Suburban sprawl (with additions from the Maglev thread)

[Darth_Yuthura]

Homicide rate have decreased, in large cities, since there high 1991, but homicide rates in large cities still were higher than small cities, suburban and rural areas combined in 2005.

 

(according to the U.S. Department of Justice website)

 

 

 

Crime rates are down in Urban areas, but still significantly higher than small towns, suburban or rural areas.

 

My counter argument is only my belief that people should have the right to choice where they want to live and should not have government interferences in that decision. If someone believes that it is best for their family to live in the suburbs and they are willing to make scarifies for what they believe is best, then that is their right. I would hardly call that selfish, but I wouldn’t do it. I live less than a mile from my office, I’m not doing it for environmental or any reason, but I am selfish and don’t like commuting.

 

Finally! Here is an example of a counter argument that has some content to it. Mimartin's set a good example here.

[Q]

You needed a source to tell you that the homicide rates are higher in urban areas?

 

EDIT:

Of course not, but that doesn't seem to relate to this thread. It is for the purpose of defining exactly what it takes to maintain such low population density from sprawl. It is to show how inefficient the American suburbs really are. That has nothing to do with whether or not Americans will ever follow the European example. They never will and I won't expect it of them.

 

<snip>

 

Disregard what had been presented in the last thread and I'll present SOURCES with whatever evidence I post here.

So apparently the threads are related after all. Given that this thread's apparent purpose is to disprove what myself and others have stated in the other threads, your above statement seems rather disingenuous.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Actually the source does not confirm that... only that there are a greater number of homicides in urban areas. The source did not indicate anything relating to the proportion of homicides per 10000 people. When I evaluated that source for myself, I found that the relationship between urban and suburban homicides is like 9/7 against large cities. So there is just a moderate difference in homicide rates within major cities.

 

After further evaluation, there was a significant drop in number of violent crimes within major cities. In the past, the city size made the difference when it came to crime; but the rates have declined to levels comparable to cities of 100,000. Still the issue of homicide rates are against the major city, but not as significantly compared to a decade ago. That is one attribute that I'll admit is against urbanization.

[Darth Avlectus]

At any rate, I think there is more in depth needed in the downside part with the youth: how youth end up joining gangs, committing acts of crime, how impoverished areas are much more dangerous for youth, crimes committed upon youth, and how many of them end up murdered.

 

 

 

Yeah, it kind of reminds you of someone else's posting behavior, doesn't it? Someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum?

 

Hehe yeah. and what happened to that person.

 

[specualtion]: I suspect, seeing as how you are on the same political side of the spectrum, a certain post of yours gave many staff members an affirmative go ahead nod to proceed.[/HK-47]

 

 

 

There are exceptions to the rules, but not many. When elderly retire, they often go to suburban regions of the Sun Belt. They likely didn't consider that they might not be able to drive at some point in the near future. Those that become nonviable members of society would either have to be wealthy enough to hire a chauffeur, or have relatives and friends that can still provide for their social needs. Those that don't are often forced to spend their final years in a nursing home. This isn't always true, but a majority of elderly that can't drive still can get around by walking or in a wheelchair.

 

I wonder just how bad this is compared to other invalids. Those with severe mental and emotional problems who don't qualify as loony enough to be institutionalized, but they serve no major purpose if any. So they live off the gov't and show no signs of improvement.

 

 

Right, there were no suicides before suburbs. I blame that all on rural areas.

How do you figure?

 

Everything is to blame on suburbia.

 

You might want to check your own facts and determine that 'rural' is not 'suburban.' Instead of looking up American suicide rates in general, look up suicide rates for children and young teens. Maybe this is why you came to a different conclusion. I will address this topic later on.

 

I'll get to this later on. This has to do significantly with the land developer and long-term infrastructure costs not anticipated when utilities were layed. Don't forget that when you had only one mile of sprawl, they didn't lay out the power and water mains to handle ten miles of suburban development that followed. When the original lines were overtaxed, they had to be replaced without disrupting the land already developed. This is expensive and difficult to deal with.

 

I appreciate explorative theses, don't get me wrong, but what is the point of all this? If you would have something or someone to blame, then could you tell us what/who and why?

 

I hope that you don't just dismiss this subject out of hand and please don't be confrontational. I'm not going to do any more than present facts. I'm not going to tell Americans how they should live.

 

No, but the point of serious discussion is also to present your opinions based upon facts and projections which I think you have excellent pension for. So you pick a side...you blame suburbs and rural areas for suicides... Can you please go into greater detail why?

[Darth_Yuthura]

No, but the point of serious discussion is also to present your opinions based upon facts and projections which I think you have excellent pension for.

 

Thanks. I know that people are not interested in hearing another's opinions so much as understanding why they came to believe it. One major problem I have is that I have more against than with me on this issue. It wasn't because my facts on the subject are wrong, but because I spoke of the US as an empire in another thread. The purpose of starting a new thread was to segregate those comments from the issue altogether, but others have brought it here.

 

I also do recognize when I make mistakes and admit that I included among the list of public infrastructure expenses 'power utilities.' That was not one of the costs that taxpayers are responsible for. Sewers, water mains, transportation, sanitation, education, and public services on the other hand are paid for by taxes. The more spread out houses are, the more frequent the garbage and mail trucks have to stop... making it that much more expensive. The more spread out they are, the more expensive it is to send a school bus long distances, not to mention police cars.

 

So you pick a side...you blame suburbs and rural areas for suicides... Can you please go into greater detail why?

 

I was being sarcastic and thought that going over the top would have indicated that. I didn't say that suburbs caused suicides, but some statistics show that young teen suicide rates are noticeably higher in suburbs and rural areas than in urban locations.

 

This is not just coincidence, as there are causes that can be explained. Before young teens and children could drive, they were more isolated and restricted from being able to pursue their social needs. They would often get on the xbox or computer, and would shut out the rest of the world because they can't socialize as easily as one in an urban setting.

 

A pedestrian-friendly environment augmented by mass transit is one such way in which young teens could get around and to their destinations more easily than if they were in an environment dependent on the automobile and their parents for moving about. It doesn't mean they can't, but often is much more restrictive for them.

 

To give a real answer; suburbs are more likely to induce the conditions in which causes suicide among young teens than urban settings.

[mimartin]

To give a real answer; suburbs are more likely to induce the conditions in which causes suicide among young teens than urban settings.

I've been looking for the data to support your statement about suicide rates as I would really like to read the source for this statement. Could you perhaps link your source or at least give us the name and title.

 

I would really like to examine if there is a possible correlation between the extremely high murder rates in the urban areas and your statement that the suburbs induce more suicides among teens. Perhaps there is a possible connection between self-destructive personalities finding other outlets for their behavior in the urban areas besides suicide.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I got that particular detail from Suburban Nation: the Ruse of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. Obviously, most people won't have this book just laying around, so I am cross-checking the author's sources and will provide a weblink when I get one that would be reliable.

 

I would submit myself as a source, as I've lived in sprawl conditions and had the same psychological symptoms that suburbs were conducive to. Although suburbs have a lot of open space and privacy available, that's the very problem that causes young teens to play video games. Without fast food, impressive social areas, or other means of entertainment within walking distance; those that can't drive are severely limited in their ability to socialize.

 

My author even spoke of some becoming detached from reality and fantasizing on the worlds that they find in video games... because the real world isn't interesting enough for them. I have gone through this and still haven't exactly gotten past this phase, even though I've lived in a city for the last three years. I will say that I can understand why children would fall into these fantasy worlds, because there is nothing around for them without having a car and license. That's not a substitute for real statistics though, so I'll get back with some.

[mimartin]

So in your expert opinion, how would you characterize such self-destructive behaviors and risk taking such as gang membership, crime, drunk driving and drug addiction?

 

Top 20 Causes of Death - Young Teen (10 - 14)

 

Rank Cause of Death Total Deaths No of Deaths Percent

All Deaths 4132 4132 100.00%

 

1 Unintentional Injury 1542 37.32%

* MV Traffic 874 21.15%

* Drowning 162 3.92%

* Fire/burn 101 2.44%

* Other Land Transport 80 1.94%

* Suffocation 70 1.69%

* Firearm 34 0.82%

* Poisoning 28 0.68%

* Other Transport 27 0.65%

* Pedestrian, Other 26 0.63%

* Fall 24 0.58%

* Struck by or Against 22 0.53%

* Other Spec., classifiable 20 0.48%

* Pedal cyclist, Other 19 0.46%

* Unspecified 19 0.46%

* Other Spec., NEC 12 0.29%

* Machinery 11 0.27%

* Natural/ Environment 11 0.27%

* Cut/pierce 2 0.05%

2 Malignant Neoplasms 535 12.95%

3 Suicide 260 6.29%

4 Congenital Anomalies 218 5.28%

5 Homicide 216 5.23%

6 Heart Disease 163 3.94%

7 Chronic Respiratory Disease 95 2.30%

8 Cerebrovascular 58 1.40%

9 Influenza & Pneumonia 53 1.28%

10 Septicemia 53 1.28%

11 Benign Neoplasms 45 1.09%

12 Diabetes Mellitus 29 0.70%

13 Anemias 24 0.58%

14 HIV 21 0.51%

15 Meningitis 21 0.51%

16 Perinatal Period 16 0.39%

17 Meningococcal Infection 14 0.34%

18 Nephritis 12 0.29%

19 Pneumonitis 9 0.22%

20 Liver Disease 5 0.12%

All Others 743 17.98%

[/Quote]

 

Top 20 Causes of Death - Older Teen (15 - 19)

 

Rank Cause of Death Total Deaths No of Deaths Percent

All Deaths 13812 13812 100.00%

 

1 Unintentional Injury 7137 51.67%

* Motor Vehicle Traffic 5522 39.98%

* Poisoning 486 3.52%

* Drowning 320 2.32%

* Firearm 107 0.77%

* Other Land Transport 100 0.72%

* Fire/burn 86 0.62%

* Fall 83 0.60%

* Unspecified 79 0.57%

* Other Transport 69 0.50%

* Pedestrian, Other 68 0.49%

* Suffocation 68 0.49%

* Other Spec., classifiable 56 0.41%

* Natural/ Environment 30 0.22%

* Struck by or Against 30 0.22%

* Machinery 11 0.08%

* Other Spec., NEC 11 0.08%

* Pedal cyclist, Other 7 0.05%

* Cut/pierce 4 0.03%

2 Homicide 1892 13.70%

3 Suicide 1513 10.95%

4 Malignant Neoplasms 723 5.23%

5 Heart Disease 405 2.93%

6 Congenital Anomalies 248 1.80%

7 Chronic Respiratory Disease 93 0.67%

8 Influenza & Pneumonia 75 0.54%

9 Diabetes Mellitus 55 0.40%

10 Cerebrovascular 53 0.38%

11 Septicemia 49 0.35%

12 Anemias 42 0.30%

13 Benign Neoplasms 41 0.30%

14 HIV 38 0.28%

15 Complicated Pregnancy 28 0.20%

16 Meningococcal Infection 21 0.15%

17 Nephritis 21 0.15%

18 Aortic Aneurysm 20 0.14%

19 Pneumonitis 16 0.12%

20 Perinatal Period 14 0.10%

All Others 1328 9.61%

[/Quote]

[Darth_Yuthura]

You bring up an interesting point. One other thing I neglected was teens that do get their licenses are the most likely to get into an accident. MV deaths are noticeably higher for older teens than children under 15. Sprawl is also conducive to speeding and the need for an automobile... gentle intersections and inexperience increase the chance for an accident.

 

I really can't tell much about the question of gangs, driving, and drug addiction based on this. It is more likely that an urban child would wind up in a gang than a rural, but that would also depend on what city you're addressing. The 'ghetto' within New York and Chicago would be highly likely places a kid would eventually be in a gang, but there are many others that don't. It really would relate to the economic status of the city in question, but there are a growing number of gangs in the suburbs of Chicago that have/will form because those communities are not weathering the current depression well. Chicago itself isn't in great condition, but it's not in decline.

 

It would seem the most serious dangers to youths are more related to automobiles than criminal activity. The issue with gangs is related to the suburban impact on certain cities... I'll get back to that when I address poverty upon major cities. There are certain conditions that didn't exist within American cities before 1950, but could be traced back to the departure of the wealthy and middle class from the CBD, leaving those in poverty behind.

[EnderWiggin]

I would submit myself as a source, as I've lived in sprawl conditions and had the same psychological symptoms that suburbs were conducive to.

 

Seriously?

 

_EW_

[mimartin]

Sorry, the data was only there so we knew the numbers involved in suicide (260 out of 4132 deaths in those 10 -14; 1513 out of 13,812 deaths in those 15-19). While I personally consider any preventable death tragic, I do find it important to visualize the numbers we are talking about since there has been no data presented to establish the scope of the problem. I would like to know what percentage of these 2002 deaths for young teens were urban and how many were suburban, but since those statistics are unavailable at least we have an idea of the scope of the problem.

 

So since we cleared up that the data has nothing to do with my question and since I am willing to accept you as a source, unless/until you prove that acceptance wrong,

I would submit myself as a source

I will ask my question again.

So in your expert opinion, how would you characterize such self-destructive behaviors and risk taking such as gang membership, crime, drunk driving and drug addiction?

 

You can answer the question, ignore the question or reject my premise for the question that each of these demonstrates self-destructive behavior.

[Jae Onasi]

I see you've not driven in Chicago or major metropolitan areas, either. Drivers in big cities are far more aggressive than suburban or rural drivers--I've had over 20 years experience driving in all of these settings. You can speed down Lakeshore drive just like you can a country or suburban road. You just can't do it during rush hour. My car insurance was much higher in Chicago than here in WI. Why? More accidents happen in the big city than in suburbia or rural areas because of a higher concentration of cars. I had 2 near misses on the Tri-state tollway this weekend because the other 2 drivers didn't bother to a. use their turn signals or b. look in their blind spots to see that I was there in the lane they wanted to get into. I was not a happy camper at being forced into the next lane to avoid being hit by an idiot, but fortunately for us, the lane was empty.

 

Quick search, by no means complete:

Using key words: American suicides difference urban rural teen

Yielded this abstract: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t28315u7725l6315/fulltext.pdf?page=1

While I didn't pay to download the entire article, the abstract was sufficient for the point it makes.

That study showed no difference between urban and rural teen suicide rates in NV. Living in suburbia or rural regions does not cause a greater risk for suicide than living in an urban setting does.

 

I did notice other studies showing male suicide rates are higher in rural settings and female suicide rates are higher in urban settings, but they were not American studies, nor were they confined to teens. Medline will likely have more studies available.

[Darth_Yuthura]

So in your expert opinion, how would you characterize such self-destructive behaviors and risk taking such as gang membership, crime, drunk driving and drug addiction?

 

I would assume the majority of gang memberships are related to conditions of poverty and racial segregation. The primary cause for gang activity is most likely that children seek the following: Prestige, friendship, easy money, sense of belonging to a group, or protection from another gang. Any/multiple of these causes can explain why children join gangs. This is more likely to happen when there is a significant level of poverty or racial segregation. Other than that, it really happens if parents neglect their children, not knowing that they are under threat, or have been influenced by people who recruit them into gangs.

 

I would characterize the majority of the items on your list as actions usually taken by the desperate. Few really turn to such things unless they are forced to or need a means of escape. Drunk driving can be a socialization issue for older teens, but those who become dependent on alcohol often do it because they have extreme levels of stress that they seek escape rather than socialization.

 

Is this what you were asking to know?

[Darth_Yuthura]

Okay since no one seems to believe me, how about I ask what it would take to convince people to change your minds about sprawl?

 

Whatever proof it would take, I'll present that.

[Jae Onasi]

There's a difference between believing you and agreeing with you. Your information about Chicago may be incorrect, but that doesn't meant all the information about New Urbanism is incorrect. I happen to not buy into the theory because I have no desire to live an urban life anymore.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Right and I have no desire to have my argument twisted around, get false info verified as true by mostly anecdotal evidence, and see inflammatory, irrelevant posts added only because it suited the opposite side of the argument.

 

Of course I don't just burry my head in the sand and pretend that everything will be as I want it. I'm not a moderator and my threads can and will be manipulated in whatever way suits those who operate this forum. I either live with it... or I get out. I hate urbanized environments, but I don't pretend that there is no one other than myself who all want the same things.

 

 

I also want the first 36 posts removed and the title changed back. They are not meant for this topic and the whole point of starting this thread was to not have to deal with them. I would not have added such content to a thread dedicated to urban development, so it is not admissible here.

[Jae Onasi]

I also want the first 36 posts removed and the title changed back. They are not meant for this topic and the whole point of starting this thread was to not have to deal with them. I would not have added such content to a thread dedicated to urban development, so it is not admissible here.

 

Request denied.

 

You already made this request publicly, had the post deleted because its a violation of the rules that says not to question mod actions in the thread but to take it to PM. I moved the posts to this thread because they were off topic for the other thread but were on topic for this thread because they talk about suburban sprawl. I'm not changing the title back--this one suffices and is less aggressive. Any further discussion of mod actions in this thread instead of PM will result in infraction points. If you have any questions about this PM me.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Given that this thread had been twice derailed, I've clearly been beaten no matter what facts are presented.

 

Anecdotal evidence does not constitute real proof, yet this thread is drowning in it. There has been only ONE effective counter argument that has ever given on this thread. That one was crime. Aside from that, all my sources were valid. Those that were presented by the opposite side don't hold water.

[Jae Onasi]

Your sources on Chicago parking lots are incorrect. I have presented proof (Google maps of Chicago) for you to verify with your own eyes. That is not anecdotal evidence, and I'm not sure why you refuse to look at the maps for yourself. I parked in some of these lots when my sister and I went to a Lacuna Coil concert a couple weekends ago. Since your sources are incorrect about such a simple verifiable fact, it makes the rest of us wonder if they could be incorrect about other things as well.

[Darth_Yuthura]

What sources did you claim were incorrect?

 

I've been told to look at google map a number of times to confirm just how much of the Loop's surface is covered with pavement. I will admit right now that there is a significant quantity of land in Downtown Chicago that is designated for parking, but I was arguing under the assumption that anyone who's lived in Chicago might have actually seen its skyline and noticed there were some immense structures rising dozens of stories into the sky.

 

These are not small buildings; they're huge, with thousands of people concentrated on top of one another.

 

I was going under the assumption that anyone claiming to be an expert on Chicago wouldn't be suggesting what I think was being implied. Did this source take into consideration the number of parking spaces compared to how many residents and office jobs there were? This 'proof' is by no means accurate to reality.

 

To prove that, I will lean onto your side by submitting that there actually are more parking spaces in the Loop than what Googlemap shows. When you take into consider that there are actually about SEVEN tiers for most parking ramps in the Loop, then google map only shows a fraction of what actually are there. I did see that source, but I went beyond the limited scope that was presented by a satellite image. What about the lower levels of several towers, where the parking ramps aren't shown in the map? The Trump Tower had six tiers for parking that weren't visible on google map. Any expert on Chicago would have known that the total land area for parking in the Loop is actually much greater than what your map showed.

 

Then consider that some buildings have their own parking ramps, not to mention some with their own ZIP code, then the total land area designated for parking per capita is quite small. Look next to the Sears Tower and notice a parking ramp rivaling its land area? Remember this structure is 110 stories tall and assume that one ramp provides parking for over 15,000 workers... look at the Pentagon's enormous parking lot and that goes to show how much land is wasted to parking for a suburban comparison to 15,000 workers in one location. That is an enormous sum of land compared to that of the Sears Tower.

 

 

-----

 

Since your experiences seem so restricted that you'd call on to googlemap as fact, it makes me wonder how much more is based solely on direct observation.

[Jae Onasi]

You were talking about parking and saying there were no parking lots in downtown Chicago. That is what I refuted. I wasn't speaking about any other issue than that, and you're muddying the issue with parking per capita now.

 

I'm well aware of the skyscrapers in the Chicago Loop, and I've been in a number of them.

 

Suburban sprawl obviously bothers you, but it doesn't bother me. I'm very happy not living in a rabbit hutch alongside millions of others. If people want to live in an urban area, fine. If they want to live in a suburban or rural setting, fine. We all give up something living in each type of environment, and we all gain something else living in our chosen environments. Right now, my kids are playing outside in our backyard, and I have a lot of robins, chickadees, cardinals, goldfinches, and house finches flying around in my backyard sharing the environment in my flower and vegetable garden with butterflies and different types of bees and other bugs. My kids go to a safe school in an excellent public school system--something we wouldn't have in Chicago. It takes me about 10 minutes to drive to work instead of an hour and a half in the car or on the train like it did in Chicago during rush hour. I don't have to worry about my kids getting shot outside my door or mugged on the L-train. My house cost half of what it would have in Chicago, my insurance rates are 40% lower, and groceries cost a third less. I pay lower property taxes and I don't have to share walls with the 20-something who decides to play music at 3am at 900 decibels. If you feel strongly about New Urbanism, fine, live in a big city--none of us here will stop you from doing that. I don't agree with all their conclusions, and I have no desire to live in an urban area, so I, and a lot of others who dislike urban environments, will cheerfully live in our homes out in Suburbia/Farm-land.

[Darth_Yuthura]

How typically American.

[ForeverNight]

The problem with this is... ?

 

I guess we just don't like being packed in like sardines. :shrug:

[Darth_Yuthura]

Well I intensely dislike urban environments, for your information. Does it not seem strange why I'm advocating for something I hate?

 

This entire thread has been to prove that high population density creates a more efficient system than sprawl. No one has brought an effective counter that can disprove this.

 

My goal has always been to inform people that sprawl has at least been harnessed in the last two decades, but existing sprawl development isn't sustainable environmentally or economically. Anyone who lives this 'American dream'... realize that there are 6 billion other people all struggling for the same thing. Do you really think they won't be competing with you for what you have?

 

Maybe instead of starting a war to steal someone else's oil reserves, the US could reduce their demand for foreign oil altogether by building a more efficient transportation system... more people using fewer vehicles for shorter commutes... No solution that won't change your lifestyle, so don't bother to say you reject it.

[mimartin]

Please keep the snarkiness to a minimal. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.