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.
The underlying fact is that this country will have 400 million people by 2100. All these people will be living in a mixture of cities and suburbs. That's why I don't really pay attention to people on this board and others who claim "the city is dying!" or "the burbs are dying!"
In my opinion, suburbs will continue to grow in the Sunbelt and other cities that have no natural land restrictions, while the older Northeastern metros will work to emphasize and enhance their cores.
I think the biggest issue here is the fact that in New Jersey, there is a very small amount of land left relative to other states. And what would happen if every square inch of land in this country gets developed or built on? Why has NJ constantly been faced with the issues of preserving open space over the last 10-12 years? This is the most crowded state in the entire country. The idea of "smart growth" is to try to fit more people into one smaller spot so there is enough undeveloped land or open space elsewhere and that the entire nation does not get overdeveloped. This will continue to be a challenge because all the US population does every decade is increase.
What is going to happen when the state runs out of land? Or the entire nation?
I think the biggest issue here is the fact that in New Jersey, there is a very small amount of land left relative to other states. And what would happen if every square inch of land in this country gets developed or built on? Why has NJ constantly been faced with the issues of preserving open space over the last 10-12 years? This is the most crowded state in the entire country. The idea of "smart growth" is to try to fit more people into one smaller spot so there is enough undeveloped land or open space elsewhere and that the entire nation does not get overdeveloped. This will continue to be a challenge because all the US population does every decade is increase.
What is going to happen when the state runs out of land? Or the entire nation?
not in a thousand years.. Ever drive out west? Lots of land left. Lots. Ill bet we only have less then 1/2 of all the land developed in the US
Yes I know. But the point is it should stay that way and not get developed because if too much land gets developed it is not good for the environment.
the environment isnt a concern. my community isnt bad for the environment and neither is having a million more of my communities.
i guess one thing that happens when all the land is developed in new jersey, people can go somewhere else to develop that land. we should be spreading out and developing all the land in the country, not looking to force people to concentrate in cities. its not our government's business to decide how the american people want to develop. we dont need government to plan our future for us.
The government "forced" people to live in suburbs for the past fifty years by bankrolling the creation of the interstate highway system, creating strict zoning regulations that do not permit mixed-use neighborhoods, and keeping the gas tax artificially low. So there are two ways to look at every argument.
not in a thousand years.. Ever drive out west? Lots of land left. Lots. Ill bet we only have less then 1/2 of all the land developed in the US
I did some googling, there was no universal agreement on the amount of developed versus undeveloped land, but I found some figures that seem plausible. One website said 7% of the United States is developed land. Another website said that the 94.6% of the United States is undeveloped rural open space.
But here's the thing. Sure, theoretically we can start building in say Omaha and sprawl out forever and ever and ever because there are no natural barriers, but is this what we really want? I doubt it. Limitless sprawl is not sustainable from an infrastructure perspective, and at least for some people, from a mental and physical health perspective either.
I also just checked the figures for NJ. 32% of the state is developed, making this the largest "type" of land use in the state, compared to farmland, forests, etc. Currently developed land and protected areas together account for 80% of the state, so we have 20% left that can be built up. Also, NJ leads the nation in farmland loss.
I have nothing against suburbs, I grew up in a sprawling suburb and I had a great childhood. But we need to make some tough decisions in the upcoming future about the direction we want to head in.
the environment isnt a concern. my community isnt bad for the environment and neither is having a million more of my communities.
i guess one thing that happens when all the land is developed in new jersey, people can go somewhere else to develop that land. we should be spreading out and developing all the land in the country, not looking to force people to concentrate in cities. its not our government's business to decide how the american people want to develop. we dont need government to plan our future for us.
I have been on these boards for almost a year now and have learned enough to know to take whatever you post with a grain of salt.
The government "forced" people to live in suburbs for the past fifty years by bankrolling the creation of the interstate highway system, creating strict zoning regulations that do not permit mixed-use neighborhoods, and keeping the gas tax artificially low. So there are two ways to look at every argument.
how is the gas tax "artificially low?" its a tax, not a commodity. it should cover the expenses associated with developing and maintaining roads. i know nj's gas tax is lower than other areas, but do you know that those revenue sources dont cover the costs of the roads? im sure they do, but government takes it and uses it elsewhere, like spending billions of dollars on skyscrapers in lower manhattan.
thanks for posting those articles, i scanned and saw that there is still a lot of forrest, protected land and land deemed undevelopable. so thats about 47% of potential development. then on top of that, theres 20% more that can be developed. so we have plenty of room to grow.
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.
