Urban Sprawl---A Blessing or a Curse?

[prairiestate]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

More often than not, people lie to themselves about the true cost of owning and operating a car. You'll often hear people talk only about the cost of gas to drive from point A to B. In fact, gas is less than HALF the true out-of-pocket expense. I've been tracking my per-mile vehicle expense since 1998, and consistently, year after year, gas is around 1/3 to 1/2 of my total cost. At best, it costs me around 30¢ per mile to drive my own car.

Don't blame you for moving back to the center of town. That's what I did, too. I now walk to just about everything.

Good luck with getting up to date in PA.

I know how much it costs. Now that the car is paid off, around $250 a month with gas, insurance, car washes and pro-rated maintenance. With the car payment, it was around $500 a month.

I bought my condo in an inner suburb in 2003 for around $90,000, with a $650 a month mortgage, and $160 assessment. I could have bought a condo downtown-ish for, maybe, $180,000, though even that price would have been tough. My mortgage would be double, and my assessment in a high rise would be at least double, if not more. So that's at least $800 more per month in housing. Even if I got rid of my car, it would still be cheaper to live in the suburbs. However, my job is in the suburbs, so I would need to either keep the car or find a new job.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by GreggB

URBAN SPRAWL is a curse--NO matter where it is. The strip malls, the "Cookie Cutter" houses, the "Gated Communities", the total lack of any character and sense of community.

Is character determined more by the buildings in the neighborhood or the people that live in them?

[tonyurban]

I think it's both. Although that wasn't an answer choice. Sprawl has taken the demand of being crammed in one central location and made a bigger market for housing a population. And it gives more choices. HOWEVER, and thats a big however, the sprawl that is unchecked and the notion of "why not sprawl, we have the land to do so," needs to stop. Just because you're at a buffet doesn't mean you should eat to your hearts content. The same with sprawl.

Imagine if there wasn't any sprawl in the NYC metro. You think Manhattan is overcrowded and expensive now. So because the city was able to sprawl, it opened up the city to more people making New York more affordable and prosperous. The Metro just made sure there were other viable and reliable ways of getting into the city without the use of a car. Imagin NYC as it is now without its commuter rail, buses, and subways. Nevermind, don't think about it.

What I dearly hate most about sprawl is the highways that destroy peoples neighborhoods just so the people from far flung suburbs commute can be 10 minutes shorter.

Most american cities are built in favor of the suburbs at the expense of others neighborhoods. HOWEVER, if the tables were turned and highways were built criss crossing the NIMBY people's neighborhoods, houses and businesses were destroyed just to add two more lanes to a road so the commute for others is more convenient, it would be WWIII.

The point is both are crucial. Both are supposed to work in harmony. Just like a house. You don't want it too big because it's too much to maintain and sustain. On the other hand, you don't want it too small because you start to feel boxed in. The same with cities.

[BajanYankee]

I started a thread on that topic in the General U.S. forum. I think the same rigid, competitive mentality and need for structure and order that lead to the creation of suburbs is now shaping inner cities. Cities are becoming more like suburbs in both look and feel. See Atlantic Yards, Brooklyn, New York.

[nei]

Originally Posted by tonyurban

Imagine if there wasn't any sprawl in the NYC metro. You think Manhattan is overcrowded and expensive now. So because the city was able to sprawl, it opened up the city to more people making New York more affordable and prosperous. The Metro just made sure there were other viable and reliable ways of getting into the city without the use of a car. Imagin NYC as it is now without its commuter rail, buses, and subways. Nevermind, don't think about it.

Well, the city had always expanded to accommodate more people (though sometimes not keeping pace) but post-1950 or so the density and pedestrian friendliness of new development dove way down. If there wasn't mass automobile ownership, the mass transit system could have been expanded instead of highways. The NYC didn't make sure there were other viable methods of getting into the city without a car; almost all the mass transit infrastructure was built pre-automobile and later too much of the old parts of the metro area where people lived and worked mass transit fit well and cars worked poorly due to density and city form so the other viable methods were maintained.

Most other cities had a drastic change in form and density somewhere near the 50s except some sunbelt cities which weren't dense to begin with..

[prairiestate]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Is character determined more by the buildings in the neighborhood or the people that live in them?

Absolutely! People always drive through a neighborhood saying "these identical stucco boxes sure are ugly, but just look at the wonderful character of the people of inside them!"

Maximize efficiency ironic. Might seem unconventional that this high density boat is winning the contest. Rather than expressing energy resources too far spread out, let’s encourage endless main series of successful collection of massive municipalities that aren’t separating into further divisions of associations. Escape car monopolies, then enter freedoms of moving variability. Saturation of activity to power up functionality at a dense per capita rate. Solidly effective solutions to alleviate the issues of not having centralization going on within a metro area. Significantly reduce any clutter when firmly establishing growing civilization points of reference. Only real urban, no sprawl.