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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm personally a big fan of sprawl.
Well, yes, for the environment and for many other things such as government budgets/spending, inequality, sense of community, etc.
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.
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.Assuming this isn't sarcasm, why?
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.
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.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.
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.Ridiculous hatefulness on your part. If this is really the “best” that you can do, I should feel sorry for you.
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??
How many children do either of you have?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No one is talking about being forced to live in big cities.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?