What the hell is wrong with you people. Cities or Suburbs who cares

There is more than one way to live!!!!

We are allowed to choose our lifestyles, we do not have to all live the same way to be living the right way.

There is no right way to live.

I've lived in cities and suburbs and I prefer the suburbs, so what. If you prefer the city so what. To each his own. All cities and burbs are not equal either. I've lived in burbs where the neighbor had a bullet hole in thier house and drug deals are a regular occurrance in the park. I've lived in burbs where I can go jogging at night and feel safe. People are people no matter where they choose to live.

If I want to live in a cookie cutter house shouldn't I be allowed?
If someone wants to live in a high rise apartment close to everything, shouldn't they be allowed? Would you like everyone to pick up and move to the city? Think of the mess that would be?

Why do we have to argue over where we live. This is so ridiculous.
If I'm not happy in the city would you still want me to live there because you don't like suburbs? Would you like to be made to live in a place that makes you unhappy?

This reminds of the repubs saying you must live this way to be moral and right. Thats such bullshit

If you live in the city and your happy, wonderful. If you live in the burbs and your happy, wonderful. Now if your not happy where you live then you have a problem, but don't berate people who are happy where they live, and say that they should live like you because you think its better.

There now that I've gotten that out, I feel better.:smoke:

if you arent one of 'us' why are you here?

I'm a live and let live sort of person, but suburban sprawl is eating up the countryside, rotting our cities, destroying the enviroment, and trampling all over the rights of formerly rural residents. The burbs aren't some harmless, bland oatmeal state of living. They are a force that is, and has been adversely effecting our entire nation.

Making them more attractive for people to stay, offering low cost housing as incentives. Second, start planning a cities' development, rather than just slapping up burbs willy nilly. Plan in services and amenities like proper roads, public transportation, schools, etc. Get rid of sprawling malls and commercial development. Third, fight the problem of white flight(which is at the root of much of this suburban sprawl) with education, tolerance, and again, rebuilding the cities' infrastructure. Fourth, allow rural residents a real say in what is going up next door, rather than just slapping down a development and ruining their life. Fifth, make all suburban developments "green" developments", with emphasis put on renewable energy, and living with nature, instead of conquering it

There has always been a tension between rural and urban areas, but now the pressure on rural America is starting to reach a critical stage. Vast tracks of land are being paved under, and the citizens of rural America are being forced to submit to the tyranny of the majority. If this continues, then America will soon become one huge urban area from sea to polluted sea. Is this what you want, to establish that east coast megapolis throughout the entire country? Sorry friend, but I will fight you every step of the way.

services. We have to stop letting people come into the cities for their salaries but divert all of their property tax revenue to their suburban municipality. City dwellers have been funding the suburbanm expansion for years. It is time for the suburbanites to pay for the resources they extract from the cities.

Sorry, that's the biggest stinking pile of bullshit I've ever read on DU. It's crap. It ain't so. What you propose is baloney!

Applying an additional tax because somebody chooses not to live in the samne town they work is FASCISM.

Where's the "popcorn smiley"?

Godwin's Law applies to Nazism and Hitler. Perhaps I am applying it too liberally, but in the case of your post I think my useage is debatable.

If applied to Fascism then it must also apply to communism and socialism.

You seem to have recognized that below, when you acknowledged that is was "socialism" that was being applied, not "fascism".

I corrected myself. It's not fascism. It IS socialism.

I think it is an important discussion, and would rather the participants avoid hyperbole.

Is there anything inherently wrong with socialism? After all, doesn't some element of that play into any sort of 'design' that a social group (such as a city) does? (i.e. zoning)

Sorry, I'm a capitalist through and through. It's the American way.

While I think capitalism has its place, I think that it has difficulty establishing a proper balance with "invisible costs". I also believe that cooperative development allows a more efficient use of resources that wouldn't necessarily be matched by a competitive market.

While socialism has it's place, such as insuring retirement for workers, it has no place whatsoever in land development. The market should drive the development of land use.

First we should establish whether or not we agree that there are invisible costs to development. I propose that things such as traffic noise, traffic pollution, habitat destruction (not everywhere, obviously), increased wear and tear on various systems (transportation, utility) should all be considered as "invisible costs" of development.

Do you agree with this assessment?

I cannot agree with your assessment.

If you aren't aware of flooding problems associated with sprawl due to increases in hard-surface area, you're not paying attention. If you aren't aware of the problems of petroleum runoff into streams and rivers as a result of sprawl, you're not paying attention. If you aren't aware of the air pollution problems caused by growth models that promote automobile transportation at the expense of public transit, walking or biking, you're not paying attention.

Of course, I could go on and on about this, but I think that others reading this thread will get the gist even if you still stubbornly refuse to acknowledge these realities. By your logic, we should just turn development completely over to the developers -- market incentives, you know.

there would be air pollution. There would be noise. There would be flooding problems.

You are asserting that the suburbs are the cause of all these problems. Prove it.

I work currently as a hydrological engineer. That means I design and evaluate storm runoff systems. The principles are actually quite simple, really.

When you have vegetated surfaces, water is partially absorbed every time you have a storm event. Furthermore, if these surfaces are forest as opposed to open grass, more is absorbed. Also, water moves more slowly over forest, then open grass, than it does over pavement.

Water is NOT absorbed in pavement. Also, if there is any slope, it runs off very quickly -- because there is not nearly as much friction as a grassy area (lower Manning's coefficient).

Finally, the faster that water flows off a watershed, the higher the "storm surge" is. Basically, runoff reaches a crescendo as the furthest drop of water from a channel reaches that channel, then it tapers off to a constant level. Hence the "surge".

What this results in is a much faster storm surge combined with more runoff, which in turn creates more flooding when there are not sufficient measures available to address stormwater runoff.

Current models of suburban development, with their massive asphalt parking lots, lack of open space (especially forest/trees), and large streets create conditions that increase flooding potential. Of course, it is always possible to DECREASE these factors, even in suburban development, but our 1950's era growth models don't address these problems.

As for air pollution, you've got to be kidding. If you create communities in which you have to DRIVE virtually everywhere you want to go, as opposed to walking, biking, or taking public transit, you are increasing air pollution. Likewise, if you are installing only 4-lane access roads as opposed to public transit, roads that are inevitably prone to traffic jams due to too much traffic (see: Los Angeles, CA), you're creating more exhaust, and therefore more air pollution.

As for noise, I don't think I mentioned that one. But it ties in directly with the amount of automobile traffic and impervious surface that tends to ECHO noise rather than absorb it. So that one fits as well.

I think you'd be hard pressed to make a legitimate case that the quality of the environment is suffering because of suburban growth.

The reality is that by most indicators, the environment is actually improving as we progress into the future-- not worsening-- despite the fact that suburban growth is surging. Air pollution seems to be an exception to this fact-- air pollution has gotten somewhat worse.

Sensible environmental laws which we probably all share and agree with are largely responsible for the improvement in the environment. But many economists and environmentalists will agree that there is a common if not paradoxical link between growth and improvement-- essentially, as we become more wealthy we have more resources to devote toward sensible environmental legislation without crippling our ability to continue to grow and prosper.

I think the REAL issue with these threads as Walt Starr seems to indicate is a bias or bigotry against suburban dwellers-- and it seems to be an all-too-common fad these days to attempt to punish those with who we find disaggreement.

And air pollution is becoming a HUGE problem WRT sprawl. I mean, have you read any articles from the UK on climate change recently? And it doesn't exactly help ecosystems by gobbling up animal habitats in order to put up strip malls, either.

Whatever improvements in the environment are being made could be amplified even more if we got a handle on suburban sprawl.

And for the record, I am not against any sort of growth outside cities whatsoever. What I am against is unmanaged growth, better known as SPRAWL, that not only is environmentally destructive, but also often results in a lesser quality of life even if it's a higher standard of living.

A much better model than the one currenlty used is what is termed "smart growth". You can see more about it by going to http://www.smartgrowth.org.

and that is a great testament to the environmental movement, government AND industry and the American people. I see our bettering environment as a success story-- the final chapter of whcih has not been yet written.

I probably haven't read the articles to which you refer-- a link or two would be immensely appreciated.

And I will also take an interested look at your link to smartgrowth-- but I must admit that I enter the discussion with a bit of a bias against overall plans and the concept of central planning.

I agree with you that there is nothing good at all about wrecking a sensitive ecosystem to put up a strip mall, but we also have to acknowledge the inherent dangers of attempting to control growth too closely. Central planning concepts have a poor track record, while it's likely that continued sensible environmental laws will continue to be a benefit without retarding growth.

I thought such terms went the way of the dodo with the collapse of the USSR. Apparently the communist menace is alive and well.

In our society and economy, governments on all levels are charged with balancing commericial interests with the greater social good. That is what Smart Growth does. It changes zoning regulations to promote mixed-use development and more public-friendly communities. There's nothing "centralized" about that, outside of governments looking out for public welfare.

Your above statement leads me to believe that you would consider anything that might impede developers from maximizing profit as a BAD thing, and if that's the case, then I'm afraid there isn't much use in us talking on this further. Developers should certainly have the incentive of profit -- but not at the expense of the environment and the greater public and community welfare.

As far as travel goes, I've put half as many miles on my car each year since moving to the suburbs as I did when I lived in the city. I've driven into the city five times in the past two years, but I'm in the city every day of the work week. I do drive more in the summer than in the winter, though, but it's the same drive to the Renaissance Faire that I used to make from the city!

We have no flooding problems because planning incorporated retention ponds capable of handling the worst flooding conditions on record in the area. Hey, it's all in how the municipality phrases it's zoning laws. I live in a city where the zoning laws required this of every development and furthermore, required the subdivisions maintain these things thus rolling the upkeep into home owner's association dues rather than into taxes, thus our legitimate city services such as schools, police, and fire excel.

so it comes down to the zoning laws of the municiplaities. When local government is on top of things and does it right, you don't get those problems you mentioned.

Many cities have completely inadequate public transit networks. I would advocate boosting them as well.

Cities also have evolved over time to deal with many of these problems that I cited, especially stormwater runoff. Like I've said to you NUMEROUS times, Walt -- you apparently live in a suburb much like mine, one that is more like a "town" than an unmanaged amalgamation of strip malls and cul-de-sac developments of McMansions.

Here in the NYC area, where I live, air pollution in suburban areas is an increasing problem, as is flooding. All you have to do is turn on the TV after a heavy rain and you see stories from NJ describing floods all over the place.

The fact of the matter is, in spite of your protestations against "socialism", your suburb is the way it is due to many of the approaches you seem to be decrying on this thread. It's the way it is because there was public PLANNING involved, and that the developers weren't left to the free market, but rather regulated efficiently on what they can and cannot do.

Hey, it's all in how the municipality phrases it's zoning laws.

<BANGING HEAD ON DESK>

This is what I've been trying to say as well. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be suburbs. I'm saying that they should be approached RESPONSIBLY, especially following a "smart growth" plan that differs from the 1950's model that seems to govern the majority of development that has turned into SPRAWL.

I'm not against well-planned suburbs that increase quality of life for people. I am against sprawl that primarily benefits developers while leaving people to pick up most of the seen and unseen expenses in its wake.

I've been reading about horrible suburbs here and in all liklihood, you have community leaders lining the pockets of unscrupulous developers. That's a recipe for disaster and can happen in any community regardless of size.

Apparently, the suburbs of the older cities are better planned. I've seen some com plaints about non-Union labor on these threads and have to say, if my home had been built by anything other than Union Labor, there would have been a HUGE outcry.

:)

But then again, you're the one arguing in favor of market fundamentalism here. ;-)

Seriously, though. I have a good vantage point from where I live to both "good" growth and "bad" growth. I live in a cute bedroom community about 35 miles north of Manhattan. I walk to and from the train every day to go into the city for work. My wife and I can walk to the bookstore, library, shops, restaurants and movie theatre in the town. When the weather is nice, I often ride my bicycle to go grocery shopping.

But, if I go over into New Jersey, I see the darker side. Nothing but strip malls and cul-de-sac developments. You have to get in a car and drive to travel 1/2 of a mile to the store. There's no soul to it whatsoever. It completely sucks.

The key lies in changing the way we zone and develop. Check out Smart Growth Online for some examples (http://www.smartgrowth.org).

Please explain how these costs are accounted for by a free market.

I do not recognize these "costs" you've asserted even exist.

Although that was not my intention - your post disagreeing with my claim was unclear.

Okay, I'll try to back up a little more - are you willing to recognize arguments about the existence of "costs" of suburban development, or am I engaged in a Sisyphean task?

The first cost is to obtain the land to be developed. The cost is usually tied closely to location. Then comes the improvement costs as municiplities generally won't spring for the improvment costs. This would be the roads, sidewalks, utilities, etc. There are some municipalities that spring for this cost on an upfront basis and charge a specific tax on every lot of the subdivision over a period of time, generally thirty years these days.

After that, there are costs to file for permits, costs for materials, labor, etc. etc. etc. There are costs for improving common areas to the subdivision. Most new subdivisions in this area are now clubhouse communities so there is the cost of the clubhouyse and other ammenities. Many of these developments set aside 1/4 to 1/3 of the total land in the subdivision for parks and recreation, the upkeep of which falls to the subdivision itself. In effect, a community within a community is built.

Development is not free. There are real costs associated with it.

You mention both permits and development impact fees/taxes, both which are used to cover what I have been calling the invisible costs of development.

Perhaps we are just encountering a difference in language - I consider invisible costs to be anything above the cost of the land and the building materials/labor. The capital costs associated with servicing the new development are part of the invisible costs - increased fire department coverage necessitates more trucks/buildings, digging sewer lines takes money, etc. Permits are designed to pay for the increased system traffic (whether transportation, sewage, etc) as are impact fees.

While these costs are factored into the market, they are IMHO an example of socializing costs that would not necessarily otherwise be covered by developers.

Permits are for administrative costs to insure compliance with building and zoning law.

Property taxes are for new fire stations etc.

Are you saying that this is the way it should be, or this is the way that it is?

As an example, here is a link to a FAQ on Tucson's impact fees, and it seems to me that they are using it as a way to raise capital for certain improvements (roads and parks in this case).

Here, there are special tax assessments. The permits come at a moderate cost and only offset administrative functions such as inspections. Here, it's the property tax assessment that covers upkeep to the roads, any new schools, etc. etc.

We had to do it because the city couldn't keep up with the capital costs of new development but that may have more to do with the rate of expansion than anything. There was also resistance within the city from residents who didn't want their taxes to pay for services that didn't benefit them, since the original scheme was that these capital costs were paid out of the property taxes (with some of the cost offset by the developers).

There are also some nasty fights over incorporation of areas into the city. The city wants the property taxes from those areas, but that is part of the attraction - they are not liable for city property taxes.

I admit I don't have a really good grasp of all of it, but I don't have any problem with using a one-time fee to cover expansion of services, with property taxes used to pay the yearly costs of those services.

Much oof the costs to upkeep infrastructure in these new subdivisions fall on the subdivisions themselves.

For example, the subdivision I live in has detached garages with alleys. Upkeep ofthe alleys is 100% the responsibility of the HOA. If we get potholes in the alleys, the city is not responsible for fixing them. We are. If there is a major snowstorm, the city does not plow the alleys. We do.

The property taxes are reserved for the city services and since they no longer pay to keep up the storm drains, those services are exemplory.

I don't know what a "covenant base" is, but from the body of your post it seems to be the direction that Tucson is moving.

I think that it is a good idea with certain services. For others I think the resources should be pooled - if police protection is dependent on the inhabitants of a particular area then I think serious problems would arise.

Schools, fire departments, police, municipal parks, etc. are all supported with the tax base.

covenants among smaller communities within the city provide for storm drainage and upkeep of the HOA park, etc.

I am unclear about this - it seems to me to be an HOA-like organization, but does it have the ability to collect taxes?

The Home Owner's Assocaition collects assessments. Each HOA operates indepedently from all others. These funds are used for upkeep of common areas (land that is deeded to the Home Owner's Assocaition), storm drains, alleys, etc.

Permit fees pay for the administrative costs for the city to send out the inspector to be sure the buildings meet code and for the processing costs to file the permit and issue Certificates of Occupancy.

Property taxes cover fire dept, schools, and other expenses of the local government. Most areas don't have impact fees.

We've done a small development before (in a city neighborhood). There are also costs to the developer not mentioned. Architectural fees, engineering fees, land planner fees, real estate sales fees, interest on the loans, and other soft costs such as soil testing.

The problem with suburban sprawl is that there are too few codes on the builders/developers. They are allowed to clear cut, slap up cheap cookie cutter over sized homes on small lots. This is all about the bottom line for the developer.

Strip mall developers have a lot of room as well in most communities. The ugliest structures I have ever seen were huge strip malls with massive parking lots in the front and virtually no architectural style requirements.

It's the responsibility of the municipality being developed to put the proper checks in place.

I honestly cannot believe that doing things right makes Aurora, IL an exception rather than the rule. I mean, com on. This is the City of Lights where Wayne and Garth are from! ;)

Travel south and drive through the massive, sprawling gated community areas. They are horrific. Have you ever driven through a sprawling Tampa suburb? O.M.G. The term wasteland would make sense to you then. These new suburbs are not like the older Chicago suburbs. I lived in Glen Ellyn as a child and it was nothing like these new developments.

It's well documented that these surburban sprawl areas are very damaging environmentally. Additionally, these types of areas are socially unhealthy.

But yes, the checks should come from stricter ordinances and codes placed on the developers as well as increased capital gains and taxes on utility usuage.

It may be that you do live in an exceptional community.

I agree that it is the responsibility of the municipality in question to design a system that produces the proper result, but when I think about "planning" and government institution of "checks" on a market, I think "socialism".

Is it possible that I am using the word incorrectly?

and zoning/land use law is one area where socialism is necessary. I think that if you follow the money in the horror stories of suburbs presented here, you will find cases of community leaders lining the pockets of unscrupulous developers which results in a bad situation for all.

I think most of the problems discussed in this thread can be addressed with proper planning, and I have no problem establishing a framework that the market can then use to determine prices.

Suburbian horror stories that I have heard have either been attributed to the reasons you list in your post or would be if they were examined fully. The suburbs aren't the problem, it's the large sums of money being spent - that always seems to attract the wrong kind of person.

That's two times in thsi thread I've been able to agree with somebody!

So the real solution is to think globally and act locally to implement proper planning and zoning!

Just because there are some controls on the market, does not mean it's socialism. EPA standards, building codes, etc are NOT socialist.

Socialism is where the GOVERNMENT OWNS the companies.

Does it then fall under capitalism, or am I completely misunderstanding how to apply these terms?

There are federal level regulations are set forth by the EPA and other entities. These determine things such as protecting rivers, controlling run off, etc.

Then there are state statutes and city codes. Most building codes are local level codes. For instance, all cities have minimum housing codes, landuse codes, zoning codes, and parking requirement codes. For example, you cannot build a commerical structure on a residentially zoned piece of land, although oftentimes developers are able to get zoning depts to upgrade or downgrade.

Cities can tighten up building codes that require developers to be more environmentally and socially responsible. The more codes, the less profit. That's why we see such lax codes.

Hysterics don't help your case. Make a real argument with facts other than Walt mihght have to pay more taxes.

It's socialism

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:eyes:

In many cities, the jobs also moved out. There is a lot of reverse commuting. In many cities, the financial, retail, and manufacturing core has moved to the suburbs. There are a lot more salaries being paid in Tyson's Corners, Virginia than in downtown Washington. New York is not the model for the country.

Making them more attractive for people to stay, offering low cost housing as incentives.

With what money? Most cities have low-cost housing, and it hasn't helped. See: Chicago.

Second, start planning a cities' development, rather than just slapping up burbs willy nilly.

Do you have a time machine? To plan the development of Boston, New York, San Francisco, LA, Chicago, Washington etc. you'd need to go back to about 1700 or so.

Plan in services and amenities like proper roads, public transportation, schools, etc.

With what money?

Get rid of sprawling malls and commercial development.

OK, we can do that when you come up with a plan to re-employ the millions of workers who will be put out of work.

Third, fight the problem of white flight(which is at the root of much of this suburban sprawl) with education, tolerance, and again, rebuilding the cities' infrastructure.

A fine idea, one we've been working on for 50 years or so. If you can stop the Industrial Revolution from happening and thus keep former slaves from coming north to find work, and if you can go back a thousand years to re-educate racism out of the ancestors of Europeans, we're off to the races. As far as rebuilding the infrastructure, we've been doing that to a degree in Boston. Bechtel made $600 billion on the job, it has taken more than 10 years, and it still isn't done. So the 'With what money' question applies again.

Fourth, allow rural residents a real say in what is going up next door, rather than just slapping down a development and ruining their life.

That would involve people giving a fuck. Residents do have a say, and a lot of times they effectively have their say. Too often, however, it's a shrug.

Fifth, make all suburban developments "green" developments", with emphasis put on renewable energy, and living with nature, instead of conquering it.

That is a fine, workable idea. My mom was a real estate attorney for many years and worked with developers. She always made sure that if a developer wanted to build condos on two acres of land, they'd buy 20 acres and render the rest protected. Also made sure the condos got along with the land around them re: waste, etc.

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. But your advocacy on this issue strikes me as glib. Yes, sprawl is a big problem. Yes, we need to do something about it. But your laundry list of solutions is about as workable as hauling down the moon to light a baseball game, simply because you don't take into account the economic and historical tides that have created the situation. Come up with a better plan, and try not to be so angry with people who engage you on it.

Cost of a suburban home (except in places like CA):

$100-$300K

Cost to pay into a coop rennovation project... well I don't know that, but probably a good deal less.

Not all city improvement has to be publicly financed.


Not that I think we should control where people live. It is, however, undeniable that the choices of the middle class -- the lack of spending discretion, the poor family planning, the long commuting distances, etc. etc. etc. are an aggravating factor.

I don't think it is productive to bash on the `burbs here, as it is just more unneccesary infighting. However, suburbians shouldn't feel themselves completely immune from criticism. Their decisions do have consequences, and the indignation they show doesn't hold much water when examined from an outside perspective.

And we have never taken a city grant or loan. There are ways a city can encourage more of this without laying out the funds to do. For example, in my area, parking requirements force developers to cut down on density and to build unsightly parking lots. In NYC, they have looser parking requirements for developers which encourages density and infill.

Urban planners who have been successful with revitalization have all sorts of viable alternatives that encourage restoration and infill.

It's a shame to see vacant houses, run down empty warehouses, and historic structures torn down because of the big white flight to the suburbs where developers are allowed to clear cut, slap up cheap, oversized structures with no regard to the environment.

Stricter building codes in the suburbs are desperately needed to curtail surburban sprawl.

And that is a matter of your own interpretation. Sorry, but emotions do not come across well on a chatboard, as you should well know.

It sounds like most of your objections come down to one thing, money. Well that is a problem, and one that suburban sprawl has been contributing to for decades now. People come and work in the city, use the city services and infrastructure, but pay their taxes out to the 'burbs. Therefore, the city is, in fact, being forced to subsidize these suburbs. That can be changed with a change in tax laws, and thus, your money problem would be solved.

You say that most rural residents' reponses are a shrug. Goes to show how little you've actually been out in the rural area, or talking with rural residents. Rural residents care a great deal about this issue, and fight it tooth and nail. But they are working against a stacked deck, in that the developers have deep pockets, the laws favor urban expansion, and the lawmakers are usually on the side of "growth", if not in the back pocket of developers. Faced with such a formidable force, the results are predictable. I'm currently fighting such a battle myself, and the one effective tool that we have, the right to petition for a vote on the development is now possibly going to be stripped from us. Why? Because the developer has a state rep in his back pocket introducing bills to strip this right away from us. Is that fair, just or right?

You speak of the problem of white flight as an impossibility, that we would have to go back in time. You're wrong there friend, it is a matter of education, like any other racial issue. Yes, it would take money, time and effort, but it can be done. We've made a great deal of progress on racial matters through education, and we can do a great deal more.

Again friend, do not mistake my intensity for anger. It isn't. I am very engaged on this issue, for it threatens me personally.

all the way to the bank.

My little suburb just North of Dallas is currently fighting the city council members and the developers from changing our zoning laws to allow a WalMart SuperCenter into our small town that is about 6 miles wide. The land in question belongs to four "rural residents" who want to sell to the highest bidder. They are leaving with all thier new found wealth, and they could give a rats ass about the rest of us.

I'm sure there are some rural land owners who try to preserve thier space, but most take the money and run.

and end up as millionaires out of the deal when the developers buy.

The same has happened here (Tucson, AZ) to ranchers, but where I grew up (Kansas) the problem was that there were no developers waiting to buy out the farmers when the agricultural business was no longer sustainable (with a few exceptions - Johnson County being one).

to the towns, now those farms are worth more than the ones farther out. The ones farther out continue losing money to the large agribusinesses and are not close enough to a rail line to warrant development at this time.

Check these out

<http://www.saveruralliving.com/aboutus.html>
<http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/default.asp>
<http://www.10000friends.org/index.html>
<http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/>
<http://www.penweb.org/issues/sprawl/>

These are just a handful of the organizations and people who are fighting against suburban sprawl. Yes, there are some rural residents who sell out at the drop of a hat, but most rural residents are respectful of their neighbors, family and friends who share the countryside with them. I'm working with a group fighting an annexation proposal for a development that is three miles outside of town. The grand total of people who have sold out to the developer, two. Every single other resident of the surrounding area is against him, for a total of a hundred plus.

You say you have four residents who sold out, but balance that with how many are opposing this development.

The people opposing are the suburbanites in thier cookie cutter houses.

The 4 own the last of the open land in our town. It the only thing left for development.

Obviously people are selling out everywhere if its such a problem.

See my post on tax base sharing. In Chicago there are over 1,300 municipal governments competing for tax revenues. Each municipality has a monopoly on its tax base that it will not yield. Yet a large number of these people go into the city for jobs and entertainment, thereby placing a disproportionate burden on the city's resources while depriving the cities of potential tax revenue to pay for those. The disparity in resources is a big reason for the superiority of suburban public schools. I think we should place an earnings tax of say 2% on people who work in the cities but live in suburbs. That would provide more than enough money to achieve the goals outlined.

Small businesses employ more people in this country than any other source, yet we design our zoning and use laws to promote big businesses at the expense of small businesses. No one is saying to have no commercial areas. Just have different commercial areas with real connections to the neighborhoods. I venture to guess that such a move would create jobs.

As far as residents having a say, two words: eminent domain. Get rid of eminent domain except in instances of true societal benefits. Building another Target is not a societal benefit.

Put a tax on suburbanites who work in the city and the corporations would flee to the suburbs. Now you lose even more because those corporations were paying higher fees for the glamorous addresses within the city that are no longer worth it because suburbanites no longer want to work in the city.

That's one fucked up solution, plus it would probably be unconstitutional because you'd be taxing the incomes of one group of people while not taxing the incomes of others. The only constitutional way to do it is to tax ALL INCOME earned in the city. Now your problems get even worse as it becomes EVERYBODY FLIGHT.

We have an earnings tax and with the improvements that have been made to city infrastructure from the taxes, more businesses are moving into the city than leaving for the first time in decades.

the city limits?

On a related note. Over the past three years, more people have moved into the city than out again for the first time in decades.

Do you have any support for your position other than supposition?

Sorry, but I don't trust anything just posted on the internet.

made in St. Louis City. Here's a link: http://www.mayorslay.com/about/record.asp

The St. Louis earnings tax was found to be constitutional in the case of Burhorst v. City of St. Louis.

nor does it demonstrate a correlation between non-resident income taxes and the projects cited.

I could show you similar crap on Daley's site, and he's a crook of the first order!

on businesses leaving the city because of the tax

Code. The case I cited discussesthe tax in detail and finds it to be constitutional.

Do you have any support for your position other than supposition? Put up some proof of your own for once Walt. You demand it from everyone else, but when it comes to your own positions shouting loud seems to be all you have.

5.22.020 Tax imposed.

A tax for general revenue purposes of one percent is imposed on:

A. Salaries, wages, commissions and other compensation earned after July 31, 1959, by resident individuals of the city, including the entire distributive share of any member of a partnership or association, less the amount thereof, if any, which may be shown to have been taxed under the provisions hereof to said association or partnership;

B. Salaries, wages, commissions and other compensation earned after July 31, 1959, by nonresident individuals of the City for work done or services performed or rendered in the City;

so the rest of your argument is false as the very premise it rested upon was false.

http://tax.wustl.edu/City%20Taxes.htm

and heres and article on businesses leaving the city because of the tax.

http://www.stlcommercemagazine.com/archives/september2000/rcgaction2.html

RCHA is a corporate funded largely Repuke organization that opposes all taxes. They are only offering conjecture about businesses leaving the city. The reality has been much different.

Do you really want to make the Republicans arguments for them?

your argument is kind of mute.

On edit: I didn't really look at the source of the article, but common sense tells me that extra taxes do not make the environment favorable to businesses

Sorry, I was looking at the statutre that authorizes taxing nonresidents who work in the city. What difference does it make if the tax applies to allearnings in the city. It is a way to increase the tax base and provide the services needed to revitalize the city.

that would be bad. Thats what was being argued, and since you were wrong there is no argument.

Cities have every right to impose taxes on everyone.

the facts didn't support you, so now a misdirect.

why should I beleive what you are saying about the other link?

You demand exact proof for any argument with which you disagree but offer none whatsoever for your own arguments. Put up Walt. Show me how suburban life is good for the environment.

The assertion being made is that suburban life is BAD for the environment. In logical discourse, the claimant with the inital positive assertion is under the burden of proof.

Your assertion was that a tax only on nonresidents of St. Louis has made everythign peachy keen. There is, in fact, a tax only on nonresidents, lus evidence of the tax being problematic to atttracting business has been posted. Also, read the tax language, it's been around since 1959. It can hardly be used as an example of how imposing a tax now would result in making everything peachy keen now.

You are hiding behind the same logical fallacy that atheists use. The whole point of these therads has been that suburban development needs to be done in a way that is more friendly to the human and natural environment. Why are you even here if you don't disagree with that? If you do disagree, then your disagreement is in itself a positive statement that requires support iof you want to stand by it.

St. Louis has undergomnne a revitalization in the past few yearsthat is the result of businesses working with the city to use the existing tax base to implement develop
Certainly there is some truth to your assertion that in the past the tax base has been ciphoned off by graft and corruption, but it doesn't have to be that way. You seem to be unwilling to consider anything other than the status quo. Status quo is not working.

The assertion was that suburbs are bad for the environment. You made an assertion that St. Loiuis is being revitalized due to a tax that was placed only upon nonresidents of the city. Your assertion has been proven blatantly false and now you are misdirecting the debate.

I've made no asertions within this thread, I've only called you on YOUR assertions.

Especially this part

"Too many businesses continue to view the City as unfriendly towards them, a place where they cannot receive expeditious, equitable, and professional service."


http://stlouis.missouri.org/5yearstrategy/ch2.html

Thank you for the support.

:eyes:
Even though I'm not quite sure what your point is

infrastructure of cities, people and businesses will move back to the cities. It is exactly what we gave seen in St. Louis. To do that, suburbanites who use city resources should have to foot part of the bil. In St. Louis they have an eranings tax that applies to nonresidents and yes, residents (sorry for my mistake, I just wasn't reading carefully enough) thta has helped fund that investment. In Chicago, the business leaders of Chicago have been pushing revenue sharing with surrounding municipalities for te past few years. Except for the few on this board, there is little argument that suburbanites put a strain on city resources while not contributing significantly to the city tax base.

What do you propose, unfetterd growth of the suburbs while the cities continue to decline? Is the staus quo okay with you?

No one suggested the city should not have the earnings tax to subsidize the tax base. I actually have no problem with the earnings tax, and if more cities wanted to do it, fine.

If you think St. Louis is improving, good for them. Some would argue with that but I'm not going to research it anymore than I already have.

But you can't realistically expect people to give up thier way of life and move back to cities they tried to get away from. Its not going to happen so its pretty much a mute point.

If an earnings tax would help out cities from declining then tax away. But unrealistic expectations will get you no where

people want to live there again. Personally, I think that as gas prices continue to rise there will be an economic incentive for people to return to the cities.

The other side of the issue is developing suburbs in a way that encourages a sense of community and reduces dependence on automobiles. I think the big proponents of sustainable growth on here will all say that we are not opposed to suburbs per se, but rather the current zoning and planning laws that create homgenized neighborhoods and businesses. Not to mention the massive resources dedicated to building roads and highways so that people can travel to and from the cities to suburbs.

The issue of St. Louis is a whole different discussion. I spent last Friday in North St. Louis in some of the poorest areas of the city, so I am fully aware of the problems. On the other hand there are a lot of good examples of rejuvenation n the city such as the South Grand/Tower Grove Park Areas, the growth of the downtown loft district, the new convention city, and the proposed ballpark village.

I am certainly open to discuss the problems of the city b/c there are problems and they need to be dealt with. Discussing the pronblems is the first step to fixing them. I would never consider a discussion of those problems a personal attack on me. For the life of me, I can't understand why suburbanites can't see some of the problems with suburbia or at least aren't willing to discuss them in a rational way.

It's fine for a municipality to tax incomes, but they cannot tax incomes on one group of people and not on another based upon where they live. They must tax all incomes earned within the municipality.

Of course, being legal means little when businesses start leaving the cituy over new taxes.

Vancouver is nearly as old as some of the cities that you mention, but we have our fair share of physical impediments (rivers, inlets, ocean, mountains etc.)

Still, the city is doing a great job. Planners from all across Norah America come here to see how we've done it.

We've only had LRT for 20 years. We're still in the process of expanding it.

An industrial wasteland that is literally under a bridge went from an old abandoned cement plant to a public market with great restaurant, theatres and non-chain retail.

An old warehouse district is now full of shops, clubs and condos. A polluted waterfront has been cleaned up and his home to thousands.

We have services such as community centres and pools downtown to serve those residents and why also have concentrated business centres in the burbs, so not everyone is coming into town everyday.

We also have community gardens, and bike paths you can travel on for miles.

Each municipality has it's own city government, but there is also a regional body that deals with issues like transit and watersheds.

'With what money?' well we do pay higher taxes in Canada. Don't get me wrong, our government manages to waste a lot of money, but all in all, I think we get a better deal.

"There has always been a tension between rural and urban areas, but now the pressure on rural America is starting to reach a critical stage."

Tell that to the farmers in the rural areas selling off their farms to the developers. The megafarms have been putting them under for years, but the land that they've been operating at a loss for the past decade gives them enough to retire as millionaires, laughing all the way to the bank.

I've seen how much they get for their farmland. It's an enormous sum which the developers more than quadruple after the development. The money in these subdivisions is NOT in the home. The real money is in the land, and the once farmers are making out very well from the deal.

Too fucking bad those developers make a bigger profit off of their cookie cutter subdivisions when they clear cut. They should be required to have SOME respect for the environment.

LIMIT big box builders as well. A town only needs so many LOW END strip malls and stores like, Target, Walmart, KMart, Sam's Club, Costco, etc.

Require developers to consider 'termination of view' issues, architectual diversity & centralized commercial center issues as well.

Create a progressive tax system on utility usuage. Any individual or business that uses over a certain kw, water amount, natural gas amount, should pay double beyond that limit. Environmentalists have been suggesting this for decades.

There is a lot that can be done to STOP this destructive suburb sprawl that is happening. It's all about the bottom line for developers.

Many planners are seriously concerned about the adverse effects of this sprawl: social health of the community, lack of economic and racial diversity, increased pollution that has led to an increase of various health issues including: respiratory problems, obesity, death by car accidents, etc. This is all well documented by researchers who are concerned about suburb sprawl. It's not just about a few "snobby" posters.

Seriously, it's the right of those developers do do whatever they goddamned well please with that land. After all, you wouldn't want to interfere with the machinations of the free market and send the economy crashing, would you?

And that stuff about charging businesses more for electricity and water -- do you want them all to leave? Because that's what they'll do. We should be down on our knees, thanking them for the jobs they give us.

Plus, Jesus will reappear when the last tree is felled. Are you telling us that you love trees more than you love Jesus? That's un-American!

:shrug:

The forests are preserved in most cases. Haven't seen one cut down for a development here yet, and we've been looking at other developments to possibly trade up.

The building and landplanning codes are way too loose. Tightening them, would mean less profit for the developer.

The fact is, surburban developers have few restrictions, thus they create cheap, ugly, poorly planned communities.

Another way to discourage this type of sloppy, thoughtless development would be to increase capital gains! Repukes have decreased capital gains.

There are ways to encourage environmentally and socially responsible development. But protecting the bottom line of big developers is at odds with these remedies.

http://www.newurbannews.com/AboutNewUrbanism.html

This is less about demonizing suburbs and more about designing new developments and revitalizing old spaces to be more livable.

A lot of town planners have forgotten some basic lessons about what makes a place pleasant to live in. Trees that shade the sidewalk, for example, make it possible to enjoy walking and shopping even in the summer. Putting parking lots *behind* shopping areas instead of out in front makes it possible for buildings to be designed on a human scale. (The words WALMART have to be twenty feet tall so you can see them across the massive parking lot -- not human scale at all.)

Mixing commercial areas and residential areas allows people to walk and mingle and get to know their neighbors, as well as to be less dependent on cars. In many suburbs you simply CAN'T walk anywhere even if you want to -- too dangerous and nowhere to get to -- but it shouldn't have to be that way.

See James Howard Kunstler, too!

I'm somewhat familiar with that school of thought. (We are in real estate and own city residential properties as well as do urban infill).

snips:
Those who cannot drive are significantly restricted in their mobility. The working poor living in suburbia spend a large portion of their incomes on cars. Meanwhile, the American landscape where most people live and work is dominated by strip malls, auto-oriented civic and commercial buildings, and subdivisions without much individuality or character.

The New Urbanism is a reaction to sprawl. A growing movement of architects, planners, and developers, the New Urbanism is based on principles of planning and architecture that work together to create human-scale, walkable communities. New urbanists take a wide variety of approaches — some work exclusively on infill projects, others focus on transit-oriented development, still others are attempting to transform the suburbs, and many are working in all of these categories. The New Urbanism includes traditional architects and those with modernist sensibilities. All, however, believe in the power and ability of traditional neighborhoods to restore functional, sustainable communities. The trend had its roots in the work of maverick architects and planners in the 1970s and 1980s who coalesced into a unified group in the 1990s. From modest beginnings, the trend is beginning to have a substantial impact. More than 600 new towns, villages, and neighborhoods are planned or under construction in the US, using principles of the New Urbanism. Additionally, hundreds of small-scale new urban infill projects are restoring the urban fabric of cities and towns by reestablishing walkable streets and blocks.

We all pick up and move in with you, because thats what it would take. Theres not enough room in the cities for everyone.

Or shall we just turn everyplace in this country into a city. Would that be better?

These out of town companies come into town, buy up farm land, and build big crappy houses on tiny lots with non-union, non-local labor. Then they leave.

The new roof and pavement space causes flooding. The schools are too crowded. The post office is a mob scene. The traffic is bad. America looses farm and wood land. The flight from the cities leaves slums behind and deprives city resources of revenues. Plus, it aggravates daytime city traffic and wastes time and gas in commuting.

It ruins the character of rural towns. Every time a box store opens, a business opportunity for a local entrepreneur is gone. Same for these chain restaurants. All these conditions create a nausiating uniformity of corporate culture. Everytime greenspace is cleared for development, it is a scar on the Earth.

We all pick up and move in with you, because thats what it would take. Theres not enough room in the cities for everyone.

Or shall we just turn everyplace in this country into a city. Would that be better?

Where will all these people live?

There is enough room in most cities to house the surrounding suburban sprawl. What is driving this flight to the burbs isn't lack of space, it is lack of tolerance. Ever heard of white flight? It is the major driving force in the creation of the 'burbs. "OMG, I've got to live next door to a bunchs of n******s! That's it Ethel, we're moving" And as the first ring of 'burbs becomes filled with mixed ethnicity populations, the 'burbs push further and further out, as whites move further and further away from anthing that isn't whitebread America. A good case study in this is St. Louis, Detroit, and many other cities.

Granted, population does also play a factor, but if we were a tolerant nation, there would be less suburbs, far less. And if we planned development of cities, rather than leaving the issue to the tender capitalistic mericies of builders, developers and real estate agents, our surburbs surrounding a city would be much more compact, and have less of an impact on the enviroment. As it is, the suburban lifestyle is killing nature.

Also I used to live in a suburb where there were only 2 white families on my entire street, the rest were african american and hispanic.

But the seperation of races and cultures is really another issue I think. People tend to surround themselves with others like them and with whom they have things in common. Culture is a common bond between people and "whitebread america" is just another culture to me. Does that make people not tolerant? I don't know, thats really an issue for another thread.

My point is it is not tolerant to expect everyone to live the way you want them to. Just because you think its better for everyone to live in the city doesn't mean it is the best solution. You will be taking away from those that love the way they live in the suburbs.

Again there is no right way to live. We all do the best we can, this is not a perfect world and it never will be. But to try and force others to live in a way that they do not choose is not "live and let live"

There is plenty of room in the cities, it is just more profitable to develop farm land than to rehabilitate brown space. There is actually quite a bit of abandoned and vacant property in the downtown area in Cleveland and I suspect we are not unique. Here, the City of Cleveland is doing what it can encouraging urban development. Unfortunately, unless the state puts a stop to the unsustainable growth in the rural areas, the sprawl will continue. They could do it with minimum lot sizes, local labor and prevailing wage requirements, tougher building codes, restrictions on rezoning of farm land, tougher environmental laws and requirements for developers to pay for city infrastructure improvements. Further, a lot more could be done to make these farms profitable, like encouraging local businesses to buy from local farms and granting tax abatements to local farmers.

The population of this country has not grown much in the past two decades. (Yes, 2000 showed a growth over 1990, but I believe that is because Clinton did a better job counting than Bush Sr.) What we have is a relocation from cities to suburbs and an expansions of the burbs into rural areas. Still one solution is to encourage negative population growth. Businesses won't like that idea, but it would be good for the country.

suburbs. Real sidewalks with tree-lined avenues would be nice. Maybe people would walk to destinations if we gave them the means. Also, stop pushing commercial development off to the corridors that surround multi-lane highways. The way we build suburbs now forces people to use cars for everything. I love the old city neighborhoods where small businesses cohabitate with residences.

See, it is not an issue of dissing the people who live in suburbs. All we are asking is that suburbanites awaken from the consumption induced stupor and realize that there are better ways to build and organize the places where we live. It is possible to have a real conversation about these issues without all the defensiveness and finger pointing.

when they'd really prefer going to a park where there are big swings and slids and a merry go round (thinking of my own kidhood in various burbs) is wasteful of land. Houses in the burbs are widely separated, and people are able to live for years without knowing their neighbors, and in fact, some try NOT to know the neighbors.

Living stacked on top of each other, putting up with stompers upstairs, a loud stereo and bad taste in music next door, and an old lady with a broomstick on the ceiling downstairs 'cause she can't tell where the racket is coming from isn't real great, either.

There has to be a better way than either. I hope we figure it out soon.

In the presurburban days, cities were grossly overcrowded, dirty, rivers polluted, blight occurred far faster, etc., etc., etc.

Since that time, the productivity of farms keeps rising, so less farm land has been needed. The gov't has increased the amount of acreage for which payment is made to grow NOTHING!

Air quality has improved. Water is cleaner than it was in 1960, let alone 1900. Since many industries have moved away from city centers, commutes from the suburbs to the employment centers have been shortened.

I think the experience of large cities in this country indicate that this "sprawl" issue is a subjective one which lies in the eye of the beholder. The castigation and bemoaning of suburbs seems to me to be a complain in search of a real problem.
The Professor

We are living in a different time now where there is cleaner technology and regulation of pollution. The comparison just doesn't work.

There's a reason that it's been given the perjorative name, "Sprawl", as opposed to being referred to as "growth".

The fact is that we're stuck using 1950's zoning and growth models that have been shown to be vastly inefficient and ecologically destructive. We build more roads in an effort to relieve traffic, but then more people begin travelling those roads and development springs up all over, and you suddenly have MORE traffic and congestion.

We need to completely re-assess the way we design and plan our communities. We need to incorporate mixed-use zoning. We need to invest in public transit. We need to invest in public spaces like parks and community centers, where people can easily gather together. We need to look at models that actually encourage transportation methods BESIDES driving -- not only is it more ecologically friendly to do so, but healthier for people as well.

I really have no objection to people living in suburban areas. My objection is to the piss-poor manner in which these areas are largely developed, and how they just continue pushing further and further outward with the same homogenous, soulless sprawl.

Clear cutting, huge concrete parking lots, over sized houses that use up mass amounts of natural resources to build and maintain (including utilities), pollution from car use since walking is not an option and there is a lack of mass transit, etc.

It's well documented and there are reputable researchers who are highly concerned about surburban sprawl. (And not just the fringe environmental greenies).

Missouri has a bill through its congress trying to remove a 2% petition-put-to-a-vote rule in its largest counties. This refers to cities in said counties annexing land without citizen approval or even acknowledgement.

:nuke:

Did you get that packet I gave to your brother?

He should be giving it to me today.

Hope your day goes well, and thanks for all your help. Say, did you also get my email the other day, the one with the contact list?

It was a contact list, that's all.

"This reminds of the repubs saying you must live this way to be moral and right." It is exactly the same thing except that the repubs are saying it about us and we saying it about us. Nice way to lose the debate. :shrug:

And we don't just stop at the suburbs/cities, we also smite each other over north/south, veggie/meat-eater, theist/atheist, motherhood/childless, and all the old standbys race, sex, money and religion.

I have one standard of whether or not someone is "ok" in my book - did you vote for Kerry? Works for me.

It's amazing how narrow one's world view must be in order to be considered a 'real' Democrat.....at least on DU.

The palette from which we are to choose our likes and dislikes is becoming increasingly smaller.

So much for the Big Tent.

That whole "I ventured out to the suburbs this weekend..." crap really made me laugh. Honestly no one cares...Times have changed and nothing can stop that.None of you can offer a soloution to fix it, so stop crying about how miserable your lives are in comparison to others.. All I can gather from the whole suburb city dilema..is self pity..wahwah

:thumbsup:

The biggest difference between liberals/progressives and republicans is that a progressive buts the "we" before "me", Republicans are the party of "ME ME ME ME ME".

City vs. Suburb is a very fundamental choice, we live in a world of limited resources and have to chose the most efficient use of them.

Cities are infinitely more efficient than urban sprawl in so many ways, economically, environmentally, and socially.

To pick the burbs because of personal happiness shows that even when shown empirical facts why cities are better, show that you place yourself ahead of society with no regard for the consequences of those decisions.

that's why it matters.

Rather than considering it from an egocentric viewpoint, "it's about ME, ME, ME!" we are looking at responsible development from a societal viewpoint. (Herein lies the difference between pre conventional vs. post conventional reasoning).

Democrats are concerned about long lasting effects of social and environmental health, whereas Repukes are all about, "what's in it for ME, ME, ME, right now." Especially what's in it for the profit margins of big multimillionare developers.

Welcome HarmonyB! :hi:
Great post.

And that's the problem with the modern suburban lifestyle. It's dependent upon the automobile for virtually all transportation. The McMansions it promotes take a tremendous amount of building materials to create, and a lot of energy to heat and cool. Furthermore, the development models commonly used incorporate absolutely NO common public space that helps facilitate community-building.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have a right to live inside or out of the city. It's just that we have to come up with a better way of doing this than we're doing right now, because the current growth model is similar to that of the cancer cell.

Cags,
You are absolutely correct in saying that people ought to have a choice of urban, rural or suburban. Different strokes and all that.

BUT there is fundamental flaw in any defense of suburbia as it now exists. It is a cancer that is destroying our countryside and our cities.

It doesn't just exist in certain areas to enable people to live that lifestyle. The forces that fuel SPRAWL are not content to provide one more choice. They want to turn EVERY DAMN INCH of the country into a giant Mall/Subdivision/Crawling Highway.

Suburbia is FastFood Fascism. It steals the souls and countryside from small towns and and drains the vitality and diversity from cities. It marches relentlessly forward, transforming anything in its path into a clone of everyplace else.

THAT is the damn problem with suburbia and the people who want to turn the entire planet into a Pre-Fab Fascist Mall.

I live and work near Atlanta. If I lived in the city, it would take me and my wife over an hour to get to work. I am not necessarily ecstatic about living in the subarbs, but I do and I am okay with it. I certainly wouldn't put anyone down, just because they choose to live there.

Seriously, I do not consider it a problem at all.

It's what happens as populations grow. The only way to stop it is to regulate the number of allowable births.

Since they have a much, much higher population density than here in the United States.

Oh... wait a minute. When I was in Europe, I seem to recall people actually living in well-planned communities with lots and lots of open space around them.

Hmmm... seems to me from that observation that there has to be a better way of doing things than what we're doing right now.

As for you, Walt, I would suggest you visit some of the sprawl areas of Northern NJ and get back to me on how it's not a "problem". Like I said before, your suburbs in Chicago seem to be the exception, rather than the general rule.

and towns were laid out for centuries. sprawl did not occur because, by neciessity, rail travel was better equipped to handle the propulation growth of the 20th century than in the United States.

From my study of history, most of the towns in the US -- especially moving West -- were founded because of RAILROADS.

The problem was that after WWII, the auto companies and oil companies came in and bought up all vestiges of public transit, in order to increase reliance on the automobile. Sure, it worked then, when we didn't know any better. But now, we're stuck with 1950's era growth models that have been proven to be vastly inefficient and ecologically destructive.

Look, Walt. I'm not saying that people shouldn't have the right to live outside of a city. Hell, I live in a bedroom community outside of NYC right now. All I'm saying is that there have to be BETTER ways of doing it. For instance, why not slap a slight commuter tax on out-of-city workers, and then use the funds from that to improve transportation options (i.e. light rail) into the city, along with reducing overall cost for those using public transit? That way, public subsidy helps everyone. Additionally, why not adopt growth models that are more concerned with creating a maintaining a "town" feel as opposed to nothing but strings of strip malls along 4-lane highways? Why not use mixed-use zoning incorporating public transit accessibility and ample public space (i.e. parks, community centers, etc) that makes communities much nicer places to live?

I'm not saying that Europe is the same as the US. But it is clear that they made some different decisions than we did, and as a result their growth models are much more sustainable. We don't have to do it the same as they did, but certainly there are some lessons we could take away for our own "smart growth" models, are there not?

Rail lines were laid out to rapidly move cargo across vast distances in the United States.

Rail lines in Europe were laid out to move cargo and people between cities and town over not nearly so vast of distances.

The layout of suburbs has much more to do with inadequate rail lines than anything else. If you don't like the urban sprawl, the solution to altering it would be more, better, and faster rail lines.

The layout of suburbs has much more to do with inadequate rail lines than anything else. If you don't like the urban sprawl, the solution to altering it would be more, better, and faster rail lines.

Ummm... this was part of the solution I offered above. I'm trying to get this conversation to the point at which we can actually talk about SOLUTIONS to the myriad of problems being created by our outdated growth models. You seem to still be reacting to this issue on a very emotional level, perceiving personal attacks all around because you feel your living choice is being threatened. I'm not trying to do that at all.

I would sure hope there is a better way!

People in the Atlanta area have the longest average commute in the US. We are not going to solve our fossil fuel, oil war, global warming/environmental problems that way.

community spirit.

The real blight on the landscape are the McMansions and strip malls eating up the agricultural land. They create a demand for more freeways, more cars, more chemical lawncare products, more plastic crap. They are environmentally unsustainable.

That's the problem. I don't like the conformity and empty-headedness of a lot of suburbanites, but they aren't hurting anyone but themselves. But when developers pave over everything in sight for miles around, destroying agricultural land, destroying wildlife habitat, disrupting bird migration patterns, and destroying the character of the small towns that are swallowed up, that's a national, even a global problem.

We now have three generations of Americans who have grown up in suburbia. Suburban schoolteachers report that they have high school students who have never been to the city that supports their suburb, so their image of city life is formed by NYPD Blue and by news media that act as if the only things that ever happen in the city are shootings and arson fires. They know nothing but suburbia, so they think it's normal, and they don't see the ugliness, any more than we see the air we breathe.

And it is impossible to deny that sprawl is fueled partly by racism. All the time I was growing up, Minneapolis-St. Paul had one ring, may one-and-half rings of suburbs. I spent my high school years about twenty miles outside of Minneapolis, and there was plenty of wide open land between the edge of suburbia and my town.

Then two things happened: large numbers of African-Americans and Latinos (followed by Southeast Asians in the 1980s and East Africans in the 1990s) moved into what had once been one of the whitest large cities in the United States AND at the same time, the push to integrate schools in Northern cities began. All of a sudden the race to suburbia was off, and it has not let up since.

Recent surveys indicate that suburbanites and exurbanites are much more hostile to the new immigrants than city dwellers are. When I worked as a temp in the 1980s, I actually heard business owners say privately (when I remarked about how hard it was to find their business place) that the reason their businesses were out in the middle of nowhere in new "industrial parks" instead of on abandoned industrial sites in the city was so that they wouldn't have to hire blacks, Latinos, or Vietnamese.

You'll find people who object to extending public transit to the suburbs because they don't want non-whites moving in. (A light rail bonding measure in Portland was defeated by such a whispering campaign in 1997, because people in the southern suburbs were told that the proposed north-south line would bring black gang members in to recruit their children.)

Today, the town where I went to high school is no longer the edge of the Twin Cities metro area. The sprawl has grown way beyond it.

One of the saddest days in the saga of Twin Cities sprawl came when a little gem of a wooded wetland along the highway from our home into Minneapolis was destroyed to make room for Ridgedale Shopping Center. That area is now an ugly conglomeration of chain businesses that sprang up around the mall.

We have a good public transportation system in the form of rail lines here in the Chicagoland metro region.

Of course, all of these go in the realm of PUBLIC planning, as opposed to allowing the ubiquitious, omniscient "market" to do everything for us in land development, so you clearly wouldn't be open to those suggestions, as you mentioned above.

instead of killing Arabs for oil.

Prove it. All you have is supposition. Give me some facts for the position you hold so strongly.

It's up to you to convince me otherwise.

What world do you live in where you can assert anything you want without having to support it, but demand support from anyone who disagrees with you?

This issue doesn't have to be such a hot button issue. There are problems in cities and there are problems in suburbs, neither is nirvana. You just take it way to personally. Maybe from now on, I'll just caveat my discussions on this issue with "Suburbs, except the one Walt Starr lives in b/c it's perfect..."

I can laugh at it, but I really don't give a damn.

so much time arguing this issue. I do give a damn and that's why I'm here arguing.


If you don't give a damn, stop posting threads whining about the "anti-suburban bigotry." What a joke.....

:evilgrin:

more power to you, I can always appreciate a good sense of humour.

Let's take Pittsburgh, the population in our area is not growing but it is sprawling out into the surrounding counties. Why?

Well early suburban sprawl started as part of the american dream...union wages made it possible to have a car and a home and it was a luxury...these homes were nothing like the homes being built today. I live in one of the early 60's suburbs..small modest house with 3 bedrooms and 2 baths...all in 1600 sq ft.
Racism also played a role in our city... white flight was what they called it.

Now...Allegheny County is losing more of their population because the people don't like paying high taxes for all the services they receive/or don't receive (difference of opinion).....so the solution is now to move into the neighboring counties of Westmoreland, Fayette and Butler so that they can enjoy low taxes on land that was once forested or farmed.

Now they are pissed because all this new development means that new schools must be built and new roads must be maintained and so that means....raising taxes....so I now hear people who live in their new $300K houses telling me that if those taxes continue to rise they are going to move even further out....which seems goofy cuz their commute time (time away from the family) will only get worse....but hey..I don't argue...

Freeport, PA -- right at the intersection of Butler, Armstrong, Westmoreland and Allegany Counties. When I was growing up, the area around my HS was largely rural. That was only about 15 years ago. Now, I go back, and the whole area is just sprawl spinning out of control. Areas that used to be forest were just mowed down for rows upon rows of McMansions. Strip malls have sprung up willy-nilly. It's just plain UGLY.

Of course, there were people who suggested hiring a town planner some 15 years ago to prevent this from happening, but too many people thought it a waste of tax dollars. Well, they seem to have gotten what they largely deserve -- it's just a shame the "smarter" ones have to live with it too.

It's that many suburban dwellers move from the city - resulting in many abandoned homes in the city. It's called the donut effect - lots of people around the edges, few inside. And as suburbs get crowded, people just keep moving farther out. It's a vicious cycle. A solution would be to make our cities more attractive to live in.

The suburbs/city wars are just another amusing feud (not to mention meaningless) in a long ongoing chapter of wars (religion/evolution/science/spirtuality/male/female/left/extreme left true Dem/GOP lite/ conspiracy/not a conspiracy) going on here.

In the Houston area, many corporations headquarter in the outskirts. Therefore, employees can live out there & have a short commute. Of course, downsizing can lead to a new job that isn't so convenient. (If you're lucky enough to find a new job.)

Many of our city neighborhoods consist of small houses on medium size lots. As people move back into the city, the houses are often replaced with mini-mansions--ugly architecture is not limited to the suburbs. And what happens to those who lived in the little houses? Often, they were renters...

Land use & urban issues need input from more than commericial interests. Attacking someone because of where they live is a waste of energy. Of course, some people love to see DU'ers waste our energy.

I'd like to see most of this:




Bulldozed and replace with this:



The wasted space is greatly reduced and the neighborhoods are more livable, and more easily serviced by mass transit.


We should be working on this BEFORE all the oil is gone.

I agree on the mini-mansions in the cities - they are hideous. When those small homes on big lots are removed, they should be replaced with row houses or something else that uses the space efficiently.

and housing development is market driven.

sorry if you don't like capitalism, but that's how things work in the United States.

If you are such a big proponent of free market, should we not do away with eminent domain. You were screaming about fascism earlier. This is probably a better example.

In most places, development comes in the form of sprawl not because the market demands it, but rather because the zoning laws do.

Rents are insanely high in the few human-scaled urban spaces in North America precisely because there is such a high demand for such places, yet so few of them available due to the short sighted nature of the laws governing development.

It's good for the environment.

That first shot looks like Tampa burbs, a big sprawling no mans land.

That second shot looks like the neighborhood we are moving back to and that house looks a lot like mine! It's a 1915 Colonial with a big rocking chair front porch, all of the original hardwood flooring and moulding. There is a 200 year old tree in the backyard, albeit the backyard is not very big. We can walk downtown, ride on the bike trail, and walk to the city park/pool from there too!:bounce: My kids are even more excited than I am.

that's right. sleep.

fine, great, everything's hunky dory. But people do flee cities, for their little patch of quiet heaven, that's a fact. Yet they continue to rely on the big city amenities, don't they? Major sports teams, art museums, orchestra, ballet, international airports. Then they complain about the clogged roads getting in and out.

It's foolish to pretend that the two worlds don't interconnect, that the twain don't meet. Suburbs by definition exist in relation to cities, and it's disingenuous of them when their inhabitants pretend that their communities are totally self-sustaining.

It's not about YOU or your personal choices.

"If I want to live in a cookie cutter house shouldn't I be allowed?"

So long as they exist, and are legal, sure.

But personally, I would favor a moratorium on new construction in the existing suburban format, in favor of more sustainable formats that destroy less open space, and work better as places for people to live in.

There will always be suburbs (at least for the duration of our lifetimes) but there is no reason why they should continue to be built in the horrible, destructive way they're being built in. The sizes of lots and uses are already regulated by zoning laws, etc. I think what most of us would hope is that those could be used to get the new suburbs built in a way more like suburbs were built prior to WW2, with sensible sized lots, a mix of housing styles including nice little apartment houses (rather than hideous gargantuan apartment complexes) corner stores. Many neighborhoods built in this style are still quite lovely and livable today, whereas most suburbs built between 1950 and 1985 or so have already decayed into slums.

Get over your ego - despite what all the cable TV channels and big box stores in your neighborhood tell you, it's not just about YOU, YOU, YOU. You live in a SOCIETY, one with limited amounts of land and resources.

Sorry, you simply cannot just STOP development. You would destroy the economy. The effect on all markets would be profound and immediate.

Your moratorium is a recipe for utter disaster on an econmoic scale never experienced on this planet.

Destroy the economy forever? LOL. And I said nothing about stopping development. Just mindless sprawl development. If our country can't survive the shift to sensible development, how the hell do you think it will survive the fast-approaching END of petroleum?

You don't even live in sprawl development - you live in a semi-rural neighborhood. Why is the issue so dear to you?

"I would favor a moratorium on new construction in the existing suburban format, in favor of more sustainable formats that destroy less open space, and work better as places for people to live in."

You simply cannot place a moratorium on new construction in the existing suburban format. #1, it violates ever tenet of land use law. #2, you cannot swithc construction formats overnight, thus all building would stop (remember, you've placed a moratorium on it) and no new construction would begin until develoeprs would be retooled at great cost thus driving up the cost of any new construction dramtically.

It cannot be done overnight. convince the market of your concerns and things can slowly be switched over, but a moratorium on new development is beyond stupid. It's asinine.

so much later that it will be too late for things to slowly switch over. Then there sure as hell will be something done pretty much overnight, of necessity. People are living in a fool's paradise in this country, thinking the McMansion on a half-acre with the SUV in the driveway style of living is sustainable. Especially the folks who bought that affordable house in the far suburb or exurb only to find they have to commute 2 hours one way to work.

The market will be convinced right quick, once the bottom falls out of cheap gas. The market will feel it big time, and so will we all.

Let me don my :tinfoilhat: because the evil gubmint mind rays tell me that peak oil is a false canard.

Peak oil is not some theory that says that oil will suddenly disappear in our lifetimes. Rather, it is the idea that we will reach the point at which demand will outpace supply, thus driving the cost up significantly.

At this time, there will still be oil, but the price will reach levels previously unseen -- upwards of $150 per barrel, possibly. This, in turn, will put a tremendous strain on the global economy, except in rare instances in which there are steps taken to account for the loss of oil as a source of energy. Imagine what it will do to the US alone as heating oil costs skyrocket and you have to pay $8/gal or more at the pump.

Considering that China and India are BOOMING right now, and that China is already taking on growth models similar to those pursued here in the US, it is only a matter of time that demand overtakes supply.

Since you doubt this idea so strongly, could you please tell me what part of the scenario I described in this post is completely unbelievable, and why?

Driving up the cost of oil will only bring on higher demands for hybrid cars, electric cars, photovoltaics which cna be easily installed.

The technologies are there, but right now are not as economically viable as they should be to really take off.

Peak oil, as you describe it, would not be the end of the world, only the beginning of new markets. In a market driven economy, demand would be lessened due to demand for other alternatives. Peak oil, in effect, would eb a good thing because it would force people to adapt to newer, cleaner, more efficient technologies.

I don't see the idea of demand outstripping supply as being a bad thing at all. It's just a shift away from our current energy consumption model. In a way, Hummers are good, because the popularity of such a monstrosity has guaranteed that other technologies will become popular even faster.

All of those things you described require ENERGY to produce. When oil prices go through the roof, there will no longer be cheap energy available to produce them. Therefore, all of the things you describe here -- photovoltaics, hybrid cars, etc. -- will go even FURTHER out of reach.

You accuse me of not considering the market. I consider it completely. I'm also quite aware that the ubiquitious market is woefully inadequate when it comes to addressing change. It only waits until things reach crisis proportions before acting. By then, it can be too late. That's where the public sector steps in -- placing market incentives in place that promote those technologies, while placing penalties on the old ones, in order to encourage the market to move in a new direction. Especially in a case such as this, which requires significant investments in infrastructure to facilitate a change.

The market is a useful tool, I will readily acknowledge that. But relying on the market to solve every problem that comes about on its own -- that's just foolhardy. It's not an empirically-based observation -- it's a belief, plain and simple.

It won't, and these techologies exist today. The shift will take time, but the price increases take time too.

And photovoltaics are getting better all of the time. The plan is to implement a newer technology in six years that will be even more efficient. In fact, those who invest over the next ten years and are ahead of the curve will be providing cheap energy to those who don't!

Back a couple of years ago when we were gearing up to go charging into Iraq, the price of gas was going up. I work/ed at a place near a large factory down south of Tucson, and there is a carpool system set up for the workers at the factory.

When the price of gas began to rise, a number of my co-workers started to participate in the carpool system (we were allowed to because of a connection between my work and the factory). The high price of gas had driven them to make behavioral changes that minimized the effect of the price increase.

While I think technology will play a role in any adaptation to Peak Oil, I also think it is wrong to discount the behavioral changes that can make our lives more efficient with a minimum of investment/sacrifice.


I do disagree with you about photovoltaics - one of my professors had studied the life-cycle cost of photovoltaic cells and it is pretty high - even now the cells take a lot of energy to produce. I would rather focus on smart designs that used passive solar energy than solar cells.

Personally, I'm already encouraged by the response that hybrids are getting. They are proving to be much more than a niche market. Toyota and Honda are going to clean up on this as fuel prices rise.

But when it comes to making the transition between these technologies available and putting them in place, you can be talking about a significant amount of time. That's where the government comes in, because it can help to facilitate this change ahead of the curve. In my state, NY, I at least have to give our horrible Gov Pataki credit for getting behind a drive for green energy in the state. They're giving incentives to wind power and the like in order to facilitate its growth.

That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Market incentives through tax breaks for new technologies along with phasing in new taxes on old outdated ones. This way, the market can be corralled in the direction we want it to go before things reach crisis mode.

I don't drive a car, but my wife has one for hauling the kids around. She just called me from the dealership were she picked out a VW diesel station wagon. We have a biodiesel co-op here in town where we will now purchase our fuel. I have been trying to get her to make the switch for over a year now and literally, just a few minutes ago, she called and told me she is doing it. I'm just ecstatic to know that we will no longer consume fossil fuels to get around town.

because the incentives are already in existance here in Illinois and you're getting the incetives there in New York.

I'm having to foot the entire bill for our conversion and it is going to be expensive. Although, it looks like Ameren UE may foot the bill to tie into the grid as long as they can use our house as an example.

Like I said, I'm no fan of Gov. Pataki, but I do have to give him credit for backing these measures.

The only thing it would destroy, would be some of the profit margin of a very small group of billionare suburb and strip mall developers. They would make a little less profit on their nasty, selfish projects.

There would still be development, but it would be a little less profitable and a LOT more socially and environmentally responsible.

Last I heard, Walt was not an urban planner.

Improving the suburbs cannot be done by those who heap disdain on all the oafs who live out there, but by those who can work with them. And those who direct their energies against the powerful ones who make the decisions.

I partially agree with your post, but the myopia of suburbanites (and rural dwellers like Walt who think they're suburbanites) - is a big obstacle to getting anything done.

He has been utterly unwilling to listen to ANYONE offering an alternative opinion. He utterly disavows any notion that there might be hidden costs associated with sprawl as opposed to smart growth. Hell, I've even tried to tell him about some of the tenets of smart growth that can be used to rehabilitate current development and guide future development, and all I get in return is fingers in the ears and "LALALALALALALALA!"

It seems to me that a necessary step is for those responding in a purely emotional fashion to actually stop and listen to others who aren't telling them they have to MOVE, but that there might actually be a better model for development than the outdated 1950's model we currently use.

Is he being a bit of a hothead? Perhaps.

And he's been derogatory to every poster since.

I am really enjoying the discussion here - it has become interesting, rather than just a Dem-Eat-Dem flame-fest.

never happen.

Microsoft never built the best operating system, but the market determined it was the best operating system when comparing all factors.

That's how things work in a capitalistic society. If you believe that you have a better model, market it.

fit into a market theory? Current zoning laws establish various density and other requirements for developments. The current thinking in these laws is to force similar types of developments in each area and push commercial development into corridors along major thouroughfares. In a free market, should I not be able to open a restaurant in my downstairs if the demand is there?

How do we have a free market in real estate development right now?

I happen to prefer not having the commercial developments next door. I'd rather have them in a single, convenient location. I do all of my necessary shopping in a single trip made once a week. I don't want a restaurant across the street. I don't want a groery store around the corner. I prefer the zoning laws in my community the way they are and would fight to keep them that way. As land close to me is incorporated, I go to the hearings to insure the land is not zoned commercial.

That's how it works in a market driven economy.

They've been voted down several times, although certain neighborhoods have restrictions. Talk about "market driven"!

Actually, a couple of our "suburbs" are planned communities, with more enlightened land use & a mix of living options (apartments to mansions). And they've been begging for mass transit--but Federal funds have been blocked by none other than Tom DeLay.

You've got corrupt politicians!

I'm from a blue state, so our zoning laws are spot on in most cases.

But just for you, I'll provide a link.

http://www.smartgrowth.org/Default.asp?res=800

The problem lies with greedy developers and compliant local officials. When it comes to designing communities, it's not all about the "free market". In fact, there is no such thing. Rather, it's about balancing the public good with the profit incentive for businesses and entrepreneurs.

Smart Growth does a good job at this. However, the homogeneous model known simply as "sprawl" is all about maximizing profit for private interests AT THE EXPENSE OF the public. And that's not right, nor is it sustainable.

combining money, greed, and politicans with a lack of ethics is a recipe for disaster.

Walmart just rejected in NYC:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=509&ncid=509&e=3&u=/ap/20050224/ap_on_bi_ge/wal_mart_expansion_1

How can these companies survive if we don't let them compete???

Totally tounge in cheek.

POstedf in wrong spot. (See below)

essentially out of nothing.

I do recall some threads about the pros and cons of suburbs and cities and the differences between the two, but none about suburb dwellers versus city dwellers wrt "the right way to live".

and the ticky tacky homes become unbearable in the summer without AC.

the era of cheap energy is going to end. 10 years, 50 years.

That didn't have air conditioning. They were pretty unbearable, too.

The video of a lecture by mathematician Al Bartlett discussing exponential growth patterns and the effect on resource consumption has been posted several times before at DU usually on threads related to Peak Oil or energy issues. However Prof. Bartlett also touches on the impact of exponential growth on towns and cities. He claims that many politicians responsible for making decisions on development and planning issues are apparently clueless as to the long term impact small constant annual percentage increases in growth have on resource consumption (including land) and consequently politicians and the public at large are not aware that we really do need to plan for city development and growth in a much smarter and more efficient manner than we are accustomed to in North America. If you haven't yet seen the video, it brings up some worthwhile points to consider in this whole suburbs vs. city living debate.

Real Player streaming version of Al Bartlett's lecture
http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.ram

Downloadable MP4 versions (playable with Quick Time)
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/Al_Bartlett-PeakOil.mp4

the point was the social and environmental responsibility of developers to create developments with a true sense of community; ones that encourage foot traffic, socialization, greenspaces, and that don't focus entirely on homogeneity and consumerism. By designing cookie cutter neighborhoods that are accessed only by motor vehicle developers are doing a disservice to the community at large. They deaden our culture and can be suffocating to the spirits of the people who are often forced to choose these neighborhoods because few other viable options are available to them.

That concept is no longer just on the fringes being pondered by a handful of hippies that live in Ithaca, NY.

The idea that suburban sprawl created by irresponsible development is damaging, is now a mainstream concept, well accepted by mainstream planners.

Surburban Sprawl is considered a environmental crisis! Additionally, there are increased health problems: respiratory problems, increased traffic accident deaths,and increased obesity---three major health issues of suburban sprawl. I posted an article on this in the other suburb thread.

:eyes:

Kitties who live indoors are more responsible pets for us perfect urbanites!

Actually, I do have indoor kitties. There are responsible dog owners in my neighborhood--they're the ones who walk them with a plastic grocery bag ready...

Ever use kitty litter? IT'S CLAY FROM THE ENVIRONMENT!!! THAT STUFF DOESN'T GROW ON TREES!!!!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

/sarcasm

We have five cats.

Whale killer....or maybe you prefer baby seals. :)

Plotting the destruction of the environment.

(They'd take over the world if they didn't take so many naps.)

She's a 75 lb lab mix to which we've affectionately given the nickname "shithead", because she produces more "output" than she takes in.

Mock reality all you'd like, but when your grandchildren and great grandchildren end up in a cultural wasteland of hell, where they cannot play outdoors and that resembles a a Mad Max movie, you might not think it so irrelevant.

Envio & Socially Responsibility is a concept beyond's some reach, I suppose.

That's what the Repukes tell us too, that we are tin foil hatters because we are not solely concerned with the profit margins of multimillionares.

Suburbia is the physical expression of a society in which short-sighted greed and conformity steamrolls over all other human values.

As such it is the ultimate expression of Bush right-wing Republicanism. It is business with the human element removed. Suburbia is the product of corporate machines that stamp out neighborhoods and commerciual centers as "product" based on pure ruthless efficiency.

It would be possible to have created diverse suburbs that were real communities, and which also protected nature and the rural lifestyle.

But that didn't happen because we American are self-centered boneheaded lazy morons. We want life to be cozy and convenient and predictable, but we don't care about the consequences.

We claim to care about "the children" but we don't give a rat's ass about the fact that kids are going to grow un in a world in which the few remaining acres of nature are locked away like museum exhibits, or are too damn expensive for anyone but the rich to have access to.