Suburban Sprawl

[egelder22 0]

I agree sprawl is terrible. It's impersonal, it destroys nature, and the only reason people move there is so they can own a small piece of land. Although I must agree with schooner2 that when it comes to smart suburban development, Long Island is the model.

Maybe it's just because the area developed before the age of suburban sprawl, but Long Island's suburbs are (mostly) not huge tracts of farmland that has been bought and subdivided. It's all small towns often over a hundred years old with strong community sense that have grown together. Each has their own main street, they're own school district, and they're all connected by mass transit to the city. So many people commute to the city and no one drives in. And each neighborhood has it's own distinct character. My town of Babylon has a very maritime feel. You move to a place on LI because you like what it offers, not because it's the cheapest group of cookie-cutter houses going up. Although as you go out to the east end where development is newer, you start to see more and more sprawl areas.

[YannickSHE 0]

Very interesting conversation. I myself live in the heart of a big downtown, Montreal, and I guess it's the same here. We have urban sprawl here as well, but I guess they didnt have the choice.

Montreal, located on an island, had to sprawl, on its south and north shore. The north shore, which first starts with another island (Laval), then north shore. Which created 3 other urban sprawls:

1- Longueuil (south shore major city)

2- Laval (2nd island, north shore)

3- the North Shore cities (there's like 10 cities greater than 25,000 people).

Total of our metro area tops 3.7M now, 1.8M people on the island of Montreal alone. The city of Montreal and government, helped this urban sprawl, 1 decade ago, by having some sorts of new plans to promote urban life. And it worked.

Old historic downtown is getting many new inhabitants each year, everything is under re-construction, lofts and condos are bought everywhere and it created a very nice quality of life for a lot of families. There's parks everywhere now.

But I don't hate the fact of urban sprawling. There's a lot of booming in them as well, and I wouldn't want 3.7M people living on the island of Montreal, it would be too messy!! So I like our sprawl. Of course, it's not good for small economies (especially those from the city) and we are having mega stores alongside the highways in the 'burbs. But oh well, these people seem happy. I only wish they could use mass transit to come to work downtown everyday. The use of the car is my only complaint about sprawling. But besides that, we have small downtowns surrounding the BIG downtown, and it's marvelous.

And Montreal is not like Indy, Atlanta or other cities mentioned. Our sprawling cities are bigger than just residents and malls. Longueuil and Laval, both have more than 225,000 people, and I consider them cities, as Montreal. The only difference is, Montreal is the BIGGER city and has access to everything that other cities in metro don't.

Yes, the north american "feel" is still present, but Montreal downtown AND the burbs are full of life and I want both to succeed... in their own way.

[serebii666 3]

Well I believe that urban jungles are much better than suburban sprawl. However suburbs do make the perfect 'eyecandy' to a city.

[Death54 3]

Im for the "urban" suburbs in real life (basically older historical suburbs with mass transit, no malls, higher development, less sprawling, more parks, easier access to downtown, etc).

In Sim City 4 I love 1/4 of the tiles (I make all tiles medium sized) to be skycraper forests where the edges of the map are medium density (easy to make with the CAM), another 1/4 to be industrial ports, 1 or 2 inland tiles to be farms with small towns in them and then the remaining tiles to be suburban/semi-urban sprawl. Btw I'm playing on a smallish island (9 med tiles to work with).

[Smarty218 2]

Vote vertical, destroy sprawl!

[spacedragonblue 1]

As a proud New Yorker, I vastly prefer the city over the suburbs-in SC and real life. Cities do not have to be cold, ugly or smelly. They are inherently more environmentally friendly due to mass transit options. Furthermore, I disagree with 99% of my country and side with Europe when it comes to walkability. The cities I have been to that I would like to live in were all places in which you don't have to be stuck in traffic for an hour to do your shopping. I'd take Vancouver or NY over LA or Houston any day.

That doesn't mean I don't love open space. Nothing is better for contrast and relaxation than a weekend in the county-but we'd have a lot more of it if we all ditched the car and moved downtown.

[PhantomSoul 3]

Suburbs are traffic messes and can also be very polluting; a very inefficient means of development. But that said, who said anythingi about America doing anything efficiently? Suburbs are a way of life around here, and have become a quintessential part of the American Dream. Remember envisioning that nice house with a picket fence? So at the end of the day, its kind of a love/hate relationship -- poor developmental style, but very desirable.

[City2TheMax 3]

If you do a suburb right, it works out well. But if you don't do it right, you're screwed. I live down here in the south, and most suburban complexes seem to end up in ghettos. Suburban sprawl feels semi-communist because all houses look the same. You can't walk anywhere so you're forced to use a car. And the schools feel ridiculous. Schools here have the same number of students as in the German schools I've been to, but they take up at least 5X the space and use literally 40-50 school busses, because the suburbs make everyone spread out.

I'm generally against suburban sprawl, but again, if you do it right, it works out well.

[Mikeaut1 261]

Living on Long Island which is part of the third most populous metropolitan area in the world, I've grown accustom to living in a very suburban neighborhood. The streets are griddy and the houses are basically the same throughout (Levitts and Split Ranches). Anyway, I LOVE suburbs, mainly because of their proximity to a downtown, and living in a mostly peaceful place. I really haven't seen any other suburbs rather than the ones here on Long Island, NJ, NY, and western Florida,  but I think subdivisions that are going up now are pretty cool, and beneficial to any city.

[Mr_Maison 2,426]

I go out to long Island to work commuting from Brooklyn every now and then and I must say that at rush hour, the traffic in Long Island is bad. I think mainly because in some parts everyone within a certain radius are forced to use "that main road" where cross streets are far apart. At times some roads in Long Island are worse than traffic in the city. Yeah it's nice out there, but I would avoid rush hour.

[7smarty 0]

I hate the True definition of suburbs , Techniclie I live in a suburb , Because it's mostly low density.

I live in I live in ottawa (because most of the small towns around it joined to make a larger ottawa) but I live in a town in the cities area called Kanata , and it's a wonderful place , lot's of green space and lot's open roads ( by open I meen efficent) to get to the major routes , and theres only the acasional court , also houses have a good lots size so that you can have alot of trees, the best part is , The Houses are diferent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The have different roofs , building materiel colour and are different shapes!!

The town Has a large Hightech park  and people actualie comme here to work from the Citie

  It is also the home of the Ottawa sentaters stadium.

I live in the older part of the town the outskirts are filled with ugly Row houses ,  they built the darn things in the middle of nowhere! the good thing about my home it's close to the edge of the no houses area neer the senaters stadium .  So none of the ugly townhouse can come neer my house.  

Now a new area of the town of Napean ( also part of Ottawa ) called Barhaven is filled with a true definition of suburbs were they built courts wich you can actualie see from a major route , no houses in beeteeween.

It must me a traffic nightmare when all the commuters Fall out of the single Road wich leads to a major road wich is probalie crammed with people coming to downtown.

Did I mention Kanata has exlelent bus service.

Ive been to the real Ottawa and I dont like the random Tall apartements that are rectangles sticking out of the ground at the edges of the dowtown area , The actuel downtown is pretty mordern with tall offices but as you go deeper it becomes more historical with shorter but butiful buildings that are made of stone , the wonderful Sparks street wich is a walking only street is filled newer businesses in old buildings!

Of coarse I cant forget the parlement Building, the Home of Canadian politicts

I also love the urban Lowrise areas , there nice and has small homie houses and a nice mainstreets.  

But beetewen that and the down town is More ugly appartemnts sticking out and factories.

Any way Im against true suburbs but small towns that are " Suburbs that could be actuel functional without the city are fine, 

I like Downtown and the lowrise urban areas but not in beteween.

[saltandsauce 0]

seeing as i am a teenager who cn't drive i'd rather put up with a bat of traffic, pollution and noise if it meant i could be independant from my parents and on the plus your going to have more friends you can see regularly since theyre within walking distance (if the city was popular)

and as for the "neighbourly" feeling was everywhere in tonnes of British cities, especially during WW2 since people had to rely on each other for support also lots of us lived in flats (apartments) with a stairwell or close where you would interact with your neighbours

that is by definition sprawl however the crucial difference is population

they were mostly (poor) families living in reasonable to squalid conditions and they lived in tenement squares with a shared back garden (or a small private one) where activities such as rubbish dumping and clothes washing happened and the front street was where kids played but nobody owned cars but buses and trams ran along narrowish arterial roads and cars weren't a problem

[Avanine-Commuter 0]

Some people here have a very strange vision of what American suburbs are...

Or maybe I just don't live in a typical one?

I've lived in three (suburban??) cities in L.A.: Monterey Park (this one I don't know... it's so... ghetto-asian it's weird), Hacienda Heights, and currently West Covina. I've visited San Marino, Pasadena, City of Industry, Alhambra, Covina, Glendora, Azusa, Rowland Heights, Diamond Bar, and Walnut a lot, so I really know those areas well. However, none of them really seem like the suburbs you guys are talking about, with McMansions and divisions, except for Diamond Bar and Walnut. Really, all the other suburbs are not developments and really have a community where people actually know each other. My high school, South Hills High School, has a huge list of alumni who own local businesses and help the school, who's sons and daughters all attend the school, and etc. There's a sense of community despite the fact that there's 107k people living in West Covina.

The only McMansions I saw were, as I said, in Diamond Bar and Walnut, and in Las Vegas while passing through heading towards the strip. So why is everyone saying L.A. has that sort of sprawl? Is it just because of low-density cities surrounding the city or is it the suburban image that everyone says we have? I don't really see "weeds"(the show) communities that often here. Maybe in the Inland Empire, but not in L.A. surrounding suburbs.

[WillG_75 19]

I have a love-hate relationship with suburban sprawl.

I lile it because it's usually a pleasant place to live, and is close to many amenities like stores and restaurants. They often have better schools when inner city schools. But I hate it because it's just miles and miles of the same thing, and it's so boring, and how it never ends, and that the countryside is being eaten alive. If I had a choice, I wouldn't live in the city or a suburb, but out in the country near a small town

[MoonCheese 0]

I prefer denser urban environments myself. I think modern suburbs are very wasteful of space. I think cities should remain dense until the outer edge, and just nature and/or farmland outside of that. That way, people lessen their environmental impact and nature can thrive on its own. Land is claimed for cities very slowly and only when the city is getting overcrowded. There should be railroads (or something more futuristic) linking the cities instead of huge freeways. So basically there'd be no suburban or rural living, just cities and uninhabited areas.

However, that's just an idealistic vision that I have. In SimCity 4, I put both urban and suburban areas in, with some rural areas and small towns around the outside (but always with mass transit, even far from the city I at least have buses). I try to build my regions for everyone, so that everyone can have some part of the region they'd want to live in.

[ilikehotdogsalot 308]

I hate suburbs. My suburb is fairly cleaned and well maintained but sometimes it depresses me so much. You have to have a car to get anywhere. I like living in cities much more.

[GLAT 0]

When the big city I live near gets better schools, less crime and shopping within the CBD I'd consider moving there.

Give me my two story house, acre lot and local golf courses!!

[City2TheMax 3]

Suburban sprawl:

pro's:

-good place to raise family

-nature is relatively intact

-less pollution/congestion

con's:

-lots of land used

-tends to spread FAST

-less focus on culture (architecture, entertainment, etc.)

-primarily used to provide jobs and houses, not much more

personally I'm against it.

[sim_city-freak 0]

to me it is like yin and yang two opposeing forses that are opposites u need to have a balence of dense and sparse densities

 look at hong kong, macau, tokyo they are examples of way too dense cities i visited all of them they are all the same thing polluted, congested, and over crowded but they are fun, fast paced and convenent u just walk downstairs from ur apartment and u got everything within walking distance and higher density cities tend to have largeer amount of people ditching their cars at home. and takeing pubic transit. plus dense cities has cool lookin skylines

look at los angleas, houstan, detroit, i visited them also they are all sprawl cities (and all american) you get long commute times, geting fatter every day, you might feel more exposed with a clear sky and just some short bungalows and no trees. and polluting with their cars an everything but it is also relaxing, low cost of houseing and servases ( in detroit i heard u can get a house for $12.50 compared to tokyo where one sqare foot of land is $20,000.00 and that open feeling. 

good examples of the mix is toronto and new york i live in one and visited the other u got the best of both worlds  

[Hahayoudied 3]

    I vote for urban (if the schools, hospitals, and other public buildings that are good as the suburban ones). Suburban are usally cheaper because you pay tax than monthly ( that is added together) or yearly rents (which both are usally higher) in the apraments. Also, the government gets more income from suburban than urban (depending on the tax rates and what kind). However, both urban and suburban has pros and cons. I am stuck, I can't decide if I should pick urban or suburban.

    In SC4 deluxe, I am a urban and suburban lover. In my main city, it is only urban (some houses somehow got stuck between the giant, tall aparment buildings). In my other city, it is mixed with urban and suburban. In my third city, it is only suburban.

[boon1234 9]

Where I live, most suburbs are just small towns that exist outside large cities with there own main street, and community feel. If i get time, I'll post some pics that show how nice my town is.

[Riffraffs 0]

I live in a suburb with a population of 200k. I live in an 80 year old, single story ranch house with several "illegitimate" modifications made over the years, by various people. The kitchen was originally almost open-air, and the walls are just dripping in REAL PLASTER (A rarity in most houses built past 1950-60). Enjoy your plywood apartment, though.

(in other words: Stop generalizing "suburb" as a dirty word for 120,000 homes in gated communities with *****subishi minivans in the driveways.)

[jerry101 1]

I can't stand suburban sprawl, on either a macro- or micro- level. I welcome the looming destruction of the sprawl. Gas prices approaching $4/gallon, ghettoization of the suburbs due to the mortgage crisis, places in the south and southwest hitting massive drought levels. These are all by-products of sprawl. I can't stand when the only restaurant choices are Chain X, Y, or Z. I can't stand when the only places to shop are Chain X, Y, or Z. The suburbs even feature chain bars. In chicagoland you run into Fox and Hounds or Bar Louie. Guh. Yuck. One subdivision with the same 4 house designs after another. No continuity. Overreliance on automobiles.

You have to work hard to find a community. In the city, just walk outside. People are there, they are moving about, on foot. People hang out outside their buildings and play bean bags, or they wander about the streets. Public transit is available. You can get by quite well without a freaking car.

Density creates sustainable communities. Sprawl creates concrete and chain stores. Causes you to have to drive long distances to find anything. I can walk 2 blocks and be in front of the grocery store. I can walk a block and be at any number of bars and restaurants. None of which can be found anywhere else, well, except for the 2 chains (a subway and a corner bakery). Yech.

Cities have so much more to do. A ten minute busride drops me outside of any number of museums. A ten minute el (subway) ride drops me in front of Sox park or Wrigley Field. I'm fortunate enough to be 5 minute walk from the lakefront, with miles of greenspace at my door step, not to mention bike trails, beaches, parks, marinas, a zoo, and more.

And my street is quiet and clean. No suburb on earth offers what my little neighborhood offers. And, my cost of living is lower in the city than it was when I lived in suburbia.

[jerry101 1]

suburbs used to not be so bad, when there weren't so many of them, but with the arrival of the mega-limited access/high(free-, express)way, then we got sprawl, and megamalls, and shopping centers, and strip malls, and miles upon miles upon miles of dull, boring housing. And, the further away from the city you get, the more spread out things become.

suburban sprawl is not sustainable. people can't keep up with having 2 mega SUV's and driving 20 miles to work and using insane amounts of water (to water those lawns).

People will start waking up soon enough. Perhaps this summer will get the ball rolling when/if Atlanta has another water emergency.

[saltandsauce 0]

i don't think this counts as sprawl since there isn't much of it but the new housing in britain is ALL laid out in a sprawling manner, they have those stupid dead end cul de sacs that are a nightmare if you take a wrong turn. i'm not calling for straight street but please NO CUL DE SACS there are gaps (wow gaps) between each house instead of semis and terraces and flats like we've always had more gardens have those crappy trampolines even though nobody really wants a garden because nobody has the time to maintain one so they all look minging

[Henry Midfield 3]

It's hard for me to tell, really. On one hand I enjoyed living in the suburbs of San Fran, with the clean air and stuff. But having to travel by car to different places which are all spread out isn't really my favourite kind of transport, and of course, it may not be such a good place to live, global environment-wise.

On the other hand, I enjoyed the convenience and the close communities that I had in my old home in central Tokyo. But I don't really like how things are way too closely packed together, or let's say claustophobic, especially when you're in an earthquake-prone area.

I would like something more balanced out. Maybe a suburb, which is more like a small city, with many one/two-storey buildings, but with various multi-story buildings as well, and being able to ride a tram to the nearest train station.

[nickjbor 0]

What kind of sprawl?

I used to live in a 'rural' area, on the edge of the 'sprawl'. I found most everything I needed within walking distance, though given it was a bit of a walk.

I've also lived in a 'city' in an area a dozen KM from the nearest 'sprawl' and yet due to poor neighbourhood design, I had to take a car to get anywhere. "Smart Sprawl" is not a bad thing, but it must be done in a smart way. Many US cities do it wrong.

[BlackStar 0]

Suburban sprawl has all the logistical ramifications as shown above, however, it is those negative points which makes suburban development my favourite in SC4. Sorting out traffic problems and balancing a budget, for example.

[jjune4991 1]

i prefer suburban to urban. but thats just me. i dont really like the city, and since ive lived in the suburbs all my life (which, in florida, is most of the state) i prefer the smaller communities. now i dont like the sprawl. that is what happened to the city next to mine. its planners just said "GO!!!" to the contractors, and now its going downhill. but when i get older, i know im not gonna be in the city, just close so i have the ammenities.

so my vote is suburbs.

[ILL Tonkso 1,236]

Urban for me, there is so much more to offer. Suburban Sprawl seems to go on forever. Birmingham, easily the sprawliest city in the UK (and the second most populated) has some serious traffic issues, the central station is now at 200% capacity and the motorways suffer from standstills all the time.

Ok, so the government has just promised £500m (US$1bn) to rebuild the central station, and the city is starting to dense up in the centre, but there is still a massive sprawling urban area to deal with. Birmimghams 2.6 million isn't far off Londons 7.6 million in area coverage.