Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is that when people live WAY out and have long commutes and then require a car for every trip once they get home there are costs on society at large that these people are not paying for. These would include pollution (both traditional air pollutants and greenhouse gases), increase in traffic, increase in the cost of infrastructure investment, and increased need to fossil fuels which means more soldiers having to go fight around the world to protect more foreign oil supplies.
The McMansion exurb sprawl that seems to be consuming this country is NOT sustainable. Period.
Indeed it isn't. Just look at how nice LA is (I'm kidding.) Costs aside, as long as you have the option to just go farther out to develop, you keep letting the currrent areas decay.
Indeed it isn't. Just look at how nice LA is (I'm kidding.) Costs aside, as long as you have the option to just go farther out to develop, you keep letting the currrent areas decay.
That is why we need to wake up as a country and change our land use policies. We need to price in these costs to new developments way out and put some controls on this mess.
And why we are still building huge highways is completely beyond me...
Beautiful pics. You almost make me want to go back there . . .
But notice what is missing from every single one of the urban houses you pictured (at least as far as I can tell).
Any guesses?
Missing = people, dogs?. beautiful pix btw. Thanks SWB.
The McMansions reminded me of beautiful South Florida (sarcastic) people will stop to say hello when they see the new Lexus SUV in your driveway, that's all. There is no sense of community. A new sense of alienation.
I'd suggest that when asking the people that live and embrace the suburbs if their quality of life is lower, they'd disagree with you. Many left the city, citing congestion and noise as their reason. Cars may make some noise, but I'd say cities are MUCH noisier than the suburbs, this coming from having lived in everything, ranging from the country to downtown.
You can say that it's all terrible, but people that like McMansions more don't think of themselves as prisoners. They clearly have a point of view that led them to make their choice. People that like the McMansions like the extra space they can afford, and many like driving everywhere. In a car you don't have to put up with sitting next to some cokehead to or talkng to other people if you don't want to. They have a point. You'd think they were dangerous, irrational people based on the way some people here talk about them.
I agree. People are free to make their own choices and live as they please. This isn't one of the former Communist Soviet Union's "Five Year Plans" by any means! My main gripe comes because in my particular area, the "fear" of the cities is totally ludicrous and irrational. Scranton isn't Philly where an average of one murder per day occurs and the public school system is worse than Baghdad's! Scranton is more like Mayberry on steroids (If that's not too much of an oxy-moron! LOL!) As such, there's no reason at all to be fleeing the city for these suburban areas out of some sort of perceived criminal threat, yet thousands of city residents have been doing so for decades. Scranton's population has declined from 150,000 to a most recent estimate of just over 67,000, yet its traffic congestion in and out of town is worse than ever because it's your cut and dry "9-5 city" where everyone works and plays but seemingly nobody lives in. Trees around our urban periphery continue to fall for massive new housing developments, big-box stores, etc., and at what point do we say "STOP?!" There has to be some balance between permitting people to have the freedom to move to the suburbs and not allowing existing neighborhoods to deteriorate due to abandonment. Perhaps stricter zoning regulations could be made possible in the suburbs to require mixed-use zoning areas (new homes next to new businesses next to churches, etc.) Perhaps growth boundaries can be formed to limit just how much open space we should allow to be destroyed in the name of "progress?"
Perhaps stricter zoning regulations could be made possible in the suburbs to require mixed-use zoning areas (new homes next to new businesses next to churches, etc.) Perhaps growth boundaries can be formed to limit just how much open space we should allow to be destroyed in the name of "progress?"
Yes.
I do think that some forward-thinking communities are ironing some of this out at city-planning meetings. The thing is, everyone has to agree. Compromises must be made. Blood, sweat and tears will be shed at these meetings. (And I am only being a little bit facetious!)
My main concern with the new "car centric" culture and the way the new "communities" are built... is that common courtesy for the pedestrian and alternative forms of transportation like bicycles... has completely gone out the window. In my area, being a pedestrian or riding a bike makes folks in their "cages" downright hostile if they have to accommodate you in anyway.
Like god-forbid they have to wait for you to get across the street and out of the crosswalk or they have to go around you in the lane when you are riding your bicycle.
Yes.
I do think that some forward-thinking communities are ironing some of this out at city-planning meetings. The thing is, everyone has to agree. Compromises must be made.
Yeah, just like things were ironed out and everyone agreed and compromises were made when the Interstate Highways were rammed through city neighborhoods in the 50s-60s-70s!
My main gripe comes because in my particular area, the "fear" of the cities is totally ludicrous and irrational.
You're exactly right. The bad thing about those types of communities is the mentality that "Older homes nearer the city MUST be a ghetto." I grew up in just the type of community that thought that. I now live in the city, and my friends probably think I'm a prisoner here, because they haven't gotten out and seen the way it really is. They see NO plus to living in the city, and I think it's pathetic that some people will never get out and get some perspective. I'll probably move out eventually to get some more land around me when I settle down, but I know that I'll need to combat that fear of the city so my kids aren't of the same opinion.
Then again, in California, urban schools are so terrible that I'm not surprised why people in the Mc Mansion suburbs think that.
... you guys in Scranton ever watch The Office? haha.
That is why we need to wake up as a country and change our land use policies. We need to price in these costs to new developments way out and put some controls on this mess.
And why we are still building huge highways is completely beyond me...
Look, you can look at my history of posts and know that I'm a fan of big cities, but a significant number of people move out of strong cities such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco because the cost of living in those cities is so high compared to the suburbs. So, how is it good for a region overall (i.e. the entire Chicagoland area) to artificially jack up the costs of living in the exurbs when those are the only places that a lot of people can afford (at least in terms of places that have decent public schools and lower crime rates)?
Also, by the virtue of the rate of population growth of major metro areas, the geographic footprints of those regions are going to expand. Can you really expect to add 1 million people or more to a metro area per decade yet not increase the amount of space for those people to live (or build the highways to accomodate them)? At the same time, as population numbers rise, the demand for housing rises in turn, so housing costs will skyrocket unless you find ways to build more housing elsewhere.
As much as I like urban areas, I am vehemently opposed to people imposing what they believe is a "higher quality of life" on others. Like I've said before, some people only dream of living in a hip city neighborhood while others can't imagine life outside of a small town. Those are completely personal preferences and it's extremely disingenuous to say that one lifestyle is better, superior, or more "socially responsible" than the other - as the saying goes, different strokes for different folks.
Yes, environmental issues need to be addressed, but people who want to make changes can't approach it with hypothetical top-down plans where everyone needs to live in multi-family housing units without cars. Concentration on making more reasonably priced fuel efficient cars (and not just small sedans, but also the larger cars that a lot of families prefer so that people actually want to buy such cars) and increased efficiencies to power and water usage are items that are much more reasonable to enact and most people, whether living in an urban or exurban area, are going to be willing to do. Telling people where they should live or saying that one lifestyle is more socially conscious than the other, however, is going to create a huge backlash that will tank any other well-intentioned environmental efforts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
uhm--
My main gripe comes because in my particular area, the "fear" of the cities is totally ludicrous and irrational. Scranton isn't Philly where an average of one murder per day occurs and the public school system is worse than Baghdad's! 
Scranton is more like Mayberry on steroids (If that's not too much of an oxy-moron! LOL!) 
As such, there's no reason at all to be fleeing the city for these suburban areas out of some sort of perceived criminal threat, yet thousands of city residents have been doing so for decades. Scranton's population has declined from 150,000 to a most recent estimate of just over 67,000, yet its traffic congestion in and out of town is worse than ever because it's your cut and dry "9-5 city" where everyone works and plays but seemingly nobody lives in. 
Trees around our urban periphery continue to fall for massive new housing developments, big-box stores, etc., and at what point do we say "STOP?!" 
There has to be some balance between permitting people to have the freedom to move to the suburbs and not allowing existing neighborhoods to deteriorate due to abandonment. Perhaps stricter zoning regulations could be made possible in the suburbs to require mixed-use zoning areas (new homes next to new businesses next to churches, etc.) Perhaps growth boundaries can be formed to limit just how much open space we should allow to be destroyed in the name of "progress?"
