Roody

Ok you win. Now we can return to the question about sprawl presented by tandempower in the OP:

"Then the question is what it takes to achieve sprawl-free cities. Density? Viable transit and bike infrastructure? Limited parking?"

Machka 

+1

Many suburbs contain, or are next to, industrial areas which employ a large number of people. And of course, when you've got an industrial area, there is often a shopping area with cafes and restaurants etc. near it ... more jobs.

Now, as soon as I say "industrial area" everyone is going to have a different picture in mind ... but the image in my mind is quite a nice place surrounded by green spaces.

The jobs are not necessarily in the centre of a city anymore.

Machka 

I don't quite understand this post ... it suggests to me that you've never lived in a small town or in the country.


1) I suspect that those who live in low density areas, suburbs, small towns, the country are quite happy to pay whatever it costs to live there ... after all they chose to live there.

2) From my experience, it costs less to live in a low density area than a high density area ... less to live in the country or a small town than it does to live in the centre of a city. Rents and housing costs are often less.

Roody

I wasn't referring to small towns, the country, or even existing suburbs. I was referring to sprawl areas. Because, as I keep saying, sprawl is the topic of this thread.

Machka 

If your "sprawl" is not small towns, the country, or existing suburbs ... what is it?

And again, if people have chosen to live in low density areas, I'm sure they are well aware of whatever costs (or lack thereof) exist in those areas. After all, they no doubt considered their options about where to live, weighed up the pros and cons, and decided that they liked that particular spot, it had enough pros to appeal to them.

Jim from Boston

“I don't know what sprawl is, but I know it when I see it.”*

From my limited travels in the United States and Canada, I suggest that Boston suffers the least from sprawl that I have ever seen. In less than one hour on my bike, I can pass through fairly high density urban, into compact suburban, and then into exurbia. Or I can take the commuter rail with my bike even further.

This farmland is within 2 miles of my workplace destination, 14 miles from downtown.

Roody

I know you've lived in Detroit also, which presents a contrast to Boston. When I was a kid in Detroit, in the 1960s, there was still farmland in Troy, along 14 Mile Road. Now, you would have to go away from downtown at least another 14 or 15 miles before you saw your first farm. And this is in a metro area that's declined in population! Fewer people, but much more land area under development...

I think that forms of government have something to do with sprawl. In Michigan, rural areas are in townships. The townships don't have much power when it comes to zoning and planning development. In Massachusetts, I believe, the rural areas are organized into towns. The towns have more autonomy and local control when it comes to zoning and development. (If I'm understanding it right.) I believe that in some cases the Mass. Towns were able to exclude urban sprawl, while Mich. townships legally could not.

Michigan also has a very poor record on regional or metropolitan planning, especially in the Detroit metro area. I remember reading somewhere that Massachusetts and Boston metro municipalities have cooperated better.

Having lived in both metro areas, do you have any insight into why they developed so differently as far as sprawl is concerned?

jon c. 

Outside of most cities were small towns and rural areas, but they become sprawl as the city moves out. I live in a small town. The nearest traffic light, which was at the road that loops around the city, was 10 miles away 15 years ago. As development continued, more lights were added and now I'm only 7 miles to the last light. You can't really separate "sprawl" from rural areas and small towns. I love living in a rural area and I'm old enough that my area will hopefully remain rural for the rest of my life. But eventually sprawl will reach my area. By living in a rural area and commuting to the city, I recognize I contribute to the very sprawl I fear.

phoebeisis

Jade

Thanks for the pictures-finally some pictures
and I must say-those Oakland neighborhoods-very nice-not one bit like what I picture when someone says Oakland ( I live in river ridge-suburb 4 miles west-upriver-of new Orleans)

Yeah poor Oakland-you guys get such bad press.Worse than NOLA-much worse-.Yeah Oakland gets TERRIBLE press.
1)All the trees shrubbery?? How much does it rain in Oakland?
2)Those neighborhoods-some extremely nice some pretty nice.What is the average price for say a single family home-
a)In that extremely nice neighborhood-maybe 1st picture-price?
b)Lesser but still nice neighborhoods-they were all nice

This obviously amateur picture-River Ridge-typical-lotta trees)2 cypress 1 navel orange(poor production-shaded) huge crepe myrtle "bushes" few rose bushes hedge=pretty typical- one 1998 primitive 226,500 mile SUV(holds 5 cats 1 greyhound 1 beagle 2 adults for evacuations) -one small car
$77,000 in 1986 worth maybe $140,000 now-fairly typical 1500 sq foot 1959 ranch house

Thanks for the pictures-no idea Oakland was so nice-so many trees-nice neighborhoods

Roody

I hope you're wrong about the sprawl taking over your rural community, as it has devoured so much of your state. Maybe people are starting to realize that this creeping urbanization brings more problems than benefits to the small towns and rural areas in its path. Maybe they will start fighting back to preserve the qualities that they love about rural and small town living.

Roody

You sure love trees. Me too! You should move to Michigan, where trees grow like weeds. My city has had a professional forester for almost 100 years.

Sprawl kills trees! I'm sure more trees are killed to make room for new development than are killed by the logging industry.

phoebeisis

Yeah I love trees!
Wish I had asked for some advice when I planted those trees in 1988-1990.
Planted a pine tree-because I like them-it got HUGE-lifted the neighbors driveway-and pines aren't good in hurricanes-they blow over-crush your roof.
I had to cut it down last year-killed me
And the navel orange tree-only produces on its west side-shaded by the huge crepe myrtles and the cypress trees-another screw up
The Cypress trees on the other hand-prettiest trees in the world-resistant to wind
and in the winter-cold low humidity nights-so you can see some stars in the sky-they literally look like some Van Gogh painting-but prettier!
So pretty they look "fake"
-south louisiana was very heavily logged( somewhat logged out by 1900)-cypress and old pines some hardwood(oak)- the cypress and old pine are somewhat resistant to termites-great wood.
Michigan is still heavily forested in place ,right-seem pictures-plenty of trees.
Yeah-I screwed up on the pine and the navel orange-didn't look 25 years down the road.
The Cypress were actually my wife's idea-I probably would have planted more pine trees because they grow soooo fast.
Tress drop AC power use quite a bit-losing that pine-is was almost due east-made us hotter.Less of a concern where you are-heck you might need the solar heating in the winter.
We are dead on 30 degrees N-our winters are mild-so trees shading the roof-not a big deal

Jade's Oakland-much more trees shrubs than I expected-forget it isn't southern CA-must get plenty of rain?

Yeah sprawl kills trees-first order of business is scalping bulldozing the land- occasionally some effort is made to save an old oak-since they add value to the property-but that is rare.

I-Like-To-Bike

A vivid imagination, a belief that free-form wishful thinking is the basis for practical planning, and a willingness to block out any concern or empathy for those who do not share your own vision of "good."

RPK79

This sums everything up nicely. Thanks, Jim.

tandempower

Because people deserve to be free to stay where they live or move into an area with the choice of how to get around. For this freedom to exist, sprawl can't be allowed to structurally inconvenience every choice besides driving.

This isn't directly personally against you but I am tired of this argument that everyone is entitled to "their own vision of 'good." All it does is facilitate nonsense claims that relativize points-of-view as a tactic for subverting them. Some things are a matter of opinion and others aren't. Empathizing with people who support clearly unsustainable or otherwise detrimental policies and actions only solidifies a foundation for defending the indefensible.

daihard 

I *think* @Roody is referring to the areas that are highly inconvenient to live without a car. That's what comes to my mind when I hear the word "sprawl." It can be small or large towns. It can be out in the country or near the city centre. It may or may not be suburbs.

I agree. OTOH, this is a "car-free" forum. I'd suspect one of the cons of living in a sprawled area is that it requires a fair, if not excessive, amount of driving, and it doesn't go well with the principle of living car-free or car-light.

tandempower

Could a more objective definition involve something like a ratio of proportionality between travel-times of different modes of transportation over comparable distances?

One way I tend to recognize sprawl is when I'm somewhere that it would clearly take much longer to go anywhere by bus because the blocks are so big that bus stops need to be located every block or two for miles to prevent people from having to walk too far once they get off the bus. In sprawl like that, bus trips take a lot longer than driving to the same destination because of all the stops.

A city could have numerous sub-areas where destinations are reachable in more-or-less the same amount of time by bus or bike as driving and this wouldn't be sprawl. Of course this would mean it would take longer to drive between districts and/or transit routing/signaling would need to be done in a way that makes it equally or comparably quick and accessible to get across the city by public transit as by driving

JBHoren

Sprawl is not, necessarily, about travel time between destinations. Sprawl is about the physically unidentifiable "transition" between what were once distinct and separate locales -- without signs to inform us, we wouldn't know if/when/that we'd left "Thisburg" and entered "Thatville". Parks don't counteract sprawl; it requires distinct, physical separation to give the "this-ness" and "that-ness" which provide the community identity we no longer have. "Unified" school districts, "regional" this and that -- all contribute to the Great American melting-pot monotony. So we lose neighborhoods, and replace them with "hyphenated-American" ethnic identities. Even within cities, despite gentrification, homogeneity is the watchword. I digress. Sprawl = indistinguishable. Anywhere is everywhere.

Jim from Boston

Thanks for your cogent reply about the governance of townships and towns. Of course much development in Michigan was determined by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, whereas growth in metropolitan Boston was more haphazard; it’s said that most of the major street were former cowpaths. And Boston and the East Coast were more populated in those colonial days than Michigan was in the post-colonial era, so towns grew up more compact in the pre-automotive days. There may also be a more preservationist streak in Boston than in Michigan, as you note; and I think Michiganians are more "pro-growth (development)," IMHO.

Mass transit has flourished here, with the first subway in America built in Boston, and is much more woven into the fabric of urban life.

The architectural critic of the Boston Globe a few years ago wrote a column about the “Cities of Tower and Cars” as contrasted with the “Cities of Outdoor Rooms.” The Cities of T’s and C’s were exemplified by Southfield, MI, where he was visiting. That nickname is quite apparent as you drive I-696.

Of course Boston is the City of Outdoor Rooms. As he describes it, walking through Boston is like walking through someone’s home where you look around and admire the appointments in that “room,” and then proceed through a portal into another, different “room.” I use that motif whenever I take visitors on a walking tour of downtown Boston.

BTW, on July 26, there will be a Sixth Annual Bikeforums Fifty-Plus Ride held in Metropolitan Boston with some ancillary activities for that weekend, if any interested subscribers would like to see “sprawl-free” Boston for themselves (You don’t have to be 50+ to participate).

Jim from Boston

See my post, immediately following yours, about the Cities of Outdoor Rooms.

Jim from Boston

In a prior thread, "How does not owning a car set you free?," I posted:

I-Like-To-Bike

I do not doubt that you are tired of anyone who does not nod their head in agreement with your lifestyle visions.

Presumably only you and similar self-styled wise men with similar visions of the Real Truth are qualified to determine what is nonsense and define what is "good."

Daydreaming and wishful thinking as a substitute for intelligent thought about practicality, resources, or political/popular support will not initiate creation of anything "good," when you are the only one who is convinced of the goodness of your utopian schemes.

Even the Biblical God got off his thinking throne and built something for six days before declaring that his creation was "good."

jade408

It is like good news/bad news. I moved to Oakland about 10 years ago (went to college nearby and lived in other nearby areas before that). Back then people in the know would love my neighborhood and call it like a secret bargain. Urban amenities with easy parking, good transit access and low crime for reasonably cheap. Now other people in our region, and afar are getting hip to Oakland and prices are on the rise big time. Places that were sketchy but with good proximity to nicer areas have increased in price by 50-75% over the past 5ish years. People priced out of SF are doubling the prices of the areas that are walkable with good transit.

We are getting more cool places in all sorts of sections of town, particular downtown, which was a ghost town before (declined like most other downtowns, but on the up note since it was neglected, lots of awesome historic buildings are in tact. Here are 2 of my favorite downtown oakland blocks.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ol...88e2ee!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8061...5w!2e0!6m1!1e1

We have a mix of street trees. Just a few blocks from my place is like citrus central. Lots of oranges and lemons hanging over from the backyards.
We get more rain than SoCal. It is a rainier part of the Bay Area. Rainy season is roughly November to April, and we get around 20 inches of rain in an average year. Oakland is actually named for oak trees, and is super green. This is THE Oakland tree right here at city hall
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oa...dc3901d372940d

And here is the Redwood Forest in the middle of town.
Redwood Regional Park

That area is around $800k for a typical 3 bedroom/1600 sqft sort of home. It has appreciated a ton lately because of walkability and transit becoming key amenities. It used to be much "cheaper" than the classic homes in the hills, but now they are the same price.
I live around here: a one bedroom condo is about $250-300k, pretty cheap by Bay Area standards sadly. Single family homes are roughly $700k, but if you go to the other side of the freeway, it is much cheaper and a little less nice.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8230...IQ!2e0!6m1!1e1

The bad side of the freeway, closer to downtown.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mo...f9181eecc2e470

Here there are more condos. And they are more like $200-250k for the older one bedroom.

Median home price in Oakland is about $450k right now, region wide it is more like $650k.
If you want to live in a transitional area, you can live in West Oakland, which has crapy blocks, and beautiful ones like this one:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/We...e8a6892ba3ddd0

Which are roughly the median price.

Or you can live further from transit/the train and get in a good middle class area like here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/La...80af52!6m1!1e1

Here, you can find a 2 bedroom condo for roughly $200k, and a 1200 sqft single family home for roughly $350-$400k. But you've got about 2 miles to the train station, good access to a crosstown bus, but the ride downtown via bus is 40 minutes (vs a 10-15 minute drive). Bike lanes are hit or miss.

All in all Oakland is pretty great, assuming you can afford not to live in the worst neighborhood. It is both diverse, and mixed. There are loads of places with good transit. And yummy food! And as I mentioned, the whole main street thing? Well lots of neighborhoods are in walking distnce of a good main street!
This is mine:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pi...092faddd74af74

And this is the one for that middle class neighborhood I posted. It is just 3-4 blocks away
https://www.google.com/maps/place/La...9699ad7180af52

For me, the ideal neighborhood has a main street in walking distance. And a good transit hub within about a 1.5-2 mile distance, with connecting bus service if possible. The housing form matters little. In Oakland, I'd say roughly 40-50% of neighborhoods have that, at various income levels. And we are working on "creating" these transit oriented destinations with a new BRT line in a poorer/emerging part of town. Really hoping to spur economic development in a spot that really needs it, and will connect this residents with the "favored quadrant" where I live -- the Northeast section of the city.

phoebeisis

Jade
Yikes- $400,000 for 1200 sq ft
The house I pictured-maybe $160,000 if it was in better condition-1700 sq ft-typiclal of NOLA suburbs-brick ranch on slab(slabs not a great idea here-termites and flooding)
In NOLA proper-you could get a wood frame wood sided "shotgun" maybe 900--1200 sq ft-for as little as $40,000 in a dodgy neighborhood-
but maybe $200,000 in a good neighborhood.Plenty of trees-fair numbers of Oaks.
New Orleans East is the only part of NOLA proper with brick ranchers. Many black middle class upper class-moved there in the 1960's-1970's-1980's-maybe BIG new beautiful brick ranch houses-
But Katrina KILLED New Orleans east-10 ft of water-property values never recovered there-but they did recover in other areas-older areas near the river
Nearer the river means higher the elevation-
And most houses in NOLA proper were built on brick footings(piers some call them-maybe 2-3 feet high -you can crawl under your house) not on concrete slabs-much much better idea than a slab in termite prone flood prone area-French Spanish who built the first structures-knew what they were doing.Concrete slabs are cheap-so.....

I LOVE that building on 9th street-the 4 story commercial building with the full length windows curved at the top-windowns which probably actually opened.
Yeah-lucky it was saved-reasonable scale-nice looking building.

So good news bad news-folks discover a nice affordable neighborhood-and soon enough it becomes pricy
probably took a hit in 2008-but recovered-and now "old neighbors" have to deal with "rich San Fran buyers"-driving up prices meaning assessments and property taxes go up.
But it is worth more so.....

20" of rain enough to support all those trees? Wow-20" here would be an end of world drought

Oh-don't know that I can allow an Oak-land-ite to brag about their food?? -
NYNY brag about what passes for food there-
Chicago-ins brag about pizza??
Guessing Oakland has edible seafood..-probably decent produce too-fruit veggies etc-I will give you a pass on your food brag-
But for good food- NOLA-
We have our problems-but food isn't one of them.

daihard 

"Good" things are happening, though. The example of Seattle is one of them. They are building more greenways and more walk/bike paths in the areas around downtown so people can choose to live in the "suburbs" without the inconvenience of driving. Their public transit system isn't very good, but is still quite usable. They are also expanding light rail and tram lines so these neighbourhoods are better connected with one another.

I agree that what's good depends upon who you talk to. Given that this is a car-free forum, though, I believe we all agree that encouraging modes of transport other than driving is a "good" thing.