Artificially creating places to live

[ChristianDean]

I agree, it really stinks that we have important things to fund but so much funding that could be put to better uses goes to sustaining an environment or making it so people can drive to and from work quicker, all the while compromising other factors as well.

I dont think people SHOULDNT live in the desert, but if they are going to, they should do it more responsibly than they have.

[tonybologna]

I agree, it really stinks that we have important things to fund but so much funding that could be put to better uses goes to sustaining an environment or making it so people can drive to and from work quicker, all the while compromising other factors as well.

I dont think people SHOULDNT live in the desert, but if they are going to, they should do it more responsibly than they have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This country as a whole has serious suburban sprawl issues that are not being addressed. Local and state politicians are to blame. For example, I read somewhere that Rendell took out a bond to update sewers in the core of older cities and towns, but later changed his mind and instead used the bond money to build new sewers for sprawing suburbs.

If you go to Toronto, obviously there is some sprawl, but the Canadian government has take significant steps to protecting green areas surrounding major metropolitan areas like Toronto. As a result, when you drive into the city it is plainly obvious that the city is :

1. densley populated at the core.

2.People raise their families in the city.

3. You can pretty much walk around any neighborhood at night and feel safe.

4. Even more development is occuring in empty lots throughout the city- apartments, condos, homes being built in space that is vacant or no longer used.

Unless we can convince people to raise their families in cities, suburban sprawl will continue. We will pay for it when all of those systems need updated in 20 years too...

[jackson]

I think that you guys are correct in predicting that rustbelt cities will experience a revival, but nobody really knows how to do it yet. I don't think that the will to revitilize cities is lacking, it is just that people fail to identify the reasons why cities are the way they are.

People like to compare and contrast the cities of the northeast to the cities of the southwest, because, for the most part, SW cities continue to grow as NE cities are declining. To me this points out something pretty obvious: today, people travel primarily via automobile, and the old, traditional cities in the northeast that were not built for cars suffer because they are incompatible, as the modern, southwestern cities don't face the same problems because they were built for cars. You cannot make a traditional city entirely compatible with cars without completely destroying its fabric. Of course, exactly that was attempted, and as a result, the old cities have suffered. New York City is a great exception because it never really changed its mode of travel--most of the people still travel using mass transit and walking. If other cities followed suit, such as philadelphia, kept the number of expressways slicing through it to a minimum, and continued to expand its transit system, it would be in far better condition today. Bottom line: the most thriving cities (new york, boston) have not greatly comprimised its urban elements to accomodate for automobile travel, while the cities that have adapted for cars have failed (such as detroit, which has a disgraceful transit system).

Obviously there are many other factors that contributed to the decline of cities, but it cannot be ignored that traditional cities are highly incompatible with cars because they are built for padestrians, while modern cities are much more economically stable because they are built to accomidate automobiles. In saying that, though, cities that were built for cars as opposed to people (phoenix, houston, san jose) are fake, uninteresting, and lack many of the things that make cities great places to live.

They are built to make cars happy.

[TheGerbil]

Interesting about the cars. And that reminds me of another factor: Developers like to build in the flat desert where there is endless space. It's cheaper and easier than building in hilly places like Pittsburgh. In Phoenix and Vegas, you can just tack on a new neighborhood on flat lad around the city. Here, you have to find space that you can build on, and then on top of that you have to make sure it isn't already in use. It is probably cheaper to build a new building on flat desert land than it is to renovate an old building too.

[PghUSA]

Gerbil one thing is the "green fields" vs. "brown fields" thing. A lot of the land in Arizona or Florida has to be environmentally readied "green" (drainage, watertable, shrubs, wildlife clearances etc.) but some of the industrial states like Pa. have the "brownfield" situation where in addition to the "greenfield" preparations you have to do mine subsidence, mine release and purification, toxic soil tests, oil and toxic removal and cleanup etc. The Waterworks for instance did have that "flat land" but it was on top of a century long depository for slag, toxic waste, burnt out soil etc. etc.

[MeltingHotDogs]

I know it has been said over and over again and has been said to be a doomsday thing, but as car travel maybe not ceases, but is so freaking expensive, cities that have some sort of structure will do better. Alot of cities today, dare I say in the south US have a very poor infrastructure for people. I know someday soon cars as we know them anyways will not be as practical, if not in existance. I know alot of people already that have money are purchasing different things. For example a couple of my well-to-do neighbors with 30-40k suvs have purchased little early 90's putt putt cars because they were spending so much on gas (in exess of 400 a month) ... people that a few years ago of course would never dream of driving such cars. Things will change no doubt. People will realize they cant drive 50 miles to work and have their cake and eat it too. It is not like everyone has to live in a building, people can have a ok yard etc with GREAT houses in Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland etc etc etc ... I personally dont understand why cheaply made siding wonders and monotnous cookie cutter blatantly cheap housing took over in the first place. Rant Rant Rant ...i dont know what the point of this was, but maybe you can get something out of it LOL.

[TheGerbil]

PghUSA, that is a good point. Green fields must be cheaper and easier to develop than brownfields. It is too bad people are more concerned with saving money than with preserving the environment. We literally destroy it and then move on to take more green land, while the old ruined land sits empty! We can't go on like this...

And MeltingHotDogs, you are probably right about the cars. The time will come when commuting 2 hours is not feasible. When that happens, cities like Vegas and Phoenix will suddenly be much less desirable!

[jackson]

if and when that happens, the traditional cities in the northeast are going to thrive like never before

regardless if anything changes with this system, people should see it doesn't work as it is. I think that old cities will thrive either way, because the burbs are a very lifeless place to live (most of them, at least). The budget crisis many states, as well as the federal government, are facing can be attributed to the huge amounts of money spent on automobile infrastructure. There are also other costs to this lifestyle: urban municipalities generally require much more aid from the state, due to a disproportional make up of low income families and smaller (per-capita) tax bases. I don't even want to get in to the environmental impact highways have on both the land and the fabric of cities.

I know of very few peple who prefer what we build today as opposed to what we used to build. 70 years ago, I don't think anyone would have imagined this would happen. But, of course, since we perceive everything from the automobile, we no longer care about the asethetics, because we don't actually witness the reality as to what we have created. Of course, now we cant afford to build what we used to, because we spend so much money on both private and public levels trying to support this stupid lifestyle. I think if you provide the basics: education, jobs, safety, and combine that with everything else cities offer, the suburbs will never be able to compete.

[TheGerbil]

Your mention of education gets me thinking. How much less sprawl would we have if public schools in cities were funded better? What if there wasn't this perception that "inner-cuty" schools are crappy?

Seems like sooo many people move to the burbs largely because they think the schools are better. Hmmm.

[MeltingHotDogs]

I think alot of that too is perception. Alot of people of different races dont like to mix their children and inner city schools can have many many different kinds of people mingling which to some people can look "bad".

Someone on here once said that you could take 2 teachers, that both went to the same school, and one teaches at a public school and one teaches at an expensive private school, and both are giving the same type of education. That is something to think about but of course if they dont have the funding for the proper learning materials that point can be moot.