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.

That's great for your immediate area but all that does is force people to go someplace else and sprawl that place up. So eventually, you will be surrounded by suburban sprawl if you aren't already

...eventually, you will be surrounded by suburban sprawl if you aren't already
I am already. :D

Fortunately for me, my development is a "green island" already fully developed residential. Lots of trees, birds, critturs. Dagum, I seen a coyote, and when I left the train station one day a deer bounded across the street out of the woods (probably displaced by new developement.)

This is Dekalb County, the ATL sits on Fulton and Dekalb. The rest is an ocean of development for light years, something like 13 counties or more... (I knew one guy who commuted to downtown from Chattanooga every day--that's Tennessee, folks)

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. But in both cases there were strong motivations of self-interest at play.

In the case of smoking, the emphasis was made on how much direct physical damage one does to himself when he smokes. Never-the-less, what's amazing is how many people continue to smoke, and start to smoke, despite the well understood issues.

With respect to drunk driving, the act itself was criminalized due to the potential harm the behavior could cause. On that foundation, progress was made to significantly reduce the behavior, largely because of the self-interest motivation to avoid criminal penalties.

But what are the direct self-interest motivations for living more responsibly with respect to environmental issues? Let's be frank, whether Chip stays on the farm or moves into the city is not going to make nearly as much positive difference in his life, or anyone else's, as when someone quits smoking or begins to eschew drunk driving. At the same time, the sacrifice on his part to give up his rural lifestyle is huge. See what I mean?

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), you have to make it somehow favorable to their direct self-interest to change. The only way I can think of doing that is by making living in high density urban areas much more economically attractive than "bigger footprint" alternatives. The only way I know to do that is by increasing the supply of such housing by eliminating the zoning laws that currently greatly inhibit high density 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).

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.)
Cockatiels are related to the black palm cockatoos, which are very large and strange-looking, but smart. Like my umbrella cocackatoo. Scary smart.

Unfortunately, birds aren't too amenable to cycling. I would love to go for rides with my bird.

Anyway, back to sprawl. One thing I never liked about it was the first thing they do is put up a wall. Then inside the wall they put the houses. Everybody lives inside the wall in houses that no longer have big front porches. It's quite isolating.

And then where are you supposed to go for fun? The mall? Starbucks? Even though they put Starbucks every 3 blocks, zoning says they can only go every 3 blocks in the business district. So if your wall of houses is near the business district, you can walk or ride your bike to Starbucks where you can see other people. If not, then you're going to have to drive. And while you are driving you are again isolated from the world by a wall of metal.

So, basically, the closer I am to places where I can window shop or have coffee or see movies, hear concerts or lectures and take walks or whatever the better I like it. Suburban sprawl is a developer's choice of how to use the land, not necessarily the choice of the people who would like to find a nice place to live.

The only point of disagreement I'd find in this might be the potential development of "Sleeper Hotels", where you rent a sleeping berth the size of a railroad sleeper berth (like the ones in Tokyo). Other than that, I'm 100% in agreement here.;) By the way, the ones in Japan I was talking about are NOT amenable to a 6'3" American Man!:eek:
But in both cases there were strong motivations of self-interest at play.

In the case of smoking, the emphasis was made on how much direct physical damage one does to himself when he smokes. Never-the-less, what's amazing is how many people continue to smoke, and start to smoke, despite the well understood issues.

With respect to drunk driving, the act itself was criminalized due to the potential harm the behavior could cause. On that foundation, progress was made to significantly reduce the behavior, largely because of the self-interest motivation to avoid criminal penalties.

But what are the direct self-interest motivations for living more responsibly with respect to environmental issues? Let's be frank, whether Chip stays on the farm or moves into the city is not going to make nearly as much positive difference in his life, or anyone else's, as when someone quits smoking or begins to eschew drunk driving. At the same time, the sacrifice on his part to give up his rural lifestyle is huge. See what I mean?

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), you have to make it somehow favorable to their direct self-interest to change. The only way I can think of doing that is by making living in high density urban areas much more economically attractive than "bigger footprint" alternatives. The only way I know to do that is by increasing the supply of such housing by eliminating the zoning laws that currently greatly inhibit high density 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).

I would love to go for rides with my bird.
I know another Diane who has an African Grey. She tole me the bird enjoys going for bike rides with her in his cage. But I think my little cockatiel might freak, and flap around inside the cage and break it's feathers.


Anyway, back to sprawl. One thing I never liked about it was the first thing they do is put up a wall. Then inside the wall they put the houses. Everybody lives inside the wall in houses that no longer have big front porches. It's quite isolating.

And then where are you supposed to go for fun? The mall? Starbucks? Even though they put Starbucks every 3 blocks, zoning says they can only go every 3 blocks in the business district. So if your wall of houses is near the business district, you can walk or ride your bike to Starbucks where you can see other people. If not, then you're going to have to drive. And while you are driving you are again isolated from the world by a wall of metal.

So, basically, the closer I am to places where I can window shop or have coffee or see movies, hear concerts or lectures and take walks or whatever the better I like it. Suburban sprawl is a developer's choice of how to use the land, not necessarily the choice of the people who would like to find a nice place to live.
Some of the most interesting places around here are the older, renovated communities. Seems like people actually walk/bike places, there. Neat atmosphere.

But what are the direct self-interest motivations for living more responsibly with respect to environmental issues? Let's be frank, whether Chip stays on the farm or moves into the city is not going to make nearly as much positive difference in his life, or anyone else's, as when someone quits smoking or begins to eschew drunk driving. At the same time, the sacrifice on his part to give up his rural lifestyle is huge. See what I mean?

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), you have to make it somehow favorable to their direct self-interest to change. The only way I can think of doing that is by making living in high density urban areas much more economically attractive than "bigger footprint" alternatives. The only way I know to do that is by increasing the supply of such housing by eliminating the zoning laws that currently greatly inhibit high density 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).

The 'positive self interest' is already happening. Just like smokers sued the tobacco companies (and won), land owners and municipalities located along both US shores are already pressing lawsuits against greenhouse gas emitters. And there is an individual 'positive self interest' and that is 1) lowering your own personal cost of living and 2) knowing that you are doing your part to minimize your personal impact on the environment.

Then there is negative self interest and that will be when the government finally steps to the plate and taxes the crap out of motor fuels and funds mass transit systems (rail or dedicated bus lines) that are not impacted by auto gridlock. Once it becomes faster (or at least as fast) to ride mass transit to your destination as it is to drive and also cheaper, then people will use it.

I think people's personal definitions of sprawl vary greatly.

Quite right Pete.

Do urban types see all suburban living as sprawl, by definition?

With a select crowd, perhaps; but my broad estimate from various conversations is that 40s and 50s style suburbs with smaller homes/lots are not considered sprawl by the urban folk. Although they still despise them. :D

With a select crowd, perhaps; but my broad estimate from various conversations is that 40s and 50s style suburbs with smaller homes/lots are not considered sprawl by the urban folk. Although they still despise them. :D

The median home size has been steadily growing while the median family size has been steadily shrinking. Additionally, the divide between the wealthiest people and the poorest people in the country has been growing as has the divide between wealthy and middle class. Ever since Reaganomics, the rich have been getting richer and everyone else has stagnated or lost ground. Moreover, the political clout of the rich has grown along with their wealth. In many urban/suburban areas of the country you have third world living conditions (in the cities) surrounded by a moat of McMansions - two entirely different worlds only miles apart but separated by a huge socioeconomic crevasse.

New York City way greener than average with 2.7% of US population but only 1% of greenhouse gas emissions:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070413/ap_on_sc/carbon_count

I certainly agree that the design of most suburban areas has problems in terms of not being conducive to walking and biking as practical forms of transportation. However, crowded cities have a different set of problems, at least for me (I can't see myself living in the middle of a big city and being happy about it--I need a little more space than that and like to get away from constant commotion). Besides, I've seen high-rise living arrangements mentioned several times in this thread and, frankly, I feel these are extremely unsafe due to the obvious difficulty in escaping in the event of a fire (or earthquake or other disaster for that matter). A previous poster mentioned that his ideal place to live would be a small town that has everything one generally needs within a couple of miles, and I would have to agree that this sounds like the best compromise. What do you all think would be the best arrangement, in terms of being conducive to human-powered forms of transportation (and therefore environmentally friendly) as well as being livable (i.e. not overcrowded and not all concrete and skyscrapers), if we were to design a new town/city from the ground up? I'll start by tossing out my idea (disclaimer: I am no expert in urban planning so I'm not sure whether this could really work or not): a small to medium sized town where the streets are laid out in some sort of a grid pattern, have low speed limits (like 30 mph) and are wide enough for cars and bikes to share without the operators of the two types of vehicles ticking each other off, sidewalks on both sides of the streets (made of asphalt so runners can use them without getting hurt from the hard surface as happens with concrete), and various sizes of multi-family houses like triple-deckers and townhouses (no more than four stories--remember what I said about fire safety issues), accommodating families ranging from couples to those with several children. These houses would perhaps be arranged in groups of four with a common yard in the middle of the group for children, dogs etc. to play in, and would have some sort of parking area near them since people will most likely still need cars for some longer trips. While we're at it, let's put a community garden every couple of blocks to provide a local source of fresh fruits and vegetables; maybe even a larger farm on the outskirts. The school, hospital, fire/police station, post office etc. would be in the center of town which would still be within walking or biking distance of all households. Grocery and other stores could either be here or have smaller ones in multiple parts of town. Parking lots would be much smaller at the stores and other facilities to take up less space and encourage walking and biking. At the periphery of the town, there would be parks with trails and paths for walking, recreational biking and rollerblading. The town would also have train service connecting it with the nearest large city, and the trains would run frequently enough and at a variety of times to be truly useful. Of course, there would still need to be major roads connecting the town with others nearby, and hopefully even these could be made bike friendly. Now that I've practically written a book, what does everyone think? (If I didn't make any sense here, blame the take-home pharmacology final I just finished before posting this).

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....

Yeah, right...owning a couple of acres and a modest home 40 miles outside of a metro area, using a well and septic, riding a bike to work and refusing to live in an overcrowded, concrete/pollution/crime infested city just so I can make more money makes ME part of the problem? :rolleyes: Actually it is my God given right to live my life how I choose...sorry pal, since you ain't God, you ain't gonna be changing that any time soon. :D Don't come knocking at my door looking for someplace to live when we can no longer sustain the infrastructure required to keep you fat, dumb and happy stacked like cordwood in your concrete utopia. I got my own water, I can grow my own food...I'm not dependent on the status quo and the conveniences that ARE part of the problem, as you are. If you think packing people into a city is the solution, God save us all.

But what are the direct self-interest motivations for living more responsibly with respect to environmental issues? Let's be frank, whether Chip stays on the farm or moves into the city is not going to make nearly as much positive difference in his life, or anyone else's, as when someone quits smoking or begins to eschew drunk driving. At the same time, the sacrifice on his part to give up his rural lifestyle is huge. See what I mean?

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), you have to make it somehow favorable to their direct self-interest to change. The only way I can think of doing that is by making living in high density urban areas much more economically attractive than "bigger footprint" alternatives. The only way I know to do that is by increasing the supply of such housing by eliminating the zoning laws that currently greatly inhibit high density 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).
The 'positive self interest' is already happening. Just like smokers sued the tobacco companies (and won), land owners and municipalities located along both US shores are already pressing lawsuits against greenhouse gas emitters. And there is an individual 'positive self interest' and that is 1) lowering your own personal cost of living and 2) knowing that you are doing your part to minimize your personal impact on the environment.

Then there is negative self interest and that will be when the government finally steps to the plate and taxes the crap out of motor fuels and funds mass transit systems (rail or dedicated bus lines) that are not impacted by auto gridlock. Once it becomes faster (or at least as fast) to ride mass transit to your destination as it is to drive and also cheaper, then people will use it. How does any of this work to make it in Chipcom's direct self-interest to move off the farm?

"1) lowering your own personal cost of living", would work, and that's what I'm talking about, if it's SIGNIFICANT. Again, the only way I know to do that is to relax zoning laws in urban areas.

"2) knowing that you are doing your part to minimize your personal impact on the environment." might be enough to get some people to put their plastic in one container instead of another, and get a few folks to downsize from an SUV to a cool Prius, and a tiny few to put solar panels on their roof, but I seriously doubt it's going to get someone to move from an environment he loves to one he detests.

Yeah, right...owning a couple of acres and a modest home 40 miles outside of a metro area, using a well and septic, riding a bike to work and refusing to live in an overcrowded, concrete/pollution/crime infested city just so I can make more money makes ME part of the problem? :rolleyes: Actually it is my God given right to live my life how I choose...sorry pal, since you ain't God, you ain't gonna be changing that any time soon. :D Don't come knocking at my door looking for someplace to live when we can no longer sustain the infrastructure required to keep you fat, dumb and happy stacked like cordwood in your concrete utopia. I got my own water, I can grow my own food...I'm not dependent on the status quo and the conveniences that ARE part of the problem, as you are. If you think packing people into a city is the solution, God save us all.

Do you belong to one of those Minnesota militias???? I hear banjos playin.........

Yeah, right...owning a couple of acres and a modest home 40 miles outside of a metro area, using a well and septic, riding a bike to work and refusing to live in an overcrowded, concrete/pollution/crime infested city just so I can make more money makes ME part of the problem? :rolleyes: Actually it is my God given right to live my life how I choose...sorry pal, since you ain't God, you ain't gonna be changing that any time soon. :D Don't come knocking at my door looking for someplace to live when we can no longer sustain the infrastructure required to keep you fat, dumb and happy stacked like cordwood in your concrete utopia. I got my own water, I can grow my own food...I'm not dependent on the status quo and the conveniences that ARE part of the problem, as you are. If you think packing people into a city is the solution, God save us all.
What would happen if all of us who live out in the suburbian areas decided to take the city dwellers advice. We all move into the city, housing costs sky rocket, food costs sky rocket, congestion makes it impossible to move. The infrastructure that binds it all together fails. Sewage in the streets, the homeless population quadrupoles, crime jumps exponentially, etc. etc.
How long would it take for them to tell us to move out of "their" city?
Just a thought.

What would happen if all of us who live out in the suburbian areas decided to take the city dwellers advice. We all move into the city, housing costs sky rocket, food costs sky rocket, congestion makes it impossible to move. The infrastructure that binds it all together fails. Sewage in the streets, the homeless population quadrupoles, crime jumps exponentially, etc. etc.
How long would it take for them to tell us to move out of "their" city?
Just a thought.
You seem to imagine the cities staying as they are, except adding that many more people. In actuality, the cities would expand to accomodate that shift just as they did when there were huge population shifts from rural to urban over very short time spans in the 19th and 20th centuries.

You seem to imagine the cities staying as they are, except adding that many more people. In actuality, the cities would expand to accomodate that shift just as they did when there were huge population shifts from rural to urban over very short time spans in the 19th and 20th centuries.
The cities would expand eh? Would that expansion be called "the suburbs"?
Oh, and in the 19th and early 20th centuries, for a city to expand, took nowhere near the resources as it does today. As it is now, the cities can't handle the extra population they get from holding special events such as a the Super Bowl and wot not.
Still though, my point has been made. People just like to piss and moan about lifestyles that differ from theirs. I've lived in the boonies (eastern Kentucky), in the cities (Chicago and Lousiville), and in the suburbs where I reside now. I'll take the suburbs over the city life any day, and you know what? It's my (used loosely here) god given right to do so. And I don't depend on foriegn oil and the other nonsense that others seem to think we suburbanites need so preciously in order to just survive. I live car free and grow most of my own food, yes, I said MOST.

What would happen if all of us who live out in the suburbian areas decided to take the city dwellers advice. We all move into the city, housing costs sky rocket, food costs sky rocket, congestion makes it impossible to move. The infrastructure that binds it all together fails. Sewage in the streets, the homeless population quadrupoles, crime jumps exponentially, etc. etc.
How long would it take for them to tell us to move out of "their" city?
Just a thought.

I think your grasp of recent history is lacking. Just about every rust-belt city in the USA has lost 50% of it's pre-world war II population. Right now, today, this instant you could walk into Baltimore City's office of housing and urban development and purchase a house for $1. That's right, a buck. Now the house would be in a severely blighted neighborhood with half of the other houses boarded up, but if you want to be on the forefront of urban re-development there it is. Congestion? When? During the work day 3/4 of the people in the city don't live there, they just commute for their job that is located in the city. So if a good percentage of those people actually LIVED in the city, the streets would be less congested.

So just using Baltimore City as an example, it's current population is about 750,000. It would have to take in about 600,000 residence to reach it's WWII density. That's taking almost the entire population of Baltimore County and moving them to the city.

And if that happened what effect would it have on utilities? None. The sewage treatment plants already handle the sewage from Baltimore County and the city. On crime? Crime would decrease as the percentage of criminals in the general population would go down and the new citizens would be more inclined to call the cops and testify in court.

Do you belong to one of those Minnesota militias???? I hear banjos playin.........

Ahh, it seems the fact that you are as DEPENDENT as any sheep hit home, not to mention the realization that your lifestyle is what has contributed to causing our problems in the first place...gotta keep the sheep fat, dumb and happy. I'm sorry my words offended you, but I can't help it that you seem to be jealous of those who manage to get out of the cesspool, rather than wallow in it, and feel the need to blame them for the problems that you helped to create and ensure never get addressed.

You seem to imagine the cities staying as they are, except adding that many more people. In actuality, the cities would expand to accomodate that shift just as they did when there were huge population shifts from rural to urban over very short time spans in the 19th and 20th centuries.

more urban/suburban sprawl :rolleyes:

You guys do realize that people have lived outside the cities for as long as there have been cities, don't you? How the heck did people survive without cars and interstates when the nearest town was 5-50 miles away and the only transportation was horse and wagon?

Cities ain't changed much over the last century...other than getting bigger and adding more infrastructure required to keep the sheep fat, dumb and happy.

I think your grasp of recent history is lacking. Just about every rust-belt city in the USA has lost 50% of it's pre-world war II population. Right now, today, this instant you could walk into Baltimore City's office of housing and urban development and purchase a house for $1. That's right, a buck. Now the house would be in a severely blighted neighborhood with half of the other houses boarded up, but if you want to be on the forefront of urban re-development there it is. Congestion? When? During the work day 3/4 of the people in the city don't live there, they just commute for their job that is located in the city. So if a good percentage of those people actually LIVED in the city, the streets would be less congested.

So just using Baltimore City as an example, it's current population is about 750,000. It would have to take in about 600,000 residence to reach it's WWII density. That's taking almost the entire population of Baltimore County and moving them to the city.

And if that happened what effect would it have on utilities? None. The sewage treatment plants already handle the sewage from Baltimore County and the city. On crime? Crime would decrease as the percentage of criminals in the general population would go down and the new citizens would be more inclined to call the cops and testify in court.


Come on folks, do your part to save the world, move to the slums, expose your family to higher crime, higher taxes, more pollution, more noise, higher cost of living, abundant food from a store or fast-food joint, and the joy of living within 10 feet of your neighbors!! :rolleyes: :roflmao:

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), you have to make it somehow favorable to their direct self-interest to change. The only way I can think of doing that is by making living in high density urban areas much more economically attractive than "bigger footprint" alternatives. The only way I know to do that is by increasing the supply of such housing by eliminating the zoning laws that currently greatly inhibit high density 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).

I think that this is a good point.

I recall some estimates that zoning laws, rent control, and other statutes make building in many cities MUCH higher ... (I believe Glaeser and company wrote a good recent article ...)

Zoning laws is a pretty tricky issue. On one hand, it is nice to preserve the community and a residential feel. On the other hand, zoning laws in many ways serve the relatively wealthy (... median household income is only around $40K ...) homeowners at the expense of lower and middle class families.

Anyway, I have not been in Denver, Portland or Seattle in a long time. A lot of the discussion here makes me think I need to travel with my Bike Friday,

-G

more urban/suburban sprawl :rolleyes:

You guys do realize that people have lived outside the cities for as long as there have been cities, don't you?

They were called....'Farmers'.... not 'Suburbanites'....

And Chip, sure, you escaped the nitty gritty city....but the ills you speak of will follow you. Only once the social ills you run from are formerly addressed will anybody really be safe.

They were called....'Farmers'.... not 'Suburbanites'....

And Chip, sure, you escaped the nitty gritty city....but the ills you speak of will follow you. Only once the social ills you run from are formerly addressed will anybody really be safe.

I escaped? I just don't have to live in it. Hows all that social fixing coming along, anyway? Please keep us updated as to your progress changing human nature. To date it doesn't seem to be going so well.

They were called....'Farmers'.... not 'Suburbanites'....

And Chip, sure, you escaped the nitty gritty city....but the ills you speak of will follow you. Only once the social ills you run from are formerly addressed will anybody really be safe.

Ehhh, from what I gather, people in the countryside have their own social ills to deal with.

Galen, do you ever join organized rides? Given that we are a stones throw away from each other, we might try to meet at some point. Are you thinking of doing any of the local centuries? I can think of Indian Head (Oxon Hil Bicycle and Trail), Civil War (Potomac Peddlers?), and Seagull (I have no idea who runs it ...).

You seem to imagine the cities staying as they are, except adding that many more people. In actuality, the cities would expand to accomodate that shift just as they did when there were huge population shifts from rural to urban over very short time spans in the 19th and 20th centuries.
more urban/suburban sprawl :rolleyes:
It's sad but understandable that we equate population growth with "sprawl". This is because zoning laws create an artificially low population density limit, probably by at least an order of magnitute. So as population grows in the city, it must expand OUT.

Manhattan, which grew relatively freely in its early history, has about 30,000 people per square kilometer.
Los Angeles, which was heavily restricted from the beginning, has about 3,000 people per square kilometer. That's sprawl. Imagine that the 4,000,000 people of L.A. would take up 1/10th of the footprint they currently use if they lived at Manhattan densities.

The cities would expand eh? Would that expansion be called "the suburbs"?
It depends on the zoning laws. Expansion can go UP too. The same land used to house 10 families in single family homes could house thousands if converted to a 100 story tower.

If the city zoning laws allowed for high density economical living, then suburban life would become economically much less attractive.

Manhattan, which grew relatively freely in its early history, ...

Los Angeles, which was heavily restricted from the beginning, ...

Regarding the correlation between regulations and population, I don't think that these two places are the best examples since there were many other factors which were probably more important historically.

But I still believe that regulations have an impact upon sprawl and, consequently, on cycling.

Regarding the correlation between regulations and population, I don't think that these two places are the best examples since there were many other factors which were probably more important historically.

But I still believe that regulations have an impact upon sprawl and, consequently, on cycling.
Fine. Compare San Francisco at 6,000 per sq km, to Sacramento at 1,600 per sq km.

Population density is closely related to how big the city was in the 19th century prior to zoning laws. Cities developed since then tend to have much stricter (lower density) zoning.

It depends on the zoning laws. Expansion can go UP too. The same land used to house 10 families in single family homes could house thousands if converted to a 100 story tower.


In the long run, zoning laws don't mean ****.
A shopping center has been destroyed and turned into housing just down the road. And in Mt. Clemons, they are removing an abandoned golf area and putting in a Meijer, a park, and some housing.
Zoning laws are not the end all be all as people like to think, and they can/do change, I just provided two examples from less than 5 miles of my house.


If the city zoning laws allowed for high density economical living, then suburban life would become economically much less attractive.
Only to the city folks. Not all of us live out here for the same reason. If you tell me I can live in the city with 3/4 acre for a garden, no neighbors that can hear me when I fart on my front porch, no cars driving outside my bedroom window, live as safely and soundly as I do out here, for the same price.... then I might consider it.


Like I said, people just like to ***** about lifestyles that differ from theirs.
The suburbs have been around since the first cities a few thusand years ago. And a bunch of people with nothing better to do than piss and moan about it are not going to change anyhting. And why is it that they piss and moan so much? Jealousy??

It depends on the zoning laws. Expansion can go UP too. The same land used to house 10 families in single family homes could house thousands if converted to a 100 story tower.

If the city zoning laws allowed for high density economical living, then suburban life would become economically much less attractive.

A 100 story tower? yikes!!! That is a huge fire hazard if I've ever heard one. Sure you can fit a lot of people in a small land area that way, but if there's a fire in that building the people on the high floors won't have a chance. (Isn't it true that the ladders on fire trucks only go up to the sixth floor?) One way to greatly decrease sprawl and still allow people to be safe and not overcrowded might be to have multi-family homes (for example, three-deckers like the ones that are common where I am--I even live in one of them with my two roommates) that are on a similar size lot to the typical single-family home. To use your example, the same land used to house 10 families in single-family homes could house 30 if triple deckers were built, or 40 if an extra floor were added to make quadruple deckers. Not "thousands" (which I think sounds like an exaggeration anyway) but still a big improvement while still being reasonably safe for all residents. (Would you really want yourself and your family to live on the 100th floor, knowing that if the building catches fire you're likely to not get out alive?)

There are 100 story buildings all over the world. If the foot print could support 10 single family homes, each floor could easily support 30-40 people. That's 3 to 4 thousand people in the building... thousands.

But even 50 stories would increase the number of people who could live in that space using the same amount of land by more than 50 times (as compared to using that space for 10 single family homes with yards).

Being in a metro area, most of these people probably wouldn't need cars, so no garages, etc.

even if there was a fire, they could escape by flying through the air using their strap-on jetpacks.
in the future.

There are 100 story buildings all over the world. If the foot print could support 10 single family homes, each floor could easily support 30-40 people. That's 3 to 4 thousand people in the building... thousands.

But even 50 stories would increase the number of people who could live in that space using the same amount of land by more than 50 times (as compared to using that space for 10 single family homes with yards).

Being in a metro area, most of these people probably wouldn't need cars, so no garages, etc.

Yeah, and we all know that "Towers" are so safe and indistructable. It's not like we'd be making big targets for anyone wishing carnage upon our citizens... oh, wait.
Let the city dwellers live in their towers if they want.
I'll take my freshly tilled earth any day, and not have to wory about the teenagers blaring music next door, the people dancing upstairs, or the woman cooking cury-EVERYTHING beneath me stinking up my home.

Ehhh, from what I gather, people in the countryside have their own social ills to deal with.

Galen, do you ever join organized rides? Given that we are a stones throw away from each other, we might try to meet at some point. Are you thinking of doing any of the local centuries? I can think of Indian Head (Oxon Hil Bicycle and Trail), Civil War (Potomac Peddlers?), and Seagull (I have no idea who runs it ...).

I did the Civil War last year. I will most likely do it this year if the weather looks good. There is a BBC century in June that covers a lot of the same ground that I will do.

Yeah, and we all know that "Towers" are so safe and indistructable. It's not like we'd be making big targets for anyone wishing carnage upon our citizens... oh, wait.
Let the city dwellers live in their towers if they want.
I'll take my freshly tilled earth any day, and not have to wory about the teenagers blaring music next door, the people dancing upstairs, or the woman cooking cury-EVERYTHING beneath me stinking up my home.

all you have to worry about is some guy tying you to a tree and saying 'you sure got purdy lips...now squeal like a pig...'

Yeah, and we all know that "Towers" are so safe and indistructable. It's not like we'd be making big targets for anyone wishing carnage upon our citizens... oh, wait.


Another reason why towers = bad idea. It's a hazard on so many levels (no pun intended). Multi-family housing on a smaller scale, on the other hand, is perfectly reasonable if done right.

all you have to worry about is some guy tying you to a tree and saying 'you sure got purdy lips...now squeal like a pig...'

It's "mouth" dumb ass, "mouth". :D

It's "mouth" dumb ass, "mouth". :D

You have heard it before?????:eek:

New York City is 'greener' (as measured in lbs. of greenhouse gas emissions per person) than your suburb

You have heard it before?????:eek:
No, not heard... :D

When I went to Mumbai, India, the housing is done thusly: A landowner with no development on his land will end up with a slum. However he cannot simply buldoze the slum away. He is allowed to build multi-story high-rise apartment buidlings where the lower floors contain tiny apartments that the slum dwellers get to live in for free and the upper apartments are larger and more luxurious and cost a fortune. Single-family homes are a luxury only Bollywood stars and other super-rich folks can afford.

Not everybody lives the way we do here.

When I went to Mumbai, India, the housing is done thusly: A landowner with no development on his land will end up with a slum. However he cannot simply buldoze the slum away. He is allowed to build multi-story high-rise apartment buidlings where the lower floors contain tiny apartments that the slum dwellers get to live in for free and the upper apartments are larger and more luxurious and cost a fortune. Single-family homes are a luxury only Bollywood stars and other super-rich folks can afford.

Not everybody lives the way we do here.
You got that right, Diane.

A guy staying with me from Nigeria, when I complained about our ancient washer and dryer, said, "If I had that washer and dryer in my country, I could run a business." The least of us Americans are rich compared to so many around the world.

A friend of mine came back from India and commented that as he walked down the street, he witnessed how people had stretched plastic sheets from the street to an adjoining wall, making small tents. Entire familes lived inside.

Of course, I've seen that under bridges here, too, so maybe I'm wrong about America.

[Edit: what I saw was not entire familes living under bridges, but dozens of homeless in sleeping bags in a row against the wall on a freezing night under the bridge.]