Sprawl is good...

[fakesurfers]

Is anyone anti-sprawl? If so, I'd like to know why. I know many reasons why I am in favor of it, but I dont know if there are really people against it. I suspect anti-sprawl is a creation of the media elite....

[jase71]

By sprawl, do you mean urban sprawl? The endless miles of strip malls and McDonalds that surrounds every city with more than 50,000 people?

[fakesurfers]

Originally posted by jase71
By sprawl, do you mean urban sprawl? The endless miles of strip malls and McDonalds that surrounds every city with more than 50,000 people?

Yes. I love it. Nothing could be more American. I am wholeheartedly in favor of it.

[jase71]

You're either trolling for topics, playing devil's advocate, or you've got a strange sense of the aesthetic, fakesurfers... But hey, I love a good debate, so I'll kick in on sprawl.

Sprawl isn't a big problem where I live quite yet... though give it a few years, and it will be. It's just starting to get out of hand. But when I lived in Minneapolis, I had to drive through enough of it every day.
And Minneapolis is far from the worst city for sprawl.

The biggest problem with sprawl is the traffic mess it causes. Mile after mile of 35mph zones, loads of traffic lights, and dangerous exits to narrow frontage roads. You can drive for an hour, and not get very far because of the restricted speeds and stoplights. Traffic backs up at every light. And accidents rates go up as people run lights, make erratic lane changes to get to Pier One without going an extra block, and people speed up and slow down every 1/8th of a mile for each light. As sprawl extends, and more people enter the area for stores at the far end, the traffic volume ends up far higher than the road was ever intended for, making the problem even worse. And if you're unlucky enough to work at a place in or near sprawl, good luck getting to and from work in a reasonable time. Sprawl ends up being a huge traffic bottleneck.

Then there's the "environmental" issues. Not so much the habitat lost and all that. That's a problem, but everyone knows it. Probably the bigger problem is wastewater runoff. Parking lots don't absorb heavy rain very well. Not at all, in fact. So what once was fields that soaked up rain now is a shield that makes rainwater run off. Add up all the rain that falls on all those acres and acres of parking lots, and you've got a LOT of water that's going to go SOMEWHERE. Probably somewhere we don't want it. And more and more it's overwhelming storm systems. That gives you two problems. One is the urban flash flooding that results when the water has no place to go and ends up flooding streets, and the other is where the water ends up afterward. All that water ends up at your water treatment plant, which probably isn't eqipped to deal with it.

A few times in the last few years cities like Milwaukee have had more incoming storm water than the water treatment plant can handle. That results in an overflow, at which point water in the plant is dumped directly into the nearest stream or river before it's been treated, so the plant can accept the incoming water. That wouldn't be too bad, except that often that water isn't stormwater, it's raw sewage that escapes the system into rivers. Yum. Does wonders for the fish. Does wonders for the groundwater that ends up being our drinking water, doesn't it? Yum again.

Without all those parking lots, much of the stormwater would have been absorbed by the soil, and the problem wouldn't be so bad. But hey, we can just drop a few tens of millions of dollars for more water treatment plants, right?

Hey, and that's without discussing the aesthetics or the cultural implications of urban sprawl. From a strictly logistical perspective it's an expensive, inefficient use of space.

But then, that's a uniquely American trait, isn't it? The inefficient, expensive use of space? Look at Texas! Heh.

[zenbooty]

Suburbia, the cultural result of urban spawl, is a cultural wasteland of absolutely nothing to do. I grew up in suburbia as a child, and at 18 took off as fast as I could and never looked back.

In the cities you have more musicians, more avante-gard cinema pushing the creative envelope, artists who make you look at the world from a new perspective, and a dense, competitive restaurant scene that promotes the best of each cuisine. Its humanity and capitalism at its finest, a dense community where culture abounds and their is enough general demand for every individual to be able to add something to the whole and find meaning in his life.

In the rural country, you can marvel at the wonders of nature and feel humbled by the greatness of creation. The air is fresh and clear, their are wide open spaces of soft grassy ground to run and play upon, and an abundance of trees, hills, and rock formations to climb, explore, and exercise around. The natural landscapes and landmarks are great creative fodder for a young child's imagination, as is the abundance of woodland creatures and wildlife in general. Oh, and rivers and lakes make for great play areas as well. Is it any wonder people from the country tend to be larger, stronger, and healthier, and have healthier appetites, than either their urban or suburban counterparts?

In suburbia, you've got jack. You live in a world of atomic families living in separate little existences. What culture you have comes primarily from the TV, radio, internet, or the top forty section of Barnes and Noble. In other words, suburban culture is pop-culture, which is vapid, vacuous, and easily manipulated by those who control access to the limited number of media outlets that exist there. The cultural center for suburban youth is usually hanging out by the 7-11 or equivalent, or getting into trouble with booze or vandalism because there is simply nothing constructive to do. No one cares what you could provide culturally or constructively to the community in suburbia, because deep down every household is a separate entity, existing independently of its neighbors and feeding itself on poisoned chain foods, poisoned, mindless TV programs, poisoned, angry, childish top 40 radio, and often a greedy, envious, poisonous existence attempting to "keep up with the Joneses," by satisfying the great hole in one's life through purchasing the next big item to come into style.

Just my $.02

[Ice-9]

Nicely put, both of you. As another child of suburbia, I've been completely alienated by it - I refuse to live in a suburban/sprawl area again, at least for the currently forseeable future. Aside from that, I'm not sure what I can add to this discussion other than a "nice going" to Jase and zen.

[TheLoneGunman]

Great explanations by the other anti-sprawlers...

Let me present some other issues AGAINST sprawl:

Are you against drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and/or off the coast of California? If yes, whatever your reason (besides the "no need for oil") is your personal reason against sprawl. If no one cared about sprawl, then Alaska would look just like a very cold NYC.

Do you enjoy breathing? If we got rid of large amounts of greenery, what would convert all of our carbon dioxide to oxygen?

Do you enjoy diverse animal populations? Where will most animals live if we pave over their habitats? I generally side with the coyotes and against house pets when people build houses in the middle of wildlife habitats. After all, the coyotes are only doing what comes naturally. Just as your wouldn't climb into the lion habit at the zoo, why would you build your house in the middle of the coyote habitat?

There are plenty of other reasons, but hopefully these are some you can personally relate to.

[OC]

Alright - f*ck it, I'll weigh in. I am anti-sprawl. Here's why:

It's cheaper to build up than out. This means that a 150 unit apartment or condo building is cheaper to make than a 150-unit single family structure neighborhood. I already can't afford a house, so there.

More sprawl means more traffic. Traffic sucks WAY too much in the Seattle area, and I'm ready to GTFO.

It means more pavement. For the record I am NOT a tree-hugger, but it'd be nice to NOT have to travel for 45 minutes to get to a good hiking trail. The line from Big Yellow Taxi comes to mind - they paved Paradise and put in a parking lot. (ever say, Oh look! A building! ?)

Mini-malls. OMG, aaarrrggghh!

I live in a suburb of Seattle where there is exactly NOTHING to do on a Friday night. The best thing to do is go down to Seattle, which is fun. For recreation, suburbs just suck.

Has anyone else noticed that Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, San Jose, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Cupertino, Los Altos, Campbell, Redwood City, et al All look the same?!?!?! No wonder I left.

Sprawl doesn't HAVE to be bad. In and around New York City, they have the subway. Makes getting around way easy. Try THAT in Seattle, or the San Francisco Bay Area. (Yes, yes, I know - you have BART. This is my impressed look. :|)

-OC

[Edited by overclocked on 04-24-2001 at 12:04 AM]

[sbp]

Suburbs :thumbup:

[fakesurfers]

These are all good arguments and I thank you for taking the time. Let us begin with the fact that our cities are growing, and the people have to go somewhere. Sunbelt and western cities are growing faster so the growth in those cities will be disproportionate.

Now, in my city houses near the center of the metro area (i.e. in town) will cost from 3 to 10+ times as much as a house 20 minutes up the freeway. I want my piece of the 'American dream' and I will do what it takes to get it (including drive an extra 20 minutes to work). I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way. I feel the agenda of the anti-sprawl groups at it's core is elitist. Good thoughtful people are drawn in by their arguments. The key is the: 'I have mine, dont let anyone else in.'

The other argument is schools. I agree that something has to be done with our failing schools, most of which are in the city. What I dont want is for my kid(s) to get a crappy education while a commission studies it and negotiates with the unions. These so called areas of sprawl often have great schools, with lower taxes.

Jase: Your argument about the traffic mess is a non-starter. The people will be there irregardless. Poor planning causes traffic snarls. In a compact city the traffic would be increased. Heavy traffic is a way of life, and will be, because to many cities have followed a 'if we don't build it, they wont come' attitude.

As to the water issue, again, when developed responsibly this can be minimized. Most of this is due to businesses. Very few single family homes have more than 25% non-permeable cover on their lots. What causes this is the big superstores and malls and apartment buildings. Regulation of these types of building would at least mitigate the problem.

Zen: I agree that cities are great places to visit, but should I have to live there? I can live 20 minutes from the city limits and still get most of these cultural benefits without having to put bars on my windows or worrying about my kid(s) getting mugged on the way to school. If one lives a vapid sluggish life, it has nothing to do with one's location. You can have all the joy of the city without any problems.

TLG: These are great arguments if sprawl is taken to the extreme, but I'm not assuming that. The people have to be somewhere. Our country is growing rather quickly and there is nothing we can do about that. If we plan for it, we can minimize the environmental detriments, but make no mistake: they're coming.

OC: I appreciate your honesty. That's the attitude of many people. 'I have to live in an apartment, so should everyone else,' is the sentiment. The anti-sprawl movement has some strange bedfellows indeed: the have-nots and the have-everythings, Rockefeller Republicans and Urban Democrats.

SBP :confused:

I think the anti-sprawl movement is Unamerican, undemocratic, and profoundly against the middle class. I will not be forced to live in an apartment. I think that any politician that claims to be anti-sprawl had better watchout. There is a huge undercurrent that supports sprawl, they just dont know it.

The people are coming, you cant stop it. The only thing you can do is try to manage it or channel it. Avoiding it by saying 'Sprawl bad' will only makes things worse.

(and no, I'm not playing Devil's Advocate, I really am pro-sprawl)

[jase71]

Originally posted by fakesurfers

Jase: Your argument about the traffic mess is a non-starter. The people will be there irregardless. Poor planning causes traffic snarls. In a compact city the traffic would be increased. Heavy traffic is a way of life, and will be, because to many cities have followed a 'if we don't build it, they wont come' attitude.

But the traffic WON'T be there "irregardless". People are drawn to the stores, to the restaurants, and to the strip malls. If those places weren't there, traffic would be dramatically reduced. All you would have is traffic for the local residential areas, which would be a small percentage of what it otherwise would be.

The other problem with sprawl and traffic is that traffic is very difficult to fix in a "sprawl" situation. In a compact city, public transportation like buses and subways can offset or alleviate the need to drive. Traffic may be heavy, but driving is far from your only option. In fact, most of what you need may be within easy walking distance.

In a sprawl situation, everything is obviously spread out.
This makes public and mass transportation inefficient and impractical, thus requiring everyone to drive, thus exacerbating traffic problems. For example, traffic is often worse in suburban communities of Milwaukee, like Waukesha, than it is right downtown. These outlying towns weren't designed with these traffic levels in mind.

Compact cities also don't have to deal with the huge migration of traffic in to town in the morning, and out of town in the evening.



As to the water issue, again, when developed responsibly this can be minimized. Most of this is due to businesses.


The problem is, with sprawl, responsible development is very rare. Suburbs and outlying communities don't have the resources to set up and control development when they're being overtaken by sprawl. What ends up happening is "anything goes". If it WERE done properly, it would be much less of a problem. But in these days of tax cuts, slashing budgets, and deregulation, forcing responsible development is even less likely to happen than it was 5 years ago.

This seems to me to be the flip side of the schools issue.
If inner schools were properly maintained, you wouldn't have to move to the suburbs to get a better school, would you? And fixing inner city schools is probably an easier solution than trying to regulate outlying developments.



Very few single family homes have more than 25% non-permeable cover on their lots. What causes this is the big superstores and malls and apartment buildings. Regulation of these types of building would at least mitigate the problem.


I have much less of a problem with residential sections on the outskirts of cities. They cause far fewer traffic problems, other than the morning and evening migration. As you note, they also are less likely to have huge paved areas to cause runoff problems.

It's the light commercial sections that follow along that drive me nuts. Acre after acre of parking lots for Pottery Barns, and Best Buys, and Barnes and Nobles, and Walmarts.
McDonalds, and Hardees, and TGI Fridays. That's what draws the traffic. That's what causes the runoff problems.

It's cheaper to locate out there for businesses. So they do. And the poor outlying communities don't have the dollars to regulate it, or the lawyers to fight for them if they DO regulate. So they succumb, and again, anything goes.

Let's stretch this out 50 years. Already in some cities you see what once was sprawl now is burned out, neglected, depressed areas because the outward spread has passed the area by. The sprawl moves farther and farther out, and the areas closer to the center wither and die. It's like a tree trunk rotting from the inside out. And when things get bad in your neighborhood, rather than helping fix them, everyone just packs up, and moves even farther out, leaving behind those too poor to move. Drive from most areas of sprawl toward the city center, and before you get to the city, you'll drive through a zone of boarded up gas stations, closed stores, weed grown parking lots, and liquor stores. That once was sprawl.

So we end up with wealthy suburbs, and decaying city centers where there are no jobs, because the jobs have all moved out to the sprawl.

I dunno. It just seems to me like tossing your garbage in the garage, rather than taking it out, and then just buying a new house when the garage fills up, rather than dealing with the problem.

If we DEALT with a lot of urban problems, cities could be GREAT places to live. Instead, we just ignore the urban problems, and move on out to Hampton Acres.

[fakesurfers]

The problem is: I cant afford to live in the city even if I wanted to. I have to live outside the city if I want ot buy a house. Now, which is worse, driving across town to buy dvd's or eat Taco Bell or them building one near me? Now, multiply that by 10,000 or 100,000 or 1 million. Which is worse for the environment?

As to the schools: we have known that our schools suck for years. American students were getting their asses whooped by international students when I was in first grade. You know what? They havent fixed it. Why should I think they'll fix inner city schools now? And why gamble with my kid(s) future? It's all well and good in the theoretical, but the central city as a homeowner, you pay more for less. Why should I? I'm sure I could find a Playstation 1 for 800$, but I'm not going to buy it.

Do you live in the city Jase?

[TheLoneGunman]

Perhaps I am a bit harsh and maybe even be perceived as ethnocentric (the classy way to say racist), but the problem is:

PEOPLE WHO CAN ILL-AFFORD IT, MAKING BABIES!!!!!

If you went to a wealthy area, how many people have 3 kids, let alone 10 kids?

Now go to the slums and you see the human baby making machines.

All other animals are smart enough to know (or at least their biology works this way) that when they are low on space, they pop less babies out. This way, there is no need to sprawl.

You don't see bears wandering into a city down the road and setting up camp. They make do with the little space they have left. On those occasions when they do wander into town, it is only because the town is where their homes used to be. (Again we are imposing ourselves on them, not the other way around).

If we had zero population growth (which some European countries have) which means no more than 2 kids per couple, then we would not need more space.

As far as hiking trails, just imagine if everyone used them. Pretty soon, it would become overrun and we would have sprawled into nature again. That is why Clinton reserved huge blocks of wilderness that he would even allow access roads in. This way it can't "accidentally" be built up and overrun.

[jase71]

Originally posted by fakesurfers
The problem is: I cant afford to live in the city even if I wanted to. I have to live outside the city if I want ot buy a house. Now, which is worse, driving across town to buy dvd's or eat Taco Bell or them building one near me? Now, multiply that by 10,000 or 100,000 or 1 million. Which is worse for the environment?

Ahah... see, we have other problems here.

Affordable housing! There's an urban problem, that if solved, would take care of many of your issues, wouldn't it?

If there was affordable housing, you wouldn't have to drive across town to go to Taco Bell or to buy a DVD. You could live in affordable housing, and be very close to both of them. If we had affordable housing, all those 10,000, or 100,000 or 1 million people wouldn't have to drive all over.

So we, as a society, created this whole sprawl nightmare just to solve the affordable housing problem (and a few others)? Wouldn't it have been easier to just deal with each individual problem? Instead, we just packed up, moved out, and left our problems for those who remained behind.
The ultimate consumerism, your living location as a disposable item.

We've created this whole sprawl nightmare to avoid solving problems. And we've created even bigger problems in doing so. Where does it end?



As to the schools: we have known that our schools suck for years. American students were getting their asses whooped by international students when I was in first grade. You know what? They havent fixed it. Why should I think they'll fix inner city schools now? And why gamble with my kid(s) future? It's all well and good in the theoretical, but the central city as a homeowner, you pay more for less. Why should I? I'm sure I could find a Playstation 1 for 800$, but I'm not going to buy it.

We haven't given many of the inner city schools the tools to fix their problems. Their buildings are falling apart. They get far less money per student than suburban schools.
They can't attract decent teachers because they can't pay them enough, and the teachers don't want to teach in that environment, especially not for the same or less money. And then we threaten them to straighten up or we'll cut their budgets. It's a downward spiral.

Let's face it, we don't really WANT to fix inner city schools. Because our kids don't go there. Our kids go to suburban schools. And why should we pay to fix up schools that our kids don't go to?

But I actually brought up schools as a counterpoint to your suggestion that communities should just regulate development. If a big city can't clean up a school when everyone is in favor of it, how on earth can we expect a small community to regulate development when companies with lots of lawyers and lots of dollars are fighting them every step of the way? Cleaning up schools is a SIMPLE task in relation to controlling the development of sprawl. And regulating development you suggested was a critical element in an earlier post. We replaced a difficult problem with an even MORE difficult one.

Wouldn't it have just been simpler and more cost effective, and a greater benefit to all, to fix the schools RIGHT, than it is to fight all those endless court battles because Home Depot and Walmart don't like the zoning laws of communities?



Do you live in the city Jase?

At the moment, not really. I live a block from the hospital in Wausau, Wisconsin, a community of 50,000.
I'm in an old residential section, near the edge of town, but not a recent development or suburb.

Prior to living here I lived in Minneapolis in an apartment not too far from U of M.

And I grew up in a small town of 1500 people.

So I've seen both ends of the spectrum, and the middle as well.

[OC]

Originally posted by TheLoneGunman
Perhaps I am a bit harsh and maybe even be perceived as ethnocentric (the classy way to say racist), but the problem is:

PEOPLE WHO CAN ILL-AFFORD IT, MAKING BABIES!!!!!

If you went to a wealthy area, how many people have 3 kids, let alone 10 kids?
Now go to the slums and you see the human baby making machines.

I don't see this as racist at all. I see just as many poor caucasian families with way too many kids as I do non-whites. Sex is cheap entertainment and birth control costs money.


All other animals are smart enough to know (or at least their biology works this way) that when they are low on space, they pop less babies out. This way, there is no need to sprawl.

You don't see bears wandering into a city down the road and setting up camp. They make do with the little space they have left. On those occasions when they do wander into town, it is only because the town is where their homes used to be. (Again we are imposing ourselves on them, not the other way around).

I agree with you here. We humans are very arrogant creatures when it comes to dealing with nature. It should bend to our will and stop being a bother instead of us integrating our existence with it.


If we had zero population growth (which some European countries have) which means no more than 2 kids per couple, then we would not need more space.

Another agreement. I view it as wrong to have more than two kids. If I remember right, the population of this planet has tripled in my lifetime. There's just no way the Earth can keep up with that.


As far as hiking trails, just imagine if everyone used them. Pretty soon, it would become overrun and we would have sprawled into nature again. That is why Clinton reserved huge blocks of wilderness that he would even allow access roads in. This way it can't "accidentally" be built up and overrun.

I have to shoot you down here. The general population of this country is getting fatter and more out of shape all the time, so I am very much in the minority when I say I want easy access to a hiking trail - hence, there's no way that "everyone" will start using them.

[OC]

There are some decent arguments here from both sides. I do see a common thread however. The pro-sprawlers are trying to come from the argument "when done correctly....". The problem is that sprawl is hardly ever done correctly. They just level the land, put up buildings, and pave what is left. The anti-sprawlers are also coming from the same "when done correctly" idea. If sprawl were done in the right manner we'd likely all be on the same side.

I am anti-sprawl because it is largely not done in a manner which is beneficial to me, my neighborhood, and the environment.

A new development goes in - they put up a Wal-Mart or Safeway - and now my neighborhood store is forced to close. Now I HAVE to get in my car and drive to do my shopping, where before I could walk. Aside from slightly lower prices there is no benefit to me whatsoever.

To put in another development they pave over a park where kids play every day. What do the kids do now?

In the San Francisco Bay Area and the LA area there are hardly any trees at all. It's very easy to ignore the needs of the environment when you never get to see nature around you.

This is just twisted - buying a house 60 miles from where you work just cuz you can afford it. What about your new 60-120 minute commute? What are the costs of that? Less time with your family, huge increase in gasoline usage, the basic frustraion of dealing with traffic, etc.

Ok - enough of the problems. How about some solutions?

First - corporations wield too much power. They need to be cut down to size. The same companies that have no loyalty to their employees are the same companies that want to put in more poorly planned "developments", and we all suffer for it.

It's just amazing how many jobs can be done from home, but the employer won't allow it. Telephone tech support? Home. Inside telephone sales? Home. Computer programming? Home. Technical writing? Home. My point is that we have very few freedoms when it comes to how we do our jobs. I'd like to see this change. Imagine the extra freedom and satisfaction if more of our lives could revolve around where we live, instead of leaving our expensive houses empty during the day.

Anyone else?

-OC

[TheLoneGunman]

When done properly...

I think that when it is done properly, it is not referred to as "sprawl"

Years ago, I lived in Irvine, CA which at least started out as a "planned" community. The Irvine Company (which owned all the land and still controls most of the town and it's politics) would build up sub-communities a little at a time. They would add planned "green-belts" and parks along with certain amounts of public works and business development so the population could be fairly self sustaining. By exercising strong controls (similar to a socialist government) certain things can be mandated and preserved.

In a way, this is saying that capitalism hurts the wilderness and in a way it does. If McDonalds wants to buy someone's farmland or woodland in order to build a store, they will likely agree as immediate cash outweighs any emotional benefit of keeping it pristine. Once McDonalds comes in, then Burger King will want to buy the woods next door so they can compete. The next guy will sell out figuring it is inevitable anyway.

I worked for some very, very, very rich people a while back and what they did (through the WWF -- the animal fund not the wrestling federation!!) was to bribe the local populations to NOT develop the land and so they could keep it safe for others. It was an interesting approach but still it was capitalistic

[apmiller]

I grew up in the burbs. At the time if you wanted something you had to drive for it. In the last 15 years there has been a SPRAWL bomb set off. Now there is at least 4 Target stores within a 5min drive in every direction. If I need a cup of joe I can chooes from over 15 Carabo Coffee locations all within 5mins. All the Ma and Pa stores have been pushed out. You can get friendly service anywhere anymore.
One area just a 3-4 miles from me has grown so much so fast that I don't think anybody realized that there are 34 sit down resturants, 2 coffe shops, 1 book store, two video stores (side by side mind you) two big food stores and about 12 clothing stores all in this area. You can also find 2 mega movie theaters, 12 fast food places and only TWO gas stations.
The area use to be all wide open with nothing there not more than 6 years ago. AND they are still building more stores! You might as well call it the new Mall of America, all the stores may stand under they're own roofs but you have everything you could ever need there.

I can't really say I'm 100% against Sprawling since I do shop in those areas all the time, but it really does hurt the eyes to look at. It's just a mess. Instead of building away all the usable land why not just build a stupid mall there in the first place. (Though they are talking about putting a mall there along with that other crap) It would take up less space and less resources.

People want the4 convenince of it all but I guess I don't mind driving a little farther and wait in line a little longer so we don't go ripping apart all of our land for nothing. Instead of building a stupid store every 3miles from each other, why not just make it a little bigger to handle more customers and build one every 20miles.

I love shoppin at the malls! Everything under one roof! These sprawled out areas are just a pain and a waste of money!