about starving babies OR a yeomen farmer. Still, in light of argicultural dilemmas which I will not extrapolate on, your lot was more prodcutive as polluting farm. But that isn't your fault, really.
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.
