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.
^It is all of our business! We all pay taxes, a large portion of which subsidizes these sprawl developments, and pay for the infrastructure that make these developments possible in the first place. State roads, regional transportation systems, schools, a whole list of things. The fact that these developments are wasteful and make the quality of life in the general region lower (traffic problems, pollution, need for treatment plants, flooding due to increase in impervious pavements etc), not to mention causes gas to be higher priced due to demand, is something we all have to deal with. Until people gain a greater sense of community, we will continue to have this issue.
Yes its their choice to live where they want, but you have to remember that these choices have consequences that affect all of us. If our energy and money is being spent on supporting this lifestyle, its our right to criticize these practices, and vote for politicians who do not support it. For example, Obama is also against wasteful sprawlvilles, is a proponent of mass transit, and I fully support that position. Other regional politicians who recognize the need to reduce sprawl developments, focus on infill and densifying chicago hoods and even existing suburbs, and support CTA and Metra will also get my vote (conditionally). its much more effectual than simply looking your nose down on people, its calling into question the very nature of our city development. Its recognizing the need for a collective conscience on how we live and spend limited resources and tax money. Thats simply being a good citizen if you ask me.
Finally, there's tons of room in Chicago! Theres tons of middle class neighborhoods, its simply that certain demographics continue to equate city life with either poor people or rich elitists. Neither is wholly true. The southside, for example has many middle class hoods. They dont have to live in the burbs, and especially not places like St Charles, or Elgin (especially if they work in the city). Plus, look at all the empty land everywhere on the south and west sides. The city needs to reorganize, rezone, create business districts, and to spur redevelopment and rebuild these areas as well, so that the emptying of our inner cities does not continue. Much of this has to do with changing the mentality of the american people, so I see nothing wrong with voicing our opinion on this subject.
Is sprawl ugly? I suppose so but so what? It's not my business to impose my taste on others.
I think that there is more to the equation than just people and where they choose to live. For one example; a typical metropolitan city in the US has about 95%(?) sprawl or so. At least in the South, and a good portion elsewhere around the country. That means that the 5% who are actually living in walkable neighberhoods are paying 50% more for their houses simply due to the novelty of living in such a place. Coincidentally, there have been polls done that suggest the number of people who would prefer to live in a walkable neighberhood are somewhere in the range of 25-40% of the population. If you do the math, that means that 20-35% of the American population is not living in an environment in which they would prefer to live. I fall into this percentage. I can't move because the prices are too high to live in a place I would prefer to live in.
It basically comes down to this: can't we have both suburbun and walkable neighborhoods? Why not satisfied everyone? -Surely the potential exists. In my home town (Raleigh, NC) there has been a major push in the last decade to satisfy those who are seeking to live in a walkable neighborhood. Hopefully this concept will spread throughout the South and eventually the nation.
I think that there is more to the equation than just people and where they choose to live. For one example; a typical metropolitan city in the US has about 95%(?) sprawl or so. At least in the South, and a good portion elsewhere around the country. That means that the 5% who are actually living in walkable neighberhoods are paying 50% more for their houses simply due to the novelty of living in such a place. Coincidentally, there have been polls done that suggest the number of people who would prefer to live in a walkable neighberhood are somewhere in the range of 25-40% of the population. If you do the math, that means that 20-35% of the American population is not living in an environment in which they would prefer to live. I fall into this percentage. I can't move because the prices are too high to live in a place I would prefer to live in.
Do you even understand what "sprawl" is? It certainly doesn't sound like you do. Sprawl DOES NOT EQUAL everything suburban...and there is not a city in the world that is 95% sprawl.
I would suggest that you obtain a decent understanding of a topic before starting a thread about it.
It basically comes down to this: can't we have both suburbun and walkable neighborhoods? Why not satisfied everyone? -Surely the potential exists. In my home town (Raleigh, NC) there has been a major push in the last decade to satisfy those who are seeking to live in a walkable neighborhood. Hopefully this concept will spread throughout the South and eventually the nation.
See...you don't even seem to know that there ARE many suburban neighborhoods that are walkable and sustainable. Smart growth developments have been popular for several years now...look into it.
Do you even understand what "sprawl" is? It certainly doesn't sound like you do. Sprawl DOES NOT EQUAL everything suburban...and there is not a city in the world that is 95% sprawl.
I would say that Raleigh is about 95% sprawl. With only a couple areas that are truely medium to high density and mixed-used. Everything else is one-story sprawl. Just because a suburban may look nice and it has some sidewalks in it doesn't mean that it's not sprawl, in my opinion.
I don't know how everyone else out there feels about sprawl but I sure hate it. I would bet that some of you hate it as well and that some of you might not hate it and maybe even some of you don't really care. But let me tell you, I hate sprawl with a freaking passion. I am a really down-to-earth kind of guy, and it takes a lot for me to get upset about something, but positively there is nothing in the world that I hate more than sprawl.
I hate having to get in my car and drive 15 minutes just to get anywhere. I hate having to wait at a red light. I hate when other cars blow exhaust fumes up in my face when I wait at the red light. If I were walking there wouldn't be a red light. I hate how freaking ugly most American cities are. I hate the millions of square miles of impervious ashpalt surface that we have laid all over the country. I hate wide roads and how freaking hot they are in the middle of summer. I hate how we have cleared thousands of forests and natural areas just to slap down our poorly designed cities. I hate how we have tremendously disinvested in our Architecture and how it seems that no one has a problem with that at all. I hate cars. I hate billboards. I hate driving. I hate highways. I hate parking garages. I hate convience stores, drug stores, drive-in hamburger joints, Dollar-trees, Walmarts, K-Marts, Targets, Best Buys, Circuit Citys, McDonalds, Burger Kings, strip malls, power centers, McMansions, vinyl siding, fake building materials, cars, car washes, tire shops, auto shops, car lots, parking lots, overly massive one-story buildings, compartimentalized monoculture urban environments, bad architecture, poor urban design, poor growth patterns, our dependance on oil, incongruant building materials and patterns, lack of consistancy, our poor eating habits, lazyness, complacency, patriotism when our cities look like ****, 1970's architecture, buildings with no windows, cities with no sense of place, sprawl. I hate that the US is the laughing stock of urban designers the world over.
I was never beaten as a child. But I imagine that if I was that would have caused a lot of pain in my life. That kind of pain is what I feel everytime I get in my car to go somewhere and look out my windows at this disaster of a country we have built.
I would say that Raleigh is about 95% sprawl. With only a couple areas that are truely medium to high density and mixed-used. Everything else is one-story sprawl. Just because a suburban may look nice and it has some sidewalks in it doesn't mean that it's not sprawl, in my opinion.
More misinformation...once and for all, sprawl is not based on your "opninion". It isn't about sidewalks, one-story buildings, or density.
"Urban sprawl, also known as suburban sprawl, is the spreading of a city and its suburbs over rural land at the fringe of an urban area."
^This is correct. I also thought that this is what redfella was referring to in his original post that started this thread. For example, the exurbs, and fringe suburbs that were built over redeveloped farmland, creating nothing but cookie cutter subdivisions, big box stores and strip malls, that are entirely disjointed and not even close together. They are mostly unwalkable, and require residents to jump in a car merely to cross the street from one parking lot to the next. This does include many recent suburbs, such as those built after the 70's or 80's, I would say.
Some suburbs are medium to low density and are still very walkable, and do not require a car trip for small purchases, or short trips to the park etc. For example Chicagoland, as someone pointed out, does have burbs like an Evanston, Cicero, or an Oak Park that are highly walkable and still maintain that urbanity. Most major US cities have inner ring burbs like these. I have no problem with these areas, and in fact I would prefer that we build up these areas more with infill developments, and utilize existing infrastructure etc, rather than build entirely new communities from scratch out in the middle of nowhere.
^It is all of our business! We all pay taxes, a large portion of which subsidizes these sprawl developments, and pay for the infrastructure that make these developments possible in the first place. State roads, regional transportation systems, schools, a whole list of things. The fact that these developments are wasteful and make the quality of life in the general region lower (traffic problems, pollution, need for treatment plants, flooding due to increase in impervious pavements etc), not to mention causes gas to be higher priced due to demand, is something we all have to deal with. Until people gain a greater sense of community, we will continue to have this issue.
Yes its their choice to live where they want, but you have to remember that these choices have consequences that affect all of us. If our energy and money is being spent on supporting this lifestyle, its our right to criticize these practices, and vote for politicians who do not support it. For example, Obama is also against wasteful sprawlvilles, is a proponent of mass transit, and I fully support that position. Other regional politicians who recognize the need to reduce sprawl developments, focus on infill and densifying chicago hoods and even existing suburbs, and support CTA and Metra will also get my vote (conditionally). its much more effectual than simply looking your nose down on people, its calling into question the very nature of our city development. Its recognizing the need for a collective conscience on how we live and spend limited resources and tax money. Thats simply being a good citizen if you ask me.
Finally, there's tons of room in Chicago! Theres tons of middle class neighborhoods, its simply that certain demographics continue to equate city life with either poor people or rich elitists. Neither is wholly true. The southside, for example has many middle class hoods. They dont have to live in the burbs, and especially not places like St Charles, or Elgin (especially if they work in the city). Plus, look at all the empty land everywhere on the south and west sides. The city needs to reorganize, rezone, create business districts, and to spur redevelopment and rebuild these areas as well, so that the emptying of our inner cities does not continue. Much of this has to do with changing the mentality of the american people, so I see nothing wrong with voicing our opinion on this subject.
One of the best posts I have read on this forum.
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.
