I think it's important to consider that the travel distances in the suburbs is what go a lot of us cycling as kids, rather than simply walking. At age 13 I regularly cycled >5 miles each way to destinations such as my orthodontist. I certainly wasn't going to walk that, and my parents weren't going to drive me everywhere.

Pleasant streets for cycling are possible in suburbs, regardless of the development density. Planning for the right blend of connectivity and roadway width is the key.

I think it's important to consider that the travel distances in the suburbs is what go a lot of us cycling as kids, rather than simply walking. At age 13 I regularly cycled >5 miles each way to destinations such as my orthodontist. I certainly wasn't going to walk that, and my parents weren't going to drive me everywhere.

Pleasant streets for cycling are possible in suburbs, regardless of the development density. Planning for the right blend of connectivity and roadway width is the key.
I tend to agree, I grew up in the suburbs and my bike offered a lot of mobility. OTOH, most suburban kids give up biking as soon as they are able to get their drivers license. Also, things have changed over time, and today a lot of parents do drive their children everywhere. Whereas biking to school was pretty common when I was a child, biking to school has since been replaced by the parental chauffeur.

What about sprawl and cycling?

Nobody wants sprawl; but people do want the goodies associated with sprawl. A discussion on the negative aspects of sprawl and curtailing it without addressing the wants and desires of the population is incomplete at best. Moreover, the means for curtailing sprawl might be more onerous than the original problem.
Curious what you mean 'want the goodies.' I view urban sprawl as limiting us to the goodies we desire. Because, w/o a car they are inaccessible. Some of us resent that constant dependency for a car. You have far more access to the goodies you desire in more concentrated locations such as Manhattan , NY than say Manhattan, Calif. In Manhattan, CA. it's just the same old Mall crap you see over and over again, from sea to shining sea. Give me the original and unique content you might find at locations such as Fifth Avenue.

Lots of people want sprawl, consciously or subconsciously. All one has to do is look at the demographic shifts to realize there are winners and losers associated with sprawl. Let's look at a specific example say, the Baltimore metro area (hey, that's where I live!).

The high water mark for population in Baltimore City was in the early 1950's when it topped out at around 1.2 million people (that is in Baltimore proper - not including the surrounding counties). At that time, Baltimore City had the best public school system in the state and just about everybody who was anybody in Maryland politics graduated from the Baltimore City school system. Baltimore also had the Baltimore Electric Railroad which provided trolley service throughout Baltimore and to towns in the surrounding counties. The counties (with the possible exception of Montgomery County outside of DC) were mostly agriculture-oriented and the school systems were more-or-less a joke.

Cheap land, cheap fuel, desegregation and the ensuing white flight destroyed all that over the years so now you have the same population taking up about twice as much space as they did in the early 1950's and you have no public transportation system to speak of. You have daily rush-hour gridlock on the beltway and just about every road out of town is packed with commuters.

Baltimore City was the big looser (of populace and tax base) and Baltimore County the big winner. But now, the older, closer-in suburbs are resembling Baltimore City more and more and the populace is now fleeing to....southern PA (but still commuting in to Maryland to work). That's exurban sprawl.

Lots of people want sprawl, consciously or subconsciously.

Hmmmm, I don't think so. I think that everyone wants to live in a convenient place with lots of open space (internal and external) and great schools cheaply. But that many people are willing to trade the convenient with space + schools + cheap.

Curious what you mean 'want the goodies.' I view urban sprawl as limiting us to the goodies we desire. Because, w/o a car they are inaccessible. Some of us resent that constant dependency for a car. You have far more access to the goodies you desire in more concentrated locations such as Manhattan , NY than say Manhattan, Calif. In Manhattan, CA. it's just the same old Mall crap you see over and over again, from sea to shining sea. Give me the original and unique content you might find at locations such as Fifth Avenue.

Roughly writing, I think that the goodies are an afforadable 'X' bedrooms + yard + generally better public schools + access to convenient and cheap superstores. Basically the general notion of the perfect suburban family. I think these same people would prefer to live close to the city/work/pleasure ceteris paribus. But the amenities I described earlier either don't exist within 'Y' minutes of the city/work/pleasure or are prohibitively expensive.

Hmmmm, I don't think so. I think that everyone wants to live in a convenient place with lots of open space (internal and external) and great schools cheaply. But that many people are willing to trade the convenient with space + schools + cheap.

I build 7000 square foot houses on 3 acre lots for people that basically don't want anybody around, especially poor people.

I build 7000 square foot houses on 3 acre lots for people that basically don't want anybody around, especially poor people.

:lol:

Well ... that might be the case. But suppose that these same people could have a teleporter than instantly brought them to work, shopping, and pleasure. I am sure that they would buy one (if it was affordable). Since a teleporter doesn't exist, the next best option is to live in a convenient place (apparently devoid of poor people).

Roughly writing, I think that the goodies are an afforadable 'X' bedrooms + yard + generally better public schools + access to convenient and cheap superstores. Basically the general notion of the perfect suburban family. I think these same people would prefer to live close to the city/work/pleasure ceteris paribus. But the amenities I described earlier either don't exist within 'Y' minutes of the city/work/pleasure or are prohibitively expensive.
i just find the suburbs sterile. Report out just last couple days. There are now more people living in extreme poverty in the suburbs as compared to the city's center core. Have to do a google. Forget where I read it.

If people could have what they truly wanted I think only a few would choose suburbia and shopping for vats of big-box food swathed in plastic and slathered in super-sized portions.

I think I would choose a nice Montecito mansion in the mountains and a cook who only bought farmer's market produce or better yet, grew it on my property.

:lol:

Well ... that might be the case. But suppose that these same people could have a teleporter than instantly brought them to work, shopping, and pleasure. I am sure that they would buy one (if it was affordable). Since a teleporter doesn't exist, the next best option is to live in a convenient place (apparently devoid of poor people).

The fact is that an intensely developed areas with both higher population and commercial densities are more convenient. Work, home and shopping will all be closer and thus easier it is to get to. As long as auto travel is as inexpensive as it is then the equation is on the side of low density.

If it cost twice as much to own a car and twice as much to operate that car than people would think a little more about where they move in relation to employment and commercial centers. You can look around the world and the places that use economic incentives and disincentives to control development have much less sprawl.

i just find the suburbs sterile. Report out just last couple days. There are now more people living in extreme poverty in the suburbs as compared to the city's center core. Have to do a google. Forget where I read it.

I believe it. The boss and I plan on staying close to the city for the amenities you discuss. But we have to make sacrifices for it. It would be great to have an acre for tossing the football (or kicking the football) with family yet live a block from the Metro. However, it isn't going to happen without winning a BIG lottery.

Preferences do change over time. We need to be careful not to take our general statements about reality and apply them to very specific situations. Undoubtedly there will be perturbations from our perception of the "average" person, family, city, and so on.

Of course, the tradeoffs that we are willing to do changes with the number of kids we have (we are just starting). Note that the decisions you make might be different if your income was cut in half. A few years ago, I recall reading the median HOUSEHOLD income in the US was something like $35-40K. I know if Erika suddenly has triplets, we would be willing to live in a less convenient place with more space than otherwise.

I think that it has to do with the area and which suburbs that you're referring to.

I choose to live in the suburbs because I'm surrounded by open space, parks, and great riding, when compared to the major metro areas around here. From a riding perspective, the city is much more sterile.

I have a very good selection of entertainment, eating, shopping within ten (+/-) miles, or the big city 30 miles away if I need a big urban fix, but the schools are better, the weather is better, and multiple recreational opportunities (including riding) are much closer and more easily accessible.

People blame 'cheap gasoline' prices for sprawl all the time; and it is silly. Most sprawl has occurred since WWII; and in real terms, Gasoline prices now are about the same as they were in 1950. But since then, we have zoning laws enacted all over the place which:

restrict housing development to single family units;
require houses to be on lots of minimum size;
require houses to have minimum size of floor area;
require minimum amount of road frontage;
prevent development of small commercial zones in residentially zones areas;

and on and on.

It wasn't the car that caused sprawl, and it won't be the bike which solves the problem. Nor is it 'building roads.' Roads are built and expanded to accomodate increased demand. This is a sign of success...not failure. No one complains when we build more schools to accomodate more children. Los Angeles, the 'sprawl capital of the universe', has less road mileage per resident than many other cities.

Moving to the suburbs might double your gas bill. It might also whack 150,000 off the cost of your house, add decades to your expected life span, and re-acquaint you with the miracle of clorophyll.

Heck why stop there..be a country boy!

roughstuff

People blame 'cheap gasoline' prices for sprawl all the time; and it is silly. Most sprawl has occurred since WWII; and in real terms, Gasoline prices now are about the same as they were in 1950.
Thank you for making the case.

:beer:


:roflmao:

Lots of people want sprawl, consciously or subconsciously. All one has to do is look at the demographic shifts to realize there are winners and losers associated with sprawl. Let's look at a specific example say, the Baltimore metro area (hey, that's where I live!).

The high water mark for population in Baltimore City was in the early 1950's when it topped out at around 1.2 million people (that is in Baltimore proper - not including the surrounding counties). At that time, Baltimore City had the best public school system in the state and just about everybody who was anybody in Maryland politics graduated from the Baltimore City school system. Baltimore also had the Baltimore Electric Railroad which provided trolley service throughout Baltimore and to towns in the surrounding counties. The counties (with the possible exception of Montgomery County outside of DC) were mostly agriculture-oriented and the school systems were more-or-less a joke.

Cheap land, cheap fuel, desegregation and the ensuing white flight destroyed all that over the years so now you have the same population taking up about twice as much space as they did in the early 1950's and you have no public transportation system to speak of. You have daily rush-hour gridlock on the beltway and just about every road out of town is packed with commuters.

Baltimore City was the big looser (of populace and tax base) and Baltimore County the big winner. But now, the older, closer-in suburbs are resembling Baltimore City more and more and the populace is now fleeing to....southern PA (but still commuting in to Maryland to work). That's exurban sprawl.
So how's the city doing these days? Seriously. A lot of urban areas are recovering, but some aren't.

I build 7000 square foot houses on 3 acre lots for people that basically don't want anybody around, especially poor people.
Sorry, but that's f'ed.

i just find the suburbs sterile. Report out just last couple days. There are now more people living in extreme poverty in the suburbs as compared to the city's center core. Have to do a google. Forget where I read it.
Yeah, but you're in France and the situation is sort of reversed compared to a lot of 'traditional' NE, SE and midwest US cities. In France the 'burbs are the ghettos but in these parts of the US the cities are the ghettos. The Western US is the exception.

The latter part of the quote is obviously hyperbole but what exactly is wrong with people building the kind of house that they want in an area that they find attractive?
Huge carbon footprint, these people are going to hell.

Got it.

More hyperbole.
whatever.

you can have your science fiction; then there's the real future.

:eek: :rolleyes: ;) :o :)

Sorry, but that's f'ed.

Hey, I hate it more than you because I can't get away from it (or if I did get away, I would have to throw out 30 years of construction experience and my resume' and start over at age 50 and take a drastic pay cut).

The company's standard product has two central air conditioning units: one is 3.5 tons, the other 2.5 tons. Talk about drawing some wattage! Then there is the three car garage (bigger than my entire house), the chem-lawn service...

All in the name of out-doing the Jones

Yeah, but you're in France and the situation is sort of reversed compared to a lot of 'traditional' NE, SE and midwest US cities. In France the 'burbs are the ghettos but in these parts of the US the cities are the ghettos. The Western US is the exception.
Randa. I was just in Michigan. It was in the US press in regards to US life in the suburbs. THroughout much of the east coast, people in the suburbs are loosing their jobs. That's where the industrial plants have been located that are now being shuttered. But,yes- I enjoy a culture that values it's cities and city life.

I live in the 'ruburbs', outside the suburbs in a more rural area...though the trappings of suburbia are coming fast. :( I grew up in the city and the its burbs, I hate the city and its burbs, why the heck would I want to live in the city or the burbs?

FYI, I have a house and a barn, no air conditioning, septic instead of sewer and water from a well.

I live in the 'ruburbs', outside the suburbs in a more rural area...though the trappings of suburbia are coming fast. :( I grew up in the city and the its burbs, I hate the city and its burbs, why the heck would I want to live in the city or the burbs?

FYI, I have a house and a barn, no air conditioning, septic instead of sewer and water from a well.

The problem is Chip that everybody thinks they have a right to live on X amount of acres outside of 'the 'burbs or the city'. Then, they have to drive 50 miles to their job in town or in the older suburbs. If you get the New Yorker magazine, there is an in-depth article about US commuter habits in this month's magazine. It paints Atlanta, GA as the worst sprawl and worst commutes in the country. People commute 2 hours one way! That is friggin nutz!

Weather you want to admit it or not Chip, well and septic - more so in a subdivided housing development then on a farm - is not a good way to get your water and treat your waste. Public water and sewer are much more efficient and better for the environment.

How much land do you own Chip? Are you going to sell out when the developer comes knocking on your door?

The fact is that land use policies (or actually, the lack of any policy) coupled with some sort of anti-social attitude that seems to be ingrained in Americans (I don't want any neighbors) couple with the total lack of any sort of real public transportation (manipulated by those with a vested interest in fuel and autos???) has resulted in: Barren cities, lifeless suburbs, exurban sprawl development and an over-dependence on the automobile for basic transportation.

If I were a farmer, I would want to live on a farm but I am not a farmer. If I had 10 kids I might need a huge house but I only have 3 and one has moved out so I don't need (or want to heat/cool/maintain) all that house. I love living in an older metro area with stores/clubs/business/my office within a mile from home! Every Sunday evening I walk into the center of town to a local establishment and watch cycling on their big-screen TV while downing a few Guinesses and enjoying dinner of spaghetti and meatballs with a salad and bread sticks for $6!!! Can't be beat (I am too cheap to get cable TV).

Weather you want to admit it or not Chip, well and septic - more so in a subdivided housing development then on a farm - is not a good way to get your water and treat your waste. Public water and sewer are much more efficient and better for the environment.

...

The fact is that land use policies (or actually, the lack of any policy) coupled with some sort of anti-social attitude that seems to be ingrained in Americans (I don't want any neighbors) couple with the total lack of any sort of real public transportation (manipulated by those with a vested interest in fuel and autos???) has resulted in: Barren cities, lifeless suburbs, exurban sprawl development and an over-dependence on the automobile for basic transportation.

Is that true regarding public water and sewer? I never read that.

Is that true regarding public water and sewer? I never read that.

My statement assumes that the sewage treatment plant is operating properly and not overloaded.

The best public water supply systems rely on reservoirs located on clean water supplies (streams with huge drainage areas) the public water supply systems that rely on municipal wells often have problems during droughts. Baltimore City, do to the foresight of our world renowned water/sewer engineer (back in the day) located and secured land for reservoirs and backup raw water supplies to serve 3 million users (the system still has unused capacity).

If individuals continually tap underground aquifers for wells, eventually the water table will be lowered to the point that the older wells will run dry and have to be re-drilled deeper and deeper and deeper. Just like oil, there is not a limitless supply of underground water and the level fluctuates a lot.

Septic systems work as long as you have a large enough septic area but still, do you want everybody crapping into a hole in the ground? The septic systems will fail after a period of time and cheap homeowners won't fix them allowing sewage to seep out or overflow when it rains and the water table rises (whereas if the house was hooked up to the public system there would be nothing to fix).

I live in a small city. The best of all worlds, if you ask me. It doesn't take very much time to get to the wilderness. Plus I can stop for an espresso on my way.

I will back up galen on his assessment of septic and well systems. I have been on both sides of that issue. One older subdivision that I lived in had wells and septic systems that were installed back in the 50's when it was built. It was typically of that county where all of the housing outside the city proper was on wells or private water systems and septic systems. The septic systems were failing at a very high rate due to over saturation of the soil, as well as poor installations. Some of the areas were able to get water and sewer extended fairly easily and inexpensively others it was very costly due to the need for pump stations. Homeowners had to foot a large part of the bill. One subdivision refused and basically died because there systems could no longer meet the minimum requirements.

I currently live on a 40 acre farm that is being encroached upon by suburbia at an alarming rate. We have a county wide water system, but are still on individual septic systems. Our well needs to be deepened due to silting and a falling water table. It is also contaminated by hydrocarbons. Most likely from abandoned underground fuel storage tanks and the remnants of some old auto salvage yards. A properly managed and sized municipal system is the best way to go. Of course the type of system is up to debate...

Aaron:)

I also agree that water shortages and water quality will eventually become a much bigger issue than peak oil. It's only a matter of time...

The problem is Chip that everybody thinks they have a right to live on X amount of acres outside of 'the 'burbs or the city'. Then, they have to drive 50 miles to their job in town or in the older suburbs. If you get the New Yorker magazine, there is an in-depth article about US commuter habits in this month's magazine. It paints Atlanta, GA as the worst sprawl and worst commutes in the country. People commute 2 hours one way! That is friggin nutz!

Weather you want to admit it or not Chip, well and septic - more so in a subdivided housing development then on a farm - is not a good way to get your water and treat your waste. Public water and sewer are much more efficient and better for the environment.

How much land do you own Chip? Are you going to sell out when the developer comes knocking on your door?

The fact is that land use policies (or actually, the lack of any policy) coupled with some sort of anti-social attitude that seems to be ingrained in Americans (I don't want any neighbors) couple with the total lack of any sort of real public transportation (manipulated by those with a vested interest in fuel and autos???) has resulted in: Barren cities, lifeless suburbs, exurban sprawl development and an over-dependence on the automobile for basic transportation.

If I were a farmer, I would want to live on a farm but I am not a farmer. If I had 10 kids I might need a huge house but I only have 3 and one has moved out so I don't need (or want to heat/cool/maintain) all that house. I love living in an older metro area with stores/clubs/business/my office within a mile from home! Every Sunday evening I walk into the center of town to a local establishment and watch cycling on their big-screen TV while downing a few Guinesses and enjoying dinner of spaghetti and meatballs with a salad and bread sticks for $6!!! Can't be beat (I am too cheap to get cable TV).

Everybody DOES have a right to live on X amount of acres outside of 'the 'burbs or the city. Don't like it...TS buddy. What are you a socialist? If they choose to work 50 miles away and/or depend upon a car, that's also their right...and their problem. I purposely quit a much higher paying job to move within 25 miles of my home...just so I could ride rather than drive...but even when it was 45 miles I was at least splitting the distance between riding and driving. Others manage to use public transportation to make their commutes. Bottom line, who the frack are you to judge their life choices?

I like my well and septic just fine, thank you. Ya know how many 'boil' warnings we get each year in this area from city water? Way too many. During the big power blackout many went without water for days...I just fired up the generator...or lacking that...can use a little thing called a hand pump, like my grandfather did. Sorry pal, if you want to be dependent upon someone else for something as basic as water, you're welcome to, but I don't have to make the same choices. Maybe you're just too citified to realize how fragile the infrastructure you depend upon for your survival really is.

I own just a little piece of land...far less than the 100 acre ranch I used to own in NM (which is tiny compared to the 1/2 million acre ranches that I bordered). I doubt some developer is gonna waste his time on my tiny piece that is probably too small to subdivide further and is surrounded by smaller lots - except for the county park I butt up against, which I don't think is gonna get sold and subdivided soon.

My neighbors are a stone's throw away and I know every one of them. I live under two miles from a truck-stop/convenience store, and only about 5 miles from the centers of two towns, both of which have anything I might need. Downtown Cleveland is a mere 40 miles, downtown Akron maybe 15. I can ride to just about anything I might need - and I DO have cable as well as high-speed internet.

So wtf is your problem with people living outside of over-crowded, dirty, polluted, corrupt, concrete encased cities? Whatever it is, get over it man, this is America, not the old Soviet Union.

I will back up galen on his assessment of septic and well systems. I have been on both sides of that issue. One older subdivision that I lived in had wells and septic systems that were installed back in the 50's when it was built. It was typically of that county where all of the housing outside the city proper was on wells or private water systems and septic systems. The septic systems were failing at a very high rate due to over saturation of the soil, as well as poor installations. Some of the areas were able to get water and sewer extended fairly easily and inexpensively others it was very costly due to the need for pump stations. Homeowners had to foot a large part of the bill. One subdivision refused and basically died because there systems could no longer meet the minimum requirements.

I currently live on a 40 acre farm that is being encroached upon by suburbia at an alarming rate. We have a county wide water system, but are still on individual septic systems. Our well needs to be deepened due to silting and a falling water table. It is also contaminated by hydrocarbons. Most likely from abandoned underground fuel storage tanks and the remnants of some old auto salvage yards. A properly managed and sized municipal system is the best way to go. Of course the type of system is up to debate...

Aaron:)


You gotta HAVE access to city water and sewer to get city water and sewer. Geeze, you guys remind me of the city folks that used to come to NM and crow about their 'score' of a bunch of land...till we got to asking them about little things like water and electricity, which they didn't even bother to check out because they were so used to it just being there. Even funnier were the ones who never heard of the notion of water rights and just assumed they could pump from a stream or lake on their property.

I sat on the Board of Directors of the Raton, NM. Water Works, which oversees one of the best municipal water systems in the US. I know the value of a good municipal water system...I also know how fragile they are and how limited their reach is for the surrounding non-incorporated areas, especially when the subject of ROW and annexation comes up.

People blame 'cheap gasoline' prices for sprawl all the time; and it is silly. Most sprawl has occurred since WWII; and in real terms, Gasoline prices now are about the same as they were in 1950. But since then, we have zoning laws enacted all over the place which:

restrict housing development to single family units;
require houses to be on lots of minimum size;
require houses to have minimum size of floor area;
require minimum amount of road frontage;
prevent development of small commercial zones in residentially zones areas;

and on and on.

It wasn't the car that caused sprawl, and it won't be the bike which solves the problem. Nor is it 'building roads.' Roads are built and expanded to accomodate increased demand. This is a sign of success...not failure. No one complains when we build more schools to accomodate more children. Los Angeles, the 'sprawl capital of the universe', has less road mileage per resident than many other cities.

Moving to the suburbs might double your gas bill. It might also whack 150,000 off the cost of your house, add decades to your expected life span, and re-acquaint you with the miracle of clorophyll.

Heck why stop there..be a country boy!

roughstuff Excellent points. To your list of what zoning causes, i would add: reduces housing supply in the urban area, thus raising urban housing prices and making the cost of urban living disproportionately high.

If gas prices were quadrupled over current prices - from $3 to $12/gallon - that would mean the average annual fuel bill for commuting 20,000 miles in a 20 mpg vehicle would go from $3,000 to $12,000. That's an increase of $9,000, or $750/month. It would probably make a difference, but very marginal compared to what some serious loosening up of the zoning laws could do.

Edit: by the way, if fossil fuel gas prices shot up to $12/gallon, countless alternatives would suddenly become economically feasible, and the prices (and so actual commuting costs) would come right back down.

...
Edit: by the way, if fossil fuel gas prices shot up to $12/gallon, countless alternatives would suddenly become economically feasible, and the prices (and so actual commuting costs) would come right back down.

Except that every vehicle on the road will have to be replaced... In other words, infrastructure takes time to build; the famed and much talked about hydrogen fuel economy might not even be technically possible, and fuel cells may never be efficient enough to compete in the personal transportation market. Batteries are an alternative, but the chemistries are still bulky compared to hydrocarbon. There really isn't any off the shelf alternative to turn to if the price went from $3 to $12 in the span of 2 or 3 years.

I think there is more elasticity in fuel than you think. Even the rise from $2 to $3 had an effect on car sales, with people trending toward smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles and hybrids. I don't know about you, but an increase of $750 per month would pretty much wipe out my savings. Perhaps you are better positioned, but many or even most people are not.

I have a feeling the effect is exponential. $2 to $3 is one thing, $3 to $4 will have a bigger effect. In my rough observation of fuel prices around here, they've been rising about 25 to 50 cents every year. Toward the end of last summer, they broke through $3 toward $3.50. It went back down to $2.50 to $2.75 over the winter, but already, in April, they are back up to $3. We'll see some drastic changes in the next decade which revolve around fuel consumption. I suspect zoning will change as well in response to this.

Everybody DOES have a right to live on X amount of acres outside of 'the 'burbs or the city. Don't like it...TS buddy. What are you a socialist? If they choose to work 50 miles away and/or depend upon a car, that's also their right...and their problem.

Actually as soon as they start driving on a road with other motorists - it becomes their problem too. Unless they like own a private highway or something.:D

My statement assumes that the sewage treatment plant is operating properly and not overloaded.

The best public water supply systems rely on reservoirs located on clean water supplies (streams with huge drainage areas) the public water supply systems that rely on municipal wells often have problems during droughts. Baltimore City, do to the foresight of our world renowned water/sewer engineer (back in the day) located and secured land for reservoirs and backup raw water supplies to serve 3 million users (the system still has unused capacity).

If individuals continually tap underground aquifers for wells, eventually the water table will be lowered to the point that the older wells will run dry and have to be re-drilled deeper and deeper and deeper. Just like oil, there is not a limitless supply of underground water and the level fluctuates a lot.

Septic systems work as long as you have a large enough septic area but still, do you want everybody crapping into a hole in the ground? The septic systems will fail after a period of time and cheap homeowners won't fix them allowing sewage to seep out or overflow when it rains and the water table rises (whereas if the house was hooked up to the public system there would be nothing to fix).


That is interesting. Just to be clear, I did not doubt your statement; but was interested in the explanation. It just never occured to me. Although now that you write it, the conclusion is logical.

-G

Actually as soon as they start driving on a road with other motorists - it becomes their problem too. Unless they like own a private highway or something.:D

So now driving is a crime too? Man I gotta watch the news more.

Everybody DOES have a right to live on X amount of acres outside of 'the 'burbs or the city. Don't like it...TS buddy. What are you a socialist? If they choose to work 50 miles away and/or depend upon a car, that's also their right...and their problem. I purposely quit a much higher paying job to move within 25 miles of my home...just so I could ride rather than drive...but even when it was 45 miles I was at least splitting the distance between riding and driving. Others manage to use public transportation to make their commutes. Bottom line, who the frack are you to judge their life choices?

I like my well and septic just fine, thank you. Ya know how many 'boil' warnings we get each year in this area from city water? Way too many. During the big power blackout many went without water for days...I just fired up the generator...or lacking that...can use a little thing called a hand pump, like my grandfather did. Sorry pal, if you want to be dependent upon someone else for something as basic as water, you're welcome to, but I don't have to make the same choices. Maybe you're just too citified to realize how fragile the infrastructure you depend upon for your survival really is.

I own just a little piece of land...far less than the 100 acre ranch I used to own in NM (which is tiny compared to the 1/2 million acre ranches that I bordered). I doubt some developer is gonna waste his time on my tiny piece that is probably too small to subdivide further and is surrounded by smaller lots - except for the county park I butt up against, which I don't think is gonna get sold and subdivided soon.

My neighbors are a stone's throw away and I know every one of them. I live under two miles from a truck-stop/convenience store, and only about 5 miles from the centers of two towns, both of which have anything I might need. Downtown Cleveland is a mere 40 miles, downtown Akron maybe 15. I can ride to just about anything I might need - and I DO have cable as well as high-speed internet.

So wtf is your problem with people living outside of over-crowded, dirty, polluted, corrupt, concrete encased cities? Whatever it is, get over it man, this is America, not the old Soviet Union.

Chip, you can call me names all you want. You can call me socialist, communist or liberal. The fact remains everybody can't live in dog-patch. There is just not enough land. Sorry. But a lot of people are trying and that is part of the reason we are fighting a war for cheap oil. Our young men and women are getting blown up in Iraq so people like you can live out in the middle of nowhere and get around cheaply. But one day, the bill is going to come due. And according to the recent world scientific gathering on global warming, we have about 40 years to turn it around.

The unfortunate fact is that you think your life choices don't effect others but they do. If someone chooses to live far away from work or own a huge home well, in my mind they are part of the problem. Own a huge SUV? part of the problem. Don't recycle? part of the problem.

May be you think it is your God-given right to do just about anything you want regardless of the consequences to your neighbors, your country and the world at large. But the fact remains what you do and how you live does make a difference. So if you want to be part of the problem instead of part of the solution then I hope you don't own and sea-shore real estate....

So now driving is a crime too? Man I gotta watch the news more.

Me too apparently. When did that happen?

Chip, you can call me names all you want. You can call me socialist, communist or liberal. The fact remains everybody can't live in dog-patch. There is just not enough land. Sorry. But a lot of people are trying and that is part of the reason we are fighting a war for cheap oil. Our young men and women are getting blown up in Iraq so people like you can live out in the middle of nowhere and get around cheaply. But one day, the bill is going to come due. And according to the recent world scientific gathering on global warming, we have about 40 years to turn it around.

The unfortunate fact is that you think your life choices don't effect others but they do. If someone chooses to live far away from work or own a huge home well, in my mind they are part of the problem. Own a huge SUV? part of the problem. Don't recycle? part of the problem.

May be you think it is your God-given right to do just about anything you want regardless of the consequences to your neighbors, your country and the world at large. But the fact remains what you do and how you live does make a difference. So if you want to be part of the problem instead of part of the solution then I hope you don't own and sea-shore real estate.... Chip is no different from anyone else. Besides death and taxes, we can count on this: in the end, people are going to act in their own self-interest. Wishing or hoping that not to be true is pointless. Blaming Chip for wanting to live in the country is as pointless as blaming an SUV driver for a close pass of a cyclist riding in a bike lane.

The real problem is that the true cost of living in the country is not borne by those who live in the country. I believe one main reason, if not the primary reason, for that is that the relative cost of living urbanly is artificially high because of artificially reduced urban housing supply due to zoning laws (and thus artificially high cost of urban living). Not only does zoning reduce the economic benefits of living in urban areas (because urban zoning reduces density, thus reducing the economic benefits of high density), it also reduces the supply of urban housing and thus makes it artificially expensive. The bottom line is that, because of zoning restrictions, the zoning-reduced economic benefits of living in the city don't make it worth living there for most people.

The costs of living in rural and suburban areas are also not borne by those who live there because the costs of using personal motorized transportation to travel to and from there is not fully borne by them. In particular, the "external" environmental costs of doing so are not reflected in the prices that they pay for that travel.

I'm not sure how to take care of the second problem, but I think its significance is dwarfed by the zoning issue, which is easy to remedy: loosen up zoning laws, allow for much higher densities, preferably with no limits: whatever the market will bear.

If you want to see people ditching cars in favor of walking, biking and mass transport (like many New Yorkers, Parisians and Tokyoans have done), make living in high density urban areas much cheaper by increasing the supply of such housing by elminating the zoning laws that greatly inhibit their development outside of the few areas in the U.S. (even in our densest urban centers of NYC, SF, Boston and Chicago there are strict zoning limitations - everywhere else it's much stricter).

Chip is no different from anyone else. Besides death and taxes, we can count on this: in the end, people are going to act in their own self-interest. Wishing or hoping that not to be true is pointless. Blaming Chip for wanting to live in the country is as pointless as blaming an SUV driver for a close pass of a cyclist riding in a bike lane.

The real problem is that the true cost of living in the country is not borne by those who live in the country. I believe one main reason, if not the primary reason, for that is that the relative cost of living urbanly is artificially high because of artificially reduced urban housing supply due to zoning laws (and thus artificially high cost of urban living). Not only does zoning reduce the economic benefits of living in urban areas (because urban zoning reduces density, thus reducing the economic benefits of high density), it also reduces the supply of urban housing and thus makes it artificially expensive. The bottom line is that, because of zoning restrictions, the zoning-reduced economic benefits of living in the city don't make it worth living there for most people.

The costs of living in rural and suburban areas are also not borne by those who live there because the costs of using personal motorized transportation to travel to and from there is not fully borne by them. In particular, the "external" environmental costs of doing so are not reflected in the prices that they pay for that travel.

I'm not sure how to take care of the second problem, but I think its significance is dwarfed by the zoning issue, which is easy to remedy: loosen up zoning laws, allow for much higher densities, preferably with no limits: whatever the market will bear.

If you want to see people ditching cars in favor of walking, biking and mass transport (like many New Yorkers, Parisians and Tokyoans have done), make living in high density urban areas much cheaper by increasing the supply of such housing by elminating the zoning laws that greatly inhibit their development outside of the few areas in the U.S. (even in our densest urban centers of NYC, SF, Boston and Chicago there are strict zoning limitations - everywhere else it's much stricter).

You make valid points here but still, personal responsibility comes into play. We have cities that were emptied by white flight. In my area, we have people living in another state (Pennsylvania) commuting into suburban and urban Maryland to work. These people are ex-Marylanders for the most part. They chose to give up 2 hours a day of their lives (on a good day) five days a week to save $100,000 on their house and save some taxes. But, they are also clogging up the interstate every day, burning up gas, oil, tires and buying a new car every few years just to save that $100,000 and get away from the older Baltimore suburbs. It's a false economy. And everybody pays for it. We pay for it with more air and water pollution, higher fuel costs (due to increased demand) and higher delivery costs for goods. All because some morons think it's a good idea to 'get away from it all' (when it all just follows you anyway).

You make valid points here but still, personal responsibility comes into play. We have cities that were emptied by white flight. In my area, we have people living in another state (Pennsylvania) commuting into suburban and urban Maryland to work. These people are ex-Marylanders for the most part. They chose to give up 2 hours a day of their lives (on a good day) five days a week to save $100,000 on their house and save some taxes. But, they are also clogging up the interstate every day, burning up gas, oil, tires and buying a new car every few years just to save that $100,000 and get away from the older Baltimore suburbs. It's a false economy. And everybody pays for it. We pay for it with more air and water pollution, higher fuel costs (due to increased demand) and higher delivery costs for goods. All because some morons think it's a good idea to 'get away from it all' (when it all just follows you anyway).
I accept people's (non-criminal) behavior as a given. They will do what they do relative to what they believe they are responsible for and what they value. I can't fault humans for being human. If I don't like the way they are behaving, then I look to see what I can change in order to alter that behavior. Finding others at fault in almost any context, short of blatant violation of the rights of others (e.g., murder, rape, robbery, fraud, etc.), for some "personal responsibility" reason, is usually baseless and fruitless, and attempts to do so usually if not always seems to create more problems than it solves.

I accept people's (non-criminal) behavior as a given. They will do what they do relative to what they believe they are responsible for and what they value. I can't fault humans for being human. If I don't like the way they are behaving, then I look to see what I can change in order to alter that behavior. Finding others at fault in almost any context, short of blatant violation of the rights of others (e.g., murder, rape, robbery, fraud, etc.), for some "personal responsibility" reason, is usually baseless and fruitless, and attempts to do so usually if not always seems to create more problems than it solves.

I would disagree. It's not easy for people to change, but if enough societal pressure is brought to bear than people do change. Cigarette smoking is a good example as is drunk driving. In both cases the societal pressure to stamp out these two scourges resulted in change.

If you want to see people ditching cars in favor of walking, biking and mass transport (like many New Yorkers, Parisians and Tokyoans have done), make living in high density urban areas much cheaper by increasing the supply of such housing by elminating the zoning laws that greatly inhibit their development outside of the few areas in the U.S. (even in our densest urban centers of NYC, SF, Boston and Chicago there are strict zoning limitations - everywhere else it's much stricter).


Ahhhhh! This brings back such memories. I did my masters thesis on Zoning regulations back in the late 1970s. But I am wondering about a point that HH and a few others are making. Is zoning reducing housing availability in URBAN areas? It would seem to me they are all multiple family housing apartments and complexes. I always thought that zoning regs caused sprawl in the SUBURBS. But how much more dense can Manhattan get?

For the life of me I can't see the true joy of single family dwellings. To me, densely packed low rise residential areas with greenery, walkways, and parks woven amongst the buildings (akin to college dormitories) is so much more human. It encourages people to mingle; minimizing "strangers" and thus crime; and has numerous other benefits.

Lets not forget that mortgage interest is tax deductible...probably the only meaningful deduction the middle class gets. That contributes to sprawl as well; and the higher your income, the more the deduction is worth.

roughstuff

For the life of me I can't see the true joy of single family dwellings. To me, densely packed low rise residential areas with greenery, walkways, and parks woven amongst the buildings (akin to college dormitories) is so much more human. It encourages people to mingle; minimizing "strangers" and thus crime; and has numerous other benefits.
You'd like Vancouver BC.

Everybody DOES have a right to live on X amount of acres outside of 'the 'burbs or the city. Don't like it...TS buddy. What are you a socialist? If they choose to work 50 miles away and/or depend upon a car, that's also their right...and their problem.

Actually as soon as they start driving on a road with other motorists - it becomes their problem too. Unless they like own a private highway or something.:D

We do have the right to cajule elected officials to build roads that help the suburban way of life. We do have the right to live next to the Mississippi flood plane and have a government subsidies bail us out when we get wet. We have the right to choose to live and pay for a two hour, each way commute. My concern is that many suburban properties will go into default and foreclosure, then they'll be so many available that it will kill many more affordable suburbs. Where will those folks go? Back to the city. We can choose to invest in living the suburbs, but they are less stable than the big cities and you might not get the return you had planned on.

http://www.luc.edu/depts/sociology/johnson/p99webn.html
Future nonmetropolitan demographic trends are likely to be volatile. In fact, evidence that the rural rebound slowed after 1995 reflects this volatility. Diminished rural fertility and age structure shifts have reduced the contribution of natural increase to nonmetropolitan growth. Future growth is increasingly dependent on migration. And, as the integration of nonmetropolitan areas into the national economy continues, nonmetropolitan migration trends are likely to become increasingly sensitive to national and global economic, political and social forces.

I can't see how any ubanite or suburbanite, would like sprawl. Someplaces are really bad, with endless miles of gas stations, package stores, fast food, strip malls, none of them particularly nice to live near. Daytona Beech is like that. You have the beach surounded by all of that sprawl.

I can see many life style advantages to living in the country. I like the woods, the privacy access to outdoor activvities, but the big factor is driving if you have to work or shop miles away. Also most rural roads suck for cycling. I can see people who commute 2-3 hours each way as breaking even if they rent a cheep place in the city for the week days. I feel lucky because as an urban dweller, I live next to an 1100 acre city park. On my commute to work, I ride about 2 miles in another park of similar size. Of course there are the cement factories and city streets too.

If they made apartments and condos absolutely sound-proof then I might prefer them to a single family home. I like not having to deal with yardwork and being able to call someone to fix the plumbing.

The problem is, I like parrots. Big noisy ones. I can hardly ever find a good place to live because of them. I end up having to select places where the people adjacent to me also have bad habits so that we can all hold each other hostage. I won't complain about you if you don't complain about me. Doesn't make for the friendly collegiate atmosphere you describe.

And yeah, I could get rid of the birds, but they are my children. One of them is 20 years old. I've had them a long long time and I intend to see them through to the end.

one thing about sprawl is that it ISN'T conducive on many levels for bicycle commuting, conveinent utility cycling or comfortable populist bicycling conditions for the 'average' bicyclist if forced to duke it out in high speed arterial traffic.

sprawl is NOT conducive to bicycling for the 'average' rider and does not encourage use of bikes for transportation.

And yeah, I could get rid of the birds, but they are my children. One of them is 20 years old. I've had them a long long time and I intend to see them through to the end.
I think I understand. I got my wife a cockatiel, but it's bonded with me, because I spend the most time with it (she loves to feed and watch outdoor birds, but holding a poop-machine is not her cuppa.)

My bird is still a baby, but she talks to me and loves me (what did you say? Of course she does, I know my girl,) and I think I'm in it for the long haul.

:D (these birds are very intelligent--actually she's smarter than my dog by a decent margin, according to experts, but I won't tell my dog that, if I did, the dog would just wag it's tail.)

My area has had a some what brutal answer to urban sprawl. Some 20 years ago the county passed a sales tax measure to buy up land or at least the developement rights to the land around the towns and cities in the area. Especially to create greenbelts between the cities. Recently the tax was extended another 20 years by a wide margin. Lot of land has been tied up. Most of the $$$ has gone to hills and slopes. Most valley bottoms are homes to endangered species stopping most developement. Farmers can put their land in the Agricultural Land Trust, freeing them from tax increases. Now housing has gotten so expensive low that even mid level workers are having trouble getting homes in the area. I would not be here if I hadn't inherited my home. Still, within a mile or two of my back door I have lovely rural valleys and hills to ride in. And neighbors are wise to keep their pets indoors so they do not become food for the coyotes and mountain lions.

If they made apartments and condos absolutely sound-proof then I might prefer them to a single family home. I like not having to deal with yardwork and being able to call someone to fix the plumbing.

The problem is, I like parrots. Big noisy ones. I can hardly ever find a good place to live because of them. I end up having to select places where the people adjacent to me also have bad habits so that we can all hold each other hostage. I won't complain about you if you don't complain about me. Doesn't make for the friendly collegiate atmosphere you describe.

And yeah, I could get rid of the birds, but they are my children. One of them is 20 years old. I've had them a long long time and I intend to see them through to the end.

Absolutely. I know that is the dragonslayer for multi family housing. It bothers me very little to hear others..walking, talking, F**King (i put my ear to the wall and try and get into the rhythm); etc. The apartments I lived in siberia had walls and floors so thin I think I could hear 4 different families at any one time.

A guy down the hall from me had a incredibly loud parrot, one time. What a racket he would make when we walked in. I was trying to bind with the parrots owner; but the parrot had apparently bonded with him already. Some guys just really fall for feathers and fluff.

We could still have individual homes on small lots. But then you lose the energy efficiency from fewer outside walls.

I just can't relate to single family dwellings populated with monogamous heterosexuals, to be honest. That explains why so many of my posts are so far out of whack.


roughstuff

My area has had a some what brutal answer to urban sprawl. Some 20 years ago the county passed a sales tax measure to buy up land or at least the developement rights to the land around the towns and cities in the area. Especially to create greenbelts between the cities. Recently the tax was extended another 20 years by a wide margin. Lot of land has been tied up. Most of the $$$ has gone to hills and slopes. Most valley bottoms are homes to endangered species stopping most developement. Farmers can put their land in the Agricultural Land Trust, freeing them from tax increases. Now housing has gotten so expensive low that even mid level workers are having trouble getting homes in the area. I would not be here if I hadn't inherited my home. Still, within a mile or two of my back door I have lovely rural valleys and hills to ride in. And neighbors are wise to keep their pets indoors so they do not become food for the coyotes and mountain lions.


Boulder's greenway is the same way. A bunch of wealthy guilt ridden white boys locked into their island of single family homes inside the greenbelt, with property values doubling every few years. If only them goddam neeeeggas could afford 350 feet of frontage, they could live there too. Aren't liberals wonderful?


roughstuff