Urban Sprawl---A Blessing or a Curse? (downtown, Dallas, Atlanta, architect)
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.
Thats kinda true in the sense they kinda looked the same, but the values were higher, crime was lower, etc, etc. My ideal time frame to live in would be pre-WWII. I liked the 50s for the hot-rod scene, the essence of cool. And really, the only super sprawl I can think of in the 50s was probably SoCal...
Well, I can't argue with that. Except I think I'll stay in 2007.
Interesting indeed. I find it humorous to hear my fellow suburbanites whining "I can't afford these gas prices." Nevertheless, they think nothing of moving to a cul-de-sac and then driving their Escalades and Navigators back and forth to the city several times per day for work, nightlife, meetings, worship, the theatre, etc. If they would trade their SUVs that are only used as "status symbols" around here for a pair of legs...
Or how about a four-door sedan for a change. Hopefully they will become popular again. I have always abhored SUV's and favored automobiles over it. Why are SUV's regarded as status symbols? SUV's are too big to drive and waste gasoline plus they also pose visibility problems coming out of a parking space or interfere with lane maneuvers. I even find my 2002 Toyota Camry too long and too wide to drive.
I doubt the sprawl will reverse much with urban renewal. ...
This is true. Sprawl may not reverse much with urban renewal alone. But, urban renewal is connected to what will reverse sprawl -- higher and higher oil prices and people's proportionate (in)ability to pay for it.
Last edited by Winston Smith; 05-18-2007 at 11:24 AM..
scranton--good discussion here, thanks for framing this. I did NOT like your poll questions, though, as I couldn't accurately respond to them with a dot. Here's what my responses would be:
NO, don't bring on the Wal-marts, tract homes, freeways
YES, our historic cities are rotting to the core
NO, I don't like the suburbs, but NO I haven't been priced out of the city (I just have a smaller house on a smaller lot than I'd have for the same price if I lived in the burbs)
YES, I really care. (It breaks my heart to see my elegant old city be "suburbanized" through the addition of drive-thru banks and fast food joints and sprawling Walgreen's and CVSs where the mom & pop drug stores used to be, etc. They've been chipping away at it since the 60s when they rammed I-94 right through the middle of town and have since been retro-fitting the streetcar neighborhoods for the convenience of the "vehicle".)
Left wingers and new urbanists have their heads so clouded by a nostalgic, utopian 19th century notion of "town and country" that they have absolutely failed to interpret the complex landscape we actually live in. ...
Why ruin an otherwise well thought-out post with a silly comment about "left wingers" and "new urbanists"? Let's not go down that road with this thread.
Some people like a new urbanism setting, and whole city councils are embracing the idea for themselves. This does not automatically predispose anyone to a particular political ideology. We all make our choices based on what we like, can afford, and predict about our own future. Couldn't we just leave it at that?
I think the issue of whether suburban sprawl is "good" or not really depends upon where you live. For regions with strong urban cores such as New York, Chicago, or San Francisco, in many cases the issue of real estate prices is a very prevalent concern since the suburbs are substantially cheaper than the city (and the exurbs are substantially cheaper than the closer-in suburbs). As a result, people need to move farther and farther out in order to afford to buy anything more than a shoebox. At the same time, the populations of those regions are still growing rapidly, meaning that the geographic footprints of those areas have to expand simply to give all of those people a place to live.
In places such as Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, however, it's the opposite where the suburbs have higher prices than the city. These are the areas where suburban sprawl could be interpreted to be "taking away" the vibrancy of the central city cores.
Yet, the single most important issue that applies to almost all of the large cities in this country, whether vibrant or stagnant, is the quality of public schools. Young singles in their 20s right out of college are going to have a very different perspective as to where they want to live versus a couple that's starting a family. For the majority of people that have children, the quality of public schools is one of the largest concerns (if not the single largest concern) that they have, so they're going to move to where they are the best (or at least adequately funded). More often than not, that means moving to the suburbs regardless of how much they like urban living.
Places such as New York and Chicago have still thrived in this environment since there's always a new crop of young people without kids to move in every year that are looking for an urban atmosphere. For more stagnant cities that don't attract a lot of young people, though, a lack of quality public schools means that there's going to be a continued outflow of the remaining families. So, that's where large cities need to start if they want to stem any further declines. Of course, this is much easier said than done.
I think the issue of whether suburban sprawl is "good" or not really depends upon where you live. For regions with strong urban cores such as New York, Chicago, or San Francisco, in many cases the issue of real estate prices is a very prevalent concern since the suburbs are substantially cheaper than the city (and the exurbs are substantially cheaper than the closer-in suburbs). As a result, people need to move farther and farther out in order to afford to buy anything more than a shoebox. At the same time, the populations of those regions are still growing rapidly, meaning that the geographic footprints of those areas have to expand simply to give all of those people a place to live.
In places such as Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, however, it's the opposite where the suburbs have higher prices than the city. These are the areas where suburban sprawl could be interpreted to be "taking away" the vibrancy of the central city cores.
Yet, the single most important issue that applies to almost all of the large cities in this country, whether vibrant or stagnant, is the quality of public schools. Young singles in their 20s right out of college are going to have a very different perspective as to where they want to live versus a couple that's starting a family. For the majority of people that have children, the quality of public schools is one of the largest concerns (if not the single largest concern) that they have, so they're going to move to where they are the best (or at least adequately funded). More often than not, that means moving to the suburbs regardless of how much they like urban living.
Places such as New York and Chicago have still thrived in this environment since there's always a new crop of young people without kids to move in every year that are looking for an urban atmosphere. For more stagnant cities that don't attract a lot of young people, though, a lack of quality public schools means that there's going to be a continued outflow of the remaining families. So, that's where large cities need to start if they want to stem any further declines. Of course, this is much easier said than done.
A strong urban core has attained a critical mass where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Almost every city can list out a bunch of businesses, museums, restaurants, nice neighborhoods, notable attractions, etc. However, it's the way in which all of those attributes are put together that determines whether a city has a strong urban core. That means the city as a whole in and of itself is the drawing card for people, not merely just the particular sites within them.
I have to agree with Ben Around for the most part. "Urban sprawl" is a loaded term. It's already framed the discussion in a certain way. I don't think anyone is going to stand up and be for urban sprawl. They might be in support of suburbs, however. Not all suburbs are as they have been described. I will say that I live in the suburbs of Loudoun County, Virginia; we are not the cause of urban decay, and we're not all alike.
A strong urban core has attained a critical mass where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Almost every city can list out a bunch of businesses, museums, restaurants, nice neighborhoods, notable attractions, etc. However, it's the way in which all of those attributes are put together that determines whether a city has a strong urban core. That means the city as a whole in and of itself is the drawing card for people, not merely just the particular sites within them.
Well there are urban cores in the south and they sprawl.
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.
It's still about oil
