Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it was up to me I would live in the city and be close to more ammenities, but since the housing is cheaper in the burb thats where I moved and it is alot safer.
I hope that high density housing does not become the norm. As I posted before, I like low density housing with room between the houses. Sprawling suburbs are OK, but small towns and rural areas are better. This country is not Europe. Some of our states are larger then their countries. We have lots of room to expand.
Under no conditions could I see myself living in a big city again. It's not only the packing of people in like sardines, but crime, parking problems and congestion and friction that develops between people when they live too close to each other. Perhaps if those problems were addressed in a meaningful way, that type of living would be more desireable, but just not for me.
I know that my opinion and thinking go contrary to what the 'politically correct' way of environmentally-conscious people believe in, but not everyone wants this type of living arrangement. I'm amazed that so many people bash suburban sprawl, yet it is so popular. It's kind of like everyone bashing SUVs, but the roads are clogged with them.
By 2050 America is expected to grow from having 300 million people to 400 million people. Where do you expect these extra 100 million people to live? If they all end up going to the suburbs imagine the traffic and congestion that will cause. Thats adding 33% more drivers on the road than there already are. The sensible thing to do is plan for urban infil/high density development which will tame this enormous growth in the population and make it seem more bearable.
Yes crime and public schools in cities are the two main issues that need to be address. Crime has been addressed in some cities in the country (NYC being a good example), however of course it is still a problem.
I think the trend towards high density development goes along with the latest "green" or "leed" trend and tends to be more common in cities that have invested in transportation and thus creating the need for TODs or transit oriented development which basically means you can live work and play all without having to own a car. Sometimes these are good and sometimes they just turn into glorified shopping malls which cause more traffic than what was existing before
Here in Seattle, high-density seems to be the trend (although sprawl is continuing too). As us baby-boomers age, many of us are finding that we do not want the trouble involved with keeping up a yard (been there, done that) and instead are opting for the ability to walk to shopping, dining, nightlife etc.
Of course the other factor driving this is the high cost of property - with land becoming so expensive in many cities (Seattle prices are obscene) higher density is the logical conclusion. Those that want more space, have to either have really big bucks or move out a longggggg way.
We are just seeing the beginning of the trend towards high density development. As oil prices continue to rise, more and more people are going to decide enough is enough with the long commutes. People are going to move from the suburbs and rural areas because it will no longer be economically feasible to drive 40 miles into the city twice per day. Right now, yes people prefer McMansions and SUVs, but the ball has begun rolling and its just a matter of time before the trend shifts the other way.
Higher density development is just another option in the mix. Typical suburbia isn't going away.
The diversity of this country in terms of economic and social options is being ignored here.
True high-density is found in New York City, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle. Everything else is an imitation.
People have a hard time with the concept of density. Here in MSP, when the Metro Council talks about promoting new-urbanist type development, letters to the editors predictably show up in the daily newspapers from suburbanites who cry that they "don't want to live in NY City" and suggesting that those who promote higher densities should leave for the Big Apple immediately.
Density, of course, is a relative term. I live in a pre-WWII neighborhood in the city of St Paul. Typical lot sizes approximate 40' x 120' (not including alleys in the rear of most lots). Most homes are single familiy, but there is a sprinkling of duplexes and apartment buildings on the major streets. To a suburbanite or exurbanite around here, this is considered "high density". To Manhattanite, it would be considered "the country"!
I hope that high density housing does not become the norm. As I posted before, I like low density housing with room between the houses. Sprawling suburbs are OK, but small towns and rural areas are better. This country is not Europe. Some of our states are larger then their countries. We have lots of room to expand.
We do have room to expand. However, as has been pointed out, we will have to do A LOT of expanding with the population increases in the coming decades if we stick with the rural/suburban planning mindset. That's a lot beautiful relatively undisturbed habitat that will have to be sacrificed for suburban sprawl and highways. Also, think about how much worse traffic congestion will get if we continue to build outward and everyone still expects to commute to downtown on a daily basis...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPlainsDrifter73
Under no conditions could I see myself living in a big city again. It's not only the packing of people in like sardines, but crime, parking problems and congestion and friction that develops between people when they live too close to each other. Perhaps if those problems were addressed in a meaningful way, that type of living would be more desireable, but just not for me.
It sounds to me like you have at some point tried to bring a suburban style of living into the city. For example, you mention parking and congestion as problem in cities. However, these problems are alleviated if you use the public transit in the city (of course this depends on the city and how good the transit is there but I think you get my point). Ultimately, moving into a city and expecting it to be the suburbs is likely to be just as frustrating as moving to the suburbs and expecting the urban amenities of the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighPlainsDrifter73
I know that my opinion and thinking go contrary to what the 'politically correct' way of environmentally-conscious people believe in, but not everyone wants this type of living arrangement. I'm amazed that so many people bash suburban sprawl, yet it is so popular. It's kind of like everyone bashing SUVs, but the roads are clogged with them.
The problem is that the SUVs and the suburban sprawl have a cost that is put on society, not just the people who choose to live this way. This cost can be measured in pollution, traffic congestion, highway maintenance, the amount of real estate sacrificed to parking garages in downtown areas that are surrounded by sprawl, etc...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
