Suburban sprawl

Originally posted by sh76
What say you?

I believe high density cities are much more efficient. I guess people should be allowed to live in suburbs if they wish and if they can afford it. I think the real problem is that in many places the people paying for it are not necessarily the people benefiting (living there) from it.
Also, there is often not much choice available.

I believe solutions include making people pay the full cost of living in suburbs, as well as appropriate government policies that do not unduly promote suburban sprawl. Also, making city living more desirable can make a big difference.

In my home town of livingstone there is a major problem of sprawl caused by corruption in the town council, where giving out new plots of land is a good way to get bribes. In addition it is generally cheaper to get new land outside the former boundaries than to redevelop land within the boundaries. So we end up with poorly developed property being passed over for new land development. The result is the utilities cannot keep up and everyone complains about the high rates and poor service.
But people in high density areas do not pay appropriately lower utility bills even though they cost the utility companies much less.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe high density cities are much more efficient. I guess people should be allowed to live in suburbs if they wish and if they can afford it. I think the real problem is that in many places the people paying for it are not necessarily the people benefiting (living there) from it.
Also, there is often not much choice available.

I believe solutions ...[text shortened]... not pay appropriately lower utility bills even though they cost the utility companies much less.

Isn't high rates and poor service for utilities par for the course in Africa?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe high density cities are much more efficient. I guess people should be allowed to live in suburbs if they wish and if they can afford it. I think the real problem is that in many places the people paying for it are not necessarily the people benefiting (living there) from it.
Also, there is often not much choice available.

I believe solutions ...[text shortened]... not pay appropriately lower utility bills even though they cost the utility companies much less.

The government policies that have most contributed to urban sprawl were those that encouraged and enabled the replacement of rail systems with automobiles, starting (in the US) in the 30's. This movement was backed by the oil, automobile, and tire industries. Private rail systems like the Key System in the SF bay area were torn up and public-funded highway and road systems were laid down almost at random. Eisenhower's interstate highway system was no small part of it. The return of rail systems that I mentioned before is correcting some of the sprawl by concentrating populations and their supporting infrastructure (grocery stores, etc.) along the rail line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

"The General Motors streetcar conspiracy (also known as the Great American streetcar scandal) refers to allegations and convictions in relation to a program by General Motors (GM) and other companies who purchased and then dismantled streetcar and electric train systems in many cities in the United States.

Between 1936 and 1950, National City Lines and Pacific City Lines—with investment from GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum, Mack Trucks, and the Federal Engineering Corporation—purchased over 100 electric surface-traction systems in 45 cities including St. Louis, Baltimore, Newark, Los Angeles, New York City, Oakland and San Diego and converted them into bus operations. Several of the companies involved were convicted in 1949 of conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce but were acquitted of conspiring to monopolize the ownership of these companies"

Believe it or not, this conspiracy is parodied in the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Originally posted by Eladar
Isn't high rates and poor service for utilities par for the course in Africa?

Yes it is. And a very large part of this is because of sprawl. Africa generally has low population densities and as a result most towns/cities are quite spread out. This has the side effect of making some African towns/cities much less cost efficient than those of some other parts of the world.

Originally posted by JS357
The government policies that have most contributed to urban sprawl were those that encouraged and enabled the replacement of rail systems with automobiles, starting (in the US) in the 30's.

I believe the policy of encouraging people to own their own home (or think they do via mortgages) also played a role. It results in people tending to go for a larger home than they need (planning for the future) as well as going for 'dream houses in the suburbs' rather than a flat in the city. If people rented more they would be far more likely to rent a flat near their place of work than if they get a mortgage.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe the policy of encouraging people to own their own home (or think they do via mortgages) also played a role. It results in people tending to go for a larger home than they need (planning for the future) as well as going for 'dream houses in the suburbs' rather than a flat in the city. If people rented more they would be far more likely to rent a flat near their place of work than if they get a mortgage.

Hand in glove, houses you need automobiles to drive from for shopping, work, worship, etc. Big appliances etc.

Originally posted by Krod Mandoon
I like the demographics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Altos,_California

If only all those white folks weren't freeloaders.

Originally posted by Eladar
If you can afford it and want to do it, do it.

Better question is what sort of control freak would care what people do with their money and where they would choose to live? Oh yeah, a liberal.

The problem is that the landowners aren't the ones paying for the city maintanance. Their taxes are too low to pay for the services they receive in such a spread out environment (fire engines, ambulances have to drive farther, need more piping and electric wires, etc)

Originally posted by JS357
The government policies that have most contributed to urban sprawl were those that encouraged and enabled the replacement of rail systems with automobiles, starting (in the US) in the 30's. This movement was backed by the oil, automobile, and tire industries. Private rail systems like the Key System in the SF bay area were torn up and public-funded highway and ...[text shortened]... "

Believe it or not, this conspiracy is parodied in the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Judge Doom's Plot
YouTube

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The problem is that the landowners aren't the ones paying for the city maintanance. Their taxes are too low to pay for the services they receive in such a spread out environment (fire engines, ambulances have to drive farther, need more piping and electric wires, etc)

In the town I mentioned above, a property taxes on one house going for $6,000,000, will be $75,000 per year.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/26173-Rancho-Manuella-Ln-Los-Altos-Hills-CA-94022/19527168_zpid/

http://mortgage.lovetoknow.com/California_Property_Tax_Calculator

Incidentally that house last sold in 1982 for $376,500.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The problem is that the landowners aren't the ones paying for the city maintanance. Their taxes are too low to pay for the services they receive in such a spread out environment (fire engines, ambulances have to drive farther, need more piping and electric wires, etc)

Perhaps you can give a credible source that validates your point of view.

Originally posted by sh76
Great article in Time yesterday about suburban sprawl and the problem of the resources that are required to maintain it.

Are spread our suburbs maintainable? Should we all move to urban high rises?

What say you?

http://time.com/3031079/suburbs-will-die-sprawl/

In a recent thread asking which city was best, I replied I would rather not live in a city. Suburbs represent (I think) a compromise between urban and rural life.

I think all three lifestyles are preferable to certain people and ought to be maintained, by those who prefer them.

The demands I've seen lately are almost always that the suburban and rural population subsidize the urban. How is that maintainable?

Originally posted by JS357
Here is a wiki item on Los Altos Hills, CA.

"The town has no commercial or industrial zones. The town government contracts with Santa Clara County for police and fire services (making it a so-called "contract city" under California law). The town's only retail commercial operation is the book store on the campus of Foothill College. The town also does not h ...[text shortened]... ban on commercial zones was upheld by the California Court of Appeal (First District) in 1973.["

Metro Detroit is a study in the question of city vs. suburbs. A couple of Detroit suburbs are among the largest cities in Michigan as well.

The city is bankrupt after years of deficit spending and robbery by corrupt politicians, the result of one party politics. Now the issue seems to be how much can the emergency manager and new Mayor squeeze out of the suburbs to balance the books.

From the numbers I've seen the multiple jurisdictions, multiple school districts, and levels of government can be said to be wasteful, but they do serve to make those within those boundaries at least somewhat responsible for what the politicians do.

I can see no justification for suburbanites or rurals bailing out cities that have mismanaged their business for decades.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe high density cities are much more efficient. I guess people should be allowed to live in suburbs if they wish and if they can afford it. I think the real problem is that in many places the people paying for it are not necessarily the people benefiting (living there) from it.
Also, there is often not much choice available.

I believe solutions ...[text shortened]... not pay appropriately lower utility bills even though they cost the utility companies much less.

That may reflect reality in Zambia, but here in the US cities generally seem to be having the financial problems, not suburbs. And where there is cost shifting, it is the cities benefiting and the suburbs paying.

Originally posted by JS357
The government policies that have most contributed to urban sprawl were those that encouraged and enabled the replacement of rail systems with automobiles, starting (in the US) in the 30's. This movement was backed by the oil, automobile, and tire industries. Private rail systems like the Key System in the SF bay area were torn up and public-funded highway and ...[text shortened]... "

Believe it or not, this conspiracy is parodied in the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

I will always live where I don't have to rely on public transportation. I grew up in Boston where there was a mature elevated and subway system, integrated with trolley cars and buses. You may remember the song "Get Charlie off the MTA"? My one wish growing up was that I would not have to ride the elevated when I reached adulthood. In high school I walked about a mile to school rather than take the elevated on stop, and still have to walk a third of a mile.

The convenience of driving to exactly where you want to go, and park securely so over-weighs any societal benefits of public transportation, and having lived in or visited many US cities, I can't think of a single one which has a positive public system.