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.
This is the Urban Planning forum. Suburbanites who love suburbia and hate density will disagree with many posts and generally the entire theme here. I'm a suburbanite, but I have thought about leaving, and maybe should have done that years ago.
The suburb is one of the worst ideas ever, since it destroys farmland and increases consumption of everything.
This is the Urban Planning forum. Suburbanites who love suburbia and hate density will disagree with many posts and generally the entire theme here. I'm a suburbanite, but I have thought about leaving, and maybe should have done that years ago.
The suburb is one of the worst ideas ever, since it destroys farmland and increases consumption of everything.
They are boring, compared to the central cities. But they do offer (some) more space and better schools. I personally don't lament the loss of farmland. Farming is really an industrial land use. After harvest, nothing is alive.
They are boring, compared to the central cities. But they do offer (some) more space and better schools. I personally don't lament the loss of farmland. Farming is really an industrial land use. After harvest, nothing is alive.
They don't offer better schools. The rich kids just go to those schools.
LOL, right! Cities sprang up fully developed prior to European settlement. They were here when Columbus landed. Heck, they were here when the Vikings landed. Thus, no farmland was destroyed for the cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
News flash: Just about every city neighborhood in this country was once farmland, or undeveloped land if you go way back.
The point is, and always has been that, although urban development also displaces farmland, or undeveloped land, urban development uses that land more efficiently than suburban development. Ten households on one acre (which is more "streetcar suburban", but rather urban by US standards) is more efficient than ten households on five or ten acres.
The point is, and always has been that, although urban development also displaces farmland, or undeveloped land, urban development uses that land more efficiently than suburban development. Ten households on one acre (which is more "streetcar suburban", but rather urban by US standards) is more efficient than ten households on five or ten acres.
That blanket statement is not always true. Plenty of examples of inefficient land use in cities. Furthermore, that is not what the poster said.
Ten households on one acre (which is more "streetcar suburban", but rather urban by US standards) is more efficient than ten households on five or ten acres.
Not if there are water issues - either lack of supply in vast swathes of the US or high water tables like vast swathes of the US.
Not if there are water issues - either lack of supply in vast swathes of the US or high water tables like vast swathes of the US.
Please explain.
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.
