Suburbia RIP?

[Wheezy 23]

Originally posted by: Jumpthefence

I don't really live in an urban area or much of a suburban area either but my opinion in pro-sprawl. I think it really shows ingenuity of people who want to densely populate people in a very small space. Look at Tokyo, the sprawl has forced builders to make the most technically advanced buildings they can, the one I especially like was built on a street corner and is a triangle about 5x40 feet. The sprawl will always force engineers to outdo themselves, so I say YES TO SPRAWL!quote>

Remember: Tokyo, in addition to being huge, is one of the most densely-packed cities in the world.  (I believe it's right up there with Hong Kong & parts of New York.)  It also has one of the best transit systems anywhere.

Sprawl itself is not the problem, but the terribly-planned, cars-only suburban sprawl we've been complaining about.

BTW:

@Raysfan16:  I live in Northdale.  It's a huge subdivision a few miles north of Carrollwood,

@vampire girl:  Good lord.  I thought MY neighborhood was inconvenient.

@edmonton_stinks:  That sounds like hell.  The words "forever remain beige" will haunt my dreams.

[Mizari 23]

Originally posted by: Wheezy

Originally posted by: Jumpthefence

I don't really live in an urban area or much of a suburban area either but my opinion in pro-sprawl. I think it really shows ingenuity of people who want to densely populate people in a very small space. Look at Tokyo, the sprawl has forced builders to make the most technically advanced buildings they can, the one I especially like was built on a street corner and is a triangle about 5x40 feet. The sprawl will always force engineers to outdo themselves, so I say YES TO SPRAWL!quote>

Remember: Tokyo, in addition to being huge, is one of the most densely-packed cities in the world.  (I believe it's right up there with Hong Kong & parts of New York.)  It also has one of the best transit systems anywhere.

Sprawl itself is not the problem, but the terribly-planned, cars-only suburban sprawl we've been complaining about.

quote>

I believe Jumpthefence must have been confused as to the meaning of the expression "sprawl" It does not just denote any enormous city. There IS sprawl in Tokyo, but not all that much of it compared to a city in the U.S. Even the single family housing subdivisions in the outskirts of the greater metropolitan area display urban characteristics and a density above that found in for example a true sprawl-city like Phoenix, Arizona or Houston.

[Shlarin 0]

Speaking metaphorically in SC4 terms..

What are we gonna do about all those abandoned $$$ homes in suburbia and exurbia? Rezone to high density and redevelop?

Or wait form them R$ people to move in as the former R$$$ owners are kicked out due to foreclosure)?

In any case, we lack the mass transit options in suburbia to support either scenario.

[Motina 77]

From the other remarks I made.. I wouldn't really called the U.S. urban sprawl as sprawl.. or cities in Canada for that matter.. they are planned like that. It is not some random seeding of structures like you would find in say india, or pakistan. You will see the difference when you google earth cities. Especially concerning all the regulations 'developed' countires need to go through. Planned sprawl? When people make 'sprawl' in siomcity, it is obviously planned... by the player involved.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce

so really it's low rise stuf that you need to keep infrastructure costs down (school with a viable number of pupils without buses, pipe maintainance, road maintainance and businesses such as butchers,bakers and candlestick makers),without making congestion high (as high rises do you can't fit everyone in a building onto the sidewalk)quote>

Time was that builders could build townhouse communities around here.  No longer.  The local governments have figured out that people who live in townhouse use more services than their property tax generates.  So, no more townhouse communities.   Thing is, a certain segment of the population (needs more space than a condo; can’t afford a single family house) likes townhouses.

Nowadays, townhouses are generally only built as part of a package deal.  A “Planned Unit Development” is a project that includes all kinds of housing and can get it approved by the county council.

I like life in a PUD because they also include things like a grocery store and restaurants you can walk to, open space with walking trails, close access to commuter routes, and so forth.

Originally posted by: spa

2. Canada has been spared the legacy of slavery and segregation so there was a whole lot less racial strife and no "white flight" to the suburbs.quote>

 

To explain that term to those who may not be familiar with it. . .Time was when black and white people lived in the cities, in segregated neighborhoods.  Desegregation came and some white people fled to the suburbs, where black people could not afford the houses (and where some neighborhoods were still segregated).  Gradually, those neighborhoods desegregated and black people could afford the houses so they moved out to the suburbs.   White people fled further out.  Suburban sprawl expanded to accommodate the people who wanted to move.

Meanwhile, the inner cities were a mess, partly because the only people left where the ones who couldn’t afford to move.   Efforts are being made to revitalize neighborhoods downtown, which is drawing in the more affluent people from the outer suburbs and pushing the poorer city dwellers out to the inner suburbs.

Originally posted by: rommelgain

I think some of you are missing a very important point regarding suburbia- human psychology. There are lots of folks, especially in NA, that do not wish to live on top of one another or ride a crowded bus/train everywhere they go. quote>

Count me among them.  I lived in a high density environment for 15 months.  I was more than ready to leave when I could.  Just too crowded and too noisy for me.

Even with gasoline at $6 per gallon, it will still be remarkably cheaper per square foot/acre to live further out and commute. quote>

 

This is true.   When buying a place to live, there are three major factors:  cost, size, and location.   You get to chose two of them.  You will be stuck with whatever the third turns out to be.

[duack 14]

I wouldn't be so quick to deem suburbs as "wasteful". The only thing wasted really is petrol. Big woop. On average, petrol accounts for about 5-10% of a households expenditure, so its not as if a small spike in its price will suddenly change the structure of our cities. See, suburbs rely on cheap transportation, not cheap fuel and by that I mean the real cost is the actual car itself. Previously, only the wealthy could afford a car, then it became the middle wealth as well and now everyone can afford a car. Cheaper cars also mean cheaper insurance, so transportation is still cheap. You dont drive petrol - you drive cars.

I think the problem the US has with its suburbs is giving them innappropriate values. I was reading an article the other day, and something that really shocked me was when I read that at its peak, a two storey house in florida was about $220,000 (before the reccession) and that it dropped by $50,000. Am I reading right? Are houses in the US THAT CHEAP?? In Sydney, a two-storey house in the crappy suburbs (away from the CBD and the coast, which are considered to raise value) will cost you half a million dollars. Even with the exhcnage rate, the house in florida is grossely undervalued. Also in Sydney, a three bedroom house about 30 minutes from the CBD will cost you upwards of a million dollars.

This led me to wonder, how can a two-stoery house in florida be so grossely undervalued? Then it hit me. From what Ive heard, places like O.C., which are far away from CBD's of any sort seem to have Sydney's "close to work" inflated prices. WHAT THE HECK? Really, people are paying that much to have a long commute? Makes no sense to me . I know in Australia, houses are mainly valued according to their proximity to the city and to the coast, the two main price raisers. Other than that, the only reason people move to the fringe is to save money, even thought our petrol is more pricey than petrol in the US, and our suburbs are gaining value right now. 

I think the main problem here is that suburbs in the US where over-valued because they look nice. But looking nice really shouldn't be the main factor in determining value. If fringe suburbs are really valued higher than inner-suburbs in the US (correct me if Im wrong) than I think this is one of the reasons for price instabilities. But eventually, once people realise its more about location than looking nice, appropriate values will be given to suburbs. 

Regardless, I think suburbs are necassary, especially if families plan to have children. Everyone I know who has children either lives in a single family home, or in an apartment only because they cant afford a single family home, and if they could they would buy one. 

[Bamafan 0]

About what others have said about Suburban Sprawl. We just moved from the country to the Suburbs to get more services. I had a 15 minute commute to get to school. Now it takes only 5 minutes of walking, because our city planned out the walking trails.

Also not everyone in the suburbs commutes to Downtown. My dad works at the hospital a 5 minute drive. He takes his bike to work because our city planned out well. I know some cities have bad sprawl, like Austin, Texas. (Former residents in a McMansion community) but most people move from the cities to the suburbs to escape from crime, which here where it is all Section-8 apartments just south of here. Clostest to the highway where a Shopping Center is, is where crime occurs. We had a burglary occur in a home, Behind the Shopping Center. We don't shop at places like that, we shop at the local farmers market 10 minutes away. Because why should we pay a mega-corporation to truck our food from California par-say. When we can get our food locally. I feel that people should move out into the suburbs because crime is lower and because not everyone needs to commute.

I mean if I had a choice of living in the heart of Columbus, Ohio where you can hear about murders and gunfights nightly, or move out to the suburbs where the worst thing that has ever happened, at least here has been a burglary, I would choose the suburbs. Now I know that it might not be good for the enviroment. But not everyone uses a highway. We have 33 running through, but most people only use that to get to Honda. And the suburbs were only built to accomidate Honda workers. Which in turn helps the econmomy. So the suburbs have a good side.

Me, I'll stick to the suburbs because, it's safer and we have access, without driving, to everything.

Now that my rant is over,

have a great day!

[edmonton_stinks 5]

Suburbs aren't always safer. It depends on the level of urban decay, which American cities are generally worse for.

In Calgary, the inner city just has a far wider range of demographics. The downtown core contains all the city's homeless shelters, but an infill house in a place like Sunnyside, Hillhurst, or Capitol Hill will set you back a pretty hefty sum.

Toronto is a bit of an anomaly for North America: the core is quite affluent and while there are bad areas downtown, some of the city's most famously bad areas are near the periphery, such as Jane/Finch, Malvern, or Rexdale.

In Europe, the fringes are often comprised of large, postwar housing blocks, as is the case in Paris, where the suburbs are SO bad that they've become known for riots, in places like Clichy-Sous-Bois where almost all the housing is government-owned.

So, it really depends where you live. In a shrinking, American city, inner city is probably a poor choice.

[hamsterTK 93]

Yeah, you can have suburban decay too.

From what Ive heard, places like O.C., which are far away from CBD's of any sort seem to have Sydney's "close to work" inflated prices. WHAT THE HECK?quote>

Actually Orange County is a lot like the way you described Sydney's coastal suburbs. It has a lot of office and industrial areas, a university, and a large airport. It is far from being a suburb, in fact it has very intense land use by virtue of being so expensive.

I guess you are reffering to Riverside and San Bernadino counties, and places like Victorville which is like 2 hours away from LA. Who knows, a product of the bubble I guess.

[Milliano 0]

I'm not sure these anti-sprawl arguments have any economic basis. Public transport is outdated. Density is extremely expensive. Congestion and commute times are extremely high in public transportation oriented cities. The suburbs actually have significantly shorter commutes than the inner cities that they're near, at least in the USA. New York City metro area has the highest commute times in the nation. Automobile usage keeps increasing and increasing... has been for 100 years... because it's most effective and efficient mode of transportation for an individual and business. Decentralization is occuring now, and the old model of everybody either walking to their factory or taking the train to the CBD is grossly outdated. The only thriving dense areas in the USA now are so expensive that only the wealthy can afford to move into them.

The talk of "we have to buy local produce now" doesn't make sense. Do people who argue this have any understanding of the international nature of agribusiness? Or simple comparative advantage?

If sprawl is such a huge waste of money, why do the most urban areas in the USA pretty much all have so much financial issues, while the suburbs are mostly in relatively great financial shape? Why is the cost of living and the quality of life generally worse in more dense areas? Even areas that lack many freeways, and thus the federal money for freeway upkeep, such as Phoenix, have been booming.

And without the suburbs, where do you expect people to live? Most inner city neighborhoods were once considered suburbs.

Originally posted by: duack

I wouldn't be so quick to deem suburbs as "wasteful". The only thing wasted really is petrol. Big woop. On average, petrol accounts for about 5-10% of a households expenditure, so its not as if a small spike in its price will suddenly change the structure of our cities. See, suburbs rely on cheap transportation, not cheap fuel and by that I mean the real cost is the actual car itself. Previously, only the wealthy could afford a car, then it became the middle wealth as well and now everyone can afford a car. Cheaper cars also mean cheaper insurance, so transportation is still cheap. You dont drive petrol - you drive cars.

I think the problem the US has with its suburbs is giving them innappropriate values. I was reading an article the other day, and something that really shocked me was when I read that at its peak, a two storey house in florida was about $220,000 (before the reccession) and that it dropped by $50,000. Am I reading right? Are houses in the US THAT CHEAP?? In Sydney, a two-storey house in the crappy suburbs (away from the CBD and the coast, which are considered to raise value) will cost you half a million dollars. Even with the exhcnage rate, the house in florida is grossely undervalued. Also in Sydney, a three bedroom house about 30 minutes from the CBD will cost you upwards of a million dollars.

This led me to wonder, how can a two-stoery house in florida be so grossely undervalued? Then it hit me. From what Ive heard, places like O.C., which are far away from CBD's of any sort seem to have Sydney's "close to work" inflated prices. WHAT THE HECK? Really, people are paying that much to have a long commute? Makes no sense to me . I know in Australia, houses are mainly valued according to their proximity to the city and to the coast, the two main price raisers. Other than that, the only reason people move to the fringe is to save money, even thought our petrol is more pricey than petrol in the US, and our suburbs are gaining value right now. 

I think the main problem here is that suburbs in the US where over-valued because they look nice. But looking nice really shouldn't be the main factor in determining value. If fringe suburbs are really valued higher than inner-suburbs in the US (correct me if Im wrong) than I think this is one of the reasons for price instabilities. But eventually, once people realise its more about location than looking nice, appropriate values will be given to suburbs. 

Regardless, I think suburbs are necassary, especially if families plan to have children. Everyone I know who has children either lives in a single family home, or in an apartment only because they cant afford a single family home, and if they could they would buy one. quote>

Houses are valued based on supply and demand. If the supply is low or expensive, because of zoning laws or high building costs (unions and all that), and the demand is high, then the prices will be sky high. If the government stays out of it, and lets property owners actually build what people want them to build, then housing stays cheap.

[hamsterTK 93]

If sprawl is such a huge waste of money, why do the most urban areas in the USA pretty much all have so much financial issues, while the suburbs are mostly in relatively great financial shape? Why is the cost of living and the quality of life generally worse in more dense areas? Even areas that lack many freeways, and thus the federal money for freeway upkeep, such as Phoenix, have been booming.quote>

 

Really? on what planet? There are fiscally dysfunctional suburban municipalities (Vallejo, Hamtramck). There are bad suburban school districts(North Oaks ISD in Houston). There are suburbs that disincorporate to the county or township.

It's the way the boundaries are drawn and tax revenue.

[zombones 0]

Fringe places tend to take in more tax dollars than they pay to the city. Suburbs don't exist alone; they are part of the city.

[zombones 0]

Originally posted by: duack

I wouldn't be so quick to deem suburbs as "wasteful". The only thing wasted really is petrol. Big woop. On average, petrol accounts for about 5-10% of a households expenditure, so its not as if a small spike in its price will suddenly change the structure of our cities. See, suburbs rely on cheap transportation, not cheap fuel and by that I mean the real cost is the actual car itself. Previously, only the wealthy could afford a car, then it became the middle wealth as well and now everyone can afford a car. Cheaper cars also mean cheaper insurance, so transportation is still cheap. You dont drive petrol - you drive cars.

I think the main problem here is that suburbs in the US where over-valued because they look nice. But looking nice really shouldn't be the main factor in determining value. If fringe suburbs are really valued higher than inner-suburbs in the US (correct me if Im wrong) than I think this is one of the reasons for price instabilities. But eventually, once people realise its more about location than looking nice, appropriate values will be given to suburbs. 

Regardless, I think suburbs are necassary, especially if families plan to have children. Everyone I know who has children either lives in a single family home, or in an apartment only because they cant afford a single family home, and if they could they would buy one. quote>

Sprawl wastes space, consumes agricultural land unnecesarily, its residents spend more of their income on petrol, it costs the city more to extend services (i.e., water, electricity, or public transporthahah no) to the fringe, and discriminate against people who don't own cars or can't drive.

As for suburbs being "necessary" for child development, that is incorrect.  Neither suburbs or cities are by definition necessary or unnecessary.  You just need a child-safe place to raise your kids, but the auto-dependent suburbs usually only keep kids happy until they become teenagers.  After that, kids become frustrated that there is nothing to do after school.  Then they get a car and are placated for a while.  There was a study done back in the 50s and 60s that showed that the crime rate among adolescents rose in areas classified as suburbs

One thing I noticed about Sydney is that you could live in the suburbs, yet still get to the city on foot thanks to good public transportation.  I've also noticed that Tokyo is half as dense as New York City, but its subway system has the highest ridership in the world.  Maybe a good compromise for suburb and city is providing good public trasnport lines to the suburbs from the city. 

But I'm not hopeful for places like Jacksonville, a Floridian city with 794,555 people, and an area of 767 square miles (or 1,962 kilometers square) but a density of 1,061.6 people per square miles, or 409.89 people per kilometer square.  Even the smaller cities of Houston and Phoenix have higher densities and better public transportation than Jacksonville.

[Milliano 0]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

If sprawl is such a huge waste of money, why do the most urban areas in the USA pretty much all have so much financial issues, while the suburbs are mostly in relatively great financial shape? Why is the cost of living and the quality of life generally worse in more dense areas? Even areas that lack many freeways, and thus the federal money for freeway upkeep, such as Phoenix, have been booming.quote>

 

Really? on what planet? There are fiscally dysfunctional suburban municipalities (Vallejo, Hamtramck). There are bad suburban school districts(North Oaks ISD in Houston). There are suburbs that disincorporate to the county or township.

It's the way the boundaries are drawn and tax revenue.

quote>

Hamtramck as an example? It's in the middle of Detroit! I'm talking in general, suburbs have much better demographic, quality of life, and quality of services than the cities that they are connected to.

Originally posted by: zambones

Sprawl wastes space,consumes agricultural land unnecesarily,quote>

Wastes? People live and work in the space. Goods and services are produced there. Simple economics explains that the space isn't wasted. If the land was so valuable as agriculture, farmers wouldn't have sold it off for development. The less space you have, the more expensive it is. The more expensive it is, the fewer people there are that can live there, and the people who are there have to pay more to use that land, thus raising cost of living. The mass exodus of millions from the NYC, SF, and LA metro areas to cheaper metropolitan areas shows what happens when there isn't enough space.

  its residents spend more of their income on petrol, quote>

People in cities don't drive? How about the public transportation, don't they have to pay to use that? And what about all the time of their lives that get wasted from long commutes on public transportation, if using a vehicle is unfeasable due to density... isn't there any cost to that?

Regarding costs of services:

Sprawl opponents claim that urban services cost more in low-density suburbs. Helen Ladd, of Duke University, looked at real-world data to find out if this is true. She found that urban-service costs in high-density areas were significantly higher than in low-density areas. She concluded that "costs of sprawl" studies erred in focusing on capital costs, when in the long run operating costs are far more significant.quote>

www.heartland.org/policybot/results/9156/Seven_myths_about_sprawl.html

www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/review2.htm

[hmm 17]

Originally posted by: Wheezy


Sprawl itself is not the problem, but the terribly-planned, cars-only suburban sprawl we've been complaining about.

quote>

This guy is totaly right. In fact I dont realy have a problem with sprawl as long as it is planned and serviced right.
 
Take my neighborhood for example, Cambria Heights in the far south-eastern part of the boro of Qeens. If you google earth that location you would notice that this section is more suburban than the rest on NYC. However the type of sprawl in Queens and in southern Nassau county is not like the typical auto oriented devlopment that you would see in Pheonix, Calgary or Las Vegas. The density is higher and mass transit here is efficient, even so far out from Manhattan.
In these parts, most of the suburban bus routes converage at a central hub, most of which or historic town centers, which have over the centuries became improvised TOD's (Transit Oriented Devopments). At these hubs the rider can transfer to either the subway or a commuter railroad and continue the trip to Manhattan or to another hub, since some of these places, like Jamacia, Hempstead-Garden City and Flushing have a large employment base in their own right. Without this system of transit most of the Parkways and expressways would become 24 hour parking lots!

Originally posted by: Milliano


Wastes? People live and work in the space. Goods and services are produced there. Simple economics explains that the space isn't wasted. If the land was so valuable as agriculture, farmers wouldn't have sold it off for development. The less space you have, the more expensive it is. The more expensive it is, the fewer people there are that can live there, and the people who are there have to pay more to use that land, thus raising cost of living. The mass exodus of millions from the NYC, SF, and LA metro areas to cheaper metropolitan areas shows what happens when there isn't enough space.

quote>

Now its fine that suburbia has become a place of employment and shopping too. I'm greatfull that architectural firm i'm working for relocated within queens and not in Manhattan (a 45 min trip combining my dad's car and transit). However its all about how you use the space in the suburbs. Most typical office parks contain a tight grouping of 3  to 7 story structures, set back from the main roadway and surrounded by a vast sea of wasteful parking lots which creates a hostile enviornment towards pedestrians, and renders mass transit useless. Maybe what american suburbs need are some infill projects, building more shops, offices or apartments on the land wasted by parking, while placing cars in underground of above ground structures. Not sure if this will save suburbs but its just an idea to increase density and promote transit, without completly abandoning a way of life  that has been predominate for the last 50 years in the US.

And so ends my rant

[absolute1 1]

if sprawl dies that would be the day, i hate it it has ruined marred, destroyed and desecrated many of those places that i held to be the most beautiful, and not to say the impact on the cities which are decayed due to lack of middle class inhabitants. Suburbs simply have nothing to do, no culture, no community, and simply serve to isolate people, so that all there is to do is shop and be good consumers

[Kryptowhite 9]

^ thats a bit harsh. I think most suburban folks would find the statement that they have no culture and community preposterous.

[chris0101 8]

Sprawl like it or not is a reality. Lets think about this for a moment:

1. Building the infrastructure to get all of the people in the suburbs back into the city would be enormously costly.

2. Not everyone who lives in the suburbs would want to go back to the city. There's a cultural taboo to it these days, along with a sense that the suburbs give a "freedom" to people.

3. Densely populated cities have their problems as well, such as health (diseases are easier to spread), pollution, noise, etc. (One of the reasons why people will resist going back to the cities).

Solutions?

Not so obvious. First of all, we need less travel. People want to live the "American dream"? Okay, well we need to minimize our ecological impact and start restoring existing habitats damaged. We need more education on the negative impacts of these activities. The danger is that like global warming, this is an issue that will not be viewed as a moral issue or one needed for our survival, but as a political issue. I see many parallels between this and global warming. We have the deniers who only believe science when it serves their convenience. Being "right wing" means that you oppose the reforms needed for the future of your grandchildren to live the standard of living you are living. We have on one side, the vast majority of the world's scientific community warning us that human activities like sprawl or adding carbon to the atmosphere have very severe consequences down the road. On the other, we have lawyers, corporate executives, lobbyists, and politicians who have sold out their souls to these special interests who are saying that this isn't true. In the meantime, the public is confused. However, one thing is certain - the public is often unwilling to make ANY sacrifices and will themselves deny what they are doing has very serious impacts on the planet. As such, we are in our current state of inaction and continue to do what we do despite knowing full well the effects.

It's ironic isn't it? My generation, generation Y is often dubbed the "me" generation by our elders? And yet these are the same elders who often refuse to sacrifice anything for their grandchildren. Another question I must ask those who insist that we are the "me" generation: Is that a bad thing in a capitalist world? Are we not all "me people" in capitalism? Does the capitalist ideology not emphasize that this will produce the optimal economic impact through what Adam Smith dubbed the "invisible hand"? This capitalist world has produced many things and urban sprawl is not the only problem. That said, alternatives like communism and fascism are not workable. Fascism is even less effective as it leads to corruption and communism is impractical in that the supposedly temporary dictatorship of man that Marx declared never did "wither away" in real communist nations. Every ideology seems to have its drawbacks.

Going back on topic, so what changes are needed for this issue in particular? That will likely mean doing most of your work at home. Most people these days could do their jobs at home. The exception are the blue collar workers (ex: construction) that have to travel to get to their work. Services need to be closer to us ... so we don't need to drive to the supermarket, the mall, the parks (or soccer fields - the cultural "soccer mom" mentality), and all of that. During the 19th century, most people died from a place within a few days walk of where they were born. Perhaps that needs to return. There are more important things than tourism or "seeing the world" or going overseas on a business trip (when we live in an age where live video conferences are possible) and one of them is the future of the planet, along with our children who will be inhabiting it.

[absolute1 1]

I live in suburbs in so cal and have experienced sprawl probably more than any other place in the nation, i remember when i was little i would walk in my beloved santa monica mountains and there were many places to go and explore, and saw many beutiful areas a creek a wetland area and one of the best overlooks in the area be paved over and get houses built all over them, Just down the freeway from me i watched an area that had the most fertile soil in the United states be built over by more sprawl and now it hurts to remember how it was. My community has barely anything to do except go on a hike which at this rate there will be no nature to hike in anymore, or go to the beach which 6 months out of the year has 60 degree water and about the same air temp. So most people i know around here do all sorts of drugs and their parents do to, and everyone is crazy. People are rude, judgmental and nosy. The inefficiency is everywhere for me to go anywhere to do anything requires a drive at least 20 minutes long, and most commute out of my town long distances, a large amount of the low wage workers here have to commute in because it is nearly impossible to live here on a low income. Cities have budget problems because the middle class lives on the suburbs and spends their money there depriving cities of the income it is a very unbalanced system that gives little back to a large number of lower class citizens living in my great state.

[chasespncr 4]

^ kinda funny how you talk about walking around the mountains as a child and loving it but now all there is to do is to go on a hike....people being rude and judgemental is just natural...and about the "low class"..they get free health care and free government money..they suck all the money out of the system and sell the drugs to the population..

[nofunk 1,933]

Originally posted by: Milliano

I'm talking in general, suburbs have much better demographic, quality of life, and quality of services than the cities that they are connected to.

quote>

This is because suburbs have effectively "priced out" poorer residents (sometimes inadvertantly; often deliberately) and relegated them to central cities. Central cities, strapped with much higher infrastructure and social service costs than the suburbs, and a much less affluent tax base, simply cannot afford to offer the same level of services that suburbs can provide.

If the land was so valuable as agriculture, farmers wouldn't have sold it off for development.

quote>

Farmers sell their land to developers because most states assess property values based on "highest and best" use (and note that "highest and best" is incredibly subjective) and not based on current use. Many farmers are forced to sell not because developers are pounding on their doors, but rather because they simply cannot afford the property taxes levied.

You are arguing for sprawl based on a very incomplete picture of the social, political and economic forces that have shaped urban areas in the U.S. over the past 50 years.

[RedImperator 16]

The problem for North American style suburban sprawl is that it relies on cheap oil, and the horizon on that is about ten years, if that. Then you're not looking at $4 or $5 or $6 gas. Then you might have to deal with $10 or $15 or even $20 a gallon--if you can get it at all (since the first priority for civilian petro-fuel has to be farmers). In that environment, even hybrids are uneconomical. Straight electric cars consume power off the grid, and without a substantial increase in production and transmission capacity, there just isn't enough electrical power for them to replace gas-burners, even if you could roll them out fast enough. In that environment, the suburbs WILL contract.

One thing that's been overlooked in this thread is the value of small cities. Nobody thinks about them much because they're typically places which were left in ruins by deindustrialization, but in a post-oil future, they're a good compromise between suburbia and densely packed mega-cities like New York. Frankly, without cheap oil, those mega-cities will have to shrink, too. It's very hard to imagine how you can get enough food into a city of 8 or 10 million to feed everyone without cheap diesel for trucks. The rail capacity certainly doesn't exist and probably never did. The future may lie with small and medium sized urban centers, strung out along railroad lines like strings of pearls. As long as it's on a rail line, even a small town is perfectly sustainable.

[The Bluejay 40]

For once, there is an actual, real thing we can blame - Car Companies. In particular, General Motors.

During the bad old days after WWII, American car companies had a great idea - Why not buy up all the light rail networks in the cities and tear them up?

And that, with some help from Big-Business Republicans, is precisely what they did. The rail was replaced by vastly inferior bus routes (buses manufactured by GM, of course) and people were forced to buy cars to commute to work . Of course, had cars been more expensive, then people wouldn't have been able to afford them, and a large outcry over the destruction would begin. But why would cars have been more expensive? Well, I'll tell you. Rail companies are expected to lay and maintain track themselves, with no governmental grants to help them do this. Now, zip back to the 1940's. Surely, the logical thing is to do the same with car companies? Let them pay for the creation and maintenance of Highways! However, GM lobbied and lobbied the Republicans, who probably accepted bribes. And what happened? In 1956, the Interstate Highway Act happened, making the federal government pay 90% of ALL highway costs, with state governments paying the remaining 10%. So, GM pays nothing for the raods that will make it rich, and cars can be cheap. Cheap cars, thanks to bribes and lobbying, and no public transport, thanks to GM tearing it all up. The result is today's Oil Addicted America

The same thing happened to a lesser extent in Britain in the 1960's, with the Beeching Axe which closed a truly vast amount of stations and railways lines all over rural and semi-rural Britain. This is now costing us lots and lots and LOTS of

[chasespncr 4]

^^ GM is still making America bleed...damn bail outs

[LivingInThePast 364]

Originally posted by: The Bluejay

For once, there is an actual, real thing we can blame - Car Companies. In particular, General Motors.

During the bad old days after WWII, American car companies had a great idea - Why not buy up all the light rail networks in the cities and tear them up?

And that, with some help from Big-Business Republicans, is precisely what they did. The rail was replaced by vastly inferior bus routes (buses manufactured by GM, of course) and people were forced to buy cars to commute to work . Of course, had cars been more expensive, then people wouldn't have been able to afford them, and a large outcry over the destruction would begin. But why would cars have been more expensive? Well, I'll tell you. Rail companies are expected to lay and maintain track themselves, with no governmental grants to help them do this. Now, zip back to the 1940's. Surely, the logical thing is to do the same with car companies? Let them pay for the creation and maintenance of Highways! However, GM lobbied and lobbied the Republicans, who probably accepted bribes. And what happened? In 1956, the Interstate Highway Act happened, making the federal government pay 90% of ALL highway costs, with state governments paying the remaining 10%. So, GM pays nothing for the raods that will make it rich, and cars can be cheap. Cheap cars, thanks to bribes and lobbying, and no public transport, thanks to GM tearing it all up. The result is today's Oil Addicted America

The same thing happened to a lesser extent in Britain in the 1960's, with the Beeching Axe which closed a truly vast amount of stations and railways lines all over rural and semi-rural Britain. This is now costing us lots and lots and LOTS of £££ to re-open now. Honestly, that Beeching IDIOT.quote>

I don't think GM is quite to blame for destroying the rails...after all, these "light rails" were not the LRTs of today, they were trolleys.

[nofunk 1,933]

Originally posted by: LivingInThePast

I don't think GM is quite to blame for destroying the rails...after all, these "light rails" were not the LRTs of today, they were trolleys.

quote>

Exactly. I'm not going to say that GM is completely without fault, because of course they had an agenda that they aggressively pushed, but I don't believe it went as far as bribes (although maybe, if you consider things like campaign contributions to be bribes) and I am certain GM was not anywhere near as sinister as you're making them out to be.

The truth is rail was already in trouble when GM came on the scene. Rail was expensive to operate and maintain, and many Americans were already looking to the automobile for a solution. Buses were cheaper and much more flexible both in terms of where they could go, and how they could be operated. Unlike fixed rail lines, bus routes could be changed at will to accomodate fluctuations in demand. And bus rides were often faster and more comfortable for riders.

Do I wish that we still had robust rail and trolley systems in our cities? Of course I do! And honestly, I think we are heading back that way. But do I think GM was the sole reason we don't have rail in America? Absolutely not. It's so easy to villianize the auto industry and overlook the fact that they are just a business which we bought into it when we (as a society) all bought automobiles and shunned mass transit.

[Danlikebooks 6]

Originally posted by: LivingInThePast

Originally posted by: The Bluejay

For once, there is an actual, real thing we can blame - Car Companies. In particular, General Motors.

During the bad old days after WWII, American car companies had a great idea - Why not buy up all the light rail networks in the cities and tear them up?

And that, with some help from Big-Business Republicans, is precisely what they did. The rail was replaced by vastly inferior bus routes (buses manufactured by GM, of course) and people were forced to buy cars to commute to work . Of course, had cars been more expensive, then people wouldn't have been able to afford them, and a large outcry over the destruction would begin. But why would cars have been more expensive? Well, I'll tell you. Rail companies are expected to lay and maintain track themselves, with no governmental grants to help them do this. Now, zip back to the 1940's. Surely, the logical thing is to do the same with car companies? Let them pay for the creation and maintenance of Highways! However, GM lobbied and lobbied the Republicans, who probably accepted bribes. And what happened? In 1956, the Interstate Highway Act happened, making the federal government pay 90% of ALL highway costs, with state governments paying the remaining 10%. So, GM pays nothing for the raods that will make it rich, and cars can be cheap. Cheap cars, thanks to bribes and lobbying, and no public transport, thanks to GM tearing it all up. The result is today's Oil Addicted America

The same thing happened to a lesser extent in Britain in the 1960's, with the Beeching Axe which closed a truly vast amount of stations and railways lines all over rural and semi-rural Britain. This is now costing us lots and lots and LOTS of £££ to re-open now. Honestly, that Beeching IDIOT.quote>

I don't think GM is quite to blame for destroying the rails...after all, these "light rails" were not the LRTs of today, they were trolleys.

quote>

^^^ Wrong, GM (and the other car companies at the time) is (are) mostly to blame for the loss of the LRTs.  Its all in Fast Food Nation when it was talking about the rise of driving everywhere, and thus, the Fast Food restaurants and the Motels.

[The Bluejay 40]

Curse you danlikebooks, and your good taste in books!

Yes, indeed, it is in Fast Food Nation. And yes, GM and the auto business isn't entirely at fault. But remember, this isn't shutting down, buying or even the abandonment of the Beeching Axe, this was the planned wholesale destruction - literally - of ALL LRT's and trolley systems in Urban Areas. Of course, these days it's impossible to build a rapid transit system like Rail, or LRT through Cities because there are buildings everywhere, including over the places where the tracksites used to be. It's underground or NOTHING, and underground it fiendishly expensive, and would likely turn only a small profit, even a loss, and therefore would have to subsidised

Somehow, I don't see that happening within the next 30-50 years

[wolverine 12]

Honestly, alot of this thread is assumptions or based off fiction. How many here actually have real qualified background expertise in urban growth and transportation. I know nofunk is qualified to make these statements. General Motors is NOT to blame, but they did take advantage of the "transit crisis" at the time if you will. The streetcar system was failing miserably. It wasn't profitable despite the fact that ridership was up. Yes GM was behind National City Lines, but it was mostly the failure of cities to get their act together to keep transit afloat. Keep in mind during those days, there was never much talk of public subsidy of transit....Something that is incredibly subsidized today.

If you want to point blame somewhere, consider cities themselves. Free Parking is the main reason for shifting urban form. Today it still continues to inhibit urbanism.

[Wheezy 23]

Originally posted by: chasespncr

^ kinda funny how you talk about walking around the mountains as a child and loving it but now all there is to do is to go on a hike....people being rude and judgemental is just natural...and about the "low class"..they get free health care and free government money..they suck all the money out of the system and sell the drugs to the population..quote>

No.  Just no.  The working class makes your food, fills your cars, builds your houses, & the majority of us do it wihout government support.  (Here I'm presuming you live in the US.)  Plus, quite a few of the drug dealers I've known have been middle class.  Hence all those media scares about suburban meth labs & grow houses.

BTW: Why are you so offended by his rant?  Does it personally affect you somehow?