# Big US Cities See Resurgence in Population Growth



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> What do you do to enforces people living in inner city of Detroit, or Cleveland, or Buffalo? US area a free country and I think people should choose the place where they live.


These types of cities haven't attracted many native American citizens, nor are they likely to doso. However, a very significant way to promote the repopulation of these types of rustbelt cities is to give new immigrants preferences for settling in them. Not unlike the credits that 19th century immigrants got for settling on the Great Plains. 

Presently the immigration flow benefits Sunbelt metros, including unsustaibable places like Pheonix & las Vegas. In other words, if your an illegal immigrant or trying to become a citizen, you'd get citizenship if you settled or at least started out in places like Detroit, Cleveland, or Buffalo. In addition to plentiful water supplies, these places have lots of cheap & empty housing that could be fixed up by immigrants. With an inflow of immigrants, many more employers would stay in these places or be attracted to them.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> California Central Valley is just a tiny part of US agriculture (imagine the world). Only the "cornbelt" is really important. People use the valley only because California's high densities. It's almost like a greenbelt to grow vegetables for people in the neighbouring metropolis.


No, the Central Valley isn't a huge area like the Midwest cornbelt, but its very productive & very vital. Most of the Central Valley fruits & vegetables are for local or at least domestic consuumption. Without it, we'd end up having to import much more produce from Latin America.


----------



## Spoolmak (Aug 4, 2007)

2co2co said:


> Is it the end of sururbia-culture worldwide?


I think that the US has gotten too far deep into suburban culture that it will take a long time to dig out. Once you have cities entirely made up of suburbs, families have moved in and taken over. Nimby central in other words.


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

Yuri S Andrade:


1. I don't really see an urban vs suburban issue, I see efficiency and waste in varying degrees. we are all efficient in some ways and wasteful in others, and it benefits us all to try to improve.

2. Current cars pollute less and less, but cars create more pollution now than ever before. Why? Because there are more of them than ever before, and people are driving more than ever before. This goes to show that improving technology alone cannot solve our problems. We must learn to use technology in a responsible manner or else anytime we create a new techology, or find ways to make technology more efficient, the benefits will be offset by increased usage. 

For instance, kilometer for kilometer, an old ocean liner than people used to use to cross the ocean would have made more pollution that a jet aircraft, but because so many people are now flying and doing so very frequently, pollution increases.

3. I'm not talking about government controlling people, I'd prefer to encourage people to make economically responsible choices. But you forget that if you cannot afford something, you have no choice. You don't seem to grasp this. When something is unsustainable, it means that it cannot be maintained over the long term. This is not an issue of allowing people to do something. That's like saying the government should not be forcing people to vacation on Earth when many would like to visit the moon. Some things are just not possible. If the cost to maintain the huge amount of infrustructure require to service low density sprawl becomes too high, then eithe taxes will not cover it, or the taxes will get so high that the areas will no longer be affordable causing people to leave. Either way, the areas will decay.

Oh, and you consider a suburban lifestyle healthy? People driving everywhere and not getting any exercise is anything but healthful.

4. North American society is already having trouble keeping up with the costs of its lifestyle, as evidenced by the infrastructure crisis. Once cheap oil becomes scarce, prices will skyrocket. You present a lot of opinions, but I'd lke to see something to back up your claims. For instance, city takes only a fraction of the energy that suburbs take (per person). People live closer to things like jobs, schools and business requiring less energy for transportation, they tend to live in smaller homes requiring less energy to heat and cool, and people share many services such as transit. If you are going to make outlandish claims like saying suburbs are more environmentally friendly, I'd like to know what you're basing such claims on, because they're so far fetched as to be simply denial/wishful thinking.

5. "If there is no people in the world, it would be plenty of room for natural ecosystems." But since there are people in the world, we need to find a way to live without too great an impact to the life around us. What you don't seem to recognise is that there are so many different draw backs. You may try to minimise the importance of each one individually, but since there are so many, together the drawbacks are large. Yet another example, is that even if suburbs don't cover a huge percentage of total land area, they have a negative impact on wildlife in that many animals are drawn into them looking for food (like in people's garden's or garbage) and their interactions with cars and people tend to be very harmful to them. People also may kills animals like bears or courgars for safety reasons. 

"The second part is just an absurd. If that's possible in large scale, why people are not doing that?" 

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

6. "Smart growth people are biased, and like any left wing person, it's only about the politics". 

Wow, it sounds like you're referring to right wing people. I really don't want this to become a debate about politics, but this just makes me laugh.

"Everybody likes a big house with a garden and 'urban forests' "

I, and many people I know, much prefer to live in an interesting area in a smaller (and easier to heat and maintain) home, that isn't too far from stores and jobs. The architecture is more interesting, there's more happening, and it's just a happier, more vibrant environment. Perhaps people in Brazil wish to live in suburbs since many live in overly dense areas and that provides their impression of city life. But to be clear, I don't recommend for everyone to be living in highrises like those in Brazil or Hong Kong. I prefer a more comfortable urbanism found in many North American and European inner central cities. I don't even mind suburbs if they're designed in a sensible manner (not wasting too much land, and having good access to transit, jobs, and businesses.

As far as it being "just about the politics, are you serious? Wanting to reduce polution, and live in a society that we can afford to power and maintain over the long term is anything but politics- it's just good sense. The politics come in when people take off to the suburbs because their bias make them assume that's the only good place to raise kids, or because immigrants move to their urban neighbourhood and they don't want to live around people who are different. Then there are the people who think central areas are only for the poor, and that to be safe one must stick to suburbs. And of course, there are the people who just don't like change. It all reminds me of little kids who want their own way. Child: Mommy, I only want to eat candy! Mother: No, child, it will rot your teeth, it doesn't have any nutrition, and will make you sick. Child: But it tastes good!! I want it!!!

Now to be clear, I'm not suggesting that conservatives (or any other adults) should be treated like children and forced to do things against their will; I strongly believe in freedom of choice for all. My goal in to inform people of the drawbacks of the current western lifestyle, so that hopefully they will make responsible decisions on their own. I just think it's sad that some people act too immaturely to make rational, adult decisions.



> That's true! There are bears walking around in New Jersey. NJ is one of the oldest and the densest state since ever and a trully suburban state. If Japan can hold 130 million people in 370,000 km²/140,000 sq mi (with 70% of its area covered by forest), I don't think Americans (and specially Canadians) should worry about the suburbs. Given the huge size of those country, that behavior could only be described as hysterical.


People so often act as if land not developd by humans is wasted and sitting there waiting to be used. The land is already in use, and considering how densely populated some parts of the world are, it's fortunate there are still some parts left to nature to balance things out.


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

foadi said:


> resources are merely the product of human technologies. they are not limited in any meaningful way because the capacity of the human mind to innovate is infinite. there is no reason an america with 4 billion people couldn't be cleaner and greener than america today. in fact one could argue that it would necessarily be greener (since such population growth would force innovation in green technologies.)


This sure sounds good, but it's pretty far off. Intelligence and ingenuity are pretty important resources, but so are clean air and water, energy like petroleum, fertile land, and buildings materials like metals and wood. I realise you're implying that our ability to harness resources is only limited by our inventiveness and advancement, but it's also limited by *time*. People need to use the resources and technology we have _now_ while we're're trying to invent new, and we never know when the next technological break through will come. If we fail to live within our _current_ means because we assume a new technology will come along to fix our problems, it's like running up a high credit card bill assuming that becasue you're smart, you'll find a higher paying job to cover the charges despite not knowing when. It could happen in time, or you could go bankrupt first. The only really smart thing to do is to limit spending now, and once we actually accomplish our goal, increase spending _then_. But this is not what's being done.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

hudkina said:


> _As far as people who are socially liberal, *they are more inclined to be tolerant to norms and ideals that are different from their own*, and in turn support government policies that take all parties into consideration. People who are socially conservative, are more likely to support government policies that favor their own ideals. For example, France's recent policy banning burqas is a form of social conservatism, even if most French people consider themselves socially liberal._


In that case, "liberal people" in US are not liberal at all. They usually hate their conservative countryman (Press vs. Palin, 2008). They are all, but tolerants. I saw US "commediants" suggesting all people in Alaska are rapist just because Palin. Imagine an opposite situation.

New Scotia:

1. Arguable. I brought some numbers and it's clear tha suburban spral is an imaginary problem. It's like people afraid to travel by plane, even though is pretty safe.

2. I said: _Agriculture is improving each year. Since 70's the use of herbicides and pesticides are steadilly dropping_. Agricultue takes much more land and 99,999% of pesticides/herbicides, and there are people worry about suburban sprawl, which besides takes few land (1, 2% of total), is green, has trees, etc.

About the cars: more people, more cars. More people, bigger cities (both in area and population).

3. No, you are really talking about government control. You said: "I'd prefer to encourage people to make economically responsible choices..." What is supposed to mean? You are say that government shoud manipulate the market to take the right of choice where people live? And dense cities ARE more expensive than low-dense cities. Ok. It's not a government spent but its citizen. No way infra-structure in low-dense cities are higher than in bigger cities. It's just speculation, to feed the bias.

About the second part: yes, people in suburbs ARE healthier than the obese poor people in North America inner cities. Do you kno that people whom ons a car can exercise themselves?

4. Sophism. People in inner cities in North America spend less energy because they are poor. In Brazil, people living in big cities are ten times "more expensive" than people in small and rural areas.

And suburbs ARE more eco-friendly than cities. You cannot see that because your smart-growth biased mind. In suburbs, the biggest part of the land are green, the creeks are protect, plenty of parks, etc. People are not necessarily taking more space. And people in cities produces trash, polution, spend energy and eat the food produced in 28% of US land as well. Don't forget that.

5. Again if 1 or 2% of land (much of that green areas) is dedicated to suburban sprawl in US, what say about the 28% occupied with crops to feed people in suburbs and in cities? That's really bad to animals and not the tiny, tiny green suburbs.

6. Yes, look Oscar Niemeyer: build communism with archtecture...

Many people like living in cities, ok, let them alone too. I'm not forcing people move to suburbs. I live in a City Centre and really like it. About Brazil, my arguments are not related to the place where I live. We don't even have this issue in Brazil. And of course the archtecture is more interesting in inner cities. But how 2.5 million people in Cleveland suburbs would live in houses for 500,000 people?

You said:

_The politics come in when people take off to the suburbs because their bias make them assume that's the only good place to raise kids, or because immigrants move to their urban neighbourhood and they don't want to live around people who are different._

And left-wingers are sensitive, tolerant and don't have bias... Ok... LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE!

Ok, there is violence in inner cities, because the immigrants and poor people and people who have their property destroy by devaluation are trying to restart their lives in a healthier environment. That not make them racists. Like a say more bias, obsession and paranoia.

P.S. Latin America is Western too. And sorry if I offend you in any sentence. My English is not good so I don't know how to choose the right words.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> In that case, "liberal people" in US are not liberal at all. They usually hate their conservative countryman (Press vs. Palin, 2008). They are all, but tolerants. I saw US "commediants" suggesting all people in Alaska are rapist just because Palin. Imagine an opposite situation.


I'm not sure which comedians you are talking about, but I wouldn't base my opinion on humor and satire. Besides, no American is 100% liberal or 100% conservative. That would be impossible. Depending on where they are from and how they were raised, they have differing degrees of "liberalism". People who are generally liberal can have conservative views, (e.g. the French burqa example from earlier) and people who are generally conservative can have liberal views.

My point was that there are suburbs especially around the Northeast and Great Lakes cities where the people are far more socially liberal than their Southern and Midwestern counterparts.


----------



## foadi (Feb 15, 2006)

Nouvellecosse said:


> This sure sounds good, but it's pretty far off. Intelligence and ingenuity are pretty important resources, but so are clean air and water, energy like petroleum, fertile land, and buildings materials like metals and wood. I realise you're implying that our ability to harness resources is only limited by our inventiveness and advancement, but it's also limited by *time*. People need to use the resources and technology we have _now_ while we're're trying to invent new, and we never know when the next technological break through will come. If we fail to live within our _current_ means because we assume a new technology will come along to fix our problems, it's like running up a high credit card bill assuming that becasue you're smart, you'll find a higher paying job to cover the charges despite not knowing when. It could happen in time, or you could go bankrupt first. The only really smart thing to do is to limit spending now, and once we actually accomplish our goal, increase spending _then_. But this is not what's being done.


i think it's interesting that you bring up time, since time works in favor of my argument. population growth takes time. and in this time there is ever more people producing, inventing, creating wealth and exchanging ideas. you see, society is dynamic, it changes over time and works to solve problems when they arise. you might want to believe that society will stagnate, but that's a symptom of zero population growth, not rapid population growth. but as chris said, innovation isn't really important in this matter since all of the technologies required to support a population triple or more of what it is now already exist. the resources you mentioned for example; water is only limited by infrastructure, water itself is not scarce in any meaningful sense of the word. the same can be said about building materials, energy, and even fertile land.


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> In that case, "liberal people" in US are not liberal at all. They usually hate their conservative countryman (Press vs. Palin, 2008). They are all, but tolerants. I saw US "commediants" suggesting all people in Alaska are rapist just because Palin. Imagine an opposite situation.


A commedian is a commedian and a liberal is a liberal. Please do not get such obvious things confused. There are plenty of commedians who make jokes with a conservative slant as well. But that's irrelevant because they're just commedians making jokes and shouldn't be taken seriously.



Yuri S Andrade said:


> 1. Arguable. I brought some numbers and it's clear tha suburban spral is an imaginary problem. It's like people afraid to travel by plane, even though is pretty safe.


I reviewed the thread and the only outside numbers I could see that you presented (Foadi introduced them actually) were those that showed the percentage of total land used for each purpose. And that was an image of a pie chart that was hosted on flickr, with no way to see the original source of the stats or verify the validity or criteria used. It didn't appear innacurate however, so I didn't challenge it, but all it proved was that 6% of he total amount of land was developed. Whether or not sprawl is a problem can only be judged by how much land is used _per person_, and by measuring the resultant effects of low density. You have not posted any "numbers" regarding energy usage or pollution.



Yuri S Andrade said:


> 2. I said: _Agriculture is improving each year. Since 70's the use of herbicides and pesticides are steadilly dropping_. Agricultue takes much more land and 99,999% of pesticides/herbicides, and there are people worry about suburban sprawl, which besides takes few land (1, 2% of total), is green, has trees, etc.


Why are we still talking about agriculture? As I mentioned before, agricultural land loss is only one of the many side effects of sprawl, and you still haven't posted anything regarding the larger issues.



Yuri S Andrade said:


> About the cars: more people, more cars. More people, bigger cities (both in area and population).


Ah... What??? China has 4 times as many people as the US (for example) while the US has more cars that either it or India. (source citied: http://www.impactlab.com/2007/02/16/number-of-cars-in-china-reaches-22-million/ ) The number of cars depends on the wealth of the people and their living patterns, not the number of people. In New York, one of the wealthiest and most expensive cities in the US, over half of all households do not own cars. (source citied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_City )



Yuri S Andrade said:


> 3. No, you are really talking about government control. You said: "I'd prefer to encourage people to make economically responsible choices..." What is supposed to mean? You are say that government shoud manipulate the market to take the right of choice where people live? And dense cities ARE more expensive than low-dense cities. Ok. It's not a government spent but its citizen. No way infra-structure in low-dense cities are higher than in bigger cities. It's just speculation, to feed the bias.


The government currently subsidises suburban lifestyles which I feel should stop. But once that has stopped, my intention, as I said before, is to simply inform people of the negative effects of poor lifestyle choices and the positive effects of smarter choices. Many people don't realise, for example, that even though living in more dense areas may cost more initially due to land/house prices, it's often cheaper in the long run due to lower transportation costs since car owership and frequent use is an extremely high, multi-tiered expense. (sources citied: http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report00/sprawl.pdf http://www.livableplaces.org/policy/carownership.html ) 











Yuri S Andrade said:


> About the second part: yes, people in suburbs ARE healthier than the obese poor people in North America inner cities. Do you kno that people whom ons a car can exercise themselves?


Yes, people who live in suburbs can still exercise, but that lifestyle does nothing to _encourage_ them to stay fit. And what information can you provide to back up your claim that people in the suburbs are healthier? It sounds like this is just an assumption that fits your world view. Here is some info that suggests otherwise (sources cited: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/articles/Urban Sprawl and Public Health - PHR.pdf http://diegopuga.org/papers/fatcity.pdf ) These are especially valuable sources of information - particularly the first one, a report by the US Center for Disease Control (a government agency) which describes a number of adverse health effects of sprawl, including pollution, increased risk of auto accidents, and the lack of exercise.



Yuri S Andrade said:


> 4. Sophism. People in inner cities in North America spend less energy because they are poor. In Brazil, people living in big cities are ten times "more expensive" than people in small and rural areas.


Sophism. Inner city NA contains both wealthy and poor people (including some of the wealthiest people in the world) but the reason behind lower energy usage is due to fundamental physics. The largest sources of energy usage are for transporation and climate control (heating and cooling buildings). It is physically and logically impossible for people in suburbs who drive cars far more and who live in larger home to use less energy. But in case there is any doubt, here is a chart of comparing various cities by metropolitian area density and energy usage.








Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_density

And here is another source which hopefully you'll find interesting. (source citied: http://repositories.cdlib.org/ucei/policy/EPE-011/ )



Yuri S Andrade said:


> And suburbs ARE more eco-friendly than cities. You cannot see that because your smart-growth biased mind. In suburbs, the biggest part of the land are green, the creeks are protect, plenty of parks, etc. People are not necessarily taking more space. And people in cities produces trash, polution, spend energy and eat the food produced in 28% of US land as well. Don't forget that.


I'm surprised you'd call me biased when you're making all these outlandish claims without anything to back them up. Or at least, I would be surprised if this were the first time you did it lol. First of all, it takes much more than for land to be green for it to be environmentally friendly. Suburban "green" areas are not functioning ecosystems, they require energy to be maintained (lawn movers for example) and use chemicals to keep them groomed as was already discussed. And you say "people in cities produce trash, pollution, spend energy and and eat food produced in agricultural areas" this shows your bias since people in suburbs do the same things, and use a higher amount of energy as shown in sources cited earlier in my reply.



Yuri S Andrade said:


> 5. Again if 1 or 2% of land (much of that green areas) is dedicated to suburban sprawl in US, what say about the 28% occupied with crops to feed people in suburbs and in cities? That's really bad to animals and not the tiny, tiny green suburbs.


Sprawl land consumption is unnecessary and can be easily reduced, where as we need land to grow food. The difference? One is a wasteful use of land, the other isn't. However, if you're concerned about the amount of land being used for agriculture, you can help reduce it by reducing or eliminating your consumption of meat and dairy which takes much more land to produce then plants.



Yuri S Andrade said:


> 6. Yes, look Oscar Niemeyer: build communism with archtecture...
> 
> Many people like living in cities, ok, let them alone too. I'm not forcing people move to suburbs. I live in a City Centre and really like it. About Brazil, my arguments are not related to the place where I live. We don't even have this issue in Brazil. And of course the archtecture is more interesting in inner cities. But how 2.5 million people in Cleveland suburbs would live in houses for 500,000 people?


Who is suggesing that everyone in suburbs should move to existing houses in inner cities? What I want to see is for neighbourhoods to be built in a way that doesn't waste as much land. I don't expect everyone to live in the inner city, just to not have much wasted land around their homes, or to save money by living in multiple dweling buildings. There are many options that are less extreme than the two examples that are often presented (dense inner city vs extreme low-density sprawl)


Yuri S Andrade said:


> You said:
> 
> _The politics come in when people take off to the suburbs because their bias make them assume that's the only good place to raise kids, or because immigrants move to their urban neighbourhood and they don't want to live around people who are different._
> 
> And left-wingers are sensitive, tolerant and don't have bias... Ok... LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE!


Levels of bias are based on the person, not on their political leanings. I gave these examples because you implied that people who were left-wing were biased while right wing people aren't. There are biased people within every belief system. If fact, we all have one form of bias or another.



Yuri S Andrade said:


> Ok, there is violence in inner cities, because the immigrants and poor people and people who have their property destroy by devaluation are trying to restart their lives in a healthier environment. That not make them racists. Like a say more bias, obsession and paranoia.


I'm sure their intentions are good. Everyone wants to do what's best for his family and himself.



Yuri S Andrade said:


> P.S. Latin America is Western too. And sorry if I offend you in any sentence. My English is not good so I don't know how to choose the right words.


Your English isn't bad, but obviously we have some trouble communicating. However, my main purpose in replying in this thread was not to convince you of anything since you made it clear your mind is not open to influence. My purpose was to object to flase statements that I saw, since this is a pulic website and there is always the chance that people who are less familiar with the issue might be influenced if false assertions are not challenged. I feel I've been successful at doing this, and as long as you're not open to reason, there little more I can hope to accomplish. It was an interesting discussion though.


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

foadi said:


> i think it's interesting that you bring up time, since time works in favor of my argument. population growth takes time. and in this time there is ever more people producing, inventing, creating wealth and exchanging ideas. you see, society is dynamic, it changes over time and works to solve problems when they arise. you might want to believe that society will stagnate, but that's a symptom of zero population growth, not rapid population growth. but as chris said, innovation isn't really important in this matter since all of the technologies required to support a population triple or more of what it is now already exist. the resources you mentioned for example; water is only limited by infrastructure, water itself is not scarce in any meaningful sense of the word. the same can be said about building materials, energy, and even fertile land.


To be completely honest, I'm not entirely sure of what your argument is since it's quite vague and philosophical. However, if you're implying that conserving energy and physical resources isn't imortant since we're unlikely to run out before solutions are found, that would be taking a very big and unnecessary risk. Keep in mind that most technoligical inventions and innovations have only created an increase in the usage of energy and other resources, since instead of using the new tech to do the things they were doing before but in a more efficient manner, people use the innovation to provide far more functions (products/services). For example, if the fuel consumption of airplanes becomes a problem and as a result people find a way to make airplanes more fuel efficient, the only thing that tends to happen is airfares go down and people fly more causing just as much (and usually more) fuel to be used. Problem not solved. The only way around it is to create a policy intended to conserve energy. And you mention the slow rate of population growth. This is irrelevant since increases in consumption is often not closely related to population growth. For this to apply, we'd have to freeze current per-capita consumption levels resulting in the only increases being caused by population growth. Again, conservation. The answer always comes down to using technology (which uses resources) wisely.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Novellecouse, you've won the argument totally!


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

Nouvellecosse said:


> A commedian is a commedian and a liberal is a liberal. Please do not get such obvious things confused. There are plenty of commedians who make jokes with a conservative slant as well. But that's irrelevant because they're just commedians making jokes and shouldn't be taken seriously.


The comedian was Jon Stewart, so it's not that irrelevant. And that's a trend, not an isolated case. I just wonder if any of those "commedians who make jokes with a conservative slant" made a joke about a minority group being rapist in mainstream media. But it's only Alaska, all right? They are conservative and white, so who cares?



Nouvellecosse said:


> I reviewed the thread and the only outside numbers I could see that you presented (Foadi introduced them actually) were those that showed the percentage of total land used for each purpose. And that was an image of a pie chart that was hosted on flickr, with no way to see the original source of the stats or verify the validity or criteria used. It didn't appear innacurate however, so I didn't challenge it, but all it proved was that 6% of he total amount of land was developed. Whether or not sprawl is a problem can only be judged by how much land is used _per person_, and by measuring the resultant effects of low density. You have not posted any "numbers" regarding energy usage or pollution.


Ok, but you don't post any conclusives figures either, so...



Nouvellecosse said:


> Why are we still talking about agriculture? As I mentioned before, agricultural land loss is only one of the many side effects of sprawl, and you still haven't posted anything regarding the larger issues.


There are many other issues regarding the protection of environment. I'm still talking about agriculture because the land seems to be a source of major concern to you. Agriculture takes almost 30% of US lands. That's a real issue, not the 5, 6% of suburban and URBAN land. And again, you still ignores the suburban forests and their impact on carbon capture, besides the protection of creeks, and other native woodlands.



Nouvellecosse said:


> Ah... What??? China has 4 times as many people as the US (for example) while the US has more cars that either it or India. (source citied: http://www.impactlab.com/2007/02/16/number-of-cars-in-china-reaches-22-million/ ) The number of cars depends on the wealth of the people and their living patterns, not the number of people. In New York, one of the wealthiest and most expensive cities in the US, over half of all households do not own cars. (source citied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_City )


Ok, now you misunderstood me. OF COURSE I was talking about Western societies specifically. I think that was pretty clear.

And you mentioned NYC. In USA almost everybody can afford a car. So the money is no more an issue, and New York is an classical example. Many, many people in a small area. I don't know but I think it's almost impossible to find a spot to park a car in NY. People in NY don't have laundry in their own apartment because the lack of space, so imagine a car.



Nouvellecosse said:


> The government currently subsidises suburban lifestyles which I feel should stop. But once that has stopped, my intention, as I said before, is to simply inform people of the negative effects of poor lifestyle choices and the positive effects of smarter choices. Many people don't realise, for example, that even though living in more dense areas may cost more initially due to land/house prices, it's often cheaper in the long run due to lower transportation costs since car owership and frequent use is an extremely high, multi-tiered expense. (sources citied: http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report00/sprawl.pdf http://www.livableplaces.org/policy/carownership.html )


You are not in position of teaching people (neither the government). Smarter choices? Who said? People wanna live in big houses with big gardens and they CAN afford it. And what's the matter of financed cars? People in North America cities don't use it?



Nouvellecosse said:


> Yes, people who live in suburbs can still exercise, but that lifestyle does nothing to _encourage_ them to stay fit. And what information can you provide to back up your claim that people in the suburbs are healthier? It sounds like this is just an assumption that fits your world view. Here is some info that suggests otherwise (sources cited: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/articles/Urban Sprawl and Public Health - PHR.pdf http://diegopuga.org/papers/fatcity.pdf ) These are especially valuable sources of information - particularly the first one, a report by the US Center for Disease Control (a government agency) which describes a number of adverse health effects of sprawl, including pollution, increased risk of auto accidents, and the lack of exercise.


The obesity is by far bigger in lower stractum of society (in US, basically poor black people in inner cities) than in the middle class (suburbs). I read somewhere that South Central in Los Angeles (not a suburb) has the highest level of obesity, and the fast food chain has more units in areas like that than in suburbs.



Nouvellecosse said:


> Sophism. Inner city NA contains both wealthy and poor people (including some of the wealthiest people in the world) but the reason behind lower energy usage is due to fundamental physics. The largest sources of energy usage are for transporation and climate control (heating and cooling buildings). It is physically and logically impossible for people in suburbs who drive cars far more and who live in larger home to use less energy. But in case there is any doubt, here is a chart of comparing various cities by metropolitian area density and energy usage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sophism. Where I said that EVERYBODY in NA cities were poor and EVERYBODY in suburbs were wealthy? Upper East Side, Georgetown, etc. etc. etc. I said, in general, inner cities are relativelly poor.



Nouvellecosse said:


> I'm surprised you'd call me biased when you're making all these outlandish claims without anything to back them up. Or at least, I would be surprised if this were the first time you did it lol. First of all, it takes much more than for land to be green for it to be environmentally friendly. Suburban "green" areas are not functioning ecosystems, they require energy to be maintained (lawn movers for example) and use chemicals to keep them groomed as was already discussed. And you say "people in cities produce trash, pollution, spend energy and and eat food produced in agricultural areas" this shows your bias since people in suburbs do the same things, and use a higher amount of energy as shown in sources cited earlier in my reply.


First, I just gave my opinion. I didn't hope that would change into a debate. However, people here talk a lot about smart growth and hate suburbs, like a religion. It seems "smart growth" _per se_ is a positive thing without any kind of contest. Because of that I mentioned the bias.

And please, you are patronising me now. My English is not good, but I'm not stupid. OF COURSE suburbs is not the same thing as a natural ecosystem. I just said that their are by far less agressive than other forms of land usage.

Again, you are obsessed about the use of chemicals in suburbian gardens. That's not an issue. It's only 0,000001% of the worldwide use. The rest is used in crops.

OF COURSE, people in suburbs do all that stuff (eat, trash, etc.). I was making a point: 30% of land is used in benefit of urban and suburbian people. So what's the big deal about the 1 or 2% of land that suburbian people uses? And like I said those 2% are real forests. There are millions and millions of trees in USA backyards (capturing carbon and prevent the heat effect). And about the energy, the biggest user is the industrial sector (not the households) who serves both suburbs and urban areas. 



Nouvellecosse said:


> Sprawl land consumption is unnecessary and can be easily reduced, where as we need land to grow food. The difference? One is a wasteful use of land, the other isn't. However, if you're concerned about the amount of land being used for agriculture, you can help reduce it by reducing or eliminating your consumption of meat and dairy which takes much more land to produce then plants.


I will not do that.  

I'm not trying to push people out of their homes, so I hope people do not interfere in my food habits. 



Nouvellecosse said:


> Levels of bias are based on the person, not on their political leanings. I gave these examples because you implied that people who were left-wing were biased while right wing people aren't. There are biased people within every belief system. If fact, we all have one form of bias or another.


I know that, but that's not a philosophical discussion and you know what I meant.



Nouvellecosse said:


> Your English isn't bad, but obviously we have some trouble communicating. However, my main purpose in replying in this thread was not to convince you of anything since you made it clear your mind is not open to influence. My purpose was to object to flase statements that I saw, since this is a pulic website and there is always the chance that people who are less familiar with the issue might be influenced if false assertions are not challenged. I feel I've been successful at doing this, and as long as you're not open to reason, there little more I can hope to accomplish. It was an interesting discussion though.


Wow?!?! I'm not open? I love cities, I live in one. I just think this hate towards suburbs is irrational, and I tried despite the language barrier, explain my reasons.

Don't worry about the "false assertions": the majority of people around here regards "smart growth" as a deity. 

And "open to reason" is automatically agree with you? that's a little bit pretentious, don't you think?


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

> People wanna live in big houses with big gardens and they CAN afford it. And what's the matter of financed cars? People in North America cities don't use it?


I think both of you guys are mistaking the sentiment against bad designs of current suburbia with the ludicrous black and white idea everyone who doesn't cheer for 5,000 sq foot stucco monsters and Ford Expeditions thinks people should be forced into cities that look like Tokyo run by communists.

Big Houses with big gardens...and? Along with those things, I like neighborhoods where there are nice public places mixed in. Communities would be better if they were planned with everyday places nearby and connected streets. There is something wrong if parents must drive their children to school across a freeway.

My belief is suburbs are the land use of convenience for developers based on the public policy of the last 40 years. Nothing more than that.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> The comedian was Jon Stewart, so it's not that irrelevant. And that's a trend, not an isolated case. I just wonder if any of those "commedians who make jokes with a conservative slant" made a joke about a minority group being rapist in mainstream media. But it's only Alaska, all right? They are conservative and white, so who cares?


Sarah Palin IS a joke!! She is a walking ignoramus and completely unqualified to be anything other than a beauty queen or Walmart greeter. Her erratic behavior and complete lack of understanding of even basic issues is what gets her negative media attention. Even well known Republicans like George Will think she is a headcase.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
OK, I got it! Sarah Palin is stupid and all Alaskan are rapists.

Obama rules! Hillary rules! the US media (or DNC, whatever) rules!...


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

Let's try to keep personal politics out of this discussion.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

hoosier said:


> Sarah Palin IS a joke!! She is a walking ignoramus and completely unqualified to be anything other than a beauty queen or Walmart greeter. Her erratic behavior and complete lack of understanding of even basic issues is what gets her negative media attention. Even well known Republicans like George Will think she is a headcase.


Christ, get over it already. You sound like a fool.


----------



## ontarian (Jul 22, 2009)

I think it's sad that so many people have come to identify the suburbs with the right and cities with the left. I suppose this is based on the obvious evidence of voting patterns, but it conflicts with what I see as the ideological basis of those ideas.

The suburbs are an inherently liberal idea; individual rights and individual freedom leads to the need to escape other people so you can be "free" of them, the free market leads to developers ignoring the future to make a quick buck now. The city is a conservative concept. It requires dedication to the past (the heritage of your city), commitment to society and to living in the traditional way by the traditional means, not to mention the prudence of conserving resources. The suburbs are new, the city is old. 

And yet somehow in the popular consciousness, the city is viewed a liberal construction and the suburb as a conservative one.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Like I said before, in the U.S. being a "conservative" or a "liberal" refers to two things "money" and "society". Someone who is fiscally "conservative" tends to want less government spending, and in turn little to no taxes. It also means less government regulation. Someone who is fiscally "liberal" tends to prefer more government programs and regulation and as a result, more taxes. Someone who is socially "conservative" tends to prefer the social norms and ideals they are familiar with, while someone who is socially "liberal" tends to tolerate norms and ideals that are different from their own.

That means people on the "left" generally prefer more government programs and are tolerant of many people, while people on the "right" generally prefer less government programs and are less tolerant of people who are different.

That's why the "left" is generally associated with urban centers and the "right'" is associated with suburban and rural areas.

In the U.S. "conservation" isn't necessarily a "liberal" or "conservative" ideal, and in fact both ideaologies tend to agree with certain forms of conservation.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

ontarian said:


> I think it's sad that so many people have come to identify the suburbs with the right and cities with the left. I suppose this is based on the obvious evidence of voting patterns, but it conflicts with what I see as the ideological basis of those ideas.
> 
> The suburbs are an inherently liberal idea; individual rights and individual freedom leads to the need to escape other people so you can be "free" of them, the free market leads to developers ignoring the future to make a quick buck now. The city is a conservative concept. It requires dedication to the past (the heritage of your city), commitment to society and to living in the traditional way by the traditional means, not to mention the prudence of conserving resources. The suburbs are new, the city is old.
> 
> And yet somehow in the popular consciousness, the city is viewed a liberal construction and the suburb as a conservative one.



Hmm, well at least its an argument I haven't heard before.


----------

