Seriously, what's wrong with living in the suburbs?? (Virginia, suburban, downtown)

[Yankeerose00]

[quote Last I checked, you're the one getting offended over the semantics of "suburb" vs. "sprawl." I didn't say it, you did.[/quote]
I said it is offensive. Saying something is offensive is not the same as getting worked up over it.

I got about about the same amount of rep points, not that it proves much or means anything. People have a way of doing that with people who agree with them.

I only pointed out my rep points to show that I'm not the only one who feels the way I do, even though it's just me and Katiana right now. I'm not sure why the people who gave me rep points don't want to post their "I totally agree" messages here. I'm guessing they just don't want to battle anymore.

I am. for the time being, still in the highly coveted demographic of males aged 18-35. Consider me on the older end of that scale.

I erased that comment because I checked your profile and can see that. It's a personal thing with me that I refuse to debate anything with someone who is in the 18-21ish range. Nothing against, them. Just a personal thing I have. I just wanted to check.

So that begs the question - do you stand in the giant's way or do you just get out of the way? If we're expected to just get out of the way then we're done for as a democracy.

You attempt to battle the giant, imo. But at the same time, realize that it IS a giant and that you are most likely going to lose the battle.

And also while you try to ralley the other villagers to fight the giant with you, they may say, no thanks.

To me the people in Florida who did protest the sprawl weren't hypocrites and it's a shame that people made them out to be. They moved to these towns under the impression they were smaller. There was just no way of knowing just how big the growth was going to be. It happened so fast. I don't think a person has to have been born in a place to want to preserve it. As long as they live there, is enough reason for me.
But it was one of those easy retorts for people to give and it really wasn't a very good argument. Just because someone moves to a town, doesn't mean that now they are supposed to sit back and watch sprawl happen and keep their mouth shut. But that is what people said and that is a big part of why there wasn't more protesting. But the other reason was that the towns really didn't seem to care. A lot of people made a lot of money from the sprawl....the flippers, the fly by night mortgage companies writing these ARM loans....lots of greed going on benefited by a lot of people, except the residents. The people it affected the most had the least say in what happened.

I mean, it's all a part of battling anything. Somebody is going to win and somebody is going to lose.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

I said it is offensive. Saying something is offensive is not the same as getting worked up over it.

Hm, ok. I tend to use the expressions interchangeably. Guess I better be careful in case I offend someone like that.

I ask because I genuinely don't know what it's like to be offended over what people write on the Internet. You seemed to have experience in that area. I, on the other hand, often find "offensive" things funny because I know people are getting worked up over them. (See what I did there?)

I only pointed out my rep points to show that I'm not the only one who feels the way I do, even though it's just me and Katiana right now.

Right, and the only people on the "other side" as it were are not condemning everyone who lives in the suburbs or passing judgment on anything like that, which is why I'm a bit incredulous when the insistence is there that somebody is. A lot of shooting first and asking questions later.

It's a personal thing with me that I refuse to debate anything with someone who is in the 18-21ish range. Nothing against, them. Just a personal thing I have. I just wanted to check.

I've met some people that age who are wise beyond their years and people twice my age with the mental maturity and intellectual depth of your average teenager. Just throwing that out there.

You attempt to battle the giant, imo. But at the same time, realize that it IS a giant and that you are most likely going to lose the battle.

I'm reminded of that JFK quote about why should we go to the moon, why fly the Atlantic, why does Rice play Texas etc.

To me the people in Florida who did protest the sprawl weren't hypocrites and it's a shame that people made them out to be.

You've covered in a lot of regards why I won't choose to live in Florida. Of course this does not equal "I hate Florida." It's perfectly fine to visit sometimes.

Where I am, protesting sprawl is a little like standing on the beach before a hurricane hits protesting erosion. It's not so much that I protest anything, I just might suggest there can and should be alternatives. Houston didn't really become a major city with reach beyond this region until after the interstate highways (and air conditioning) came about. The way things developed here aren't very comparable with the Northeast.

[Yankeerose00]

When it comes to deciding how a city or town grows, how much it grows, how fast, how dense, the manner in which it grows, it is not possible to please all sides. Someone has to lose. There maybe could have been some kind of a happy medium where all sides get a little of what they want and little of what they don't. But this is bureaucracy we are talking about and how often does that happen?

It's like the presidential elections. Everyone is told to go and vote. Put their beliefs into action. I know I do. But really, is there a way for both sides to win? Of course not. Someone is going to lose. It's just how it is.
In the case of the sprawl we saw this prior decade, it seemed the people with the deepest pockets won. Hopefully with the housing collapse and the economy being weak, cities and towns will learn to make due with what they have and fix up what is already existing. IMO, we won't see sprawl develop like we saw in the 2000's in our lifetime. That is just my opinion though.
We really don't need more growth in terms of housing or shopping as it stands right now. Let's get some of those existing empty homes filled. There are many strip malls with empty storefronts. Let's see those get filled.

[wburg]

Suburban sprawl wasn't invented in the latest housing bubble. But if some housing developers have their way, they will continue the current pattern of car-centric sprawl, even though in the long run it is economically and environmentally unsustainable. Where I live, even though there are recently-built subuRbs devastated by foreclosure, and older postwar suburbs with plenty of inexpensive housing, there are suburb developers who want to turn thousands of acres on the rural fringe into new subdivisions. And believe me, the "new urbanists" are not the folks who support that kind of thing!

[Yankeerose00]

Suburban sprawl wasn't invented in the latest housing bubble.

Oh I know believe me. It just seems like this last decade got some of the ugliest, sprawliest, sprawl that ever sprawled.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by wburg

Suburban sprawl wasn't invented in the latest housing bubble.

It didn't, but it certainly kicked it into high gear once again.

And what you mention shows that sprawl isn't even the result of the free choice of people living where they do, but because developers make a lot more money building new developments in open space than they do reworking old developments.

Here's something I read earlier concerning mass transit mostly, but touches on the "choices" of suburban vs. city living and whether that was wholly out of people's "choices" or not:

Libertarians and the Urban Planning Culture War - Forbes

The results of these policies—convenient automobile access to the heart of the city, plentiful parking, inflated rents in the city compared to the suburbs, spread-out neighborhoods that are hard to traverse on foot—creates the illusion that people are freely choosing a suburban, auto-oriented lifestyle. But this is like saying the market has freely chosen to sweeten products using high fructose corn syrup while ignoring corn subsidies and sugar tariffs.

Welch is absolutely right that we should “respect people’s preferences more than trying to change their behavior.” But I don’t think this would mean making government policies even more pro-driving.

I agree that "let's get people out of their cars" probably isn't a good approach to be taken by proponents of either transit or more traditional urban developments, which may or may not carry the mantle of "new urbanism" - I for one am never for applying some rigid set of ideals in a formulaic manner while disregarding everything else, which the new urbanism thing seems to do sometimes. Planning should not be approached as a dogma or religion, nor should politics in general for that matter.

Maybe if this was taken to heart more we would have fewer cases of people getting riled up over "urbanists," as they would have no reason to assume their lifestyle choices are being threatened in any way. There are enough people who would pursue the urban life without even making it sound like anyone's going to be forced to live anywhere, no matter if that was never the case to begin with.

People pay a lot of money to live in Manhattan, or San Francisco, or for that matter they pay a premium in rent to live in one of the few places in Sun Belt cities where urbanity makes it out of the sprawl. One example where I am is Midtown Houston, where the rents are rather high given the transitional nature of the neighborhood and the amenities could be a lot better for a true urban experience. Yet people pay it. And this is in Texas where the conventional wisdom is there's no need for any sort of dense environment because land is plentiful and cheap.

[wburg]

"Let's get people out of their cars" is a really easy statement to misconstrue, and for some folks, is accompanied by mental images of raging mobs breaking windshields and dragging them out of their automobiles, then shoving them into stinking, crowded buses heading who knows where?

A better way to think about it is "Maybe people should have alternatives other than driving cars." It's about having more choices, not less, within one's own neighborhood.

Enormous quantities in public funds and efforts over the past half-century has been dedicated to making driving easier, faster and more convenient, through a wider and wider network of highways--but the end result is worse traffic and cities on the edge of collapse trying to bear the weight of their own expanding urban fringes.

[Yankeerose00]

agree that "let's get people out of their cars" probably isn't a good approach to be taken by proponents of either transit or more traditional urban developments, which may or may not carry the mantle of "new urbanism" - I for one am never for applying some rigid set of ideals in a formulaic manner while disregarding everything else, which the new urbanism thing seems to do sometimes. Planning should not be approached as a dogma or religion, nor should politics in general for that matter.

agreed 100%

Maybe if this was taken to heart more we would have fewer cases of people getting riled up over "urbanists," as they would have no reason to assume their lifestyle choices are being threatened in any way. There are enough people who would pursue the urban life without even making it sound like anyone's going to be forced to live anywhere, no matter if that was never the case to begin with.

Again, agreed.
I personally don't think that new urbanism is out to do away with suburbs. I know that in reality that is not going to happen, at least while I'm walking the earth. ( My issue was more about the overall judgment of people in the suburbs as I'm sure you all know) But I'm sure some people think that the government is trying to take away their cars. I'm more in the camp of thinking that public transportation will help issues (traffic, gas usage) but not solve the problem or ever truly replace the car. There are just so many times that having a car is just easier. (as I experienced when I had to take my cat to the ER and then another time, my 110lb dog)

People like the suburbs for the simple fact that they get a taste of the city and the country at the same time. They are never too far from either. That feeling of wanting a little bit of both is not going to go away any time soon. It's best we try to work with what we have than change it too much.

Maybe we can hope for something more realistic like the demise of Hummers and Escalades and these other monster gas hogs that you tend to see only 1 person driving. I'm sure I made a few enemies with that statement, lol

[wburg]

Some people think the government is trying to take away their cars. But some people think the government is planting microphones in their heads, too, or that random people are talking about them as they walk past. Paranoia is its own reward.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by wburg

"Let's get people out of their cars" is a really easy statement to misconstrue, and for some folks, is accompanied by mental images of raging mobs breaking windshields and dragging them out of their automobiles, then shoving them into stinking, crowded buses heading who knows where?

A better way to think about it is "Maybe people should have alternatives other than driving cars." It's about having more choices, not less, within one's own neighborhood.

Right. It doesn't help that, in a lot of people's minds, driving everywhere is an inherently "American" way of life. At one point, the government was subsidizing American automakers, but we've hardly an automotive industry of our own anymore (even after a bailout) and much of our oil comes from overseas. When people think of any sort of public transit as a subsidy, they do so without considering any of this. And they'll think, well, we'll just DRILL BABY DRILL and become self-sufficient and sustainable without actually changing any of our habits. They're in for a rude awakening, especially when they figure out that oil will just get traded on the global market and be as likely to be headed for China as our own refineries.

I think part of it has to do with the baby boomer generation made it all the way to senior citizenship not knowing a world before auto-centric big government planning took over. I see it as a relic of the Cold War. To win the fight against socialism, as many social aspects as possible had to be engineered out of our society, whether or not they were for the better or whether or not they would be sustainable in the long term.

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

agreed 100%

All right, we're friends now?

I'm more in the camp of thinking that public transportation will help issues

This is some rather forward thinking (I'll call it "forward" since "progressive" has become a naughty political word lately) so I hope this catches on.

We'll still have our highways. In fact, maybe we'll quit having to constantly widen and rebuild them. They spent some three billion dollars redoing one of the freeways here in Houston. Not building a new one, just making an old one flow a little faster. For now. And you know what? I don't use it very regularly. I could get indignant about how I'm paying for something I don't use, but that would make me too much like these people who don't want an urban rail system built because they live 35 miles outside the city and it's not going to help them any.

People like the suburbs for the simple fact that they get a taste of the city and the country at the same time. They are never too far from either. That feeling of wanting a little bit of both is not going to go away any time soon.

We'd all like to be in the middle of everything and nothing at the same time. Without some stringent limitations on what can be built where - and those basically don't exist where I come from - a suburban development is not going to retain that quality for long. People will move to one development, build it up, then something a half mile further down the highway gets built up, then the people in the first one are in the middle of a built environment, nothing country-like at all. Nothing shoots the country feeling in the face like watching rows of tract homes and strip malls going up. When I think of "country" I'm thinking of the little general store, the icehouse with 30 Harley-Davidsons parked out front and the barbecue joint (I'm talking about Texas anyhow). Not Buffalo Wild Wings and KB Homes.

Too many people move out and further out and you've got the same problems as the city - aging, declining neighborhoods, traffic - without the cultural amenities or an environment in any way conducive to getting around without a car, whether you want to or you need to. There are a couple places that immediately spring to mind locally for me as traffic traps worth avoiding at any costs, and they're both >20 miles out from downtown Houston. I'll take any inner-city street over navigating that, and it's all because of poor planning, and developers just throwing stuff up, making their money and getting the hell out of town.