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.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,745 posts, read 23,804,636 times
Reputation: 14660
Advertisements
I was wondering what people would think about a day in the distant future when North America cities become less auto centric and oil dependent and finding better ways to produce energy and more evolved transportation systems.
The biggest culprits of sprawl would not be just the usual scapegoats like Houston or Phoenix but every single city in the US and Canada. Our auto centric culture is deeply engraned in every city in North America. Even dense cities like Boston have suburbs spawling out all the way to Providence, RI, Manchester, NH, and Worcester. There is connected sprawl from Richmond, VA all the way up to Portland, ME. Cities in Europe, Latin America, and Asia are much more dense and don't have the extended low density outer ring suburbs of Houston, Chicago, and New York. Yes some cities like Chicago, New York, and DC are much more dense and have better transit options than Phoenix, Dallas, or Charlotte. But the older cities of the Northeast or Rust Belt and even Canadian cities like Toronto are not exempt from the auto centric infrastructure that the lions share of all North American metro areas have. Ever see how many cars try to squeeze into the Holland Tunnell between NYC and NJ at any given hour? It's always congested.
High speed rail and upgraded infrastructure for city based rail transit sounds good on paper to most every city, but nobody wants to foot the bill. People still want to raise their kids in single family homes with back yards and shop where parking is free, easy, and convenient. The oil spill in the Gulf although heart breaking to many, still has not raised conciousness as big oil companies call all the shots. They battle to lift moratoriums on deep sea drilling before adequate safety measures can be put into place so they can access untold corporate profits while relying on the economic desperation of the working poor. Moral reasoning about economic ends does not make sufficient progress beyond the best dismal science the late 19th century had to offer. So until we can get beyond that we can only expect more of the same sprawl and the problems that come with it. Only time will tell.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 06-23-2010 at 02:09 PM..
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Auto centric sprawl will eventually come to a halt I believe. We're already starting to see the first stages of this now. As gas prices go up, and supply dwindles, over the next century you will see less and less development based around highways.
BUT
Let's not forget that railroads and interurbans created sprawl in the first place. Prior to cheap and long distance passenger railroads, all cities everywhere in America were confined to small physical areas. Contrary to popular belief, the mindset behind massive suburbanization started in the 1850s, not the 1950s. The only difference between then and what occurred in the late 20th century was there were more people in the 20th century who could afford to move to the suburbs and the method of getting there. The idea of having a large house with a big yard/land has been around for a long time, it just wasn't economically feasible for most people until the mid-20th. The auto industry and land developers are definitely culpable in the creation of sprawl, but it's not like people had a gun to their head forcing them to move to the suburbs and exurbs.
On the other hand, you must keep in mind that living in big cities before pretty much sucked. Overcrowding, pollution, and substandard housing conditions conditioned people to believe that moving out the suburbs was a step up in the world and for the most part they were right. I know the cool thing on C-D is to dream of living in a super dense city, but just go to a place that has hyper density (no city exists in the United States currently) and try living there for while. Places like Mumbai or Manila are like the American cities of old....full of grime, poor sanitation, disease, AND you have like 1000 people living on top of you. Just go to any one of those cities and take a look at their slums and you'll know why the first place they head when they immigrate to America is straight to the suburbs.
There are however downsides to living in the suburbs too. Lack of community vibrancy, destruction of natural habitat, being forced to drive everywhere which turn destroys your health.
What I see taking shape in the future is melding of the best of both worlds in American. We have the technology now to avoid most of the downsides of city living, and engineering capability to build housing that meets both the density requirements of the city and the spaciousness requirements we've come to expect.
Even dense cities like Boston have suburbs sprawling out all the way to Providence, RI, Manchester, NH, and Worcester.
There's a difference between building sprawling exurbs and connecting existing cities with trains. Providence, Manchester, and Worcester have been cities for hundreds of years. Extending train service simply restores what existed in the 19th century. Also, Boston has no choice. It's a tiny city geographically has no room to expand. What's is going to do? Annex and bulldoze Brookline? That's not going to happen.
Worcester, for example, was always intended to be a grand city in its own right. It has a concert hall, art museum and several major universities. All the infrastructure is there to take an increase in density that could address housing needs while preserving the countryside. Worcester could be to Boston what Stamford is to New York. It would be better if the Mass Pike went through Worcester, but that's another issue.
Connecting it to the region seems very efficient and sensible.
Disney is contributing to sprawl in Orlando. They are building a residential neighborhood on its property starting this year... 1-8 million dollar homes..
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,745 posts, read 23,804,636 times
Reputation: 14660
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc
There's a difference between building sprawling exurbs and connecting existing cities with trains. Providence, Manchester, and Worcester have been cities for hundreds of years. Extending train service simply restores what existed in the 19th century. Also, Boston has no choice. It's a tiny city geographically has no room to expand. What's is going to do? Annex and bulldoze Brookline? That's not going to happen.
Worcester, for example, was always intended to be a grand city in its own right. It has a concert hall, art museum and several major universities. All the infrastructure is there to take an increase in density that could address housing needs while preserving the countryside. Worcester could be to Boston what Stamford is to New York. It would be better if the Mass Pike went through Worcester, but that's another issue.
Connecting it to the region seems very efficient and sensible.
What I meant is everything between Boston going out to Providence, Manchester, and Worcester is a suburban/exurban landscape, a good 60 mile radius of Boston. Providence, Manchester and Worcester are not living up to their potential and are nowehere close to the "grand cities" they were during the industrial revolution. They could certainly benefit from more infill development as opposed to as you say, annex Brookline. Yes they could be better connected by rail, and the highway infrastructure connecting all these cities will be unsustainable for future growth. Thus the oil dependent/auto centric culture. The rail systems in this region and everywhere else need to be upgraded.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
It's an example many of the cities across the world have embraced. China has 11 of the top 20 most air polluted cities because of the automobile dependency there. City of Beijing has 7 loop rings around the city to ease traffic. Houston is just getting it's 3rd, imagine and compare how small we are to some of the cities around the world.
Anyways, I don't ever believe American cities will stop the typical "sprawl" but a lot of cities are working on the density issue and how to counter mass sprawl.
Suburbs tend to be more efficient and cheaper settings to build both new office campuses and single-family homes for middle-income workers
Most of the world's most profitable companies (and employers) have their HQs and regional offices in distant suburbs, not in cities...and factories in less urban, cheaper regions of Southern, non-unionized US or China
Mobile computing and videoconferencing are allowing increasing amts of telecommuting and less need for business travel for face-to-face mtgs
Online shopping makes much of bricks-and-mortar retailing useless
Truly eco-conscious, tech-savvy folks really have no need to ever travel for an energy&money-wasting vacation, when have a new suburban home w/competent HVAC and a yard...and a computer to do virtual tours of globe via GoogleStreetView...can watch sports on TV, not at some costly, energy-consuming stadium or golf course...can read/surf anything on one's iPad
Mass transit is incredibly costly, inefficient, unsafe and uncomfortable for any modern US commuter and taxpayer w/a real job and 2-3 cars in his suburban garage for whatever driving needs....and airplanes should be stuff of profit-seeking business travel, certainly not for discretionary tourism
Suspect US has many, many decades of cheap fuel remaining and tons of land around key suburban corridors, as can always teardown obsolete offices/houses/shops and build new-tech offices and houses in desirable, efficient locales
Eco/urban planning doomsayers neither understand basic economics and business...nor implications of continually advancing mobile computing on ways employers, taxpayers and workers commute, work, live, play, shop, study, etc....as opposed to welfare recipients, unions and community organizers who predominate in highly populated, older cities who are (naturally) some of biggest advocates of taxpayer-subsidized communal housing and mass transit
Suburbs tend to be more efficient and cheaper settings to build both new office campuses and single-family homes for middle-income workers
Most of the world's most profitable companies (and employers) have their HQs and regional offices in distant suburbs, not in cities...and factories in less urban, cheaper regions of Southern, non-unionized US or China
Mobile computing and videoconferencing are allowing increasing amts of telecommuting and less need for business travel for face-to-face mtgs
Online shopping makes much of bricks-and-mortar retailing useless
Truly eco-conscious, tech-savvy folks really have no need to ever travel for an energy&money-wasting vacation, when have a new suburban home w/competent HVAC and a yard...and a computer to do virtual tours of globe via GoogleStreetView...can watch sports on TV, not at some costly, energy-consuming stadium or golf course...can read/surf anything on one's iPad
Mass transit is incredibly costly, inefficient, unsafe and uncomfortable for any modern US commuter and taxpayer w/a real job and 2-3 cars in his suburban garage for whatever driving needs....and airplanes should be stuff of profit-seeking business travel, certainly not for discretionary tourism
Suspect US has many, many decades of cheap fuel remaining and tons of land around key suburban corridors, as can always teardown obsolete offices/houses/shops and build new-tech offices and houses in desirable, efficient locales
Eco/urban planning doomsayers neither understand basic economics and business...nor implications of continually advancing mobile computing on ways employers, taxpayers and workers commute, work, live, play, shop, study, etc....as opposed to welfare recipients, unions and community organizers who predominate in highly populated, older cities who are (naturally) some of biggest advocates of taxpayer-subsidized communal housing and mass transit
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.
