Suburban Sprawl

[jammy 0]

here you can show us your cities suburban sprawl and say wether your for or against it.

Personally I don't mind sprawl, I live in england where although there is a lot of it you don't here about it very often.

btw...HAPPY 2007!   (maybe just a little late!)

[sc4portugal 10]

I'm for i love subs

[RHMgerards 7]

i don't really like it. i would go for more, how do i call it, urbanisation. In general, i don't really like the concept of an amercan city, with some skyscrapers in downtown, and beyond that houses and huge malls. here in europe, it's very different, the cities give you a more, urban feeling, i think at least. it's different from an american city. normaly there are not such suburbs as found there.

[MrFingers 0]

something like 75% of americans live in suburban sprawl, it is really hideous. and then they wonder why they have weight problems. infact, other than the country side and a few metropolises (NOT LA), I cant stand the place. you drive along a wide avenue with carparks either side, and the shops go; fast food, gas station, plaza, fast food, gas station, plaza, fast food, gas station, plaza, etc, etc, etc. it would drive me to insanity if i lived there.

[Giligone 10]

In real life I'm very opposed to sprawl, In sc4 though I find it adds a level of realism to my cities.

[pickled_pig 7]

Same. Against in real life, for in Simcity.

[RHMgerards 7]

that's also true, in simcity it looks more realistic, but in real life it aint that great

[hawkpride147 1]

im for it in both cases although i also love the concept of the urban metropolis. i live in texas and the "suburbs" are not so much suburbs anymore as they are fully functional cities. many jobs have moved to the suburbs here. i think one of my history teachers in high school referred to texas suburbs as edge cities. cities that could fully support themselves if the rest of the metropolitan area was removed, but yet grow and thrive more because of the metropolitan area in which they are located.

[simzebu 19]

I'm for then in Sim City, because they're realistic. But I hate THAT they're realistic. Suburbs encourage things like Wal*Marts, which discourage local businesses, which make downtowns less pleasant, which is bad for the economy.

Not to mention the destruction of trees, contamination of the water, higher water consumption, and increased difficulty for effective public transportation. I also think suburban houses these days attract people inside where they don't contribute to society and sit around gaining weight. Then you end up with a population of overweight, self-obsessed idiots in a collapsing economy in an environmentally unpleasant area.

[XL 19]

Since the vast majority of cities in the U.S. feature suburbs, I implement those in my regions, unless I just want to toy with the idea of the European metropolis.

In reality, I'm a fan of the rural areas. Give me a house on 40 acres of land well away from the neighbors, the stresses of the suburbs and in an area showcasing it's natural beauty and quiet settings. I do my best to include those in the regions I build.

[ExiL3 10]

Against,

I only use suburban sprawl in my cities when I like to recreate American cities. When I build Scandinavian cities, there are sometimes "indications" of neighborhoods that might resemble sprawl, but nothing like the "American way"

The thought of putting as many people in one small place as possible appeals to me, as I think us humans don't need to take up so much space any more. Let the companies, and the farmers grow the food, so we can live in a smaller healthier community! At least that is my dream

take care,

[kurtvedder 4]

@simzebu - The American economy is actually doing really well.

I don't mind suburbs. I feel that they are perfect for families due to the lower pollution, traffic, and noise of the urban areas.

Myself, I would love to live in downtown Seattle sometime after college and before getting married and starting a family, than i'll go move to a quiet suburb like the one I live in right now.

[dalmatianfan2020 1]

I live in one of those cities you're talking about. Oklahoma City! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I hate it. Personally, I love the idea of a city with all of the amenities. "fast food, gas station, plaza, fast food, gas station, plaza, fast food, gas station, plaza, etc, etc, etc." That sounds all too familar. It's like the Flintstones where the same building goes by each time. In Edmond, our Plano, you drive down 15th Street, for example, and all you see are brick walls for all the developments. No sense of place. It's hideous. I live in Nichols Hills, a University Park, TX, type area. It's very nice. My neigborhood is good sprawl. Developemts, gated communities, etc, are what I hate the most.

[hawkpride147 1]

i'm with you kurtvedder...downtown after college and before family but suburban after having a family.

[blueflame13 1]

Really? You people would rather be packed like cattle in to some small apartment in a highrise? The idea sounds disgusting to me. I live in the suburbs and god I love it. The fact that living packed next to people and not having your own space or your own yard sucks. I love my yard. You know what, who cares if Wal-mart gets rid of smaller businesses. Get with the times. Superstores offer a great selection and you know what there going to have there, and it wont be some cheap homemade crap. But then again I'm just some ignorant American who drives a gas-gussling pickup truck. By the way, I love my truck.

[_MostlyHarmless 17]

against against against against! If anyone here is in urban planning, you know that many planners are totally against sprawl.

[nycsc4 5,250]

I have to say that I disagree with almost all of you. (Except those of you who are for it). I live in Chesterfield Missouri USA. (Chesterfield is located in Suburban St. Louis). Eventhough Chesterfield is considered a St. Louisan Suburb if STL were to dissappear or the STL Metro Area for that matter Chesterfield could totaly support itself. Chesterfield is looking like a real city more and more each day along with many other St. Louisan suburbs. Chesterfield itself has its own regional airport, a downtown with high rises building, about 55,000 in total population, huge land area, and lots more space to build. Chesterfield is also home to the largest strip mall in America, that is stores btw, sure there are restruants and plazas, and in all of Downtown Chesterfield 3 gas stations, and Downtown Chesterfield is huge. (land wise). Like hawkpride147 said they are more like edge cities. Also who ever said it is "gas station, plaza, fast food, gas station etc., that is so far from the truth in STL and its suburbs it is not even funny. (like i said before look at downtown Chesterfield). Also just because someone lives in the burbs does not make them fat or idiots. The suburbs are wonderful, they are far safer then the city (especially St. Louis, lol) and in St. Louis' case suburban STL provides more jobs than STL city. Also the people tend to be nicer, the traffic is not as bad, and there are far better prospects. Get with the program guys, the burbs are the place to be.

[soldyne 111]

im for it. I hate downtown urban areas; they smell, their always dirty, everyone is in a rush, its so emotionally cold (stone and steel everywhere), everything is twice the price for the half the product, crime is everywhere and no one gives a rats tail, oh and the rats and roaches...I could go on. I enjoy suburbs, plenty of space and peace with all the modern comforts. I wouldn't mind living in the country if it wasn't so far away from everything! the suburbs are just right...for me anyway.

I can understand that suburban sprawl does not work in many countries that can't afford the space, but, for those that can, yippie!

so what if WalMart puts mom and pop stores out of business? personally, I am kind of a nihilist at heart. I would like to think that if we allow enough bad things to happen that eventually all social order will collapse into itself and we will be forced into another dark age! sounds like fun!

I say consume, consume, consume! burn all the gas you can find, throw away all the plastic and paper you can get your hands on, and for gosh sakes just throw that nuclear waste down the drain!

(now you have to ask yourself, am I being sarcastic or do I actually believe what I am saying???)

[kurtvedder 4]

Being the conservative that I am, I think I'll belive that you actually agree with what you're saying.

(now you have to ask yourself the same thing)

[Red1530 1]

I am against Suburban Sprawl. I prefer the country where it is peaceful, you know your neighbors, and can see the Milky Way.

[Pepster 1]

The idea of the suburbs per se exists since the roman times, when the real urban concept took off, and large cities were finally amased thanks to a strong production and trade economy that requiered a lot of labour.

actually the suburbs differ a lot acording the countries, cultures, and most important, available land.

the mexican case is an example, Guadalajara and Monterrey (2th and 3rd largest cities) have plenty of land to expand, and as result unifamiliar homes have sprung up and they are mostly low density cities compared to mexico city.

the case of mexico city is quite different, as the city itself have a shortage of usable land for urbanization.

the city is in a "geographical bowl" this makes housing very expensive, to give and example the social housing can be 30% more expensive in the State of Mexico than in elsewhere the country, and for fancy flats in desirable places, the figure real unreal figures compared to those with same characteristics, but in other large mexican city.

even so, there is a huge housing boom in mexico city to build up small, gated and cheap houses several kilometers from the city centre or financial districts.

The case of the boom of suburbia in America have much to do with the so called "white fly" something easily found in wikipedia, this have caused the boom of the "edge cities" and the decay of several downtowns.

otherwise Europe have proved that downtowns can be exciting places (and expensive to live), full of history, activities, close of the jobs, and near main public transport system.

im somewhat against ultra low density suburbs, cause they are a waste of land, resources and expensive to fulfill them with such things like running water, increase commuting times, and are hard to integrate them in to the main city activities (this apply more for the farest suburbs).

London have proved that can be very feasible and profitable to have a bustling city centre and that urban redevelopment really pays off to cite an example that.

there is a comment that maybe right, that suburbs give more secure and quiet place to be and a lawn in front of your front door... but honestly.... not anyone is looking for that i rather a flat near a place where the real action (and transportation) is, also... even in mexico city (also in a BIG condo craze, not just booming unifamiliar houses in the suburbs), there are a lot of new flats, with buildings with Sky Garden, cool for a flat that cost $80,000 dollars for 2 bedrooms and 2 baths, (while luxury lofts with just one bedroom and view to a huge park cost twice that figure, lol

[hogs29 1]

Originally posted by: Red1530 I am against Suburban Sprawl. I prefer the country where it is peaceful, you know your neighbors, and can see the Milky Way.quote>

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. 

Unfortunately, here in Connecticut, most of that is going away, and fast. I moved up to the town I'm in now about 10 years ago. Then, it was nice open spaces. Rolling hills, peace and quiet, no constant sound of traffic - only the occasional car every so often. Now, sprawling "communities" where nobody knows each other, and they couldn't care to either. All these new homes look exactly the same, and there's thousands upon thousands of them now. Every big box store chain you can think of is now located on the main strip in town, every fast food joint, and every brand of gas station. Traffic clogs the streets on the weekends as people struggle to get to the local warehouse super-store to buy their 40 pound tubs of mayo and 1000 pack box of instant soup. Nobody likes anyone else, nor do they know anyone else. My commute which 6 years ago was 20 minutes is now a staggering 1 hour.

I'm looking to get out, but so are thousands of other people. The ironic part is, the majority of people that now want out are the same people that caused this disgrace by moving here in the first place. They came to escape, and came in such droves and demanding all the things they were used to in non-country life, that they just ended up moving their way of living here.......now they don't like it here and want to leave.

Odd thing is, in SC4, I rather like the urban spawl. Figure that one out.

[owenluby 1]

I don't mind suburban sprawl... I just don't like those horrible new developments that are popping up all over the place.... All those pre-planned houses and artificial lakes really bug me...

I would like it even more if the houses were nicer and there were heaps more trees...

[Death Reaper 0]

I am against it because its a waste of arable land for agriculture and it make the commute time longer and it make the city to orientate more for the vehicule than the pedestrian so it remove the social life in the city like it was before the 1920...

[caleworley 1]

I thought the idea of what a "metropolis" is, that it is a collection of large cities very close together. For example, Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas area. Or San Francisco-Oakland area. To contrast, look at LA, Detroit, Indianapolis, Atlanta. No other major cities outside of the downtown area.

I am from Indiana, about an hour outside of Indianapolis surrounded by cornfields... so I don't pretend to be an expert on city life. However, if you took Indy out of the picture, the suburbs of Carmel, Noblesville, Greenwood, etc... would cease to exist. However, Indianapolis is a "metro".... by the way gets to decide to call it that? They even just combined the sheriff's department and Indy city police to make the Indianapolis Metro PD, again with the "metro" name.

I like the wording of "edge cities" by HAWKPRIDE147. I have been to cities in Costa Rica and moreso in Mexico... both were the same way: a central downtown commerce area, followed by a couple miles of sprawl.

[hawkpride147 1]

i live in a city of over 60,000 and yet it's still a suburb. i like the idea many suburbs around here have started doing. town centers. they are mini downtown like shopping areas. as for soldyne's claim about downtowns [they smell, their always dirty, everyone is in a rush, its so emotionally cold (stone and steel everywhere)], tere are some that are remarkably clean and laid back. fort worth is one of the best downtowns in the US. they pride themselves on the historic square and are spreading it outwards.

[ilikehotdogsalot 308]

Originally posted by: owenluby I don't mind suburban sprawl... I just don't like those horrible new developments that are popping up all over the place.... All those pre-planned houses and artificial lakes really bug me...

I would like it even more if the houses were nicer and there were heaps more trees...

quote>

oh man, those are the worst! i remember when i went to orlando to stay with my brother and his girlfriend, and they had this house in this plastic, super clean, artificial suburb community...bleh, everything was empty, new, or under construction, oh yeah, can't forget the nuclear power plant nearby, you could see it from every part of the community.

[lolebagels 0]

Originally posted by: caleworley I thought the idea of what a "metropolis" is, that it is a collection of large cities very close together. For example, Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Texas area. Or San Francisco-Oakland area. To contrast, look at LA, Detroit, Indianapolis, Atlanta. No other major cities outside of the downtown area.quote>

LA itself is a metropolis. Look at the enormous sprawl that horrible city created. After all, it's SURROUNDED by cities upon cities upon cities. And you forgot the San Jose in SF-Oakland!

To me, suburbs are the answer to someone who wants an escape from the city - but needs its comforts and amenities. Although suburbs rarely have a special touch and  "atmosphere" to them, like most downtowns do (look at San Francisco, Seattle, NYC), it's a wonderful place for kids. It's easy to get lost in all the hustle of the cities. I have to oppose hogs29, too. It's definitely not true that "nobody knows each other, and couldn't care either." Although I have never lived in a downtown, I know that it's plenty easy to make friends out of suburbian neighbors.

However, as we keep expanding more and more, we need to stop - and look at ourselves. Are we doing the right thing? Consuming more and more land, chopping and smashing and claiming our spots in what used to be acres of farmland a mere decade ago? After all, as we expand further and further from the centers of our cities, we are spending more and more time in transportation. Driving to a restaurant. Driving to a mall. We are losing our sense of ourselves, our sense of true community. Anyhow, the answer is only for you to decide.

[hamsterTK 93]

To guess to sum things up, I dont really like homogenous developments regardless of whether they are high or low density, auto-centric or transit oriented, upscale or low income. I wish planners and developers would be more liberatarian and crazy and finally end all this sterile and impersonal mass produced  enviroment many of us live in.

Anyways, I think that many problems that we place on sprawl are actually problems with our modern culture and the current state of capitalism we have. Also, many assumptions, like "nobody knows each other in the suburbs" are often disproved by studies by social scientists.

As for transportation related things like cars vs transit, I think both are important. Many want to drive, but some can't afford cars, and there are still another segment of society who would rather use transit than drive their own car. I don't think we should force everyone in a TOD, but in existing urban areas that are congested autocentric development needs to be restricted or replaced with infill.

[ActivationEnsues 0]

It's strange.

I've grown up in a suburban community on the very edge of the Chicago metropolis, lived there 20 years. There are a lot of nice things about the suburbs.

Lower costs of living (car-dependency excepting).

Plenty of green space.

The ability to see the stars.

And well, that's really the only things I find handy about them.

My preference for a way of life would be an immediate halt on the growth of human developments, and condensing of some, so as to preserve existing farmland and wilderness preserves as well as preserve the latter, in combination with a slow birth rate plan in order to allow for density in locations to grow at the rate at which housing can construct.

Honestly, I think we've reached our limit in terms of how far humanity should spread itself across the globe. We need to start thinking environmentally as well as long-term, instead of our own often-selfish interests.

My preferred development world-wide would be low-rise housing in an urban setting with ease of availability of consumer goods, education, and public space via public transportation and nearby car co-ops. Rowhouses, three, four stories max, surrounding a downtown core.

The one thing I would miss would be the stars. But if we've already accomplished the above, I'd like to throw in mandatory blackout nights as well