East Coast cities vs. Suburban Sprawl (Phoenix, Tempe: live in, costs, versus)

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by irwin

It's all about comparisons of magnitude. Since the end of WWII sprawl has been HEAVILY subsidized as compared to other types of development. Just a cursory review will tell one that.

Highways are subsidized along with other infrastructure. The federal government keeps the price of petrol low through subsidies and waivers. States like Arizona want sprawl so they can sell more land to raise capital. Arizona would be broke otherwise. The American auto industry has been pulled from the gutter numerous times. Zoning laws within many cities have set back and parking requirements that encourage sprawl.

'Cuse Me?????

Where are you coming from with the above comments?

People are moving to the Sunbelt areas like Arizona and Nevada by the 100's of 1000's. They have to live, work, recreate, shop, worship, educate etc somewhere!

And, where did many of these migrants come from? Guess what: They came from the highly populated, highly dense areas like Chicago, New York, Philly etc - and they said, they don't want to live like that anymore - stacked on top of one another.

High density living was tried in the Valley - and failed. Why? Because people did not want to live like that!

They wanted their single family detached home - on a 10,000 or 12,000 square foot lot. They wanted their 3 car garage - which was not big enough then to hold the cars, boats, trailers etc.

So, perhaps you might want to review your thoughts a little bit

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by irwin

It's all about comparisons of magnitude. Since the end of WWII sprawl has been HEAVILY subsidized as compared to other types of development. Just a cursory review will tell one that.

Highways are subsidized along with other infrastructure. The federal government keeps the price of petrol low through subsidies and waivers. States like Arizona want sprawl so they can sell more land to raise capital. Arizona would be broke otherwise. The American auto industry has been pulled from the gutter numerous times. Zoning laws within many cities have set back and parking requirements that encourage sprawl.

In fact it has been a backlash from local governments in some areas of the country (not AZ) that have finally attempted to control sprawl. Portland is glaring example but so is Seattle, parts of Northern VA along with some other SunBelt cities that have finally started to rethink the sprawl-till-up-drop mentality.

And; look at the above areas, all flagrantly overpriced-------forcing out the 'regular' folks.

No thank you.

[uconn99]

Don't people think many of those who fled Chicago, NYC, Philly, Boston and other Northeast cities did so because of housing prices?

The way Phoenix has become, it isn't exactly any cheaper these days then some of the northeast suburbs. Heck, I can buy a 4,000 SF house outside of Hartford, Connecticut for under 400k these days. Taxes do still kill though.

The main reasons I want to move back to the east coast is family. However what is so bad about being less than 2 hours to Boston, 2.5 hours to NYC, half hour to Long Island Sound, 2 hours to Cape Cod and 2 hours to Vermont skiing? I will take that over Phoenix any day.

[Bluefly]

I think what draws so much anger over sprawl is that it is not just one's choice for him or herself, but a lifestyle choice that has magnitudes of impact on the world at large.

Suburban sprawl was built on the back of cheap oil. As soon as cheap oil collapses, suburban sprawl collapses as a viable choice.

Suburban sprawl was built on a premise of limitless boundaries, consuming amounts of land / person that have hurt local agriculture, local communities, hunting, etc... In the desert, this is especially true as states / provinces far away in the Great Lakes are passing legislation like crazy to protect the water that will surely be called upon to support millions of individual lifestyle choices that collectively form an unsustainable landscape.

If we assume the built landscape is a reflection of the collective consciousness, we see a built landscape of single-use structures that reflect a collective consciousness in which our primary concerns focus on our immediate selves or at most our families. While dense urban centers are not the ultimate answer, like industrial organic food does for pesticides, urbanization begins the slow transition away from the automobile era.

After all, a more evolved society would never construct such a society in which only those wealthy enough, healthy enough, old enough, and still young enough can fully participate as functioning citizens.

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by uconn99

Don't people think many of those who fled Chicago, NYC, Philly, Boston and other Northeast cities did so because of housing prices?

The way Phoenix has become, it isn't exactly any cheaper these days then some of the northeast suburbs. Heck, I can buy a 4,000 SF house outside of Hartford, Connecticut for under 400k these days. Taxes do still kill though.

The main reasons I want to move back to the east coast is family. However what is so bad about being less than 2 hours to Boston, 2.5 hours to NYC, half hour to Long Island Sound, 2 hours to Cape Cod and 2 hours to Vermont skiing? I will take that over Phoenix any day.

In your case; home is where the heart is

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

I think what draws so much anger over sprawl is that it is not just one's choice for him or herself, but a lifestyle choice that has magnitudes of impact on the world at large.

Suburban sprawl was built on the back of cheap oil. As soon as cheap oil collapses, suburban sprawl collapses as a viable choice.

Suburban sprawl was built on a premise of limitless boundaries, consuming amounts of land / person that have hurt local agriculture, local communities, hunting, etc... In the desert, this is especially true as states / provinces far away in the Great Lakes are passing legislation like crazy to protect the water that will surely be called upon to support millions of individual lifestyle choices that collectively form an unsustainable landscape.

If we assume the built landscape is a reflection of the collective consciousness, we see a built landscape of single-use structures that reflect a collective consciousness in which our primary concerns focus on our immediate selves or at most our families. While dense urban centers are not the ultimate answer, like industrial organic food does for pesticides, urbanization begins the slow transition away from the automobile era.

After all, a more evolved society would never construct such a society in which only those wealthy enough, healthy enough, old enough, and still young enough can fully participate as functioning citizens.

Many of those same arguments can be applied to, say NYC.

Besides; if the energy supplies were cut off to that city in the winter------the results would be deadly in short order.

Remember too that those of us here in the western USA like our 'space'-------vertical cities drive me nuts, psychologically speaking.

Oil ain't all that cheap anymore.

Besides: if/when solar powered vehicles with high efficiency storage batteries appear------who needs oil (or any other man generated energy source)?

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by ArizonaBear

Many of those same arguments can be applied to, say NYC.

Besides; if the energy supplies were cut off to that city in the winter------the results would be deadly in short order.

Remember too that those of us here in the western USA like our 'space'-------vertical cities drive me nuts, psychologically speaking.

Oil ain't all that cheap anymore.

Besides: if/when solar powered vehicles with high efficiency storage batteries appear------who needs oil (or any other man generated energy source)?

Those same arguments can't really apply to NYC. If NY were a state, it would be the most energy efficient state per individual.

One can have space without sprawl. As a matter of fact, sprawl destroys the much vaunted open space. And no one's saying people should live in skyscrapers - simply communities where people can walk, take transit, and experience genuine open space (as opposed to the Wal Mart parking lot).

Even if cars can run without a drop of oil (which is no doubt going to happen), it does not make the automobile culture sustainable for 2 reasons:

1. It consumes extravagant amounts of land per person that, if applied globally to all 6.3 billion individuals, would be impossible. If one wants to know whether something "works" or not, ask the simple question "If everybody lived this way, would it still work?"

2. The automobile-dependent landscape is elitist, no matter what is powering the actual cars. As I mentioned above, only select segments of society can fully participate in such a culture. Everyone else is dependent on the charity of others.

[Patrick754]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

1. It consumes extravagant amounts of land per person that, if applied globally to all 6.3 billion individuals, would be impossible. If one wants to know whether something "works" or not, ask the simple question "If everybody lived this way, would it still work?"

2. The automobile-dependent landscape is elitist, no matter what is powering the actual cars. As I mentioned above, only select segments of society can fully participate in such a culture. Everyone else is dependent on the charity of others.

Suggesting that sprawl consumes extravagant amounts of land is certainly a debatable viewpoint given that urbanized areas only consume a little less than 3% of the US landmass. As to your second point, it's certainly creative to suggest that automobile culture is "elitist" given the fact that most illegal immigrants in the USA seem able to obtain cars soon after their arrival.

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by Patrick754

Suggesting that sprawl consumes extravagant amounts of land is certainly a debatable viewpoint given that urbanized areas only consume a little less than 3% of the US landmass. As to your second point, it's certainly creative to suggest that automobile culture is "elitist" given the fact that most illegal immigrants in the USA seem able to obtain cars soon after their arrival.

1. Sprawl consumes extravagant amounts of land PER PERSON, as stated above. Anyway, that 3% stat is quite misleading. It ignores the thousands upon thousands of houses spread throughout the rural county roads and the subdivisions put on farmland and in forests that subdivide large tracts of open space.

2. I would like to see statistics on your claim about illegal immigrants. Most live multiple families to an apartment and share a single car from what I can tell. Watch the movie 8 Mile - you'll see that the entire subplot revolves around the main characters being able to simply get to work.

Anyway, if you think the working poor can afford to buy a car, maintain a car, maintain insurance on a car, and afford gas for that car, then you don't know many working poor. You also don't know many people under the age of 16 or too elderly to drive who are castigated from participating as members of society without depending on others. What I'm arguing is a proven fact supported by statistics. I suggest you read the book "The Ecology of the Automobile" if you are so inclined.

[Patrick754]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

Anyway, if you think the working poor can afford to buy a car, maintain a car, maintain insurance on a car, and afford gas for that car, then you don't know many working poor. You also don't know many people under the age of 16 or too elderly to drive who are castigated from participating as members of society without depending on others. What I'm arguing is a proven fact supported by statistics. I suggest you read the book "The Ecology of the Automobile" if you are so inclined.

You haven't provided any facts or statistics merely an opinion that you think sprawl is consuming too much land. As for illegal immigrant driving habits I'll trust my own daily observations living in a city with a massive illegal population over someone who forms opinions based on Eminem movies and books.