East Coast cities vs. Suburban Sprawl (Phoenix, Scottsdale: wages, income tax, live)

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by Patrick754

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.

"If everyone in the world lived the way we do in many Canadian and American cities, we would need 5 planets to support us." - One Planet Living

I referred to the Eminem movie as a popular culture reference to which others might be able to relate more so than an academic dissertation. I apologize.

As for the book reference, I don't know what I was thinking. Those silly "elitist" scholars with their statistics really do get in the way of your right to look out your window, with your completely unbiased view of the world, and make an arbitrary assessment of socio-economic situations that happens to suit the lifestyle you've chosen. Silly me. I will be more arbitrary in the future.

[Patrick754]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

As for the book reference, I don't know what I was thinking. Those silly "elitist" scholars with their statistics really do get in the way of your right to look out your window, with your completely unbiased view of the world, and make an arbitrary assessment of socio-economic situations that happens to suit the lifestyle you've chosen. Silly me. I will be more arbitrary in the future.

I certainly don't think scholars are silly or elitist, but obviously I have to balance what I read with the reality before my eyes on a daily basis. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, "I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the winds blowing". I do however think it's silly and elitist to adopt preachy self righteous viewpoints about the sprawl versus urban issue.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by Greatday

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.

All that was fine for a while ... back when the Valley was a rather small area, and we still had lots of open space. However, there has to be a limit as to how much outward development can take place before other problems become a factor (traffic, pollution, crime, etc.). I don't want to see Phoenix and its suburbs (Peoria, Surprise, etc.) keep expanding northward. Fill in the many vacant spaces in the city limits first, and THEN expand outward.

Originally Posted by Greatday

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

When was this ... the 1970s??? If high density living failed at one point, it was likely due to the market not being right for it at the time. Times have changed drastically since then.

Phoenix is no longer a small resort area with lots of elbow room. It has mushroomed into a huge metro area, and an increasing number of people are now wanting more dense, urbanized settings than before. Take a look around. The market is demanding it more than ever with the record LOW vacancy rates in current downtown buildings. More Valley residents than ever are now wanting this place to have more of a big city appearance (myself included). Don't you think the nation's fifth largest city should look, act, and feel more like a true big city?

[steve22]

Originally Posted by Patrick754

The government is following the market and building the infrastructure that is required to support the current choice of the majority....sprawl.

Based on the developing political and economic climates, I think the current choice of the majority is ripe for an imminent change. On a related note, oil surged to over $110 a barrel today...

[Patrick754]

Originally Posted by steve22

Based on the developing political and economic climates, I think the current choice of the majority is ripe for an imminent change. On a related note, oil surged to over $110 a barrel today...

Indeed change may be coming. That said higher fuel costs are hardest on the working poor and aren't going to magically only hurt sprawling suburbia while leaving the city and the countryside unscathed. Large urbanized sections of the East coast rely on fuel oil for heating and will suffer. Isolated farming and resort towns will suffer as just about everything they consume is trucked in from great distances. Fuel costs are built into almost every consumer product.

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by Patrick754

I certainly don't think scholars are silly or elitist, but obviously I have to balance what I read with the reality before my eyes on a daily basis. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, "I don't need a weatherman to tell me which way the winds blowing". I do however think it's silly and elitist to adopt preachy self righteous viewpoints about the sprawl versus urban issue.

I didn't mean to imply you thought scholars were elitist (I never used the word silly). That's just a very popular early twenty-first century assumption. Sorry.

As for your other point, I don't understand why it's silly, elitist, and self-righteous to draw attention to an extremely dire cultural issue such as suburban sprawl.

Was Martin Luther King Jr. being elitist when he brought the issue of black oppression before the world's eyes?

Was Mother Theresa being elitist when she worked to alleviate poverty?

Was the Dalai Lama being elitist when he made the world aware of Tibetan monks having their genitals burned by the Chinese?

And, yes, if you study the hard facts you will see that it is extremely dire and a lifestyle we can no longer afford - ecologically, socially, and economically.

You believe the market will fix problems, but if nobody understands what problems exist - as was the case when suburbia was all the rage from the 1950s-1990s - then people will continue to make decisions based on their own self interest with little regard to the larger impact of their decisions.

We don't live in bubbles. The sooner we understand that all life is One, the sooner our built landscape will reflect that reality and we will truly thrive as a civilization. I highly doubt either dense cities or suburban sprawl will be prevailing development patterns. For now, however, density is a band aid on the wound.

If all that's self-righteous, then I will proudly consider myself righteous.

[Patrick754]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

I didn't mean to imply you thought scholars were elitist (I never used the word silly). That's just a very popular early twenty-first century assumption. Sorry.

As for your other point, I don't understand why it's silly, elitist, and self-righteous to draw attention to an extremely dire cultural issue such as suburban sprawl.

Was Martin Luther King Jr. being elitist when he brought the issue of black oppression before the world's eyes?

Was Mother Theresa being elitist when she worked to alleviate poverty?

Was the Dalai Lama being elitist when he made the world aware of Tibetan monks having their genitals burned by the Chinese?

And, yes, if you study the hard facts you will see that it is extremely dire and a lifestyle we can no longer afford - ecologically, socially, and economically.

You believe the market will fix problems, but if nobody understands what problems exist - as was the case when suburbia was all the rage from the 1950s-1990s - then people will continue to make decisions based on their own self interest with little regard to the larger impact of their decisions.

We don't live in bubbles. The sooner we understand that all life is One, the sooner our built landscape will reflect that reality and we will truly thrive as a civilization. I highly doubt either dense cities or suburban sprawl will be prevailing development patterns. For now, however, density is a band aid on the wound.

If all that's self-righteous, then I will proudly consider myself righteous.

I certainly can't argue or debate quasi religious dogma like this, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[ArizonaBear]

For those who like the Midwest, etc. they can keep it------I am quite content living here in the Southwest

As for life being sustainable this way; one Al Qaida, etc. attack can quite easily render NYC out of commission due to its small geographic footprint.

Phx is risky as well; but, I prefer warmth over that '4 season' crap-------Wash DC cured me of snow and ice permanently.

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by Patrick754

I certainly can't argue or debate quasi religious dogma like this, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough. It's not dogma, though. It's all there in physics.

[joninaz]

Greater Phoenix will infill and become like other eastern cities.

It's already happening. Look a downtown, Central, Camelback, Old Town Scotty, Tempe. etc.

People can drive and even higher gas prices aren't a detour... gas costs 4 times higher in the UK and they are snapping up new cars like crazy.