Why Don't We Ever Talk About Sprawl?

[Geoist]

It seems to me sprawl should be one of the major issues concerning both the left and the right. The left should be taking issue with environmental destruction and inequality sprawl causes. The right should take issue with the insane infrastructure costs sprawl creates.

I rarely ever hear a politician talk about it. It's almost always scientists/academics:

For years, scientists have argued that sprawling urban and suburban development patterns are creating negative impacts including habitat fragmentation, water and air pollution, increased infrastructure costs, inequality, and social homogeneity (Ewing 1997; Squires 2002).

The Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences of Sprawling Development Patterns in the United States

How do development patterns impact our ecological systems and the livability of our local communities?

www.nature.com

Obviously this is such an overarching issue that there is hardly a single solution to the problem (however, adopting georgist policies would be a good start!) But has anyone ever considered how we've built our communities, especially in America is downright... stupid??

 

[ttwtt78640]

That’s quite a lot of opinion to try to take in and respond to.

The basic premise seems to be that having either very high or very low population density is best for the environment.

The major complaint seems to be against the typical US suburban residential development with one single family home on between 1/4 to 1 acre lots and the addition of a few local strip shopping centers (or ‘malls’) to support that suburban population. If I have this wrong, then please correct me before I continue to respond.

 

[Loulit01]

Hmmm...

Climate change.
The fascist right.
Immigration.
Racist cops.
War in Ukraine.
Voter suppression.
Drought.
Wildfires.

The human mind can only handle so many disasters at a time, I guess.

 

[watsup]

The problem is not sprawl, per se, but the foundational problem of rampant overpopulation of Homo sapiens ok a worldwide basis, including the US. There was a time back in the 70s when going to a national park like Yosemite or Yellowstone was a pleasure, but now it’s like being on the LA freeway given the huge numbers of people.

 

[nvflash]

Man has grown out and he needs to grow up, while wealth has grown up and it needs to grow out.

It's cheaper to build up than it is to build out. What we need, what really makes us happy is community, not some big house in the suburbs. Tho people living in urban areas should have equal access to "green" areas. It still makes sense that farmers and farm labor live in rural areas because they are near farms, but suburban sprawl is a blight on us all.

The one thing has to follow the other tho, if we chose to build up as in skyscrapers for most people to live in urban areas, we must do it in a way and in conjunction with wealth growing out. We can't have 90% of the wealth going to 10% of the people while the bottom 50% fight over a few table scraps.

The #1 wealth generator for most people is their investment in their house, so any type of urban planning must include private property ownership like co-op apartment buildings not rents. Only upwardly mobile people in urban ares ever get to enjoy green spaces, the poor don't often see the opportunity for a county vacation.

 

[Geoist]

That’s quite a lot of opinion to try to take in and respond to.

The basic premise seems to be that having either very high or very low population density is best for the environment.

Well, yes, for the environment and for many other things such as government budgets/spending, inequality, sense of community, etc.

The major complaint seems to be against the typical US suburban residential development with one single family home on between 1/4 to 1 acre lots and the addition of a few local strip shopping centers (or ‘malls’) to support that suburban population. If I have this wrong, then please correct me before I continue to respond.

You pretty much have it correct. It astounds me how people fail to see the numerous problems we've created with the creation/proliferation of suburbs.

 

[Geoist]

Man has grown out and he needs to grow up, while wealth has grown up and it needs to grow out.

It's cheaper to build up than it is to build out. What we need, what really makes us happy is community, not some big house in the suburbs. Tho people living in urban areas should have equal access to "green" areas. It still makes sense that farmers and farm labor live in rural areas because they are near farms, but suburban sprawl is a blight on us all.

The one thing has to follow the other tho, if we chose to build up as in skyscrapers for most people to live in urban areas, we must do it in a way and in conjunction with wealth growing out. We can't have 90% of the wealth going to 10% of the people while the bottom 50% fight over a few table scraps.

The #1 wealth generator for most people is their investment in their house, so any type of urban planning must include private property ownership like co-op apartment buildings not rents. Only upwardly mobile people in urban ares ever get to enjoy green spaces, the poor don't often see the opportunity for a county vacation.

Simply quoting this because it's such a well thought-out post!

 

[Geoist]

Hmmm...

Climate change.
The fascist right.
Immigration.
Racist cops.
War in Ukraine.
Voter suppression.
Drought.
Wildfires.

The human mind can only handle so many disasters at a time, I guess.

Don't forget CRT in classrooms and trans bathrooms.

 

[Geoist]

The problem is not sprawl, per se, but the foundational problem of rampant overpopulation of Homo sapiens ok a worldwide basis, including the US. There was a time back in the 70s when going to a national park like Yosemite or Yellowstone was a pleasure, but now it’s like being on the LA freeway given the huge numbers of people.

Yeah, I'm not going to dismiss the issues faced with overpopulation, but our planet is quite capable of maintaining a far larger pop than we have now if we had far more sensible policies. There are a lot of problems that can be curbed with a lower population, but we talk about other solutions anyways (see climate change).

As for our national parks, I suppose a daily visitor limit needs to be enforced.

 

[phoenix2020]

I'm personally a big fan of sprawl.

 

[Geoist]

I'm personally a big fan of sprawl.

Assuming this isn't sarcasm, why?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well, yes, for the environment and for many other things such as government budgets/spending, inequality, sense of community, etc.

I will briefly address part of the taxation issue, but with so many different forms of taxation and levels of government involved that would take multiple threads and posts to fully address. Considering only property taxes, which are based on assessed value of the property, it is obvious that urban areas have an edge - they have more residential taxpayers per acre than any other environment and typically have large employers (businesses) which can (and do) pass the cost of increased local taxation along to their customers.

You pretty much have it correct. It astounds me how people fail to see the numerous problems we've created with the creation/proliferation of suburbs.

OK, but along with those problems there are also many perks (perceived advantages) or few people would choose to move there.

It was noted that owning personal vehicles (cars) plays a big part in non-urban living and that urban living discourages car ownership. The non-urban dweller can (and does) pay more per sq. ft. of housing, but saves some money on local transportation costs. The non-urban dweller saves far more on housing costs than they add in car owning/operating costs and has the added perk of being able to travel by car beyond their local area with nothing but additional fuel costs.

Our cost for renting a 1/2 acre lot is $265/month. We own our (fully paid for in 2019) 17’ x 56’ manufactured home which cost about $70K including its foundation, delivery, set-up, attachment to electric, water, septic and central AC. We drive a 2002 Chevy Tahoe and have room for a 12’x 20’ tool shed, parking for our two work trailers (necessary for my self-employed handyman work) and a 28’ travel trailer (RV).

Finding anything close to that in an urban area (like nearby Austin, TX or even San Marcos, TX) would cost far more than we can afford and greatly increase our chances of becoming property or violent crime victims.

 

[SkyChief]

We live in the burbs and love it.

It would be awful to be forced to live in cities - especially now with the crime and homeless problems, feces on the sidewalks. Yuck.

 

[phoenix2020]

Assuming this isn't sarcasm, why?

I love the quality of life benefits - the easy access to goods and services, the flexibility to put up a large swing-set or play catch on a nice, roomy lawn, that magical combination of having space and distance for my family while having so many friendly neighbors still within earshot if needed.

I love roads, they provide me with easy access to distant friends and family, and give me the flexibility to take a job that I like, rather than the one that's closest to me, and a path to accessing emergency services.

I love cities - so much to do, I can lose an entire day exploring a single city block. I love Main Streets for the same reason.

Yup, sprawl is pretty awesome.

 

[watsup]

Yeah, I'm not going to dismiss the issues faced with overpopulation, but our planet is quite capable of maintaining a far larger pop than we have now if we had far more sensible policies. There are a lot of problems that can be curbed with a lower population, but we talk about other solutions anyways (see climate change).

As for our national parks, I suppose a daily visitor limit needs to be enforced.

Is it really true as regarding “capable of maintaining a far larger population”? We now have almost 8 billion people on this planet looking for food on a daily basis, and excreting billions of pounds of waste, along with the external waste that they generate. The truth is that no amount of “more sensible policies” is going to change that, and the wholesale destruction of many parts of the planet, to include the oceans, is under way as we speak.
I suppose it depends of what you mean by “maintaining”. So we build upon instead of out. Big deal. The problems that I cited above are not resolved by that, and doing so may actually EXACERBATE the problem. Plus not everyone wants to live in a Hong Kong environment. Overpopulation goes far beyond just “enough food” for the number of people.

 

[nvflash]

Is it really true as regarding “capable of maintaining a far larger population”? We now have almost 8 billion people on this planet looking for food on a daily basis, and excreting billions of pounds of waste, along with the external waste that they generate. The truth is that no amount of “more sensible policies” is going to change that, and the wholesale destruction of many parts of the planet, to include the oceans, is under way as we speak.
I suppose it depends of what you mean by “maintaining”. So we build upon instead of out. Big deal. The problems that I cited above are not resolved by that, and doing so may actually EXACERBATE the problem. Plus not everyone wants to live in a Hong Kong environment. Overpopulation goes far beyond just “enough food” for the number of people.

I know a sure fire way you can deal with the problem of "overpopulation", self eradicate. Take a few of you overpopulation ilk with you.

 

[watsup]

I know a sure fire way you can deal with the problem of "overpopulation", self eradicate. Take a few of you overpopulation ilk with you.

Ridiculous hatefulness on your part. If this is really the “best” that you can do, I should feel sorry for you.

 

[nvflash]

Ridiculous hatefulness on your part. If this is really the “best” that you can do, I should feel sorry for you.

I just dislike it when people start talking about overpopulation yet they don't include themselves in the problem they say exists. I'm just offering to let you put your money where you mouth is.

Human scum is how I view the overpopulation crowd, they don't even have the courage of their convictions.

 

[Razoo]

In the first new growth rarely pays for itself.

Often taxpayers are forced to cough up higher taxes to cover the cost of special interest subsidies.

New shopping centers really do not pay for themselves. Convenience is not solid justification.

There is plenty of material explaining that the USA is over retailed thus downtown/shopping center blight.

Empty retail space is a tax increase = not generating tax revenue nor jobs.

Covering up "green space" at every opportunity creates big time drainage problems.

Electing builders and such to city government is not smart.

Better to replace and re-use existing infrastructure no matter what.

New and existing sprawl requires more, parks, maintenance, fire departments, police officers, schools etc etc etc.

In general sprawl is a massive tax increase that will never pay back. Who wants higher taxes? Each time your community increases the value of property often increases YOUR taxes.

 

[cpwill]

It seems to me sprawl should be one of the major issues concerning both the left and the right. The left should be taking issue with environmental destruction and inequality sprawl causes. The right should take issue with the insane infrastructure costs sprawl creates.

I rarely ever hear a politician talk about it. It's almost always scientists/academics:

For years, scientists have argued that sprawling urban and suburban development patterns are creating negative impacts including habitat fragmentation, water and air pollution, increased infrastructure costs, inequality, and social homogeneity (Ewing 1997; Squires 2002).

The Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences of Sprawling Development Patterns in the United States

How do development patterns impact our ecological systems and the livability of our local communities?

www.nature.com

Obviously this is such an overarching issue that there is hardly a single solution to the problem (however, adopting georgist policies would be a good start!) But has anyone ever considered how we've built our communities, especially in America is downright... stupid??

Man has grown out and he needs to grow up, while wealth has grown up and it needs to grow out.

It's cheaper to build up than it is to build out. What we need, what really makes us happy is community, not some big house in the suburbs. Tho people living in urban areas should have equal access to "green" areas. It still makes sense that farmers and farm labor live in rural areas because they are near farms, but suburban sprawl is a blight on us all.

The one thing has to follow the other tho, if we chose to build up as in skyscrapers for most people to live in urban areas, we must do it in a way and in conjunction with wealth growing out. We can't have 90% of the wealth going to 10% of the people while the bottom 50% fight over a few table scraps.

The #1 wealth generator for most people is their investment in their house, so any type of urban planning must include private property ownership like co-op apartment buildings not rents. Only upwardly mobile people in urban ares ever get to enjoy green spaces, the poor don't often see the opportunity for a county vacation.

How many children do either of you have?

 

[Geoist]

I will briefly address part of the taxation issue, but with so many different forms of taxation and levels of government involved that would take multiple threads and posts to fully address. Considering only property taxes, which are based on assessed value of the property, it is obvious that urban areas have an edge - they have more residential taxpayers per acre than any other environment and typically have large employers (businesses) which can (and do) pass the cost of increased local taxation along to their customers.

Yes, urban areas do have an edge when it comes to property taxes. That is part of my argument. The suburban model is terribly inefficient. As Eco Gecko states in the first YT video I linked: low density can increase many per-capita infrastructure costs dramatically: if homes are more spread out you're going to need a lot more pipe to get water to each of them. You're also going to need a lot more road to reach them all.

OK, but along with those problems there are also many perks (perceived advantages) or few people would choose to move there.

I think a lot of the perks are subjective and the result of status quo bias (such as big grass lawns). But I don't deny some perks exist. Personally, I like the idea of a community that is somewhere between a big city and rural farmland. I just believe it needs to be built more efficiently with walkability/rideability and public transportation in mind.

It was noted that owning personal vehicles (cars) plays a big part in non-urban living and that urban living discourages car ownership. The non-urban dweller can (and does) pay more per sq. ft. of housing, but saves some money on local transportation costs.

What they save on public transportation they more than pay for in personal transportation. It costs about $9000 to own and maintain a personal vehicle per year.

Were you trying to say the urban dweller pays more per sq ft of housing and saves on local transportation costs? That would make more sense to me.

The non-urban dweller saves far more on housing costs than they add in car owning/operating costs and has the added perk of being able to travel by car beyond their local area with nothing but additional fuel costs.

Nothing but fuel? Maintenance can be a pretty big part of the budget depending on the age of the car. How much are you accounting for other costs to suburban living? Low density means more pipes, electric lines, roads, and upkeep for all of those things. Those things are costly to taxpayers. How about the costs of food and other products that need to be transported to the grocery store an hour or two outside a major city?

Something that’s lurking in the background of the U.S. economy, and which will erupt with a fury in ten years or so is the need to replace suburban infrastructure: underground wires, pipes, and so on. This is something new that most suburbs, unlike cities, haven’t had to confront. A suburb that was built in 1970 is long in the tooth today, and time only makes things worse. No suburbs that I’m aware of ever decided to amortize the future cost of repairs over a forty year period–that would require an increase in property taxes. In fact, many suburbs never even covered the expenses of building new subdivisions, never mind worried about expenses decades down the road.

Worse, there’s a tax base problem. That is, the value of property per unit of infrastructure (e.g., the property tax base per square foot of water main) is much lower in the suburbs than it is in cities. Relatives who live in a wealthy suburb close to D.C. (homes go for $900,000 give or take) are in a subdivision with about 40 homes on 25 acres, with a rough property value of $45 million. In D.C., I live in a building assessed at a little over $50 million that covers a quarter of an acre (the population of these two groups is about the same). Once suburbs start having to repair their infrastructure, it’s going to get very expensive to live there (and that doesn’t even include the transportation ‘tax’ of suburban living). Keep in mind, the suburban development I’ve described is definitely on the high end of things–many places will be worse off.

Suburban Sprawl Is Expensive, When You Actually Have To Pay For It

A while ago, we noted that the wicked problem isn’t affordable urban housing, but the fiscal sustainability of the suburbs: Something that’s lurking in the background of the U.S. economy, and…

mikethemadbiologist.com

 

[watsup]

I just dislike it when people start talking about overpopulation yet they don't include themselves in the problem they say exists. I'm just offering to let you put your money where you mouth is.

Human scum is how I view the overpopulation crowd, they don't even have the courage of their convictions.

See post #17. Your doubling-down on ridiculous hatefulness proves my point. I just have no idea why you should be so proud of it since, of course, it is YOU who is pathetic human scum because of such an attitude. Then again, you’re not unique. It is what is always expected of right wingers. They are very proud of their open hate and like to show it off to one another.

 

[Geoist]

We live in the burbs and love it.

It would be awful to be forced to live in cities - especially now with the crime and homeless problems, feces on the sidewalks. Yuck.

No one is talking about being forced to live in big cities.

 

[Geoist]

I love the quality of life benefits - the easy access to goods and services, the flexibility to put up a large swing-set or play catch on a nice, roomy lawn, that magical combination of having space and distance for my family while having so many friendly neighbors still within earshot if needed.

I love roads, they provide me with easy access to distant friends and family, and give me the flexibility to take a job that I like, rather than the one that's closest to me, and a path to accessing emergency services.

I love cities - so much to do, I can lose an entire day exploring a single city block. I love Main Streets for the same reason.

Yup, sprawl is pretty awesome.

Sprawl actually inhibits many of the things you mentioned (e.g. access to family and community).

 

[watsup]

No one is talking about being forced to live in big cities.

So we get to live in high-rises in small towns, too? Oh boy, can’t wait! *ROLLS EYES*