Suburban sprawl (with additions from the Maglev thread)

[JediAthos]

I don't have a whole lot to add to this discussion that hasn't already been said and I have by no means done extensive research on the subject so in that regard I will pose a question or two.

 

DY: You said that you would advocate providing fewer large open spaces so that people would feel more comfortable than in their front yard...(assuming I interpreted what you said correctly) How do you believe that would be so? How would you go about taking something that many Americans cherish away from them?

 

Frankly, I would tend to side with Bimmerman as I spent a fair amount of time in Europe in various cities while I was serving in the Navy. I couldn't imagine living as they do on top of one another all the time. To me personally that would be...claustrophobic.

 

I do live in an apartment now in West Texas which really doesn't qualify as densely populated and I have lived in apartments in the past in Virginia Beach and frankly I hated it.

 

I think we might be better served devoting our time and money to revamping our power grid, improving mass transit availability where it is viable, and researching vehicles that can utilize other types of fuel sources.

 

I guess I just fail to see how it would be economically viable to attempt to implement a system such as you describe. What do you do with people who don't wish to live in a city? Cut them off? Force them out?

 

Perhaps I don't understand the issue fully, but those are my questions and opinions such as they are.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I do live in an apartment now in West Texas which really doesn't qualify as densely populated and I have lived in apartments in the past in Virginia Beach and frankly I hated it.

 

I actually would consider that to be high density. I really am not pointing to New York and downtown Chicago as ideal models, as 40,000 people per square mile is overkill. There is a point where it becomes less logical to stack people on top of one another.

 

Buildings like the Sears Tower, World Trade center towers, and Tai-pah 101 are not the direction I am going for. I would be more for cities like Portland, with a density of 4,500 people per square mile, where mass transit is viable on a regional scale. That doesn't mean that you should build such a light rail system, but the option would at least be available for future development. That's the target I'm in favor of.

 

As for apartments and condos, I recognize that they are favored less by families with children. That is not something I really addressed. I know that most who prefer condos will likely be singles or childless couples, which should also be taken into consideration for the placement of schools. For families that do have children that live in single family detached homes, urban planning would be critical for planning bus routes and public spaces.

 

In my hometown of only 3,200 people, much funding is lost to school buses because there are so many people spread out that they drive 3 miles to collect only 12 children in some rural locations. That sounds small, but if these 12 children lived in a sprawl neighborhood, the number of bus stops adds hundreds to the service costs each year. On another route, in a very low density town, children often walk down their street and reduce the number of stops from 7 to only one (and reduce the time it takes to pick up students by driving along a main road and not turning down every end street along the way)

 

Same thing goes for post office trucks... consolidate people's mail boxes into one location and you can make each stop they make for a dozen boxes instead of one.

 

Garbage trucks can provide for many more people if they have one dumpster instead of a can for each house. Utility lines are much cheaper to place and maintain if you have more people sharing the same lines.

 

As for privacy... either you have a rural home for complete isolation, or you have neighbors surrounding you. If you are going to have neighbors, it's best to work in conjunction with them to share as many of the same systems as possible. It doesn't mean everyone must live in apartments, but those that live in single family detached homes should cluster together whenever possible for services such as these.

[Bimmerman]

DY, your model may work for big cities. In fact, many people in big cities already follow a similar model. However, it is utterly ineffective at combating suburban sprawl. There is no way to get around the fact that, short of walking everywhere, a car is infinitely more convenient than relying on public transportation. Cheaper too.

 

I do not want to be forced to take a train or bus or walk everywhere. I do not want to live next to my neighbor with only a wall separating us. I want to have a house with a garage and home theater and yard and space. I do not want to live in super close proximity to other people. I want my space, my privacy. I am not the only one who wants this. This is the American dream, and I take offense that you think I must conform to a european big city model. I do not want to nor will I ever conform to that. I've tried it, and now that I'm not on a keylogged computer at work, I hate it.

 

I've done the urban thing. I've done the walking everywhere and using subways and buses. It is only convenient when you're coming back from the bar drunk, and that issue can be solved by taxis.

 

There is plenty of space for "sprawl" here in the west; sustainability is not an issue.

 

Finally, your point on open space. Munich has one of, if not the, biggest and largest city parks in the world, the English Garden. It is beyond congested, with little room for a few people to toss a frisbee around. Americans, especially out west, pride ourselves on our vast empty spaces. You will never get us to agree to your idea. There is a huge difference in mindset between westerners and country folk and people from big cities: we want our space, and we do not do well in apartment buildings.

 

As for not using cars as main transportation, go right ahead and make mass transit appealing to use for big cities. It will do the most good there. Mass transit will do absolutely nothing for suburban sprawl. If the light rail here in Denver that goes to the suburbs is any indication, it takes so long and is so inconvenient that the only people who ride it that far are those who cannot afford cars. Do not be so naive as to think all big cities are gridlocked like LA. I have lived in the Denver area most of my life and have rarely experienced LA or NY or SF-style traffic. Most of the US population does not live in the biggest cities, so mass transit is useless for most of the population. Is it useful? Yes. Will it replace my car? Only if I'm in a big city, in which I hate living.

 

What your argument comes down to exposes a great irony. You claim that the best way to stop suburban sprawl is to have more people live in big cities or areas of high population densities. To have apartment buildings for everyone, mass transit cheap and available, everything within walking distance, low energy living, etc etc. You're evidently unaware that most people living in the suburbs moved out of the big city to get away from all of that. How can you possibly expect people to want to go back to that? Americans want their space, and the suburbs are absolutely cheaper to live in when compared to the big city, even including costs of driving.

 

I will gladly spend more money driving if I save moeny on rent/mortgage, save money on insurance, save money on utilities, save money on food, save money on drinks, save money on just about everything. Being where you and your family are happy and comfortable is priceless, regardless of any other economic consideration.

[mimartin]

I actually would consider that to be high density.

I would be more for cities like Portland, with a density of 4,500 people per square mile, where mass transit is viable on a regional scale.

Then no, you would not consider West Texas high density. Even Houston only has a population density of 3,828 people per square mile. We Texans like our space. One of the larger West Texas towns of Lubbock has a population density of 1,831 people per square mile. You may get up to your 4,500 number if you included livestock, but I really don’t want to ride a bus with livestock.

 

The area I live in has a population of 72,186 with a population density of 402 people per square mile. Of course the density is kind of distorted since no one around here wants to live up against the prisons and chemical plants in the area. Silly people.

[Bimmerman]

I just wikipedia'd my city.

 

Ironically, my town has a population density of 3884.1 / sq mi (higher than Denver). Odd. My town has lots of space per person, and has few apartment buildings. Almost everything is single family homes or duplexes. Denver is suffocatingly large and dense to me, while my town with a larger density is much more comfortable. Statistics aren't everything; Boulder has greenery and parks and open spaces that truly disguise the number of people living here.....most cities I have seen do not.

 

Granted, I live outside the city limits and have more land. The density of where I technically live (the county), is a whopping 391 / sq mi.

 

However, remove the university from the equation and we have 1790 / sq mi. That's why the town feels small and livable.

 

Mass transit works in my town, but only as far as buses. As I said earlier, my town's mass transit system is part of one of the highest rates services around. My town is still centered around cars. We don't have traffic of any discernible sort. Population density itself is a useless statistic, as how the population is serviced by infrastructure is more important. If it's a town like Boulder, where most people live in actual houses (ignoring the university students and student-centered apartments), that's not a bad population density.

 

Where I live now, in Munich, the density is 11000/sq mi. Way too many.

[Jae Onasi]

I await your answers to my previous questions asking for data.

It's not a matter of want, but sustainability.

What sustainability problem are you talking about? We have unsold land in my county that is in between two major cities. We have states where there's so much land the gov't is paying people to homestead on it.

 

Americans want their open spaces? How much would they be willing to pay to have their open spaces?

I pay about 1200 per month for my home. If I had a condo in Chicago, it would cost me three times more and have half the space. It costs more to live in the big city. A lot more.

Well I'll tell you that when you create a system that spreads itself horizontally, the issue is not any one person, but millions all wanting the same thing.

Yes, millions want to get out of over-crowded, over-taxed, over-priced city living. There's plenty of space for them, too. You're ignoring all the problems with urban living except the transit efficiency aspect yet again.

 

The US has become auto-dependent, which means that when the price of fuel rises, it directly impacts how the state functions.

_I_ am 'the state'. _You_ are 'the state'. Every American is 'the state'. This is a republic, not a socialist or communist state. The government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. The day we all forget that is the day we should just hang it up and sign the Communist manifesto.

 

The price of fuel rose dramatically last year. Why? Corporate and OPEC greed, pure and simple. OPEC refused to increase production, and oil companies took tremendous advantage of oil speculation. Their greed contributed to the worldwide recession/depression.

 

With mass transit, you will also be dependent on energy; but those that use electricity are not bound to any single source to operate. I'm for clean energy, which is why I'm not in favor of coal; but I also recognize that the US has an abundant supply of it. That makes electricity a more favorable source of power for transportation than oil (gasoline, kerosene, and diesel fuel)

That works for electric cars and electric power to houses all over the country, not just mass transit in big cities.

 

The best solution, however, is to try and promote pedestrian travel. That means having as many destinations within walking distance as possible, which means higher density. That can also be augmented by providing light rail to allow even more destinations to more people. That doesn't mean the automobile has to go, but it should not continue to be the dominant means of transportation.

Who determined that crazy idea? You ever try to carry groceries for a week for a family of four in your arms walking home? I live about 6 blocks from our grocery store and walk there when I only need a few items, but there's no way I could carry a full load home. Furthermore, since you've experienced harsh winters as I have, you know that walking in below zero temperatures and 2 feet of snow that we can experience regularly in WI winters makes a car far more necessary than in places without some of these issues.

 

An issue was brought about public transportation flourishing as energy got more expensive... When the energy crisis of last year hit, public transportation actually suffered badly because they saw a rise in demand while they had to pay even more for their fuel. Public busing couldn't expand in times when demand was at its highest because they didn't have the funding it needed for that to happen. When they didn't have the funding to expand, they became overtaxed and could barely afford to break even with their own high fuel prices.

How were city governments supposed to anticipated the unprecedented rise in fuel costs? Consult their magic 8 balls? They didn't have the funds because they hadn't budgeted for them, and they were seeing a decrease in tax revenue because of the housing collapse and decreased revenues from sales taxes on top of that. There's no way they could expand transit rapidly, anyway. You can't go to the local Wal-Mart and buy 3 city buses and an L-train station or two.

 

Light rail overcomes this more easily, but demands a set population density for it to work. Portland is the best example of an auto-dependent city that successfully integrated light rail for an effective alternate means of transportation. Even removing 10% of cars improves fuel economy due to reduced traffic congestion. That's why it works so well.

Vivat for Portland. Sure we could learn from them, but that doesn't solve the problem: not all people want to live in big cities.

 

And in regards to the 'open space' issues... the whole point of higher densities is to provide fewer, larger open spaces so that it would make people feel more comfortable than on that 40 X 20 plot of land that is in front of every house for miles on end. It would be better to acknowledge that there are millions of others wanting the same things, so it is best to focus on creating a system by which everyone benefits instead of everyone vying for their own interests.

Great. So I can go to a park 3 miles from my concrete-patio'd condo to sit on a graffiti-covered park-bench and look at some pooping pigeons and dog-ugly starlings pecking the ground around some fenced-in trees. Whoopee. I'll keep my nature-filled backyard, thank you very much.

[Darth_Yuthura]

It's quite clear that I shouldn't try to argue with an issue like this when others have their own strong opinions. (removed flamebait). mimartin

 

I see that if people aren't going to confront a painful truth, then they will not believe anything I present. I see that I will only drive people away from what I've presented because they will just generate reasons and justifications for their lifestyle. Just wanted to inspire people to see a better future than what we are embarking upon, but clearly I must be the only one standing out from the group. Clearly if things are working so well, I must be the one not seeing things right.

 

When I come to see the reality is much different from what I'm envisioning, then maybe I can at least take some satisfaction when I see that all my logic is flawed. Maybe it would be great to see that all that I'm fearing is just in my head. I can stand finding out that I'm the one who's wrong on this issue; that would make me VERY satisfied.

[jrrtoken]

It's quite clear that I shouldn't try to argue with an issue like this when others have their own strong opinions. (removed flamebait). mimartin

No, it's just people can't be forced to live where the government decides. If what you're proposing was the status quo, then it would be unconstitutional.

I see that I will only drive people away from what I've presented because they will just generate reasons and justifications for their lifestyle.

Recognizing problems is one thing, but proposing solutions which are either wasteful or restrictive towards citizens is something totally different.

[Jae Onasi]

Darth_Yuthura, are you done editing your post yet? I'd like to respond, but can't until you're finished changing what you're saying.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Clearly I don't seem to be presenting any problems, since everything is going just so perfectly with everyone but me. So much for presenting a problem, let alone declaring a solution.

 

If everything is going so great with everyone, then I'm just playing games on paper. So if everything is just peachy, I'll just stop spouting off about a bunch of nothing that people aren't going to believe anyway. There, I'm done.

[Bimmerman]

DY, you are continually ignoring the fact that Jae, myself, and many others in this thread have pointed out-- that we don't want to live in a big city. Therefore, your urban utopia is inherently flawed.

 

No-one here is confronting a painful truth. My painful truth came when I moved from beautiful Boulder to beautiful Munich. I lived in the big city. I hate the big city. I won't repeat the reasons a third time. I am saving for a down payment for a nice suburban house even though I am single at the moment. Wasteful? Maybe so. Unlike you, many others in this thread have lived in the big cities of the world and have experienced this urban model your sociology professor is proselytizing. I reject it as inferior and restrictive. I want the freedom to do what I want on my land; that is impossible in a big city. It is an inherently American (and western) desire as well; my German friends here have no such desire.

 

If anyone in this thread is ignoring evidence to the contrary, it is you. Keep telling us how this is a great theory, how it will revolutionize urban settings, how it will save the planet, how it will ..... .

 

I do not see why I should change my lifestyle and sacrifice my happiness and financial security just to not have to drive and live 'efficiently.' I'm an engineer; my profession revolves around doing things the most efficient way possible within realistic constraints. You sound like a liberal arts college student without any real world experience; you're missing the realistic constraint aspect to this discussion.

 

Here are the biggest flaws in your argument:

 

1) Americans culturally like having privacy and space. This will not change.

2) Big cities are expensive

3) Suburbs are nicer in all measurable ways-- lower crime, more trees, less people, etc etc

4) Big cities have lots of people. Many Americans don't like that....why else would we have moved out West?

 

As for inspiring a better future, you have done nothing of the sort. I cringe at the thought of being required or forced to live in the big city all in the name of almighty Efficiency. Flame me or ignore me all you like, but I will always be a very vocal opposing voice to increased urbanization.

 

What you ask the people to do, in the name of more ideal and efficient living, is near socialism. Removed Flamebait ~ mimartin

 

To be fair, it is a very ideal model of an urban society. It just doesn't work in reality. I'm proof. Either ignore the fact that both Jae and myself have experienced both sides, and continue to spout your professor's textbook, or find out why we dislike and reject the model and change the model to fit the people you are wanting to apply it to.

 

An engineer can design a perfect part, but if it cannot be manufactured, there's no point. Similarly, you can accept a theory of urbanism, but if the other people do not accept or flat out reject it, there's also no point in clinging to said model. Either accept our differences on the issue and try to find common ground, or don't and continue to spout elitist nonsense.

[Bimmerman]

Note to all- DY deleted his post, but the entirety of is is presented below in the quoted text, minus the Declaration of Independence.

 

Flaws in the counter argument.

 

1. Suburban sprawl and globalization were fueled by easily obtainable sources of energy.

 

I fail to see how that matters. Are we not supposed to capitalize on easily obtainable resources? Are we supposed to still be farmers huddled around caves? Are we supposed to not have invented steel or coal fired power plants because the raw materials are easily obtainable?

 

When peak oil supply takes place, the price of energy is going to skyrocket and there will be difficult times ahead for those who have no substitute for their cars.

 

True....so long as you term 'energy' as 'oil.' You also seem convinced that everyone drives a 3mpg Suburban. That's false. When oil hit $4.50 a gallon, what happened? People drove less, but still drove. The simple fact is that the American lifestyle depends on cars for the majority of the people. If you cannot budget $30 more per week on gas (due to price fluctuations).....come on. If you can't afford the increase in something that is essential, stop going to starbucks, stop eating out, stop drinking, stop smoking, or quit bitching. Not hard. If a broke college student can afford two cars, school, and fuel to go racing (far more consumed than simple commuting), all by working during classes, and you as an established family cannot, something is very wrong.

 

Call cars evil all you want. Blame cars as the root of all evil and what's wrong with America all you want. That doesn't change the fact that people are buying more fuel efficient cars to lessen the hurt from the next inevitable price hike. That doesn't change the fact that people are smart enough to figure out ways to cope and deal with increased energy costs. People will either change their lifestyle and not drive as much, or pay more for the privilege of doing so. But do us the courtesy of allowing us to make that choice for ourselves.

 

Convenience has a price, but living in a big city and simply walking to the store and carrying groceries back is absolutely impractical when there's more than just you. Same goes for inclement weather, hot days, long travel needs, road trips, carrying stuff, pretty much everything. Cars will always be a part of the American culture and society. Stop tilting at windmills trying to change that fact, especially when great strides are being made in vehicle emissions and efficiency.

 

 

2. Suburbs are more expensive per capita to maintain.

 

....and your proof for that blanket statement is...what, exactly?

 

In terms of costs, you would find that what people pay in taxes is artificially generated and has no bearing on what it costs to maintain per capita.

 

Um.....what? People pay tax, that's hardly artificially generated. The property tax, city sales tax, and state income tax all go towards paying for the services provided in the suburb. The higher the cost of the house, the larger the property tax, which pays for the maintenance cost and service cost. Including this, it is cheaper to live in the Suburb and commute everywhere in a 2mpg F1 car, changing tires every 40 miles.

 

3. environmentally destructive.

 

Sorry, but urban activity destroys nature. When you create a sprawl city, you create an artificially maintained landscape.

 

....and building apartment buildings and mass transit and buses doesn't? Humans destroy nature, no matter where you are living. Artificial landscapes aren't necessarily bad for the environment, they are simply different.

 

4. Government services are severely lacking.

 

Proof. The burden of proof for these statements is on you.

 

 

More taxpayers in a smaller area allows for more funding to civil servants and less to their vehicles. Ever hear of transportation oriented development? It's that significant to the function of a community.

 

Jesus, you're a socialist and borderline communist. I would much rather spend the money on my car driving as I please where I please instead of paying some high school dropout to tell me where it is best for the community that I travel. Absolutely not. Transportation oriented development is the exact same thing as a suburb; it is oriented around people owning their own house and driving their car. Hundreds of millions of Americans are happy with this; why aren't you? Have you ever lived in a suburb or small town?

 

 

5. Less is more.

 

I would get banned for saying my thoughts as bluntly as I'd like.

 

 

For most of human history, it has always been a quest to search for more resources when demand went up. The current dilemma is unlike any in the past because the goal should be targeted at reducing demand because most supply WILL NOT hold up under the current demands of the US. Any assumption that innovation will always bail us out of our predicaments is foolhardy.

 

No. The current dilemma is not even remotely centered around reducing demand; that's what you want to have happen. Toss words like supply and demand around enough, without any discussion of what item or commodity is being supplied or demanded, and you have basically genericized your argument into uselessness.

 

Furthermore, your blatant disregard for innovation is troubling. Have you paid any attention to the fuel savings introduced in cars in the last few years? Do you have any idea how much a minute increase in powerplant efficiency affects fuel consumption and output? Do you have any idea how better knowledge of materials has lightened and cheapened things without any degradation in safety, performance, or strength? Do you have any idea what agricultural advances there have been since the dawn of time? You thinking that pursuing innovation and improvement is a waste of time and resources frankly scares me.

 

You do realize that without innovators, we would not have AC electricity to power your ideal transportation? Wow.

 

Your idea of 'less is more' runs counter to American culture. I want to have a house, filled with a nice TV, sound system, car parts, car lift, tools, a nice yard, a beautiful wife, kids, a dog, guns, three or four cars, bicycles, a boat, camping stuff, etc. I agree that it is not needed. I absolutely reject your assertion that I am a better person and will live a happier life without these things. I have gone backpacking in the wilderness for weeks on end, and nothing makes me happier than to go home and enjoy my life with my stuff. I live in Munich now, with two suitcases of clothes, no car, no bike, a laptop, and a camera, and I cannot stand it. I have more than I need to survive, true, but I am not happy.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

As an American, I have the right to live my life in liberty as I see fit, pursuing my happiness the best way I can. My happiness does not revolve around the things themselves, but around what they allow me to do-- go racing, live comfortably, live without next-wall neighbors, go skiing, go hiking, cook, shoot, etc. New Urbanism threatens my unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, my personal liberty, and my life.

 

The classic American dream is to start from nothing, work and earn money as best you can, start a family, buy a house, buy a car or two, and retire richer and happier than you were before. Your urban theory claims my dream is hurtful to society and my fellow man, and that offends me greatly. Basically, according to you and your theory, anyone who is successful enough to afford a house away from the city should be punished, as everyone should live the same way near where they work and buy food, and never go anywhere. That, frankly, is banworthy-word stupid.

 

We've got overcrowding in all our cities already, so let's move out West!

 

You would honestly rather live packed on top of hundreds of other people in an apartment building, walking everywhere, relying on the government, than being responsible for your own damn self? Wow.

 

Please don't move out here and try to change my lifestyle. I enjoy it, I pay for it, do me the courtesy of leaving myself and fellow citizens the hell alone.

 

The point of this thread, as far as I can tell, is to debate suburban sprawl. Debate means discussion with facts. I, and others, have laid out our reasoning and experiences that justify our intense opposition to your proposed idea. You, as far as I can tell, have made no effort to understand our side, nor do anything about rant on why we are fools and that we should all live in apartments within walking distance of public transportation and everything. You spout talking points like a politician, but do not back them up with anything of substance. No facts, no sources, nothing except what reads as a textbook.

 

I understand where you are coming from, and thought somewhat similarly (regarding transportation, not on the suburbs part of your argument) prior to moving out here and experiencing exactly what you are proposing. I have found it to be horrible, and you will never convince me to give it another try. It flat out will not work for Americans in anything other than the biggest cities where not even close to the majority of the population lives.

 

My biggest issue with your unwavering belief in this idea is that it assumes my aspirations, my goals, my world, is unworthy as an alternative. It assumes that everyone is the same, that everyone wants to not have to drive, only wants to live within walking distance of work and the markets. "New Urbanism" threatens my way of life, and I have every right to defend myself and my dreams.

[JediAthos]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't most larger American cities already have significant amounts of mass transit available?

 

NYC, Chicago, San Diego, DC, Dallas, Houston etc...all have readily available mass transit systems for those who wish to use them do they not? San Diego's trolley service is especially nice and I used it extensively while I was stationed there.

 

I've lived in or around several major cities including Dallas, Chicago, Norfolk, and San Diego and I never really found government services to be lacking in the suburban areas. There were always the common government services such as police, fire, water, sewage, and trash pickup.

[Bimmerman]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't most larger American cities already have significant amounts of mass transit available?

 

NYC, Chicago, San Diego, DC, Dallas, Houston etc...all have readily available mass transit systems for those who wish to use them do they not? San Diego's trolley service is especially nice and I used it extensively while I was stationed there.

 

Yes, every large American city I've been to had good public transportation.

 

I've lived in or around several major cities including Dallas, Chicago, Norfolk, and San Diego and I never really found government services to be lacking in the suburban areas. There were always the common government services such as police, fire, water, sewage, and trash pickup.

 

+1

[jrrtoken]

I've lived in or around several major cities including Dallas, Chicago, Norfolk, and San Diego and I never really found government services to be lacking in the suburban areas. There were always the common government services such as police, fire, water, sewage, and trash pickup.

QFE, though I think that's more of a negative attribute of local government. If local governments seem to maintain wealthier and more posh communities more than neighborhoods in the city proper, that's more of a massive folly of the government.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Proof. The burden of proof for these statements is on you.

 

So why am I to be held responsible for having to disprove your accusations? You're the one who presented a counter-argument, failed to make your case, and then escalated the matter to a personal level...

 

No. If you bring something up, it's your responsibility to prove it before another is to take you seriously. You presented four major flaws in my logic... where's your proof that those are true? I say they're wrong.

[JediAthos]

DY...what I think Bimmerman was asking for was if you had evidence supporting the statement you made regarding government services to be lacking, expenditures per capita etc....

[Emperor Devon]

nice job at ignoring the rest of the post tho

[JediAthos]

at the risk of being off topic...was that directed at me Devon?

[Darth_Yuthura]

DY...what I think Bimmerman was asking for was if you had evidence supporting the statement you made regarding government services to be lacking, expenditures per capita etc....

 

The first law of cognitive geography: Distance and Similarity in Semantic Spaces

 

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/research/pubs/fabrikant_etal_gis02.pdf

 

In this, the basic concept is that you have a much greater influence when you're closer to the source than if you're further away. This is mainly applied to physical geography, but it holds true to human geography. Everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things. From this, it would make better sense to have police, schools, hospitals, and sanitation services closer to where they're needed. You can get more closer to a greater number of people in a dense city than a suburb.

 

The same thing goes to transportation because you have to spend more for powering these systems the further away from the source you get. This is why density is so important: because it holds true to this fundamental principle by having more people more easily able to reach a greater number of potential destinations with greater resiliency than being solely auto dependent.

[Jae Onasi]

D_Y, are you going to actually address any of the concerns brought up by Bimmerman, JediAthos, and me, or are you going to continue ignoring all our posts and spamming the thread non-stop with the 'living in an ant farm is more efficient' posts? If so, I'll talk it over with the other moderating staff for thread closure and/or spam infractions.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Here is an extensive list of sources I've read that lead me to certain ends. Sorry that I didn't take the time to go back and point out exactly where I came to each conclusion, as this is a very elaborate topic. I'm can't directly address anecdotal evidence because I haven't seen how certain people have lived and can't really counter such experts who stand alone against ones that I do indeed know. It then comes down to he said/she said scenarios where there is really no means to verify who should be trusted more.

 

I don't proclaim myself an expert, but I would trust the logic of people I know if their reasoning is sound. One such professor lived in Milwaukee AND has degrees, which makes his word more credible to me than someone who simply was a passive observer under the same conditions. I will not be convinced by someone else's word unless they have statistics to back their claim, or that they have more credibility than just being a passive observer.

 

 

Smart growth: density imperative for good urban design

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2002/05/21/carollloyd.DTL

 

 

Health issues:

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B73H6-4CCF960-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b52ac45dbc9c6cfb12328a3fea43b94a

 

Local/Regional autonomy dilemmas

 

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2005_spr/lawpolitics.htm

 

Crime rate issues:

 

http://media.www.chicagoflame.com/media/storage/paper519/news/2005/09/12/Opinions/A.Different.Look.At.Suburban.Sprawl-981575.shtml

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.10.6134

 

 

Here's some bedtime reading: Very thick source of details

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=RQN0OXl02qMC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=suburban+sprawl+statistics&source=bl&ots=fGEtGGTrus&sig=KsArvlmg-hCcuv-GXP3cTFZfYoE&hl=en&ei=CCM7St6jMo3SMOTS2aAO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10

 

 

Reduced suburban problems in France:

 

http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/sprawl-paris.html

 

Here's a detailed set of statistics I've read through... population dynamics behind Urban sprawl

http://risprawl.terranovum.com/

 

Simple site for the stats of population density with some pieces from the social and economic aspects of why density needs to increase, or why light rail needs to be able to adapt for low-density locations.

 

http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/twenty_first_century.cfm

[Jae Onasi]

a. Your professor who 'lived in Milwaukee' wasn't from the area, he was from Europe, and he missed the parking lots I've parked in both downtown, near Marquette, and at a number of eye doctor offices in and around the city. Perhaps he was so busy in his ivory tower he neglected to look outside now and then. Everything's changed since they're been doing the Marquette interchange reconfiguration project for the last 2 years or so, which is reshaping traffic flow in that area tremendously. Google "Marquette Interchange" since I doubt you'll believe my observations. If he had children, I would bet good money that he put them in private school, and if he lived anywhere near downtown, he likely had a good security system on his house, too.

 

b. You still are not answering my question, so let me rephrase it in a way that might make it easier for you to address. Bimmerman, JediAthos, and I have all lived in big cities. We never want to live there again. We won't because of crime rates, poor school systems (I wouldn't subject a dead flea to either the Chicago or Milwaukee public school system), lack of affordable housing, and a variety of other issues that make urban life not the utopia your professors paint for you with New Urbanism. We've dealt with the reality of muggings, break-ins, higher costs of living, higher housing and property tax rates, corruption in government, cramped housing, crowding, insensitive neighbors in apartments next door to ours, no greenspace, and gunshots outside our windows at 2am. All three of us have decided that urban living, no matter how 'efficient', sucks so hard we could make our own black hole if we wanted.

 

I want you to address those concerns. I don't want to see the intellectual version of you flipping us the bird and telling us we're not being good little citizens of the state by moving into the big cities like you have done already. I want you to tell us how you can adapt your concept to be more inclusive of those of us who choose not to live in an urban setting for the reasons we've enumerated repeatedly throughout the thread. I wan to see what ideas you have for improving suburban life rather than throwing it out altogether.

 

f you choose to ignore that and instead yet again tell us we should contribute to the state and move into the city or we're nothing but a bunch of selfish rubes, or some version of the same, I'll assume this is nothing but a spamming rant rather than an actual give-and-take discussion. I'll bring it to jonathan7 and mimartin to discuss sanctions for spam if that's the case.

[Bimmerman]

DY...what I think Bimmerman was asking for was if you had evidence supporting the statement you made regarding government services to be lacking, expenditures per capita etc....

 

Exactly. Everyone has opinions, but it is hard to dispute actual facts. Based on my experiences living in both, I would argue that government services are far better and have more access (police, fire, mail, health, garbage, water, sanitation, etc etc).

 

DY, I await your reply to Jae's post.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Okay...

 

High crime rate: can be countered by employing more police officers per given area of land. More taxpayers means more police can be provided. A smaller footprint allows more police to patrol a given area than when people are spread out.

 

Poor school systems: this is a government problem, not one that is caused because of high population density. There is nothing that links these these as cause and effect. I know of a school in a community of about 3000 people (my mother the head librarian there) and this is a terrible place. My mother's being stressed to her limit because the school's budget is stretched to the brink. This is the same for various schools of this size in Wisconsin, not just in major cities. Madison also has some very good schools, which defies the notion that big cities have terrible schools. And small cities don't always have the best school systems.

 

No green space: That is not so in any Traditional neighborhood development that I've ever seen. That is the form of development that I'm advocating for, NOT places like Chicago, New York, and San Francisco! If people just judge ALL urban development the same as these cities, then they are neglecting the numerous smaller cities that work very well.

 

Madison, Wisconsin: This city of half a million is a very fine example of the kind of development that doesn't suffer from a poor education system. The crime rate is fairly low, lots of greenspaces, the capital is in the center of the city (symbolic of how they are a community) They have public busing, affordable housing (as well as expensive places I'll grant that) And this particular city is weathering the latest economic turmoil fairly well while neighboring cities (which are not so well-put together) are suffering badly.

 

Bad neighbors: that's a problem related to the people, not the city's infrastructure.

 

If this is just the way things are with people: There are single family detached homes in Madison, as with many other cities, where you can get your precious privacy. I'm not advocating so much that everyone must live in condos, but that SFDH don't house the vast majority of the population. The latest economic crisis WAS related to this, as it was SFDH foreclosures that made up the majority of the wealth lost in the nation. This would not have taken place if you had major corporations building more condos and apartment complexes and fewer people buying houses with borrowed funds.

 

Does this finally address your concerns?

 

Oh and I just want to point out that accusing people in order to win a debate is not going to work. No one here knows this professor of mine (and maybe it is that I'm the one who listened and made the wrong assumptions) He IS from Milwaukee and I don't appreciate having myself and my sources attacked by someone based on something that isn't true.