Urban Sprawl---A Blessing or a Curse? (planner, area, sidewalks, sidewalk)
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.
As VegasPilgrim and I discussed through intelligent discussion in our PMs, "sprawl" can have disastrous consequences in certain areas and can have benefits in others. For example, while Scranton/Wilkes-Barre declined in population by tens of thousands between 1970-1990, it's land usage also grew by over twenty square miles! What did this indicate? We took a dwindling population and simply spread it out further and further away from our urban cores, increasing the region's traffic congestion and dependency upon fossil fuels (which also contributes to our region's marginal air quality). We robbed our older municipalities of their tax bases, at which point either taxes had to be raised so high to sustain adequate services (driving out more residents in the process), or services had to be slashed to barely-functioning levels (also driving out more of the tax base in this vicious cycle). We lost more of our precious open space to account for new tract housing, strip malls, etc. that were previously available in our core communities. Once-vibrant middle-class urban communities sit largely-vacant while people flood outward in ever-expanding concentric circles of suburbia (What I like to call the "Krispy Kreme Effect" as the city cores become empty donut hole voids and the suburbs become the gooey, calorie-laden confectionary goodness in a ring around that void). In an area like Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, which just finally showed its first year of population growth in 2006 after decades of post-Industrial decline (due to an influx of NY/NJ transplants and growth of Hispanic families), sprawl in every sense of the term is AWFUL! All it does here is cause trouble.
VegasPilgrim described Phoenix sprawl to me a bit more clearly, and it seemed to be a very rational explanation. He agreed that what is happening to Northeastern Pennsylvania is disconcerting, but the situation in the Sunbelt is much different. I've concluded that in rapidly-booming cities like Phoenix, Atlanta, and Charlotte that there are enough people moving into the entire metropolitan areas to keep the urban cores vibrant as well as the suburbs, giving people the option to choose to live in either the city or suburbs without the associated guilt and shame of "killing the city," which I gladly subject suburban newcomers to in Scranton/Wilkes-Barre. It's not good at all that all three of those aforementioned cities have abysmal mass transit systems and have horrific traffic congestion as a result of the urban sprawl, but most Southern cities tend to be growing more quickly than they can plan for.
are you convinced that the sunbelt of today is so different from the steel belt of yesterday? what's to keep these newer growth cities from going the way of a wilkes-barre, scranton, buffalo, etc. on down the line?
what's to keep these newer growth cities from going the way of a wilkes-barre, scranton, buffalo, etc. on down the line?
Probably just sheer luck. When I was a kid in the 60s, no one would have predicted that Pittsburgh would have a smaller city population than Omaha, Neb or Colorado Springs, CO. in 2007. We thought those places were a joke. The steel industry collapsed. Who knows which industry is next?
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 05-20-2007 at 03:19 PM..
Reason: add a word for clarification
are you convinced that the sunbelt of today is so different from the steel belt of yesterday? what's to keep these newer growth cities from going the way of a wilkes-barre, scranton, buffalo, etc. on down the line?
The reason the rust belt became so rusty is because they weren't able to adapt with the changing economy and globalization. They stuck their heads in the sand, unions consolidated power, and pretended like the Asian Giants and technological economy wouldn't hurt them. They were wrong and their cities are in atrophy because of it.
What will make cities--no matter their region--successful has nothing to do with suburbs and downtowns as much as it has to do with a pro-business, pro-family climate that will be open to economic change. The two things that will never change are families and business. There will always be families and businesses and if a city can cater to those things it will always succeed.
The reason cities like Atlanta, Houston, Denver, Charlotte, etc are growing so quickly and becoming prosperous is that they are cheap, liveable, pro-business, low tax, and pro-family (decent schools, good neighborhoods, good churches, etc.). And they all are heavily suburbanized--which I think is ultimately a good thing. Vibrant, thriving suburbs demonstrate lots of families moving into the area to take advantage of jobs. You're seeing that in the south and west and there's no sign that the economic blowout will stop any time soon.
"They stuck their heads in the sand" "there's no sign that the economic blowout will stop any time soon"
different times, different economies don't mean that what's now occuring is not "sticking their heads in sand" and that sticking heads in sand won't result in similar outcomes. not identical, but similar - and suburbia's not THE ill of it all, in my view. a symptom, perhaps, in some cases. maybe truly fundamental in some others that are described in this thread. and again, this is not to say that suburbia is universally, inherently bad. just that it seems good to not "stick our heads in the sand" about some qualities of it.
"has nothing to do with suburbs and downtowns as much as it has to do with a pro-business, pro-family climate that will be open to economic change. The two things that will never change are families and business. There will always be families and businesses and if a city can cater to those things it will always succeed."
"nothing"?
"always"?
families and business "never" change?
i agree that keeping the health of families and some businesses in mind can be healthy.
Last edited by hello-world; 05-20-2007 at 03:53 PM..
Probably just sheer luck. When I was a kid in the 60s, no one would have predicted that Pittsburgh would have a smaller city population than Omaha, Neb or Colorado Springs, CO. in 2007. We thought those places were a joke. The steel industry collapsed. Who knows which industry is next?
yeah, that is really wild!
as far as sheer luck, i agree that some of these things can be hard to predict, though i think there are some things that can be foreseeable. running out of water can happen when enough people are trying to use it. driving all over the place with inefficient vehicles emits lots of things we may not want to be emitting so much of. planning for a population that cannot be sustained can be part of these and can result in some less than good stuff!
Last edited by hello-world; 05-20-2007 at 04:20 PM..
I agree with hello-world that Rawlings uses a lot of absolutes. As for heavy suburbanization, here are some figures for the cities he mentions, plus for Pittsburgh and DC (for comparison purposes).
City residents to suburban residents:
Atlanta 1:10.6 (Similar to DC)
Houston 1:2.75
Charlotte: 1:3.5
Denver 1:5
Pittsburgh 1:7
Apparently, heavy suburbanization has nothing to do with economic success. I would agree that in the case of Pittsburgh, civic leaders and other movers and shakers stuck their heads in the sand, and didn't try to adapt . . . at first. But the unions did not consolidate power, they lost power with the crash of the steel industry, which was heavily unionized. Pittsburgh has always been a pro-church, pro-family town, heavy Catholic church membership and church attendance. So that can't be it either.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 05-20-2007 at 04:49 PM..
Reason: spelling error
I agree with hello-world that Rawlings uses a lot of absolutes. As for heavy suburbanization, here are some figures for the cities he mentions, plus for Pittsburgh and DC (for comparison purposes).
City residents to suburban residents:
Atlanta 1:10.6 (Similar to DC)
Houston 1:2.75
Charlotte: 1:3.5
Denver 1:5
Pittsburgh 1:7
Apparently, heavy suburbanization has nothing to do with economic success. I would agree that in the case of Pittsburgh, civic leaders and other movers and shakers stuck their heads in the sand, and didn't try to adapt . . . at first. But the unions did not consolidate power, they lost power with the crash of the steel industry, which was heavily unionized. Pittsburgh has always been a pro-church, pro-family town, heavy Catholic church membership and church attendance. So that can't be it either.
nice. that's pretty interesting. and no offense, rawlings - you seem to raise some good points, though absolutes don't seem, to me, so easy to pin down. i'd just offer here that some of suburbanization can influence economics. SWB mentions some of this in the case of wilkes-barre, and there's plenty of googleable stuff out there concerning resource and health costs attributable to dependence on automobiles, infrastructure development/maintenance and resource allocation to support some of the expansiveness of suburbia, etc.. of course there are also similar costs associated with urbanization, some of it's "opposites", etc.. i guess the balance in the face of population growth might be part of what the discussion's about.
I think the biggest thing is that in so many areas of this country people have no other option than living in sprawl-style development where a car is a requirement and walking anywhere is out of the question. There is the demand there, but alternate development types of housing are simply not available. Compare the prices of an average town-home in a walkable neighborhood with easy access to public transportation to your typical suburban tract home and you will see the later is normally SUBSTANTIALLY cheaper.
Why is this happening? Part of the reason is that developers since the 1950's are used to developing sprawl housing. Another reason is that oil has been under-priced in relation to its actual cost on society. Finally, our governments has indirectly subsidized this type of development through free highways and roads while largely ignoring alternative forms of transportation.
It's a sad situation but we only have our selfs to thank for the current situation we are in.
I agree irwin. Another aspect is the decentralization of employemnt. Prior to the 70s, suburbs were "bedroom communities" Most suburbanites commuted by car or train to the central city where they worked in offices and factories. When the freeways were built, employers followed them out to the burbs and relocated there. Mass transportation requires critical masses, which became untenable as employment centers dispersed in all directions from the central city. Those who lived in the central city were forced to commute by car, and those in the burbs drove to various suburbs rather than into the city. When people change jobs these days, chances are your new employer is 20-30 miles away from your old one on the other side of the metro area.
If you look at city-data's own list of "Top 100 Best Educated Cities" you will notice most are suburbs of other large cities.
This should be no surprise, pitt. Educated suburbs attract educated people. It's a function of economics. Compare to cities (real cities, not suburbs that are technically cities, like city-data and Money magazine use in their apples to oranges comparisons). In cities, you will find some of the most highly educated people in the country living in them. But in the same city, in the less prosperous areas, you'll find huge numbers of the least educated. You won't find many h.s. dropouts in suburbs with highly educated people. Conversely, you will not find many college graduates in suburbs with lots of dropouts.
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.
What did this indicate? We took a dwindling population and simply spread it out further and further away from our urban cores, increasing the region's traffic congestion and dependency upon fossil fuels (which also contributes to our region's marginal air quality). We robbed our older municipalities of their tax bases, at which point either taxes had to be raised so high to sustain adequate services (driving out more residents in the process), or services had to be slashed to barely-functioning levels (also driving out more of the tax base in this vicious cycle). We lost more of our precious open space to account for new tract housing, strip malls, etc. that were previously available in our core communities. Once-vibrant middle-class urban communities sit largely-vacant while people flood outward in ever-expanding concentric circles of suburbia (What I like to call the "Krispy Kreme Effect" as the city cores become empty donut hole voids and the suburbs become the gooey, calorie-laden confectionary goodness in a ring around that void). In an area like Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, which just finally showed its first year of population growth in 2006 after decades of post-Industrial decline (due to an influx of NY/NJ transplants and growth of Hispanic families), sprawl in every sense of the term is AWFUL! All it does here is cause trouble.
It's not good at all that all three of those aforementioned cities have abysmal mass transit systems and have horrific traffic congestion as a result of the urban sprawl, but most Southern cities tend to be growing more quickly than they can plan for.
