Office boom centers on Williamson County

[Guest]

In my book I can be very much a fan of skyscrapers AND a proponent of a livable, pedestrian friendly, community based urban environment. I believe that people should live where they 'want' to live based on there own criteria and economic wherewithal.

Now we can use the power of the government to provide incentives for what is called

[Hankster]

Los Angeles and San Diego are about an hour - hour and a half away depending on traffic (about the distance to murfreesboro). Now obviously Los Angeles is much bigger than San Diego, but is there anyone in LA crying about how San Diego should let the good companies come to LA first because its bigger? Absolutely not. San Diego developed into a city in its own right and while much of it outside of downtown could be defined as sprawl, it has its own booming economy and has become a nationally player. Or look at Orange County, CA which is very clearly a suburb of LA but has a population of nearly 3 million. Orange county developed because people who worked in LA wanted to get away from the Crime, pollution, traffic, and raise families in a more family-oriented area. Now Orange County has one of the strongest economies in the country and claims some of the most powerful businesses in the country as its residents. If Orange County wasn't allowed to grow and entice businesses, I think that LA would have very visibily have been negatively affected. But growth in OC usually translates into growth in LA because their economies are intertwined.

A better example of what you're trying to describe would be Dallas and Fort Worth. Is so happens that Los Angeles and San Diego from city center to city center are 124 miles apart, nearly the distance from Nashville to Chattanooga. No wonder they developed as distinct different cities and they really are two separate metro areas. But this also points out how fantastically spread out a huge metropolitan area can get if allowed to become a seemingly endless suburbia. It is true that the urban expanse of LA and San Diego practically touch each other despite being 124 miles apart.

[Kheldane]

As I stated above I agree with most of their ideas but am I ready to force others, through the power of the government to agree with me? Am I ready to tell a family that they should not like their house because it does not conform to architectural or urban standards to move? Am I going to tell a father and mother in Brentwood not to purchase an SUV for their family because it is not urban friendly? Nope.

If the urban planners educate the public over time and gain converts to the new paradigm then the market will react and the SUV will resell for less, and the house in Spring Hill will not appreciate and condos will be going up in d

[Nashvillain]

Preach on Brother!!!

It amazes me to see that some people are so confused and surprised about the idea of businesses leaving Davidson (although this is probably only a part of the williamson growth, most of it is probably from out of state, as RuralKing said). How could someone look at the population trends and still think that businesses should remain in the core or even Davidson county?

People hate long (time duration) commutes. They want their place of work to be near where they live, so businesses move to the suburbs. People were able to move to the suburbs in the first place (and afford with the long distance commute) due to government financed roads - back when traffic wasn't so bad. Where was the all-powerful, all-knowing government and its cadre of planning experts when the interstates were constructed? Oh, they were right on board with it! Nevermind the fact that the interstates cut through historic districts and slice the city up and lead to suburbanization by subsidizing the commuting infrastructure of suburbanites. You only have the government to blame for suburbanization (so far is it is made possible by cheap highways).

In the absence of interstates more freight would be transported by rail. More people would utilize commuter rail for suburban and inter-city transport (local surface streets being too slow). Railroads are privately owned.

People like to have good schools for their kids. If it weren't for the monopolization of the education market by the government then you'd see myriad education concepts being tested in the market place, with maybe a few leaders emerging. There would be NGO's, Charities, Churches, Non-Profits, and maybe even For-Profit educational businesses. The key advantage to a diversified education system is more choice for parents and the ability of the market to adapt to customer demands. It is only due to fact that essentially all schooling is provided by the metro monopoly that you see wide-spread dissatisfaction by parents. If you say to me "well, the metro school board can't please everyone" , then I will say "that's exactly the point. they can't please everyone, they never will, and that's why a thousand different parental preferences calls for a thousand different approaches to schooling. only the private sector can provide this".

Businesses want cheap land and they want minimal restrictions on land usage. People want cheap housing. Both of these facts are strongly related to zoning. Zoning has a huge impact on property values and if you have a non-urban county that is willing to work with you on zoning to keep your costs down, versus Davidson who might try to "plan" development by restricting what you do - then you'll obviously choose the out-lying county who gets out of your way and lets you get down to business on the cheap.

It is a foregone conclusion that "planned development" is contrary to the most economically efficient development strategies. Why? Because if businesses and subdivision developers were designing and building what the "urban planners" wanted, then there would be no need for "urban planning" in the first place. It is only because the "urban planners" want to impose their design concepts on businesses in ways that are contrary to the businesses' economic interests that laws are required to make it happen. It is completely pointless to act surprised when the business then says "screw you and your urban planning, i'm going to williamson". The reason is obvious.

Hankster, you asked what Davidson can "do" to attract more busines and stem the flow of suburban flight? The answer is that they really can't "do" anything. What they need to do is stop doing pretty much everything they are doing now.

Davidson county has enormous government projects and expenditures that the tax payers have to pay for. Compare that to williamson or rutherford! It is simple economics (as NashvilleBound stated) that people will try to escape these unnecessary burdens and keep more of their money for themselves. Sure everyone want's to go to a Titans game, but no one wants to pay the "real" ticket cost. What is the "real" ticket cost? That's what the cost of a ticket would be if Bud Adams himself had to aquire the stadium land, build the stadium, run it, and pay taxes on it, and then distribute those expenses to each titans game ticket purchaser. The real ticket price could be ...well who knows? $400 a ticket? I have no idea!! But one point that is certain, it is more than most people would be willing to pay - - - and Bud Adams knows this. That's why he snookered the metro govt. into making davidson county tax payers subsidize it. I don't blame people and businesses for refusing to be used like that to prop up all the failed davidson co. govt. projects.

All that is true. Businesses want to maximize profits. Yes. People want to maximize their salary. Right. Does that mean it's the best way to create new businesses and new environments for living?

[Kheldane]

All that is true. Businesses want to maximize profits. Yes. People want to maximize their salary. Right. Does that mean it's the best way to create new businesses and new environments for living?

Good question! The thing is this: the "best way" is a point of view. You can either let people develope their land as they see fit and in a way that maximizes their utilization of the land, or you can impose your opinion of the "best way" upon them.

Is it even possible to know the "best way"?? Wouldn't you say that attitudes/opinions about the "best way" to develop cities is constantly changing? That just goes to show you that our knowledge of what it takes to make a city that satisfies the demands of its citizens is in a state of imperfection now, so I see no reason to regard one person's opinion over another's.

And one other thing that I want to comment on: Who is doing the "creat[ing]"? If we're going to discuss the best way to create new business, we must first ask who is doing the creating and what their opinion is. Government can't create business - and every time they try, they fail. So we have entrepreneurs creating successful business. If you have XYZ entrepreneure who is choosing a site for a new office park, he will choose a location near major transportation corridors, but also a spot with room for expansion and cheap land. If, after considering all of these factors, the entrepreneur's site selection doesn't match with an urban plan conceived by a committee of "experts", then I am inclined to say the committee is flawed - not that there's something wrong with the entrepreneur's decision.

I consider it a given that attempts to plan development will necessarily result in the prevention of development because it will raise costs beyond the break-even point for marginally profitable businesses. "Liveability" and "Sense of Community" make good catch phrases for self-agrandizing urban planners, but they rarely add one cent to the balance sheets of businesses that are affected by these government regulations. And for better or worse, businesses have to answer to creditors and investors and return a profit to those two groups.

[Skyscrapergeek]

Good question! The thing is this: the "best way" is a point of view. You can either let people develope their land as they see fit and in a way that maximizes their utilization of the land, or you can impose your opinion of the "best way" upon them.

Is it even possible to know the "best way"?? Wouldn't you say that attitudes/opinions about the "best way" to develop cities is constantly changing? That just goes to show you that our knowledge of what it takes to make a city that satisfies the demands of its citizens is in a state of imperfection now, so I see no reason to regard one person's opinion over another's.

And one other thing that I want to comment on: Who is doing the "creat[ing]"? If we're going to discuss the best way to create new business, we must first ask who is doing the creating and what their opinion is. Government can't create business - and every time they try, they fail. So we have entrepreneurs creating successful business. If you have XYZ entrepreneure who is choosing a site for a new office park, he will choose a location near major transportation corridors, but also a spot with room for expansion and cheap land. If, after considering all of these factors, the entrepreneur's site selection doesn't match with an urban plan conceived by a committee of "experts", then I am inclined to say the committee is flawed - not that there's something wrong with the entrepreneur's decision.

I consider it a given that attempts to plan development will necessarily result in the prevention of development because it will raise costs beyond the break-even point for marginally profitable businesses. "Liveability" and "Sense of Community" make good catch phrases for self-agrandizing urban planners, but they rarely add one cent to the balance sheets of businesses that are affected by these government regulations. And for better or worse, businesses have to answer to creditors and investors and return a profit to those two groups.

Kheldane, if there were an emoticon with a sold out 100,000 seat stadium and all the little yellow faces were standing with a thunderous ovation....I would post it. Since it doesn't exist yet, x100,000.

[jice]

First of all... I think NV's question was more of a rhetorical one... lol... although maybe i'm wrong.

I like to think there's businessmen out there who are actually concerned about the environment that we live in... and want to help improve it... but maybe I'm being too optimistic, I dunno.

The 'best way' is just a point of view of the urban planners... but it's a point of view that came about as a result of study and looking at what the current state of "planning" (or lack of) is doing.

[LA_TN]

Unfortunately, no. Remember the developer for Target on Old Hickory Blvd. at I-65? After development started, work began on relocating a portion of a creek. A local group filed suit and a judge ordered all development to stop for environmental evauluation. The developer ignored the judge and development proceeded.

A) There was no environmental impact study for creek relocation

B) The judge's fine was less than the losses the developer would have incurred from missing his deadlines.

IMO, either the developer has balls or is really stupid to ignore a judge's direct order.

So when $$$ is involved, nobody cares about the environment...

[BnaBreaker]

Good question! The thing is this: the "best way" is a point of view. You can either let people develope their land as they see fit and in a way that maximizes their utilization of the land, or you can impose your opinion of the "best way" upon them.

Is it even possible to know the "best way"?? Wouldn't you say that attitudes/opinions about the "best way" to develop cities is constantly changing? That just goes to show you that our knowledge of what it takes to make a city that satisfies the demands of its citizens is in a state of imperfection now, so I see no reason to regard one person's opinion over another's.

And one other thing that I want to comment on: Who is doing the "creat[ing]"? If we're going to discuss the best way to create new business, we must first ask who is doing the creating and what their opinion is. Government can't create business - and every time they try, they fail. So we have entrepreneurs creating successful business. If you have XYZ entrepreneure who is choosing a site for a new office park, he will choose a location near major transportation corridors, but also a spot with room for expansion and cheap land. If, after considering all of these factors, the entrepreneur's site selection doesn't match with an urban plan conceived by a committee of "experts", then I am inclined to say the committee is flawed - not that there's something wrong with the entrepreneur's decision.

I consider it a given that attempts to plan development will necessarily result in the prevention of development because it will raise costs beyond the break-even point for marginally profitable businesses. "Liveability" and "Sense of Community" make good catch phrases for self-agrandizing urban planners, but they rarely add one cent to the balance sheets of businesses that are affected by these government regulations. And for better or worse, businesses have to answer to creditors and investors and return a profit to those two groups.

So, let me get this straight...and forgive me if i've misunderstood you...but are you saying that we should allow developers and businesses to do absolutely whatever the hell they want with the land they own under any circumstances? Are you saying that the unchecked sprawl, the way that is PROVEN to drastically increase traffic, drastically increases air pollution, destroys our farms, small towns, and natural areas needlessly, provides no way for those who can't drive to transport, breaks up society, breaks down the 'community' feel we all love, and increases paranoia of those who are different, increases our dependancy on foreign oil etc. etc. is JUST AS GOOD A WAY to develop our developing areas than if we were to do it responsibly being mindful of the environment, the farms, the underprivleged and handicapped who can't drive and everything else that goes along with that?

I'm sorry, and I mean no disrespect, but I think that is just silly. Just because more than one opinion exists regarding a particular issue doesn't necessarily mean that each opinion is equally valid. Some opinions on a subject are based on fact and actually are better ways of going about things...and some opinions are based on the fear of change. Sometimes there IS infact a right and a wrong way. People don't seem to understand that the reasons some people hate sprawl so much are based on the facts, and aren't merely a "point of view" or a "lifestyle choice". The only reason to choose unplanned sprawl is if one truly could care less about those that are too young, old, poor, handicapped to drive or own a large home and could care less about our planet. It's like if one group of people said there was a comet headed on a collision course towards earth and that something needed to be done and one group said that there isn't one and we should ignore it...those two opinions would be equally valid were it not for the fact that the FIRST group was actually looking through the telescope at the comet and was willing to admitt that something was wrong.

By the way...what exactly is the proof behind your last paragraph? Because all kinds of cities and towns across the world say that you are wrong. If somehow you were to prove to me that planning development ends up in economic breakdown, consider this: Since when was making as much money as possible and attracting development no matter the cost and the consequence to future generations more important than the well-being and health of our fellow human beings and our planet?

[Kheldane]

So, let me get this straight...and forgive me if i've misunderstood you...but are you saying that we should allow developers and businesses to do absolutely whatever the hell they want with the land they own under any circumstances? Are you saying that the unchecked sprawl, the way that is PROVEN to drastically increase traffic, drastically increases air pollution, destroys our farms, small towns, and natural areas needlessly, provides no way for those who can't drive to transport, breaks up society, breaks down the 'community' feel we all love, and increases paranoia of those who are different, increases our dependancy on foreign oil etc.

Thank you for asking this BNA, there may have been others who wondered about his too: Yes, I'm saying that developers should be allowed to build whatever they want on the land that they own. But there is one thing that maybe I didn't make clear about my "free market" approach: I'm saying this hands-off approach should also include infrastructure.

Example: XYZ developer want's to buld a big office park on the 10 acres he just purchased. If I were mayor of ABC town and XYZ developer started making demands I'd tell him go jump... What's that? You need a new road or a road expansion? Well La-dee-da,,, go build it yourself! What's that? You need some water and sewer services? Here's the yellow pages - you call some engineering firm and design your own. What's that, you need some electrical services? I'm sure you'll think of something. What's that - you want better fire coverage? Well hmmm, that is a pickle! I guess you'll just have to create your own fire department.

You get the idea. I think that small town/county governments often act as facilitators for sprawl. They make their local tax payers subsidize the growth and then use the growth as an excuse to expand government services, etc. etc. If developers knew that they would be "on their own" then they'd plan their developments a lot better. We get all this rain in tennessee yet no one uses cisterns to capture it. We get pretty good sunshine yet no one uses solar panels to utilize it. We see these 4 lane highways cutting across empty farm land and within a few years the farms are gone and it's suburban sprawl. You must realize that it's the government subsidized infrastructure that's driving these moves. The government is promoting growth in "empty" areas to bump up their tax base and increase their power. The government is building these "speculative" roads in the middle of nowhere to promote sprawl!

Now one thing I must disagree with you on is the idea that devopment destroys farms. To the extent that farmland can be put to a more profitable use than farming, then that change of land usage benefits the whole community. Now, keep in mind everything I said above about subsidized infrastructure. If you have the city installing fancy water, electrical, and roadway infrastructure out in the farming area, then of course it will make it a prime candidate for new sprawl. I'm against that. But if there is a particular site that is currently farmland and a business needs it for something else, and they pay the farmer an agreed upon price, and the farmer willingly sells the land - then no harm is done and wealth has been created. The farmer also has the right to sell his land whenever he wants. You can't force him to continue farming it just because you like farms or the idea of "rural life".

I think I've discussed this in other posts, but it's the government subsidized road system that's made our cities dependent on automobile transportation and foreign oil. Government regulations have prevented further construction of nuclear power plants, making us more dependent on foreign oil. Government regulations preventing oil exploration in alaska has made us more dependent on foreign oil. Government regulations related to coal have made us more dependent on foreign oil. Government regulations preventing the construction of new refineries have made the price of refined hydrocarbons artificially high.

By the way...what exactly is the proof behind your last paragraph?... If somehow you were to prove to me that planning development ends up in economic breakdown...

Planning development doesn't (usually) end in total economic breakdown. What I said was that planning (restricting) devopment will result in less development. Maybe not zero development, but less development. Making every project more expensive will prevent the MARGINAL projects from being done. Marginal means that they are already very close to the break-even point. Any significant increase in fixed costs makes a the project a non-starter. That's what I mean by marginal. You will have some businesses with huge profit margins that can handle the cost of added restrictions, and maybe you'll have some civic minded creditors/investors who are willing to pay the extra to go along with an urban planners vision. But in other cases, you will not. They will go to williamson, because there the fixed costs are less and they can make a profit.

But you have to decide for yourself if increasing wealth is a desireable goal. If slow, steady, big-time corporate growth is what you want, then maybe "planning" effectively limits growth to that type. But if you want small and medium size upstart firms, who are already strapped for cash due to competition, to locate in your area, you have to make it cost effective. They may desire with all of their being to locate in a highly planned, eco-friendly organic development, but if the math doesn't work, where does that leave them? SOL. Facing the harsh reality of economics: scarce resources.

[jice]

OK... so... the government sucks... the urban planners should be shot... developers should do whatever they want... blah blah. If they were allowed to do so though, let's think about what would happen...

Build whatever you want on your land... oh, and you're responsible for all services and roads and whatever else you need to make whatever you wanna build work. Alrighty... so... let's build thing thing... but oh wait... we need water, sewer, electrical, roads, etc etc... where does all this come from? I guess we need to build ourselves a huge lake and a power plant and water treatment plant and so on... just so we can complete our 10 acre project. Hoolllld on a minute... all that stuff costs lots of $$$... is it really worth it just for our little 10 acre project? I think we need a better idea... let's take our services that we build... and let other people use them for their projects! Or, for other projects that we create. OK... well thats better... but hang on... who's in charge of all these services now? We have to keep track of them somehow don't we? I mean really... we don't just wanna give this stuff away for free. So... I guess we need some kindof central group of some sort to keep everything in line and in check and most important, to decide on how we will get the revenue to keep all this going... hmmm... what should we call this new group? I like the name... local government.

Oh yeah... and we also might need roads to connect our little project to all the other little projects from here to timbukto. Dang... that sounds like a HUGE headache for planning and keeping track of... are all of us developers just gonna get together in a huge group and AGREE on how these roads should be built and maintained? I kinda doubt it... I guess we need somebody to decide on that for us too... and keep up with it for us. I know! We'll "picK" somebody from our regional area... and everybody else can pick someone from their areas... and they can all get together and decide on this kinda stuff for us (as well as other combined regional matters)... that way it won't be such a mess! What should this new group be called? Umm... how about... a state government?

Whew... that was fun lol. Anywayz... hopefully you get the idea . And yeah... maybe the roads in the middle of no where encourage sprawl... but I don't think they were meant to. The whole point of interstates is to connect places together... it's the developers who want to "do their own thing"... that promote sprawl.

[bzorch]

Headquarters are locating to the suburbs because of lower taxes, proximity to employees, land cost and schools. Of course, the largest reason they even consider coming in the first place is that we have no income taxes.

The unfortunate fact is that most businesses if they could get away with it would build pole barns to hoc their goods. Look at the unfortunate mess that most businesses have created. The general population does not seem to care as long as they get cheap goods. They will complain no doubt about it but they will still continue purchase their goods at the cheapest price without a second thought. It is the American way.

Exacerbating this is the fact that most people could not care any less about the public realm. They are only worried about the inside of their house. At the same time, they fly around the world to enjoy great cities, only to return to perpetuate the same old squalor sprawl brings. They do not demand better. Business and Customers never think beyond a fiscal quarter let alone 12-months ahead. Their is no value to the balance sheet for creating quality development that could be used again in the future or lower operational cost.

We build a big box, strip mall, and fast food typologies that are to be thrown away to make way for something else. What else can you use a fast food restaurant for? Would it make a great residence or office? Though there are cool examples of reusing big box or dead malls, this is far from the norm. Armory Oaks is an interesting local example. A few Demalling examples have been mentioned in some of the other threads. Gateway @ Armory Oaks More Info on the Gateway @ Armory Oaks

Kheldane you are right that government does subsidize and promote sprawl. If the developer had to build the infrastructure they would less likely build in areas without the infrastructure and relocate in developed areas. Cities also do not think about all of the cost of development. Impact fees hardly ever cover the cost of residential development. The cost of roads, utilities, schools, fire protection, police and other services typically exceeds the budget. This leaves cities to have to either raise taxes or continue the Ponze scheme by building more development. Infrastructure is a great tool for guiding development. Cities that have targeted their infrastructure in a particular area where it makes since to grow incrementally have been more successful in balancing the cost. They do not stop developers from developing in other areas, but if developers what to build in other parts not targeted by the city then they have to build all of the infrastructure themselves. Guess where most developers build? Cities that will do anything for development are usually scrambling to cover the cost and/or their cities have little or no public amenities.

I do believe energy prices are begining to change this because the sprawl model is not sustainable with high energy cost. Not on a home economics level or macro economics level.

[LA_TN]

Kheldane and all, good points. Developers only care about $$$ now. Local gov't sees only tax revenues now, and a lot of the local leaders benefit directly from growth - personally (they own the land, developer partner, etc.). Even the mayor of Franklin recently was slapped with a lawsuit over this (Oh my, I'm shocked???).

Years and years ago, Nashville built sewers and infrastructure to serve West End and beyond at a loss to service that area. At the time, development was not controlled as it is today. You'd think Williamson Co. would learn from its neighbor.

Traffic is bad. Hmmm, maybe it's because developers are too free to do what they want; then we all have to pay for TDOT to build roads to nowhere in Williamson County. And how does that help residents of Davidson Co. or the rural county that needs a bridge replaced?

Anyone who thinks Franklin has a plan...I'll stop here.

[cheeriokid61]

Franklin may not have a plan, but I'll be honest with you. I love suburban life. Yes, I can't wait until I grow up, and own a condo in the city. But for now, I love living in Franklin. My school - Centennial - is awesome, I like being able to walk around my neighborhood at 10:00 by myself and feel safe. I like being able to let my dogs out into my fenced backyard and not walk five blocks to a park. I like driving to Cool Springs and being able to buy or do anything I need there.

I know that everything I said is exactly what urbanists are against. But this is how I was raised, and this is what I'm used to. Right now, I think it would be hard to move to a city, because I'm used to this convenience. And I think we'll continue to see the suburbs grow because face it. It's easier to move from a city to a suburb than from a suburb to a city. And as people keep living in suburbs, companies will stay in the suburbs.

I have to ask, though. What is it that everyone has against suburbs? I don't remember hearing a definate answer to that question. If someone has said anything about that, please show me. I just want to know where this is coming from.

[Relient J]

Anyone who thinks Franklin has a plan...I'll stop here.

My familiarity with Franklin is limitted, but a quick visit to the city's Web site reveals that they have many plans. You can see them listed on the main page of the city's Web site:

http://www.franklin-gov.com/.

[jice]

I know that everything I said is exactly what urbanists are against. But this is how I was raised, and this is what I'm used to. Right now, I think it would be hard to move to a city, because I'm used to this convenience.

I have to ask, though. What is it that everyone has against suburbs?

I grew up in a suburb type town too... so that's what i'm used to as well. But... I have to disagree about the convenience issue. I, personally, think that once Nashville becomes more developed in the downtown area... it will be a more convenient place to live than suburbs. I like the idea of not having to go out and get in your car and drive a mile or 20 to get what you wanna get or do what you wanna do. Just imagine grocery stores, other retail stores, restaurants, entertainment, etc etc... all within walking distance.

As for why people hate suburbs... it's not the suburbs... it's the sprawl. You can live in a well-planned suburb and most everybody here would not have a problem w/it. I think BnaBreaker put it pretty well (in the Berry Farms topic):

I, for one, of course think it is PERFECTLY FINE if someone doesn't want to live in central Nashville. I think it's fine if somebody wants to live in a suburb. Nobody, to my knowledge, ever made the claim that it wasn't. HOWEVER, this issue is FAR from black and white.

Forgive my bluntness here, but I am SO TIRED of people seeing things in the frame of 'if you don't live in an apartment downtown, you have to live in sprawl! And that's OKAY!" First of all, there can be and should be MANY shades of gray in between disgusting cul-de-sac sprawl that seems to be the only option in places like Franklin, and a freakin' 50th floor condo in downtown Nashville. Just because somebody doesn't prefer to live in an apartment, which is fine, DOESN'T MEAN that the only other option is to live on a cul-de-sac in Franklin or La Vergne.

SECOND of all, NO! It is NOT "OKAY" that people desire to live in cul-de-sac suburbia! It is okay if people want the single family home lifestyle. Perfectly fine. When I have kids, i'd like that lifestyle too. But it is not "OKAY" to desire to live in one of the typical sprawling messes in a place like Franklin. I'm sorry, but in our world we are SO FAR beyond this being a "lifestyle" choice anymore. We don't have that luxury anymore. I hate to sound like a doomsday drama queen here, but Irresponsible sprawl IS, without a doubt, helping to slowly choke our planet of its resources and destroying the environment (not to mention all the other crap it contributes to). A lifestyle choice is whether you live in a downtown apartment or a single family home. The planning of a community, the street grid, and the growth patterns are NOT a lifestyle choice. I'm just SO SICK of people poo-pooing sprawl, trying to take the middle of the road position in an attempt to cause as little conflict as possible. IT IS NOT OKAY if someone wants to move 40 freakin miles from the center of the city to live in a massive mcmansion in a subdivision full of houses that have acre yards, and buy their four SUVs. We have got to start getting this through our heads. If you want to live on a farm? Great. Live in a small town? Cool. Well-planned suburb that is tied into the central city? Wonderful. Places like La Vergne and Brentwood though are NOT "FINE". Okay...I think i might have it out of my system. For now. lol

By the way, please note that this was not directed at anyone inparticular.

[BnaBreaker]

Wow, so much has developed in this thread! I have very little time right now to respond...so for now i'll just do it quickly.

Since I last posted there have been some EXCELLENT posts.

Kheldane While I still don't agree with you on every point, I do now have a much better understanding of your views and I appreciate you explaining them further. Your post was intelligent and thoughtful, and I have no real issues with your true libertarian approach to all this. I do apologize if I at times seem to fly off the handle. This isn't my intention at all, as I have the utmost respect for you. I mean no harm. I just feel so passionate about this, sometimes I admitt I end up going a little overboard. hahaha

Relient J I was just about to post the same thing. I have looked at the Plan of Franklin, and I am very encouraged. They have ALOT of work to do though no doubt.

Jice Thank you for reposting that, I appreciate you acknowledging my comments...but I REALLY appreciate not having to restate my opinion again. haha Also, your other post was not only incredibly insightful, but also hilarious. Great stuff, and great food for thought as well.

bzorch great and intelligent post. I agree with all of it. What more can I say?

cheeriokid Like I said, i'm short on time now so I really can't get into it deeply. There are many reasons though...some of which I covered in the post jice reposted. What you should understand though, if nothing else, is this: There is a difference between Suburbs and Sprawl. Suburb is just a name afterall, and suburbs have been around since the days of Mesopotamia. I completely understand why some, such as yourself, enjoy living in a single family home. That's great. Nothing wrong with that. What I am against is the way sprawl is built. There is no plan. It isn't the fact that people live in houses and drive that i'm against. It is the fact that people live in houses in ridiculously tangled subdivisions with very few exits to the 'access road', which not only does massive damage to the landscape, not only does it create economic segregation, not only does it increase traffic to ridiculous levels by funneling all cars from all subdivisions onto one road, but it makes it next to impossible to get anywhere without getting in a car (among many other reasons...that just scratches the surface). Beyond the issue of the convenience of being able to walk, bike, or ride a bus or a tram...is the fact that a massive percentage of the population literally cannot drive and are therefore totally immobile in sprawl. Hopefully this gives you some window into why I and others dislike sprawl. Remember, it's the sprawl we hate, not the suburbs or single family homes. If you want to get a better idea I suggest you go pick up the excellent, entertaining, informative and very easy to read book "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany.

By the way...I'm from suburbia as well and I can tell you, living in a good quality urban neighborhood is not only far more convenient than living in suburbia, it is usually far safer as well ESPECIALLY when you consider how dangerous it is to drive a car. If it wasn't safe and convenient, then there aren't many who would choose to live in urban areas. Keep in mind that New York City is statistically the safest city in the nation. Just some food for thought.

[bzorch]

I do agree there is nothing wrong with the idea of suburbs as a geographic location if they have are able to provide jobs for the majority of its citizens, retail opportunities, and housing. I hope we do not lump bedroom communities with suburbs even if developed well and call them a good idea since everyone has to drive long distances for everything. Once a suburb has reach the status as an edge city then it is more viable model. Edge City Definition

The current development model that most cities perpetuate is a wasteful, inefficient, and unsustainable model. There are changes afoot as people get frustrated with this arrangement. There is a segment of the population demanding better places to live. The response in the suburbs has been new urbanism. Even more promising are those coming back to the central city to live in the pre-WWII neighborhoods and other urban housing choices like the loft/condo. Until recently, most developers would have said that their customers wanted the typical subdivision, but as their peers built new urbanist CNU Website: Tour of New Urbanism developments (of which the majority have been overwhelmingly successful ) they have begun to reconsider their products. This even includes the tract home developers. Look at the success of Westhaven and the numerous other proposals in the region for similar developments. It is unfortunate that many of these developments are not contiguous to the cities core and are often isolated in greenfield development areas, but they are a step in the right direction.

Either way businesses and citizens can not escape the fact that energy cost are going nowhere, but up and this will greatly effect the way we live. The cost of needing a single-occupancy vehicle for everything will weigh on the decisions of future home buyers as gas prices increase, so again the market will force the changes. They just happen to be slower than some of us like. As has been reported, when the gas prices increased mass transit saw a significant increase in ridership and there was an increase in bicycle sales. People are reconsidering the 3,000sqft home heated by natural gas. It is just costing them too much.

As more jobs are in the suburbs in effect reaching edge city status, the greater their chances of surviving the upcoming changes because people will have to consider their commutes due to the cost and in my opinion the time.

If you are under the age of 40 and love the unchecked suburban sprawl, then enjoy it while you can.

I just do not understand how developers and why citizens put up with it.

Another book worth reading is Geography of Nowhere by Howard Kunstler. His blog can be entertaining. Here is a link to one of the more interesting and depressing ones he has written lately. Howard Kunstler's Blog

[Kheldane]

So... I guess we need some kindof central group of some sort to keep everything in line and in check and most important, to decide on how we will get the revenue to keep all this going... hmmm... what should we call this new group? I like the name... local government.

You were right on track until that last part "local government". A group of businesses that pool their resources to provide joint utilities that they all benefit from is not a local government. Government takes money by force (taxes). That one fact, and that one fact alone, makes a huge difference from an economic standpoint. The fact that government doesn't have to satisfy each consumer on a transacton-by-transaction basis like businesses do means that they are independent of the market pricing system. Or put another way: The fact that government's revenue stream continues regardless of the economic profitability of their activities means they will have no way of judging the value of their activities.

Being held to the standards of the market is the means by which businesses resources are allocated effectively. For example: to know whether or not a business has the cash to expand its development, it has to look at the current status of it's operational revenue. If the business leaders then find that they don't have enough cash - that is the market's way of telling them that the proposed business expansion is a low priority. The public, by not buying enough of the businesses goods to allow them to expand, is saying "hey, we want services and products from someone else, you don't need to expand".

The fact that government revenue comes from taxes creates a disconnect between the market pricing system, which is constantly allocating cash where it is most needed, and the government projects. It often leads to waste. It often leads to an imperfect satisfaction of consumer demands.

One more thing: The market is the means by which citizens exert control over businesses. Now you might say "Control over business? I thought you were all free-trade-this, free-trade-that Kheldane". Then I would respond "Yes, I am against government telling business what to do, but I'm a huge believer in consumer activisim and grass-roots community efforts to keep businesses in line. If you have a business who, for example, is damaging the environment in an unreasonable way, then in the free market, a group of citizens will form a voluntary organization, and by affecting the sales of the offending business (via boycots, media campaigns, black-listing, etc) the community can force any business to go along with their desires. Why is this possible? Because the business is dependent on satisfying consumers, they are dependent on sales. On the other hand, if you dislike the government run water system, or roads, or schools, what can you do? Maybe you can make lots of noise and stir up some short term scandal, but at the end of the day you still have to pay your taxes to support the government services you are opposed to.

As for how road networks would be organized in the absence of government oversight: I imagine you'd have XYZ group who owns some roads, and ABC group who owns other roads. If they find it convenient and desireable to connect them, then it's no trouble at all. Just buy the necessary land and perform the construction. There you go: connecting roads. You know, anyone can build a road any time they want to on private property. Private roads result in a better matching of people who use the roads to people who pay for the roads.

[Lexy]

There is nothing, nothing AT ALL, wrong with a suburb. It is a simple fact of life that these will follow a large city. But it is how they are tied to the core city, planned, and consequently developed that I have a problem with (for the most part).

[Kheldane]

Kheldane While I still don't agree with you on every point, I do now have a much better understanding of your views and I appreciate you explaining them further. Your post was intelligent and thoughtful, and I have no real issues with your true libertarian approach to all this. I do apologize if I at times seem to fly off the handle. This isn't my intention at all, as I have the utmost respect for you. I mean no harm. I just feel so passionate about this, sometimes I admitt I end up going a little overboard. hahaha

No offense taken man! I always enjoy hearing opposing views - and I especially enjoy reading a zealous post by someone who fervently believes in their point of view. What's the point of a discussion where everyone agrees on everything? Keep saying what you've got to say!

[jice]

You were right on track until that last part "local government". A group of businesses that pool their resources to provide joint utilities that they all benefit from is not a local government. Government takes money by force (taxes). That one fact, and that one fact alone, makes a huge difference from an economic standpoint. The fact that government doesn't have to satisfy each consumer on a transacton-by-transaction basis like businesses do means that they are independent of the market pricing system. Or put another way: The fact that government's revenue stream continues regardless of the economic profitability of their activities means they will have no way of judging the value of their activities.

The fact that government revenue comes from taxes creates a disconnect between the market pricing system, which is constantly allocating cash where it is most needed, and the government projects.

As for how road networks would be organized in the absence of government oversight: I imagine you'd have XYZ group who owns some roads, and ABC group who owns other roads. If they find it convenient and desireable to connect them, then it's no trouble at all. Just buy the necessary land and perform the construction. There you go: connecting roads. You know, anyone can build a road any time they want to on private property. Private roads result in a better matching of people who use the roads to people who pay for the roads.

So what you are saying is... the services/infrastructure should be privately owned... and also privately controlled. Therefore... if the business deems those services not profitable enough... they can just pull the plug and not provide them anymore. How will that work exactly? That seems unfair. I like the fact that the government is disconnected from the market and has a steady stream of revenue and therefore can provide a steady stream of services for me... the services I actually need in order to survive, and go about my business.

No offense... but I think what you are suggesting would create an even bigger problem with sprawl than what we see already happening. Just take the roads for example... if all these small "groups" are allowed to build where ever they want, and connect themselves to who ever they want... that would be a huge nightmare! Instead of sprawl on major interstates and highways... you would have sprawl on a bunch of small roads connecting together the larger sprawling areas lol.... all as a result of developers being able to do their own thing. I highly doubt these developers are going to get together in a group before they do any building and plan everything out... and even if they happen to do so... what would that be... an urban planning committee, perhaps?

[Hankster]

The biggest problem I have with the way suburbs seem to develop in this area is the fact that developers are allowed to build suburbs out of old farms, etc no matter where they are located. They can be a couple of miles aways from any built up areas and that's OK. I have a huge problem with that, because that results huge open areas between neighborhoods, and a sprawled out area much, much larger than it needs to be. People end up commuting much farther, roads become much more clogged because people spend more time driving than they need to, etc. This is so wasteful, both in our resources and in our time. Developers should only be allowed to develop properties that are ajoining to the suburban built up area. Better yet a plan should be in effect to allow development in an ajoining area, build the necessary infrastructure (roads, sewers, utilities, etc to support the development) and after that is completed, then and only then should developers be allowed to build the housing. If this process is planned, and executed in a timely manner so that there is always adequate areas for development to take place, the result would be a much more livable, less sprawled out city, with just as many options for everyone as there is today.

[Lexy]

We should all take a trip up to Owensboro, KY. It has 54,000 people and only two, count it....2, high-rises in the entire city. It is spread out all over what used to be Ohio River floodplains and farms.

[Kheldane]

they can just pull the plug and not provide them anymore. How will that work exactly? That seems unfair. I like the fact that the government is disconnected from the market and has a steady stream of revenue and therefore can provide a steady stream of services for me... the services I actually need in order to survive, and go about my business.

You might be looking at this in the wrong way Jice. Gasoline, for example, is vital to your survival, yet it is 100% provided by private firms. Are you saying that it would be better for gasoline to be distributed by the government and subsidized by taxes to ensure there is always an affordable and continuous supply of it? Or maybe food - when was the last time you bought any food from a government run grocery store? Aren't you currently at the mercy of private grocery stores, private food distributors, and private farmers who will sell you your next meal?

Healthcare: There are a few government run hospitals, but they are usually charity oriented, and they have no way of satisfying the whole city's medical needs - so you're essentially dependent on privately owned non-profit and for-profit hospitals. Not to mention doctors who are under no government enforced obligation to provide services to you.

Your implied assertion that private ownership of vital businesses is risky is not new, that resoning has been used in countless countries around the world to nationalize "vital" businesses. But history shows time and again that central planning fails. There always turns out to be some kind of imbalance. Excesses, Surplusses. It's all a result of the government raising itself above the pricing system. There is no way a committe (even if it had hundreds of members) could have enough market information to allocate scarce resources in a city with the same efficiency as the free market does. Why? Because the free market incorporates all of the market knowledge of everyone in the economy - not just a few elected officials. Remember opportunity cost. Only the market effectively minimizes opportunity cost. You have to let people reach voluntary agreements about who's going to provide what service to whom. You can't force society to provide you reliable water services (for example) without creating waste.