Suburban Sprawl

[Cockatoo 2,256]

Meh...I don't really like the suburban sprawl, It just doesn't look that great to me. I perfer open natural areas with beaches ect or Large cities with lots of park space

[clonedclone87 95]

In Las Vegas there are suburbs, however they are bigger and better, there are wide roads and strip malls, but nicer things are popping up, in other words, I am for suburbs but also growing downtown areas like here, where they are building high-rise condos everywhere.

[Poetic 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>

Detroit doesn't have extremely large cities surrounding it, but it is definitely a metropolis with moderate to high population densities. Warren has over 100k, Dearborn has 100k, Ann Arbor is an hour away with over 100k. And, of course, Royal oak is 60k, Madison Heights is 31k, Troy (80k), Livonia (100k). It is technically the Detroit-Warren-Livonia metropolitan area and is the 11th largest. LA is the 2nd largest, although it doesn't have "major" cities too - but I don't think having "major" cities is a determinant for region population size. Having a few 500k & above cities next to each other can still be outdone by having 30 or so 50k & above cities. Los Angeles - Long Beach - San Ana metro has a larger pop. (12mil) than the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area (6mil).

[Voulpiotis 4]

I can't stand downtowns and slyscrapers! But, in SC4 I love them!

[SpecialEddie 3]

Suburbs are okay--if handled tastefully. I detest those cookie cutter houses and Mcmansions. Some words to describe them would be "plastic" and "fake."

[DARKO 3]

No offense, but you would have to be pretty ignorant to be "for" Sprawl. Say your for Suburbs fine, but saying your for sprawl is very ignorant.

Sprawl is the result of hideous planning of an area, urban or suburban. I find it laughable that anyone would "love" it.

If you love Suburban sprawl your essentially saying you love stretching your local municipalities thin because of your obsessive need for "personal space". You want the services and utilities of everyone else but whine when your taxes spike up to pay for what you wanted and created. I see it everyday.

Personal space is fine( i like it as well), but when you sacrifice livable sustainable environments for it, it then becomes a problem that YOU have created. If people were more educated on their actions, they would rethink. This in effect would lower the demand for garbage. Then developers will turn to hopefully much more intelligent ways about going at things.

Throw away culture. It is sad that this is the highest most Americans shoot for today. What a disgrace to the people who made this country what it is today.

[crazyyaya 4]

I hate suburban areas they just decay beutiful city centers

[crazyyaya 4]

Suburban areas in the game also take a long time to make a good one for very little popultioan

[GMoney702 0]

I can seriously agree with clonedclone87 only because of one reason-I live in Las Vegan suburbs! To be more specific, I live in Green Valley which is in Henderson, just south of Vegas. I have a fantastic view of the Strip from my house and I live right next to mountains.

There are A LOT of suburban homes here and I'm all for them. They spark realism in this 'sin city.'

[xxbydesign 1]

There is nothing wrong with owning your own home and wanting a piece of land to call your own. HOWEVER, a home is no longer something you own; it is something you BUY. People no longer buy homes as things in which they will ultimately live and own, but rather they buy them like a comodity, like fast food. They look for all the fixin's for the least cost and then they jump on it, regardless of its livibility or honesty. The problem of the cookie cutter home is not the developers; it is our consumerist society that has unknowingly abandoned the reality that they will eventually have to LIVE in this comodity. Could you imagine living in a microwave? Or a table lamp?

Sprawl, therefore, is a by-product of a consumer culture, where people buy comodities that are ultimately dispensible. But a home should NEVER be dispendable; so much time, energy, and investment is put into homes to make them dispensible. But as long as people are always looking for the next "hot" thing in housing, be it too-many-gables-to-count, or the biggest-double-height-useless-entry-foyer, or the largest-kitchen-living-dining-great-room money can buy, the demand for new houses will continue, thus driving development.

Change must start with the consumer. They must realize that a home is not somethign to buy and sell like a used car; it really is an investment, and it deserves more investment than money. It must start with believing that there is more to a home than its ammenities: Quality over Quantity. Rather than moving from house to house, moving farther and farther away from cities to newer develoments that consume more land and resources, people should purchase homes for thier POTENTIAL. Great homes can be created in existing structures, which ultimately saves resources and money, and creates much mroe meaningful architecture and living space. So while suburbs will always be here to stay, sprawl does not have to; what society needs to do is question what a house is and what it should be, and sprawl will turn itself inwards as customers begin to focus on improving the quality of existing constructions.

The ideas in this post follow from a lecture by John Brown, principal architect of House+Brand based in Calgary, Canada. Check it out: House+Brand

[SpecialEddie 3]

What a disgrace to the people who made this country what it is today.quote>

 

I hope you're not reffering to the first European immigrants to the United States. They were farmers. They loved sprawl.

[isaklindh 0]

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

I have to point out that it can be a big difference between defferent suburbs.

Here in Stockhom it is not a question about space...

And the suburbs here differ between the super posh villa suburbs ex. Djursholm and Saltsjöbaden with lots of space and sometimes a rural feeling to other suburbs such as Tensta and Norsborg wich was built as a part of the "million programme" wich is just large sovjet looking concrete houses.

Hammarkullen in Göteborg (Gothenburg), million programme house

[ajay_law 1]

I live in the middle of sprawl. And I love it because I am so close to nature and there isn't alot of pollution. Once I had a kangaroo jump down my street.

[schooner2 2]

I grew up in suburban Long Island, east of New York City. Long Island is famous for it was where the first post WWII subdivision of Levittown was built. The builders, the Levitt brothers, went on to build other subdivisions in New Jersey (Willingboro & Middletown) and Pennsylvania(Levittown). However, the suburbs of Long Island are more unique than in more newer cities, like where I live now in Austin, TX. Not all suburbs are just strip malls and cul-de sacs. On Long Island, there are many old (some dating back to the late 1600s) incorporated villages that still have active downtowns. My hometown, Amityville, which was settled in 1701 (approximately) was a small seaside village that became a vacation spot for New York City dwellers in the late 1800s to 1900s. In fact, the south shore of Long island is dotted with many villages, each which still maintain their own identity. It was after WWII that the land surrounding these villages was transformed into suburban sprawl. So today, Long Island has a nice mix of either sprawling subdivisions like East Meadow, Levittown, North Babylon, Central Islip, Huntington Station to name a few, or the villages with their own downtowns, like Rockville Centre, Lynbrook, Seaford, Babylon, Islip, Huntington. In newer cities, like Austin, they just build massive subdivisions on former farmland or ranchland. If there are small towns, they are just expanded with subdivisions that are not really connected to each other. Suburbs in Austin, like Round Rock, Pfleugerville, Buda, and Kyle, had small downtowns but instead of building new housing that would connect to these downtowns, the subdivisions are all separated and not connected. These residents identify where they live by the name of their subdivision rather than the town itself. Austin, too, is like that since there are many new subdivisions built within the city itself. I suppose that is common in many metro areas, particularly in fast growing cities in the South and West.

[GMT 389]

suburban sprawl reminds me of the opening theme of Weeds (Malvina Reynolds - Little Boxes):

Little boxes on the hillside,

Little boxes made of ticky tacky

Little boxes on the hillside,

Little boxes all the same,

There's a green one and a pink one

And a blue one and a yellow one

And they're all made out of ticky tacky

And they all look just the same.

And the people in the houses

All went to the university

Where they were put in boxes

And they came out all the same

And there's doctors and lawyers

And business executives

And they're all made out of ticky tacky

And they all look just the same.

And they all play on the golf course

And drink their martinis dry

And they all have pretty children

And the children go to school,

And the children go to summer camp

And then to the university

Where they are put in boxes

And they come out all the same.

And the boys go into business

And marry and raise a family

In boxes made of ticky tacky

And they all look just the same,

There's a green one and a pink one

And a blue one and a yellow one

And they're all made out of ticky tacky

And they all look just the same

[Socorocks 7]

xxbydesign and DARKO: Thank you for your insight. It's funny because it seems like this thread is rather intellectually one-sided; those of us who try to make compelling arguments as to why suburban sprawl is soulless and unhealthy end up laughing at responses like "I lIkE SprAwL bEkUZ I lIvE ClosE tO BunNIeS anD I lIke CaRZ LOL RoTfL LMAO hahah"

[meakin88 0]

I think its strange that, I live part time in High Wycombe, population almost 200,000. its called a town in the UK because it doesn't have a cathedral. But when ever I go US cities of the same or smaller size they always feel bigger.

[mightygoose 92]

my opinion has always been that a sprawl was a low density are without defined suburbs, suburbs implies clear division of areas, hence the plural. sprawly to me has always been one huge splat (if you will) of low to medium density housing and commerce. in a sprawl as i envision it there are few parks just lots of w2w and houses with little or no garden space.

[castironpigeon 1]

@xxbydesign: I agree with your argument and others like it. America has become the epitome of consumerism and it's a real shame. We can hate suburban sprawl for what it stands for, but that doesn't change its underlying cause. Forcing people to pick between city and country to abandon their cookie cutter homes won't change their mindset. Take a look at big cities: these were always known as cultural centers because there was a concentrated 'fringe' population who could be supported economically. Nowadays even that culture is slowly giving way to chain restaurants and mega-malls. Take a look at the American countryside: those 'country' homes closest to suburban sprawl areas see their taxes go through the roof, making them impossible to own any longer. They either get sold to rich people who turn them into country estates, or more likely they get divided into dozens of quarter acre plots that get turned into a development. Unless there is a major shift in American thinking, we'll all be living in suburban sprawl in 50 years.

On the flip side, I tend to avoid suburban sprawl in my mature cities. I go for the dense, urban design with patches of mostly open wilderness for recreation. That way you get the best of both worlds: cultural immersion and peace/quiet when you need it. In starter cities, however, I'll throw down any old patch of sprawl just to make a couple simoleons. Sprawl doesn't take any planning anyway. Just select low density residential, click, drag until SC4 informs you that the plot size is too big, pull back a bit, and let go. Connect via arterial roads with commercial zones along the way and you have sprawl.

[DARKO 3]

Originally posted by: SpecialEddie

What a disgrace to the people who made this country what it is today.quote>

 

I hope you're not reffering to the first European immigrants to the United States. They were farmers. They loved sprawl.quote>

 

Really? They liked endless McDonald's, Taco Bells and Wal-Marts lining up limited access Feeder roads with 10-15 year disposable architecture dotting the landscape of America? 

I'll say it again, people still have yet to distinguish Suburbs and Sprawl.

I was talking about the Industrial age/post industrial, when the fabric of our major cities were starting to be built. When many of our cities had great wealth and constructed buildings to reflect that wealth. When there was a great sense of altruism and pride within these cities. These are the people who built the heart and soul of todays cities.

Your right though, the first immigrants today probably would be living in a Mcmansion out in cookie cutter unfeasible, unsustainable land. Which is why I really don't look at them being what made this country great.

For the guy who said he loves sprawl because he's close to nature.....this is pretty much that paradox/enigma that lures people into these setups. Here's the thing. Sprawl only holds a temporary timeframe for you being close to "nature'.  What cracks me up is in the process of enjoying this "nature" you are destroying it. It will never be again, What a price to pay for being near "nature". Once the nature in this area is exhausted you will move to the next area that replicates the previous one,...and so and son on.... See the pattern?  Nature combined with everyday needs of an area encompassing a metropolis cannot exist in the current setup that your average American Exurban dweller expects. Until this gets thru the brain of these folks, things will continue as they are. They will be forced though to change...very soon.

Now if your talking about well thoughout suburbs that were built in mind with green and things of this sort, then I agree. But these most likely are your older suburbs, I have yet to see any modern day burbs that really do this.

[ExiL3 10]

I prefer the "old" European way of planning. A lot of dense city, w2w houses paused by parks and areas of small private gardens where people can grow vegetables and such.

This limits the city to a certain size, though often are what today are called metro areas also towns and cities that have been merged together with a near by larger city.

An example is Munich, take a look at it from Google earth, and you'll know what I mean. In some areas it is only 6 km (3,7 miles) from city center to farmlands, and it has over 1,3 million inhabitants.

Compare it with much smaller American cities like Orlando,Florida that have almost an "indefinite" size due to its vast sprawl.

take care,

[ILL Tonkso 1,236]

Depends how it is done, the 1920's-30's sprawl which defines outer London, making it twice the area of New York is well connected with suburban rail and bus services. They also have a good community feel, with locally owned shops and small businesses, only a short train ride away from the skyscrapers and bustle of the city. Areas like Wimbledon (Leaving the Tennis stadium aside) are fantastic places, full of character.

[Silur 3,304]

I'm concordant with ILL Tonkso !!!

[ilikehotdogsalot 308]

I agree, I really do like European and English type suburbs he describes...but...

I can't stand American suburbs,

McDonalds at every corner, Brutalism buildings, rundown homes, Decaying trees...most downtowns here are a joke too, a few homes next to tall buildings that empty at night. The only city I might live is in New York because of it's wonderful skyscrapers and life.

[mightygoose 92]

brutalism.... jeez UK has a whole heap of that....

[SamTheMan 0]

Each choice offers good and bad things. Suburbs generally provide better schools, less pollution and crime, and it's fairly quiet. However you MUST have a car to carry out your daily life. Also, housing is more expensive than the city. The city on the other hand provides mass transportation, so if you, for example, wreck your car, you can still function. But in some parts crime can be rampant and pollution can be out of control. But the best thing about the city is that it never sleeps. I live on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and by 9 o'clock, there are harldy any cars on the road and all the restaraunts close. Everyone is at home. I went to Raleigh North Carolina and by 12 o'clock there were still so many people on the streets, either going to clubs, bars, restaraunts, it was nice. It just depends on want kind of person you are and what you like and dislike.

[isaklindh 0]

SamTheMan: I guess that your differences between suburbs and inner-city is probably correct in USA. In europe however, both suburbs and inner-city has mass transportation, and the quality of the schools and he crime rate depends more on wich area you live in. Posh or ghetto, but the type such in suburb villa or w2w inner-city houses is irrelevant.

[Normandy 0]

I think that suburban sprawl is a necessary evil. I'm not for it, but I know being against it, in the end, will lead to my opinion being changed. As it has been said many times before, the suburbs do kind of remove the "neighborly feeling", as well as lead to an increase of super-chains, people in suburbs happen to contribute huge amount in taxes to the state. I mean, here in LI, we pay ten times more property tax than in NYC, and only landlords have to pay property tax! And plus, suburbs tend to just plain be nicer

[mrbisonm 1,620]

I couldn't imagine what it would be like to live in a suburbs or even in a downtown of a city, never had the chance, but it is quite interesting to hear the diversity of opinions on this. Ingame I actually like building the suburbs around a larger City, gives it more realism to it. I live three hours from a major city such as Quebec City or Montr

[labine50 0]

I'm for it, both in game and out, but then again my play style involves cramming as many people into a city as I can.

Out of game, I might be a bit biased however, because I live in "Middle of Nowhere, Saskatchewan" but from what I've been exposed to, (Which is really limited to Saskatoon, Regina, and Ottawa) it seems OK. My relatives in Ottawa are at a healthy weight, and they live in Suburbia, Ontario so what's the problem?