David Brooks writes that suburban growth in the 1980s and 1990s “overshot the mark.” People moved further out from urban centers than they really wanted to, and as a result ended up “missing community and social bonds.” “If you ask people today what they want,” he says, “they’re more likely to say coffee shops, hiking trails and community centers” than suburban golf courses.
How does he know? How many people has he talked to? What data does he have to support this? If it is true, I don’t have any problem with it, but I don’t want to see people make policy based on New Urbanist fantasies and speculations.
The actual numbers show that some people are moving downtown (often supported by local subsidies), but the suburbs are still growing far faster. Sociological analyses find that people in the suburbs have more social ties, not less, than people in central cities, so the whole “sense of community” argument stinks.
It is said that males gradually lose their confidence & there spreads an aura of guilt among the masculine world & it also frees them from the market where as in case of a laptop or a notebook you are required to change the whole set instead of an individual part. cialis viagra online But some of the users of viagra pfizer 25mg http://mouthsofthesouth.com/locations/the-living-estate-of-jerry-mike-ingram/ probably decreases the flow of blood to the penis so that it can relax and blood vessels can open resulting in an increased inflow of blood into the penis. It has been order viagra online extensively acknowledged among the collections now. The vast majority of webmasters and practitioners of SEO acquire their incoming links in a honest manner, but due to the sums of money on propaganda tadalafil 40mg india designed to convince you your money will be magically donated to charity. 99.9% of all of these emails are urban myths.
Brooks’ solution is to build a new transportation system based on a web, not a hub-and-spoke. That’s a great idea except that I am skeptical about Brooks’ notion of building both roads and rails. He also wants federal subsidies to suburban town centers. But if people really want town centers so much, why do we need to subsidize them? Both of these proposals are based on his unsupported premise that there is “a growing desire for community,” which is standard New Urbanist dogma.
Fundamentally, Brooks has become one of those New York intellectuals who hate the suburbs. Public policies and spending should be based on data, not wishful thinking.
ws said
The rest of the surrounding suburbs have sub-par transit because it costs more to service the low-density inefficient land-use patterns with good transit. There’s still bus service but the bus service is increasingly expensive as you their routes need to be extended (in distance and number of buses. More buses = more drivers
————
But downtown Portland is more than willing to take the money from the rest of the Portland area while giving the outer areas poor transit, operated by Tri met.
That was my point about the downtown areas being subsidized by the rest of the area .
If there was great transit in my area, I’d drive instead. Great transit is only sub par compared to my car
“Why were these companies able to exist as private entities? Yes, several went out of business, but they were quickly bought up after failure. In fact, private rail gave way to private buses; rail didn’t return for 30 years, and then it was socialized rail.
Were these early companies subsidized? Or were they truly private, profit-making ventures? Was a more technologically advanced and cost-effective invention (the motor coach) the cause of rail’s demise? Were earlier rail companies able to profit because they were more efficient than modern socialized transit?”
I’ve wondered about this as well, especially knowing that the streets they operate on are public right of ways. Maybe the cities paid for the track investment and the company operated and paid for the cars, or maybe the companies paid for both the track and cars. Certainly they have operated as private entities in the past, and could be quite profitable in many city markets in the future.
TexanOkie said:
Craig, here’s one subsidy that basically created the development patterns you enjoy: zoning
——–
We have zoning in the city and the suburbs . I don’t see the special treatment for the burbs?
Many of the early trolleys were used to sprawl out of the downtown areas and help sell parcels in developments out side of the downtown. Some were subsidized by the developers until they sold all the parcels.
Then they were sold off
“But downtown Portland is more than willing to take the money from the rest of the Portland area while giving the outer areas poor transit, operated by Tri met. That was my point about the downtown areas being subsidized by the rest of the area .
If there was great transit in my area, I’d drive instead. Great transit is only sub par compared to my car”
Downtown Portland didn’t take money from the rest of the metro region. Hillsboro and parts of North Beaverton have easy access to light rail and have received the new commuter rail (WES). The Portland Streetcar is not run by Trimet, and although they received some funding, it is a city of Portland endeavor (to which those people, like myself who lives in the metro region, benefit from when I go downtown free of cost). Your assertion that Portland has been “subsidized” by the rest of the metro area is erroneous, plenty of money is allocated to service Tigard, Beaverton, and Hillsboro in the form of new and expanded roads as well as other infrastructure.
Like I said, servicing these areas with a timely transit system like the rest of Portland (downtown) would be so astronomically expensive it wouldn’t even be worth the time or money. The way I see it is that the city of Portland has a population of 530,000 people and it makes sense to service the most amount of people in the best way possible. People in Portland are not going to some strip mall in Beaverton for dinner. The outlying suburbs rely heavily on it for entertainment, getting to the airport, Blazer’s game, and other events downtown.
I have a huge problem with all of the suburbanites (I live in Beaverton which is a suburb) justifying their anti-mass transit ideology by pointing to the inefficient transit systems in their city without realizing that their land-use patterns are not conducive to quality people moving transit – and even if they did receive a lot more money, it still wouldn’t even be a good system.
The only solution to transportation in these areas is widening roads, only to have them clogged in the coming years, which I have experienced first hand over the last 15 years.
“Many of the early trolleys were used to sprawl out of the downtown areas and help sell parcels in developments out side of the downtown. Some were subsidized by the developers until they sold all the parcels.Then they were sold off”
Streetcar suburbs were not “sprawl” developments. They were efficient, walkable, and easily serviced by quality transit. Not all outward growth of cities is sprawl, however, many newer suburbs are sprawl. That’s one of the major bones I have to pick with Robert Bruegmann’s book.
I like medium density tradition neighborhoods that outline every city in the US. These are not considered sprawl.
D4P asserted:
> Historically speaking, the creation of suburbs (especially after WWII)
> was massively subsidized (especially by the federal government) through
> the building of interstate highways, home ownership loan programs, etc.
> Today, local governments (in cities and suburbs alike) routinely
> employ “economic development†strategies that include tax breaks,
> land giveaways, etc.
Really?
Consider the following:
Levittown (N.Y.) was built starting in 1947. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956
which authorized the construction of what we now call the Dwight D. Eisenhower
National System of Interstate and Defense Highways was not signed into law until,
well, 1956.
Levittown (Penna.) was built starting in 1952. Four years before the Interstate
system was established.
The Belair development (now part of Bowie, Maryland) was very much a “Levittown,”
but Levitt and Sons chose to not to call it by that name. Land for what became
Belair was purchased in 1957, but there was no Interstate Highway serving the
area (there was a state-funded freeway, the John Hanson Highway (U.S. 50)
which was completed in 1957, though not then an Interstate – years later it became
secret I-595).
And, of course, there were many pre-WW II suburban developments in places as
diverse as Los Angeles and Montgomery County, Maryland that came about thanks
to sprawl-inducing trolley lines.
ws wrote:
> Streetcar suburbs were not “sprawl†developments. They were efficient,
> walkable, and easily serviced by quality transit. Not all outward
> growth of cities is sprawl, however, many newer suburbs are sprawl.
> That’s one of the major bones I have to pick with Robert Bruegmann’s
> book.
>
> I like medium density tradition neighborhoods that outline every city
> in the US. These are not considered sprawl.
Why are they not considered sprawl? Because you approve of older suburbs
and not newer ones?
The improved mode of transportation (and an electric streetcar or trolley
was a large improvement over foot or horseback or horse-drawn
buses) led to people moving further away from the core of downtown areas
and in some cases away from corrupt and/or inept big-city municipal governments.
As did commuter rail lines, some of which came into existence at the same
time as the early trolley and streetcar lines.
Downtown Portland didn’t take money from the rest of the metro region
ws
The business tax is charged to all businesses that are in the Tri Met area weather or not they receive any transit service or not. Capital construction comes from auto fuel taxes and I believe transit is exempt from paying any fuel taxes.
Transit and light rail is so astronomically expensive it can’t even be done with out massive subsidies. Tri Met only collects 1/5th the operation costs or about 19% of the operating cost from the fare box.
Hay WS why don’t you give us a definition of Sprawl.
“Hay WS why don’t you give us a definition of Sprawl.”
Sprawl = Scattered development that does not fit into the existing urban morphology that is of a single zoning use. They disregard historical precedence and sense of place.
This is a rather general definition but almost every development of suburban sprawl utilizes inconsistent, unconnected road patterns that dissuade walking or biking and are exclusively reliant on the automobile (mostly due to municipal codes enacted by those planners). The traditional neighborhoods built before WWII have connected street networks, large street trees defining the streets, short distance between roadways, and a mix of transportation methods including walking, biking, cars, and mass transit options.
I will reiterate, suburban growth before WWII is not sprawl.
“Transit and light rail is so astronomically expensive it can’t even be done with out massive subsidies. Tri Met only collects 1/5th the operation costs or about 19% of the operating cost from the fare box.”
Hello? Are you aware of history. The entire suburban / highway movement is one of the most astoundingly subsidized and largest dispersions of re-investment (and ultimately dis-investment) in the history of our country. The highway system would not have been built if BILLIONS of dollars (billions in the terms of 1950’s money, mind you) had not been allocated to cities from the federal government.
Honestly, I would love to go back to free market economics regarding transit and development. No corporate welfare for developments, no gold platted infrastructure and excessively large roads paid by someone else. Automobiles are great, but they’re as red as the USSR.
“The business tax is charged to all businesses that are in the Tri Met area weather or not they receive any transit service or not. Capital construction comes from auto fuel taxes and I believe transit is exempt from paying any fuel taxes.”
Most areas in the metro region receive transit service. The question is the quality to which they receive. I have stated my opinions above regarding the difficulty in supplying quality mass transit to inefficient land-use patterns.
Many people in the outlying regions utilize Portland’s mass transit in the city. Suppose Beaverton or Tigard revolted from tri-met and its taxes, how would one regulate if the user of that service is a tax-paying denizen or not, and what would be the cost to use that slice of mass transit?
Suppose Beaverton or Tigard revolted from tri-met and its taxes, how would one regulate if the user of that service is a tax-paying denizen or not, and what would be the cost to use that slice of mass transit?
ws
Sandy and Willsonville both broke away and are doing fine.
They now have better service and don’t have to send their money to downtown Portland
ws asserted:
> This is a rather general definition but almost every development of suburban
> sprawl utilizes inconsistent, unconnected road patterns that dissuade walking
> or biking and are exclusively reliant on the automobile (mostly due to
> municipal codes enacted by those planners). The traditional neighborhoods
> built before WWII have connected street networks, large street trees defining
> the streets, short distance between roadways, and a mix of transportation
> methods including walking, biking, cars, and mass transit options.
Those pre-World War II subdivision street grids are not always
interconnected. In some cases they have been deliberately disconnected by
local governments.
> I will reiterate, suburban growth before WWII is not sprawl.
Why?
>> “Transit and light rail is so astronomically expensive it can’t even
>> be done with out massive subsidies. Tri Met only collects 1/5th the
>> operation costs or about 19% of the operating cost from the fare box.â€Â
> Hello? Are you aware of history. The entire suburban / highway movement
> is one of the most astoundingly subsidized and largest dispersions of
> re-investment (and ultimately dis-investment) in the history of our
> country. The highway system would not have been built if BILLIONS of
> dollars (billions in the terms of 1950’s money, mind you) had not
> been allocated to cities from the federal government.
The construction of the Interstates (with some exceptions, mostly for
pre-Interstate toll roads incorporated into the system in Eastern
and Midwestern states) was expressly funded, to the tune of 90%, by
the federal motor fuel tax levied on gasoline and Diesel fuel, and
by federal excise taxes imposed on things like tires for motor
vehicles. The state 10% “match” was almost always funded by state
motor fuel taxes. Now you may not agree with the construction of
Interstate highways, but please don’t reach for the old “subsidized
highways” argument.
> Honestly, I would love to go back to free market economics regarding
> transit and development.
Including the end of excessively high wages and benefits for mass
transit workers, and a transition to private-sector operation of
all transit services? As Sweden did many years ago?
> No corporate welfare for developments, no gold platted infrastructure
> and excessively large roads paid by someone else.
Gold plated infrastructure? Ever ridden the Washington Metrorail?
BART in the Bay Area? The Red Line in L.A.?
As for roads (and I am speaking of roads in the federal-aid program,
not subdivision streets and secondary roads), they are built and
maintained by the people and businesses that purchase motor
fuel to use them or in the case of most toll roads, by the
people and businesses that pay the tolls.
Speaking of tolls, you are aware that toll road customers pay millions
every year to subsidize mass transit in many states, right?
> Automobiles are great, but they’re as red as the USSR.
Auto availability in the former Soviet Union and its satellite nations
was severely restricted by government fiat.
You’ll need to do better than the “autos and highways are subsidized”
saw. Most readers of this blog are not fooled.
ws said:
Sprawl = Scattered development that does not fit into the existing urban morphology that is of a single zoning use. They disregard historical precedence and sense of place.
=====
Is this your definition or the dictionaries, or?
I have a huge problem with all of the suburbanites (I live in Beaverton which is a suburb) justifying their anti-mass transit ideology by pointing to the inefficient transit systems in their city without realizing that their land-use patterns are not conducive to quality people moving transit –
ws
——-
But you don’t mind if they have to pay the same taxes to Tri-Met as downtown Portland businesses have to pay.
Your right they should just pay the subsidies (The Tri-Met taxes and their share of their fuel taxes) and be happy they are not charged more for Portlands unsustainable transit system.
I notice that the debate is about the relative merits of suburbs and central cities. This argument seems fruitless because the choice is usually based on one’s demographic and lifestyle. I have lived in the central city, and in the suburbs, and for thirty years had the downtown apartment and a weekender on the beach.
Then came the fax and then came the internet and also my preferences changed away from surfing to gardening and fishing.
So I have joined the world wide move to a village district in the countryside. At first this move to microcentres, or true rural residential, was driven by the pre-retirees but is now being supplemented and complemented by divorced women and their children.
As Freeman Dyson said “Everyone wants to live in a village – they just want it to be a rich village.”
We have the best of both worlds (or three). I have just walked the dogs for an hour or so. Not a car in sight. When I shop at the surpermarket I can park outside the door and they help carry out my groceries. We have a great butcher/delicatessen, and of course I know everyone personally.
And I have access to the world’s greatest library on my desk and the best fruit and vegetables in my garden – and I grown and bottle my own olive oil.
Naturally I collect and treat my own water and wastewater and help pay for the roads which must be their to service the rural economy.
So how long will it take for someone to tell me I have to upstakes and move downtown? It’s an hour and a half away so I will be kicking and screaming for some time.
Get lost and let us make our own choices. I have always had good reasons for living where I lived and at every stage some central planner was telling me I was wrong and inventing reasons for doing so.
“I notice that the debate is about the relative merits of suburbs and central cities. This argument seems fruitless because the choice is usually based on one’s demographic and lifestyle.” -Owen McShane
My intentions of my post was not to incite an “us vs. them” argument. I am neither partial to rural or downtown living – they both have their merits. I do not think that planners should be messing with your lifestyle, as many in rural settings are much more self-sufficient. It’s comparing apples to oranges. However, modern day suburbs are not “rural living” and are every bit urbanized as cities.
“But you don’t mind if they have to pay the same taxes to Tri-Met as downtown Portland businesses have to pay.
Your right they should just pay the subsidies (The Tri-Met taxes and their share of their fuel taxes) and be happy they are not charged more for Portlands unsustainable transit system.”
No, I don’t mind as I have stated that many people utilize the transit system in Portland, not to mention they are funding transit services in their municipalities as well at a higher cost per quality of services received. Do you expect for bus travel to be competitive if gas prices explode again?
“Sandy and Willsonville both broke away and are doing fine. They now have better service and don’t have to send their money to downtown Portland”
I hadn’t heard of Wilsonville not paying for Tri-Met’s taxes. If so, how come the WES commuter line services their city? I see no reason for Sandy to pay for tri-met taxes, in fact I have never heard of Tri-Met service in Sandy. Not saying you’re wrong, just I have not heard of this news.
Craig, you’re right… both cities and suburbs have zoning. But if you look at the different development patterns before and after any given city adopted anything even mildly resembling Euclidean zoning, the items after are all fairly uniform and practically the same as standard suburban development. Zoning turned ALL development into suburban development. For the rest of my argument, see my previous post. And don’t dismiss anyone else’s argument based on a wrong interpretation of their first sentence.
For a few minutes I was puzzled by these references to Euclidean zoning.
Did this mean zoning that required all lots to rectangular or square?
Then I recall (I think) that this is referring to a legal case Euclid vs Smith or some such.
Is that the story? Our zoning in the Anglo Commonwealth has been based on legislation since soon after the 1900s.
“Those pre-World War II subdivision street grids are not always
interconnected. In some cases they have been deliberately
disconnected by local governments.”
This is a made up statistic, but 99% percent of pre-WWII suburbs were connected streets based off of a gridded street network.
Why is pre WWII suburban growth different from post WWII growth? Suburban growth before WWII, colloquially know as “streetcar suburbs”, did not rely solely on the automobile, were denser than suburbs, had main street shopping districts within close distance of homes, and generally speaking more public gathering spaces. Their interaction with the central city was much different than today’s suburbs, where the downtown areas were a major supplier of jobs and industry vs. today’s segregated office park districts.
“Suburban sprawl” relied solely on the automobile with its large arterial roads and connected highway systems, large parking requirements (the whole system is not doable without driving), and single-use Euclidean zoning (you have the automobile, afterall, no need to walk the “corner store”). Suburban sprawl was largely unplanned in context with its surrounding city and environment, and was piecemealed together. Sprawl developments were largely an environment to themselves, whereas pre WWII suburbs were in context to their surroundings.
It is highly erroneous to think that “sprawl” has been occurring for many years now. Yes, outward growth has been occurring since civilization has taken root, but let us not confuse the term “growth” with the term “sprawl”. Growth happened before the national highway system came into play, but sprawl did not.
“The construction of the Interstates (with some exceptions, mostly for
pre-Interstate toll roads incorporated into the system in Eastern
and Midwestern states) was expressly funded, to the tune of 90%, by
the federal motor fuel tax levied on gasoline and Diesel fuel, and
by federal excise taxes imposed on things like tires for motor
vehicles. The state 10% “match†was almost always funded by state
motor fuel taxes. Now you may not agree with the construction of
Interstate highways, but please don’t reach for the old “subsidized
highways†argument.”
The gas tax (started in 1930’s) before 1956 went into the “general tax fund” and were quite low and most people did not own an automobile during these times, nor were they driving as much as today or even in the 1950s. I do not have the figures for this, but I think it’s safe to say that these funds collected since 1932 was not enough to cover the $130 billion dollar cost (the Highway Act was budgeted @ 25 billion for the 40,000 mile system).
The highway act of 1956 relied on earmarked money to fund them. The “build it then pay for it” system was hardly a “user fee”, and yes, the expenses were projected to be paid off by these future tax funds not funded by that particular slice of road (toll roads were banned under the 1956 act), but funded through the collective accumulation of gas tax funds.
Another concern is that our infrastructure maintenance over the next 5 years is estimated at 1.6 TRILLION dollars http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11636517.
Highways spending has favored new and expanded roadways and not maintenance. Factor in the externality costs associated such as ambulances, police patrols, parking patrols, traffic accidents and fatalities, burden on our health care system from obesity and heart disease, pollution of air and water (and the environmental costs to mitigate them as well as health care costs from respiratory ailments), and finally oil dependence and supporting of corrupt, terrorist supporting countries (No way can we support our 20 million barrel a day oil habit with domestic oil production as we have only 3% of the world’s oil).
I think it’s safe to say that automobiles are not paying for themselves, even if they didn’t fund mass transit.
“Including the end of excessively high wages and benefits for mass
transit workers, and a transition to private-sector operation of
all transit services? As Sweden did many years ago?”
That’s fine, I could care less if it were private endeavor (just as long as the planning of where the lines go were congruent with the cities’ and citzens’ well-being and was not meant to favor a particular entity or person). Mass transit was a private endeavor before and it could be in the future. The only reason mass transit started getting funding from the gas tax was because of the detrimental effect highway projects had on existing neighborhoods and their economical vitality. Politicians felt the need to even the playing field from the fragmentation of urban centers due to the highway act, and the increasing de-mobilization that massive auto investments had on indigent citizens.
“Gold plated infrastructure? Ever ridden the Washington Metrorail?
BART in the Bay Area? The Red Line in L.A.?”
I’ve done the Metrorail. It was quite nice. Past subway systems were entirely funded privately in years past (including streetcars).
“As for roads (and I am speaking of roads in the federal-aid program,
not subdivision streets and secondary roads), they are built and
maintained by the people and businesses that purchase motor
fuel to use them or in the case of most toll roads, by the
people and businesses that pay the tolls.”
The fuel tax is not used by the roads that you use. It is collected (against one’s will) and redistributed to large government agencies and given back to states and municipalities through complex equations involving how many roads and how many drivers there are. For instance, I drive and give money to the gas tax fund, however, these funds are not going back in proportion to what I use form the road (toll roads do because you are directly paying for the road you drive on).
One last note. I am not anti-car. I think they are a great transportation tool and offer incredible freedom. I just have problems with psuedo-Libertarians saying that automobile pay their way, but completely avoid notions that highways/roadways are some of the biggest violators of eminent domain which is NOT a libertarian endeavor.
They call spending on automobiles as an “investment”, but decry spending on mass transit as a “subsidy”. The whole automobile fixed market is completely contradictory to the free market economy that developed this nation.
“The Twin Cities in Minnesota have a regional tax base sharing program that has been found to reduce (though not eliminate) the motivation for this kind of inter-jurisdictional competition.”
Do you know what this is? I’m just curious. IIRC the Met Council has zero taxing powers. The state does dole out some money via LGA but they’ve been cutting back on that a lot over the last decade. And there are cities like Woodbury that have gone crazy with their TIFFs.
“Streetcar suburbs were not “sprawl†developments.”– ws
By the standards of their day, they were sprawl.
“By the standards of their day, they were sprawl.”
This is completely irrelevant. I’m sure even North American central cities were considered “sprawl” when compared to very tight-knit villages of Europe. The term “suburban sprawl” was not coined until post WWII developments took place.
People arguing against this notion do not understand the design and spatial standards involved in traditional neighborhood design (streetcar suburbs) vs. suburban sprawl. They are completely different from the way they look, feel, and function.
I hadn’t heard of Wilsonville not paying for Tri-Met’s taxes. If so, how come the WES commuter line services their city? I see no reason for Sandy to pay for tri-met taxes, in fact I have never heard of Tri-Met service in Sandy. Not saying you’re wrong, just I have not heard of this news.
ws
—-
Willsonville and Sandy had to pay Tri-Met taxes before they were allowed to breakaway. When they were paying Tri-met taxes they received very poor service because they were used as a cash cow to subsidize Portland.
WES is only being built because our Oregon senators and congressmen passed a waver for the project. So the federal government would fund it despite the fact that it did not meet federal standards. The cost of riding WES has grown to $13.00 a ride just for construction.
We have been going around in circles and I still have not seen anyone come up with the big subsidies to the suburbs. We have had many examples that apply to both inner cities and the burbs but not just the burbs.
WS has come out supporting transit subsidies to the inner city and opposing diversity in developing and sprawl.
I still don’t know where WS comes up with his definition of Sprawl.
“We have been going around in circles and I still have not seen anyone come up with the big subsidies to the suburbs. We have had many examples that apply to both inner cities and the burbs but not just the burbs.”
First off, lots of things get subsidized irregardless of location. I do not want to go into a “tit for tat” argument against cities and suburbs, but I would like to address that many suburban infrastructure elements such as electricity, sewers, roads, traffic, environmental damage and mitigation are higher per resident and are not equally being paid by the residents of these communities (although cities are realizing some of these costs more now and developers have to pay a great proportion – to which they pass off to home buyers). These are just economic costs associated with sprawl, not social costs. Both of which cost everyone.
Mass transit is a service. I do not expect police stations, firehouses, schools, or libraries to generate money or be self-sufficient. There is a cost associated with these services – they do not make money nor are they supported entirely by users fees. You being a tax paying citizen have every right to question how much of a “service” you want from mass transit. My biggest issue is that land use patterns have been artificially warped (municipal codes) in many areas making private mass transit difficult at best. I am neither for/against public or private mass transit. Just make it work.
I don’t know where I came out saying that I support “transit subsidies to the inner city and opposing diversity in developing and sprawl”. I did give a reason as to why mass transit started receiving a slice of the gas tax, which was due to the inequities of the new highways that tore up city neighborhoods to connect the outlying areas with the new suburbs. I am not opposed to diversity or development of sprawl, I just ask that the denizens of this lifestyle pay in proportion to what it costs as infrastructure and increased auto traffic is expensive to municipalities and is passed off to all citizens.
The reason you see sprawl developments on the outskirts of cities is because this is the only building type allowed – auto dependent and low-density. It is illegal in most cases to build higher density developments or mixed-uses per municipal codes, comprehensive plans, and zoning. It is hypocritical of you to criticize me of not wanting “diversity” when they only reason suburbs look the way they do is because it has squashed diversity in the first place. I do not want to banish anything from the suburbs, just allow for different building typologies to be built in addition to low density sprawl if people want.
“I still don’t know where WS comes up with his definition of Sprawl.”
There are many definitions of sprawl. Defining sprawl as any and all outward growth is erroneous, it is a more complex than that. What is your definition of sprawl?
If you can make up a definition so can I.
Sprawl is a low density neighborhood where people choose to live. It is not bad place unless you don’t like it. It is usually paid for by the developers and passed on to home buyers by way of user fees.
Well, the last time I looked the cities with the most stringent anti-sprawl regulations had the highest rate of urban sprawl.
Just as Alain Bertaud found that Moscow, Brasilia and Johannesberg had higher sprawl indices the market driven cities.
(see the costs of Utopia)
Anyhow, the central planners don’t like sprawl, so they regulate to prevent it and instead get more of it.
“Sprawl is a low density neighborhood where people choose to live. It is not bad place unless you don’t like it. It is usually paid for by the developers and passed on to home buyers by way of user fees.”
People choose to live there, but the development of this environment is not of the free market. It is systematic and dictated by city codes as the only allowable thing to be built. It’s easy to “choose” this life when it’s the only thing to choose from outside downtown and rural living.
“Well, the last time I looked the cities with the most stringent anti-sprawl regulations had the highest rate of urban sprawl.
Just as Alain Bertaud found that Moscow, Brasilia and Johannesberg had higher sprawl indices the market driven cities.
(see the costs of Utopia)
Anyhow, the central planners don’t like sprawl, so they regulate to prevent it and instead get more of it.”
Much of sprawl was not regulated until recently. Also, planners created sprawl and suburbia. I find a lot of sentiments on here about how much they despise planners but love sprawl. A bit contradictory, if you ask me.
Moscow has three main zones.
The Stalin Zone. the Kruschev Zone and the Breshnev zone.
What do you mean by “recent”?
“Moscow has three main zones.
The Stalin Zone. the Kruschev Zone and the Breshnev zone.”
I have no idea what you’re speaking of. I wasn’t even talking about Moscow and quite frankly do not know why you are or how that even applies to American planning.
Recent = planning field concentrating on mitigating sprawl which has been about 20 years, or so. Urban planners (and architects) created/envisioned sprawl.
It is systematic and dictated by city codes as the only allowable thing to be built. It’s easy to “choose†this life when it’s the only thing to choose from outside downtown and rural living.
Ws
This makes no sense
If someone chooses to move to a area, on the outskirts or outside of a city, It’s only because he has no other choice.
Or they prefer to be away from city planners and the inner city and live on a large lot on some acreage.
This sounds like more choice, not less
Much of sprawl was not regulated until recently
WS
Much of our cities were not regulated in the early days.
The reason I introduced Moscow, Brasilia and Johannesberg was to remind everyone that so called “sprawl” is not a unique product of the United States and it rules, regulations and subsidies, but has been the preferred form of urban growth for cities all around the world – including Paris, Montreal, Sydney, Auckland, London, Glasgow, – since the advent of the motor car.
Since Eastern Germany left Tyranny and Poverty behind the East Germans have fled their “sustainable cities” to live in Suburbs in West Germany or to share in the development of new ones in East Germany.
This form of Development is a world wide phenomenon and can hardly be attributed to American conspiracies or whatever.
I conced that American planners have favoured large lot zoning and rigourous single family housing zones more than most others and this has resulted in cities like Atlanta having remarkably low density. But the reaction to this foible should not be imposed on cities like LA and Auckland which have quite high residential densities already.
>”The reason I introduced Moscow, Brasilia and Johannesberg was to remind everyone that so called “sprawlâ€Â
> is not a unique product of the United States and it rules, regulations and subsidies, but has been the
>preferred form of urban growth for cities all around the world – including Paris, Montreal, Sydney, Auckland,
> London, Glasgow, – since the advent of the motor car.
>Since Eastern Germany left Tyranny and Poverty behind the East Germans have fled their “sustainable citiesâ€Â
>to live in Suburbs in West Germany or to share in the development of new ones in East Germany.”
I would love to see some pictures of the European suburbs vs. American ones. I have seen some pictures of Chinese suburbs trying to emulate Southern California, and they are so much more tamed than ours (tree-lined streets, minimal set-backs to streets, etc, one-two car garages vs. three car garages, “McMansions” that are half the sizes of our McMansions).
Suburbs in Europe are not the auto-dependent counterparts seen in America. Do European suburbs have mixed uses? Are basic services within walking or biking distance? Are they served with reasonable access to transit? These questions need to be analyzed better in determining an overall yes or no in regards to how much “sprawl” has occurred.
While there are suburbs in Europe, and some that do resemble a bit of our life, it is not as pervasive. When you break down the numbers, Europeans are much less auto-dependent than Americans (don’t be fooled by the “statistics” showing Europeans’ driving activities, as these are “motorized” trips, which doesn’t include biking and walking. Biking and walking constitutes almost 50% of ALL TRIPS in some areas, and when Europeans do use their cars, their total distance they travel in them is much less).
Almost every other city or country outside North America (with a few exceptions) utilizes the automobile as an OPTION for transportation, rather than an instrument that is necessary for every basic need, necessity, or service.
>”This form of Development is a world wide phenomenon and can hardly be attributed to American conspiracies or whatever.
>I conced that American planners have favoured large lot zoning and rigourous single family housing zones more than most others and >this has resulted in cities like Atlanta having remarkably low density. But the reaction to this foible should not be imposed on >cities like LA and Auckland which have quite high residential densities already.”
You concede this but don’t realize this is huge. Single-use zoning (especially of allowing only single family residencies in an area) is a major determining factor of sprawl activity.
Your logic regarding “sprawl is happening elsewhere so its normal here” is incredibly overstated and downright false in some cases. They are not the auto-dependent development varieties seen in America. We are falling into the same arguments regarding the difference between streetcar suburbs vs. post WWII suburbs. Design wise, they are incredibly different.
D4P wrote:
(craig:First I oppose all subsidies)
The land we now call “The United States of America†probably wouldn’t have existed if not for huge government subsidies. Killing natives and taking their land isn’t free. Plus, it’s not as if water, sewer, electricity, flood protection, fighting off the British, etc. etc. etc. were paid for only by user fees.
It seemss a little disingenuous to live in a massively subsidized country but claim to oppose subsidies.
THWM: Thank you D4P, for bringing that up.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0306q.asp
Pingback: Keep Your Bureaucrats Out of My Sense of Community » The Antiplanner
Pingback: The Blogosphere vs. the Broadcastsphere » The Antiplanner
It’s ok O’Toole, over time people figure out you’re a paid liar.