New Urbanism vs urban sprawl

[Norwegian Neko 12]

Date: 12/27/2004 1:28:08 PM
Author: gil_mnogueira
I think that the people who go by car to work aren’t racist.

quote>

I hate to pick on you, because clearly English isn't your first language. I just would like to point out to you and others that this is a gross oversimplification of the original poster's point.

See, I don't think a lot of you native Europeans truly know what it is to live in some of the VERY urban-sprawly cities in the US.

Picture this average day of an American who is 30 years old and works at an office:

You wake up in the morning, get ready for work. Walk into the garage that's inside your house (you live in a residential-only area, no sidewalks, 1/8 of a hectare for your house). You get in your car and drive down the road onto the freeway. From there you drive for anywhere from 5 km to 200 km, then exit the freeway. You are now in a central business area - in a downtown or another suburban sprawl place, and park your car in a parking lot. You then walk 20 meters into the building where your job is at.

Note: you just spent anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours driving...just to work.

Then you sit in a cubicle, pound on a keyboard all day long, check simtropolis's website, read some CJ about how to build freeways in a city, then go home. The drive home takes longer, because there are more accidents after work then in the morning.

The only people you saw that day were also commuting to work, as well as your office mates. So you saw maybe 10-50 people that day...and probably said hi to fewer.

Then you go to sleep, and repeat the next day. On the weekend you get really drunk, because your life sucks.

Go watch the movie Office Space - it's a great lesson on the true life Americans lead.

So...eh, you guys accepting immigrants from the United States now? hehe...

[rewright 804]

In the USA at least, most folks who shout the loudest would most likely not use public transportation even if it stopped at their door. American cities are not laid out for public transport, period, and haven't been since the 50's. There just are not enough people going from any one place to another. Unlike 50 years ago many of the services we use daily are no longer within walking distance from our homes so a simple bus trip to and from work just does not work.

Come live here in Charleston, South Carlolina with only 600k, yet stretches 35 miles inland and twenty along the coast. Then add over 100k new single family homes currently being built or planned, and more in the works.

[FavreKev04 13]

I like how the erpoeans do it. Make it like a circel. Then have a green line. Where they have to stop building. I like that but i'm trying some of my own methods right now

[garfiedude 2]

Hmm, it seems 'new urbanism' is in fact the old fashioned way of doing, tried, tested and proven for millenia.

I don't object to suburban sprawl per se, but then some of the characteristics of sprawl (as defined by the thread starter) are applied to already existing cities that traditionaly developed the 'new urban' way, it often destroys the fabric of those urban enviroments.

If some of Britian's older cities were beaten down into the ground by WWII German Bombers, Post-War British planning finnished the job by burying them.
The entire approach to early Post-War planning in the UK can best be summed up by a line from a promotional program made in the 50s that i watched during an Urban Geography course at Uni. Imagine it being said in that wierd pompus 1950s BBC accent - You don't sleep in the Kitchen and you don't eat in the bathroom.

By employing such seperate zonned planning, once vibrant and diverse city centres were turned into functionaly homogeneous areas that were virtualy dead half the week. Add to that butt-ugly brutalist arcitecture and you have an oppressive enviroment that people don't respect as much, and encourages further flight to the suburbs taking the cycle even further. Now many UK cities are trying to reverse the trend as they struggle to revitalise their centres and prevent them from decaying into economic (and in some towns of the North) religious ghettos, functionaly disconected from the rest of the city.

Call me old fashioned, but i prefer 'New-Urbanism', and tend to be suspicious of hybrids, as often where applied, have been in favour of 'sprawl' type traits (new shopping centres on the edge of town killing off older markets in the centre and such).

Suburbs are fine (indeed suburbia as a trend in the UK is some 300+ years old), but some suburban developments are bland and create uninspired living areas where one has to drive for miles just for bread and milk, those i don't like.

Old style London suburban sprawl was OK in that, as the city's population exploded from 1 million in 1801, to around 9 million in 1901, it expanded and swallowed up surrounding towns. Those towns became new local centres, nodes within a wider London network if you will, and had a vibrant life of their own, providing basic services and goods of all sorts for the locals, and mixed zone too. These are good suburbs.

As for the car, and car-centered urban development:
As long as 12,000 years ago, in the fertile cresent, humans started living together in organised settlments, seeking strenght in numbers. The early settlments were just farming villages, some achieved impressive (for the time) sizes as Chatal Hayuk (in Eastern Turkey), with a popuation of around 10,000, 8000 years ago.
But round about 5000 years ago in Mesopotania, a change happened in those settlements, they became more diverse (socialy and economicly, funcionaly even), no longer did everyone farm some of the surrounding land for themselves, now, only a few farmed, and a few dozen bakers could feed thousands, this freed up alot of labour and allowed for the development of new additional specialities and the division of labour, the city was born, and with it, Civilisation (Civus = city/urban).
Cities attracted wealth and talent from all over, which was concentrated in these cities, making them diverse and vibrant places, which encouraged further development and advancement.
To me, the car centered model is an attempt to reverse this, whilst wanting to keep the benifits. But what happens is all that talent and resources and diversity and vibrancy heads out in different directions, so no longer is it all concentrated in an accessable core, it is spread out all over the place, only really accessable for the most mobile of people, so the benifits are only kept for the few.

Granted, it hasn't happened to the extreme, but througout the 20th century, many cities, entire socities even, moved in this direction. Whole new cities grew up around this model, and for some it was a success, for others not, some older cities had this model forced on them, with mixed success, many are now trying to reverse the trend, perhaps because it genuinly is better, or perhaps merely a vain attempt to regain something they thing feel they lost.

Don't get me wrong, i like cars, but lets face it, cars are at their best when they are moving loads of around 1 ton at 70 miles an hours, and usualy in cities, you can't do this, and because of their sheer hunger for space and potential hostility to other travelers, then end up dominating planning thought.

That said, i grew up in the Netherlands and would much prefer to cycle everywhere.
Anyways, i went on for quite a bit there. Sorry if i repeated anything, i guess i was just collecting my thoughts, i have a keen intrest in Urban Geography and History in case it wasn't obvious

Anyways, signing out, from the edge of London's sprawl, from 1 million, to 9 million, down to 6 million with suburban flight, and back up to 7,5 million again with a new approach to town planning. Lets see where 'New-urbanism' (somewhat embraced by the present London mayor) takes this 2000 year old city.

[bmoutside 0]

I just recently reterned from a week long trip to Europe and i was amazed at how compact and centrally located everything is. Specifically i went to Prague and i noticed that it doesn't seem to sprawl out in every direction like many cities im familar with(except SF & NY). the city only seemed to expand a few miles and then there was the countryside and the airport. Also, having the convenient metro system meant that i didn't have to set foot in a car the whole week except to go to and from the airport. All i did was walk for miles along the river and take the metro to various beautiful tourist destinations. Just thought id put in my 2 cents.

[NewUrbanism 0]

I noticed a couple of things about your post, Kmannkoopa.  You keep talking about how New Urbanism will fail, and then bring up things like going back to pre-world war2 planning and creating communities and neighborhoods............this is precisely what New Urbanism espouses.  The reason some new urban development doesnt work is because it is built as an independant development.  You mentioned that it only worked for people who lived there and that anyone else would have to drive there.  Thats what it is supposed to do.  You cannot build New Urbanist developments independantly of the city or even the suburb surrounding it it just wont work.  The neighborhoods created with this method are not meant for people who do not live in them, hence their walkability. 

On another note...New Urbanism has seen some tremendous successes in recent years.  Some as whole towns, some as urban in-fill. 

 

The funny thing is that you put New Urbanism down and then held up its own philosophies as a better option.

[unseelie 0]

The reason people living in recently built suburban areas today generally drive is because they are simply not given a choice

This isn't true in my case, although I don't live in a new-style suburban area. I drive because a) it's more convenient than walking, b) it's faster than walking, and c) I can carry more stuff, and thus get more done in one trip, than I can when walking. My hobbies don't include spending hours just walking around all day to do my chores. I want the chores done with as fast as possible so that I can do something I enjoy. Some people also like to drive. It's fun for them. They can boom their car stereos. There are a lot of reasons why people would drive cars rather than walk, given a choice. In fact, I think the only way you would get the majority of people to give up driving regularly is to force them to not drive, and that really goes against everything American.

 

Not everyone in any city of significant size can live beside their work places, and not all of them would want to. Mom and pop corner stores also fail to provide people with lots of things they want, such as lower prices, great selection, or the ability to get a wide variety of things in one place. While New Urbanism sounds great, and may have many great aspects, I highly doubt it is the panacea some people tout it to be.

[bigbriman47 0]

unseelie, in your case driving might be the most convenient form of transportation, as it is for me. I don't live in a new-style suburban area either; my small town is being amalgamated into a metropolitan area. But your views are, honestly, rather typical for someone who lives in a car-centered culture. (And this is not a personal attack, just an observation guided by knowledge and experience). It's more convenient than walking, It's faster than walking, and I can carry more stuff, and thus get more done in one trip are common views from those who feel their car is the end-all, be-all of their transportation needs.

 

Most people drive because that is the only choice they are allowed. Where I live there are some 'big-box' developments that have went up in the last few years that, despite people living immediately adjacent to them, are impossible for people to walk to. They are surrounded by huge parking lots that make walking to their stores extremely dangerous, not to mention terribly inconvenient.

 

However, in places where there are more transportation choices (primarily rail-based systems) there is a concerted effort to make sure that all forms of transportation are accounted for, whether that be by car, bus or people walking from the train station. This is what New Urbanism is trying to accomplish, not forcing people out of their cars and on foot. That is un-American, as you say, but so is not giving them other choices besides driving. People are like water: they will take the path of least resistance, and sometimes, taking a train and walking is that path. And that's the key: give people multiple choices of equal stature and they will choose what is best for themselves.

 

In my latest region in SC4 (actually one of my first; I'm a newbie at regional stuff) I was thrilled when I got 400 people (out of a population of 3500) to go to the train station to take jobs in another city. I didn't use strict New Urbanist techniques, but nearly half of those 400 walked to the train station located two blocks from their dwelling (there's still the scale problem in SC4 but the idea is clear) and the train station is located on the other side of a bustling commercial district.

 

So now I have 200 people walking to a train station, 200 more driving there (because it is an appreciable distance away) and taking a train, probably about 600 more walking to their job in town and the rest (about 2500) driving to work. And this is a farm community; most of the people work in the fields. I have taken nearly 30% of the cars off the road by simply giving them a choice of how they want to get there. As the city and the region grows that number my not increase (it may even decrease) but its effects are clear: more pedestrian traffic (helps commercial), more mass transit usage (justifies the expense), more compact cities (makes city services such as health and education more efficient) and less pollution (makes cities cleaner and more beautiful).

 

I wish that, in my real-world setting, I could have the choice of taking either my car to work or a train to work. I currently drive 30 minutes to my downtown office, and taking a train would make that a 45-minute train ride, plus a 10-minute walk to the local station. I would choose taking the train over driving any time, even though it would take longer. But I don't have a choice...

[ReapOR 0]

hi there!

i think new urbanization is the future of urban management, at least in europe. cities have always been places where cultural and social interchange took place, where poor and rich, young and old , intellectuals and common workers lived door by door (or, at least close together). imagine how many social changes happened to start in cities, just because people could meet (and now dont't say you have a car, this is clearly not the same ).
citizens also were more free and independent from authorities, which is another indication for the historical importance of densly populated cities.
in contrast to urban sprawl which is neither healthy for people nor for a complete region, as zilfondel stated.
but to be honest, i think it is utopic to REALLY plan things like that. in free states people live where they want to, you just can set basic conditions and the rest has to be some kind of movement or so. i, for my part, love to live in a city.

[Norwegian Neko 12]

Here's an interesting test to create walkable communities in simcity:

first, you will need the NAM add-on mods that increase the speed of traffic.

Create a medium-density, mixed-zoned city - mix residential zones in with commercial ones, and let it all develop - get those 'small condos' and other stage 6 apartments to develop along with a bunch of offices and shops.

If you place lots of bus stops (maybe every 2-3 blocks or so) across the city, and DO NOT use roads, but streets, you will find something interesting happen...since the streets will quickly become saturated with car traffic, many sims will switch to taking the bus or walking, because its faster:

while cars are affected by traffic volumes, pedestrians aren't - and busses don't contribute to it. So you can have a million pedestrians or busses going down a street, but as long as there isn't much car traffic, then it will be quite efficient.

Hmm, anyone up for making a car-blocker lot?

[Norwegian Neko 12]

Date: 3/25/2005 1:17:28 PM
Author: ReapOR
hi there!


i think 'new urbanization' is the future of urban management, at least in europe. cities have always been places where cultural and social interchange took place, where poor and rich, young and old , intellectuals and common workers lived door by door (or, at least close together). imagine how many social changes happened to start in cities, just because people could meet (and now dont't say you have a car, this is clearly not the same ).

citizens also were more free and independent from authorities, which is another indication for the historical importance of densly populated cities.

in contrast to urban sprawl which is neither healthy for people nor for a complete region, as zilfondel stated.

but to be honest, i think it is utopic to REALLY plan things like that. in free states people live where they want to, you just can set basic conditions and the rest has to be some kind of movement or so. i, for my part, love to live in a city.

quote>


You know, there really isn't any freedom to live where you want. You see, the federal, state, local, and city governments long ago created a system of regulations that tell where you can and can't build. If you build here, in the countryside, you must spend X dollars to install water, sewage, and electricity.

What is very interesting, is that with the massive freeway system we have in the United States, it actually encourages people to abandon the city and move far, far away. Then the government traffic engineers try to keep the freeway as efficient as possible, so they keep widening it, encouraging more people to move away.

Also, many areas in the US - MOST of them - encourage new housing developments outside of cities by paying for all the new roads, electricity, water hookups, schools, etc.
What is ridiculous, is that most cities stopped improving these things in the cities, so it costs MORE money for a developer to build a house or building inside a city than 100 miles away.
The kicker is that our tax money pays for these improvements - and it usually costs a LOT more for the government to build this new infrastructure far away in the 'burbs, than it would be to use the existing infrastructure in the city.


Bottom line, development and urban planning isn't just oh screw it, do whatever you want. Maybe Houston, Texas does that...but wait till their pollution gets so bad that you only live 5 years before getting a lung disease, like Atlanta and Los Angeles.

[+Guest]

I seem to try a New Urbanism core downtown, but the sprawly suburbs actually give character. Lets reminisce about SC2000. The best cities had suburbs around an urban core, and the player liked the cities. I try to build what I want, but then I let the game take its course. This methodology seems to make cities where even the remotest farms can easily capture you and cause you to like that area the best. Back to the New Urbanism, the K Street Mall (Sacramento, CA) is a perfect example. The entire street is a huge sidewalk that, as stated before, lacks true permanance, New Urbanism is only possible with a large supporting structure, this method has produced many downtown-less rings of suburbs around the area where a, every time, abeautiful downtown will be able to shoot up in a matter of game years. SC2000 is the ideal mix, I would recommend mastering building cities with character before attempting the feat with a region.

[ReapOR 0]

Date: 3/25/2005 1:34:38 PM
Author: zilfondel

Also, many areas in the US - MOST of them - encourage new housing developments outside of cities by paying for all the new roads, electricity, water hookups, schools, etc.

What is ridiculous, is that most cities stopped improving these things in the cities, so it costs MORE money for a developer to build a house or building inside a city than 100 miles away.

quote>

well, this is what i meant by basic conditions.

if it was, in peoples eyes, more desirable to live in a city they would do so. even though, there is living space and infrastructure in cities, like schools, hospitals and public transportation etc. people move away because the government encourages them to build homes by granting tax advantages. but i think it is utopic that it would be enough to change those circumstances and expect people to rush into cities.

nevertheless, i think there is a kind of freedom in living where you want, because you are free to choose from a variety of alternatives. you can live in a smalltown, a village, a city, in outskirts, satellite cities etc.

and of course you can't just build in the middle of nowhere. where i live, even the size and style of buildings is regulated so it fits the townscape.

[Ddeathtoall 0]

I live in Sydney and i can alredy start to see urban sprawl

 

The northern areas(where i live about 35ks from CBD)and southern areas have become to expensive and all the new families have to move west and they want more two storey homes in the metro area and heaps of farms are being swallowed up.In the north urban sprawl as taken it's toll. Eveyone in Sydney wants to be here. We have only three ways out of our area.These are constantly clogged so people are wanting a light rail up are peninsula.

 

1 Monavale Road, two lane road it goes up a hill and is the worst road in our area with 14 deaths in 15 years. It is constantly crowded from people who are working in Chatswood instead of the CBD

 

2 Wakehurst Parkway. This road runs along a lake and constantly floods, even thought we live in Sydney. We usually get the most rain in all off Sydney.It is only two lanes and it a major raod.

 

 

3 Pittwater road. It's the biggest road. It's 6 lanes. But this road goes over Spit Bridge and the bridge is a drawbridge. To try to ease traffic they have 4 lanes to city in morning and 2 to going north. they plan to extend it but not in the next few years when the problems really start because we just had a huge development in my area(2000 thomes and 1000 townhouses). the problems this will cause are unmaginable

 

 

[inquisitor 0]

Date: 3/20/2005 2:18:38 AM Author: UnrealScorpion The big city I live nearest to is saint louis, and it has an interesting situation. The big city itself is transitioning from a sprawl-like setup to more of a urbanism setup. There's exceptions, as high traffic areas like the Edward Jones Dome, Busch Stadium, and Anaheiser-Busch Breweries aren't gonna leave their road-friendly setup, but the rest of the main city is ready to transition. I've noticed a lot more busses going in and they have been having talks of some sort of rail system. In case you didn't know, St Louis lost population every year from 1990 to 2003, in the 90s it had the sharpest decline in population of any city in the US, it lost over 40% of it's population! Only recently has this population loss plateaued, with a slight incline. Everybody moved to one of the many smaller cities surrounding Saint Louis. Just to contrast this figure, not only does Missouri have the city with the sharpest population decline of the 90s, but it also has the city with the sharpest increase. Earth City, about 20 miles or so from Downtown Saint Louis, is America's fastest growing city. I remember when I was a little kid when it was just a relaxed suburb, and now it feels like it is a part of the city. Even though the population hasn't changed in the area much overall, it seems like the actaul size of the city really has grown, as a lot of small suburbs just took off. I guess you could say that St Louis is a big victim of America's rush to the 'burbs. St Louis's thick, gritty downtown of the old, with it's dangerous 'project' folk is no more in some spots of the city, because there's nobody there

quote>

 

So I'm not the only one from St. Louis around here.  This is my first post, and you've hit on all the major points.  But Mayor Slay is taking the new urbanism approach (an ideal I strongly support) and perverting in such a way that the poorer classes (and college students, of which I am) can't afford to go or live anywhere. Not to mention St. Louis has its on set of problems, such as an excess of local goverments, too many school districts, etc.  My county neighbors have more municpalities in them (for 1 million residents) than Chicago has for over 5 million (metro population)...Isn't their something wrong with that picture?

[ExiL3 10]

Well haven't read all the posts so I may repeat someone...

I come from Europe, to be excact Norway (northern Europe). My impression of the american transportation system is that it has evolved around cars. Here in Europe (wich has been populated/sivilized longer than US) most has either evolved around trains or well smaller roads. Examples:

-In most big European cities you'll find tram lines that can take you almost to every destination in the city (except for the Airport wich is a newer invention and therefore is to be reached by either highway or train). You'll also find a good underground system in many cities, so walking to work is no big thing here... Here in Norway though, we mostly take the bus between work and home, or between home and a trainstation/tramstation/subwaystation.

-In the US, you'll also find cities with tram lines or subways but, they are not half as much used. Here, the road rules, much because the american cities are newer and more planned, they are also mostly built on very flat ground, so it isn't hard to plan or build. You see here the very broad roads cut through the urban, and res sprawl like the tram system would in europe, or as an example Oslo. Don't misunderstand me now, we absoluteley have freeways too, but they mostly cut the cities in two or circle the city, instead of making a chessmap out of the city...

I am sure many of you disagree with me, so please comment.

And yeah, I think someone mentioned that Prague just ended abruptley, and then there was farms. This is normal in Europe, though, mostly lots of smaller cities encircle bigger cities, without being engulfed in them ,so after leaving a city like prague you'll see some farms, some city, some woods, some towns or another city and so on... (not a big deal, just wanted to support his statement).

[DARKO 3]

Well the sleeping giant has awoken....................

 

 

This is my bag, since my degree is in urban planning/urban studies/geography.

 

 

 

I'm a bit too tired right now to ramble on about this subject, and it might be a good thing for most of

 

you. Since being a person who has written a thesis and has invested a good portion of my life working

 

and researching this topic, i'm very very talkative when it comes to this subject.

 

 

I'll start off with a blanket statement.........(merely to stir the pot)

 

Most likely if you consider yourself more of a liberal person, you prefer the urban/mixed-use/smart growth lifestyle.

 

If your a conservative folk, then sprawl is your idea of how life should be, just like laundrey, you make sure you seperate your whites form your colored.

 

This may sound blunt, even curt, but watch and observe and it becomes much easier to understand.

 

Now, by no means is this a rule, but you will be hard pressed to find many exceptions to this rule.

 

 There are some exceptions, while most conservative people like sprawl, they do embrace the main street life, but in a ozzie and harriet sort of way, thus these people usually live in small conservative towns or horrible forms of new urbanism such as Celebration, Florida.

 

New Urbanism is actually not a great term, its a urban design function, not really a planning function.

 

Most people involved in the field really can't stand New Urbanism, as its to gimmicky and is the latest fad, you'll find most urban desingers&planners such as my self can't stand that term.

 

Smart Growth, is the better term, for non-sprawl forms of living.  Some even say Tradtional neighborhood approach. 

 

The thing is though people who become the product of urban sprawl don't even know that they are, or even worse can care less.  The truth is, suburban living as it is now is not an efficent method of living.  It has a domino effect on SO MANY THINGS that your average person is completley clueless about.  Environment, quality of life...........to name a few.

 

The sad truth is that people who love to live in thier cookie cutter mcmansion style neighborhoods love the idea of a secular life.  This means not willing to live or work with anything that doesn't, look like them, move like them, or smell like them.(harsh but sadly true)

 ,

This folks is the main problem with middle america, and america in general, it goes so much deeeper than this, but are actions reveal our real intentions.

 

 

I'd better stop now before i start typing my thesis.

 

 

On a side note, this game makes it almost impossible to make a pedistran friendly city, this game revolves around the automobile and not mass transit, something i hope they change in future reincarnations of these game.  Europeans know what i'm talking about.  A true New Urbanism cannot be made with the existing conditions of this game, not very easily at least.

[ephorex_77 0]

I think that new-urbanism (with its planned communities and pedestrian-centric developments) is better in terms of zoning and planning. However, I really like downtowns and the downtown look in cities as it feels natural for there to be a central core to cities where most of the people travel to work every day.

IMO, public transport is, as in SC4, greatly beneficial for everyone but as SC4 has proven (much to my frustration), you cannot get everyone to use public transport and especially the rich. Cars are after all, one of the main status symbols in this day and age and are considered a 'better' alternative to walking and using public transport.

 

In the end, I think that a hybrid would be nice, conbining the best elements in each.

[Norwegian Neko 12]

One thing to note about New Urbanism, is that it is not a new idea.

It's sort of copying the old ideas of urban development - which is basically, when more people want to move into a city, but there's not enough room, build a new city. Complete with jobs, schools, police, fire, stores, and housing.

Most development in the US is either jobs or housing, and are separated by large roads, and designed so it's difficult at best to walk to them. Usually there aren't enough jobs in a development to put in any transit service.


As far as transportation is concenred, new urbanism is about providing access for cars, pedestrians, mass transit, and bicycling. It turns out that only some people can drive, and the fewer who do drive, the less traffic for those who do.

If there is too much traffic, nobody wants to be near it. When's the last time you rode your bicycle, or walked, next to a freeway? Wasn't a very fun experience, was it?

It also turns out that trains are about 5 times more energy efficient for transportation than cars, are vastly safer, and in many cases, faster. High speed trains can now travel about 350 miles per hous (500+ kph). You can't drive that fast. You wouldn't want people driving that fast, either. Ever.

[Norwegian Neko 12]

Date: 12/17/2004 11:17:29 AM
Author: DuskTrooper
The thing is, many people like to drive no matter what. You cannot force walking on them. Some people like living in the suburbs, while some like living in a walkable urban enviornment. IMO, a well done hybrid is best, where there is a sizable urban core, with walkability, and suburbs with mass transit and other methods of transit, where there are places where you can walk or drive to take care of business (shopping, appointments, etc) , such as a walkable shopping arcade accessible via walking paths, etc. Suburbs should also diversify their choice of housing, and maybe even go slightly taller to save land (3-4 story single family homes on narrower lots, with decent, but not oversized backyards, and many parks in the vicinity, along with townhomes, midrise conds,and apartments, etc.).

quote>

I think Dusktrooper hit the nail on the head with this one. Although you could, however, force or encourage people not to drive. Cities like Hong Kong to Venice, Italy (where you can't drive because there are no roads) - hardly nobody drives (% wise of the population).

Other cities enforce laws or build their roads to make it difficult to drive. 10 mph speed limits, convestion zoning in London, and simply not building freeways are excellent ways to get people not to drive.

Face it. Humans are really lazy. Driving is one of the laziest activities, because you can sit back, listen to music, and not have to walk. Once you make driving more of a hassle, people start doing it. It takes time to change some people's minds, however.

[Norwegian Neko 12]

Date: 12/17/2004 5:03:13 PM
Author: starrdarcy
I actually will have to side with the sprawl. I like to see growth and development. It makes people want to live in city that is booming. I will be eventualy moving to Calgary, a sprawling city - great!!

quote>

And cities like San Francisco, New York, Seattle, Portland, Austin, Chicago, and Boston* aren't growing and developing? They aren't active, interesting places to live?

These cities I mentioned above - in addition to Los Angeles, produce almost all the new businesses and inventions in the United States - over 80%. They are THE place to live & work if you want to be cutting edge.

Suburbs, by comparison, are dead.

* Discounting the suburbs that develop at the fringes of any US city.

[hairmetal4ever 0]

The problem with all this is for people like me who have to have a car for their job. I meet with clients all day long at their convenience and I just can't depend on mass transit on my hectic schedule to get me where I need to be when I need to get there.

[hairmetal4ever 0]

Here's a part nobody has mentioned. Lots of people, Americans especially, don't like being able to stick their arm out the window and touch the neighbors! We like space.

Me, I like to garden. I have an orchard and a garden and you can't do that in a tiny apartment or on a typical small city lot.

Then again I know other people who like city life. A good balance isn't out of the question.

[hairmetal4ever 0]

People don't want to walk to a train station, in January (N. Hemisphere of course in this example), when it's windy as hell, below zero degrees, and snowing!! That's why we like cars!!

America tends towards more extreme weather as well and this honestly might be a factor.

[ephorex_77 0]

Date: 5/5/2005 5:10:14 PM Author: hairmetal4ever Here's a part nobody has mentioned.  Lots of people, Americans especially, don't like being able to stick their arm out the window and touch the neighbors!  We like space. Me, I like to garden.  I have an orchard and a garden and you can't do that in a tiny apartment or on a typical small city lot. Then again I know other people who like city life.  A good balance isn't out of the question.

quote>

LOL, the bane of a materialistic society

 

jkjk, that view is probably held by most Americans as well.

 

Date: 5/5/2005 5:16:53 PM Author: hairmetal4ever People don't want to walk to a train station, in January (N. Hemisphere of course in this example), when it's windy as hell, below zero degrees, and snowing!!  That's why we like cars!! America tends towards more extreme weather as well and this honestly might be a factor.

quote>

 

Hmm..'extreme weather'?? I know I'm not really in a position to say this seeing as I live in Australia, but America didn't strike me as a place of extremes; at least in the cities .

[hairmetal4ever 0]

Here's what I mean by extreme weather-compare Sydney, Paris, London, Chicago, and Denver:

Winter (Jan for all but Sydney where I use July):

Sydney - Average High
Average Low

[hairmetal4ever 0]

Let's try that again...for some reason I was typing and it just posted!!!

Here's what I mean by extreme weather-compare Sydney, Paris, Chicago, and Denver:

Sydney:

Winter (July):
Average High 17 C (62 F)
Average Low 8 C (47 F)
Record High 30 C (86 F)
Record Low 0 C (32 F)

Summer (Jan):
Average High 26 C (78 F)
Average Low 19 C (66 F)
Record High 42 C (107 F)
Record Low 12 C (53 F)

Can get hot in summer, almost never freezing in winter. Summer only 10 degrees C warmer than winter.

Denver

Winter (Jan):
Average High 6 C (43 F)
Average Low -9 C (16 F)
Record High 22 C (73 F)
Record Low -32 C (-25 F)

Summer (July):
Average High 33 C (88 F)
Average Low 15 C (59 F)
Record High 39 C (103 F)
Record Low 6 C (43 F)

Huge swings-even over a couple days. In March a few years ago, a high temperature Wednesday of 28C (82 F) was followed the next morning with heavy snow and temperatures of -18C (0 F).

Paris

Winter (Jan):
Average High 6 C (43 F)
Average Low 1 C (34 F)
Record High 15 C (59 F)
Record Low -17 C (1 F)

Summer (July):
Average High 24 C (75 F)
Average Low 14 C (58 F)
Record High 35 C (95 F)
Record Low 5 C (41 F)

Chicago

Winter (Jan):
Average High -1 C (29 F)
Average Low -11 C (13 F)
Record High 18 C (65 F)
Record Low -33 C (-27 F)

Summer (July):
Average High 29 C (84 F)
Average Low 17 C (63 F)
Record High 38 C (102 F)
Record Low 5 C (40 F)

[Digital Slash 0]

hairmetal4ever , you have a point about people not wanting to walk to public transportation, but the situation you described is pretty much a suburban problem.

 

I live just outside of Chicago, in the same county but not w/in the city limits. So the suburb I live in isn't nearly as suburban as others are farther out west.

 

 

 

People don't want to walk to a train station, in January (N. Hemisphere of course in this example), when it's windy as hell, below zero degrees, and snowing!!  That's why we like cars!!

 

 

If I need to go downtown I can walk to the train station which is five blocks away. That's very bareable during a typical Chicago winter. Or I could go to the bus stop a block away and take the bus down to the L station, then I'll take the L to Chicago. Not to mention that mass transportation is cheaper.

 

Both mass-transportation situations I described would take under a half-hour during rush hour and for a ride there and back, the cost of taking the train would be just under $6 and the cost for the bus and L train would be $3.75

 

Driving that same distance could take me an hour or more during rush hour or just usual heavy traffic and while the cost of parking in the loop varies, it's for sure that you'll need a nice stack of $10's or $20's. And that's not even factoring high gas prices.

 

 

 

The problem with all this is for people like me who have to have a car for their job.  I meet with clients all day long at their convenience and I just can't depend on mass transit on my hectic schedule to get me where I need to be when I need to get there.

 

That's the benefit of living/working in an urban enviornment, mass transporation would meet ur hectic schedule. In Chicago, busses and trains run frequently (every 5-10 min. during weekday rush). If that's not good enough, taxis are readily available. You might say that it's too expensive, but parking in Chicago is pretty expensive (if you can find it) and the cost of keeping your car in a parking garage can cost an upwards of $10,000 yearly.

 

 

 

Here's a part nobody has mentioned.  Lots of people, Americans especially, don't like being able to stick their arm out the window and touch the neighbors!  We like space.

 

That's not an accurate portrayal of city-living at all. My family lived in the city before we moved out to the burbs and if I stuck my hand out of the window, the only thing I'd touch is air. You have your space. Buildings (in Chicago at least) aren't usually built wall-to-wall. Only exception to that are townhouses.

 

 

 

I would love it if all suburbs were centered around the person rather than the car. My suburb isn't perfect, but if you go farther out west, L train access is non-existent and bus stops are few and far between.

 

I live in a suburb and yet have access to two L train lines (the blue and green lines), live close to a metra train station, have easy bus access, and can walk to my barber/video-rental store/bank/grocery store/McDonalds or Subway/clothing store/restaurant. That's what smart growth is about. The car is a luxury, not a necessity.

[FavreKev04 13]

Urban sprwal, ha ha ha ha. I can't do that any more. I design the city befor people move in.

[DARKO 3]

I can see people wanting open space, but you have to agree people have taken this idea and destroyed it. 

The problem i have with that is its not only physical space they want to be seperated from, its just as much if not class, and race space they truly want.  Thats when I have a problem with that answer.  Not to say thats your driving force, but it is more than 97 percent of people living in the suburbs driving force, which is truly sad, they want a segerated community, the undertones speaks volumes.

 

You know how many times i have heard people(surburbanites) say

 

  mass transit...ewww, i don't wanna stand next too a poor person or god forbid someone of another skin color  This irks the hell out of me, how can so many americans be so narrowminded, and uneducated???? I'm white and come from a upper middle class household and i see so many deep connotations with statements like that.  Some people liv elike its still the 1950's and ozzie and harriet world, hence why mcmansion suburbs still exist, and as soon as something or someone they deem as undesirable moves into thier lil sub, they move out to yet another sub, and the neverending cycle keeps on churning.

 

Living in the city doesn't mean, you have to live downtown, you can find large lots in areas especially on the city limits.  Its really just relating to a place where work, pedistrians, cars, and home can coexist.   Something you canot find in suburbia, whcih is very sad.  Think how people lived up until 30 years ago, unless you grew up on a farm you lived in something resembling a city, so people lived that way for thousands of years why all of sudden can't we??  Its because were as someone else put it lazy as a whole.

 

Saying this i believe people should reside wherver their heart leads them, but its the waste of land that is used in building the new suburbia that is the problem, if that could be damaged controlled then I don't think peple like me would have half as much problems with it.