Suburbia RIP?

[piccboi824 1]

Originally posted by: confused04

Originally posted by: piccboi824

I just wanted to comment on the recurring issue of improving mass transit in the suburbs. There are several reasons why making improvements to transit in the suburbs is often infeasible. Let me lay it on the table for you.

1.) Building transit takes HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars. Look up any current transit project in this country and check the price tag. If that kind of money was so easy to come by, then there would be large expansive systems in every major metropolitan area. Because building rail systems is such a huge investment to be made by the local, state, or Federal governments, they're not going to build them where projected ridership isn't high enough for the system to essentially pay for itself.  quote>

Building anything, mass transit or highway or not takes millions. The shear number of highway projects and their related price tags are staggering (nearly a billion dollars have been invested on 35 W in the past 2 years in Minneapolis alone). Money really isn't the issue, its appropriating it. Its not like European cities have decided to spend a lot more on their mass transit, they have just used their money differently, (as in less highways). Highways aren't cheap and certainly not at the rate we're building them.

quote>

I wasn't tryong to say that highways are cheaper...I support mass transit 100%. I was just making the point that because it is such a big investment and ridership in farther out suburbs is low, transit beyond buses has low priority. 

[PattyO 0]

Originally posted by: piccboi824

I wasn't tryong to say that highways are cheaper...I support mass transit 100%. I was just making the point that because it is such a big investment and ridership in farther out suburbs is low, transit beyond buses has low priority. quote>

Sadly this is true. Freeways cost us so much more in the long run. They encourage the excessive use of cars, which increases gridlock, pollution, and burning of fossil fuels at a heightened rate. People like cars for their convenience (even if you have to suffer with high gas prices and traffic jams), and in places like the suburbs (or rural areas) where everything is spread out, a car is a necessity, since you can't possibly walk or bicycle to everywhere you need to go, and there is no (or very little) mass transit available to you. I think it's also possible that middle class suburbanites might be wary of using mass transit because of the fact that MT is very much a system used by the working class that live in cities; is it possible that the middle class is wary of the problems perceived with people living in the city?

No one is really advocating for the much-needed expansion of rail. Why? No one will use it, it seems like a waste of tax money. At this point it all seems like a lose-lose situation; either we build rail that no one uses, or we build freeways that encourage sprawl and unsustainable activity.

What I wonder is, what sort of a situation would our country be in if we had never built our freeway / interstate system. If we had instead invested all our resources into revitalizing our rail network, but I guess we'll never know.

[hamsterTK 93]

I hope the US embraces medium-investment level Bus Rapid Transit. This means bus routes with bus-only lanes and nice platform-style stops, timed traffic signals, and frequent bus service.

combines the convenience and aesthetics of a rail line with the flexibility and cost-effectiveness of buses.

[confused04 14]

Unfortunately, its still a bus and study after study after study shows that buses have a stigma to them that is proving hard to shake. There are still racial divides on bus transportation. Whites to this day continue to avoid bus transportation and surveys find that whites are attracted to fixed rail transportation. Now is this true EVERYWHERE? No, of course not. BRT's can work, especially in inner ring suburbs in cities that aren't that consolidated. But BRT to the stereotypical suburbs I think MAY prove to be a waste of money. Whether its true or not, trains are perceived to be more punctual.

[piccboi824 1]

Originally posted by: confused04

Unfortunately, its still a bus and study after study after study shows that buses have a stigma to them that is proving hard to shake. There are still racial divides on bus transportation. Whites to this day continue to avoid bus transportation and surveys find that whites are attracted to fixed rail transportation. Now is this true EVERYWHERE? No, of course not. BRT's can work, especially in inner ring suburbs in cities that aren't that consolidated. But BRT to the stereotypical suburbs I think MAY prove to be a waste of money. Whether its true or not, trains are perceived to be more punctual.quote>

I agree, buses do have a stigma of being the mode of transit of the working class, especially in suburban areas. This isn't that true major cities like New York and Chicago where various socio-economic classes (though not necessarily the wealthy) can be seen riding the bus. In Miami, we have a busway that extends from the southern terminus of the Metrorail all the way to the southern end of the county to Homestead (a middle and working class bedroom community). It is really useful to the people in Homestead because it is a faster connection to downtown and the major malls along US 1, but as you go north, it is practically abandoned. If the busway was built as light rail, there would be extremely high ridership because it would serve a large poulatiion and provide connections to major destinations along US 1.

[duack 14]

Okay, so I dont have a clue how big an acre is, or how often schools are placed, but I know in my area, there were several schools and each school had at least 1000 pupils. My suburb isnt even that densely populated either, what with the rudicolous amounts of empty space. The schools weren't that far apart, I remember one was about 10 mins walking, another about 20 mins walking and mine was abotu 40 mins walking , but school buses are economically feasable because ridership amongst school students is high. (Its free, but I mean its cheap). West Sydney (where I am) is roughly 204 people per squre km, but that includes the apartment areas, so my area would be less than that.

[Raysfan16 5]

Okay duack, since you basically, well, killed the conversation, I'll respond to the (in my opinion) laughable post.

Originally posted by: duack

You guys make it seem like suburbanisation is an ugly thing that eats up "beautiful" exurbs and rural towns. But I disagree. I dont see the whole corny impression people have with small towns. I get why old people would want to live there, but for me it would be pretty boring. I don't get the whole nothingness about it. Like people say there's just trees and grass for miles. What's so good about that? Besides suburbs too have a lot of foilage and parklands.quote>

What you don't understand is that what is "just trees and grass" to you is an entire ecosystem for all the animals! If you take away their home and put up a big ol' huge development, then where are they gonna go? Oh, most certainly the decorative shrubs in front of a business! That will be plenty of space for the (I'm floridian so just insert your own animals here) alligators, water moccasins, deer, and many other animals that just aren't fit for the woods that separate subdivisions.

So you see, suburbs can be seen in a negative light but you can also look at them on the other side of the coin. What if instead of being ruthless small town eaters, suburbs were seen as connecting urban and rural areas. Like a place where you can have the quite and saftey without sacrificing stuff you'd get in a downtown area. On top of that, servies in suburbs would be cheaper than services in exurbs, because suburbs are more densely populated than exurbs. Why does nobody ever accuse exurbs of wasting government money?quote>

Suburbs and exurbs both waste government money. They are so spread out that it costs millions upon millions of government money to provide services like fire and education, and the way that the transportation network in suburbs is based on funneling people onto the one main road leads to accidents, more money wasted to widen the road, then more money wasted to repave the road because it has been worn out from every person in the stinking town driving there. And, from experience (I live in what you might call an 'exurb', but suburban principles still aply to where i live), take for example one day when the main thoroughfar was closed due to an oil pipe leakage under the road. I was at school that day, and here's what happened. The bus ended up taking us through a back road to the next neighborhood over, onto a road that was luckily paved a couple months ago (if it wasn't there that entire neighborhood would be cut off), and she ended up dropping us off at a place where the village idiot senior led us through the woods to our houses. (The driver got fired btw)

Now the whole public transport argument, I agree that public transport in suburbs is terrible to put it lightly, but I don't think public transport would really be used even if it was made better. I know for a fact that in western Sydney, they built a bus transit system to connect several suburbs to each other and to downtown areas, and it really is a fast system as the roads built for it are used only by buses. Today, ridership is a lot less than expected and the several bus stops (which look more like train stations) have become hotspots for criminal activity. Let's face it, once you can drive, your not going to use public transport. Driving is just too convenient so long as there is not much traffic which is why we need large multi-lane freeways. And by freeways I mean no tolls. Tolls can ruin everything.

quote>

That is true because people will drive, and unless gas goes extinct from the planet, America will never abandon cars. But what you are doing is thinking from a suburban viewpoint. What if someone lives in a loft real close to their job, but what is separating them is a freeway? Would YOU enjoy walking under a dirty, grimy, congested underpass, having to keep your eye out for cars or wait for the right time to walk across a 6-lane avenue when you only have a few seconds? NO! But, would you mind walking through Midtown Manhattan? It is congested too, but the difference is that neighborhoods are connected. They are not divided by freeways. While freeways 'connect' the suburbs to downtown, they do also succeed in isolating people. In Tampa, the freeways cut two entire neighborhoods in half. And if it weren't for revitalization in Ybor City as an entertainment district, it would now be a dilapidated shell of the vibrant, active neighborhood it once was before Interstate 4 was constructed.

I think suburbanisation is good and I like the idea of shopping malls growing like weeds around suburbs. I know of one mall that is getting permission from planning that is going to get constructed near my area and I seriously can't wait! I doubt it'd be that great, but it would be something and in walking distance too. Plus, the only place that would miss out on business as a result of this would be the main ghetto area near where I live and I really hate that area. It's mostly an immigrant ghetto, so it will continue to get more poor residents while the wealthy ones leave. Its just capitalism.quote>

See, don't you like when things are walking distance? If you lived in a dense city, there won't be a shopping mall because they are just shops that funnel up all the space and money from the city. But in exchange for that, there will be other shops and restaraunts. It's good to see that the shopping mall you live nearby is walking distance. I have a walkable shopping mall near me, but it's only driving distance. But if I lived in the closest subdivision to it, which IS walking 'distance', I would have to cross a wide 6-lane avenue, full of speeding cars going 50ish MPH. Even though it is only 1/2 of a mile bike ride from that subdivision as the crow flies, I would have to be forced to be funneled onto the main road so I don't run into animals or mud or whatever nature throws at you.

Back on the topic of exurbs, they aren't necassarily dead and buried. There are still countless exurbs across whatever country your in. If demand for exurbs rose, then the number of exurbs will inevitably rise. The only reason they are dissapearing is because demand for exurbs is falling, while demand for suburbs is rising. Like I said, capitalism. Besides, if your living in an exurb that becomes a development, your property value will rise so you can sell that and move to another exurb into a larger property (exurbs are cheaper than suburbs). So the problem sorts itself out.

Thats the end of my post.quote>

Again, I think you're not seeing the big picture. It doesn't sort itself out, because that just cycles to more and more people settling to live outside the city. That does nothing except turn the once-thriving city into a shell of itself.

And that....is...the end of my............post. (rolls over)

[Ceru 0]

I am currently living in a  late 80s suburb in Sacramento, California. It's small, but the space works and the area is nice. There is a greenbelt, the houses don't look that bad (wood panelling was still in use at the time) and the neighborhood is good. My development looks nice and green.

Fastforward a couple years in my childhood and a suburb was being built across the way in the big expanse of field i went exploring in at one point and time. This was the 90s and they built the homes much larger, out fo stucco, with clay tile roofing. They aren't terrible to look at, but they are almost all the same color and there is little greenery in the neighborhood. It's mostly just poured concrete, road, and beige, tan, and white homes with identical roofing and design.

Then we come to 2007 (I believe) when they began building further down the street. The houses were now twice as large as the homes that had been built in the 90s. They are literally square boxes that could easily house four small families in one. They're hideous and they're the product of a monster that has grown out of control. I can understand why people like suburbs, but they're not nice anymore. They're hideous. Greenery has been done away for cement.

And in Sacramento (near the border of Elk Grove), the commute time is terrible. It takes me 45 minutes to get to school from my house (CSUS Sacramento), when it only takes 15 when there is no traffic.  There is no public transport going from my house to my school. And no forms of mass transit that use rail were ever planned for this area. All of the buildings that go up are as ugly as the square boxes next door.

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.

quote>

Goods and services are not always produced there. Sometimes it is just houses upon houses upon houses. And the houses are not always built space efficent. Suburban houses have been getting bigger and bigger, or at least from what I've experienced. People are living in spaces that could easily house two families their size. And when you have to commute an hour away from your suburb to get to work, then you waste gasoline on the trip. Yes, it's a waste. People live in suburbs, but few work in them.

[bixel 1,223]

I only read all the posts on page one - and most on this page - so sorry if I missed you in the middle.

I hate suburbs with deep and probably highly baised opinion disdain and shame. I used to live in the suburbs and its a stupid idiotic "my home, my castle" mentality. And if you were poor you couldn't afford a home so you lived in squalar 60's box apartments. You have to drive drive drive to get anywhere. When you are kid, going to the market to get popsicles is a chore cause its FAR AWAY. Even worse... when they tear down the mom n pop stores and put in a stupid ugly as sin Mega Mall,, it gets worse.

When I grew up in Newberg it was a small town with an old style philosophy of "build when you need it" meaning there was not a lot of Massive Planning and Development. Which was great cause you had a lot of interesting mom n pop shops, bookstores, mexican bakeries, neat little clothing shop and boutiques. The town was a farming town meaning you only had to drive when you worked on the farm, if you worked in town - you could walk.

Then the early 90's came and these nasty developer firms from places like California, Nevada, and Arizona, convinced our incredibly uneducated and god-fearing City Council to allow new zoning for mega malls and mega residential development - that would give the town prestige and money.

I used to be able to literally take a 45min walk up into the hills and camp in the wilderness for FUN. Guess what? Its gone now - miles of crappy asphalt roads like OakDrive, CedarLane, and WhereThaHeckAmIRoad with crappy nasty homes everywhere. Most of the trees are gone and you cannot camp anywhere in the wilderness cause its somebody's back yard. Oh and the trees are gone.

The Trees are gone, why cause the stupid LOT design are created by a bunch of idiot money makers from CA and AZ and trees are usually not in a yard a whole bunch of super expensive and water guzzling lawn grass is. Oh and BTW lawn grass that they use that guzzles all this water in NOT NATIVE to OREGON.

I have been looking at Japanese neighborhoods and old Europe neighborhoods. and these are the best kind, REAL culisac style residential, lots of trees, houses with minimal yard size and shared gardens. No freaking Parking Lots, mostly verticle style homes. The USA way is like a lazy overweight ignorant slacker, who has been currupted by ridiculous English yard design that uses minimalism and vast areas of nothing (grass) and idiot yard design of the French Elite, with more minimalism, yard care and stupid hedge groves that make you yard like a staked lot of fenced property. Its the dumb My House my Castle crap. Community? You wonder but its brings community!

No its doesn't. Who makes a community? The kids do cause they get bored and they leave the house and they meet and play and fight with other kids in the nieghborhood. The Adults will not meet each other EVER unless a BBQ and BEER is involved , and even then they probably don't trust each other much.

I hate suburbs. If you are going to make suburbs it should be "build as we need it" philosophy not that mega planned crap. Mega Malls and Mega Planning.. is designed as a "Build and Forget" and its main goal is to create gigantic profits for developers. THATS IT, and American Citizens fell for it cause they are idiotic greedy SOBs that cannot educate themselves, and they all want their American Dream.

Which is a stupid castle with a huge water guzzling lawn that doesn't do anythings but look nice.

OK im done

[cherub72 0]

Screw some big backyad at the end of a subdivison labyrinth. This is my dream home :

[duack 14]

There's nothing wrong with the "My house my castle" mentality. If a person works to pay for a house they should be able to choose what they want. I know if I had my own house, I would prefer to be in my own building rather than in a huge box, surrounded by cement with my neighbors living on top of each other. Also, I wouldn't call the "my house my castle" mentality stupid. There's nothing wrong with wanting to own a house. Its completely normal.

Suburbs are actually a product of the garden city movement which dates back to the 1800s. This was about improving quality of life and eliminating slums from our cities. Post WWII, this took a different approach, as there was both plenty of high-rise development and much suburban sprawl. Today, it seems that the subrubs took off but the high-rise buildings have become dilapitated and hot-spots for crime, which is why so many of them are being destroyed now.

The one time I dont like suburbs is when there's too much pavement and too little garden because that misses the whole point of the garden movement. However, in the residential area of suburbs there is predominantly garden and lawn as opposed to pavement. Its only in the commercial areas that there's a lot of concrete compared to green land. If a residential area is predominantly pavement, then thats an example of bad planning practice.

Also, you say you dont like concrete yet you dont like suburbs either? That doesn't make sense because denser areas have more concrete and less garden than suburbs so if you dont like concrete, then you must like suburbs.

I know Im outnumbered in this topic but I actually study planning at uni and from what I've read here, most of it seems to be complaints from the citizens' personal experience rather than actual discussion. And we all know citizens will always complain. My point is this, traffic and not being able to go camping 5 minutes from your house are a small price to pay for the high quality of life that subrubs provide, and its certainly better than the alternative, as high-rise developments have been tried and failed in most cases. (Im aware that there are countless high-rise areas that are well-maintained however the demographics of cities does not allow the majority of people to live in densely populated areas without causing several problems).

EDIT: Plus, someone commented that neighbours in suburbs wont talk to each other and thats a reason to be against suburbs. However that is illogical. Planners can provide public spaces to people and make nice gardensfor the people, but they cannot force people to socialise. Sometimes you get good neighbours, sometimes you get bad neighbours its completely random. What makes you think two people in the same apartment building will socialise anyway? Apartments have seperate dwellings within them its not like all the residents live in one giant room. Its just as easy to be isolated in an apartment than in a suburb.

[Ceru 0]

Originally posted by: duack

The one time I dont like suburbs is when there's too much pavement and too little garden because that misses the whole point of the garden movement. .quote>

From what I've seen, that's basically how all Suburbs are built in California now.

[Raysfan16 5]

Why is it that I can always manage to counter your arguments, paragraph by paragraph?

Originally posted by: duack

There's nothing wrong with the "My house my castle" mentality. If a person works to pay for a house they should be able to choose what they want. I know if I had my own house, I would prefer to be in my own building rather than in a huge box, surrounded by cement with my neighbors living on top of each other. Also, I wouldn't call the "my house my castle" mentality stupid. There's nothing wrong with wanting to own a house. Its completely normal.quote>

There isn't anything wrong with owning a house. But what is wrong is making development after development 60-70 miles from the city center so the residents can clog the freeways on your way to downtown. Tampa is a city of over 400,000 residents. And I'd say at absolute most, 1/8 of them live in apartments. The rest live in individual houses. Just like suburbs, except the individual houses are in a more urban environment, cutting commute time (and with it gas wasted and CO2 emissions

Suburbs are actually a product of the garden city movement which dates back to the 1800s. This was about improving quality of life and eliminating slums from our cities. Post WWII, this took a different approach, as there was both plenty of high-rise development and much suburban sprawl. Today, it seems that the subrubs took off but the high-rise buildings have become dilapitated and hot-spots for crime, which is why so many of them are being destroyed now. quote>

WARNING: The following paragraph contains comments that might be racially insensitive to some. Do not assume that I am a racist turd, I am basically telling the sad truth.

Suburbs are in NO WAY a product of a 'garden city' movement. Before World War II and the interstate system, suburbs were considered the slums because they were far from work. Interstates provided a reliable commute, and that coupled with white flight during the civil rights movement. I don't think it's a coincidence that Detroit is 77% black and the suburbs are mostly white. It has almost nothing to do with creating garden cities that improve quality of life. Because if they were making cities that improve quality of life, they wouldn't have made it virtually impossible to walk to a business which is a quarter of a mile away. They would've made actual public places with ACTUAL identities. For example, it's easy to name architectural masterpieces in Detroit. Now what about something stunning in a suburb? Huh? I'm hearing crickets. Detroit's population is approximately 900,000, and the suburban population in its metro is approximately 4 million or more, and it is impossible to find icons of culture, influence, and architecture there. In some of them, you might not even be able to find mass transit! Once again, it's just not a coincidence.

The one time I dont like suburbs is when there's too much pavement and too little garden because that misses the whole point of the garden movement. However, in the residential area of suburbs there is predominantly garden and lawn as opposed to pavement. Its only in the commercial areas that there's a lot of concrete compared to green land. If a residential area is predominantly pavement, then thats an example of bad planning practice. quote>

Once again, you are just thinking on an outside standpoint. You are basically saying an iceberg is tiny by just looking at the tip of it that is above the water. In the residential parts of suburbs, lawns can be great. A boy can toss the baseball with his father, you can invite your neighbors over for a cookout, blah blah blah it goes on and on. Imagine living in a suburb of Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, or Los Angeles. Where the suburbs are, the land there used to be a desert!

And it still is! There is very little rain there, and yet the lawns are perfectly green. Where does that water come from? LA is taking water from way out there, I don't have a clue what Phoenix and Tucson are doing, and I think Las Vegas is taking water from Lake Mead (an artificial lake created by Hoover Dam). You can't put millions upon millions of people in a region that was naturally able to sustain nothing near that much. By getting that perfect green lawn, you are taking away the water that other ecosystems need to thrive.

Here is a picture of the Phoenix metro area. I found it on Google real fast, sorry about the blue markings. But it is obvious that the green lawns shouldn't be there because it does more harm than good for the ecosystem.

Also, you say you dont like concrete yet you dont like suburbs either? That doesn't make sense because denser areas have more concrete and less garden than suburbs so if you dont like concrete, then you must like suburbs.quote>

Urban areas have parks too. If it weren't for suburbs, any city would probably spend 50% less on transportation infrastructure. It's actually suburbs that eat up all of the concrete and pavement, because they are so expansive and need the widening and repavement the most because suburban street plans call for making people unable to go anywhere unless they go onto the arterial roads.

I know Im outnumbered in this topic but I actually study planning at uni and from what I've read here, most of it seems to be complaints from the citizens' personal experience rather than actual discussion. And we all know citizens will always complain. My point is this, traffic and not being able to go camping 5 minutes from your house are a small price to pay for the high quality of life that subrubs provide, and its certainly better than the alternative, as high-rise developments have been tried and failed in most cases. (Im aware that there are countless high-rise areas that are well-maintained however the demographics of cities does not allow the majority of people to live in densely populated areas without causing several problems).quote>

You are talking from a personal standpoint too. You just aren't puttinag an 'I' in your sentence. I live in a suburb too and I could talk all day about how I hate it here and want to get out. Duack, have you ever lived in a suburb and tried to commute downtown? It's stop and go if you're lucky. Usually it's stop. (Keep in mind this is a city with 400k residents and four freeways in it) And why are you mentioning bixel's argument? He lived in a spot where you could enjoy nature. He lived in an area where the animals, trees, and humans coexisted peacefully. Everything was in harmony, a place where the animals lived and the trees lived and bixel could camp and enjoy him(or her, i dunno )self away from the bustling city. Doesn't that sound like a graden city to you?

High rise developments have failed in most cases? 7 of the tallest 19 buildings in Tampa are residential. Two of them are a product during the economic crisis, and they are still being occupied faster than cells in Guantanamo after a terrorist camp ambush. (And none of them are on the beach...)

EDIT: Plus, someone commented that neighbours in suburbs wont talk to each other and thats a reason to be against suburbs. However that is illogical. Planners can provide public spaces to people and make nice gardensfor the people, but they cannot force people to socialise. Sometimes you get good neighbours, sometimes you get bad neighbours its completely random. What makes you think two people in the same apartment building will socialise anyway? Apartments have seperate dwellings within them its not like all the residents live in one giant room. Its just as easy to be isolated in an apartment than in a suburb.quote>

When we talk about that, we don't mean people in apartments and houses. We mean the culture, archtecture, and identity that comes with small towns and cities, but not suburbs. Supporting a pedestrian-friendly environment leads to social interaction and the ability to talk to each other. Imagine walking between classes at school. From time to time you will see a friend and say hi, or walk with one and start a conversation. There's lots of talking in a hallway or sidewalk at a school, and that's because all of the students walk to their classes. Now imagine driving between classes in college where it might be more spread out. There, you don't bump into any friends and talk to them, cause if you do, your car insurance rates go up.

[hamsterTK 93]

Well here are my observations being familiar with "sunbelt" cities.

Built density, as opposed to statistical/household size related density is often product of high land values and demand. In many cities high-rise condominiums are common in affluent neighborhoods. Likewise the poor tend to live small, dilapidated houses or cheaply built 2-3 story apartment complexes. "Sprawl" is a subjective term, a derogatory term for rapid growth when it seems misdirected or if the lassiez-faire fashion land is developed leads to negative effects. Someone can be against "sprawl" but not necessarily against everything you'd consider suburban.

It's a bit of a dilemma really. $90k tract homes are perfect for young families, the catch is they might be way out. But fundamentally that is not the problem.

The problem is when our hypothetical subdivision is only accessible from a massive surface highway and there are strips of no-mans land to prevent future road connections. The problem is when simple community staples like schools, parks, and public pools are not built in the neighborhoods themselves but are far away and hard to access. The problem is when the area is unincorporated and the new residents are not paying taxes for all the services they are using. The end result is some new developments don't hold up their value in the long term because of these problems.

Utimately I think its an argument about if you believe in lassiez-faire economics, that allow bubba to sell out to megahomes inc. to build cheap little boxes out of sawdust and glue even if its a horrible idea. Can intervention help or hurt? Likely both, depending on the circumstances.

Honestly I'd just like to see big cities mirror the growth patterns of the town where I am from: steady and careful with all the new roads plotted out ahead of time. Whether you choose to believe in New Urbanism or a car lover, it shouldn't matter, the principals here are the same. I also think most people if given a choice might want the best of both worlds, probably a given when you look at the cost of living in places that offer that.

[duack 14]

Actually no, the white flight isn't a real thing. Suburbs in Australia are about as common as suburbs in the US yet there is no african minority present in Australia. So suburbanisation actually isnt a result of racism.

Also, now your arguing lawns take up too much water? Direct water use Accounts for only 10% of a person's water use. 90% of the water a person uses is consumed indirectly through diet, particularly with water thirsty foods like meat. So changing your diet will make much more of a difference to the water you use than living in an apartment would. Watering lawns and gardens accounts for very little actual water use.

Urban areas have parks too. If it weren't for suburbs, any city would probably spend 50% less on transportation infrastructure. It's actually suburbs that eat up all of the concrete and pavement, because they are so expansive and need the widening and repavement the most because suburban street plans call for making people unable to go anywhere unless they go onto the arterial roads. quote>

Yes, I know suburbs use a lot of pavement but the point Im making is that the pavement is not in the residential areas. Im not denying the concrete use of subrubs Im talking about the visual appeal of suburbs.

Duack, have you ever lived in a suburb and tried to commute downtown? quote>

Yes, and I live in a city of 4 million. Besides, not all people work in the CBD.

And why are you mentioning bixel's argument? He lived in a spot where you could enjoy nature. quote>

Do you think it's possible for eveyone in america to live like that? Also, all suburbanites want to do is to live in an area with gardens and lawns where they can live peacefully.

Doesn't that sound like a graden city to you?  quote>

Yes, but not everyone can live like that. We cant force everyone else to live in crowded areas just so bixel can have acres of bush to camp in right next to his or her's house.

High rise developments have failed in most cases? quote>

I was really refering to the older ones and examples like the high-rise developments in places like waterloo, which are viewed negatively by pretty much all the residents and by planners.

Supporting a pedestrian-friendly environment leads to social interaction and the ability to talk to each other. quote>

First of all, that is very cliche. Second, while this may work in small towns, the chances of you bumping into someone in a city are unlikely. Besides, not all people like the idea of having to have several conversations when trying to walk somewhere. It can be very claustrophobic.

Also, there's a big unexplained question to your whole anti-suburb stance. If people hate suburbs then why do people continue to live in suburbs? People have the freedom to choose where they live depending on their income. But surburbs and apartments exist that would suit anyone's budget. So why do people live in suburbs if suburbs are so bad?

[bixel 1,223]

I like houses, what I don't like is the Mega Planning. Houses and neighborhoods should be built slowly on a need to use basis. With careful city zoning this could make for some real dynamic vibrant neighborhoods. If you look at San Francisco, Portland or Seattle in the old neighborhoods when people were buying land and building their own house, the lots are actually pretty dense, housing design was very vertical and Victorian. This could be just because of the fashion desired back then, but coincidentally it made for a much better efficient land use and these design hold out over the years, while the cookie cutter cheap manufactured mega planned Lots often cannot be re-used and must be demolished and rebuilt.

Concrete and its use horizontally is up to the landscape planner or logistics planner, but often with mega development they just pave everything in a hurry. I believe there is about equal mileage of concrete in mega-planned suburban areas as there is in an urban setting. The main difference is that in a high density urban setting the concrete landmass is mostly vertical, while the suburban one is actually taking up much more space - I'd guess 400% more. We could show each other pictures of suburban neighborhoods with nice park trails, cobblestone alleys and such and claim I am wrong, but I am mostly concentrating on the American Mega-Planned Suburbs, these are money grubbing wasteful developments.

I am fine with lowrise, heck I am fine with rowhouses too, but even that gets wasteful, just look at Daly City, just a couple miles south of SF, its a pretty old area so it has a lot of culture and diversity and vibrancy - but it really is a huge waste of space. And many people if they could - would move out of Daly city and move closer in town. The problem with Daly city is that space is very coveted in downtown SF, you cant develop horizontally anymore. So Daly city was created, but rather than learning from the mistakes of developing lowrise housing in downtown SF, they repeated the process in Daly city, years later, they find another spot of land, and move even more South, repeating the lowrise space wasting processes... and as you move out away from SF the architectural timeline gets nearer and nearer to the present. However the mistakes being made are worse and worse, instead of using rowhouses, they now make townhouses which are even wider, and take p more space. At least Daly city built row and 2-3 story houses, go even further out they are getting even more wasteful - its crazy.

[Raysfan16 5]

Originally posted by: duack

Actually no, the white flight isn't a real thing. Suburbs in Australia are about as common as suburbs in the US yet there is no african minority present in Australia. So suburbanisation actually isnt a result of racism.quote>

I'm pretty sure that Australia and America are very different places. We're almost comparing apples and oranges here. But let me quote an article in wikipedia. This was in an article about Detroit.

"Consolidation during the 1950s, especially in the automobile sector, increased competition for jobs. An extensive freeway system constructed in the 1950s and 1960s had facilitated commuting. The Twelfth Street riot in 1967, as well as court-ordered busing accelerated white flight from the city. Commensurate with the shift of population and jobs to its suburbs, the city's tax base eroded. In the years following, Detroit's population fell from a peak of roughly 1.8 million in 1950 to about half that number today.^[18]"

White flight is a very real thing, just maybe not in Australia.  Let me quote another article on Wikipedia, this time in the "White flight" article.

"White flight has occurred, and occurs, in most every US city,^[9] begun consequent to the post–World War II baby and economic booms. That explosive, suburban population growth, and racially integrated city populations were made feasible by the building of highway roads and suburban parkways bypassing (non-white) city neighborhoods to reduce travel time between town and country.^[10] Hence, the great populations that moved from the Bronx and Brooklyn and New York City for the suburbs; like-wise in Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Boston."

Also, now your arguing lawns take up too much water? Direct water use Accounts for only 10% of a person's water use. 90% of the water a person uses is consumed indirectly through diet, particularly with water thirsty foods like meat. So changing your diet will make much more of a difference to the water you use than living in an apartment would. Watering lawns and gardens accounts for very little actual water use.quote>

Well, I can't say you're wrong, but you just dig yourself a deeper hole. I took an aerial view of Phoenix in my last post. It was obvious that the city was in a desert. It was unwise to even set up lawns there. Now imagine trying to use showers, the sink, drinking water, and so on. That wastes EVEN MORE WATER! No matter what you say, putting a 10 acre development will NEVER make nature better, whether you live in the desert, coastal plain, or mountain range.

Yes, I know suburbs use a lot of pavement but the point Im making is that the pavement is not in the residential areas. Im not denying the concrete use of subrubs Im talking about the visual appeal of suburbs.quote>

There isn't nearly as much concrete in the commercial areas than the residential areas. That is simply because suburban commercial areas are completely surrounded by parking lagoons and 6-lane avenues. But still, the house foundations, driveways, sidewalks, and streets are still wasteful. They add up real fast to the destruction of nature.

I was really refering to the older ones and examples like the high-rise developments in places like waterloo, which are viewed negatively by pretty much all the residents and by planners.quote>

Yeah, now I get what you mean. I don't know what you're talking about with Waterloo, but I I've seen examples of peaople demolishing close, tight-knit neighborhoods to build ugly highrise towers. I'm not talking about that. Rowhomes and lofts are perfectly fine in my opinion, and condos are great too but a little difficult to make popular.

First of all, that is very cliche. Second, while this may work in small towns, the chances of you bumping into someone in a city are unlikely. Besides, not all people like the idea of having to have several conversations when trying to walk somewhere. It can be very claustrophobic.quote>

You probably don't bump into people much. But let me quote louisville327 from his wonderful city journal, 'Adventures in New Urbanism'.  The link to it is here.

https://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=36&threadid=57406&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

"Poor girl is claustrophobic, I almost forgot, and being wedged in with 1000 other cars on this packed divided highway with nowhere to go sure wasn't making her feel at ease."

"We're not even really that isolated. In fact, just over the wall on the edge of the subdivision is the back of the shopping center where we get groceries. But because of the wall, we're totally cut off from it and can't get there unless we drive out of the subdivision, get on the artery for a quarter of a mile, and then turn onto the feeder road with the grocery store. If there was a direct road connecting us, we could walk over there, but instead it's a twenty minute trip by car."

This is from the journal too, but in the book Home From Nowhere.

"Americans log two trillion miles a year behind the wheel. With 5 percent of the world's population, the United States consumes a quarter of the world's oil. Half of this is burned in motor vehicles.

The average American drives twice as much as the average driver in Europe and Japan. More than 60,000 square miles of U.S. land is paved over ... possibly 10 percent of arable land.

All told, the costs of driving that motorists and truckers don't bear themselves amounted to about $300 billion a year in the early 1990s. Only part of the rest is covered by government subsidies ... The remainder is fobbed off in the form of government debt onto generations as yet unlicensed to drive.

Though the interstate highway system is now complete, the United States spends nearly $200 million a day constructing, improving, and rehabilitating streets and roads.

The costs of air pollution that result in illness, hospitalization, and premature death is calculated to be [as much as] $200 billion a year.

The Federal Highway Administration expects freeway congestion to quadruple over the next twenty years and to double on ordinary roads. The National Transportation Board predicts that annual delays in travel time will increase by 5.6 billion hours in the same period ..."

"Looking at everything through the window of a car at 45 mph is like watching something on TV. You're totally separated from whatever it is you're looking at, she said.

Exactly. When you facilitate pedestrian travel through narrow and interconnected streets, mixed-use zoning, and higher densities, the kind of street life Americans flock to Disney World and Mardi Gras for becomes possible. When you separate everything according to use and build it to a scale only cars can access, you have destroyed the very basic foundation of traditional cities and communities. By this time I was starting to think hard about our living situation, and I could tell my girlfriend was as well. Was she thinking the exact same thing I was?"

(Man, now I miss louisville327's 'Eureka' and 'Adventures'.)

Also, there's a big unexplained question to your whole anti-suburb stance. If people hate suburbs then why do people continue to live in suburbs? People have the freedom to choose where they live depending on their income. But surburbs and apartments exist that would suit anyone's budget. So why do people live in suburbs if suburbs are so bad?quote>

Well, you make a good point here. People mainly want to live in suburbs because they want to avoid the hustle and bustle and crime. But the numbnuts city planners decided to build them in the most wasteful way possible. No public transit, no density at all, just wide avenues that make children and the elderly unable to do virtually anything until they can drive.

[edman2012 33]

to tell you the truth, I hate these studies. They're only true if the recession never ends, which isn't true. Right now people might feel that they don't need their suburban homes, but once the start earning more money when the recession ends, it'll be out of their heads.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: duack

Actually no, the white flight isn't a real thing. Suburbs in Australia are about as common as suburbs in the US yet there is no african minority present in Australia. So suburbanisation actually isnt a result of racism. quote>

White flight is a very real, very well studied and documented phenomenon. My blog actually discusses it briefly. It was US policy to "red line" blacks out of entire cities where mortgage loan interviews often had questions like "Was the applicants great great great great grandfather eligble to vote?" (The answer is no cause they were either slaves or free blacks without the right to vote). It is possible that a known trend can be reached by different means. There's a reason why the US and Australia are two different countries and each has their own issues. Racial segregation was one of the primary factors in conjunction with the interstate highway system that lead to rapid suburbanization/sprawl. 

Also, now your arguing lawns take up too much water? Direct water use Accounts for only 10% of a person's water use. 90% of the water a person uses is consumed indirectly through diet, particularly with water thirsty foods like meat. So changing your diet will make much more of a difference to the water you use than living in an apartment would. Watering lawns and gardens accounts for very little actual water use.quote>

 

While certainly true that a lot of our water consumption is through diet and other goods, I think he was just going with the fact that diet tends to be rather homogenous among communities and thus if you can control for one difference between suburbs and urban living, it'd be lawn care. This just demonstrates a difference of values. Food is a necessity while green lawns is a luxury in his opinion (which, call me crazy, but thats one luxury I can say no to, Zen garden here I come!). Additionally, he was pulling a specific case where 1) water use for lawns is undoubtedly far above average (making your 90%-10% statistic somewhat useless) and 2) that given the LOCAL environmental circumstances, the luxurgy of a green lawn seems illogocial. In this case its a higher per capita lawn watering versus a significantly smaller average annual precipitation. This would mean a much larger share of Phoenix's water is "wasteful". Additionally, since meat can be raised in many different areas, its impact on water resources can be mitigated (and is) by raising cattle in areas that are water rich (or at least more so than Phoenix).  And in my experience... vegetarians tend to live in urban areas although I can't really back that up with anything solid but perhaps others have seen this as well (generally where liberals congregate, there tend to be more vegetarians no?)

Urban areas have parks too. If it weren't for suburbs, any city would probably spend 50% less on transportation infrastructure. It's actually suburbs that eat up all of the concrete and pavement, because they are so expansive and need the widening and repavement the most because suburban street plans call for making people unable to go anywhere unless they go onto the arterial roads. quote>

Yes, I know suburbs use a lot of pavement but the point Im making is that the pavement is not in the residential areas. Im not denying the concrete use of subrubs Im talking about the visual appeal of suburbs.quote>

Again, a difference in values and perhaps completely different scopes regarding the "green space" issue. You're looking locally where he appears to be looking regionally. Yes, on a small scale, suburbs have a lot of green space. But if you take it regionally, its not as green as it might seem, especially if there is a signficant lack of suburban mass transportation. Also, he might be thinking that if suburbs didn't exist, you'd have a LOT more green space to serve more people. An area that has 1 million people in 100 square miles undoubtedly uses less resources than 1 million people 1,000 square miles. And even though the 100 square mile city has more concrete, it has saved 900 square miles of "green space". Yes, I've deduced it down to very characterized cities for the sake of discussion, but its clearly a dense versus less dense argument to him and a local aesthetics argument for you which are necessarily incompatible... but hard to mesh.

And why are you mentioning bixel's argument? He lived in a spot where you could enjoy nature. quote>

Do you think it's possible for eveyone in america to live like that? Also, all suburbanites want to do is to live in an area with gardens and lawns where they can live peacefully. quote>

This is where social psyche is a pretty cool area to consider. One could argue that suburbanites are TAUGHT or socialized into believing this is desireable because this in fact is NOT the standard view throughout the world, but one thats been propogated mainly in the West for a variety of reasons (the Metropolitan race, cities competing for tax base, gas profits, etc). In various parts of the East, its been tought that Cities are beautiful and that gardening and farming of any kind is the lowest thing to do. Working in England for a local wildlife trust, they had issues integrating minorities into environmental programs because many did not find the environment that necessary to be a part of. Didn't mean that they didn't love it or though it should be conserved, but that urban gardens and trips to the outskirts of civilization were pointless. This socialization may be backfiring as the youngest generation that grew up in the suburbs sees its faults and move towards the cities (there is a reason why Generation X and Y have been buying condos in urban areas fueling massive condo developments). Many cities in the US have actually had their CBD's grow simply because the idea of a suburban dream is false and wasteful. Some have theorized that there will be a suburban/urban pendulum for generations to come. Its all gonna be relative to where people think or are taught which areas are desireable.

Supporting a pedestrian-friendly environment leads to social interaction and the ability to talk to each other. quote>

First of all, that is very cliche. Second, while this may work in small towns, the chances of you bumping into someone in a city are unlikely. Besides, not all people like the idea of having to have several conversations when trying to walk somewhere. It can be very claustrophobic.quote>

Its not that cliche. Urban studies have shown urban areas exhibit tighter community identity bonds and pedestrian friendly areas do promote social interaction.  This is why you see differntiation in cities such as the artsy district, or Chinatown etc. I live in a metro of 3.5 million people and I run into people randomly ALL the time. I don't think he meant social interaction to the point where you can't walk to get a soda from the local corner store without being asked how your day is every 15 feet. He just meant that you are more likely to know your neighbors as well as get involved locally. Having less space kinda forces you to address your neighbors and community issues tend to be more galvanizing, thats all. Its not very cliche to expect urban areas to have more social interaction, thats been kind of the point of cities since the days of Urr.

Also, there's a big unexplained question to your whole anti-suburb stance. If people hate suburbs then why do people continue to live in suburbs? People have the freedom to choose where they live depending on their income. But surburbs and apartments exist that would suit anyone's budget. So why do people live in suburbs if suburbs are so bad?quote>

Suburbs are cheap, its easy to live in them. And until 2007, gas prices were relatively cheap making suburbs a steal. Why live in a city for 500k when you can find a sweet house in the suburbs with gas prices hovering around $1. Now that its not, urban developments have spiked. Its all about the bottom line. Then you have the whole collective psyche view point that "people do what they are taught" and that the "American dream" is still perpetuated in pretty much every form of media (although there have recently been a ton of backlash in media thats fueling the return to cities). If you wanna take the patronizing view... "People don't know any better" or are "ignorant of their consequences". People like myself oppose suburbs not on their aesthics or anything like that, but of inequality in monetary distribution. Suburbs have always been subsidized by urban areas (generally through State funds). Cities, although they have a lot more amenities, are generally cheaper to run on a per capita basis than a suburb. The infrastructure cost is generally externalized from the price of new homes as developers get tax credits to build roads and utilities that aren't necessarily included in the price. Suburbs tend to get more development funds than urban areas and when thats using taxes generated by urban areas, yes, I do have an issue.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: duack

Also, now your arguing lawns take up too much water? Direct water use Accounts for only 10% of a person's water use. 90% of the water a person uses is consumed indirectly through diet, particularly with water thirsty foods like meat. So changing your diet will make much more of a difference to the water you use than living in an apartment would. Watering lawns and gardens accounts for very little actual water use.quote>

The problem is not so much how much water is used—it all comes back, in one form or another. Water is not connected in a grid like electricity is. Thus, having farms and meat packing plants in temperate areas with water is probably more sound that placing suburbs in dry and attractive areas to live without water.

[MTLT_17 26]

I would just like to say that my City... Regina, SK Is currently growing with less then a 4% unemployment rate, and I work in the Residential housing design sector. I must say that our new neighborhoods are "Minni-Cities" With plans for Central squares of restaurants and shops with condo's and smaller homes on lots that are 55ft by 110ft. So we are not doing that sprawl thing. Our city is currently around 205,000 and have dimensions of 11kms by 11kms. So about 121 Sq kms. That is quite the density.

I like the idea of mini - neighborhoods, as well as favoring the re-development and life giving back to downtown's.

That's my two cents.

MTLT

[hamsterTK 93]

aww, but bixel, Daly City has my favorite kind of home architecture. gotta love brady bunch houses. And they're so cute all stacked up next to each other too. The fog is kind of fun too

[Denon333 0]

I'd say that suburbs will dissapear in 25-30 years.Make that 10-15 years.In a place I live, it is on a commercilized city named Singapore and so, it has to build tons of new housing blocks just to sustain its current population.Unless there was even a way to have more land for both suburbs and farms.That's right!I'm talking about farms and from my point of view,the sky farms will come in 20-25 years since many of us don't bother.

[Fee_Nicks 7]

I kinda need to come into this conversation for a moment, primarily because of Denon333's post - so sorry if this seems a bit out of sync with the rest of this conversation.

Suburbia, as a whole and as an idea, will not die due to this current recession, and definitely not in just 25-30 years. They are effectively what comes inbetween high-density urban areas and extremely spread out rural areas - hence the name. Concentrations of populations only come when there is a reason to - a trading post, a port, etc.; this is why the biggest cities are on coastlines or on islands - which brings me to another point. Skyscrapers may be an extremely efficient usage of space, but in places where there is plenty of relatively cheap land it is simply cheaper to spread out development rather than build a single structure. Manhattan and most of New York is on islands - there's very little room to spread out horizontally, so development is vertical instead. In other places with skyscrapers, land is expensive enough to justify the building of towers. Most development in the U.S. (which, you must remember, is the fourth-largest country in the world, and probably the one with the most land suitable for development), is horizontal - not just because there's lots of land, but more because hi-rises aren't cost-effective to build with land values so relatively low.

I'm not bashing urban areas per say - just the idea that high-density development is always preferable. Suburbia itself is fine - it's just its implementation across most of recently-developed America that sickens me.

[duack 14]

I find it strange that everyone in this forum is agreeing with the random people who talk about suburbs from their own opinion but completely disagree with the one person here who actually studies urban planning.

*sigh*

[saltandsauce 0]

Originally posted by: duack

I find it strange that everyone in this forum is agreeing with the random people who talk about suburbs from their own opinion but completely disagree with the one person here who actually studies urban planning.

*sigh*quote>

i'll explain what thoose "random people" mean;

They LIKE their house in terms of square footage (area) and electrical devices and tin openers, room and aesthetics (not as much now as then)  the physical house.

what they DON'T like is what they step out into once they cross their lawn. they don't like the sheer inconvenience of the road layout (because it's laid out for cars) and they would be forced to travel a big raw distance (number of steps taken) for a much slower displacement (distance from A-B)

the suburbs are marketed as the conveneince of the city and the nature of the countryside

you don't get convenience you get traffic jams, you don't get nature you get a lawn which is dull boring grass which needs watered

Billy Everteen wanted to walk to the malt shop to meet his girlfriend Mavis. the Malt shop was 20 yards as the crow flies but billy had to walk from Blossom drive to blossom avenue and then onto blossom boulevard which is 70 yards instead. there is no direct route to blossom boulevard which is down the opposite fork of the road. So Billy stole his parents car and then crashed it into a signpost. He died 4 months later (ok that last sentence was a bit much but you get the idea)

Layouts for cars are EXACTLY the wrong layout for people, layouts for cars are like a tree and roots for funneling cars into areas that can handle them they have dead ends everywhere, to cut through traffic and they have pointless bends in them to slow cars down.

layouts for PEDESTRIANS never have dead ends, are as straight and direct as possible and narrower (people like crossing skinny roads rather than fat roads because it's shorter)

Old cities (like Lincoln, Lincolnshire) have horrible layouts for cars because they allow through traffic and streets are narrow an straight, this is because the "car" of the time was the horse which liked things the same way as humans do - short and direct.

cars don't get tired so they can go whichever way they want whichever route they want.

[Raysfan16 5]

Originally posted by: duack

I find it strange that everyone in this forum is agreeing with the random people who talk about suburbs from their own opinion but completely disagree with the one person here who actually studies urban planning.

*sigh*quote>

You may technically be smarter than us in the field of urban planning, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with your opinion. And your opinion happens to be that the better way to do things is by completely separating a resident from his job, his source of food, his source of water, and his source of other necessities unless you pay thousands of dollars and a year of your own time to drive a car around on financially-inefficient and non eco-friendly highways and wide boulevards. And it happens to be that 90% of the people that post in this thread are disgusted by that, whether they have common sense or personal experience.

[saltandsauce 0]

Why do people think that suburbs are a connector between rural and urban areas?, sure about 1 mile of sububrbs is normal but you look at a US, Australasian city or Canadian city and all of it is suburbs apart from a mile in diameter of reasonably high density buildings in the centre, how much "connector" do you need?

In continental Europe, houses have always had a natural land area cap because farmland was valuable, only the arisorats had the money to build vast houses and have huge grounds which were HUUUUGE.

[Dewm 177]

Originally posted by: haljackey

Originally posted by: GreekMan

I like sprawl and i hope that it dosen't go out of style....

quote>

Well, I don't.  Sprawl is founded on completely unsustainable principles, and oh yes we are going to feel the consequences for a very long time.

Once the global economy recovers (which one of my professors said could take as many as 40 years), you're going to see fuel prices spike unlike anything we've ever seen before.  Not only will they hit the highest prices before the world economic slowdown in record time, they will continue to climb to unprecedented heights.  What happens to suburbia when fuel prices go up?  Well let me list just a few...

-Gasoline prices increase, making it more expensive to fuel your car.

-It will cost more to heat your home.

-Goods may cost more, with businesses taking most of the costs where it hurts to keep themselves competitive.  This means lower wages for staff, layoffs, etc..

-Food prices will skyrocket due to high transportation costs.  Imported goods will be significantly impacted, so an emphasis will be put on "buy local" goods to save money.  However in places where fresh produce must be imported in the winter months, only the very rich will be able to afford it.

-Tourism will fall as a whole worldwide.  Most, if not all airlines will go bankrupt.

-I could go on and on all day about this...

So, what can we do?  We need to stop sprawl now and invest in mass transit, and clean, renewable energy for cars.  By increasing the density of our cities, we can maximize the amount of farmland, which will be essential when "buy local" becomes substantially cheaper than goods trucked in from elsewhere.

This news isn't new.  People have been saying it for quite a while.  The short-term effects of sprawl may have been the "American Dream" for many people since the end of WWII, but its now the 21st century.  We need to be responsible for our actions and look at the long term consequences sprawl will have just like global warming/climate change and do our best to counter it.

Suburban areas is one thing, but sprawl/suburbia is another.  Its natural for cities to have some lower density areas around its edge, as long as it is controlled.  Large cities can have runaway sprawl that can chew through valuable, fertile farmland.  Once you pave paradise, you can never truly restore it to its former glory.quote>

I 100% dissagree with you haljackey, Sorry if I offend you. But renewable energies at this point in our tech history is more of a wish and a money throw away then even the suburban sprawl. Not to mention you stated that we need more density so that we have more farmland. I don't know how it is in Canada (i'm assuming you live there I have no idea) But here in the US our government actually PAYS farmers to destroy a certain percentage of there crops to keep the food price up. I know it doesn't make sence to me eather, but that is the facts .

And as for the whole energies thing gas prices are high because the oil company and the government MAKE it high. I live up here in alaska and we produce 25% of fuel for the US and we could easily be making 75%. But because the Feds have ANWR all tied up and our north coast we cannot drill in most of our state.

So I think before we have to worry about "compact urban" and "eco fuels" we have a ways to go.

[Raysfan16 5]

Lol dude. I can tell you joined 9 days ago. Haljackey's post was made months ago, and now this has nothing to do with the current discussion. Maybe, but try to keep the conversation going instead of quoting what you want to quote.

But I'll continue your discussion, since duack completely disappeared. Why are you against renewable energy? Fossil fuels do NOTHING for the environment. And about the farmland argument, you aren't getting the point here. Whether the government pays you to destroy farmland or not, making cities less dense leads to higher infrastructure costs, increased commute time(which increases pollution), harm for the environment, and separation from everyday needs unless you have a car.

You are arguing with Haljackey's point about renewable energy by making excuses for oil not being drilled. I don't see what point you are making here. But he is telling the cold, hard truth. If suburban sprawl continues combined with oil prices skyrocketing, anyone that doesn't live in a dense, mixed-use urban environment will have hell to pay.