Urban Sprawl---A Blessing or a Curse? (urbanism, Colorado, Texas, metro)

[miamiman]

I have never tried to convice anyone that suburban sprawl is better than urban development. I am just attempting to explain reality that many Americans do not find suburban sprawl nearly as repulsive and wasteful as many on this site do. I attempted to prove this to SWB by giving examples of people from Scranton and Wilkes-Barre literally pouring out of those towns for surrounding communities and other areas of the country. Reducing yourself to referring to suburban residents as "buffoons" because of where they choose to live does not address the issue of urban sprawl.


I am not jaded at all by life in Miami. I fully grasp that suburban residents aren't nearly as friendly or enviornmetally conscious as SWB would like. Many suburban residents prefer privacy, and having some overly-friendly neighbors constantly waving at them at every sight, and attempting to carry on frequent, petty conversation, is imposing, and can be downright creepy. I was born and raised in Miami, and have not live there in almost 20 years. I lived in central New Jersey for awhile, moved to NEPA for two weeks, and for the past few months lived in Scottsdale, AZ. Miami is not as cut-and-dry as you think. Downtown Miami is a lot like Scranton in that there isn't much to do AT ALL during the day or night. Downtown Miami, not to be confused with Miami Beach, is primarily a banking center. Most of the exteme amount of development in downtown Miami is either commercial property or condos. It's simply a place where many work, and go home, mostly to suburban communities. The median household income of Miamians is less than $25,000/year. That's right, the median income of a city in which the average cost of a house is around $350,000 is only $23,000/year. The city of Miami has been in a very similar position as Scranton. The city has been in tremendous debt, almost to the point where the city was forced to merge with Dade County to make ends meet. Miami is not some opulent place that is free of problems. Many educated residents in South Florida live in communities such as South Miami, Weston, Boca Raton, and other areas of Palm Beach County. This has also created a "brain drain" effect in Miami, in which many in the city have extremely low educational attainment, which has equated to immense poverty and crime. Meanwhile, new residents to South Florida try as hard as possible to live in suburban communties that are better off. Using your logic, they should move into the existing housing stock in the city because it's the "moral" thing to do. I agree that many of us suburban residents do not care about the trees that are cut down so to support our homes and required infrastructure. However, people are drawn by other pull factors that a lot of suburbs offer, such as better schools, generally larger homes, lower population density, and privacy. You seem to be stuck on the idea that preserving "pristine" woodlands should trump all of those pull factors, which is not the case.

Many users have addressed creating incentives to pull residents to urban cores. However, there are SO many residents who prefer to live in a suburban environment over an urban area. The housing density is a large turnoff for many, living near unsafe areas is another, dealing with pollution, which is often worse in urban environments is another, just to name a few. You can make alternatives as attractive as you want, but many people will continue to resist. You certainly can have your own opinions about those people, but they have every right in this country to live the lives that they desire.

Not at all. Scranton hit a peak population of over 150,000 and was the
36th-largest city in our nation not too long ago. Since then, we've declined to a population pegged at 67,000 by the most recent esimtate provided by the American Community Survey (ACS), and that number continues to dwindle. If the city was designed to function at full-capacity with 150,000 inhabitants, then it is reasonable to say that we can still cram another 83,000
residents into the city limits before "maxing out." Even then, there is still untold amounts of undeveloped land within the city limits, which could put our maximum population potential at around 200,000 or more, making us the third-largest city in PA again (we've since dropped to 7th), and poising us to rival Pittsburgh if its population continues to decline at the rate it has been for so many years.

Scranton will never see it's population rise to 150,000-200,000 again. Unless the city completely overhauled its economy, including adding an extreme amount of skilled jobs, made its housing stock more attractive, and opened many recreational and entertainment venues, Scranton would not see a significant population increase.

how's this for realistic? global average temperatures on the relatively quick rise, nations at odds and war over - significantly - oil, bits of plastic in every cubic meter of ocean looked at, obesity correlated with suburban populations, and auto emissions' directly harming human respiratory systems while changing the color of the sky. it is understood that people are what people are. that is part of the topic here. obviously, if people are wasteful, stigmatic, and unaware of how they may be hurting themselves, then that is what they are and results in the current state of affairs. the current state of affairs is what the original question of the thread was in part directed at.

I agree with bmurphy that even if you attempt to move people back into walkable cities, many will still refuse to walk, and will drive everywhere. Many people do not like walking or riding public transportation, and that's just the way it is. Los Angeles is a perfect example of how extreme oil prices truly do not significantly influence public transit ridership or greatly reduce the number of people who drive. You can say that people's eyes will open when gas hits $5/gallon, then $6/gallon, but, remember, many environemtalists have predicted that same effect when gas hit $2/gallon, then $3/gallon. This just shows the complexity of people, and that you cannot predict people's actions, especially what it would take to reverse Americans current dominant migration patterns.

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by miamiman

I have never tried to convice anyone that suburban sprawl is better than urban development. I am just attempting to explain reality that many Americans do not find suburban sprawl nearly as repulsive and wasteful as many on this site do. I attempted to prove this to SWB by giving examples of people from Scranton and Wilkes-Barre literally pouring out of those towns for surrounding communities and other areas of the country. Reducing yourself to referring to suburban residents as "buffoons" because of where they choose to live does not address the issue of urban sprawl.


I am not jaded at all by life in Miami. I fully grasp that suburban residents aren't nearly as friendly or enviornmetally conscious as SWB would like. Many suburban residents prefer privacy, and having some overly-friendly neighbors constantly waving at them at every sight, and attempting to carry on frequent, petty conversation, is imposing, and can be downright creepy. I was born and raised in Miami, and have not live there in almost 20 years. I lived in central New Jersey for awhile, moved to NEPA for two weeks, and for the past few months lived in Scottsdale, AZ. Miami is not as cut-and-dry as you think. Downtown Miami is a lot like Scranton in that there isn't much to do AT ALL during the day or night. Downtown Miami, not to be confused with Miami Beach, is primarily a banking center. Most of the exteme amount of development in downtown Miami is either commercial property or condos. It's simply a place where many work, and go home, mostly to suburban communities. The median household income of Miamians is less than $25,000/year. That's right, the median income of a city in which the average cost of a house is around $350,000 is only $23,000/year. The city of Miami has been in a very similar position as Scranton. The city has been in tremendous debt, almost to the point where the city was forced to merge with Dade County to make ends meet. Miami is not some opulent place that is free of problems. Many educated residents in South Florida live in communities such as South Miami, Weston, Boca Raton, and other areas of Palm Beach County. This has also created a "brain drain" effect in Miami, in which many in the city have extremely low educational attainment, which has equated to immense poverty and crime. Meanwhile, new residents to South Florida try as hard as possible to live in suburban communties that are better off. Using your logic, they should move into the existing housing stock in the city because it's the "moral" thing to do. I agree that many of us suburban residents do not care about the trees that are cut down so to support our homes and required infrastructure. However, people are drawn by other pull factors that a lot of suburbs offer, such as better schools, generally larger homes, lower population density, and privacy. You seem to be stuck on the idea that preserving "pristine" woodlands should trump all of those pull factors, which is not the case.

Many users have addressed creating incentives to pull residents to urban cores. However, there are SO many residents who prefer to live in a suburban environment over an urban area. The housing density is a large turnoff for many, living near unsafe areas is another, dealing with pollution, which is often worse in urban environments is another, just to name a few. You can make alternatives as attractive as you want, but many people will continue to resist. You certainly can have your own opinions about those people, but they have every right in this country to live the lives that they desire.



Scranton will never see it's population rise to 150,000-200,000 again. Unless the city completely overhauled its economy, including adding an extreme amount of skilled jobs, made its housing stock more attractive, and opened many recreational and entertainment venues, Scranton would not see a significant population increase.



I agree with bmurphy that even if you attempt to move people back into walkable cities, many will still refuse to walk, and will drive everywhere. Many people do not like walking or riding public transportation, and that's just the way it is. Los Angeles is a perfect example of how extreme oil prices truly do not significantly influence public transit ridership or greatly reduce the number of people who drive. You can say that people's eyes will open when gas hits $5/gallon, then $6/gallon, but, remember, many environemtalists have predicted that same effect when gas hit $2/gallon, then $3/gallon. This just shows the complexity of people, and that you cannot predict people's actions, especially what it would take to reverse Americans current dominant migration patterns.

again, agreed that what is is. i must have missed the part where someone referred to suburbanites as "buffoons". personally, i think we're all susceptible to culture, to commercialism, to advertising, to government...and we can all be well served by being more privy to some of these things and how they can affect us in the now, in the past, in the future. there is inertia in history - in things like the affect of "National City Lines" and subsequent steering of the layouts of our communities and how we all live, and in things like what shapes what many/most of us consdier to be "what's best for us". sometimes things like the subsequent "what is" is what can contribute to issues. not agreed that people living in cities will not walk more or ride the bus. i've lived in a few cities where people do in fact ride the bus and walk more than they did when living elsewhere. not to mention the cost of fuel IS driving people to take the bus that otherwise took their car. and that same kind of cost appears to be affecting, or at least concurring with, people's choices in terms of car (or truck) and home purchases and heating and AC choices. i see these things regularly. go google some stats if you wish. not trying to predict people's actions...pls read the posts. talking about what is, and what can come of it, as it appears to me in the literature, in what i see. yet, at the same time, i (and many marketing folks) would argue that you CAN predict people's aggregate behaviors to an extent - why $$$$$ is spent on marketing, e.g..

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

Are people really that unaware? It's not as if though people don't hear stories about global warming (even if some may not believe them), the war, or gas prices nearly every single evening on the news. Therefore, I don't really think people as a whole are uneducated or unaware of the risks.

More likely, people have an internal balancing test. They'll ask themselves how much money they are willing to spend gas versus how large of a car that they want or how far they want to live from work and then figure out what they want to do. Very few things in life are all or nothing - most of us are much more complex than that.

On a side anecdotal note, cities and towns themselves could take more note of the environment. I lived in some of the densest city neighborhoods in Chicago for years and loved the experience, yet a place that's considered one of the most progressive and greenest large cities in the country didn't (and still doesn't) have a basic recycling program that the average person could possibly understand (there involved separating things into special blue bags, but few people could figure out where to get these blue bags or where to put them once they were filled). When I moved to one of Chicago's largest suburbs that is often ridiculed by city-dwellers of being the ultimate suburban town, it interestingly enough had about as effective of a recycling program that you could ever imagine - you had to pay for a sticker for each load of regular trash that you wanted hauled away, but everything that was put into your blue recycle bin was taken away for free. Guess what the effect was? When people were given an easy-to-use process with a direct financial incentive to separate their recyclables from other trash, the town ended up with about as close to 100% participation in recycling as you could get. So, is the city or suburb being the one that's more progressive on environmental matters? That's obviously just one example on one issue, but it goes to show you that (a) people act when you give them an incentive to do so and (b) cities and suburbs cannot be so easily stereotyped.

i see on these very posts people not making some of these connections. and i do not blame them, while i seek their perspectives and information, while i share some of my own. others are sometimes otherwise uninformed regarding some of the state of knowledge of climate change, e.g.. people can also be unaware of some of the degrees of corporate influence on their very own thinking and their very own government. again, i do not blame those people. it's a society - they have some things to think more about just as others have social trends, for example, to think more about to make a living. i.e. i do not propose people cannot be aware, but more that we sometimes get drowned by other obligations and competing information, or because we don't all have the means or wherewithall to get formally or informally educated on some of these things.

yes, there is some internal "balancing" as you put it, as well. i do not deny there is some free will, as i do not deny that some of that free will is shaped by some things and results in some things that we might want to look into.

i'm glad your suburb had a good recycling program - sounds like there might have been a little bit of wisdom being employed there - part of what i'm talking about. suburbia can also be more consumptive. suburbia can also be safer in some ways. suburbia can also be less noisy. suburbia can be cheaper. suburbia can also be better, and be worse, than some other things in some ways. i don't deny any of that, though i do believe there are some trends that are worth looking at, maybe particularly some of the consumption and waste that CAN go into some of suburbia, and can come from it.

your 3rd paragraph is making some of the same points i am. as for easy stereotyping, that's not where i'm coming from. i am talking apparent - from the literature out there, from the data out there, from what i see with my own two eyes - trends and what can manifest in some of them. some suburbia can be good, some bad. the overall trend - made of many parts, yes - seems to manifest in some things and, i suspect, from some things.

[mpope409]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Anyone who is PRO sprawl is anti kids. They dont care what ****ty world they leave for thier childern...theyd rather have a cheap store pop up that they shop at once in their lives then care about the repucaustions that that one building brings...

I'm not pro-sprawl, but I'm not anti-sprawl, either. I'm definitely not "anti-kids"(?)

[metroplex2003]

I"m not convinced that pro-sprawl equates to being anti-kids.

I think a lot has to be said for having an open space environment where kids can potentially play outside and run around. Does this imply that urban core environments are unsafe, probably not completely...BUT most urban cores in America you do have to exercise a little more caution.

Now in terms of chains and big box stores killing the so called "mom and pop's"...I think it depends which city you live in...for example, Houston and Dallas has what I would call a "mom and pop" niche market. There's a market of people that goes to mom and pop restaurant locales and also these boutiques b/c they crave more unique experiences. Larger cities tend to have greater quantities of mom and pop stores. I think where the chains (sprawl) hurts cities in America are those small to mid-sized towns. Examples include Peoria, IL, Sioux City, IA, Cedar Rapids, IA, Springfield, MO. These are areas where there are no major university or large area MSA to support both "mom and pop's" and big box stores/chains. Sioux City's downtown has taken a hit as chains invaded...same with Cedar Rapids.
Now the question is, is this a bad thing? I think it's cultural preferences. People at the end of the day, oftentimes, (and not all people) do try to get their best bang for their buck. Now if chains deliver that and they are happy with the quality that chains offer...it may not all be that bad.
Now it does take away from the character of a city...I think it's important to have "mom and pop's" survive as well...I'm a big fan of giving business to both "mom and pop" locales...especially in my area of DFW and also go to chains that have known quality service and product associated with it.

But this does get somewhat off topic...but it does relate to sprawl. Sprawled out areas tend not to have mom and pop's. Yes that is true...but I do know that lifestyle town squares are popping up in the suburbs and there is a hint of revival of some mom and pop's in the burbs...though I would admit that cheap stores and chains to dominate in sprawled out areas.

[Katarina Witt]

The issue of "mom and pops" vs. the big chains is complex. PBS did a show a few years back about the influence of Sears, Roebuck on the small downtowns of yesteryear. Wal-Mart, et all are not the first ones to be accused of bringing about the downfall of the downtowns.

I had an epiphany on this issue recently. I was talking to a relative about Wal-Mart, and said that when Wal-Mart came to our area, there was no more downtown left to destroy. It occurred to me at that moment that this was probably the case in many a small town. The downtown folded years ago in response to the malls, Sears, Wards, etc. Wal-Mart saw a vaccuum and moved in.

I definitely agree with metroplex about the kids thing. There is even some research to support that view.

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

The issue of "mom and pops" vs. the big chains is complex. PBS did a show a few years back about the influence of Sears, Roebuck on the small downtowns of yesteryear. Wal-Mart, et all are not the first ones to be accused of bringing about the downfall of the downtowns.

I had an epiphany on this issue recently. I was talking to a relative about Wal-Mart, and said that when Wal-Mart came to our area, there was no more downtown left to destroy. It occurred to me at that moment that this was probably the case in many a small town. The downtown folded years ago in response to the malls, Sears, Wards, etc. Wal-Mart saw a vaccuum and moved in.

I definitely agree with metroplex about the kids thing. There is even some research to support that view.

i suspect that the previous "antikids" comment had to do with something slightly more general, as in, "sprawl and some other things may be leaving less for our kids and their kids to look forward to, kinda like how some of the things that are resulting in global warming may be leaving some tough things behind for kids of kids to look forward to..." personally, i can see that possibility, at the same time that i can see some of pluses in SOME suburbia for kids.

i am seeing walmarts and things going in OUTSIDE of downtowns where they can find cheaper and more land rather than reshaping what already exists in downtowns, personally. i have also seen plenty of people enjoying their franchises because that's what's closest and most immediate for them, then being "blown away" by "how awesome" some locally owned and operated places with character/history/roots are when they go into town with me - "this would be SO COOL to be able to WALK to all this stuff! but it must be so expensive to live here!". they could find something with only 15% fewer square feet there for what they're paying in the burbs! why don't they just go into town more and support these "awesome" places in town? they're not quite familiar with the public transportation...which runs directly from about 1.5 miles from their place to where we went downtown - they're lucky enough to have moved to a suburban location that happens to be that close to a direct bus stop, so they could ride a bike to it (though admittedly, the roads around them are mostly like freeways with no bike lane or sidewalks or anything)...or even park and ride; the bus stop is only a minute from one of the franchise restaurants they always drive to (it's a mile from their place) anyhow!

pittnurse - i am honestly curious, where have you seen the "research" that is "prokids/prosuburb"? i'd enjoy reading into some of that.

[metroplex2003]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

The issue of "mom and pops" vs. the big chains is complex. PBS did a show a few years back about the influence of Sears, Roebuck on the small downtowns of yesteryear. Wal-Mart, et all are not the first ones to be accused of bringing about the downfall of the downtowns.

I had an epiphany on this issue recently. I was talking to a relative about Wal-Mart, and said that when Wal-Mart came to our area, there was no more downtown left to destroy. It occurred to me at that moment that this was probably the case in many a small town. The downtown folded years ago in response to the malls, Sears, Wards, etc. Wal-Mart saw a vaccuum and moved in.

I definitely agree with metroplex about the kids thing. There is even some research to support that view.

Sorry Pittnurse,

Was using walmart as an example, but this was more of a generalization of chain stores...aka malls, big boxes, etc. I did not intent to pick solely on WalMart

[Katarina Witt]

pittnurse - i am honestly curious, where have you seen the "research" that is "prokids/prosuburb"? i'd enjoy reading into some of that.

You probably wouldn't enjoy it. Most of what I've read on that subject has been the the American Journal of Public Health. Inner-city kids tend to eat less well and exercise less than suburban kids. But these public health reasearchers can't write worth a ****, and the articles are dull and boring. I get the journal as a perk of membership in the Am. Public Heath Assn.

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

You probably wouldn't enjoy it. Most of what I've read on that subject has been the the American Journal of Public Health. Inner-city kids tend to eat less well and exercise less than suburban kids. But these public health reasearchers can't write worth a ****, and the articles are dull and boring. I get the journal as a perk of membership in the Am. Public Heath Assn.

i can get access to it. i'll look it up. i get into this stuff (obviously). i'm a researcher myself, so, what can i do. i've also seen similar things suggesting suburbanites tend to exercise less and be more obese! parallel...or maybe interwoven!....universes. lol or maybe it has to do with which inner city people and which suburbanites.