# Suburban Despair: Is urban sprawl really an American menace?



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

I can asure you that there is US sprawl in Europe to.
You can always take Belgium as example:http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1234257&highlight=
This is my own thread and it shows how 40% of Belgian, mid-income people live.

Or visit this thread to:http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1194827&highlight= 

The last thread is about most suburban cities in Europe.


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

it is happening in Marrakech Morocco US suburban sprawl vegas style / Palm Springs you would think you are in Vegas or Palms Springs in some of the suburbs of Marrakech , some people like it others hate it depends on your taste , other Moroccan cites not so much yet , Casablanca the biggest city is now starting to see some American style suburban sprawl


----------



## Crash_N (May 19, 2011)

joshsam said:


> I can asure you that there is US sprawl in Europe to.
> You can always take Belgium as example:http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1234257&highlight=
> This is my own thread and it shows how 40% of Belgian, mid-income people live.
> 
> ...


I know there are many ( relatively ) sprawled cities in Europe too, but none of them is as big and as sprawled as LA.


----------



## Lordpenguinton (Aug 19, 2009)

So Suburbanist, how thick and high are the walls surrounding your meticulously groomed subdivision? Does it have a cool quaint name? Does it bother you that there are people living in exurbs? Perhaps even in the country that have an even more idyllic life. How is someone so pro suburb on a website that not only promotes skyscrapers (the higher the better) and an urban lifestyle. You love skyscrapers but shudder to think about living within 100 feet of another human? Very interesting. I would say a major difference between U.S. and European suburbs is mass transit. I would guess that even in the richest European suburbs there is the possibilty of atleast commuter rail. That doesn't happen very often in the U.S. Really only in the Northeast corridor, Chicago, D.C., and some spots in the Bay area and L.A. I'm sure some line somewhere in another part of the U.S. reaches some rich people, but seriously these are the commuter rail centers of the country. Anyway buy a condo (I hear most are cheap) in a place like NYC or San Francisco, could change your perception of a place with more than 4 people per lot.


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

Northsider said:


> * Sprawl strains infrastructure (water, road, electric), it's not efficient. Who pays? Everyone.


Not at all exclusive to suburbia.



Northsider said:


> * Sprawl eats natural resources. Less land for farming, prices go up. Less land for nature and animals, decrease in wildlife. Less land for water runoff, more flooding.


Cities in Europe are great example, a concrete jungle.



Northsider said:


> * Sprawl creates homogeneous communities (but you like that). In other words, most sprawling communities become "exclusive", separating the haves and the havenots (mostly). I consider this a horrible thing.


Wrong, in suburbia we have apts, condos, townhomes, detached homes, estates, both gated and non-gated all in the same community. You should check my thread "Off the Vegas Strip"



Northsider said:


> * Sprawl makes people drive more and drive farther. This is harmless? Gas prices rise, VMT goes up, congestion increases, pollution increases, air quality decreases, roads need more maintenance (who pays? Everyone).


Not any different in Europe even with their so called extensive public transportation. People still drive cars in Europe and elsewhere, just be glad we love to drive in the US, it is supporting many automotive industries all over the world. We have smog check in the US, last time I visited major cities in Germany all I can smell on the road was 
exhaust fumes from cars and yes they have extensive public transportation but air pollution was so bad.



Northsider said:


> * Sprawl destroys concentration of services. More police needed, more fire...taxes go up, salaries go down.


More people means more services needed and it does not discriminate whether its more people in suburbia or in the city.



Northsider said:


> * Sprawl destroys any sense of culture or identity. There is no concept of _place _with sprawl.
> 
> Jeeze, do you really need more reasons?


We have festivals and cultural celebrations going on in suburbia whether its being celebrated in a park, inside the library or community theater.

As I have said, I love suburbia and the hypocrites that deplore it.:lol:


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

weava said:


> Disagree. A core can be a large area like KC(318 sq miles) compared to St. Louis which is only 66 sq miles so of course KC proper has a much higher % of the metro living inside its city limits.
> 
> The idea of less economic activity in suburban areas is also not entirely true. KC's suburbs have millions upon millions of sq feet of office space, just look at the Sprint campus, its HUGE. The majority of the shopping centers are in the suburbs also. Having lived downtown, I have to drive to the suburban shopping districts to buy stuff, if anything, the urban core is more dependent on the suburbs than the other way around the way I see it for a city such as KC.


But that's my point exactly, though maybe I misstated it. Disregarding my whole population percentage idea, which was just a quick little idea I thought of whether true or not, the fact is that Kansas City isn't economically active enough to sustain its suburbs. My argument is that that is far more exemplary a case for the U.S. than in Europe; suburbs are economically expected to play the role of urban centers, which they can't by the simple fact that they aren't.


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

jbkayaker12 said:


> Not at all exclusive to suburbia.


There's less infrastructure per unit of land in suburbs; land is being less-efficiently used by suburbs. So long as land has value, that's the primary issue.



> Cities in Europe are great example, a concrete jungle.


If you've been outside the CBD's of just about any European city, you know this isn't true. *Bare* minimum, they're no worse than American cities.



> Wrong, in suburbia we have apts, condos, townhomes, detached homes, estates, both gated and non-gated all in the same community. You should check my thread "Off the Vegas Strip"


I think by homogeneous he/she meant single-purpose, which you've just validated. That's long been a sin in urban planning. Make any zone single-use and you've got areas that are totally dead at various parts of the day. Obviously not all suburbs are just housing or bedroom communities, but enough of them are that it's a defining characteristic of American suburbs.



> Not any different in Europe even with their so called extensive public transportation. People still drive cars in Europe and elsewhere, just be glad we love to drive in the US, it is supporting many automotive industries all over the world. We have smog check in the US, last time I visited major cities in Germany all I can smell on the road was exhaust fumes from cars and yes they have extensive public transportation but air pollution was so bad.


The key word in the section this is in response to is "farther". The geography of Europe works against frequent long-distance travel by car, whether people still do it or not, and the way countries are laid out reflects this. And fyi, China's automotive industry has been bigger than the U.S.' for a few years. Europe's is similarly competitive against the U.S.' in terms of importance. It's not a single-pillar world anymore. Ask Ford, GM, or VW.



> More people means more services needed and it does not discriminate whether its more people in suburbia or in the city.


Efficiency of delivery/ ease of access. End of story



> We have festivals and cultural celebrations going on in suburbia whether its being celebrated in a park, inside the library or community theater.
> 
> As I have said, I love suburbia and the hypocrites that deplore it.:lol:


You're just being obtuse now. Anyone who says there's more going on in any suburb than in a major city is just willfully ignoring reality. I would agree that to say suburbs "destory" culture and give no sense of place is wrong.

As for the "hypocrites", uhm, what exactly are we being hypocritical about? Or do you not understand the meaning of the term?


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

aaabbbccc said:


> it is happening in Marrakech Morocco US suburban sprawl vegas style / Palm Springs you would think you are in Vegas or Palms Springs in some of the suburbs of Marrakech , some people like it others hate it depends on your taste , other Moroccan cites not so much yet , Casablanca the biggest city is now starting to see some American style suburban sprawl


What I find more interesting in Casablanca is how more and more people live in slums nowadays than lets say 20 years ago. I have no doubt there are US styled suburbs there to, but I wonder why there are so much more slums in Casablanca compaired to 20 years ago.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

If you all paid attention on the text, the author talks about the smoothing of the density gradient more than the overall density of a large urbanized area. This is important, because average density numbers might conceal and not inform about the overall population distribution of a large area like LA Metro, NYC Metro, Greater London etc.



Positronn said:


> If it's not linear, then there is a point of maximum - better say, the minimum cost per capita. It isn't probably a superdense city core like Manhattan, but it isn't probably either a super-low-density suburb. It is in somewhere in between. We can discuss days on but if we don't have REAL numbers, these sentences are just assumptions.


Sure, there is an optimum point where the cost of deliver of each infrastructure system per person served is minimum. And it would be an informed guess to assume that different infrastructure systems (transportation, electricity, drinking water, sewage/sanitation, trash collection, policing, firefighting, ambulance and rescue services, parcel/goods delivery, surveillance, telecommunications) have different curves of efficiency whose optimum points are probably not the same.

So depending on demographics of households of a given area, we can combine those curves to find a local optimum for a function that minimizes the per capita cost of delivering infrastructure. That would require a lot of data and extensive research, but I'm sure that optimum is neither on ranch house subdivisions nor in Manhattan. 



Lordpenguinton said:


> So Suburbanist, how thick and high are the walls surrounding your meticulously groomed subdivision? Does it have a cool quaint name?


Lol, strangely enough, at the moment I live 100m from my office because this is where the we all from the department sharing the same status can get indirectly huge discounts/rebates. I will not bother everyone with technicalities of special Dutch tax laws in regard of people working for universities. So I live alone in a 58m² apartment in the 3rd floor out of a building that has 12. Late 2012 I'm planning to move out for another neighborhood 9km from here.

But I'd never raise my children in a place like this. Sure, it's a brand new (opened 2009) building, very energy efficient (low heating bill, triple glazed windows, dynamic airflow controls), but the very idea of m children playing in a common area interacting with people I have no way to pre-screen, not on my private yard, frightens me to death. 



> Does it bother you that there are people living in exurbs? Perhaps even in the country that have an even more idyllic life.


I'm not bothered by where other people live, provided the place is lawful, sanitized, conforms to regulations and that it is not a hotbed for crime/ghetto culture/non-assimilated enclave of low-skilled immigrants/drugs etc.

I'm bothered by people wanting to limit other people's options so that their own options become viable (like imposing urban growth boundary to "force" people to move into "infill" developments).



> How is someone so pro suburb on a website that not only promotes skyscrapers (the higher the better) and an urban lifestyle. You love skyscrapers but shudder to think about living within 100 feet of another human?


I like skyscrapers a lot, they are technological marvels. I prefer, particularly, those or a set of those that are set far apart enough from other buildings so that they stand out individually or as a limited set. I don't care about the concept of skyline though. The ideal skyscraper is surrounded by greenery, paved plaza or parking lots, so that it doesn't have competition for its features. 



> I would guess that even in the richest European suburbs there is the possibilty of atleast commuter rail.


Not really, not all fringe developments have easy (<800m) train access. There will be probably some limited bus service used by teenagers or other people who don't drive until a transfer train station.



> Anyway buy a condo (I hear most are cheap) in a place like NYC or San Francisco, could change your perception of a place with more than 4 people per lot.


Whomever wants to buy a condo, let him/her buy. But I personally don't the the point of paying 3 times the price per built-up square feet (not counting appendages like garage, garden, porch) than in a bigger house. If I'm to spend money, better spending it throughout life in transportation than downsizing my expectations of what "housing" is.

By the way, last time I checked families with minor children living in NYC had houses with the highest ratio of inhabitants/bathroom with shower among top 20 US metropolitan areas. Households above poverty line living in condos and flats with a single bathroom or with children of different genders sharing the same bedroom were 6 times more common in NYC than the (US) country average. These (adults sharing bathroom with kids, boy and girl teenager siblings sharing the same bedroom) are clear signs of lower quality of life. Some people will think it is worth the hassle because children will grow among a "diverse" city with plenty of things to do outside the house, but I don't share that opinion.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

For me, chaotic sprawl is a nightmare. It arrived in Europe right, you can see it between population living in urban areas and metropolitan areas... Paris started only recently to sprawl but its urban area is still at 10 millions, while only 2 millions are living in metro.

There is also a foundamental difference between american urban sprawl and european urban sprawl : I consider european urbanisation to had already and completely sprawled over the continent (except maybe european russia) => european cities are close to each others, it's because the extensive trading networks established in middle-ages, you could only trade by horse or boat, so it was impossible for cities to be very distant ! Taking into account the density of Europe (again outside european russia), you get the picture of this urban completion.

Today to say, if an european city would start to sprawl (chaotically) like an american one, the city would be confronted to the area of economic influence of another one... and they would not merge at all, taking example of what happened in south of poland (silesian metro area) and west germany (rhine-ruhr metro area), each city would fight for its survival, and people could even leave the area because lack of a common positive image, prefering moving to a region dominated by a single city.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> It depends. Ranch houses in 2 acre estates might demand more infrastructure, but so does Manhattan with extensive underground network of wires, subways etc. There is no linear relation between cost of infrastructure and density. Unless ones believes that the same thin water main that serves the ranch house subdivision by gravity also fits a Manhattan-like neighborhood where pressures on mains are a nightmare to control etc.


Length of pipes is no longer relevant? Maintaining 10 miles of pipe is cheaper and easier than maintaining 1 mile for the same population?

Also, where is the water coming from? Take Chicago for example. It's much easier to deliver water within a 5 mile buffer of the Lake. What about when Naperville, 30+ miles away, demands Lake water? This has no effect?

Interesting graph from a study in Venezuela. It costs more to supply sprawl than to deal with inefficiencies related to dense areas. Of course, Manhattan is an extremely unique situation and would fall on the right side of this chart (STILL cheaper than sprawl):













> B.S. In United States, the total area "eaten up" by urban development, including associated infrastructure (like freeways within an urban area) is less than 3% of the whole US land mass. Less than 3% Double that and you make 6%. And not all of that was taken from farmland - I doubt Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson, Salt Lake City were ever farming powerhouses.


What about "sprawl cities" like Atlanta or Chicago? Dallas? Houston? *3% is still a huge number: 113,823 square miles!*. Don't discount it just because the USA itself is huge. Sprawl occurs on the fringe of cities obviously (not wilderness that accounts for a lot of the land area), fringe areas previously devoted to farmland or natural resources.






> That is not inherently wrong or right about that. Absent undue interference on housing markets, extremely dense places like Mid- and Downtown Manhattan become home only to those on top (who can afford expensive housing) or poor (who will move everywhere and cramp down). Middle-class has no chance of having comfortable housing (by comfortable I mean something like 1 bedroom per household member, 2 bathrooms, parking garage for 1 car per household etc).
> 
> I'm against the idea of artificially mixing people of different incomes just for the saking of making a place "diverse". Diversity on itself adds or subtracts nothing


Ehh, I know your asinine opinions on this, I won't comment.




> Do you honestly believe policing Manhattan and having firefighting resources for 5km2 cost the same as policing and having firefighting resources in 5 km² in Provo, UT?


Interesting hyperbole. :nuts: A rather _extreme_ comparison again. 

1. It costs more to patrol 10k2 than 5k2. Time=money.
2. The cost per capita I'd guess (too lazy to look it up) is most likely comparable. 100 officers policing 10,000 residents in 5k2 costs the same as 10 officers policing 100 residents in 5k2.



> Most people don't give a damn about their own neighbors living 2 blocks from them, let alone "concept of place". There is Internet to connect us all. I don't want to belong to a place, I want to belong to myself, my family, my career. And many people think like me.


Many people do think like you. Great. I'm glad you have the internet.

However, a LOT of people DO care about place and history. That's why there's historical preservation, community boards, cultural centers, museums, etc etc etc etc. A "place" is not merely for simply living. _Quality of life suffers with sprawl._..it's a fact. I find it quite disturbing that you and people like you have no use for culture and a sense of place and belonging. Personally, I vomit at the thought of sprawl...the fact that exurbs are completely interchangeable and featureless. Besides, people need (crave) physical interaction, no matter how antisocial you are. The internet will never replace that.


----------------------------

@ jbkayaker12



> > Sprawl strains infrastructure (water, road, electric), it's not efficient. Who pays? Everyone.
> 
> 
> Not at all exclusive to suburbia.


Examples? It's well documented that _sprawling_ suburbia very much strains infrastructure in a very different way than, say, suburbanist's hyperbolic Manhattan example.



> Cities in Europe are great example, a concrete jungle.


Europe is efficient. And let's be honest, sprawl there (if you can even classify it as such) is QUITE different than in the USA. Europe's suburbs are still relatively dense and compact compared to the USA.



> Wrong, in suburbia we have apts, condos, townhomes, detached homes, estates, both gated and non-gated all in the same community. You should check my thread "Off the Vegas Strip"


I don't need to check your thread, I grew up in the suburbs, I know what they're like. Sure, suburbs have this. But we are talking about SPRAWL. And there is nowhere near the concentration of those land uses to make _that]/i]much of a difference...but it's a good start.




Not any different in Europe even with their so called extensive public transportation. People still drive cars in Europe and elsewhere, just be glad we love to drive in the US, it is supporting many automotive industries all over the world.

Click to expand...

I'm thrilled that you realize that people outside of the US drive as well. <eyeroll>




Germany all I can smell on the road was
exhaust fumes from cars and yes they have extensive public transportation but air pollution was so bad.

Click to expand...

...and Germany is quite dense. Imagine the *smell* if Germany had sprawl to America's epic proportions hno:




More people means more services needed and it does not discriminate whether its more people in suburbia or in the city.

Click to expand...

True. But again, look at distance need to be covered for snow removal, mail delivery, police, etc... time = money. Costs go up.




We have festivals and cultural celebrations going on in suburbia whether its being celebrated in a park, inside the library or community theater.

Click to expand...

This thread is about SPRAWL, not suburbs in general. Yes, lots of suburbs have culture, especially the inner ring suburbs and old suburbs along rail lines. These places do have history and a sense of belonging.




As I have said, I love suburbia and the hypocrites that deplore it

Click to expand...

What's hypocritical about these facts? There's been countless studies done on sprawl and the harmful effects.



As per usual, Suburbanist has used nothing more than hyperbole and rabble rousing rhetoric to somehow prove that his segregated and homogeneous suburbs are somehow better. I don't care that you would rather live in your isolate bubble and rely on the internet for interactions...just don't try and "prove" to me that it's better than my lifestyle.



Crash_N said:



I know there are many ( relatively ) sprawled cities in Europe too, but none of them is as big and as sprawled as LA.

Click to expand...

"Sprawl" is a loose term to describe LA. In fact it has the most densely populated urban area in the United States. It's a HUGE area, true, but it's all relatively compact._


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

suburbanist said:


> The ideal skyscraper is surrounded by greenery, paved plaza or parking lots, so that it doesn't have competition for its features.


Of course you would think this. That was the entire concept of housing projects. Your slyly masked racism still astounds me. the only question is, do you even realize it...


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

Suburbanist said:


> But I'd never raise my children in a place like this. Sure, it's a brand new (opened 2009) building, very energy efficient (low heating bill, triple glazed windows, dynamic airflow controls), but _the very idea of m children playing in a common area interacting with people I have no way to pre-screen, not on my private yard, frightens me to death_.


For heaven's sakes, why??? What on Earth has made you so afraid of other people that you won't let your kids out to play in a common area, a place around which you reside with a bunch of other people of presumably similar-lifestyle'd people, and whom you can get to know whenever you please? Don't tell me you intend on homeschooling your children, too?



> I'm not bothered by where other people live, provided the place is lawful, sanitized, conforms to regulations and that it is not a hotbed for crime/ghetto culture/non-assimilated enclave of low-skilled immigrants/drugs etc.
> I'm bothered by people wanting to limit other people's options so that their own options become viable (like imposing urban growth boundary to "force" people to move into "infill" developments).


But you must understand that suburban living, when there is no alternative, as is the case in many, many places in the U.S., is a huge limit on those who can't afford it. Even giving more expenses via cost-of-living and higher monthly housing payments, life in the suburbs, again for the vast majority of cases, requires a mortgage, a decades-long binding commitment which will rarely accurately reflect market conditions past the date of initial sale, and a car, a resource which constantly loses value/costs you money no matter what you do with it. Those are essentially _permanent_ drains on income which don't exist for most residents of most major cities; this flexibility is one of the key reasons why cities are, generally speaking, better for most people to live in.



> I like skyscrapers a lot, they are technological marvels. I prefer, particularly, those or a set of those that are set far apart enough from other buildings so that they stand out individually or as a limited set. I don't care about the concept of skyline though. The ideal skyscraper is surrounded by greenery, paved plaza or parking lots, so that it doesn't have competition for its features.


Ah, I see. What you really like is monuments. Skyscrapers in most cases were, are, and will be products of intense, dense economic activity. They're built because the only alternative is to lose the benefits of being located in an urban setting by relocation in suburbs, which many places still do not want to do. Skyscrapers as you like them occur only after an economic bust or because of a development scheme that has little to do with need and much to do with image.



> Whomever wants to buy a condo, let him/her buy. But I personally don't the the point of paying 3 times the price per built-up square feet (not counting appendages like garage, garden, porch) than in a bigger house. If I'm to spend money, better spending it throughout life in transportation than downsizing my expectations of what "housing" is.
> 
> By the way, last time I checked families with minor children living in NYC had houses with the highest ratio of inhabitants/bathroom with shower among top 20 US metropolitan areas. Households above poverty line living in condos and flats with a single bathroom or with children of different genders sharing the same bedroom were 6 times more common in NYC than the (US) country average. These (adults sharing bathroom with kids, boy and girl teenager siblings sharing the same bedroom) are clear signs of lower quality of life. Some people will think it is worth the hassle because children will grow among a "diverse" city with plenty of things to do outside the house, but I don't share that opinion.


That we have different ideas of quality of life is abundantly clear. That one is communal and natural, the other individual and an artifice of overabundance, is a realization you and others here seem not to have come to.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Suburbanist is about the most skittish "man" I've ever heard.


----------



## Crash_N (May 19, 2011)

Let's start posting gigantic amounts of photos showing urban cityscapes. That will definitely scare the suburbanists away. :lol:


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Crash_N said:


> Let's start posting gigantic amounts of photos showing urban cityscapes. That will definitely scare the suburbanists away. :lol:


SkyscraperCity - In [sub]Urbanity We Trust


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

> Also, where is the water coming from? Take Chicago for example. It's much easier to deliver water within a 5 mile buffer of the Lake. What about when Naperville, 30+ miles away, demands Lake water? This has no effect?


Sure it has. But then we are entering an entirely different discussion of major water sources. Los Angeles gets water from far, far away. And so does New York. Both rely on a complex system of tunnels, aqueducts and pumps because they are located far from mains fresh water sources. Nothing to do with density of their areas. 



> What about "sprawl cities" like Atlanta or Chicago? Dallas? Houston? *3% is still a huge number: 113,823 square miles!*. Don't discount it just because the USA itself is huge. Sprawl occurs on the fringe of cities obviously (not wilderness that accounts for a lot of the land area), fringe areas previously devoted to farmland or natural resources.


Location of farmland is not relevant to location of food consumption. Since 1880 and the rise of railways there had been a tectonic shift in how agriculture is organized. The cost of transporting - say - milk from Maine to New Mexico, oranges from Florida to Oregon or meat from Wyoming to Delaware is minimal compared to the cost of food itself. 

People do get this impression of "OMG they are building everywhere" because most people for most of their lives do not venture out (don't have reason to) more than 40-100 miles from the place they live, and their destinations are usually other developed places. So they get the impression that "almost everywhere" would have been already developed for urban uses, when the truth couldn't be far from that! It's a wrong impression dismissed by objective fact-finding: the area devoted to all urban uses is minimal compared to the US land mass, though people get the opposite impression when, say, you were living in Phoenix in 1970 and saw the city boom. 



> However, a LOT of people DO care about place and history.


But who say I don't care about history? I like history - in museums -. I like to visit archaeological sites, excavations, really old (>300 years) monuments or buildings acting as monuments (not those put to another regular use).



> A "place" is not merely for simply living. _Quality of life suffers with sprawl._..it's a fact.


The problem is that what is quality of life for me might be different than what is quality of life for you.

This is what I'd like people to understand: I'm not trying to force anyone to abandon their high-rises to live in a big house with lots of maintenance (grass cutting, external repairs etc) and a larger heating bill. I'm not trying to close stores in high-density areas. But for me, it's irrelevant whether I can walk or have to drive to the nearest supermarket, it's bad to have excessive traffic of people in front of my dwelling - the emptier, the better - and I'm indifferent with things like "a place full of character and locally-owned stores", as I want my products and services correctly delivered as cheap as possible within my demands, without any consideration of whom owns the store.

I don't mind people having a different concept of quality of life, but I do mind when people who hate my preferred lifestyle attack it like trying to pass laws preventing malls or when people living in the high-rises they love try to prevent farmland being developed into new houses where I'd happily live. And I absolutely HATE when urban planners start seeing me as a "resource" for their social engineering schemes, like "I want you to walk, not drive, to the store abc because pedestrian traffic on that street will increase its perception of safety for children walking (not being driven by parents) back from school". 



> I find it quite disturbing that you and people like you have no use for culture


Again, just because I drive 10 miles, not walk 500 yards to a restaurant, concert hall, church or club doesn't follow that I "have no use for culture". I just detach culture, entertainment from the address where I get it.



Northsider said:


> Your slyly masked racism still astounds me. the only question is, do you even realize it...


What racism? Where I ever suggested a racial bias? "Race" is not even an issue in this thread or in housing (unless we were talking of things like institutionalized racism of past South-Africa apartheid or Jim Crown-style, which is not the case whatsoever).



aquaticko said:


> For heaven's sakes, why??? What on Earth has made you so afraid of other people that you won't let your kids out to play in a common area, a place around which you reside with a bunch of other people of presumably similar-lifestyle'd people, and whom you can get to know whenever you please? Don't tell me you intend on homeschooling your children, too?


There are bad influence from bad people I need to keep my kids from at least until they are a bit more grown up. If a park is opened, nothing restricts a handful of unknown drug dealers or, gosh, pedophiles from preying on my offspring. In a school, closed club or my fenced backyard chances of that happening are far lower. All to protect the kids until they can assess risk themselves. 

As for teenagers, living in a place that requires me/wife driving them to their destinations of choice gives me and future wife some control over their schedules or with whom/where are they hanging out. Kinda hard to attend some party with excessive alcohol without me knowing if they have to walk 2 hours + 3 buses to get there. Easier to hide that if I live in - say - central Amsterdam or some area where there are a lot of festivals over summer 1 mile from home, or an area full of bars and pubs. If they need me to chauffeur them, I therefore have some control until they are able to take care of their own lives.

I do not plan in homeschooling my future children, just getting, if possible and affordable, a nice private school with selection criteria and competition fostered from young age (like a prep academy) would serve well.



> But you must understand that suburban living, when there is no alternative, as is the case in many, many places in the U.S., is a huge limit on those who can't afford it.


Sure. That is why I favor compartmentalized development with whole subdivisions of higher density being built along commuter rail lines (transit-oriented development) as to provide decent housing for the lower echelons of income, those who can't drive, those who like high-rise housing, students on a budget etc. Just abolish the idea that a city must have a defined "center" and create clusters of high density intermingled by swaths of low-density development.



> Skyscrapers as you like them occur only after an economic bust or because of a development scheme that has little to do with need and much to do with image.


Tour Montparnasse, for instance, is a nice skyscraper that stands out in Paris, because it is not surrounded by other high-rises (La Defense if far way enough, and a nice cluster of new buildings with plenty of transit to serve it). Paris would do well with 3 or 4 more 300m high-rises overlooking its Haussmanian areas and boulevards. I like stand-alone towers that "steal" the sight of a large area of lower-rise buildings and, like Tour Montparnasse, they can be profitable. 




> That we have different ideas of quality of life is abundantly clear. That one is communal and natural, the other individual and an artifice of overabundance, is a realization you and others here seem not to have come to.


Why do you have to be judgmental on other people's view about what is housing and houses for? What is wrong with an individualistic view?


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

> Both rely on a complex system of tunnels, aqueducts and pumps because they are located far from mains fresh water sources. Nothing to do with density of their areas.


Does it not all go to a central location for purification and such, then pumped across the region?



> the area devoted to all urban uses is minimal compared to the US land mass


That doesn't matter. The effects regionally are still very apparent! Your argument is Atlanta can do whatever it wants because there's lots of land in the Rockies or North Dakota.



> The problem is that what is quality of life for me might be different than what is quality of life for you.
> 
> And I absolutely HATE when urban planners start seeing me as a "resource" for their social engineering schemes


I think people are just ignorant as to the options. Walmart and parking lots are normal nowadays and people don't even stop to think about it. People don't know what's good for them. FORCING things, yes, is bad...but without proper public policy, BY PEOPLE WHO ARE EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT, to steer decisions, people will continue to do dumb things.



> I just detach culture, entertainment from the address where I get it


Exactly my point. That's not YOUR culture then. That's not your sense of place. Expand your argument...I can easily fly to Europe and see history of culture. But it's not mine. Where do you draw the line? 10 miles? 30? 500? Most sprawlburbs are deveoid of all culture and residents must travel 10+ miles easily to obtain it. That is definitely "detached culture" and thus meaningless locally.



> What racism? Where I ever suggested a racial bias? "Race" is not even an issue in this thread or in housing (unless we were talking of things like institutionalized racism of past South-Africa apartheid or Jim Crown-style, which is not the case whatsoever).


Oh please. Racism today in the USA isn't overt like it was back in the day. It's masked by proxies like "single family homes and apartments must be separated", "we need a wall to keep illegals out", etc. The ramifications of such statements always boil down to racist and discriminatory tendencies.

As I've said before to your asinine posts...the most dangerous racist is the one that doesn't even know he is.



> Tour Montparnasse, for instance, is a nice skyscraper that stands out in Paris...Paris would do well with 3 or 4 more 300m high-rises


LOL, wtf! That's the most hated structure in all of France! I've never seen someone so clearly delusional. It only confirms you have no idea what your talking about, especially when it comes to dealing with history and place.


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

Suburbanist said:


> There are bad influence from bad people I need to keep my kids from at least until they are a bit more grown up. If a park is opened, nothing restricts a handful of unknown drug dealers or, gosh, pedophiles from preying on my offspring. In a school, closed club or my fenced backyard chances of that happening are far lower. All to protect the kids until they can assess risk themselves.


Yes, because according to Common Sense, every third person anywhere is a drug addict/pedophile/sex offender/thief/murderer. 



> As for teenagers, living in a place that requires me/wife driving them to their destinations of choice gives me and future wife some control over their schedules or with whom/where are they hanging out. Kinda hard to attend some party with excessive alcohol without me knowing if they have to walk 2 hours + 3 buses to get there. Easier to hide that if I live in - say - central Amsterdam or some area where there are a lot of festivals over summer 1 mile from home, or an area full of bars and pubs. If they need me to chauffeur them, I therefore have some control until they are able to take care of their own lives.
> 
> I do not plan in homeschooling my future children, just getting, if possible and affordable, a nice private school with selection criteria and competition fostered from young age (like a prep academy) would serve well.


I have news for you. Growing up in a suburban town, not everyone in high school drank. Those that didn't wouldn't no matter what, and vice versa. The best thing you, as a parent, can do, is figure out how to help *them* make the best decisions in your absence. As it see it now, you intend to ensure that your children remain socially isolated and over-competitive, making sure that they will be incapable of interacting with others whom they might otherwise but also that they'll be able to afford the same cloistered lifestyle you seem to approve of. Your kids *will* grow up; the sooner you realize how little control over that process you actually have, the sooner you can actually begin to be a positive influence.



> Sure. That is why I favor compartmentalized development with whole subdivisions of higher density being built along commuter rail lines (transit-oriented development) as to provide decent housing for the lower echelons of income, those who can't drive, those who like high-rise housing, students on a budget etc. Just abolish the idea that a city must have a defined "center" and create clusters of high density intermingled by swaths of low-density development.


This is what I was trying to say in prior posts. You can't have this scenario. In purely suburban areas, there's no economic justification to build commuter rail from one low-density settlement to another, especially because capital investment is much lower in the short run for highways than railways. Nevermind that public transit, which is what makes commuter rail and rail transit generally work, is far less efficient in less dense areas.
It'd be almost like a rail-to-nowhere, something I know you'd rightly disapprove of. You _need_ these high-density areas for the economic activity they have by virtue of what they are.



> Tour Montparnasse, for instance, is a nice skyscraper that stands out in Paris, because it is not surrounded by other high-rises (La Defense if far way enough, and a nice cluster of new buildings with plenty of transit to serve it). Paris would do well with 3 or 4 more 300m high-rises overlooking its Haussmanian areas and boulevards. I like stand-alone towers that "steal" the sight of a large area of lower-rise buildings and, like Tour Montparnasse, they can be profitable.


It's not surrounded by other high-rises, but it _is_ surrounded by Paris, i.e., which is not exactly a field of parking lots or grassy fields. That is to say, the area around it was already dense enough to justify building it; I'm not talking about the aesthetics of skyscrapers, but their purpose.



> Why do you have to be judgmental on other people's view about what is housing and houses for? What is wrong with an individualistic view?


Because individualism is a street that ends quickly, so to speak. People cannot exist outside of society, so attempting to remove them from the influence of society (communities), which is what individualism is, is frankly a stupid endeavor that in the end is harmful to those who undertake it in any serious way. Think about a child that hasn't been socialized, like those rare wild child's that grow up abandoned in the woods. They aren't, in any meaningful sense, human because they lack the linguistic and social skills to operate in human social settings of any sort. Humans are social animals; it's a modern fallacy to think that they're better off when they try not to be.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Northsider said:


> That doesn't matter. The effects regionally are still very apparent! Your argument is Atlanta can do whatever it wants because there's lots of land in the Rockies or North Dakota.


But US is not a city-state like Singapore or Liechtenstein. It is a HUGE country, and one of the advantages of being the 4th largest country in the World is that you have plenty of land to occupy here and spare elsewhere. For sake, the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) owns, to this day, more than 2 million square miles of areas that belong to federal government. And less than 15% of it sees any use like highways, power lines, oil wells.... and the majority of those 15%, indeed, almost all of it, are grazing districts in the slopes of the Rockies toward the Great Plains.

The logic that dictates NEtherlands, Belgium or, say Italy must build up and keep a watch on total occupied area doesn't apply to US, and shouldn't apply to Canada either. US was the country that promoted homesteading after all.



> People don't know what's good for them. FORCING things, yes, is bad...but without proper public policy, BY PEOPLE WHO ARE EDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT, to steer decisions, people will continue to do dumb things.


That is a good empirical definition of *unwarranted patronizing*. One thing is to make regulations to avoid people mishandling guns and accidentally discharge them or preventing people from driving while intoxicated. Other thing is to force people not to wear stupid clothes, have weird haircuts, or shopping habits we frown upon because they are going to big-box harmless stores. Every heard of someone killed exclusively because they went to a big store and not a "mom'n pop" corner shop?




> Exactly my point. That's not YOUR culture then. That's not your sense of place. Expand your argument...I can easily fly to Europe and see history of culture. But it's not mine. Where do you draw the line? 10 miles? 30? 500? Most sprawlburbs are deveoid of all culture and residents must travel 10+ miles easily to obtain it. That is definitely "detached culture" and thus meaningless locally.


But the culture must be meaningful to me, and the people I relate to! 

By your reasoning, having top-notch sushi or tagliatelli in Denver is impossible because Denver is thousand of miles away from Italy and Japan. Attending a Bon Jovi concert in Miami would be not legit because he's from New Jersey. Going to the Guggenheim New York to see some paintings from Picasso would be pointless because he never painted his works in US. 

*Then, why would location matter in regard of a housing arrangement? Where do you draw the line as you asked?* We could end justifying absurd things like "Harlem and Queens [neighborhoods of New York] should not take many high-paid professionals residents because they have their own distinctive culture", or, to work on your racism allegation, be indeed racist like some activists suggesting that "the Chinese character of Chinatown can only survive if Chinese-descent people are given priority to set up business and live there" - something I read more than once in activists blogs, now try to change "Chinese" for "White American" and lawsuits would be flying. 



aquaticko said:


> This is what I was trying to say in prior posts. You can't have this scenario. In purely suburban areas, there's no economic justification to build commuter rail from one low-density settlement to another, especially because capital investment is much lower in the short run for highways than railways. Nevermind that public transit, which is what makes commuter rail and rail transit generally work, is far less efficient in less dense areas.


I thought more of something like a rail line, parallel (withing few miles) to a highway in which the most dense areas are located near train stations with TOD, high-rises and else, whilst the areas far from stations and close to the highway are used for low-density developments like suburban houses and horizontal office parks.



> Because individualism is a street that ends quickly, so to speak. People cannot exist outside of society, so attempting to remove them from the influence of society (communities), which is what individualism is, is frankly a stupid endeavor that in the end is harmful to those who undertake it in any serious way
> 
> Humans are social animals; it's a modern fallacy to think that they're better off when they try not to be.


At any moment I suggested relinquish social contact. I just like housing and living arrangements that give me more control over my social interactions by severely reducing spontaneity and casualty.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

OMG why does everyone hate suburbs so much! I don't get why people would want to live in a small apartment! Being crammed onto jammed subway trains...

Sure its more efficient but I don't get what is sooo great about city centre highrise living...


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

> And less than 15% of it sees any use like highways, power lines, oil wells.... and the majority of those 15%, indeed, almost all of it, are grazing districts in the slopes of the Rockies toward the Great Plains.


Why do you continue to compare populated and non-populated places? Just because Atlanta is sprawling out of control doesn't mean it's ok because Alaska has wilderness.



> That is a good empirical definition of unwarranted patronizing.


I find it appropriate. Humans are stupid. Period. Public policy is needed, for example, so the opinion of the driver who thinks transit is pointless goes unwarranted. When resources are limited, people need to be herded...otherwise consumption spirals out of control.



> By your reasoning, having top-notch sushi or tagliatelli in Denver is impossible because Denver is thousand of miles away from Italy and Japan. Attending a Bon Jovi concert in Miami would be not legit because he's from New Jersey. Going to the Guggenheim New York to see some paintings from Picasso would be pointless because he never painted his works in US.


Hyperbole and strawman.



> "Harlem and Queens [neighborhoods of New York] should not take many high-paid professionals residents because they have their own distinctive culture"


I would argue that. However with a caveat. I'd prefer it kept predominantly black and keep the roots alive. Pricing people out who MADE the neighborhood what it is doesn't seem fair. Of course, cities are dynamic and ever changing...As long as the essence of the area is kept it's fine. Once you start protesting sex shops, leather stores, and tattoo parlors in a gentrifying area, the area loses everything that made it desirable and hip in the first place (just examples).



> I just like housing and living arrangements that give me more control over my social interactions by severely reducing spontaneity and casualty.


Another misconception. Why does city automatically equal talking to and bumping into every person you see? Sometimes I go an entire day without speaking one word to someone or interacting. I rarely see my neighbors...everyone has their own routine and rarely changes it. Where do you get that suburbs equates "more control over my social interactions"? That's utter nonsense. 


--------------------------
@ poshbakerloo



> OMG why does everyone hate suburbs


What's there to like? It's like drinking Bud Lite...sure it's beer but what's the point when there's no taste?



> I don't get why people would want to live in a small apartment!


Why do you need so much space? 



> Being crammed onto jammed subway trains.


Why do you like sitting at red lights? Why do you like sitting in traffic on the highway or arterials?



> I don't get what is sooo great about city centre highrise living


Multi-unit buildings don't have to be highrises. In fact I would argue that highrise communities in many cases have the same culture-less aspect and lack of place that sprawling exurbs have. I personally would hate living in the city center or highrise district.


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

Suburbanist said:


> I thought more of something like a rail line, parallel (within few miles) to a highway in which the most dense areas are located near train stations with TOD, high-rises and else, whilst the areas far from stations and close to the highway are used for low-density developments like suburban houses and horizontal office parks.


So, considering the minimal difference between this^^ and the current reality in the U.S., the _only_ real change you want is to not have urban cores? Is that correct? And if so, what "city" would you say is exemplary of this?



> At any moment I suggested relinquish social contact. I just like housing and living arrangements that give me more control over my social interactions by severely reducing spontaneity and casualty.


Spontaneity is part of human social interaction, part of human psychology; it's unavoidable no matter what you do. Really, spontaneity is part of all things--economics, politics, society, science, nature, everything. Pursuing a life of total or even great control is a fruitless endeavor, doomed to failure from the start (I realize the irony of _me_ saying this, of all people, even if you don't). And social isolation is a slippery slope. Not having abundant social interactions is _easier_ than having them (note: *not* better). Simplicity is desirable in itself, and good socializing is an acquired skill that requires constant honing, i.e., causes stress. But this is good stress, the kind that's needed for you to be a fully-functional human.

Also:



> Originally posted by *Northsider*:
> 
> I find it appropriate. Humans are stupid. Period. Public policy is needed, for example, so the opinion of the driver who thinks transit is pointless goes unwarranted. When resources are limited, people need to be herded...otherwise consumption spirals out of control.


^^Yes.


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

aquaticko said:


> There's less infrastructure per unit of land in suburbs; land is being less-efficiently used by suburbs. So long as land has value, that's the primary issue.


Well if you really want to argue about efficiency, cities are not any more efficient. Keep in mind there are no 100, 200 story apt buildings in major metropolitan areas especially in Europe. All you see are low rise buildings DEVOID OF LANDSCAPING AND TREES. City centers are a complete concrete jungle. Squares, plazas, streets are devoid of trees and landscaping. Many major cities grow OUTWARDS and not UP. Outward developments always take up space and it does not matter whether a city growing or suburbs growing. In suburbia in US we have open spaces preserved, in Vegas our backyard is a 190,000 acre conservation area full of trees and natural vegetation, we also have the 6 million acre Toiyabe National Forest. How many cities in Europe can say they have a forest in their backyard? By the way the United States still has one of the largest forest cover in the world together with Canada, Russia and China, I doubt many countries in Europe and Asia can still say the same.

In Vegas we recycle 94% of our water use and we have water stored for future use. On the Strip even with nearly 40 million visitors, major resorts are very water efficient, resorts have their own water treatment plant. I doubt you can say the same in your city. As far our renewable energy sources it is improving and cities outside of Vegas are even benefitting from it. Same with other locations in the United States like Az, they effieciently use barren land for renewable green energy.





aquaticko said:


> I think by homogeneous he/she meant single-purpose, which you've just validated. That's long been a sin in urban planning. Make any zone single-use and you've got areas that are totally dead at various parts of the day. Obviously not all suburbs are just housing or bedroom communities, but enough of them are that it's a defining characteristic of American suburbs.


We have developments apart from housing whether retail, educational institutions, businesses or community centers. It's NOT ALL HOUSING.




aquaticko said:


> The key word in the section this is in response to is "farther". The geography of Europe works against frequent long-distance travel by car, whether people still do it or not, and the way countries are laid out reflects this. And fyi, China's automotive industry has been bigger than the U.S.' for a few years. Europe's is similarly competitive against the U.S.' in terms of importance. It's not a single-pillar world anymore. Ask Ford, GM, or VW.


Europe has not grown upwards and by the way people should not complain about the United States when it comes to its car use just by your response above. Don't be pointing fingers when you are doing the same thing! I have one word, hypocrites.




aquaticko said:


> Efficiency of delivery/ ease of access. End of story


... same with suburbia!!!




aquaticko said:


> You're just being obtuse now. Anyone who says there's more going on in any suburb than in a major city is just willfully ignoring reality. I would agree that to say suburbs "destory" culture and give no sense of place is wrong.
> 
> As for the "hypocrites", uhm, what exactly are we being hypocritical about? Or do you not understand the meaning of the term?



Stop pointing fingers when people residing in cities are exactly guilty and doing the same thing as suburbanites, that is what you call HYPOCRISY!!!


----------



## Zach759 (May 20, 2010)

I like both suburb living and urban living. I think there is more of a community in a suburb though. It really depends on the different cities and different neighborhoods as to which ones better. Like a large portion of Kansas City has more sprawl than some of the suburbs.


----------



## Crash_N (May 19, 2011)

I'm sure there are plenty of "SubUrbiaCity" forums out there for the likes of Suburbanist. Can you please go there instead of trolling around here and testing our nerves? Pretty please?


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

joshsam said:


> What I find more interesting in Casablanca is how more and more people live in slums nowadays than lets say 20 years ago. I have no doubt there are US styled suburbs there to, but I wonder why there are so much more slums in Casablanca compaired to 20 years ago.


Unfortunetaly that is true , Casablanca has become an attraction of slums in fact this city has 60 % of all Morocco 's slums and getting worst while other cities are doing better Casablanca is going down the toilet , yes the western and southwestern suburbs are nice and many have american style suburban sprawl but the rest is horrible , there is also a lot industrial wasteland as well , crime is a big issue too , many moroccans do not like Casablanca but it is still the economy power house of Morocco
several factors rural immigration is a huge factor , locals laws are not enforced , illegal immigrants who settle there built their owns slums , also there is a lot of corruption , Casablanca is mess but it has it good sides as well , I still love my city of birth but hate what is happening to it


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

> OMG why does everyone hate suburbs so much! I don't get why people would want to live in a small apartment! Being crammed onto jammed subway trains...


It depends on which type of suburbia. The ones built around transit, before or after WWII, are impressive towns and cities, while the ones built around cars are nothing but sea of ugliness and homogeneity(meaning cookie cutter) that requires a car to do almost everything, and devoid of anything interesting. And it's funny how Suburbanist accuses urban planners of social engineering. Modern auto centric suburbia is a result of social engineering by the government with "outside" help.


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

jbkayaker12 said:


> Well if you really want to argue about efficiency, cities are not any more efficient. Keep in mind there are no 100, 200 story apt buildings in major metropolitan areas especially in Europe.


Well duh. There's little economic need for buildings this tall; they're symbolic of a cities supposed importance. 



> All you see are low rise buildings DEVOID OF LANDSCAPING AND TREES. City centers are a complete concrete jungle. Squares, plazas, streets are devoid of trees and landscaping. Many major cities grow OUTWARDS and not UP. Outward developments always take up space and it does not matter whether a city growing or suburbs growing. In suburbia in US we have open spaces preserved, in Vegas our backyard is a 190,000 acre conservation area full of trees and natural vegetation, we also have the 6 million acre Toiyabe National Forest. How many cities in Europe can say they have a forest in their backyard?


Not many, maybe none, but you still have to drive out of Vegas to get to the forest preserves, which is no different from most European cities. This is essentially a moot point. In terms of inner city greenspace, again I have to ask, have you ever been to Europe?



> By the way the United States still has one of the largest forest cover in the world together with Canada, Russia and China, I doubt many countries in Europe and Asia can still say the same.


You're kidding, right? _Of course_ it does; it's the 2nd/3rd geographically-largest countries in the world, so statistically speaking it damn well better. That's like saying, "See my pool? It has more water than your birdbath does!"



> In Vegas we recycle 94% of our water use and we have water stored for future use. On the Strip even with nearly 40 million visitors, major resorts are very water efficient, resorts have their own water treatment plant. I doubt you can say the same in your city.


 No, I can't, but then my city has nearby natural fresh water sources, nevermind consistent and reliable precipitation throughout about 2/3 of the year.


> As far our renewable energy sources it is improving and cities outside of Vegas are even benefitting from it. Same with other locations in the United States like Az, they effieciently use barren land for renewable green energy.


This is necessary for the survival of your city, figuratively and literally. If Las Vegas wasted large amounts of its water, without changing consumption habits, it would run dry in a matter of decades, maybe years. In regards to water supply, all the "efficiency measures" that many SW American cities are only just now beginning to take are absolutely essential to allow their continued existence. What you're seeing now isn't a renewed focus on environmental sustainability, it's a set of panicked reactions to the sudden realization of the fact that cities in that part of the country shouldn't have been built there in the first place.
And have you seen pictures of Phoenix? It's got to be one of the most sprawling cities in the country. This is particularly problematic considering the large elderly population of the city and extreme heat that Phoenix endures through the summer. 



> We have developments apart from housing whether retail, educational institutions, businesses or community centers. It's NOT ALL HOUSING.


If you're referring to Las Vegas in particular, I'd expect so, considering that at any given time of the year, a large portion of the "residents" of the city are tourists who need only short-time housing (hotels/seasonal condominiums) and supplies close enough to the casinos that people will spend most of their time spending money instead of burning gas.



> Europe has not grown upwards and by the way people should not complain about the United States when it comes to its car use just by your response above. Don't be pointing fingers when you are doing the same thing! I have one word, hypocrites.


Two (or three, or four, etc.) wrongs don't make a right. Not to mention that vehicles per capita remain higher in the U.S. than any other country, other than superrich-and-tiny Monaco. Whether or not that will continue to be the case in the future is unknown, but it doesn't change the present fact.



> ... same with suburbia!!!


Nice response.



> Stop pointing fingers when people residing in cities are exactly guilty and doing the same thing as suburbanites, that is what you call HYPOCRISY!!!


If you talk with people who have lived in New York City, for example, some have never, ever driven a car. So no, not the same.

Are you really worth continuing to argue with? I'm beginning to wonder....


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

The guy doesn't understand what a hypocrite is. And I doubt arguing with him is going to affect him. 

jbkayaker12 and suburbanist will never give and never listen to reason, because they're either that sort of personality type, or paid to be here.

Here's a good test: See if they ever break from the norm by agreeing with a moderate opinion on some aspect of their subject. Most people on SSP will do a "McCain" every now and then...remember when he said Obama is a patriot?


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Cities around the world have plenty of trees on squares, plazas, and streets. You must be blind jbkayaker12 to think cities are devoid of greenery. Also remember that cities are human habitats, not forests.


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

jbkayaker12 said:


> In suburbia in US we have open spaces preserved, in Vegas our backyard is a 190,000 acre conservation area full of trees and natural vegetation, we also have the 6 million acre Toiyabe National Forest. How many cities in Europe can say they *have a forest in their backyard*?



Stockholm, Oslo, Helsinki, Copenhagen, Moscow, Warsaw, Berlin, Vienna, Madrid, Paris etc. You know, most european capitals had royal hunting grounds located right next to the cities, these still remain in the form of urban forests.

And many cities have huge natural reserves located within short distance from the city centers.


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

I live in Winter Park Florida , an inner suburb of Orlando , we have so much diversity I love it , Winter Park feels urban and suburban at the same time , a place for college kids , senior citizens , families , single people , every color in the spectrum we have extremely wealthy people , a huge middle class and a large working poor area ( clean and proud ) , there is so much history and new development , every type of housing you can think of condos complexes , Apt Complexes , high rises , single family homes of every size , duplexes etc , we have a beautiful historic area , beautiful parks , Valencia College , a couple of beautiful senior retirement residential areas , the crime rate is one of the lowest in that nation , Winter Park is not your typical Floridian Suburbs , I am near Downtown a quick 8 minutes drive , everything I need is here been here for 5 years and I enjoy so much here


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ Why would anyone be proud of being "working poor"?


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Why would anyone be proud of being "working poor"?


many residents are proud and love being here in Winter Park , I hear this term a lot here


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

The working poor are usually a segment of the population that is imployed, but isn't paid enough money to lift themselves out of poverty; generally speaking, a sign that something is wrong with the economy. They're the people who the right doesn't think exists.


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

I do not even know what I am considered , I make 41,000 a year and I am single own my own condo and is OK with money , maybe lower middle class ?? but anyways this thread has a lot of interesting comments and views , so many different types of views about Suburbia


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Why would anyone be proud of being "working poor"?


Way to totally not get it. Nobody said anything about being proud of poverty. But people can be proud of their neighborhood and of themselves despite being considered working poor. And to the extent that working poor often means working your ass off to make a living, possibly with multiple low-paying jobs, hard work is something to be proud of.


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

mhays said:


> Way to totally not get it. Nobody said anything about being proud of poverty. But people can be proud of their neighborhood and of themselves despite being considered working poor. And to the extent that working poor often means working your ass off to make a living, possibly with multiple low-paying jobs, hard work is something to be proud of.


This is essentially the whole "dignity of poverty" argument, and I don't think it's one that's ever made by those who actually are the working poor. It's just a fable to make those who don't fit in this category feel better about the fact that there are people who do.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

I didn't say dignity in poverty. I said pride in hard work. Big difference.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

The problem isn't that cities grow outward sometimes out of necessity, but rather the form those places take. High or low density, that's not the only important thing.

Instead of an endless mass of subdivisions and separate commercial areas, what's wrong with the pre-1950s shape of outlying areas? Where each suburb is actually more like a small town, with its own little center in close proximity to the quieter areas.

I think people make this into an emotional issue because they see it as a black or white thing where urban=tiny apartment and suburban=20th century auto-centric development. But I think there is a bigger picture.



> sprawl is not the anomalous result of American zoning laws, or mortgage interest tax deduction, or cheap gas, or subsidized highway construction, or cultural antipathy toward cities. Nor is it an aberration.


Here is why the author's point is so screwy. Those are the real issues, they are the things that make the word "sprawl" a derogatory term in the first place.

In the absence of those things, we'd probably have suburbs coexisting alongside healthy cities and metropolitan areas woven together with more sustainable forms of transportation. This whole debate would not exist.


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

mhays said:


> I didn't say dignity in poverty. I said pride in hard work. Big difference.


You think so? Elaborate.

(Man, I thought this thread was bound to go OT at the outset, and be a magnet for flame wars, but drawing a line between dignity and pride? This is some philosophical stuff.)


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

You're not paying attention. Dignity and pride are similar. But poverty is a different topic than hard work.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Suburbanist said:


> The ideal skyscraper is surrounded by greenery, paved plaza or parking lots, so that it doesn't have competition for its features.


Parking lots, WTF?

Parking should be underground, under the skyscraper. Like its done in Europe.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

goschio said:


> Parking lots, WTF?
> 
> Parking should be underground, under the skyscraper. Like its done in Europe.


They do that in the US too.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

goschio said:


> Parking lots, WTF?
> 
> Parking should be underground, under the skyscraper. Like its done in Europe.


I prefer underground parking, what is really important is that skyscrapers stand out among anything within a 1-2km radius.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

aquaticko said:


> This is essentially the whole "dignity of poverty" argument, and I don't think it's one that's ever made by those who actually are the working poor. It's just a fable to make those who don't fit in this category feel better about the fact that there are people who do.





aquaticko said:


> You think so? Elaborate.
> 
> (Man, I thought this thread was bound to go OT at the outset, and be a magnet for flame wars, but drawing a line between dignity and pride? This is some philosophical stuff.)


The dignity of poverty paradox is very well and alive.

In the context of urban organization, it has effects sometimes on public policies or, at least, in regard of community activism. It's very easy to see examples of that in the context of gentrification.

The nuances vary according to each city, but one of the most (if futile in the medium or long term) cogent arguments pushed by activists "fighting gentrification" is that the social fabric of a place is being 'destroyed' because people with more money to spend are coming into the neighborhood and killing 'character' in the name of 'tackiness' or 'blandness'.

Go to any blog discussing the subject and people will write about how "heartless financial analysts" or "arrogant professionals" don't care about the whole "character" of the place, character meaning, usually, run-down, maintenance-lacking stores that look grim and shoddy, graffiti-filled walls, abandoned industrial buildings taken over by the local dispossessed youth, restaurants, food parlors and bars that operate under the table or without abiding to health standards etc. All of this is defined as "character" and usually tied to an allegedly "proud of being poor, but hard working" - which fits the dignity of poverty argument.



zaphod said:


> Instead of an endless mass of subdivisions and separate commercial areas, *what's wrong with the pre-1950s shape of outlying areas? *Where each suburb is actually more like a small town, with its own little center in close proximity to the quieter areas.


Well into the 1960s, people changed jobs less, and rare were 2-income households (wife+husband working) among nascent middle classes. That made location decisions far easier. And people had less expectations of mobility - not only for jobs, but for things like attending a church the other side of the metro area - not the one in your neighborhood - because you like more the religious minister there.



> I think people make this into an emotional issue because they see it as a black or white thing where urban=tiny apartment and suburban=20th century auto-centric development. But I think there is a bigger picture.


As the author describes, what we've seen is a "flat-out" of the density gradient. If you had a cumulative function to describe density, that would be like increasing its exponent.


----------



## aquaticko (Mar 15, 2011)

mhays said:


> You're not paying attention. Dignity and pride are similar. But poverty is a different topic than hard work.


In a capitalist society, hard work that doesn't result in wealth to some degree is essentially wasted effort. Hard work that doesn't remove someone from poverty leads only to frustration and despair; "dignity" plays no role here.



> Originally posted by *Suburbanist*:
> The dignity of poverty paradox is very well and alive.
> 
> In the context of urban organization, it has effects sometimes on public policies or, at least, in regard of community activism. It's very easy to see examples of that in the context of gentrification.
> ...


The blandness argument is one I can't imagine being made in the U.S., considering that what makes neighborhoods in major cities across the world "bland" in this sense is globalization, a quintessentially American phenomenon.

In truth, I never said I had any issue with gentrification; so long the poor aren't kicked out without provisions to ensure they don't end up homeless/jobless/unable to get to their jobs, it's a sign of economic growth and the attraction of the sort of class of people that are necessary for a city to continue to grow. The only sort of wealthy people I have problems with are those who don't understand their position and how they got there.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

weava said:


> They do that in the US too.


They do but I've seen both in photos and in real life in Houston, Atlanta and Phoenix entire city blocks are used as flat parking lots...


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

^^That would not even be so bad, if It was not that they are located in the downtown area. I don't really get the point of an open parking lot in a downtown area. It breaks up the whole city structure, one of the things why N-American cities almost never feel as populated as they actually are...


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

joshsam said:


> *I don't really get the point of an open parking lot in a downtown area. *It breaks up the whole city structure, one of the things why N-American cities almost never feel as populated as they actually are...


Real estate prices and land hoarding. Usually, those blocks are owned either by developers awaiting market opportunity to build something, or by the city itself.

Majority of empty blocks with surface parking lot originated from early demolitions of disused factories or other industrial/commercial installations that lost their function with the natural change of cities over time and were cleared because buildings were derelict, dangerous, had caught fire, had become an eyesore etc.


----------



## Spookvlieger (Jul 10, 2009)

^^Wel most where propably demolished in the 70ties when dowtown in US cities had become hellholes. I still don't get why leave it empty while ground prices right next to it are high enough to build a 300m tower...


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

The amount of surface parking lots in US cities is ridiculous. Only very dense cities like Boston and San Francisco have few parking lots. On the plus side, surface lots give opportunity for urban infill development.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

aquaticko said:


> In a capitalist society, hard work that doesn't result in wealth to some degree is essentially wasted effort. Hard work that doesn't remove someone from poverty leads only to frustration and despair; "dignity" plays no role here.


Hard work that keeps the family afloat is a very real factor, particularly in the US where there's a bigger difference in quality of life with the low pay + long hours formula vs being on public subsidy. 

Maybe it's not true in your world, but in mine, working hard is always worthy of pride.


----------



## BE0GRAD (May 29, 2010)

I saw Denver on Google Earth.:shocked::runaway:


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

LtBk said:


> The amount of surface parking lots in US cities is ridiculous. Only very dense cities like Boston and San Francisco have few parking lots. On the plus side, surface lots give opportunity for urban infill development.


Yeah indeed. And a fair share of that waste is due to government regulations which is quite a scandal in my eyes. Things seem to change however.


----------



## SydneyCity (Nov 14, 2010)

LtBk said:


> The amount of surface parking lots in US cities is ridiculous. Only very dense cities like Boston and San Francisco have few parking lots. On the plus side, surface lots give opportunity for urban infill development.


It's not just US cities, Aussie cities often have lots of surface parking too. The worst example is Canberra. In the image below, all that paved area in the foreground is parking.


----------



## dmn42 (Sep 12, 2011)

poshbakerloo said:


> OMG why does everyone hate suburbs so much! I don't get why people would want to live in a small apartment! Being crammed onto jammed subway trains...
> 
> Sure its more efficient but I don't get what is sooo great about city centre highrise living...


Again, there's a difference between suburbs and sprawl. I'd have no problem living in a suburban community, but it would have to be a complete community with shops, restaurants, etc. easily accessible. If I had to get in car to take care of my day-to-day errands (basic shopping, some restaurants, banks, dry cleaners, etc.) I'd be pissed. And that's what sprawl is.

And don't even get me started on gated communities.



aquaticko said:


> In truth, I never said I had any issue with gentrification; so long the poor aren't kicked out without provisions to ensure they don't end up homeless/jobless/unable to get to their jobs, it's a sign of economic growth and the attraction of the sort of class of people that are necessary for a city to continue to grow. The only sort of wealthy people I have problems with are those who don't understand their position and how they got there.


I don't have a problem with gentrification either, so long as the poor aren't kicked out at all. People shouldn't be forced to leave their homes because the neighbors suddenly have a lot more money. If that means newer developments, so be it, as long as the character of the neighborhood isn't dramatically changed (which applies to businesses as well - it's not okay to boot smaller stores out in favor of chains).


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

dmn42 said:


> Again, there's a difference between suburbs and sprawl. I'd have no problem living in a suburban community, but it would have to be a complete community with shops, restaurants, etc. easily accessible. If I had to get in car to take care of my day-to-day errands (basic shopping, some restaurants, banks, dry cleaners, etc.) I'd be pissed. And that's what sprawl is.
> 
> And don't even get me started on gated communities.


So true. Many seem incapable of getting the difference.



> I don't have a problem with gentrification either, so long as the poor aren't kicked out at all. People shouldn't be forced to leave their homes because the neighbors suddenly have a lot more money. If that means newer developments, so be it, as long as the character of the neighborhood isn't dramatically changed (which applies to businesses as well - it's not okay to boot smaller stores out in favor of chains).


That is a big danger of gentrification but it can be tackled by obligatory subsidized apartments of a certain share in new developments.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

dmn42 said:


> And don't even get me started on gated communities.


What is the problem with residential-only gated communities, as far as they pay all costs related to every infrastructure that is within its limits? They can be quite cool, depending on how they are set up.




> I don't have a problem with gentrification either, so long as the poor aren't kicked out at all. People shouldn't be forced to leave their homes because the neighbors suddenly have a lot more money. If that means newer developments, so be it, as long as the character of the neighborhood isn't dramatically changed (which applies to businesses as well - it's not okay to boot smaller stores out in favor of chains).


I totally disagree with this assessment. People and business are not "expelled" at whim of someone else. In regard of business, you can't keep outdated/no longer competitive business in place - it's the normal cycle of capitalism: competition keeps reinventing stores, delivery of services etc.

In case of households, and even certain types of business as well, it all comes down to whether you are an owner or renter. If you own your house/apartment/store, except in rare cases you will not be displaced (unless your building is dangerous or derelict).

Poor people who suddenly see an exponential increase on their lackluster house units get lucky, actually, because they can cash in and move out. Or stay there. The problem is with renters, but renting shouldn't be a lifetime option. 

Out-bidding is a contentious issue, but the market is the best way to solve excess demand for housing in a certain place. 



Slartibartfas said:


> That is a big danger of gentrification but it can be tackled by obligatory subsidized apartments of a certain share in new developments.


That works when you have massive hostile reconstruction, like when eminent domain is used to clear up land. But it is very unlikely to keep the place "the same" because, in the long term, expensive neighborhoods become expensive places to live, and even if proper tax policies keep your property taxes low (something I'd say is unfair) in relate to the newcomers, many people will feel uneasy with their new surroundings and will leave (or sell their subsidized apartments if they were given their titles).


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> That works when you have massive hostile reconstruction, like when eminent domain is used to clear up land. But it is very unlikely to keep the place "the same" because, in the long term, expensive neighborhoods become expensive places to live, and even if proper tax policies keep your property taxes low (something I'd say is unfair) in relate to the newcomers, many people will feel uneasy with their new surroundings and will leave (or sell their subsidized apartments if they were given their titles).


"Keeping the place the same" is not the objective, quite the contrary actually. Before gentrification the areas are often poor only, after unchecked gentrification they are rich only in the most extreme case. To have a well working city the best thing is however to have at least some mix rather than rich ghettos and poor ghettos. 

The problems you invent simply don't exist in real live and to know that I just have to look around my own city. New projects often come as a mix with subsidized apartments and upper class apartments even in the same building. (Which makes sense as not every apartment has the same qualities and those which have some downsides that can not be prevented are of course also the cheaper and subsidized ones). In general both segments enjoy high demand nor are there problems with long term occupancy over time. People are not stupid, they usually are pretty well aware of what awaits them in a certain real estate before they move in.

You also don't need massive reconstruction for that change to take place. The Wollner-Hof in the gentrifying area of Brunnenmarkt is a good example. An old block was the target of a speculator for years, since the 1980s. He tried to mob out the people who rented apartments there by all possible means legal and illegal but all of them highly immoral. As a consequence the building deteriorated almost to a point were it was uninhabitable. I don't know how, but over the years the city could put an end to this and a public construction corporative took over. It transformed the block from featuring substandard apartments to up to date apartments of various sizes at a reasonable rent per square meter, penthouses costing a bit more than the rest. Not every building of course is subject to such affordable apartment projects. The aim is a healthy mix.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> So true. Many seem incapable of getting the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a big danger of gentrification but it can be tackled by obligatory subsidized apartments of a certain share in new developments.


Subsidizing rents or subsidizing construction because the first one will only make the problem larger.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Dahlis said:


> Subsidizing rents or subsidizing construction because the first one will only make the problem larger.


Subsidizing construction actually. But as a consequence rents can be low as well. That way you can keep a certain share of lower income people in the quarter and you'll concentrate them less in some poverty stricken ghettos on the fringes of the city.


----------



## dmn42 (Sep 12, 2011)

Suburbanist said:


> What is the problem with residential-only gated communities, as far as they pay all costs related to every infrastructure that is within its limits? They can be quite cool, depending on how they are set up.


Streets should be public spaces. I find the idea of a group of people wanting to shut themselves from the rest of the world to the extent of limiting who can go past their house very anti-social, a sort of statement that they don't consider the rest of the world worthy of sharing space with them. I don't believe that's a very mentally healthy way to live.

And that's in addition to the fact that very nature of gated communities means that one has to get in a car to go anywhere, which as I've mentioned would drive me absolutely nuts in a matter of weeks. I can't stand being dependent on anything more than my own two feet to get me through the average day. That's not something specific to gated communities - it's a problem with sprawl as well - but it's a component of my opposition to them (albeit a lesser one).

If some people like them, fine, but their existence shouldn't be encouraged, and you'll never see me living in one.

EDIT: I'd like to respond to the point about businesses being kicked out as well, but the forum software isn't letting me for some reason. So that might come later.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Suburbanist is driven by fear, and wants control.


----------



## Zach759 (May 20, 2010)

I don't see the difference between gated and non-gated neighborhoods.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

You can walk through one if you don't live there, the other you are forced to go around.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> Subsidizing construction actually. But as a consequence rents can be low as well. That way you can keep a certain share of lower income people in the quarter and you'll concentrate them less in some poverty stricken ghettos on the fringes of the city.


I dont believe in subsidizing rents or construction, a properly planned city will have a place for everywone. If rents are to high its because of a lack of flats of a certain type or size. 

I can only speak for my own country, but one problem that holds back construction are the construction rules, if these rules where lightened up a bit (no demands for lifts, less sound insulation etc.) construction would be cheaper and so would the rents.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

mhays said:


> Suburbanist is driven by fear, and wants control.


Living in abroad in a developing country for many years with your family, having your parents, you and brother count 15 violent incidents over that time (carjackings, armed robberies, ATM knife robbery, burglaries, arson on your family's small farm estate etc.) changes perspectives.

In certain violent countries in Africa and Latin America, gated communities are the only feasible way for you to have a decent house (that would claim a lot of attention if your style is above that of the average person in that country) without having to fortify it in a public street.

By fortifying a house in a open street, something that must be done for safety, I give this example: http://g.co/maps/9shvx

In countries where security is not a general problem, I still think new subdivisions (never a fence-off of an existing neighborhood) could be easily gated without major consequences, as there were no former use to the area, so no argument about people suddenly cut-off from once public streets. But I like to limit them so strictly residential-areas only, never to whole villages.


----------



## Zach759 (May 20, 2010)

Jonesy55 said:


> You can walk through one if you don't live there, the other you are forced to go around.


are you sure? I was thinking that these were the neighborhoods that have the entrances with a sign that says the name of the neighborhood such as blank estates.

If that is so, however than I have never see one in my life.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

@suburbanist
Maybe it would be a decent idea for you to start realizing that you don't live in a developing world anymore and that the reason why you don't have to live in fortresses or fortress like neighborhoods is because of things like the social system. 

In my opinion if the society starts to fall apart as drastically that you need to fortify middle class homes, something went already terribly wrong. But it seems you enjoy the idea of increased segregation of society even in developed countries. Maybe thats your heritage from having lived in a developing country?.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Dahlis said:


> I dont believe in subsidizing rents or construction, a properly planned city will have a place for everywone. If rents are to high its because of a lack of flats of a certain type or size.


Thats not the only factor. Central locations simply tend to become excessively expensive. But as a matter of fact these central neighborhoods do not only need upper class employees but also lower income ones. If you let market forces only rule, you end up with increased segregation and ghetto building. This creates costs for society on its very own, not to think about the troubles that you can't measure in €. 

Subsidized apartments, also in somewhat central locations, as part of a mix of expensive, middle prized and subsidized apartments, can counter that and not only bring work force closer to where they actually work, hence reducing traffic but also reduce the ghetto building towards the periphery. 



> I can only speak for my own country, but one problem that holds back construction are the construction rules, if these rules where lightened up a bit (no demands for lifts, less sound insulation etc.) construction would be cheaper and so would the rents.


Insulation definitely is not the reason for high prices. That is laughable. The impact of insulation costs is simply too low, especially when you consider the full costs and revenues over the whole life span, where better insulated homes have good chances of being more cost efficient than badly insulated ones. Vienna has very strict construction rules and is leading in strict insulation regulations and still has rather low rents compared to other Western European capitals.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

dmn42 said:


> Streets should be public spaces. I find the idea of a group of people wanting to shut themselves from the rest of the world to the extent of limiting who can go past their house very anti-social, a sort of statement that they don't consider the rest of the world worthy of sharing space with them. I don't believe that's a very mentally healthy way to live.
> 
> And that's in addition to the fact that very nature of gated communities means that one has to get in a car to go anywhere, which as I've mentioned would drive me absolutely nuts in a matter of weeks. I can't stand being dependent on anything more than my own two feet to get me through the average day. That's not something specific to gated communities - it's a problem with sprawl as well - but it's a component of my opposition to them (albeit a lesser one).


Multistorey apartment blocks often do have lockable front doors, though - this is frequent compared to apartment houses where front doors cannot be locked and public has free access to staircase and lifts.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> Thats not the only factor. Central locations simply tend to become excessively expensive. But as a matter of fact these central neighborhoods do not only need upper class employees but also lower income ones. If you let market forces only rule, you end up with increased segregation and ghetto building. This creates costs for society on its very own, not to think about the troubles that you can't measure in €.


The problem is that the costs you need to subsidize apartments come from taxes which are measured in very much real €. It's the general paradox affecting other so-called "non (easily) quantifiable diffuse externalities": you can't price exactly how much they are worth, but their mitigation is borne out of direct tax money collected from the citizenry. 



> Subsidized apartments, also in somewhat central locations, as part of a mix of expensive, middle prized and subsidized apartments, can counter that and not only bring work force closer to where they actually work, hence reducing traffic but also reduce the ghetto building towards the periphery.


The very most poor people usually don't have problems finding central housing because they are more willing to trade space or comfort to location of their 2 jobs -so they cramp up in smaller places. The real flight is most that of middle class families, especially when they have children, and want reasonable space for a price they can afford.

Indeed, it's a rather common scenario in many European cities: the central core is mostly dominated by rich households AND very poor, low-income or non-traditional ones (single professionals, students sharing rooms etc.) that live in lower area/inhabitant units, don't mind having 7 people sharing a single bathroom in the house etc. This trend reinforce the extremes: it makes build-up area yet more expensive, driving further middle class families from the area.

Construction itself it usually not that expensive, unless it is an over-the-top historical building retrofit or something. Land is expensive, very expensive indeed.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> In my opinion if the society starts to fall apart as drastically that you need to fortify middle class homes, something went already terribly wrong. But it seems you enjoy the idea of increased segregation of society even in developed countries.


I do not favor passive segregation, in the sense I don't think it should promoted. But I also think it shouldn't be necessarily avoided, if it happens as a natural result of market forces.

I'm usually more concerned with segregation of uses and functions (single-zoning ) rather than segregation of incomes. It's good to have its place dedicated to its own specific function instead of mixing function in the same narrow area. That is why I'm so keen on the CBD model, be it a central CBD or a fringe CBD: it's an office area, not a place to live. And I also like the idea of entertainment districts where clubs and pubs can blast music and have people walking around in pedestrianized self-contained places that don't have people living on the same streets.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> Insulation definitely is not the reason for high prices. That is laughable. The impact of insulation costs is simply too low, especially when you consider the full costs and revenues over the whole life span, where better insulated homes have good chances of being more cost efficient than badly insulated ones. Vienna has very strict construction rules and is leading in strict insulation regulations and still has rather low rents compared to other Western European capitals.


Believe me, to hard demands on soundproofing is a problem. Im not talking about heat insulation, im talking about demands such as that every apartment should have a quiet side meaning that one side of the appartment should be free from noice outside the facade.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> The very most poor people usually don't have problems finding central housing because they are more willing to trade space or comfort to location of their 2 jobs -so they cramp up in smaller places. The real flight is most that of middle class families, especially when they have children, and want reasonable space for a price they can afford.


If people believe they can have an apartment of the size of an McMansion in a central location for a low price they are a bit out of touch with reality. But you can find affordable apartments fit for a family with sufficient space and good comfort in central locations in Vienna. Actually one aim of current city planning is to increase the number of attractive urban apartments in somewhat central locations for young middle class families. On one side there are lots of infill and top up projects and large entirely new neighborhoods in abolished central railway areas. Also city design measures are of great importance. New infill playgrounds, safer streets around schools etc are essential for increasing attractiveness for young families. 

But I agree with you, offering apartments for the poor alone is not sufficient, all groups have to be able of finding a place in the urban centre, at least as long as they are willing to pay a bit more for it (but still within their means). 



> Indeed, it's a rather common scenario in many European cities: the central core is mostly dominated by rich households AND very poor, low-income or non-traditional ones (single professionals, students sharing rooms etc.) that live in lower area/inhabitant units, don't mind having 7 people sharing a single bathroom in the house etc.


I can't confirm that. In gentrifying areas with no correcting hand, poor people tend to be driven away almost entirely because substandard apartments get increasingly rare and they can't afford anything else in these locations. 



> Construction itself it usually not that expensive, unless it is an over-the-top historical building retrofit or something. Land is expensive, very expensive indeed.


Indeed. But expensive land prices can be somewhat compensated by cost efficient construction (while still meeting the regulations especially in terms of energy efficiency but also otherwise).


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Dahlis said:


> Believe me, to hard demands on soundproofing is a problem. Im not talking about heat insulation, im talking about demands such as that every apartment should have a quiet side meaning that one side of the appartment should be free from noice outside the facade.


I see, well, I don't know enough about soundproofing to comment on it.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> I do not favor passive segregation, in the sense I don't think it should promoted. But I also think it shouldn't be necessarily avoided, if it happens as a natural result of market forces.


You probably live in the illusion that if its a result of free market forces it has to be good, are you? Excessive segregation and centrifugal forces in society are what turn a pleasant and safe city into a South African style city where you have to hide yourself in fortresses. 



> I'm usually more concerned with segregation of uses and functions (single-zoning ) rather than segregation of incomes. It's good to have its place dedicated to its own specific function instead of mixing function in the same narrow area. That is why I'm so keen on the CBD model, be it a central CBD or a fringe CBD: it's an office area, not a place to live. And I also like the idea of entertainment districts where clubs and pubs can blast music and have people walking around in pedestrianized self-contained places that don't have people living on the same streets.


Well, then move to Brasilia. It must be heaven to you. I wonder why people consider it a negative example for a liveable city however. Functional segregation leads to more crime as it leads to areas devoid of people after business/shopping/nightlife hours. Not to forget that it also leads to horrendous extremes in traffic occurrence. "Edge cities" like Tyson's Corner west of Washington DC are the perfect example for that. Tyson's Corner is a perfectly use separated, car optimized neighborhood. Even though this place is at the crossing of multiple highways and cut into bits and pieces by huge collector rods in between, it manages not only to have a traffic breakdown each morning and evening but even a third one during lunch break. The roads are huge but only filled during these three times a day. The rest of it they are almost empty. There is hardly a more inefficient and costly way to organize a city.


----------



## intensivecarebear (Feb 2, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> @suburbanist
> Maybe it would be a decent idea for you to start realizing that you don't live in a developing world anymore and that the reason why you don't have to live in fortresses or fortress like neighborhoods is because of things like the social system.
> 
> In my opinion if the society starts to fall apart as drastically that you need to fortify middle class homes, something went already terribly wrong. But it seems you enjoy the idea of increased segregation of society even in developed countries. Maybe thats your heritage from having lived in a developing country?.


+1
@suburbanist: countries like South Africa that are considered dangerous are so because of the legacy of shitty systems that forcefully segregated people by race and income.
Hiding behind a high wall in a gated community won't solve that either, so you won't get any crocodile tears from me
Obviously you are in a better developed country now, and you should be grateful for the social services that you get so that you don't have to be scared every time you step out the door. so you can ditch the fortress mentality that you're constantly pushing on this site


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ It is a huge overvaluation of urban planning to blame zoning and density for conditions like income disparity, let alone apartheid. If you suddenly transplanted the Dutch urban planning paradigm to - say - El Salvador or Congo, it wouldn't make those places sudden an oasis of tranquility, civility, respect for property etc.

Macroeconomic issues like wealth concentration (or lack thereof), public services, and socio-cultural issues like respect for other individuals and their property, law abide etc. don't have much do to with urban planning and zoning. 

It is naive, maybe idealistic to believe that a nice planned neighborhood, alone and on itself, will completely change peoples' lives if they don't have income, education, respect for law and other people etc. It's even more naive to ignore a very nice neighborhood built in such countries that decided to go away with the fortress mentality would become the rendezvous of all burglars, shoplifters, youth vandals and panhandlers of the whole region. 

As for me, the only fortress mentality I defend is related to keep low-skilled illegal immigrants (and new low-skilled not needed immigrants) out of Europe, US, Canada, Australia etc.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Suburbanist said:


> Living in abroad in a developing country for many years with your family, having your parents, you and brother count 15 violent incidents over that time (carjackings, armed robberies, ATM knife robbery, burglaries, arson on your family's small farm estate etc.) changes perspectives.
> 
> In certain violent countries in Africa and Latin America, gated communities are the only feasible way for you to have a decent house (that would claim a lot of attention if your style is above that of the average person in that country) without having to fortify it in a public street.
> 
> ...


Very little of Europe or even the US is even remotely that dangerous. Keep your compounds in the third world.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Slartibartfas said:


> I see, well, I don't know enough about soundproofing to comment on it.


I'm no expert but I work for a contractor and have a hardhat on my shelf....

Soundproofing can be dramatically improved. It's a cost issue. 

A few basic methods: 
-- isolate flooring from the structure using a padded membrane beneath
-- stagger wall connection points so sound doesn't pass directly through
-- have different drywall thicknesses on the two sides of common walls (something to do with harmonics)
-- insulate
-- use concrete, and don't let people walk directly on it
-- install multi-layer windows


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ It is a huge overvaluation of urban planning to blame zoning and density for conditions like income disparity, let alone apartheid. If you suddenly transplanted the Dutch urban planning paradigm to - say - El Salvador or Congo, it wouldn't make those places sudden an oasis of tranquility, civility, respect for property etc.
> 
> Macroeconomic issues like wealth concentration (or lack thereof), public services, and socio-cultural issues like respect for other individuals and their property, law abide etc. don't have much do to with urban planning and zoning.


They are not the main factor but urban planning can very well make things better or worse. Sure, you have other tools to keep income disparity within reasonable dimensions but this is an entirely different subject and certainly has no place in this thread. This thread is about suburbia and urban planning. 

I am not saying what is reasonable or not for extreme countries like South Africa which clearly has some very serious issues it has to address before it can think about getting past that fortification mentality.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

Should there be any limits to urban sprawl?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Jim856796 said:


> Should there be any limits to urban sprawl?


No. Market should determine the limits of where to build or not. Except on small and heavily populated COUNTRIES (not cities/metros), the land use for urbanized occupation is rather greater than 5% of all available land mass, so there is plenty to develop.

Australia, for instance, has less than 0,4% of its land mass devoted to developed areas. US, around 3,7% excluding non-urban installations like military fields. United Kingdom, around 9%.

The urbanized area of the developed world could easily double.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Jim856796 said:


> Should there be any limits to urban sprawl?


Of course. There is a building code and construction can only take place where land is being officially dedicated for it. What would be the benefit of anarcho capitalism. Not even the US allows uncontrolled sprawl does it?

It is not about the silly notion that we could run short of land for buildings but about ensuring a working society and protecting environment and also agriculturally valuable land.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Good lord. Let's just screw the whole planet. 

Luckily most countries have people with SOME ethics/morality in power.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> Of course. There is a building code and construction can only take place where land is being officially dedicated for it. What would be the benefit of anarcho capitalism. Not even the US allows uncontrolled sprawl does it?
> 
> It is not about the silly notion that we could run short of land for buildings but about ensuring a working society and protecting environment and also agriculturally valuable land.


Sprawl doesn't mean anarchy. US subdivisions are very well planned, and those relying on HMA (homeowner associations) have tight regulations about building codes, street maintenance etc).

As I said before, the area used by urbanized settlements is rather low in most countries. If one considers one's country, not just what lies withing 50km of his house, one would likely see there is HUGE supply of land out there.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

It's not fair or accurate to blame sprawl on the US. It's really just a by-product of the modern world. Sprawl appeared in every wealthy nation that had affordable land to develop and a growing population. It's to be seen in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the US, and even on the outskirts of European cities that saw significant population growth post 1950.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Suburbanist said:


> As I said before, the area used by urbanized settlements is rather low in most countries. If one considers one's country, not just what lies withing 50km of his house, one would likely see there is HUGE supply of land out there.


In the case of countries such as Australia, rather than just building further and further outwards in the existing cities to deal with the rapidly expanding population I think they should consider wholly new cities. 

Somewhere on the coast between Melbourne and Sydney for example or south of Perth or between Melbourne and Adelaide.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Jonesy55 said:


> In the case of countries such as Australia, rather than just building further and further outwards in the existing cities to deal with the rapidly expanding population I think they should consider wholly new cities.
> 
> Somewhere on the coast between Melbourne and Sydney for example or south of Perth or between Melbourne and Adelaide.


Indeed. US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are sparsely populated and should do well with new cities in the middle-of-nowhere. Not villages, but pop. 200.000+ cities. 

Phoenix as Las Vegas are proofs that even cities in the middle of a desert can flourish and prosper. Australia has so much potential to build new cities in the Outback. They can even organize massive water diversion programs from the Northeast to other areas of the country.

When I lived in Wyoming, I kept thinking so much potential a new city would have in the Great Evaporation Basin (an area whose watersheds don't lead to neither ocean).

In any case: nowadays, much of the economic demand of a city is indirect. You don't need massive industries for a city to have a middle size: a new big university or some military equip. factory could well do the job.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> Phoenix as Las Vegas are proofs that even cities in the middle of a desert can flourish and prosper.


But at a high price. Water consumption at the Colorado River catchment area is so high that the river doesn't consistently reach the Gulf of California any more.


And on-topic: I agree that sprawling communities as such are much older than those in post-WW2 America. For example, in Tallinn suburban areas rose in large quantities between 1920 and WW2. The reason being that the construction of wooden buildings was forbidden in the central area but since there was a high demand for cheap-end rental apartments, wooden buildings arose outside the central area of Tallinn. One of the least dense of them, Nõmme, actually was a separate town by itself but with a central core and a good railway connection to the centre of Tallinn.

The sprawl that happened in and around Tallinn on a massive scale between late 1990s and 2008 was much more chaotic, resulting in half-built areas with a very poor infrastructure (no kindergartens, schools, shops, PT connection etc.) This was a perfect example of what an unregulated free market does. In the past couple of years, municipalities have been spending large amounts of money to build the necessary infrastructure. This could've easily been avoided if the municipalities had allowed large scale residential development only around the existing towns and villages, out of which many already include schools, shops and even a railway connection with a suburban train service(which has a lot of unused capacity).


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Rebasepoiss said:


> The sprawl that happened in and around Tallinn on a massive scale between late 1990s and 2008 was much more chaotic, resulting in half-built areas with a very poor infrastructure (no kindergartens, schools, shops, PT connection etc.) This was a perfect example of what an unregulated free market does. In the past couple of years, municipalities have been spending large amounts of money to build the necessary infrastructure. This could've easily been avoided if the municipalities had allowed large scale residential development only around the existing towns and villages, out of which many already include schools, shops and even a railway connection with a suburban train service(which has a lot of unused capacity).


What if, instead, they required developers to actually build the essential infrastructure instead of selling half-finished neighborhoods? Works the same way. As for shops: that is a private matter. If people don't have shops nearby, they can drive to a place that has them!


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

I asked whether there should be limits because environmental damage would be caused by urban sprawl.


----------



## Piltup Man (May 21, 2010)

> If people don't have shops nearby, they can drive to a place that has them!


A bit annoying if all they need is a packet of cigarettes or some milk.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Piltup Man said:


> A bit annoying if all they need is a packet of cigarettes or some milk.





Jim856796 said:


> I asked whether there should be limits because environmental damage would be caused by urban sprawl.


Sure. As it is annoying when you want to buy groceries for a month and can't have a place to park your car near the supermarket and/or your house entrance. There are always trade-offs. People living in areas far from shops learn to shop in bulk and program shopping, people living in areas with difficult parking learn to spare time to purchase the same stupid basic things twice a week instead of twice a month.

So it is important to have both models, people can choose (better saying: their prices signals sign the developers what are their choices) what they want and live accordingly.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

In Estonia buying food for the whole family for a month would be impossible, unless you want to eat unhealthy (frozen) crap. It's normal to visit the groceries twice a week, even for those that live in the suburbs. If you did it more rarely you would miss out on having fresh meat, bread, milk products etc(for example, I bought a loaf of bread today that expires in 5 days). But I know that in Western Europe and especially in the US, most food products are filled with preservatives so you don't have to visit a supermarket that often. It's up to you to decide what's better.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

isaidso said:


> It's not fair or accurate to blame sprawl on the US. It's really just a by-product of the modern world. Sprawl appeared in every wealthy nation that had affordable land to develop and a growing population. It's to be seen in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the US, and even on the outskirts of European cities that saw significant population growth post 1950.


There's dramatically more in the US by any measure.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Rebasepoiss said:


> In Estonia buying food for the whole family for a month would be impossible, unless you want to eat unhealthy (frozen) crap. It's normal to visit the groceries twice a week, even for those that live in the suburbs. If you did it more rarely you would miss out on having fresh meat, bread, milk products etc(for example, I bought a loaf of bread today that expires in 5 days). But I know that in Western Europe and especially in the US, most food products are filled with preservatives so you don't have to visit a supermarket that often. It's up to you to decide what's better.


That isn't true I think, fresh fruit, veg, meat, dairy etc is not generally filled with preservatives here. But a fresh chicken or steak that you put in the freezer will not lose any nutrition in a couple of weeks nor will it require preservatives. Bread or milk here won't last more than a few days either.

I don't know many people who just do one huge grocery shop per month and even those who do still buy bread, milk etc more often. The 'big shop' is usually to stock up on non-perishable goods like rice, pasta, canned tomatoes, oils, seasonings, etc.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

isaidso said:


> That's quite predictable when you have 309 million people.


You seem to be in denial that in the US its on average much worse. The "sprawl" in Europe for example also includes loads of family homes, but at the same time they feature subcentres and still reasonable PT connections to the city proper. 

And I am not even starting about cities in Asian developed countries. 

No US style sprawl is not an automatic consequence of modern cities it is not even an automatic consequence in modern cities of countries that would have enough space for endless sprawl.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

mhays said:


> This guy manages to disagree with pretty much every point the typical SSCer thinks.


Which makes me wonder why is he doing here.


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

As far as people getting food in the suburbs, most everyone I knew growing up would stop by the supermarket once a week for about an hour and load up on everything they need. If you need something else, or more milk, etc then you just stop by some place and grab some as you're going home from work or out doing whatever you're doing.

There's normally a place you can stop off and grab food or whatever within a 5 or 7 minute drive from almost anywhere in the suburbs.

Most people I know live witin a few minute drive from a supermarket anyway. It's not like you have to drive 30 minutes to an official supermarket. There are dozens and dozens of them in a typical metro area.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Yeah, but it's dumb that need to drive to the supermarket instead of using other forms of transit unless you need to buy a shit load of stuff.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

LtBk said:


> Which makes me wonder why is he doing here.


He's a Troll , he should have been banned a long time ago. He created a ridiculous topic and you people have fed into it.hno:


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Nexis said:


> He's a Troll , he should have been banned a long time ago. He created a ridiculous topic and you people have fed into it.hno:


AFAIK, this is not an advocacy forum where only like-minded people are allowed to participate.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

^^ "SkyscraperCity - In Urbanity We Trust"


----------



## Zach759 (May 20, 2010)

Having many options to transport is great, but i don't see why it's so wrong to use a car. It is the fastest mode of transport especially in the suburbs. A lot f people here prefer not to use public transport. And while getting lightrail would be cool, i don't think it will be any more effective than a bus. It, also won't attract any more people than a bus. Most people, I think, would look at having to use it as being more of a nuisance than a convenience.


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> AFAIK, this is not an advocacy forum where only like-minded people are allowed to participate.


Well its an open minded forum , and most Forumers make sense. You do not and you always start the Controversial threads or de-Rail the topic to suit you. You also back track and reverse your views.... I never seen anyone else on this site have the majority of the site pissed off at them. This is mostly a Urban based site , not a suburban one.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

He can have his opinion. But his are based on fear, and dislike of anything urban. Hard to respect that.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Rebasepoiss said:


> ^^ "SkyscraperCity - In Urbanity We Trust"


Any housing development is part of the urban environment. Some people try to cordon off certain housing patterns as if they didn't exist or were not part of the built-up environment of a city.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Zach759 said:


> And while getting lightrail would be cool, i don't think it will be any more effective than a bus. It, also won't attract any more people than a bus. Most people, I think, would look at having to use it as being more of a nuisance than a convenience.


Reality has proven you wrong. Trams/light rail are more efficient than buses in every way when it comes to transporting people.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Zach759 said:


> Having many options to transport is great, but i don't see why it's so wrong to use a car. It is the fastest mode of transport especially in the suburbs. A lot f people here prefer not to use public transport.


There are many things wrong with too much car traffic. Firstly, if everything is fit for heavy car usage, the city has to be unfit for pedestrians. Its a matter of space. Car infrastructure in cities that have no real alternative consumes so much space (especially infrastructure for parked cars) that it is very hard to impossible to create an environment that is attractive for pedestrians. And if a city is not attractive for pedestrians you end up with things looking like car-only suburbs with adjacent edge cities that maybe even have 3 rush hours (lunch rush hour). A car based city design is by nature one of long distances because a car can get across them rather fast if there is no traffic jam. That leads to an incredibly wasteful city life. While we live in times were petrol is dirt people might not bother but prices won't stay dirt cheap forever. As a matter of fact we are currently running dry of the cheapest oil fields and new ones are increasingly challenging leading to higher exploitation costs. 

You don't need to be as fast (fast means wasting energy two-fold: higher speed * larger distance means more fuel consumption to the power of two) if a city is not of ultra low density like most car dependent US suburbs. On the other side, if you are in a really urban context, bicycles often manage to be as fast as the car for distances up to a few kilometers. 

In cities with inversion climate car traffic is a real curse that is a major health threat as well. Salt Lake city is a good example for that. 

These are just a few arguments why car only neighborhoods are a bad thing. 



> And while getting lightrail would be cool, i don't think it will be any more effective than a bus. It, also won't attract any more people than a bus.


Except that it does, at least when you look at real data. There are many aspects to it and speed isn't as important as some believe. Light rail, like to some extend also BRT is a heavy investment in one precisely defined corridor. A bus corridor is not, it can change with the wind unlike a light rail corridor which is going to stay for a long time. A light rail corridor also concentrates more people into one corridor meaning that real estates around it will be frequented by much more pedestrians than around a bus line. This makes these real estates really attractive for pedestrian and transit oriented mixed-use developments, much more so than a regular bus line. As a direct consequence, many light rail stops become places of interest themselves over time. People don't have to drive 5 min to a supermarket on their way home but have a good chance of simply passing by one directly on their way home by PT. What is more efficient and handy?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> You don't need to be as fast (fast means wasting energy two-fold: higher speed * larger distance means more fuel consumption to the power of two) if a city is not of ultra low density like most car dependent US suburbs. On the other side, if you are in a really urban context, bicycles often manage to be as fast as the car for distances up to a few kilometers.


The problem is that all this brouhaha about "compact cities" doesn't mean you can reach a certain number of population or retail combined floor area faster with transit. Even in an extremely heavy transit-fit place like London metropolitan area. Indeed, even in cities like Paris or NEw York with many express lines, the door-to-door speed of transit rarely exceeds 25-30km/h. Horrendous: it's a proposition to spend, usually the same amount of time of a car-based commute, but living, working in shopping in much smaller places. Counter-logic.

In US, the average commute time for New York CSA is the higher among all other metropolises in US, 11 minutes ahead of the second-longest commute (Washington, DC). What is the point of having much expensive housing on a $/sq. ft. area, smaller houses, cramped subways instead of comfortable cars *if at the end of the day you are going to spend as much time as you would in a car, despite jams?*


----------



## Zach759 (May 20, 2010)

@ Slartibartfas:Your arguments are great! I'm not here to disagree. It's just really hard for me to picture the desire to own and drive a car to go away here. It would be cool though and I'm all for it.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

> In US, the average commute time for New York CSA is the higher among all other metropolises in US, 11 minutes ahead of the second-longest commute (Washington, DC). What is the point of having much expensive housing on a $/sq. ft. area, smaller houses, cramped subways instead of comfortable cars if at the end of the day you are going to spend as much time as you would in a car, despite jams?


A few things:
1.New York's CSA has over 22 million people, so traffic is going to very bad regardless of how big the expressway network or mass transit is(at least the subway continues moving in rush hour traffic).
2.A high percentage of New York's CSA population lives in auto centric suburbia.
3.New York is richest metropolitan area in the US so houses are going to be expensive too.
4.The expressway network is somewhat inadequate, but that's more to do with bad urban planning. See number 1 too.
5.Millions of people are still using the subway despite overcrowding and slower speeds(speed isn't everything unless you in rush). Same with commuter networks in the region. Not everybody likes to drive.
6.Without the extensive metro and commuter networks, traffic would be multiple times worse than it is now. 
7.House sizes aren't everything. Many people are buying smaller houses, apartments, and condos in NYC despite smaller sizes, and outrageous prices.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> The problem is that all this brouhaha about "compact cities" doesn't mean you can reach a certain number of population or retail combined floor area faster with transit. Even in an extremely heavy transit-fit place like London metropolitan area. Indeed, even in cities like Paris or NEw York with many express lines, the door-to-door speed of transit rarely exceeds 25-30km/h. Horrendous: it's a proposition to spend, usually the same amount of time of a car-based commute, but living, working in shopping in much smaller places. Counter-logic.


I can say based on experience that during rush hour it does not matter which mode of transportation you take for many routes. Your not faster by car than by PT (not pure subway, mixed route with some changes of line etc) or by bike. Only out of rush hour you are faster by car but then, only if you don't count the time you need for parking and walking from where you found something. 

In the end its not about distance from a personal perspective but time. People rarely accept commuting times much longer than an hour one way. If people live more compact you simply don't have to be as fast as on an not congested highway. In the time you need for your commute by PT you usually pass by shops so you can get alimentary stuff etc without a lot of hassle at all. By car you certainly need a larger detour, get out of the car etc. 

I think I have given some rather sound reasons why PT oriented cities where people have an actual choice of mode of transportation are in my eyes superior. It is well worth to live in somewhat smaller places in exchange. I am not quite sure why the m2 of your apartment or home should be the primary factor that decides it all. It is just one among many. 



> In US, the average commute time for New York CSA is the higher among all other metropolises in US, 11 minutes ahead of the second-longest commute (Washington, DC). What is the point of having much expensive housing on a $/sq. ft. area, smaller houses, cramped subways instead of comfortable cars *if at the end of the day you are going to spend as much time as you would in a car, despite jams?*


Just because you hate PT, does not mean everyone does. You can read a book or a newspaper during your ride which you can't when you are going by car. You can also go through your agenda of the day or think about stuff in detail already in preparation of your day. I wouldn't suggest you to do the same on the highway, it would be a real safety risk for you and others. So the time spent on PT doesn't automatically compare 1:1 to the one spent in a car as a driver.

For the rest, LtBk delivered already a lot of good arguments addressing your points as well.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

As for the Washington DC, the reason it's ranked behind NYC despite having 13 million or so fewer people has to with inadequate transportation, and lack of smart growth planning, mostly on Virginia's side that continues rapid auto centric developments in outer suburbs/exurbs despite few transportation improvements(both road and mass transit) in the region. Even in Montgomery County, MD the urban landscape is dominated by auto centric sprawl, but it's slowly improving. Same with Prince Georgia's County, and smart growth hasn't catched on yet. DC has an excellent(by US standards) mass transit system, especially the metro, but huge segments aren't covered by it, and the commuter rail system is weak for it's size. As for roads, there is only going to be one new tollway, the Intercounty Connector that connects MD suburbs between I-270 and US 1, and I think some major roads in VA are going to be upgraded, but no more new freeways in next couple of decades as far as I know.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

The greater Washington DC area is indeed hosting among the most terrible auto centric hoods in the US. After all Tysons Corner is considered the prototype of the "edge city" and its among the worst examples of the excesses of a failed traffic policy over many decades. It is ironic that nowadays there is a big effort going on in completely changing that terrible and inhumane "edge city" into something which might have a future. It is not easy.

Tysons corner is great. Do you see that crescent shaped block in the upper left corner? Its a residential block and it is utterly impossible to get from there to any of the many close by offices and malls by other means than your car without suicidal crossing of highway like roads, possibly even several of them.










So they are now planning to make Tysons corner the first "edge city" that turns from hell hole into a real city. Its a plan over 40 years! By then it is planned to have 100,000 inhabitants and 200,000 jobs. Today it has 17,000 inhabitants while hosts 105,000 jobs.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> In US, the average commute time for New York CSA is the higher among all other metropolises in US, 11 minutes ahead of the second-longest commute (Washington, DC). What is the point of having much expensive housing on a $/sq. ft. area, smaller houses, cramped subways instead of comfortable cars *if at the end of the day you are going to spend as much time as you would in a car, despite jams?*


It all depends on how you value time. CEO's of Megacorp probably value time a lot higher than a twenty-something working retail in a downtown area. CEO's or other bigwigs will almost always prefer to drive. For others, time isn't as important.

With that said...the cost savings far outweigh the time savings for most people. Driving involves license fees, city stickers, maintenance, fuel, parking fees, parking availability, weather...it all adds up. Does saving 20 minutes every morning really justify paying $100s more per month? For many (especially in NYC, etc), no.

What's so "comfortable" about cars anyways? I find the train much more comfortable. I can read, sleep, whatever...


----------



## Crash_N (May 19, 2011)

Don't blame the thread: blame the troll.


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2011/10/suburban-sprawl-ponzi-scheme/242/



> In particular, in the report and an accompanying press release, Strong Towns calls on local officials to change course and shed the “dead ideas” of the suburban era, including these:
> 
> -That local governments can grow without considering the public’s return on investment. Being blind to the financial productivity of our places has led to inefficient use of public infrastructure investments and allowed local governments to assume overwhelming, long-term financial obligations for maintaining infrastructure.
> -That local budget problems can be solved by creating more growth. More growth in the same unproductive pattern will only increase our economic problems. What is needed is an approach that improves our use of existing infrastructure investments.
> ...


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ Good luck with them trying to circumvent HOAs. Just another "hate you shop at Walmart and your kids never come downtown" piece.


----------



## Mruczek (Dec 13, 2008)

niterider said:


> Exactly. Take London for example. To get from A to B, with the exception of the central zone, you are likely to need to travel just to reach the station, usually by bus. Most journeys require interchanging. And the points I made apply to all forms of transit, not just a subway journey. Doing that with luggage, shopping, children or in bad weather is more inconvenient. A car allows someone to get from A to B direct.


How exactly? Unless A or B are equipped with built-in car park (some of them indeed are) you have to search for parking space, then buy a ticket, then walk. 

In European capitals, even outside the city centre, it's hard to find a free space on the street. You have to search for it (which eats time), go to/from it and by the way, pay for it.

And taking London for example, I'd like to point out that average speed of cars in the city centre can't beat speed of horse carriages from XIX century. Cool, ain't it?hno:



niterider said:


> Nobody's saying everyone should drive into the core of large urban areas during rush hours. Public transit is great for this purpose - mass movement into defined areas. For the rest of the time, and that means for everyday life and the majority of urban areas outside the denser cores, the car is more convienient than interchanging along transit. By all means provide transist, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking the world is going to go back to it as the primary mode of transport anytime soon.


Well, in large European cities this process is already more and more visible. Usually, with applause of citizens. And at the same time new motorways are being built. OUTSIDE the cities.


----------



## phelipelesmes (Sep 7, 2011)

*very beatifull Houston Texas*



Suburbanist said:


> A city environment is urban.
> 
> That pic of Houston was taken on the 1970s, before the oil boom and after irrelevant outdated early 20th Century housing, some of it crappy wooden quasi-slums, had already been cleared.
> 
> ...



lo que me gusta de las ciudades capitales de USA es que todas tienen un  skyline muy moderno y urbanizado ​


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

There is nothing wrong with suburban development in itself even on a vast, low density scale, and it should be available for those desiring a suburban, car-dependent lifestyle. Clearly many people do and it's easy to see why. They want a house with plenty of space, a backyard for the kids to play and a car (or, more often, several cars) to get around. Nothing wrong with that, and in a free country people should certainly have that choice.

But there must be proper balance.

The problem as some have mentioned - and it's been evident particularly in the US - is the corrosive effect that mindless, auto-centric suburban development can have on the urban core, which is to the detriment of everyone. Then you end up with places like Houston or Atlanta where the only public place where you can see another human being is a gas station or a shopping mall. Some like Suburbanist would be happy to live that way, but most people would not. 

To be sure, this is a complicated issue and there is a myriad of other inter-dependent factors that have led to the decline of American cities - white flight, crime, inadequate supply of quality affordable housing in innercities, etc. But it's also clear that excessive focus on suburban development, poor urban planning and neglect of innercities have played a major role. As a result most American cities now reflect a depressing three-tier urban structure: 1. A business district that has very little residential population and inadequate shopping/entertainment facilities. It may or may not be lively during the day but is almost certain to be dead after business hours. 2. A ring of mostly poor, neglected, crime ridden inner-city neighborhoods ("ghettos"). 3. Lifeless, soulless suburbia where most people live - the land of freeways, strip malls and shopping centers.

It's a bleak picture, created by policies advocated by people like Suburbanist.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Suburbanist said:


> A city environment is urban.
> 
> That pic of Houston was taken on the 1970s, before the oil boom and after irrelevant outdated early 20th Century housing, some of it crappy wooden quasi-slums, had already been cleared.
> 
> ...


Many US downtowns look stunning from the freeway until you actually drive into them and discover an empty, lifeless wasteland. Houston is a good example. I spent a few weeks there on a work assignment a few years ago and it was depressing. Driving into downtown at 9 am (morning rush hour!) and not a pedestrian in sight. No residential population... little shopping... just big, boxy office buildings and some hotels. What makes it even worse is that they have an underground network of shops and restaurants which saps most of the foot traffic below ground. Miserable. Just look around in Google Street View.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

> What makes it even worse is that they have an underground network of shops and restaurants which saps most of the foot traffic below ground. Miserable. Just look around in Google Street View.


Simple: like Montreal, but in the opposite direction, Houston has extremely uncomfortable weather for half year, and the underground alleys provide a way to walk handful of blocks... Without sweating like u were in a gym. Las Vegas, Phoenix, Houston are not places you can expect to see ppl on streets with temps above 90F often.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> Simple: like Montreal, but in the opposite direction, Houston has extremely uncomfortable weather for half year, and the underground alleys provide a way to walk handful of blocks... Without sweating like u were in a gym. Las Vegas, Phoenix, Houston are not places you can expect to see ppl on streets with temps above 90F often.


I've been to Las Vegas several time...

The main boulevard is packed full of people, and from what I saw was the most pedestrian friendly place outside the north east! nice bridges to cross the roads rather than scary under passes like here in England!


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

I think the underground tunnels in Houston are cool, and I don't think they are intended to really perform the function of an urban street. If there was more stuff in downtown besides office buildings, then the streets would be busier.

If downtown Houston undergoes a high density residential building boom, the tunnels probably wouldn't be attached to the towers since they were mostly for offices full of workers. And the new residents probably wouldn't use them so they don't sap the life out of the streets. Honestly, as bad as the Texas heat can be, its actually a pain in the ass for a "civilian" to use the tunnels anyways. Most of the entrances are inside private buildings and are not marked, and they are very confusing to navigate. Everything inside of them closes at 4 pm or otherwise has bizarre hours. Its kind of like how in a college town there can be a starbucks branch inside the university campus's student center, and another off campus on a street corner, and they don't compete despite being very close to one another.


----------



## Xpressway (Dec 2, 2006)

Why should we ban people from living where they want? The U.S and most countries on earth don't suffer from land shortage and as long the communities pay their taxes to finance their own services i don't see a problem with it.

If suburbia really makes public services more expensive such as police and roads then the inhabitants of suburban communities can pay more, if they don't want to pay more for it they can go back to the city.

I love living in the city and i love travelling to other cities but i don't have a problem with people that don't share my view.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Xpressway said:


> Why should we ban people from living where they want? The U.S and most countries on earth don't suffer from land shortage and as long the communities pay their taxes to finance their own services i don't see a problem with it.
> 
> If suburbia really makes public services more expensive such as police and roads then the inhabitants of suburban communities can pay more, if they don't want to pay more for it they can go back to the city.
> 
> I love living in the city and i love travelling to other cities but i don't have a problem with people that don't share my view.


You'll see the problem when the energy prices multiply within a matter of years but the need to adopt the design of the cities takes several decades. Your almighty market is set to have a serious problem then if you don't have the necessary flexibility by setting all your cards on long distance car based commuting. But if you love gambling, why not?


----------



## Xpressway (Dec 2, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> You'll see the problem when the energy prices multiply within a matter of years but the need to adopt the design of the cities takes several decades. Your almighty market is set to have a serious problem then if you don't have the necessary flexibility by setting all your cards on long distance car based commuting. But if you love gambling, why not?


If in the future the transportation is still dependant on fossil fuels, and if the prices multiply as you predict to a point in which people in the suburbs can't go to work anymore then our whole economy would collapse, doesn't matter if people lives in the city or suburbs.

Fuel isn't only used to people in the suburbs can go shopping or go to work.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Xpressway said:


> If in the future the transportation is still dependant on fossil fuels, and if the prices multiply as you predict to a point in which people in the suburbs can't go to work anymore then our whole economy would collapse, doesn't matter if people lives in the city or suburbs.


It doesn't matter if energy is still fossil fuel based or not actually. Alternative energy sources exist but they won't be cheaper, not in the next decades so much can be said with quite some certainty. Fossil fuels if exploitation rates should be held constant (which is the most likely scenario for the coming years) won't be able of keeping up with the demand of growing major economies like China. Economic 101 should tell you what that means to prices. 

I am not talking about economies collapsing. I am talking about transport becoming a much bigger cost factor again. This is not the end of the world but it will create strong pressure to shorten distances again where it is feasible. Now the point is you can't react in appropriate speed with urban design as that takes decades. If you wait for the prices to increase you'll head directly into decades of serious competitive disadvantages to other developed areas of the world which will find it much easier to adapt to the new higher prices and shorter distances of commuters. 

Given that this is all foreseeable it is at your own risk to gamble against by ignoring it. As a matter of fact the US however is not totally ignoring it. Your cities are already starting to lay the basis for a more diversified mobility offer as well as potentially shorter commuter distances by better mixed more urban developments at least in central urban areas. 



> Fuel isn't only used to people in the suburbs can go shopping or go to work.


No it is not. Being not prepared for rising fuel costs will also hit the other parts of American economy hard that are still wasteful compared to competitors that started to enforce higher energy efficiency already long ago.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> No it is not. Being not prepared for rising fuel costs will also hit the other parts of American economy hard that are still wasteful compared to competitors that started to enforce higher energy efficiency already long ago.


OTOH, by any accounts Americans are quite affluent. For instance: various research show that, on average, American households throw out 25-30% of all calories they buy on the form of edible foods (e.g., food that goes to the garbage after being purchased by families, not including losses on the supply chain upwards, nor things like the fat attached to the beef, fruit skins etc). Even a jolt on price of foods can still be managed somehow with some diet modification.

People from Bangladesh, though (and many other countries) would die from starvation because they need to import food (can't produce enough there) and have very limited incomes.

Another huge source of energy short-term saving is climate control. Heating and/or cooling non-industrial buildings uses more energy than all transportation (Freight + people) in US, with room to spare. Minor changes like increasing or decreasing the room temperature by 3 oF can make a huge difference.

In Mongolia, spike in oil prices means people have to cut trees to heat themselves and avoid freezing to death.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> OTOH, by any accounts Americans are quite affluent. For instance: various research show that, on average, American households throw out 25-30% of all calories they buy on the form of edible foods (e.g., food that goes to the garbage after being purchased by families, not including losses on the supply chain upwards, nor things like the fat attached to the beef, fruit skins etc). Even a jolt on price of foods can still be managed somehow with some diet modification.


I am not talking about food, you completely miss the point. I am talking about competitiveness and just because transport is not a big issue today in the US does not mean it will stay that way, actually it is irrational to assume this short era of ultra cheap transportation will continue for many decades to come. 

The oil crises gave a warning shot to Europe what a rise in oil prices can do to the importance of transportation as a cost factor. That is why nowadays Europe is much better prepared for another hike in prices while the US is not. 



> Another huge source of energy short-term saving is climate control. Heating and/or cooling non-industrial buildings uses more energy than all transportation (Freight + people) in US, with room to spare. Minor changes like increasing or decreasing the room temperature by 3 oF can make a huge difference.


Sure, there is substantial room indeed. But it won't be able to bring down a substantially higher oil price which is fueled by external factors which the US has limited means to influence. It could choose to rob its strategical domestic oil reserves to keep the oil price down for another decade or two. This could indeed ease the pain, but it would come at a high strategical price and still won't suffice to change the very design of American cities in order to reflect the market needs. 

That is the problem. Free market fetishists think a market can cope with anything, but if you have a market where supply and demand of others can change within years dramatically but you can adapt your own only in a matter of decades, relying a 100% on free markets is the recipe for disaster. 



> In Mongolia, spike in oil prices means people have to cut trees to heat themselves and avoid freezing to death.


And in the US it would mean recession or even depression because entire branches would be rendered hopelessly uncompetitive to third countries economies that are much better adapted for such risks. Sure, Mongolia is even worse off but again you are missing my point.


----------



## Xpressway (Dec 2, 2006)

^^ @Slartibartfas
I understand what you're saying, but what i'm trying to tell you is that IF energy prices will keep going up, it will happen gradually over the long term, as it increases gradually then the people can move closer to cities again in a slow way. Remember american cities have a huge overcapacity of housing and infrastructure as they were inhabited before.

Now, if we reach a point in which energy is so expensive that suburban economies can't work anymore, those high prices of energy will not only disrupt suburban economies but also the whole world economy. Many inefficient developing economies need more cheaper energy than the U.S suburbs do and the agro business also needs lots of cheap energy just like suburbs do.

My point is that a very sharp and quick increase in the prices in of energy would have a disastrous effect on pretty much almost every city and town there is on earth, not just the suburbs.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Fitzrovian said:


> Many US downtowns look stunning from the freeway until you actually drive into them and discover an empty, lifeless wasteland. Houston is a good example. I spent a few weeks there on a work assignment a few years ago and it was depressing. Driving into downtown at 9 am (morning rush hour!) and not a pedestrian in sight. No residential population... little shopping... just big, boxy office buildings and some hotels.


I don't understand why some people are so sensitive for "lack of pedestrians on sight" as if it were, on itself and by itself, the most important sing of prosperity or development of a city.

On a broader scale, I don't get how urban planners are so obsessed (sometimes to the point that it creeps me out) with "seeing people" on streets, as if in most cities people didn't spend the majority of their non-sleeping time inside buildings, working, eating, doing laundry or dishes, having sex with their spouse or helping kids with their homework. Except on touristic zones whose main attraction are buildings, pedestrian traffic is just another form, no more no less important than others, of... traffic of people getting from point A to point B. Sometimes, it gets borderline voyeuristic, obsessive to see how urban planners write about people they see (or not) on streets and how they try to evaluate whole districts on that basis alone. 



Fitzrovian said:


> There is nothing wrong with suburban development in itself even on a vast, low density scale, and it should be available for those desiring a suburban, car-dependent lifestyle. Clearly many people do and it's easy to see why. They want a house with plenty of space, a backyard for the kids to play and a car (or, more often, several cars) to get around. Nothing wrong with that, and in a free country people should certainly have that choice.
> 
> But there must be proper balance.


Up to this point, I agree.



> The problem as some have mentioned - and it's been evident particularly in the US - is the corrosive effect that mindless, auto-centric suburban development can have on the urban core, which is to the detriment of everyone. Then you end up with places like Houston or Atlanta where the only public place where you can see another human being is a gas station or a shopping mall. Some like Suburbanist would be happy to live that way, but most people would not.


Physically, suburban development only very rarely physically damages downtown. It is done mostly over farmland, former industrial sites, reclaimed/drained areas etc.

What I can't accept is the line of reasoning that blames suburban development for "steering people out of traditional neighborhoods" and "draining the lifeblood of downtown's centrality in business, shopping and entertainment" and similar b.s.

People should not be "directed" to patronize stores, restaurants or parks in an area just because it has always been that way and the area is central.

That is why I often read people criticizing suburbs, office parks on edge cities and malls - it is not like they are protesting some urban renewal scheme that is going to demolish large swaths of the old downtown (though I love those schemes very much to get rid of old buildings and street patterns): they are complaining that by offering choices that are perceived as more convenient (especially when you factor in car ownership), strip malls, office parks and the likes keep people from going downtown because they 'fit' better a life mentality that doesn't see downtown as 'the natural place to go'. 

Then, I get angry at people seeing me as a "source of life" to downtown and wanting to restrict a mall near a highway because I "must" go downtown together with thousand others to avoid leaving the area looking like "dead". And this is social engineering, state mingling in private business and communistic planning at their worse. 

I agree that there should be zoning allowing developers (private, please) to cater for those wanting to live in a more "city-like" urban environment. However, given the hype of city life these days, those developments will me most likely either very expensive and upper class (measured as price per property and so more as price per area) or cheap, low quality welfare-recipient directed social housing.

Even so, let developers build higher density areas, as long as planner don't try to limit or force commercial development for such areas under the (dis)guise of "now we have 5.000 people living within walking distance of this site and we need to forbid new supermarkets in the highway to force one to open shop here".



> 3. Lifeless, soulless suburbia where most people live - the land of freeways, strip malls and shopping centers.


I honestly don't see how my shopping experience can be enhanced if I buy a pair or trainers in a glassy, strip-mall Decathlon store or in a similar glassy, similar priced but built inside a mixup of the 3 1800s building façade store downtown. It is irrelevant for most people.

Also, it is my guess most people don't care, don't give a dam about the "soul" of their neighborhood if they are middle class, e.g., not elite wealthy to put a high status appearance on the place they live, nor politicized poorers making their ghetto a "mothball of activism and social change". Middle class families usually are not willing to pay gazillions of the sake of a "cool ZIP code", nor are willing to be heavily involved in community affairs because they are all hopeless and facing serious issues.


----------



## Xpressway (Dec 2, 2006)

Suburbanist, i agree with almost everything you wrote except with the fact that middle class families don't care about community affairs, many middle class families do enjoy living in cities with lots of street life.

I believe suburbia vs. city is a personal choice rather than a social class choice.

In my metro area (Santiago, Chile) there are rich, poor and middle class suburbs and there are rich, poor and middle class neighborhoods in the city.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Xpressway said:


> ^^ @Slartibartfas
> I understand what you're saying, but what i'm trying to tell you is that IF energy prices will keep going up,


It is not a matter if but only when. Either that or the global population is miraculously shrinking again or the US can force large parts of the developed world back into misery while maintaining its own position. Both things don't sound very likely. 



> it will happen gradually over the long term, as it increases gradually then the people can move closer to cities again in a slow way. Remember american cities have a huge overcapacity of housing and infrastructure as they were inhabited before.


You'd hope. Maybe you are lucky and it is even in gradually as in snail speed slow motion, taking half a century. But trends have already shown in the past that it doesn't usually take that long. The demand is set to substantially increase but it is already now pointing very clearly in the direction that resources won't be able to keep up with that. The point is, if you gamble, you might win, but chances are against you. And if you win, its not the system it is having incredible luck. The same like with a market that can't work because the one side can change within years and the reaction can take decades. You seem to be saying you'd like to take the chances that prices won't change in any other way than at snail pace. 



> Now, if we reach a point in which energy is so expensive that suburban economies can't work anymore, those high prices of energy will not only disrupt suburban economies but also the whole world economy. Many inefficient developing economies need more cheaper energy than the U.S suburbs do and the agro business also needs lots of cheap energy just like suburbs do.


Developing countries have much less sprawl (that doesn't mean none though) and have much denser cities. Pretending otherwise is hilarious. Have a look at Spotila's maps for a first guess in another thread. But its not about the poorer developing countries its about other developed countries, mainly in Asia but also partially in Europe. They'll be much better suited to cope with higher prices in many way, one major one is city design. 

Sure that isn't the only thing agriculture needs a lot of energy, but lets talk no nonsense. Agriculture is the last area where cutting back output is acceptable (notwithstanding possible savings due to optimized logistics and more localized production)



> My point is that a very sharp and quick increase in the prices in of energy would have a disastrous effect on pretty much almost every city and town there is on earth, not just the suburbs.


I am not talking about price increases over night nor of disastrous dimensions. I am talking about substantial increases over a matter of a few years or one decade. The US will be hit harder than others, one major reason and one of the hardest to address is the inflexible long distances car centric city design. No it won't be fun for anyone, but its not true that it will be an equal disaster for everyone. Some regions which are prepared might actually profit.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> Sure that isn't the only thing agriculture needs a lot of energy, but lets talk no nonsense. Agriculture is the last area where cutting back output is acceptable (notwithstanding possible savings due to optimized logistics and more localized production)


Again, false misconceptions in place... usually, the energy it takes to produce tropical staples in greenhouses (like asparagus or tomatoes in Ontario or Scotland) is much higher than the energy spent to transport them from Panama or Peru to Ontario, for instance. Cows (for diary and meat production) can survive in most climates, but the energy it takes to grow hay and other "local" grasses in colder areas is more than the energy spent to transport soybeans from Brazil or Botswana to farm-factories in northern places.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

You don't need glasshouses to grow asparagus in Scotland, but i don't think they grow much of it anyway.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Again, false misconceptions in place... usually, the energy it takes to produce tropical staples in greenhouses (like asparagus or tomatoes in Ontario or Scotland) is much higher than the energy spent to transport them from Panama or Peru to Ontario, for instance. Cows (for diary and meat production) can survive in most climates, but the energy it takes to grow hay and other "local" grasses in colder areas is more than the energy spent to transport soybeans from Brazil or Botswana to farm-factories in northern places.


I was not precise enough above. Of course you need to substantially increase energy efficiency in agriculture if fuel prices rise substantially as well but not at the cost of output. More energy demanding crops will become more of a luxury however (those from greenhouses) while more energy efficient will become much more widely used again. 

The point I made above and which you failed to see was that agricultural output is more important than other parts of economy. Because thats the very very basis we live on. If you don't have enough fuel thats pretty bad for economy, but if you don't have enough food its disastrous. 

The main reason however why I was talking about city design and not about agriculture was because you can make agriculture more energy efficient in a much shorter time than you can do so with local transportation.


----------



## Xpressway (Dec 2, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> It is not a matter if but only when. Either that or the global population is miraculously shrinking again or the US can force large parts of the developed world back into misery while maintaining its own position. Both things don't sound very likely.
> 
> You'd hope. Maybe you are lucky and it is even in gradually as in snail speed slow motion, taking half a century. But trends have already shown in the past that it doesn't usually take that long. The demand is set to substantially increase but it is already now pointing very clearly in the direction that resources won't be able to keep up with that. The point is, if you gamble, you might win, but chances are against you. And if you win, its not the system it is having incredible luck. The same like with a market that can't work because the one side can change within years and the reaction can take decades. You seem to be saying you'd like to take the chances that prices won't change in any other way than at snail pace.


Forcing people to move back into the cities is also gambling, what if we actually find innovations that push down the needs or cost of transportation? 

Plus, people isn't stupid, if they expect the price of energy to rise sharply over the long term they would start moving back to the cities right now.



> Developing countries have much less sprawl (that doesn't mean none though) and have much denser cities. Pretending otherwise is hilarious. Have a look at Spotila's maps for a first guess in another thread. But its not about the poorer developing countries its about other developed countries, mainly in Asia but also partially in Europe. They'll be much better suited to cope with higher prices in many way, one major one is city design.
> 
> Sure that isn't the only thing agriculture needs a lot of energy, but lets talk no nonsense. Agriculture is the last area where cutting back output is acceptable (notwithstanding possible savings due to optimized logistics and more localized production)


I didn't say that developing nations have more urban sprawl than the U.S. Still, developing nations aren't as energy-efficient as the U.S despite the U.S having massive sprawl.

Most asian economies except for Singapore, Japan and South Korea waste lots of energy, far more than the U.S. Millions would fall back into poverty in the blink of an eye just if the price of energy spikes.



> I am not talking about price increases over night nor of disastrous dimensions. I am talking about substantial increases over a matter of a few years or one decade. The US will be hit harder than others, one major reason and one of the hardest to address is the inflexible long distances car centric city design. No it won't be fun for anyone, but its not true that it will be an equal disaster for everyone. Some regions which are prepared might actually profit.


That would need some scientific backing.

For example, you'd have to study the correlation between growth and the price of energy or the correlation between suburban consumption and energy prices.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Xpressway said:


> Forcing people to move back into the cities is also gambling, what if we actually find innovations that push down the needs or cost of transportation?


Lets suppose that is a realistic scenario (which I think it is not). If you are too car centric and have too long distances you'll experience in one case no problems and in the other case severe problems of excessive transport costs, transport which is hard to evade without waiting decades for fundamental change of the city design. 

If you are too compact and offer too many mobility choices you have at high fuel prices a clear advantage and at low fuel costs, there is neither an advantage nor disadvantage in terms of competitiveness. 

So what do you think is the better strategy?


> Plus, people isn't stupid, if they expect the price of energy to rise sharply over the long term they would start moving back to the cities right now.


Maybe, maybe not. People's perception is also not always right either. So are they already moving back?


> I didn't say that developing nations have more urban sprawl than the U.S. Still, developing nations aren't as energy-efficient as the U.S despite the U.S having massive sprawl.


Do you have statistics on that? I don't know if they are more or less energy efficient than the US (I know however that compared to other developed countries, the US is a lot less energy efficient), but developing countries need a lot less energy to start with. 


> Most asian economies except for Singapore, Japan and South Korea waste lots of energy, far more than the U.S. Millions would fall back into poverty in the blink of an eye just if the price of energy spikes.


That is your unsupported claim and theory. But I think we are heading off topic. It does not matter that much either, as the ones that the US has to stay competitive with are the developed countries, ie, all those nice exceptions you mentioned yourself. 


> That would need some scientific backing. For example, you'd have to study the correlation between growth and the price of energy or the correlation between suburban consumption and energy prices.


A correlation does not prove a causal link especially in highly complex systems like the one we are talking about, but of course, one should study this and hopefully some are also doing that. 

The question you ask are however secondary. The prices will rise no matter no matter if we choose a less energy wasting society or not, unless population growth is reversed or a significant share of the developed world falls back into misery. Or we miraculously find out how to endlessly and exponentially increase our energy supply or exponentially increase our energy efficiency. That is a matter of logic actually. 

In the end of course the fundamental problem is overpopulation but that is another story.


----------



## Xpressway (Dec 2, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> Lets suppose that is a realistic scenario (which I think it is not). If you are too car centric and have too long distances you'll experience in one case no problems and in the other case severe problems of excessive transport costs, transport which is hard to evade without waiting decades for fundamental change of the city design.
> 
> If you are too compact and offer too many mobility choices you have at high fuel prices a clear advantage and at low fuel costs, there is neither an advantage nor disadvantage in terms of competitiveness.
> 
> So what do you think is the better strategy?


But transport isn't the only thing that affects competitiveness of a nation and therefor well being for its citizens.

I really believe we should investigate more about the effects of rising energy prices on the competitiveness of the different nations.



> Maybe, maybe not. People's perception is also not always right either. So are they already moving back?


I don't know, are they?



> Do you have statistics on that? I don't know if they are more or less energy efficient than the US (I know however that compared to other developed countries, the US is a lot less energy efficient), but developing countries need a lot less energy to start with.


Indeed the U.S is not very efficient when it comes to energy compaired to its developed peers.

Many developing nations on the other hand aren't efficient and they have massive fiscal policies for keeping down the prices of energy to keep many industries alive.



> That is your unsupported claim and theory. But I think we are heading off topic. It does not matter that much either, as the ones that the US has to stay competitive with are the developed countries, ie, all those nice exceptions you mentioned yourself.
> 
> A correlation does not prove a causal link especially in highly complex systems like the one we are talking about, but of course, one should study this and hopefully some are also doing that.


I agree.



> The question you ask are however secondary. The prices will rise no matter no matter if we choose a less energy wasting society or not, unless population growth is reversed or a significant share of the developed world falls back into misery. Or we miraculously find out how to endlessly and exponentially increase our energy supply or exponentially increase our energy efficiency. That is a matter of logic actually.
> 
> In the end of course the fundamental problem is overpopulation but that is another story.


I just believe that individuals and societies can be very effective at managing scarce resources such as energy therefor i don't believe the role of urban planners is about forcing people to move or tell people how to live. (not that i don't believe urban planning is extremely important, i just believe urban planning is more about assisting rather than forcing).


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Xpressway said:


> But transport isn't the only thing that affects competitiveness of a nation and therefor well being for its citizens
> 
> I really believe we should investigate more about the effects of rising energy prices on the competitiveness of the different nations.


No its not the only thing. Actually as fuel is still so cheap it is a relatively minor one compared to other aspects. The point is however that this could change dramatically even with moderate rises. Unlike some other aspects however, you can't change the nature of a city within a few years. Many other things can be adapted in a way that markets can react to it in time. City design is not among them and therefore you need pro-active polices next to the market in this area. You can't rely on the market taking care of an aspect that it can't take care in time due to fundamental aspects of reality (ie time it takes to react). That is my whole point.


----------



## Xpressway (Dec 2, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> No its not the only thing. Actually as fuel is still so cheap it is a relatively minor one compared to other aspects. The point is however that this could change dramatically even with moderate rises. Unlike some other aspects however, you can't change the nature of a city within a few years. Many other things can be adapted in a way that markets can react to it in time. City design is not among them and therefore you need pro-active polices next to the market in this area. You can't rely on the market taking care of an aspect that it can't take care in time due to fundamental aspects of reality (ie time it takes to react). That is my whole point.


I understand your point, but we have to remember that governments might not do the right thing either and i'd rather have a market failure than a government failure.

It's not like a government can do whatever it wants and efficiently move millions from the suburbs back to the cities, there's many interests involved and people that just doesn't want to move now making such a massive plan a deep failure.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Xpressway said:


> I understand your point, but we have to remember that governments might not do the right thing either and i'd rather have a market failure than a government failure.


Governments might not do the right thing, but markets are can not do the right regarding this specific issue. Call me naive, but I'd prefer having the chance of government success over the certainty of market failure. (Because that failure is predestined due to systematic reasons mentioned above)



> It's not like a government can do whatever it wants and efficiently move millions from the suburbs back to the cities, there's many interests involved and people that just doesn't want to move now making such a massive plan a deep failure.


No it can't force people, but it can assist projects that make better mixed and better connected places more attractive and it can create financial and other incentives. That can only support a gradual change and won't be forcing anyone to move anywhere at gun point. But it is enough if done well to make the structure of a city much more flexible so that changes in fuel prices can be coped with much better. Don't forget that public transport needs a critical mass to be efficient. You can't create a critical mass without investing a lot. Private companies won't invest a lot into something that is a big gamble and will need a decade or longer to realize. Now you can say of course, that is proof why PT should not exist, but cities around the world prove that without PT they would turn into true traffic hell holes - much more than they are already with it.


----------



## old school (Apr 26, 2009)

*All-white suburbs vanish from USA, The Washington Post*

Census: The new U.S. neighborhood defined by diversity as all-white enclaves vanish
By Carol Morello and Dan Keating, Published: October 29

This is the first of a two-part series on residential segregation. (Read Part 2.)

McGovern Drive looked like the sanitized slice of suburbia presented on television in 1965, the year Wayne and Virginia Cole moved into a tidy brick ranch home just outside the Beltway in Montgomery County. The Coles, and everyone else who lived in the neighborhood back then, were white.

Today their Silver Spring community of Hillandale is home to people of every race and ethnicity — the epitome of what one sociologist calls “global neighborhoods” that are upending long-standing patterns of residential segregation.

Around the region and across the country, the archetypal all-white neighborhood is vanishing with remarkable speed. In many places, the phenomenon is not being driven by African Americans moving to the suburbs. Instead, it is primarily the result of the nation’s soaring number of Hispanics and Asians, many of whom are immigrants.

The result has been the emergence of neighborhoods, from San Diego to Denver to Miami, that are more diverse than at any time in American history.

As the nation barrels toward the day, just three decades from now, when non-Hispanic whites are expected to be a minority, these global neighborhoods have already begun remaking the American social fabric in significant ways. Their creation and impact have been especially pronounced in the Washington area, where minorities are now the majority.

A Washington Post analysis of 2010 Census data shows a precipitous decline in the number of the region’s census tracts, areas of roughly 2,000 households, where more than 85 percent of the residents are of the same race or ethnicity — what many demographers would consider a segregated neighborhood.

In the District, just one in three neighborhoods is highly segregated, the Post analysis found. A decade ago, more than half were.

In the Maryland suburbs, one in five neighborhoods is dominated by one race or ethnicity, down from almost a third in 2000.

The biggest drop has been in Northern Virginia, where only one in 20 neighborhoods is a racial or ethnic enclave. No suburb is more diverse than Fairfax County, where just 2 percent of neighborhoods are segregated.

Almost everywhere, McGovern Drive is becoming the norm.

The Coles have witnessed the changes from their picture window. The three-generation Nguyen family from Vietnam lives next door to them. On the other side are the Crawfords, an African American couple who moved to Hillandale after he retired from Howard University and she stopped teaching in District schools. A house cleaner from Mexico, Raquel Jackson, who brings the Coles dinner on holidays, is across the street.

From one end of McGovern Drive to the other, and on adjacent streets, a boundless diversity continues: immigrants, or their offspring, from Jamaica and Haiti, Egypt and Israel; African Americans who have lived there for 20 years; and whites who bought their homes when Lyndon Johnson was president.

“I think we’re lucky with our neighbors,” said Virginia Cole, ticking off acts of kindness shown to her and her husband, who are both 89.

Throughout the region, the scope of change has altered everything from the mix of businesses in suburban strip centers to the number of English-as-a-second-language teachers being hired by public schools. In some places, it has triggered clashes over street parking, housing regulations and day laborer centers.

The emergence of global neighborhoods is most pronounced in the jurisdictions that are growing most quickly, particularly Loudoun County.

Two decades ago, more than three-quarters of Loudoun’s neighborhoods were overwhelmingly white. Now just 14 percent are.

Black and white

But some of Washington’s black communities are being bypassed as diversity sweeps through the region.

Wards 7 and 8 in the District are virtually all African American, and many of the neighborhoods have become even more segregated. As a result, more than half the city’s black residents live in segregated neighborhoods, while almost no whites do.

More striking is what’s happening in Prince George’s County, one of the few places in the country that is simultaneously growing in size and growing more segregated as whites leave and the black middle class shifts to the suburbs.

The District and Prince George’s underscore how differently whites and blacks experience diversity on their own streets.

As recently as 1990, whites in the Washington area were more likely than blacks to live in enclaves. Now the positions are switched.

Washington’s two contradictory trend lines are playing out nationwide.

“It’s a glass-half-full-half-empty story,” said the Urban Institute’s Margery Turner, an expert on housing patterns. “Predominantly white neighborhoods are no longer as homogeneous as in the past. They’ve opened up tremendously. And yet, white people are, in general, not moving into neighborhoods that are predominantly black. Majority black neighborhoods are remaining majority black, or becoming more majority black, at the same time white neighborhoods are opening up.”

Demographers contend that Americans still live primarily among people who are like them. Much of their evidence comes from places such as Milwaukee and Detroit that have stopped growing or are shrinking. These places, mostly in the Midwest and Northeast, have not attracted the Hispanics and Asians fueling growth and diversity elsewhere.

John Logan, a sociologist at Brown University who coined the phrase “global neighborhoods” to describe the changes he has been studying for three decades, said the typical pattern is for Asians and Hispanics to move into white neighborhoods, paving the way for white acceptance of more blacks.

“It’s a pathway that eventually could lead to a much higher level of integration” in many parts of the country, Logan said. “There’s some self-selection. The kinds of people who don’t create barriers for Hispanics and Asians to move in as neighbors may be the kind who don’t move when African Americans move in. But the numbers are so large, it’s not like they’re unusual white Americans. They’re becoming the norm.”

Logan noted that it is still rare for whites to move into minority neighborhoods, and white flight continues to shape many communities.

Washington is a case study in how the arrival of Hispanics and Asians is altering the country. The number of immigrants in the region has skyrocketed — nearly one in four residents is foreign-born. Meanwhile, non-Hispanic whites and blacks are aging and having fewer children. Whites have slipped to roughly 49 percent of the area’s population.

There are more minorities than whites in Montgomery and Prince William counties, and minorities are on track to surpass whites by the next census in Fairfax and Loudoun counties.

Nine out of 10 whites in the region still live in neighborhoods where they are at least a plurality, if not a majority. But the neighborhoods where more than 85 percent of residents are white are growing rare.

In Prince William County, for example, just 4 percent of neighborhoods are that homogenous. Fairfax, Montgomery and Charles counties have even fewer neighborhoods that are almost all one race. Frederick is the only county in the region where more than half of all white residents live in homogenous clusters.

Logan said the rest of the country will catch up to Washington eventually.

“As whites are a smaller share of the population, inevitably what it means is whites are more and more going to share communities with other groups,” Logan said. “The all-white neighborhood is being re-created on the far periphery of metropolitan areas. But aside from that, it’s becoming a thing of the past.”

Loudoun’s new mosaic

Erika Hodell Cotti lives in the kind of neighborhood she could not have imagined while growing up in Reston.

Born in South Korea and adopted by an Irish Catholic military family, Cotti remembers being the only Asian in her elementary school. A part of her yearned to look like the little white girls around her. Being American, to her, meant being white.

“When I was naturalized at the age of 9, I asked if it meant I’ll have blond hair and blue eyes,” Cotti said. “My mother said, ‘Honey, no. You’re still going to be you, just an American citizen.’ ”

Today she and her husband are raising their preschooler in the Broadlands, a planned community in eastern Loudoun County that has become a magnet for people of all races and ethnicities.

Once rural and overwhelmingly white, Loudoun has experienced the region’s fastest growth and its quickest demographic transformation. In just two decades, as the population nearly quadrupled, Loudoun went from 90 percent white to 69 percent white. The number of Hispanics and Asians living in Loudoun almost equals the county’s entire population in 1990.

“I feel like our street is a United Nations of colors,” Cotti said.

When her son, Langdon, turned 4 this summer, the children attending his birthday party at Sport Bounce of Loudoun posed for pictures standing on a giant red chair. The hodgepodge of black, white, Asian and Latino children had names such as Ethan and Rayvin, Nolan and Sami, Emily and Kriti, Peter and Skai.

“Langdon doesn’t notice race,” and neither do his friends, Cotti said. “The kids look at a person as a play buddy. They don’t notice the color or ethnic background.”

What this means for a country long divided by race is not yet clear, said scholars of race relations. Most are careful to avoid any grandiose predictions of a post-racial world.

“Children are being thrown together in ways that are unprecedented,” said G. Reginald Daniel, a sociologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara who has examined race and ethnic relations. “But being integrated is just the beginning of the possibility of coming to terms with differences. We should not confuse opportunity with actualization.”

In Loudoun, the degree to which diversity is a phenomenon of the past decade is apparent at the cul-de-sac level. Developments created in the 1990s are still largely white. People who moved into developments built in the first decade of the 2000s are predominantly minorities.

But their children attend the same schools, which have become laboratories for diversity.

A decade ago, the students attending Loudoun public schools were 78 percent white. With twice as many students today, the schools are 58 percent white.

The multiculturalism is shaping the way children interact in ways that even their older siblings did not experience.

When Lisette Pozo, 25, was in high school, most of her friends were Hispanic, like her. Her 12-year-old brother, Michael, hangs out with neighbors in Ashburn who are Middle Eastern and Indian. They have sampled his mother’s arroz con pollo and lomo saltado, and he has been to their houses for flat bread and chicken, and other spicy dishes whose names he doesn’t quite remember.

Parents, however, often do not mingle as much as their children.

Howie Nguyen and his wife, Tina Kim, have gotten to know few neighbors in the 10 years they have lived on Navajo Drive in Ashburn.

Nguyen, an engineer, works 12-hour days. He socializes with office colleagues. Neighbors on one side speak Spanish; on the other side, Russian. He does not know them.

Kim, a postal clerk, said she has met a few other parents while watching her daughter swim at the Ashburn Village Sports Pavilion.

“Sometimes when I go to the playground, I feel, ‘Am I in America?’ ” she said. “I hear so many different languages — just not English.”

Conflicts and flight

The rise of global neighborhoods can create upheaval and tension.

Herndon, for example, was embroiled in acrimony when it opened a site for Latino day laborers in 2005 after neighbors complained of men hanging out on the corner, only to close it two years later rather than follow a judge’s ruling that it be open to illegal immigrants.

Often, though, the flare-ups are not over hot-button political issues but over mundane matters such as parking, trash and the language of newsletters.

“We have a cultural gap,” said Maria DaSilva, who immigrated to the United States in 1965 from Brazil and is active in her civic association in Wheaton. “We have people who have been in the community for 40 to 50 years — and a wave of new people — who practice the way they lived in their country of origin.”

Residents complained to county officials about houses overflowing with too many residents and five or six cars. Some people paved over their front yards for parking, but even then not all residents could park in their accustomed spaces.

“We had to explain to people, you don’t own the street in front of your house,” said Susan Rich, who lives in a working-class neighborhood called Connecticut Avenue Estates that is heavily Hispanic. “It caused a lot of tension. People almost came to fisticuffs arguing over parking issues.”

The county has mailed leaflets in Spanish and English outlining trash pickup days and explaining when homeowners are supposed to put their trash on the curb, easing another source of conflict.

But residents say few Hispanics attend their homeowners association meetings, even though they started having an interpreter on hand and post bilingual notices of meetings.

Neighborhoods off Connecticut Avenue and Viers Mill Road were melting pots 20 years ago. Whites were the biggest group, and blacks outnumbered Hispanics and Asians. Today, Hispanics outnumber whites and blacks combined as the changes have prompted many whites and, to a lesser degree, blacks to move away.

Demographers have found that there are still tipping points, where the increasing presence of one ethnic group makes the other groups feel uneasy, though much of the research focuses on the dynamics of whites and blacks.

Roderick Harrison, a Howard University sociologist and former head of racial statistics at the Census Bureau, said studies show that whites start to abandon a neighborhood when blacks exceed 30 percent. That’s the same point, however, where blacks start to feel comfortable in a neighborhood.

“They feel vulnerable” when it’s less than 30 percent, Harrison said. “You want to see people like you at the supermarket.”

Peter Tatian, who studies the District’s demographics for the Urban Institute, said the housing boom boosted the number of whites, Asians and Hispanics living in neighborhoods such as Shaw and Columbia Heights. But he worries that minorities will be priced out.

“It could be a transition,” he said. “If prices start going up, is that going to push the change to more whites and more upper-income folks and fewer minorities? Soon those neighborhoods would look more like Dupont Circle.

“It’s diversity. It can be a good thing. But I don’t know if it’s sustainable.”

Hillandale’s transformation

A dream job lured Wayne Cole to Washington: teaching the history of U.S. diplomacy, at the University of Maryland. In 1965, he and his wife, Virginia, paid $29,500 for their house on McGovern Drive, almost double what they got for their old house in Ames, Iowa.

They moved into a county that was 95 percent white, a neighborhood where half the residents were Jewish. Their son, Tom, now an elementary school teacher in Ellicott City, recalls attending Cresthaven Elementary School with only two black children.

In the past school year, Cresthaven was 45 percent Hispanic, 35 percent African American, 13 percent Asian and just 5 percent white.

Wayne Cole said the change was so gradual that it was barely noticeable.

“People moved away after their children were done with high school,” he said. “Or they moved to a bigger house. People moved to a place rather than away from here. And the people who moved in have, for the most part, stayed.”

Tom Cole said that when he goes to his childhood home to visit his parents, what he is struck by is not the diversity of the neighborhood. It is the way the generosity of their neighbors has made it possible for his parents to age in their home.

“The lady across the street brings them dinner,” he said. “The couple next door help them all the time. It’s a tiny little street, and almost everyone on the street looks after them. All of their neighbors have been good.”

www.washingtonpost.com


----------



## Xpressway (Dec 2, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> Governments might not do the right thing, but markets are can not do the right regarding this specific issue. Call me naive, but I'd prefer having the chance of government success over the certainty of market failure. (Because that failure is predestined due to systematic reasons mentioned above)
> 
> 
> 
> No it can't force people, but it can assist projects that make better mixed and better connected places more attractive and it can create financial and other incentives. That can only support a gradual change and won't be forcing anyone to move anywhere at gun point. But it is enough if done well to make the structure of a city much more flexible so that changes in fuel prices can be coped with much better. Don't forget that public transport needs a critical mass to be efficient. You can't create a critical mass without investing a lot. Private companies won't invest a lot into something that is a big gamble and will need a decade or longer to realize.


Do you believe governments had anything to do with the spread of suburbs? I'm not saying that suburbs are a direct consequence of government, but perhaps the excessive suburbanization is?

In my city, i've seen how bad policies have turned good neighborhoods into bad neighborhoods and pushed people away from the core and i've also seen bad neighborhoods turn into great places.

Take San Francisco for example, a magnificent city IMO but sadly failed government policies have pushed many people far from the city. Other cities' public services decayed so badly that people just preffered to move to suburbs where they could get more for their money. 

I believe then that the idea is to make cities attractive to people again vs suburbs and not punishing the people for living in the suburbs so people actually chooses to live in the city. BUT, people from the suburbs shouldn't bear with the burden of making cities attractive.



> Now you can say of course, that is proof why PT should not exist, but cities around the world prove that without PT they would turn into true traffic hell holes - much more than they are already with it.


Actually i'm a big fan of public transportation and i use it myself whenever i can. If it's safe, cheaper than using a car and the time to travel is reasonable and predictable i think PT is a great choice although i don't believe its a good idea to punish the car drivers and hand the money to PT.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Xpressway said:


> Do you believe governments had anything to do with the spread of suburbs? I'm not saying that suburbs are a direct consequence of government, but perhaps the excessive suburbanization is?
> 
> In my city, i've seen how bad policies have turned good neighborhoods into bad neighborhoods and pushed people away from the core and i've also seen bad neighborhoods turn into great places.
> 
> ...


Actually I agree with you that the priority should be to make urban areas attractive again, also for young families. But like suburbanization was subsidized and supported by public initiatives I think now, re-urbanization should also be supported. 



> Actually i'm a big fan of public transportation and i use it myself whenever i can. If it's safe, cheaper than using a car and the time to travel is reasonable and predictable i think PT is a great choice although i don't believe its a good idea to punish the car drivers and hand the money to PT.


In an urban environment car drivers should face the costs they cause. Free surface parking is nothing else than a big subsidy for car drivers. You pay like 10€ or more per m2 per month for an apartment but the 5-10 m2 in prime locations for your car should be for free? Furthermore surface parking is a big enemy of liveable, walkable and attractive urban cities. The space consumptions is simply too excessive. That s why you need parking houses and they of course are more expensive. 

But parking is not where the costs stop. The costs for maintaining all the road infrastructure are often only partially taken care for by the car drivers rather than the general public.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

Obviously, there are a lot of government actions - rather than market actions - which have subsidized suburbs over compact settlements.

For example - zoning.

One flat may be worth less than a house with a garden because most people who could afford a house would prefer it. But a block of flats could still be worth more than gardens and houses over the same area.

There is often zoning against blocks of flats - which by itself proves that the market for blocks of flats exists.


----------



## Xpressway (Dec 2, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> Actually I agree with you that the priority should be to make urban areas attractive again, also for young families. But like suburbanization was subsidized and supported by public initiatives I think now, re-urbanization should also be supported.


Why can't we just try to stop interfering? The government messed with the market by subsidizing and zoning badly that ended up creating huge sprawl.

I'm pretty sure people feels the high transport prices in the suburbs but until we don't let the markets work they won't get back to the cities.



> In an urban environment car drivers should face the costs they cause. Free surface parking is nothing else than a big subsidy for car drivers. You pay like 10€ or more per m2 per month for an apartment but the 5-10 m2 in prime locations for your car should be for free? Furthermore surface parking is a big enemy of liveable, walkable and attractive urban cities. The space consumptions is simply too excessive. That s why you need parking houses and they of course are more expensive.
> 
> But parking is not where the costs stop. The costs for maintaining all the road infrastructure are often only partially taken care for by the car drivers rather than the general public.


Actually the market is very effective in pricing parking, dense cities were land is a really scarce resource have high parking prices which makes people preffer using public transportation and live closer to their work places and city services.

Now if we interfere with the market and force businesses to build massive parking lots then of course you'll end up with plenty of cheap parking and contribute to sprawl. My city doesn't forbid the construction of massive parking lots, yet you can't see any in here because of the high property prices.

Cities are market-friendly, they're convenient for our wallets, for society and for the economy, they don't need government subsidizes. It's all about stopping government promotion of suburbia.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Xpressway said:


> Why can't we just try to stop interfering? The government messed with the market by subsidizing and zoning badly that ended up creating huge sprawl.
> 
> I'm pretty sure people feels the high transport prices in the suburbs but until we don't let the markets work they won't get back to the cities.


Its not a perfect example but lets have a look at Brussels. There large areas were bought by the government torn down and then sold to the best paying real estate developers no matter what. Regulations were lax and the investors built whatever they thought the markets would give them good revenue for. The result? One of the most messed up cities in Europe. Only now that the government has actually taken up a greater active role in urban design rather than to let the markets figure it out alone, does the city gradually improve again. Ironically the EU quarter is one of the most messed up areas due to short sighted real estate speculations and totally failed urban design.

I am not saying that the governments would never get it wrong but they have a better track record than the laissez faire markets if they are not totally dictating the market but rather regulating them in a way to leave market dynamics in place but with encouraging certain aspects. 



> actually the market is very effective in pricing parking, dense cities were land is a really scarce resource have high parking prices which makes people preffer using public transportation and live closer to their work places and city services.


It is one of the big misconceptions that the density of a city is or should be primarily dependent on the scarcity of the land. When in reality it is determined mostly by the internal functioning of a city. Spain has among the densest cities in Europe, while having plenty of space, more than many other countries. It also has one of the highest usages of public transportation in Europe.


----------



## Xpressway (Dec 2, 2006)

Slartibartfas said:


> Its not a perfect example but lets have a look at Brussels. There large areas were bought by the government torn down and then sold to the best paying real estate developers no matter what. Regulations were lax and the investors built whatever they thought the markets would give them good revenue for. The result? One of the most messed up cities in Europe. Only now that the government has actually taken up a greater active role in urban design rather than to let the markets figure it out alone, does the city gradually improve again. Ironically the EU quarter is one of the most messed up areas due to short sighted real estate speculations and totally failed urban design.
> 
> I am not saying that the governments would never get it wrong but they have a better track record than the laissez faire markets if they are not totally dictating the market but rather regulating them in a way to leave market dynamics in place but with encouraging certain aspects.


Markets have the hability to learn, if you have a country that always had planned cities and then suddenly you let the construction companies to act freely there will be mistakes, just as if a city didn't have a government that was active in city planning and then suddenly the government starts planning, there will be government mistakes and many will be massive. Plus governments also can be hijacked by interests so they plan in favour of few interests rather than the society.



> It is one of the big misconceptions that the density of a city is or should be primarily dependent on the scarcity of the land. When in reality it is determined mostly by the internal functioning of a city. Spain has among the densest cities in Europe, while having plenty of space, more than many other countries. It also has one of the highest usages of public transportation in Europe.


I didn't mean that the lack of all land is what drives prices up, but as cities get better and offer a better life, land IN the city becomes more valuable and scarce so no market participant would want to have a huge lot of cheap parking space if he can sell it for lots of money or build something in it.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Xpressway said:


> Markets have the hability to learn,


They hardly can learn to overcome a deficiency that is caused by the fundamental reasons I pointed out already above. That means that a market that can react only within a matter of decades can't properly address changes that happen within years in time. Furthermore, share holder value, one of the strongest forces on free markets, at least laissez faire markets, does only take short term interests into account. For coping with the issue at hand the market would have a strong long term orientation however. That is a naive hope at best. 




> if you have a country that always had planned cities and then suddenly you let the construction companies to act freely there will be mistakes, just as if a city didn't have a government that was active in city planning and then suddenly the government starts planning, there will be government mistakes and many will be massive. Plus governments also can be hijacked by interests so they plan in favour of few interests rather than the society.


Come on, one would expect that those private companies could learn something within a mere 30-40 years. No, they didn't which somehow does not fit well with your argument. 



> I didn't mean that the lack of all land is what drives prices up, but as cities get better and offer a better life, land IN the city becomes more valuable and scarce so no market participant would want to have a huge lot of cheap parking space if he can sell it for lots of money or build something in it.


Ok. That is true indeed. When I am looking at your average US downtown however, especially those like Houston and Co look like the markets are not really very rational. You have tons of highrises and skyscrapcers right next to a sea of surface parking lots. Now you might say these parking lots are only a temporary place holder. But they are that already often for decades while Downtown was a dysfunctional dead place with some spread office highrise ghettos in between.


----------



## cbcake (Oct 30, 2011)

Boston is actually less dense than _three_ adjacent cities (somerville,cambridge, and chelsea) there is no unnecessary spreading of population in Greater Boston.


----------



## cbcake (Oct 30, 2011)

note that almost every single commuter rail line extends outside of the Boston metropolitan area. so much for American sprawl being fueled by cars and European sprawl being justified by expanding public transit systems.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

^^ What odd attempts at logic...


----------

