Suburban Sprawl: A Public Health Issue?
	found on The Christian Science Monitor written by Clandestino, edited by John (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Mon 26 May 5:18am
		"The side-effect of the post WWII American love-affair with the automobile and need for space to make the Baby Boom, the suburb has been portrayed as both a part of the American Dream and a part of everything that was wrong about it. Their tendency to expand exponentially, their reliance on cars for transportation, and their exclusionary nature have made the suburbs targets for urban planners, in particular the burgeoning New Urbanism movement," Clandestino writes. "New Urbanism, loosely defined, advocates communities built on the human-scale, with less reliance on automobile transport and greater emphasis on mass-transit, and with more concentrated development encouraging businesses and offices to be within walking distance of residential areas. Also key are its ideas of Smart Growth, or limiting expansion, so that the area maintains its decidedly anti-auto character. To encourage their ideas, New Urbanists are taking a new approach: treating suburban sprawl as a public health hazard. Last year, the Sierra Club issued an article, 'Ten Reasons Why Sprawl Is Hazardous to Your Health.' And in an April 2003 article of the Washington Monthly, Phillip J. Longman writes that the combined ills of the suburbs' automobile-dependency, including car accidents, lack of exercise, stress, self-medication, and social-isolation contribute to a collective public health crisis. The problem of lack of exercise alone, he claims, costs taxpayers $76.6 billion a year.

	"The new approach is apparently working, as some suburban communities are beginning to embrace less automobile-dependent planning and zoning laws. Colin Woodward writes for the Christian Science Monitor that Dunstan Crossing, a new subdivision development in the town of Scarborough, Maine, will incorporate New Urbanism's ideas of higher-density housing, more open space, and perhaps most importantly, a more walkable community. The development bucks the trend throughout state of Maine, whose largest city, Portland, was named the city hit hardest by urban sprawl by the Brookings Institute, and whose rural areas were converted into suburbs, growing at a rate of ten-percent. "Not everyone is happy with the ideas of New Urbanism, or its attempts to link urban planning with public health. The libertarian Reason Public Policy Institute's Chris Fiscelli issued an article, Smart Growth Type's Dumb Rhetoric that the emphasis on limiting growth is "social engineering" and that New Urbanists should "stop trying to kill the American Dream." Furthermore Most of us aren't foolish enough to believe that a particular community design is the answer to complex pollution or health problems. And we work long and hard so that we can afford to choose how, and where, we want to live. For some of us, that means living it up in Newport Beach. For others, that means life in a planned community in Brea or Irvine. And for a lot of us, it simply means getting away from downtown and having a house with a small yard. It's what we've dreamed of. "Is Fiscelli right? Does the right to live where we damned well please override public health? Or are the New Urbanists correct in stating that we should encourage walkable communities, because it's what we want anyway?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 104 commentsbest: 18 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  The case of Louvain-la-Neuve   by somebaudy       at Mon 26 May 6:19am score of 1     Louvain-la-neuve is a town built from scratch in the early seventies. French-speaking students were no longer welcome in the flemish-speaking city of Leuven. The University decided to move to a brand new city. The center of the city is entirely for the pedestrians. The first thing one does when arriving in Louvain-la-neuve (LLN for short) is finding a parking spot. It does not make this city less attractive, quite the contrary. LLN is a place where many families would like to live, making it a place where houses are expensive. There are several "new towns" near Paris as well but I don't known if they are car-friendly, all-pedestrian or somewhere between these two attitudes. [sig]"insert something witty here"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Topic skewing 101   by rdww       at Mon 26 May 7:03am score of 2 incoherent     "Does the right to live where we damned well please override public health?" The first rule of effective editorial bias is that, if you get to frame the questions, you don't have to worry about the answers.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Problem   by flightrisk       at Mon 26 May 7:08am score of 2.5 astute     New Urbanism has always been a tough sell. We can bitch and moan about how suburbs are a cancer to our countrysides, but the real problem is that the average American wants suburbs. When selling doesn't work, why not try scaring them? The Sierra Club's top ten list of why sprawl is hazardous (linked in the story), while commendable in it's attempt, is laughably out of touch. Let's reexamine their top 10 list, but thinking about cities instead: 1. It's stressful. 2. It scars your lungs. 3. It's toxic. 4. It spreads disease. 5. It's treacherous. 6. It pollutes your water. 7. It limits your food choices. 8. It empties your wallet. 9. It can kill you. 10. It's fattening. Except for 7 and 10, this list covers exactly what the average American hates about cities, not suburbs. Add to that the perceived threat from crime, gangs, drugs, and it's easy to see why the average American flees to the suburbs, especially come child-rearing time. It's a bit ludicrous to try and argue that a little house on a cul-de-sac is more stressful or toxic than living in a tiny fifth floor walkup where you're kept awake by gunshots and garbage trucks.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Re: Problem   by eeksypeeksy       at Mon 26 May 8:26am score of 2 intriguing   in reply to comment 3     Whether or not the city is a good place to live (I like the city), suburbs could be made more human without turning them into cities. Build sidewalks and bicycle lanes where on-street parking would have been. (If you have a private vehicle, keep it on your private property.) Zone some corner lots for something other than houses: small drug stores, groceries, etc., with no (or very small) parking lots and no fancy lights, because you want locals to walk and bike there regularly and not to need blinking lights to attract them. Allow multi-family dwellings within certain size limits. Make safe routes for children to walk or bike to school. See about getting some light bus service into town so people aren't always jumping into the SUV just to park it downtown and walk. You could have all of this without whatever real or imagined threats the city conjures for you.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   6.  Re: Problem   by wka       at Mon 26 May 8:44am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 5     ...where on-street parking would have been. Some New Urbanists like the idea of on-street parking. The authors of Suburban Nation actually encourage parallel, on-street parking because it increases pedestrian safety (or the perception thereof). First, it slows traffic down on the street (whereas wide, empty streets encourage speed). Second, some pedestrians feels safer walking on the sidewalk when there's a 2-ton steel barrier in the form of a line of parked cars between them and the traffic on the street.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Problem   by flightrisk       at Mon 26 May 2:44pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 5     suburbs could be made more human without turning them into cities Actually, that's precisely why I think New Urbanism will fail. It's an attempt to graft good urban features onto messy suburban branches. Developers are just haphazardly plopping these New Urbanism developments into the middle of sprawling suburbs, and expecting them to blossom. But these developments attract people who are already a lost cause — people who have automobiles, and jobs nearby which require automobiles to get to. Once a majority of your residents have automobiles, public transportation is an extremely tough sell. People who have automobiles will plan around lack of parking. Your assumption is that these neighborhood stores which lack parking will force people to walk. I respectfully disagree, and wager that most suburban people would rather drive fifteen minutes and park at the gigantic TarMart and its lower prices than walk five minutes to the neighborhood store. No matter how hard you try, our suburbs don't have a viable center to keep people on foot. Thus, I think we should be trying to organically grow off our existing cities so that people want to be part of it, instead of trying to plunk public transportation and stores where they'll never succeed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   7.  Re: Problem   by eeksypeeksy       at Mon 26 May 9:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Some New Urbanists like the idea of on-street parking. And I see their point. But if you have to devote your own property to parking and displaying your own cars, you take a lot more responsibility for the size and number and appearance of them. Ideally, this would reduce the number of unneeded vehicles. Meanwhile, you free that wasted street space for bike lanes and sidewalks that bring the place back to human scale. If cars are too fast and reckless, some combination of traffic calming methods can be applied. Space is limited, and if you want bike lanes and sidewalks, something has to go. That should be on-street parking.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Problem   by Jelly       at Mon 26 May 10:33am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 7     The reason to put the parking on street is to reduce the overwhelming presence of the garage and driveway that prevails so much in suburbia. Garages take up a huge amount of space on a lot. Getting rid of them, or making them smaller allows the houses to be closer together, increasing density. Increased density allows the whole neighborhood to be built on a more pedestrian friendly scale. Plus on-street parking increases more casual interactions between neighbors. How many times does someone see one of their neighbors while getting out of their car in an attached garage?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: Problem   by astrogirl       at Mon 26 May 11:17am score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 7     Celebration, FL, often given as an example of new urbanism, went with alleys instead of driveways as a solution to the problem. This way, the front porches are people space and the houses are close enough together that people do know their neighbors. Front yards meet together, uninterrupted by driveways. And if I am elected I promise the formation of a new party, a third party, the Wild Party!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Problem   by Jojo       at Mon 26 May 1:01pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Second, some pedestrians feels safer walking on the sidewalk when there's a 2-ton steel barrier in the form of a line of parked cars between them and the traffic on the street. I can see the validity of those points, however, onstreet parking also makes it more dangerous for kids crossing the road, as approaching drivers cannot see them lurking between the cars, and they sometimes cannot see the approaching car. I'd rather have garages (protect my car from bird poop!) or as Astrogirl points out, alleyways leading to garages.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Problem   by pattonbt       at Mon 26 May 6:01pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Alleys have their own problems too. The road surfaces are usually poorly maintained and murder on cars. They tend to be poorly lit and become "unsafe" after dark. They tend to be poorly groomed or littered with trash/trash cans. They almost give people an excuse not take take care of "the backside" of the house "'cause no ones gonna set it". Out of sight out of mind. Now I grew up with alleys and would prefer to have them, all the negatives aside, but many people I know hate or even fear their alley-way.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Problem   by eeksypeeksy       at Tue 27 May 3:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     The reason to put the parking on street is to reduce the overwhelming presence of the garage and driveway that prevails so much in suburbia. If a car doesn't need a garage on the street, it doesn't need one off the street. And by eliminating on-street parking, the total amount of asphalt (whether driveway or on-street parking) should be about the same. What changes is that the owner of the property becomes responsible for building and maintaining parking for each vehicle. Perhaps the property owner would hesitate to buy yet another vehicle if it meant having to give up yet another piece of private lawn (or garden or whatever) instead of always counting on finding a free space somewhere along the street.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: Problem   by irrahe       at Tue 27 May 8:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 33     Or perhaps, in the case of on-street parking, the car-owner will hesitate to buy another vehicle if it means that, street parking being tight as it is, they will either have to circle the blocks for an additional half hour looking for a spot close to home, or park a couple blocks away and walk. In either case, they could come to the conclusion that the time saved or effort exerted might just be better spent by walking to the public transportation stop. This is assuming that there is one reasonably close by — which is the real problem of the 'burb: no alternate to the car. Intergalactic Planetary   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   81.  Disneyland is the answer   by Kardath       at Tue 27 May 3:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 44     Yes, Disneyland. Bear with me here. A few years ago I was visiting the park as part of a conference. I stayed in one of the ludicrously overpriced hotels. And once I looked past all the saccharin crap, I realized I was in my ideal neighborhood. Ignore for a moment all that is evil (annoying) about Disney and consider: Usable public transportation — Buses ran every 10 minutes to every spot on the park. Housing mixed with shopping — The caribean themed hotel I stayed at was arranged as a ring around a lake. On one side of the lake was a gift shop/restaraunt/swimming pool strip mall. All hotel rooms were an easy 5 minute walk away. Cars were verbotten. — Parking was close to the hotel rooms, but kept strictly outside the pedestrian areas. Walking paths were everywhere — I mean everywhere. Well laid out, easy direct paths as well as meandering alternate routes. Why can't someone apply the same to the real world? The population density was about the same as the condo I live in now. The landscaping was better, but not that much better. There's no reason I couldn't build the same community in any city. (Aside from the truly excellent busing) So why doesn't it exist outside of Disney?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   82.  Re: Disneyland is the answer   by Jelly       at Tue 27 May 4:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 81     Well Disney has built it, so if you want to live in Central Florida, go nuts. If not, the rest of what you're talking about is essentially new urbanism. Cars aren't forbidden, but they certainly are de-emphasized. Heck, there is probably a development near you.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   92.  Re: Problem   by born sleepy       at Tue 27 May 7:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     most of the new suburban housing I see have the garage as the most prominent architectural feature. ugh. I looked at a small house last year in St. Paul in a new urban neighborhood (I don't know what was there before) where the (detached) garages were behind the house and accessed via alleys just like the old city houses. out front were full-width porches and your neighbors out walking dogs, doing yardwork, etc, and not hiding behind security systems in their 27-peaks-roof McMansion out in Eagan or some other insular Twin Cities 'burb. their loss, I suppose. I didn't buy the house at the time because I really couldn't afford it at the time, though I kinda wish I had and roughed it for a few years. oh well... I couldn't fix your brakes, so I made your horn louder.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   94.  Re: Problem   by astrogirl       at Wed 28 May 6:54am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Whenever I see housing prices in the Minneapolis area, I am shocked. Furthermore, I keep thinking the housing market has to have topped out, and I keep being wrong — prices just keep creeping up, at least in the Washington DC area, which is, admittedly, not really like anywhere else. And if I am elected I promise the formation of a new party, a third party, the Wild Party!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: Problem   by gonzocanuck       at Mon 26 May 10:21am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 3     I really expect better from the Sierra Club. I can agree with #6, #7 and #10, but have a hard time with the others, especially #9. It's like...please...one probably has a better chance of falling down the stairs than being hit by a car! There are inner city neighbourhoods here that are far more toxic than any suburb — one where an oil plant blew up and the other that was built on the site of a former Esso plant. It's a bit ludicrous to try and argue that a little house on a cul-de-sac is more stressful or toxic than living in a tiny fifth floor walkup where you're kept awake by gunshots and garbage trucks. Exactly :-D I was prepared to become isolated and perhaps bored in the burbs. And maybe even take up a drinking problem a la Marge Simpson. But the opposite happened. I never thought I would say this, but I enjoy looking out my kitchen window and watching children fly kites or play soccer in the park. The most amazing thing of all is saying "Hello!" to someone and getting a hello right back. It's strange to no longer be on the defensive all the time. I think the best way for any city to lure families back would be to re-invest in older neighbourhoods and make them attractive instead of pulling services. Make owning a home more affordable so that people don't have to rent and move around (housing prices here are sky-high). There are a couple of inner city neighbourhoods that are on the renewal and one that is pretty trendy to live in right now. Urban renewal can happen, but it requires a lot. Besides the investment, it also requires people to care about themselves, their property and other people. You've got to coax him slow, that's the only way that he'll confess.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Problem   by wka       at Mon 26 May 11:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     It's like...please...one probably has a better chance of falling down the stairs than being hit by a car! Automobiles lead to many, many deaths in the USA. Looking at WHO mortality data for 1999, the most recent year available, shows that 41,000 people were killed in traffic accidents, while 13,000 were killed by accidental falls.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Problem   by Jeffrey W. Baker       at Mon 26 May 12:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     It's like...please...one probably has a better chance of falling down the stairs than being hit by a car! Not if you are talking about the USA. In 2000, according to the National Center for Health Statistics Mortality Data 43,354 people died in traffic accidents and only 13,322 died from falling. The CDC claims 74,220 pedestrians were hit by cars in 1998. No data is presented for non-fatal falls down stairs. The CDC also claims that 52% of pedestrians struck by vehicles at night were drunk. It is imperative for the benefit of humanity that we build cities where it is safe to stumble home drunk in the middle of the night without having to dodge cars. Rally around the cause, Plasticians!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Problem   by Between The Lines       at Mon 26 May 12:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     Being "hit by a car" and "being killed in a traffic accident" are obviously different. Similarly, "falling down the stairs" and "dying during an accidental fall" aren't the same. I'd venture to say that a higher percentage of people hit by cars will die than those who fall down stairs, so the 13,000 would be a low estimate, since they all died by falling. If the 41,000 deaths (I bet a lot were in car crashes) includes hit pedestrians, then one probably does have a better chance of falling down the stairs. Your Karma ran over my Dogma   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: Problem   by wka       at Mon 26 May 12:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 18     Being "hit by a car" and "being killed in a traffic accident" are obviously different. Similarly, "falling down the stairs" and "dying during an accidental fall" aren't the same. Agreed. But the poster seemed to be commenting about item 9 on the Sierra Club list: "It can kill you. The more you have to drive the more likely you'll be one of 43,000 annual traffic fatalities." Thus, I took the "hit by a car" and "falling down the stairs" statements to imply death and not just injury (or else the poster's argument would have been a bit of a non sequitur).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: Problem   by gonzocanuck       at Tue 27 May 9:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 20     Hi wka, that is what I meant :-) I didn't phrase it very well — I was trying to allude how statistics can be used to scare people. What I wanted to illustrate was that yes, you can venture outside and get killed by a car, but you can also stay inside and break your neck by falling down the stairs as well :-D I didn't think so many people would actually find statistics or dig too deeply into my haphazard comment :-D You've got to coax him slow, that's the only way that he'll confess.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  point of no return?   by timnet       at Mon 26 May 8:07am score of 2 interesting     As a person who lives in a city and enjoys the vibrancy of urban spaces, I have a bias here. But I can't help but wonder if it is already too late to reverse the suburbanization trend. My community is typical of many small cities — instead of investing our living room (as urban planners call downtowns), most developers are building onto the house instead, with much of the local growth being in sprawling strip malls to the east of the city. Parking and more relaxed zoning are two of the biggest reasons most developers cite. There's nothing pretty about acres and acres of concrete, and throwing up one ugly big-box store after another won't make any town more aesthetically pleasing. But this is happening mainly because of profit consideration and because this is the track record of "success" lauded by the Wal-Marts of the world. Bigger is better. Strength in volume. Put out a retiree greeter, and **poof**, we're providing all the charm of your neighborhood drugstore, right? Too many people stood idly by and watched this happen, not the least of them local governments who were so desperate for additional tax base that they would allow anyone to come in and do anything if it somehow enhanced local coffers. It's easy to see that any Rust Belt town would prefer some development to no development, but once the genie is out of the bottle (or in the local strip mall), you're going to have a harder time convincing businesses that they are better off settling for the limited parking and smaller spaces of downtown. This doesn't mean communities shouldn't try. One thing on the rise around here is making use of second- or third-story downtown spaces for apartments and lofts so there is a built-in constituency for restaurants and stores. You look at Ithaca as one place doing this well, while the Armory Square section of Syracuse is moving in the right direction (when it isn't taking the occasional two steps back). I don't know what the answer is, short of a huge marketing/advertising push to convince people that downtowns are where it's at. But, since the trend toward suburbanization and strip malls has had the upper hand for the last few decades, it would not be the easiest sales job. "I feel like I wouldn't like me if I met me." -- Tegan and Sara   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  choices choices...   by The Fuzz       at Mon 26 May 10:10am score of 1 irrelevant     Does the right to live where we damned well please override public health? I believe that Americans have the freedoms to choose to live wherever they want. So this means that they just have to live with the consequences, since they did, after all, choose to live there. If you decide to live in a crowded city, then deal with the pollution and things that come with it. This message brought to you via the internet in much the same way bricks aren't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Re: choices choices...   by snarkism       at Mon 26 May 7:47pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 8     If you decide to live in a crowded city, then deal with the pollution and things that come with it. What are you saying? That sub/urban residents should not have the power to mitigate the harm and change things for the better? This seems a little fatalistic — that we should all live with what our urban planning/corporate/retail/government overlords think we should live with? Why should people have no voice in determining the fate of their home area? Many people have no other choice BUT to live in urban areas, if they want a job. snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   105.  Re: choices choices...   by The Fuzz       at Wed 28 May 1:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     no, what i was trying to say was that if people live there but don't do anything to try and change it, they have no room to complain. the people who attempt to change things for the better have good reasons to, and they should keep on doing it. But if you live in a crowded city and don't try to change the pollution or anything, don't turn around to us and bitch about it. perhaps i didn't make it clear enough, and i'm sorry if you misunderstood. This message brought to you via the internet in much the same way bricks aren't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Sprawl sucks, Public Health sucks more   by Jonas Cord       at Mon 26 May 11:29am score of 1     The problem of suburbanization and sprawl is one that I think about often, given that I am a lifelong city dweller. I'm very compelled to support initiatives that deal with this — except if they're making use of the latest slippery-slope excuse for any and all legislation — public health. Living in the suburbs does not preclude living healthy. I would doubt that statistics would bear out that urban dwellers are much better off — I was under the impression that inner cities were in fact less healthy. So let's stop trying to hit each other with the bat of public health to justify our pet issues and move on, shall we? If you're looking for a real cost that can be pointed to, it's infrastructure. The roads, the plumbing, the electricity, new schools, and so forth. The more sprawl goes on, the more we pay. These, to my mind, are public issues of infrastructure, distinct from the private issue of health. There's an issue that can sell smart growth to urbanites and suburbanites alike. That is the urbanization of suburbs. Without controls on development — the quiet, the nature, the lack of traffic and congestion — the very compelling reasons to live in the suburbs in the first place — are quickly eroding. Property values are a compelling selling point in this regard. Meanwhile, I'm a little weary of New Urbanists, preferring unabashed regular Urbanism to the Toronto/Portland clean, uniform, and banal New Urbanism. I would go so far as to say that New Urbanism uses some very compelling arguments to sell some very arbitrary aesthetic judgements of their supporters. It's been my experience people do not leave cities because of architecture and planning — they leave because of lousy schools and crime. If we committed ourselves to not only fixing these urban problems, but excelling at them to the point where it is as safe to live in the City, and (heaven forbid!) the schools were actually better — we'd find suburbanites moving back, signage standards or not.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Re: Sprawl sucks, Public Health sucks more   by Jeffrey W. Baker       at Mon 26 May 11:54am score of 3 astute   in reply to comment 12     Crime is caused by bad architecture and planning: people leave because of the crime, and the schools are bad because all the resourceful people have left. See Detroit. The chief problem is that many areas people think of as urban should not be used as a model for any city. Crime in some inner cities is caused by bad inner cities. Dipshit zoning and planning put thousands of low-income residential units on a block with no industry, commerce, or entertainment nearby. Without those three nobody has a reason to walk to or through the neighborhood. Without people walking through the neighborhood (at all hours, ideally) the streets become unsafe. Crime takes hold, even fewer people visit that neighborhood, and the positive feedback loop is unstoppable. The answer is usually to rework or scrap zoning laws. Ever single block in a city should have homes, shops, offices, restaurants, and entertainment. A healthy neighborhood has foot traffic at all hours. It is impossible to rob someone in the presence of passers-by. Crime dissapears. San Francisco has made lots of bad planning decisions, but in most neighborhoods pedestrian traffic is quite heavy. There is virtually no violent crime in the majority of the city, especially compared to other American cities. Even shady neighborhoods like 6th Street and the Tenderloin are safe in fact, even though they don't look that way. It just isn't possible to get jacked for you wallet on a street with a hundred other people walking by.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Too Late!   by Jonas Cord       at Mon 26 May 1:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     ...people leave because of the crime, and the schools are bad because all the resourceful people have left.   That's 100% true. What I'm saying, however, is that we're going to have to solve these problems with the indigenous low-income populations exclusively — before any of the middle to upper classes will move back in. They won't move back based on a promise or a good urban plan. They'll be back when improvements are demonstrated. You're right to say that planning is integral to all of this — however, the infrastructure concerns in my mind are far, far greater than the plan. Inept policing, often far too sparse to deal with crime, is going to be a far larger factor in my mind than planning, at least at first. You're right about foot traffic at all hours making things safe — problem is, in the inner city, most suburbanites are terrified of the often large, late night crowds of inner city pedestrians, predominately minorities — despite the fact that these crowds make things safer than the quiet, barren side streets. You're right about mixed use, you're right about zoning. I'm not saying we shouldn't do those things. But far more insurmountable are other factors, which will have to be addressed. I say this because I've seen well intentioned, well designed urban development fail miserably.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  No doubt about the fat angle   by Jeffrey W. Baker       at Mon 26 May 11:36am score of 1.5 astute     There is no doubt in my mind that people living in sprawling automobile-based cities are just a lot fatter than people living in proper cities. I grew up in place like St. Petersburg (FL), Oklahoma City, El Paso, and Houston. Wherever you go in these cities (to interpret the word quite liberally) you see herds of disgusting Michelin-people. When I travel back to those cities to visit friends and family, I am always surprised by the magnitude of the average person climbing out of their F350 Super Duty (with most of the GVWR squandered on the passengers). Why am I surprised? I've spent my adult life in proper cities like San Francisco and New York, where chronic obesity hasn't taken hold. It is a pretty simple effect. People in New York actually have to walk down to the corner to get a Polish sausage. People in Houston climb in their trucks and drive there, then eat it in their cars. A little walking makes a big difference. If I walk a half-hour to work, I've given my heart a nice modest exercise. If my walk to work consists of the stretch between my car and my desk, I haven't done anything for my body (although I probably spent at least as long in transit as the walker). The suburbs just lack exercise in the daily routine. You have to go out of your way to join a gym or play sports to get your exercise. In a real city the exercise is built-in. Considering that obesity and lack of exercise are key health problems in the USA, I think urban design must be approached from the angle of public health and happiness.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Re: No doubt about the fat angle   by astrogirl       at Mon 26 May 12:10pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 13     I agree with you, as I experienced the effect myself. I used to live in Chicago. For the 10 years I worked full-time and lived there, I never drove to work (except for some rare special purpose). I got plenty of exercise merely as a consequence of my environment. In 1996, I moved to Washington DC and couldn't find work in town. I wound up driving to work and everywhere else, because walking was unpleasant, dangerous or inconceivable due to distance. I got quite fat, and I've spent the last three years getting un-fat. Now I know better. The suburbs just lack exercise in the daily routine. You have to go out of your way to join a gym or play sports to get your exercise. In a real city the exercise is built-in. Going out of your way takes precious time that people don't feel they have to spare. If you figure that most people spend 30 minutes in their car each way on top of a minimum of 8 hours at the office (and many spend considerably more than that in both activities), what time is left? And I'm talking about someone without kids that require carting to and from various activities. It's no wonder people eat so much junk food — who's got time to shop and cook much less actually *exercise*? Perhaps no small part of the problem is the fact that Americans spend so much time working. Stress causes all manner of illness, and work keeps us from spending time with our families...which creates more stress. People also change jobs more than ever in the past, and this makes it much harder to settle down somewhere near your office, costing you precious time commuting and giving no opportunity to walk to work. This is not a problem that can be legislated away, however. People must figure it out for themselves and vote with their feet and pocketbooks. Based on the fact that some of the most expensive residential real estate (on a per square foot basis) in the country is in Manhattan, I think they already do. And if I am elected I promise the formation of a new party, a third party, the Wild Party!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Zoning Boards   by astrogirl       at Mon 26 May 11:43am score of 1     from the CSM article: The problem is, current zoning rules in most Maine towns virtually mandate sprawl, says Ed Suslovic, a Portland realtor turned smart-growth advocate. "If Wiscasset village burned down today it would be illegal to rebuild it anywhere in the state ... because of minimum lot sizes, road frontage, growth caps, and extensive street-width requirements," he says. It's like this everywhere. To quote a Washington planner, Peter Katz: ...the notion that adding more people to solve the problem would strike you as ludicrous...creating pedestrian-oriented cities would help solve the traffic problem because it would give people a new choice. They can leave their suburban neighborhoods and move to a place where walking, biking and riding the subway are alternatives to driving. It would be nice to let the market decide, but that's not an option, apparently. Zoning commissions and existing residents of sprawling suburbs almost always side against in-fill, and very few of these "new urbanist" villages are being built. The ones that have appeared seem to prove their worth by the fact that the houses in them, though smaller, go for a premium to the surrounding real estate. I'd link to realtor.com with Kentlands, MD as an example, but those links expire on some schedule unknown to me. Places like Celebration and Kentlands do offer small yards. There's nothing wrong with that. The fact is that most suburban development mandates a huge lot. This makes the neighborhood exist on car-scale rather than human-scale, in addition to guaranteeing that the only contact you have with your neighbors will be when they bitch about your landscaping or paint choices at the HOA meeting. This does not foster community. For some reason unknown to me, zoning boards also like to draw a stark separation between business and residential. You simply don't see corner markets in most suburbs, which means that if you want to buy some staple item, like bread or milk or eggs or toilet paper, you're driving to big-box row. And &diety help you if you live in such a place without a car. You take your life into your own hands when trying to get to and between strip malls. At least a pedestrian can use the grass median and shoulders. If you're on a bike, you're really screwed. We (fiancee and I) tried living in Washington DC first, since we'd both lived in and liked urban environments. As it turned out, our local grocery was so miserable that we needed to drive over the bridge to Virginia to shop. Add to that the fact that we were making reverse commutes to the burbs — an activity poorly supported by mass transit, and pretty soon, you wonder why you're paying a premium to live in the city. We then tried one of the denser Washington DC suburbs, Reston. Since we still wound up having to drive most places anyway (because of the biz/residential enforced separation), we've gave up and moved to a rural area where we have real privacy and a place to put the cars, that are, like it or not, indispensable for non-urban dwellers. The market for these places exists. It's not being served adequately. And if I am elected I promise the formation of a new party, a third party, the Wild Party!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

39.  Bikes   by maml       at Tue 27 May 6:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 14     At least a pedestrian can use the grass median and shoulders. If you're on a bike, you're really screwed. Bikes are fine in the Suburbs. Low traffic volume and wide streets make it pretty easy to ride safely. The problem is you usually need to get on a highway to get to your job, and bikes often aren't allowed on the highway. And even if you can take smaller roads, you're looking at an hour+ commute on your bike, which means you need a shower when you get to work. Plus, the 'burbs are disgusting for biking most of the time, in my opinion. I like bouncing over curbs, hopping stairs, etc... in the Suburbs there is literally no texture to the landscape. They smooth it all over with bulldozers before the cookie cutter lays out the houses. It's safe and incredibly boring. Which is why all those "Backyard Wrestling" videos get made. I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: Zoning Boards   by tevenson       at Tue 27 May 12:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     Places like Celebration and Kentlands do offer small yards. There's nothing wrong with that. The fact is that most suburban development mandates a huge lot. When my wife and I moved to a new urban community designed by DPZ, the same folks who did Kentlands and Celebration, I wasn't sure how I would like having a (by suburban standards) pretty small yard. I've come to the conclusion after living here for three years that the small yards are actually quite nice if they are sufficiently private spaces. We often walk through the neighboring, standard cul-de-sac style neighborhood with wide streets and huge lawns, and have noticed that we have never once seen someone enjoying their yard; the only people we see are performing maintenance.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   85.  Re: Zoning Boards   by slippytoad       at Tue 27 May 5:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     For some reason unknown to me, zoning boards also like to draw a stark separation between business and residential. Interesting; one place where this plainly isn't done is New Jersey. I recently visited the lovely little burg of Mahwah, NJ. The utter confusion of highways and sudden 150-degree exits was bad enough. The bizarre superposition of restaurants next to factories next to hotels next to strip malls was something to get used to. There is, as far as I can tell, no such thing as zoning in New Jersey. I don't mind a little corner market in my neighborhood — that kind of zoning makes sense. But the mass industrial complexes wedged in between tiny neighborhoods is just weird, and probably contributes to the problem of sprawl. As far as I could tell, NJ is just a gigantic suburb for New York City. A side note: I drove into NYC as a tourist. The amount of mental pressure was almost overwhelming. I cannot imagine relaxing for a second in such an environment. I didn't notice it going in so much as going back out. As I drove away I could feel the stress leaving my body. I have known several ex New-Yorkers in my life. Every one of them adamantly refuses to go back for any reason whatsoever. I think there's a happy medium between a gigantic overwhelming city-scape, and the peace and quiet that most people seem to seek in the suburbs. I've lived in or visited about half of the really big cities in North America, including Toronto, L.A., and Chicago. I can't say any one of them has the idea completely down pat, though if I had to pick one to live in it would be Toronto. It seemed the cleanest. Woohoo!!!!! FUCK YEAH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  Gotta Love The Doublethink   by uncarved block       at Mon 26 May 12:51pm score of 1.5 astute     Will planned communities like this make us exercise? Should public health decide the issue? IMO, if the issue of sprawl was framed in an aesthetic context, it would enjoy much wider public support: "Like you yard but hate the strip mall down the street? They're linked, and we have an alternative" seems a pretty good place to start.       But the arguments against these plans rely on some ludicrous rhetoric. Alternative plans are 'social engineering', but current urban development isn't? Is there only one American Dream when it comes to housing? These communities are just fads for the wealthy-- but isn't the point of capitalism the freedom to spend your money as you see fit? A Dunstan Crossing certainly doesn't seem like it could fuck up things any worse than the current model.       The worst, though, is the efforts by developers to oppose zoning changes in the name of the consumer. There aren't many alternatives to the strip mall/suburb planning, so it's disingenuous to claim that consumers are happy with the one choice they're offered. Fifteen years ago, would anyone have thought millions of Americans would pay 3 bucks for a cup of coffee? Now Starbucks equals ubiquitous in the public mind-- could paying a little more for car limited neighborhood be the next counterintuitive market innovation? Insurance companies already think neighborhoods with speed bumps are worth encouraging, and AFAIK, this had everything to do with market forces.       There are legitimate arguments and concerns about planning like this: seniors tend not to like the stairs needed when you build up to avoid building out; emergency and police vehicle access needs addressing; and last but not least, do Americans really want to get to know their neighbors? But opposing market changes in the name of saving the market strikes me as perverse, to say the least. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

25.  As for me and my house   by smackspice       at Mon 26 May 3:46pm score of 1     Older suburbs that have developed some personality aren't so bad, but the new ones give me the creeps. However, if you want to live in a house identical to the one next to it and within spitting distance to boot, with a 2-hour commute to work either way, feel free. Me, I'll stay here in my concrete box, fighting the pigeons and avoiding eye contact with the weirdos on the subway. You can't be a non-conformist if you don't drink coffee. - Trey Parker   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

49.  Re: As for me and my house   by gonzocanuck       at Tue 27 May 8:57am score of 1   in reply to comment 25     However, if you want to live in a house identical to the one next to it and within spitting distance to boot, with a 2-hour commute to work either way, feel free. Me, I'll stay here in my concrete box, fighting the pigeons and avoiding eye contact with the weirdos on the subway. I took public transit for 9 years and by the time I moved, I couldn't stand it any longer. I take the bus occasionally now and I find it weird that people automatically move to the back of the bus in this neighbourhood — they don't need the driver to shout at them :-D I carpool now and am much happier. Oddly, the gal I carpool with has the exact same model house as me — but with different windows, different colour, she has stonework on the front...so I don't feel that my house is not exceptionally unique. Our model, the loftily named Harvard, is actually quite popular in the neighbourhood. You've got to coax him slow, that's the only way that he'll confess.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   86.  Re: As for me and my house   by kindall       at Tue 27 May 5:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 49     The whole thing against "cookie-cutter houses" is a red herring, anyway. You don't live on the outside of the house, you live on the inside. And you can make that as personal as you want. I'm not incoherent, you're just dumb.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   101.  Re: As for me and my house   by gonzocanuck       at Wed 28 May 9:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 86     Hey there, I agree with you completely. The previous owners did a FABULOUS job. Nice colours throughout. The kitchen has waist high alternating gloss/matte vertical stripes — something I always have wanted to do but never had the time or patience :-) She did an awesome job with the drapes in the living room too :-) One of the things that stuck out in this house for me (not so much my fiancee) was that the house felt happy. It is too intangible to describe, something of a psychic aura. I had a chat with the previous owner when she came to drop off the extra keys. I felt immediately that I could have been friends with her. She actually told me that she hated to leave the house but knew it would be in good hands (which it is, we don't plan on changing a thing!) We saw many houses but the vibes were just bad or not there. There was actually one house in a new community that we saw, and a pall of sadness hung over it. We actually saw it twice — and I just couldn't shake the sad feeling. My impression was that the family had fallen on hard times and had to sell. At another house, I think someone may have died there :\ BTW, cookie cutter houses do exist in far older neighbourhoods. My great-grandmother's street has several houses that were the same on the outside :-) You've got to coax him slow, that's the only way that he'll confess.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   107.  Re: As for me and my house   by kindall       at Thu 29 May 12:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 101     Yes... Sears used to sell houses. You'd order them from the catalog and all the parts would arrive at your local train station. There are plenty of streets in older neighborhoods that have a number of such mail-ordered houses on them. And they all look the same, yet not the same... I'm not incoherent, you're just dumb.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  Strange Modes of Habitude   by moxen       at Mon 26 May 4:27pm score of 2 interesting     It's odd that this issue was posted now-- I'm in the middle of reaing "Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century". It's odd to hear these legendary architects, like Frank Lloyd-Wright, say that the ultimate goal of the "modern" (1910s) architect/urban planner should be to provide all citizens with their 1+ acres and car. If people like Wright, Le Corbusier and so on actually saw the venally-driven suburban boom, they might think twice about the ultimate results of their pipe dreams. It's interesting to note that Wright believed that currency should automatically devalue at a fixed percent each year in order to discourage the hoarding of capital. A brilliant economist he was not. At any rate, we as a global society (even Europeans are experiencing the wonders of the box stores now) have lodged ourselves between a rock and a hard place. There's a reluctance for families to live in high rises due to the inability to actually let your children play outside, there is (I'm told, anyway) an increased likelihood of mental illness in high rises at well. On the other hand, there are also profound social difficulties involved in this segregated society of malls and housing tracts — what cause do you have to know your neighbors? In the suburbs, all connection revolves around commercial activities. Without well-walked streets, shared common land (parks, malls, squares, etc) people become strangers to each other fairly quickly. There are more than just obvious health risks involved; I'd argue than suburban-density and extreme-urban-density are both socially hazardous as well. It seems, as other people have pointed out, insane to claim that suburban living poses more threat to public health than does urban living (a delusional idealism of urban environs if ever there was one). But you have to ask whether or not New Urbanism, when implemented on even a modest scale, can solve these problems. I think it might; there is some precedent for planned cities which have actually succeeded (Letchworth and Welwyn England were both completely planned around 1900, for example, others were mentioned upthread). However, the real question is whether or not it's possible to produce real honestly livable cities that are actually attractive to more than a few idealistic New Urbanites. This is where the track record isn't so good-- most people are still very interested in their quiet little corner of paradise, even to the point of ignoring the sometimes grave repercussions of their wants. Ideally, I'll be entering into Architecture school in 2004, whereupon I'll be able to spend the next several years trying to figure this all out for you. I'll let you know when I've got it all worked out.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  Re: Strange Modes of Habitude   by Jojo       at Mon 26 May 6:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 26     There's a reluctance for families to live in high rises due to the inability to actually let your children play outside, there is (I'm told, anyway) an increased likelihood of mental illness in high rises at well. High rises are a strange thing. Back on the UK, they were almost universally despised, due to the 1950s/60s "tower blocks" that were built to clear the slums and rehouse people in safe, modern environments. The idea was nice, but the reality turned into something much worse than the slums. The areas between each high-rise became wastelands, with burnt out car wrecks and roaming gangs. Neighbours no longer knew each other, and the elderly became virtual prisoners when the elevators broke down (all the time). I moved to the US a few years ago, and discovered a strangely different attitude (at least here in LA). High rise buildings were sought-after residences, sold as luxury apartments with a view. Two ugly high rise buildings were built just down the road from me, with price tags starting at $750k. I can't argue with the fact that high-rise living gives many people a great view, but I can't see any other positives. Potentially noisy neighbours in all directions, gotta trudge up endless stairs with your groceries (or make multiple trips in the elevator). High-rises seem so practical, especially for a country short on land like the UK, but the reality never lived up to the ideal IMHO. There is talk of a revival of tower blocks in the UK. I prefer city living, but on a slightly smaller and more practical scale to the high-rise. LA suffers from a chronic shortage of sidewalks — its truly is the city of the car.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Strange Modes of Habitude   by timnet       at Tue 27 May 5:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 30     It seems like parts of Montreal have given themselves over to block upon block of cookie-cutter faux Chicago School high rises. It's where many young professionals, especially those new in town, live and these inhabitants give the area a youthful energy despite the uninspiring surroundings. I can only imagine how much different it would be if those same buildings housed, say, senior citizens. One set of skyscrapers that does not seem well-received, despite their pedigree, would be the Society Hill Towers in Philadelphia. Despite the fact that they were designed by I.M. Pei, the towers were described by one of my friends as "looking like something that was vomited on the landscape." The picture in the link doesn't quite do it justice, but the looming impersonal structures dwarf some of the country's most historic buildings and I have yet to meet anyone in Philly who likes them. I mean, someone must like them, right? "I feel like I wouldn't like me if I met me." -- Tegan and Sara   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: Strange Modes of Habitude   by electroboy       at Tue 27 May 9:49am score of 1   in reply to comment 37     I.M. Pei seems to be one of the most overrated architects. I worked on the renovation of L'Enfant Plaza in DC and was shocked at some of the stupid design choices that were made. And what's with all those glass pyramids? Keep your eyes open and your wallet in your front pocket --Raekwon the Chef   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Re: Strange Modes of Habitude   by timnet       at Tue 27 May 10:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 54     I.M. Pei seems to be one of the most overrated architects. My main firsthand experience with I.M. Pei design was for the Everson Museum in Syracuse, which has always been considered great mainly because he designed it. It's not too remarkable, but the name has much recognition. When I found out he designed the Society Hill Towers, my estimation of him sank. Nonetheless, he has seemingly attained lasting fame thanks to the New York Times crossword puzzle, generally under the clue: Noted architect I.M. ___. A better legacy than I'll ever expect to realize. "I feel like I wouldn't like me if I met me." -- Tegan and Sara   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Re: Strange Modes of Habitude   by JDM       at Wed 28 May 8:25am score of 1   in reply to comment 54     You may be interested to know that here at L'Enfant they just (a year or two ago) installed a glass pyramid skylight in the middle of the underground mall. On the surface it takes the place of what I am told was a fountain in front of the Hotel.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  the bottom line   by Richard Banks       at Mon 26 May 4:55pm score of 1.5 brilliant     People inhabit the suburbs for a variety of reasons, but primarily for reasons of cost. Land prices are higher the closer to the central city one lives, and many central cities have complex and confusing building ordinances that make it more expensive and time costly to develop an "in-fill" lot. People also move out of cities to avoid what they perceive to be problems inherent in city living: poverty and its side-effects, which also add to the cost-of-living. Add to this that business has followed suit and now there are fewer and fewer large employers who situate in downtown locations. And where is mass transit? In Austin, Texas, bus routes run hourly and the big plan for light rail? A single route that runs from north to south, serving no business district except for the central city and which wouldn't even run alongside the most populous living corridor. The Sierra Club imagines a world where people want to live in high-density environments (or it just wants people to want that). And while there may be any number of Plasticians who choose to live in the "vibrant" inner city, the fact is that currently nothing is attracting the vast majority of suburbanites to come back. "I'm Against This War. But I'm not with These Other People."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

71.  Re: the bottom line   by gubernaut       at Tue 27 May 12:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     currently nothing is attracting the vast majority of suburbanites to come back. Right, except for the entire emphasis in modern consumerist culture on the urban: starbucks, urban outfitters, music that originates from an urban lifestyle (rap,hip-hop,indie rock, techno, etc), cars commercials that discuss the "urban jungle," inner-city gentrification, light rail initiatives around the country, major economic and social enlightenment, faux-olde-brick suburban malls, and the list goes on and on. I would argue that a lot is attracting people to cities, they just are too lazy and fat to move there. glaring omission is our middle name... the pretentious partizan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Peeve   by Brian Jones       at Mon 26 May 5:25pm score of 1     Their tendency to expand exponentially... Careful how you throw around a word like "exponentially". If someplace like Long Island had really been experiencing exponential growth, it would have the population of Bangladesh by now. And that's all I need — to have every single Hamptons jackass coming up to my part of New York instead. On the other hand, if they did come here, my wife and I could charge those dumbshit social lemmings 25 grand to rent our tiny little house for the summer. Hey, I think I like sprawl... Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  Absurdities   by Ben Bridenbaugh       at Mon 26 May 11:46pm score of 1     I live in a fairly rural part of the country, but in one of the larger cities there. I've seen over the last few decades, our own urban sprawl go out of control. Lots of shoebox houses, design staggered to pretend individuality, and streets designed by madmen. The sickest part of it is that it is EATING ALIVE actual farmland. If the farmers aren't ruined by increased property taxes, the FINES help to finish them. You see, these people who go grossly into debt to buy into yuppie paradise and live in the near country don't like any non pre-packaged vacation country experience. They start complaining to the city, getting fines imposed on farmers for things like "animal smells", "noises", etc. As much as they cost the farmers, they steal more from the city, requiring services and police protection they don't pay in fair proportion. I do have a solution. Communal apartments / human hives. Instead of ten square miles of tract housing, have ONE big building in the center with leasable components. I imagine something like a huge arch based structure. The surrounding area is divided between farmland, nature, etc. That way, there would be many small 'walking cities' that would not hurt nature as much, and be slightly self-sufficent.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

50.  Re: Absurdities   by gonzocanuck       at Tue 27 May 9:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 32     I sympathize with the farmers. If you're going to live way Out There, don't be surprised when coyotes go after your small dogs or children :-D I don't understand why people can't reconcile that some suburbs are practically out in the woods! You've got to coax him slow, that's the only way that he'll confess.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

34.  But what if we like it?   by tdahnsn       at Tue 27 May 4:54am score of 2 compelling     All up and down this thread we see comments about how people "ought" to have to live. We see that people should live in strange "human hive" structures or "New Urban" areas, we see that they should live in a way that's controlled to reduce the impact on the environment or to make them talk to their neighbors. But what if what they want is to live in continued suburban sprawl and everything that goes along with it? Every time this topic comes up we see posts about how suburban sprawl is ruining the world, making people fat, turning people into zombies, and causing hair to grow in places it hasn't grown before. But maybe people just like it. Maybe what they really want is to not know their neighbors, not live in a city or city-like environment. Maybe they like shopping at WalMart. Why is it that some feel justified in telling everyone else how to live? It's this same sort of nutty hypocritical authoritarianism that rears its head whenever social engineering and the market collide. And they do collide pretty often. Essentially, what New Urbanism and a whole lot of posts here have said, along with the Sierra Club and others, is that "We" know better than everyone else because everyone else is either too stupid or too poorly educated to choose for themselves. Funny, I feel pretty much the same way about voting, but no one gets behind me on that one. Yet you all jump on board the "I can dictate a better life to you" when it comes to these ideas. Maybe people aren't as stupid as you think. Maybe they really know what they want. Maybe they want a home that they don't ever have to talk to the neighbors. Maybe they want to shop at WalMart. People seem to be buying those things up pretty well. And I don't suspect that everyone who does is dumb just because I don't. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

40.  But what if there's no choice?   by Smallest       at Tue 27 May 6:49am score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 34     Here in Raleigh, you can either live in a cul-de-sac development (here's your 1/4 acre, here's your 1/4 acre, here's your 1/4 acre...) or you can live in a 500-unit apartment complex (here's your 1000 sq. ft...). the "downtown" area is too small to consider and there are few real walkable neighborhoods. so your choice is apartment or cul-de-sac. developers don't want to build "communities", and they don't have to; they want to stamp out houses and slap those cheap foam-core doors in em, and that's what they do. .sig .sgi .gis .gsi .isg .igs   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: But what if there's no choice?   by tdahnsn       at Tue 27 May 7:47am score of 1   in reply to comment 40     "so your choice is apartment or cul-de-sac." Then what keeps you in Raleigh? I'm not trying to be obnoxious (for once), but I am curious why you live in a place you don't particularly like. Is there something that makes up for it? What are you trading for? "developers don't want to build 'communities', and they don't have to; they want to stamp out houses and slap those cheap foam-core doors in em, and that's what they do." But people buy them. People spend (in most of the country) a huge sum to live in either those cul-de-sac developments of cookie-cutter homes or those condominiums. There's clearly a demand for those homes, much as you may despise them. Or do you believe that people just buy whatever's being sold rather than what they want? The reason developers don't want to build communities is that they sell poorly. They don't match what people want to spend that kind of money on. They build what sells, and what sells in Raleigh (from your descriptions of it) is the cul-de-sacs and mega-apartments. So, we're back to my original question. What keeps you there? What are you getting in exchange for living in a place you seem to hate? Is it worth it? If not, why haven't you left? Just curious, mind you. Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: But what if there's no choice?   by tevenson       at Tue 27 May 9:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 42     So, we're back to my original question. What keeps you there? What are you getting in exchange for living in a place you seem to hate? Is it worth it? If not, why haven't you left? To go where? Almost everywhere in the U.S., people are faced with the choice of the "standard suburb" vs "the inner city". Why not have another choice? They build what sells, and what sells in Raleigh (from your descriptions of it) is the cul-de-sacs and mega-apartments. As I mentioned in another thread, developers build 1. what's legal, and 2. what they have built before. The analogy would be only selling chocolate ice cream and then point to the fact that everybody buys chocolate ice cream in order to argue that we shouldn't start selling vanilla.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: But what if there's no choice?   by munchkin       at Tue 27 May 10:29am score of 1   in reply to comment 53     To go where? Almost everywhere in the U.S., people are faced with the choice of the "standard suburb" vs "the inner city". Why not have another choice? How about moving to a small town? They usually have neither suburbs, nor inner cities.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Re: But what if there's no choice?   by 74westy       at Tue 27 May 11:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 61     How about moving to a small town? They usually have neither suburbs, nor inner cities. Nor jobs. I am Sparticus!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   106.  Re: But what if there's no choice?   by Richard Banks       at Wed 28 May 9:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 53     To go where? Almost everywhere in the U.S., people are faced with the choice of the "standard suburb" vs "the inner city". Why not have another choice? You have a blind spot, though of course you don't see it. You look around and you see a bleak, unappealing conformity. You believe that you, along with everyone else, are sentenced to a life of hateful mediocrity. You believe your choices are limited to dumb and dumber. None of which is true. I will submit that there is tremendous creativity and vibrancy all around you, both in the suburbs and in the high-rise. But that's not all. There are thousands of farms, ranches, little enclaves of artists, forgotten villages, lake communities, and I don't know what all. Many in Northern California and Connecticut, probably, but others not more than 10 miles from you. Many of these places might not be immediately accessible to you, but most--or any one of which, at least--are not outside your reach if you bend your will toward allowing them to happen for you. "I'm Against This War. But I'm not with These Other People."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: But what if we like it?   by Calmer than You       at Tue 27 May 7:44am score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 34     Amen to that. That's possibly the best post I've ever read on Plastic. Seriously. I'm convinced that most of the pro-urban sentiment here is grounded in the fact that cities really are wonderful places to live for the average Plastard. The average plastard is in his early to mid twenties and is probably in the best shape of his life, so a mile walk to work every day suits him just fine. He probably still hasn't figured out that just because something is exotic, that doesn't mean it's good or worth doing, so he loads up on Ethiopian food and goes to jazz clubs to hear a Peruvian trio or a Burmese quartet. He doesn't have any kids because women find him repulsive, so he doesn't have to worry about the quality of the schools. He's pro-drug legalization, mostly because he does a lot of drugs, and it's easier to find them in cities. Honestly, most of those characteristics apply to me. The difference is that I'm not arrogant enough to try to force everyone to live my lifestyle, or to tell others that mine is morally superior and Good For You, to boot. Cities suck in a lot of ways for a lot of people. Someday I'm going to have children. I want them to have a backyard they can play in whenever they want. I don't want to have to take them to a public park then worry about all the deranged winos who hang out in public. I don't want my kids stepping in crap all the time because city dwellers with no backyards use public parks as dog toilets. Public transportation blows. Sorry, but it does. Plastic has a lot of Lisa Simpsons, blathering on about reliable, energy-efficient bus service, but like Lisa, they're as wrong as they are irritating. I sometimes ride a public bus part of the way to work. It's awful. It's slow, dirty, unreliable, and filled with the foul-smelling. I wouldn't wish a DC Metrobus on my worst enemy. I can't even imagine what bus service in East St. Louis must be like. I pay through the nose for everything here. There's no Wal-Mart, so I have to go to a Mom & Pop grocery. Unfortunately, Mom doesn't know the meaning of the word "selection" and Pop is a mafia-caliber extortionist. I live in DC because I don't have few other options, and at this point in my life there are still many things I enjoy about it, despite the water tasting exactly like it's running through 200 year old lead pipes (which it is) and other assorted problems. I won't be here in two years. I want a suburban life with (evil) strip malls and (evil) quiet neighborhoods and (evil) Wal-Marts. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for continuing to live in cities. Don't tell me I'm wrong for living where I want to live. I'm risking my health by living in the 'burbs? Okay, if you say so. All I know is that if I stay here too much longer, I'm going to blow my brains out, and that can't be good for my health. Oh, I have to add something: San Francisco. It's a beautiful city, and at least one person here held it up as a model of what urban life should/could be like. Okay, fine. But keep in mind that property values are through the roof and the black population has declined sharply over the past decade. It's a great city for rich white people, but I don't think "drive out the darkies" is a good motto for urban planning. clinton(23), saying(22), white(21), woman(20)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: But what if we like it?   by Jeffrey W. Baker       at Tue 27 May 8:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 41     There's a way to fix the property value problem: tax the shit out of real estate. A 5% annual real estate tax would do nicely to deflate real estate prices. Land ownership is a governmental fiction, so land owners should pay for the privilege. This has all kinds of nice social benefits like breaking up dynastic fortunes and dividing land into smaller parcels. We would first have to repeal Proposition 13, though. Prop. 13 is the most ingenious method the Baby Boomers cooked up to simultaneously secure their fortunes and screw their children. It has had a very damaging effect on the California first-time home buyers' market.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Calmer?   by maml       at Tue 27 May 10:19am score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 41     Jesus dude, sorry you hate the bus. Don't commit suicide over it. I'd suggest a bike, it's how I got out of mass transit. Though your ride may be too far to be feasible. Of course, not to be Lisa Simpson about this (ever notice she's almost always right about things? That's why she irritates everyone.), but I didn't mind the bus (or subway). It was crowded, sometimes it was late, waiting in the cold sucked, but it was so much cheaper than owning and parking a car in Boston. And I got a lot of reading done. Boston has a pretty damn good public transit system, I'm told, so maybe I'm spoiled. I've ridden the DC system, and it didn't seem so bad. In Boston I could ride the T to several superstores, or I could walk to a damn big grocery store. I had an electronics store, 4 convenience stores (two hispanic), two liquor stores, 2 Asian groceries, and I don't know how many bars and restaurants in a five minute walk of my house. I had a spacious deck, a great kitchen and a decent view. Now I live in Downtown Portland (ME), and the selection isn't as good, but it isn't bad. Portland High Schools are pretty good, and this ain't the 'burbs. Heck, get too far out of town and you're talking about rural poverty, and those schools are much worse than anything in the city. Get a Brita or Pur filter for your water. It cuts down on the brain damage. Walking a mile shouldn't be a problem to anyone under 50, unless they've got some sort of damage to their system. A seventy year old just climbed Everest. I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   91.  Boy, That's A Lot Of Assuming   by uncarved block       at Tue 27 May 7:33pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 41     My impression of the average American Polymer is that they're weekly routine includes video rental, the comic shop, and up close and personal familiarity with the newest games. Oh, and their favorite food would be pizza. He (or she) doesn't want to "impose" their lifestyle on others, because it's almost exactly the same-- except for the addiction to politics.       Why is there only a Mom and Pop store in your area? Because urban planners and zoning have kept the Wal-Marts out. It bears repeating: urban planning, indeed architecture itself, is all "social engineering" because it has an operating definition of what 'normal life' is, or should be. The New Urban movement isn't trying to sully urban development with politics, but asking whether the politics currently in play are really in the interest of the common man. Indeed, questions about zoning and other governmental powers strikes me as an incredibly "conservative" preoccupation. The only reason the issue was ever labelled 'liberal' was because of an early push for mass transit.       And on the issue of mass transportation: there is no fucking way you can think Americans ever had a chance to vote for or against it. The Big Three auto makers were found guilty in court of colluding to restrict and obstruct mass transit, and Robert Moses alone is the reason New York mass transit is so poor. The road company he worked with reportedly would have put in extra space for future mass transit lanes on the highways and bridges for almost nothing, and was rejected out of hand by Moses. Moses, needless to say, was never elected by anyone. He was truly a Randian hero-- and I say this not as any form of praise . . . Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   95.  You're not wrong to live in the burbs.   by sulli       at Wed 28 May 7:22am score of 1   in reply to comment 41     But don't come crying to me when your commute is 90 minutes by car instead of 15 minutes by bike. (consider Loudoun County, dear God shoot me now). Time is money. And don't think that the desire for backyards doesn't have consequences. Drive out I-66 sometime. Do you remember when Manassas, site of crucial Civil War battles, was way out in the country? Now it's a faceless suburb, as boring as San Bernardino or any random town in Westchester. Is this what you want? Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   98.  Re: Boy, That's A Lot Of Assuming   by Clandestino       at Wed 28 May 8:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 91     Robert Moses alone is the reason New York mass transit is so poor. I would say that you're on to the right culprit, but that your evidence isn't enough to convict. Being that the best way to get around town is the subway, surface transit on the highways wouldn't do much — look at LA for example. Moses is more responsible in that the dude assisted the white flight out of the suburbs by haphazardly destroying neighborhoods in the Bronx and elsewhere, and by forcing people into projects; this destroyed the tax base and ruined the city's bond rating by the 1970s, which in turn killed the Second Avenue subway line. Subways are really where it's at in mass transit — all underground, no congestion, and with express lanes a breakdown doesn't totally kill the commute. The effects of that failure are massive; try going somewhere between 125th and 59th streets any time of day, and you swear it's rush hour because of the volume. It's a damned shame when they can build tunnels linking England and France before they can frigging build a tunnel underneath Manhattan. Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   102.  Tunnels And Bridges   by uncarved block       at Wed 28 May 9:54am score of 1   in reply to comment 98     That was a detail I failed to explore, but will, under your trope, net me a conviction. One of the places Moses refused to allow even the potential for mass transit access was on the bridges-- wouldn't it be awful nice to be able to put a light rail line to Manhattan? Heck of lot cheaper than a tunnel.       Moses' racism is legendary (the murals at Howard Beach speak volumes, if I remember the right location), and hardly needs comment, except to wonder if white flight wasn't part of his agenda after all. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: But what if we like it?   by tevenson       at Tue 27 May 8:41am score of 2 succinct   in reply to comment 34     Essentially, what New Urbanism and a whole lot of posts here have said, along with the Sierra Club and others, is that "We" know better than everyone else because everyone else is either too stupid or too poorly educated to choose for themselves. Actually, most people have no choice at all. The vast majority of housing in the U.S. follows the "suburban" model, leaving folks like me who want to live in something other than subrubia a bit out in the cold. I don't presume to know what you or other Americans want, but at this point, New Urbanism is giving people a choice of another type of neighborhood, instead of endless miles of sameness. Why is that bad, again?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: But what if we like it?   by astrogirl       at Tue 27 May 9:55am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 34     Maybe people aren't as stupid as you think. Maybe they really know what they want. Maybe they want a home that they don't ever have to talk to the neighbors. This is a distinct possibility, and one that New Urbanism does not consider. Maybe they want to shop at WalMart. If Wal-Mart continues to get tax breaks from zoning boards to build locations as close together as 5 miles (US 19 near Tampa), abandon the property and build again (Staunton, VA), they will be the only game in town in a lot more places. Make no mistake — Wal-Mart is getting special dispensations from zoning boards so that communities can earn tax revenue. A lot of folks here express a hatred of Wal-Mart, but don't blame Wal-Mart for the sins of your local zoning commission. And if I am elected I promise the formation of a new party, a third party, the Wild Party!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Why you don't have to be stupid to be wrong   by 74westy       at Tue 27 May 10:08am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 34     Maybe people aren't as stupid as you think. Maybe they really know what they want. This argument does not imply that suburbanites are stupid and here's why. You know the old story about how you can boil a frog to death if you raise the temperature slowly enough.* Germans in the first half of the last century didn't suddenly go from "That Hitler guy doesn't like Jews" to "let's build some gas chambers" all in one step. It was a series of small steps over a long period. Each step made the situation a little worse but it wasn't really that much worse than what had gone before so why get upset? Smart Germans went along because it was just one more small thing. Similarly, if one cigarette was guaranteed to give you cancer, nobody would smoke but each cigarette just increases your chances of getting cancer by an infinitesimal amount. So lots of smart people smoke. Time to drunkenly stagger back in the general direction of the topic. The benefits of suburban life are immediate and dramatic while the costs only mount up slowly. Your lush green lawn is right there out your window every time you look but your alienation from your neighbours chips away at you so slowly. This is how rational people in a free market buy into things that lower their utility. So is the solution to legislate New Urbanism? I didn't read all the links closely but I didn't notice that anyone was asking for that. Should the Sierra Club try to persuade people that their long term interests are not being met by their current lifestyles? It's a free country; why shouldn't they? * Ok. You can't actually boil a frog this way but the fact that people keep passing this legend along proves that the idea resonates with us. I am Sparticus!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   104.  Re: But what if we like it?   by moxen       at Wed 28 May 10:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 34     Some people really want to do heroin all the time, too. So, majority makes right, then? The Public isn't blessed with the awareness to make sound decisions in all aspects of its machinations. This is why we have a representative government, not a democracy. Lest you think I'm a complete nut, I should say that I'm not really on either side of this fence. The public's general opinion should be the primary concern of those representatives. However, I don't agree with your arguing that the average persons' want is sufficient to define policy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  Not a dichotomy.   by Marmota       at Tue 27 May 5:06am score of 2 scholarly     While the opposite of "suburb" is "city", New Urbanism is about synthesis and fusion, not extremes. The ideal is "town", or "village", both of which being models currently all but wiped out by no-mixed-use zoning regulations and privatization of community resources. I thought it especially poor of the author to cite the Sierra Club on the topic. Now, I'm a member of the Sierra Club and the AMC, so don't get me wrong here. It's just that their mandate is protection and isolation of natural spaces. As such, the focus of their effort has nothing to do with human comfort and efficiency. There are shelfloads of excellent resource material out there: James Kunstler's Geography of Nowhere and Home from Nowhere are a bit light, but they're a good start. For something more solid, there's William Fulton's The Reluctant Metropolis, Edmund Bacon's Design of Cities, or John Guinther's response to it, Direction of Cities. Roberta Gratz' Cities Back From the Edge is also worth checking out. There are plenty of well-documented instances of capitalism run amok and why social engineering might be a good idea out there; check out the history of Detroit's siege-mentality "Renaissance Center" (#), the history of General Motor's "National City Lines" holding company for dismantling public transit (Taken For a Ride), or how parks and highways were used and abused to cripple New York City (Robert Moses and the Fall of New York).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  Re: Not a dichotomy.   by timnet       at Tue 27 May 5:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 35     That Roberta Gratz book is a great one, but don't forget the predecessor of most modern urbanist literature, The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs. Even though Jacobs' book is more than 50 years old, even today it still seems ahead of its time. "I feel like I wouldn't like me if I met me." -- Tegan and Sara   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

38.  People don't always vote with their feet   by Biff       at Tue 27 May 6:16am score of 2 compelling     I think we ought to clear something up here. I have counted at least 1/2 dozen baseless assumptions about what the "average" American wants. Many of them seem to think that because people live in the suburbs, it is proof that that is what the "average" American wants. Well, I don't know if I'm average, but I live in the suburbs. And I hate it. The only thing is, I live in one of the many metropolitan areas (Detroit) where until recently, there was no feasible way to live in the city. I submit that many people live in the city, or in the suburbs, because there is no other choice, not because it's their version of the American Dream. Also, We need to clarify on other thing. Suburb does not have to be a dirty word. Living in a town or village that is not part of the same municipality as the main city is not the problem. Living in a place with endless cookie cutter subdivisions, with bad traffic, strip malls and big box stores, no sidewalks, no corner stores, no city center, and no sense of community is the problem. FWIW, speaking of voting with you feet, I have never spent a penny in a Wal Mart in my life, and God willing, I never will. Try it. You might find you like it. Jesus is coming - everybody look busy   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

88.  Re: People don't always vote with their feet   by slippytoad       at Tue 27 May 5:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 38     Many of them seem to think that because people live in the suburbs, it is proof that that is what the "average" American wants. It's what seems to work. I would like to be able to walk to the grocery store, and in fact it is technically possible, but I would have to cross the most hellacious intersection (5 roads all coming together in what could not have been a plan) with all my shit falling out of my hands or my cart. So I drive less than 600 feet to shop. Go figure. City living is goddamn expensive, the entire thing seems to shut down at night and on the weekend when I have most of my personal business to do, and so on. Sometimes I flirt with the idea that when I'm a multibillionare from the proceeds of my first novel I'll open a "perfect" business doing some real important thing, but I'll build a living community right next to the "office" and have a gymnasium and and grocery store and all that crap right next to each other, and my employees can toss out their cars and spend all that extra money on — something else. Then my wife reminds me that people who work, live, and play together eventually end up wanting to kill each other, and I remember I still haven't published a novel and the whole thing is a pipe dream anyway. But the point is, most people vote with their paycheck, which doesn't leave a lot of room for negotiating. Woohoo!!!!! FUCK YEAH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

45.  You'll never stop sprawl unless...   by jeffbiss       at Tue 27 May 8:32am score of 1     you stop human population growth. Period. Most calculations indicate that U.S. population will grow to between 400 to 500 million by 2050, we are at about 250,000,000 now. There is no way to stop sprawl unless population growth is reversed by limiting immigration to less than 100,000 people per year (it is now around 1,000,000 per year) and ending tax deductions for children (we are now at a fertility rate of around 2.1 births/woman, the highest since 1971). How can one stop sprawl, regardless of specious health problems, without reversing human overpopulation? The answer is you can't. More people mean more homes need to be built. One can limit sprawl to a certain extent by forcing the developer to pay for building infrastructure but developments will continue to be built regardless because demand will grow. How will denser cities be made livable and desirable? As many have said, most people want to live in a suburban setting. Gentrification is happening, but population growth demands quick housing response which is primarily obtained through the destruction of wildlife habitat and farmland. Don't like sprawl? The ONLY answer is to reverse human population growth.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

73.  Re: You'll never stop sprawl unless...   by norcalwindows       at Tue 27 May 1:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 45     The only answer to sprawl is density...as many people who want their little/big home in the suburbs would like a contained condo with easy access to facilities, shops and urban centers of culture and lifestyle. No yard hassles, an association to take care of the outside of the house, and no 2-hour commute just to get to and from work. Class action lawsuits have prevented/prohibited builders from building multi-family, and providing legislative relief from frivolous lawsuits(here in california) has helped spur higher density development. In-fill development is revitalizing downtrodden areas across the state, and is not 'Sprawl'. Unfortunately, especially here in California, sprawl is seen as the only answer, and with the population increases you mentioned above (some say in CA we will see another 10 million in the next ten years 35 million to 45 million), there will simply be housing pressure in general. My point is rampant urban sprawl can be contained through density, as a part of the equation. Curbing human population growth is also part of the equation, but it does not stand alone as the ONLY answer.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   79.  I understand your point but...   by jeffbiss       at Tue 27 May 2:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 73     there are too many players making a lot of money through the destruction of open space to allow legislators to make zoning laws that promote multi-family homes. As pointed out in other posts, most people seem to want the suburbs and the lifestyle it offers. In fact a recent study contradicts the dogma that the more affluent a nation becomes, the less it destroys its immediate environment. This is due to the fact that as people can afford to, they move out of an urban environment and spread out. This requires more resources than the higher densities that the poor generally live in. The universal trend is away from high density to low density. I admit that if people were willing to allow their suburban dream to be legislated away through zoning, getting rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction, and disallowing depreciation of buildings would yield some benefit, but the pressures of doubling our population in the U.S. in the next 20 years requires that sprawl continue.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   80.  Re: I understand your point but...   by norcalwindows       at Tue 27 May 3:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 79     The building industry will build what will sell, and in the past (here in california) insurance costs and liability costs (read class action lawsuits) have been prohibitively expensive to promote multi-family development. A builder with ten acres that can build 40 single family dwellings at 200k each or 120 multi-family units at 150k each will build multi-family every time, all things being equal. The problem has been that insurance/damages costs for construction defects get compartmentalized to one family in SF development, vs. an entire condo complex with MF development. Why would a builder take on that liability (read punitive damages — "for your leaky roof you get $4,286 dollars, and for pain and suffering, we'll give you and everyone living in the condo complex a cool 34,500,000 when he can build 40 houses and still make a mint? This factor is a strong inhibitor for companies that see the money in MFD, but are or have been until recently, forced to take on liability above and beyond what they can afford. And considering housing pressure in CA essentially guarantees a builder will sell whatever he can build, the disincentives to build MFD have outweighed the incentives. The plus to this litigation is that builders see the sense in building units that will stand the test of time (nothing like a 34 mil. payout to make a contractor spend an extra twenty bucks for a tube of caulk, some extra building paper and closer review of subcontractor's work) In California, it is still difficult to get around the bureaucratic hurdles (read tort reform) to make it easy, but things are changing...it is not a factor of increased legislation, but decreased legislation and my main contention is that while population increases and development will continue, we don't have to sterilize everyone who has had two kids, we just pack 'em into smaller units on smaller pieces of land.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   84.  I doubt litigation is a primary factor   by jeffbiss       at Tue 27 May 5:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 80     because the litigation can be brought against any developer regardless of the development. Here in Illinois, we have had many such suits brought by owners of both single family and multi-family homes. The insurance issue is a part of doing business for builders. Even you point out that the housing pressure in California will provide developers with a market for a long time to come. In fact, California's population growth is primarily due to immigration, about 92% since 1979, and is about double the national annual average. This growth is what provides the builders with a market, regardless of the insurance and litigation costs. Population is the greatest reason that open space is destroyed for housing in the first place. The second greatest factor is that people can afford to buy their way out of high density as is indicated by the study I pointed to in the previous posting. A third factor is affordability. Generally, multi-family homes are less expensive, so they are built as the demographics dictate. Most of the developments already are either higher density individual homes or townhomes because land costs are greater and impact fees are generally higher nationally. Take a look over the internet and you will see that sprawl takes on a number of forms, but it is still sprawl. Sprawl is just one symptom of human overpopulation. The reason that overpopulation is virtually disregarded is because most people don't care about the bigger picture since they haven't been affected yet. For example, water wars are just around the corner. Our western states are feeling the effects of too little water and too many people. In fact, even in Illinois, regardless of the density of the development, there is a problem with water supply as people deplete aquafirs as they move west. The sky will fall, eventually. Sterilization may not be practical, but individuals should take the effects that their personal decisions will have on others. I did. I live in a city and have chosen not to reproduce. Not having a child is the best thing any person can do right now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   87.  Re: I doubt litigation is a primary factor   by norcalwindows       at Tue 27 May 5:52pm score of 1   in reply to comment 84     Litigation, or the threat thereof, is a huge factor. Again, if you could triple or quadruple your income on ten acres of land while only increasing your costs by 75% or less, it is foolhardy, financially, to do anything but that. Insurance for contractors and subcontractors has increased 10-20 fold or more in the last 15 years for exactly this reason — HOA's and Condo owners have been very successful in obtaining huge settlements against builders. As you acknowledge, builders will be in business regardless, and what they build, attached or unattached, is secondary to what margin they will make on the project. If a developer can build 100 million dollars worth of SFD's and net 8%, or build 50 million worth of MFD's and make 14% (with no difference in insurance, fees or liability, percentage-wise), he'll take the MFD's every time...maybe he won't net quite as much, but his risk exposure and liability are half of what they are building Single Family Dwellings. In California, multi-family is only now beginning to make a comeback, but well over half of all new projects are single family. Zero population growth is, of course key to decreasing our footprint on the earth...Water wars are already underway in the South (ern Hemisphere), and will continue to intensify as entire nation-states sink further into economic despair and environmental degradation. Perhaps another topic for another time... Within the context of development, density will go a long way to decrease the square footage that gets paved over, vis a vis that paved over in your average single family tract development. (It is now theorized that not only does increased use deplete aquifers, the sheer volume of blacktop and the commensurate storm drain system prevent aquifer replenishment by bleeding freshwater fallen on pavement into the ocean ilo back into the aquifer itself...amazing if proven out). So, anything we can do to increase density has many many benefits, for everyone — builders, insurance companies, homeowners etc etc. Lawyers may not like it, but there are other large fish to fry, and be sure they will find them. I am not saying MFD's aren't sprawl, they just aren't as...sprawly. Within the context of the environment, the impact of man on ecosystems, and personal accountability, I agree with you entirely.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   89.  You might be interested   by jeffbiss       at Tue 27 May 7:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 87     An article on-line, states that Atlanta's growth consumes 15% additional land area for each 1% growth in population. I did a quick search for, but did not find a number I remember hearing about the runoff you mention. As I remember it, it was about 80 billion gallons of water that did not replenish the aquafir and just disappeared down the streams and rivers because of roofs, streets, parking lots, etc. I suppose the estimate is out there. I also suppose one could estimate it from the annual rainfall and the amount of impenetrable surface area there is. As for the costs of litigation, I did find a paper that stated that in California, insurers pay $2-5 in defense costs to every dollar paid out for claims. It also states that costs are much higher in CA than elsewhere. Another outlines San Diego's problems and specifically addresses the litigation costs for multi-family developments you mention. This doesn't seem to be as much an issue in the other states though. San Diego expects 60% of its future growth to come from internal growth, leaving the 40% from immigration. This report states that there will be an estimated 100,000 unit deficit by the year 2020. I fully support wasting less land by building multi-family housing rather than detached homes. The only way to go is up. These papers also blame smart development for the lack of affordable housing. Developers make money from devastating open space and wildlife habitat, not from promoting sustainability.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

46.  Urban   by mmandell       at Tue 27 May 8:32am score of 1     With very, very few exceptions, the public schools in urban areas are poor. So, unless folks are prepared to send their children to (hopefully better) private schools, or are childless, and/or are total idiots, then moving to/remaining in the cities is not a viable option. Sad, but true.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

47.  Been there ...   by thomp       at Tue 27 May 8:38am score of 1     Quick aside: I've had the pleasure of living within walking distance of downtown Minneapolis, and I now have the pleasure of raising my children in the suburbs. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that most of us do not want to raise our kids in the big city? That is the only reason we left. The problem with sprawl is that the developers are running the show, and they have shown little interest in anything but the bottom line. If the developers saw an increased demand for high-density housing, they would meet that demand with the same enthusiasm as they do now for the subdivisions criticized in the writeup. People like me need to be educated/persuaded/convinced that New Urbanism is the best option. City planners need to grow spines and stand up to the short term 'build, build, build' mentality of the developers. Right now, given our choices — sprawl versus inner city — most of us will choose the sprawl.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

52.  Re: Been there ...   by tevenson       at Tue 27 May 9:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 47     The problem with sprawl is that the developers are running the show, and they have shown little interest in anything but the bottom line. If the developers saw an increased demand for high-density housing, they would meet that demand with the same enthusiasm as they do now for the subdivisions criticized in the writeup. This is simply not true. Developers are constrained by a number of factors that make it very difficult to build anything but the standard suburb. The first and foremost are city ordinances. A "New Urban" neighborhood is simply illegal to build in most places in the country, and a developer who attempts to build one generally has to fight for years for things like narrow streets and mixed-used zoning. Additionally, the rationale of most developers (and a lot of people on this thread) seems to be: Well, people like suburbs because people buy houses there. And while this is true for many people, it is also true that many people buy houses in the suburbs because the only other option is the inner city. What New Urbanism is proposing (along with being pro-city) is reviving an older model of the neighborhood, one in which the car is not the only means of getting around, and in which there should be a pleasing mix of housing (single family homes, townhomes, "courtyard" homes, apartments) and commercial space, like the corner store. People like me need to be educated/persuaded/convinced that New Urbanism is the best option. City planners need to grow spines and stand up to the short term 'build, build, build' mentality of the developers. Right now, given our choices — sprawl versus inner city — most of us will choose the sprawl. Again, New Urbanism does not pose a dichotomy between suburb and inner city; it is posing the revival of (among other things) the traditional neighborhood. I live in a New Urban community in Lonmont, CO. I specifically chose this community because of its child-friendly nature: a community of neighbors, safe sidewalks, safer streets, community gather places (parks, restaurants, etc). Check out the link, you'll see that "New Urbanism" does not equate to inner city living.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Re: Been there ...   by thomp       at Tue 27 May 10:01am score of 1   in reply to comment 52     Two points: (I'll skip quoting your response) 1. The developers are working within the constraints established by the urban planners. The urban planners (and regional planning commissions) are strongly influenced by the developers. The developers are doing very well with the current models. In the upper midwest, the developers have shown little interest in change. 2. Sprawl versus inner city. What I am saying, and you obviously agree, is that New Urbanism is the link between those two, i.e., the best of both options. Now, in the context of my first point above, the planners need to show some backbone by ignoring the developers and strongly advocate the new model. At the same time, people need to be convinced by the planners that the new model is better and start seeking out those communities. Even here in Madison, WI (pop. > 200K), some New Urban style neighborhoods have been built amongst the sprawl. Greater demand for these neighborhoods will get the developers to change.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  (Rant) Developers might not run the show...   by Brian Jones       at Tue 27 May 11:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 52     ...but on one small and admittedly minor point, maybe they and local municipal boards could get their shit together and not make developments seem so...development-y. Do the new roads really have to be named after the developer's wife/kids/mistress? Even in what you would think was the fairly hip Bay Area, there are at least eight roads of some sort named Debbie. Not to besmirch the Debbies in the Plastic audience, but what the hell? Who pays $1.3 mil to live in a house on Debbie Lane? I bet it would go for $1.6 mil if it was on "Dartmouth Court". Maybe it's because I grew up and live in a part of the country that was settled by Europeans over 300 years ago, so many more roads were laid out a long time ago and were given more quirky names. But this "Debbie" crap has got to stop. A big fat no as well to naming the new roads "Amber" or "Crystal" or any other common stripper name. (Again, apologies to any non-stripping Ambers and Crystals in the crowd.) It's the second-lamest trend in development, aside from naming a road "Maple Way" after cutting down all the maples. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: Been there ...   by tevenson       at Tue 27 May 10:04am score of 1   in reply to comment 56     Two points: (I'll skip quoting your response) I think we're in violent agreement.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: (Rant) Developers might not run the show...   by tevenson       at Tue 27 May 12:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 64     Do the new roads really have to be named after the developer's wife/kids/mistress? I must admit, as much as I like my neighborhood, it does suffer from this problem. We have a Kristy Court and a Katy Lane and an Andrew Alden Drive. We make up for it, though, with some rather unusual street names: Tenacity Drive, Incorrigible Circle, and Hundred-Year Party Court.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: (Rant) Developers might not run the show...   by jenmac       at Tue 27 May 12:16pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 64     Who pays $1.3 mil to live in a house on Debbie Lane? Oh, damn you. Damn you directly to the bowels of hell. What is going to run through my head all day? "Debbie Lane/is in my ears/and in my eyes..." [ducks to avoid onslaught of pummelling from outraged Beatles fans] Seriously, I don't want to live on Debbie Lane, either. If developers really want to give streets proper-noun names, they should at least make those names a little livelier. Why not borrow from 19th century literature instead? Would you pay $1.3 mil to live on Eustacia Lane? Or Uriah Lane? How about Vronsky Street? [ducks to avoid pummelling from both Hardy/Dickens/Tolstoy fans, as well as more pummelling from people forced to read Return of the Native in 10th grade] Is it sticky? Would it kill you? -- snut_rucket's son at the La Brea tar pits   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: (Rant) Developers might not run the show...   by 74westy       at Tue 27 May 12:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 66     "Debbie Lane/is in my ears/and in my eyes..." ARRGH! Just because you're suffering doesn't mean the rest of us should have to! Why not borrow from 19th century literature instead? I say we follow Dostoevsky and call everything S. Place or something like that. I am Sparticus!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  (Rant 2) Developers who think they're being cool   by Brian Jones       at Tue 27 May 12:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 66     ...by including "Abbey Road" or "Penny Lane" in one of their developments. Screw you, bud — unless you're going for the full Beatle-themed development with Forthlin Road and Menlove Avenue and Arnold Grove and Madryn Street and so on. Putting the neighborhood adult bookstore on the Reeperbahn would be a nice touch. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   76.  Re: (Rant) Developers might not run the show...   by Clandestino       at Tue 27 May 1:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 65     We make up for it, though, with some rather unusual street names: Tenacity Drive, Incorrigible Circle, and Hundred-Year Party Court. By my aunt's suburban upstate New York home there's an intersection of two roads: Hendrix and Presley. I don't think it's a coincidence that the town board in nearby New Paltz has just gained a majority Green Party membership. Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you mad   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  Re: (Rant) Developers might not run the show...   by thomp       at Tue 27 May 2:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 64     It's the second-lamest trend in development, aside from naming a road "Maple Way" after cutting down all the maples. Even though this thread is pretty much dead, I have to reply to this one. I live on the prairie in southern Wisconsin, lots of prairie punctuated by stands of oak, maple, and cottonwood. A subdivision down the road from my neighborhood has a street called Pine Grove Way, and there haven't been pines there since the ice age 13,000 years ago! Ridiculous names indeed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   78.  Re: (Rant) Developers might not run the show...   by nmiguy       at Tue 27 May 2:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 66     Seriously, I don't want to live on Debbie Lane, either. If developers really want to give streets proper-noun names, they should at least make those names a little livelier. Just be happy you don't live on Picabo Street And be happy they are just naming streets and lanes. Soon folks will be naming their shrubbery. "This on hee-ya I call George W. This other one over hee-ya, well I call that one Jenna's Bush."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   90.  Been There, Almost   by uncarved block       at Tue 27 May 7:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 66     I used to live on a Longfellow Ave, just up the street from the intersection of Poe and Whitman.       The nadir, of course, will be when they start naming streets after internet script. Are you ready to live on LOL Lane? Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   93.  Re: Developers who think they're being cool...   by oink oink       at Tue 27 May 10:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 69     My parents live in a rather non-descript middle-class suburb where the streets are named after literary figureheads. Some examples: Blake Tennyson Coleridge Yeats Plath Montagu Frost Wilmot Goldsmith All in all, very cultured for what I would describe as suburban wasteland... :] hello.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   103.  Re: (Rant) Developers might not run the show...   by MacGregor       at Wed 28 May 10:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 64     Do the new roads really have to be named after the developer's wife/kids/mistress? Even in what you would think was the fairly hip Bay Area, there are at least eight roads of some sort named Debbie. Not to besmirch the Debbies in the Plastic audience, but what the hell? Who pays $1.3 mil to live in a house on Debbie Lane? I bet it would go for $1.6 mil if it was on "Dartmouth Court". Maybe it's because I grew up and live in a part of the country that was settled by Europeans over 300 years ago, so many more roads were laid out a long time ago and were given more quirky names. But this "Debbie" crap has got to stop. A big fat no as well to naming the new roads "Amber" or "Crystal" or any other common stripper name. (Again, apologies to any non-stripping Ambers and Crystals in the crowd.) It's the second-lamest trend in development, aside from naming a road "Maple Way" after cutting down all the maples. I moved from a place with colorful street names like "Cheese Factory Road," "Quaker Meetinghouse Road," and "Stony Lonesome Road," (a short stretch of which actually was still stony and lonesome) to a city with more than 50 street names containing the same word. I often refer to subdivisions around here as "We Ran Out Of Good Street Names Estates." "Though I look old, yet I am strong and lusty" --As you like it, Act 2, Scene 3   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

70.  Back to nature!   by BetsyDevine       at Tue 27 May 12:53pm score of 0.5 disingenuous     Does the right to live where we damned well please override public health? Hell no! Tear down the suburbs--and tear down cities too! You can't tell me it's healthy for people to live crowded together, getting their heat and light from fossil fuels, with food trucked or airplaned in from other continents. Let's go back to good old family farms, growing our own food. End reliance on nasty chemicals and fossil fuels--we can plow fields with oxen and use their manure for fertilizer. I look forward to seeing New Urbanists set this fine example. "making trouble today for a better tomorrow"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

72.  Guanajuato   by bento       at Tue 27 May 1:03pm score of 2 compelling     The Mexican city of Guanajuato has a piece of a solution to this. The historic center of town is beautiful winding cobblestone streets. Wildly impractical for cars and partly closed to them. But there are major streets with parking underground. You use these as arteries so you can still get pretty close to where you want to be efficiently.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

74.  Aesthetics   by androidjruby       at Tue 27 May 1:29pm score of 1     I like the idea of greater density and mixed use, but most of the New Urban communities I've seen make me puke for aesthetic reasons. I can't get into this whole fake quaint "lets go back to the era before electricity" design style, and all the houses have that, enforced by some kind of stodgy aesthetics board. These places look creepily zoned and uniform. This is a SOLUTION to the suburbs? Meanwhile, I live in a older close-in suburb, built in the 50s. Everything is pretty dense, there are plenty of stores within walking distance and sidewalks everywhere, AND NONE OF THIS WAS created by New Urbanists. I agree with the poster that said older suburbs develop personality. There's a lot of architectural variety, the trees and plants have grown into the environment. Along our shopping strip, there are several billboards, which some asshole wants taken down because he thinks they're ugly and undignified. I say lights, signs and concrete (and commerce) are stimulating and attractive. When I see another one of those dreary fake Colonial box-house developments designed to appeal to someones brain-dead greeting-card pastoralist idea of "beauty", I wonder about people. Its hilarious when some of these people actually try to move out to the country, and then they complain because its the country.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

75.  Re: Aesthetics   by tevenson       at Tue 27 May 1:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 74     I can't get into this whole fake quaint "lets go back to the era before electricity" design style, and all the houses have that, enforced by some kind of stodgy aesthetics board. These places look creepily zoned and uniform. This is a SOLUTION to the suburbs? Okay, I'm gonna reference my neighborhood one more time on this thread. Prospect is new urban neighborhood, but has an unusual twist: about half of the buildings are modern. It's not for everyone, but it I think it gives the neighborhood a nice, eclectic feel.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   83.  Re: Aesthetics   by Kardath       at Tue 27 May 4:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 75     Ah Longmont. When I used to live in Boulder, my wife and I desperately wanted to move there. Now that I think about it, it was for the same reasons that have come up over and over in this thread. The downtown was still miraculously alive. Plenty of small shops and interesting restaraunts within walking distance. We didn't have money at the time and so could never afford a house, but we used to drive around and look. I've always like those small houses better than the overblown mansions just to the north in Boulder. When we moved away, they had just opened the a big movie theater just off the highway. Housing seemed to be getting out of hand too. How have things held up?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Re: Aesthetics   by tevenson       at Wed 28 May 8:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 83     When we moved away, they had just opened the a big movie theater just off the highway. Housing seemed to be getting out of hand too. How have things held up? One of the reasons that I'm so pro-New Urbanism and smart growth is that during the late 90's boom, the Front Range was totally overrun by cookie-cutter housing and malls. The beautiful pastures between between Lafayette and Broomfield have now become the area's newest, biggest mega-mall. Boulder itself is still great, and I would love to live there, but I'm not a millionaire, which you need to be to own a house in downtown. The nice thing is that more and more Boulderites are moving to the bedroom communities like Longmont.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

100.  Could always be worse...   by gonzocanuck       at Wed 28 May 8:54am score of 1     You could be living in the Happy Valley Sunday world of Hiddenbrooke, ticky tackiness inspired by Thomas Kinkade. There is a local "micro village" concept down south that is similar...we thought about living there...but it's a true conformity factory :-D "Mac-Town" has a stigma all its own :-) with a sub-neighbourhood pretentiously called Village of Prestwick. You've got to coax him slow, that's the only way that he'll confess.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]