A little rant about urban sprawl

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

You people and your bitching about urban sprawl. I see people post about it and complain about it all the time. If there's been a thread debating it specifically, I haven't seen it...So I'm starting one because I'm tired of a few people being so vocal against something that so many of us are guilty of in their eyes.

Just because you don't live in a McMansion in Edmond doesn't mean that your condo downtown is much better. Until you're willing to live like sailors stacked like sardines on a ship along with every other person on the planet, you're not minimizing your own impact on sprawl and being just a bit of a hypocrite. It's only a matter of how far you want to go with it. If we use some of the logic in the arguments against living in the suburbs...We should all move into highrises and live with around 100 sqft. of space per person. Not your nice loft a mile away from neat things. Just because it's closer doesn't mean you get to rip on others. That's like somebody with a car that gets 20 mpg bitching about somebody who drives a SUV that gets 16 when you can both ride a scooter that gets 80. The scooter is about as efficient as you can get...But you don't want one because it's not to your taste and it can be quite dangerous. Funny...Same reasons I don't want to live off 10th and Santa Fe.

Not everybody shares your love of living downtown, walking everywhere, and hearing your neighbors argue over what TV show to watch because you live 3 feet away from them.

And while some of you complain about paying taxes that provide for services way out in the burbs, just remember, those of us in the burbs also pay taxes for all those cool downtown projects that can't be supported by the taxes of people living there alone.

I don't live downtown, I don't work downtown, I don't want to live OR work downtown. I don't like being crowded for space, I don't like worrying about parking...And let's be honest...A lot of the areas surrounding downtown are pretty damn shabby and there are a lot of downright dangerous areas. I'll stick to my neighborhood in the burbs where I can forget to close my garage door once in a blue moon, and when I wake up the next day or come home from work my bicycle is still sitting in there.

If you don't live in a studio apartment less than 100 feet from where you work...Quit bellyachin' about how far away I live from something YOU deem important.

[Pete]

Controlling urban sprawl isn't about telling people where they can and can't live. It's about responsible city planning that doesn't just rubber-stamp every building permit regardless of need or location.

In very well planned cities like Portland, plenty of people live in suburban locations. But there is also a real city there, with concentrated areas of cultural attractions, parks, shopping and restaurants and great public transportation to them -- even from the 'burbs.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Controlling urban sprawl isn't about telling people where they can and can't live. It's about responsible city planning that doesn't just rubber-stamp every building permit regardless of need or location.

In very well planned cities like Portland, plenty of people live in suburban locations. But there is also a real city there, with concentrated areas of cultural attractions, parks, shopping and restaurants and great public transportation to them -- even from the 'burbs.

I understand that, I've lived downtown in Denver and San Diego and visited dozens of other major cities around the world. Portland included. But there are people that deride anybody who doesn't live in the heart of the city like they get paid to do it. It's becoming a sport for some to act like they deserve a medal for being urban.

Maybe I'm just grumpy or something. Just tired of being picked at obliquely for an individual's choice I guess.

[Dustbowl]

I understand that, I've lived downtown in Denver and San Diego and visited dozens of other major cities around the world. Portland included. But there are people that deride anybody who doesn't live in the heart of the city like they get paid to do it. It's becoming a sport for some to act like they deserve a medal for being urban.

Maybe I'm just grumpy or something. Just tired of being picked at obliquely for an individual's choice I guess.

Stop using logic on this board and get on the me too bandwagon. You don't have vision living out there in that surburban sprawl. Maybe if you just agree with everything you might make some friends and get free VIP passes to the games. Stop thinking so much and become a sheeple. Fat, dumb and happy. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Stop using logic on this board and get on the me too bandwagon. You don't have vision living out there in that surburban sprawl. Maybe if you just agree with everything you might make some friends and get free VIP passes to the games. Stop thinking so much and become a sheeple. Fat, dumb and happy. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Pete]

I haven't seen anyone here deride anyone else for where they live.

What people complain about -- and rightfully so IMO -- is the way the city has been developed.

[OKCCrime]

Consider some of these arguments against urban sprawl taken from Wikipedia (slightly edited):
Urban sprawl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Health and environmental impact

Urban sprawl is associated with a number of negative environmental and public health outcomes. The primary cause of these negative outcomes is that sprawl leads to people having to depend on the automobile because it will be a greater distance to travel and people will not be able to walk or ride their bicycles to their destinations.[2]

Increased pollution and reliance on fossil fuel

In the years following World War II, when vehicle ownership was becoming widespread, public health officials recommended the health benefits of suburbs due to soot and industrial fumes in the city center. However, air in modern suburbs is not necessarily cleaner than air in urban neighborhoods. In fact, the most polluted air is on crowded highways, where people in suburbs tend to spend more time. On average, suburban residents generate more pollution and carbon emissions than their urban counterparts because of their increased driving.[2]

Increase in traffic and traffic-related fatalities

A heavy reliance on automobiles increases traffic throughout the city as well as automobile crashes, pedestrian injuries, and air pollution. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of five and twenty-four and is the leading accident-related cause for all age groups.[15] Residents of more sprawling areas are at greater risk of dying in a car crash.[16]

Increased obesity

The American Journal of Public Health and the American Journal of Health Promotion, have both stated that there is a significant connection between sprawl, obesity, and hypertension.[6] Presumably, living in a car centered culture forces inhabitants to drive everywhere, thus walking far less than their urban (and generally more healthy) counterparts.

Decrease in social capital

Urban sprawl may be partly responsible for the decline in social capital in the United States. Compact neighborhoods can foster casual social interactions among neighbors, while low-density sprawl creates barriers to interaction. Sprawl tends to replace public spaces such as parks with private spaces such as fenced-in backyards. Residents of sprawling neighborhoods rarely walk for transportation, which reduces opportunities for face-to-face contact with neighbors.[4]

Decrease in land and water quantity and quality

Due to the larger area consumed by sprawling suburbs compared to urban neighborhoods, more farmland and wildlife habitats are displaced per resident. As forest cover is cleared and covered with concrete in the suburbs, rainfall is less effectively absorbed into the ground water aquifers.[2] This threatens both the quality and quantity of water supplies. Sprawl increases water pollution as rain water picks up gasoline and oil runoff from parking lots and roads. Sprawl fragments the land which increases the risk of invasive species spreading into the remaining forest.

Increased infrastructure costs

Living in a larger, more spread out space makes public services more expensive. Since car usage often becomes endemic and public transport often becomes significantly more expensive, city planners are forced to build large highway and parking infrastructure, which in turn decreases taxable land and revenue, and decreases the desirability of the area adjacent to such structures. Providing services such as water, sewers, and electricity is also more expensive per household in less dense areas. [2]

Increased personal transportation costs

Residents of low density areas spend a higher proportion of their income on transportation than residents of high density areas.[17]

Neighborhood quality

Quality of life has been argued to be eroded by lifestyles sprawl promotes. Duany and Plater-Zyberk believe that in traditional neighborhoods the nearness of the workplace to retail and restaurant space that provides cafes and convenience stores with daytime customers is an essential component to the successful balance of urban life. Furthermore, they state that the closeness of the workplace to homes also gives people the option of walking or riding a bicycle to work or school and that without this kind of interaction between the different components of life the urban pattern quickly falls apart. (Duany Plater-Zyberk 6, 28)

White flight

Some blame suburbs for what they see as a homogeneity of society and culture, leading to sprawling suburban developments of people with similar race, background and socioeconomic status.[20] They claim that segregated and stratified development was institutionalized in the early 1950s and 1960s with the financial industries' then-legal process of redlining neighborhoods to prevent certain people from entering and residing in affluent districts. Sprawl may have a negative impact on public schools as finances have been pulled out of city cores and diverted to wealthier suburbs.[21] They argue that the residential and social segregation of whites from blacks in the United States creates a socialization process that limits whites' chances for developing meaningful relationships with blacks and other minorities, and that the segregation experienced by whites from blacks fosters segregated lifestyles and can lead to positive views about themselves and negative views about blacks.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

I haven't seen anyone here deride anyone else for where they live.

It's not done directly. Nobody tells Karried that she's a bad person or is hurting people for living in Edmond. Nobody has ever picked at me directly about how living in far SE OKC is bad. t

In just about every thread about anything being built anywhere other than downtown, somebody pipes up complaining about sprawl. Since businesses prefer to build close to their demographic...Well...They're going to build where people live so people shop there. Not where some planning commission wants them to. Complaining about Lowes building a store in Edmond and how it contributes to sprawl, is essentially complaining that people live in Edmond.

Is it a "cart before the horse" problem? Sure. Do I have a solution? No. I'm just bitching about the bitching.

[Pete]

When I mentioned development, I wasn't just talking about the commercial variety.

Most cities have outlines on where housing tracts can be built, too. It's one thing to build housing as it's needed, it's another to allow hundreds of new housing tracts far from any existing services and far out of proportion to the growth in population.

I'm not talking about the guy that wants to build a house on acreage... I mean the tens of thousands of new homes being dumped in the middle of cow pastures. And then people move there and merely abandon another area (like the NW sector) and it rots and the whole city suffers.

[Karried]

whoa! Where did I come in to this !? lol..

Do I have a solution? No. I'm just bitching about the bitching.

okay, I'm just bitching about you bitching about the bitching... oops. I'm not sure I'm supposed to use this word *washing mouth out with soap*. ( substitute complaining ) ..

Did someone have a few too many hot toddies after work last night ( ahem.. this morning?)



Actually, I feel your pain.. there have been a few people a long time ago who have made me feel really badly for my choice of cities.

I don't care, I did what I felt best for my family and kids. That's my right as an Amurican.

When they start paying my mortgage, they can have an opinion on my housing choices, until then, I don't want to hear it.



Actually, you shouldn't take it personally ogts, people just want our inner city to reach it's full potential, thrive and grow. I'm all for that too.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

When I mentioned development, I wasn't just talking about the commercial variety.

Most cities have outlines on where housing tracts can be built, too. It's one thing to build housing as it's needed, it's another to allow hundreds of new housing tracts far from any existing services and far out of proportion to the growth in population.

I'm not talking about the guy that wants to build a house on acreage... I mean the tens of thousands of new homes being dumped in the middle of cow pastures. And then people move there and merely abandon another area (like the NW sector) and it rots and the whole city suffers.

My house was built brand new in the middle of a pasture about 6 years ago all the way the hell out at SE 89th and Sooner...So I'm exactly what you're talking about.

Here's why I didn't buy in the NW sector. It's crowded. It's old. It's got a lot of lower income areas that I prefer to not live around. I wanted a new home with all the energy efficiency, doodads, and reliability that come with it. I wanted to be close to where I work. I didn't want to pay a premium because of preconceptions of value based on zip code.

Actually, I feel your pain.. there have been a few people a long time ago who have made me feel really badly for my choice of cities.

I don't care, I did what I felt best for my family and kids. That's my right as an Amurican.

When they start paying my mortgage, they can have an opinion on my housing choices, until then, I don't want to hear it.

EXACTLY.

And I'm not upset about it...I'm just bellyachin' about it. I'm bored.

And since I've got the next 5 days off...I'm going to be even more bored. Now you're all in big, BIG trouble.

[Karried]

Come play XBox Live with me.

Out in the boonies, there is nothing else to do right ? lol.

I kid, I kid.

Let the games begin.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Come play XBox Live with me.

Out in the boonies, there is nothing else to do right ? lol.

I kid, I kid.

Let the games begin.

lol....My 360 is borked again. For some reason, the controllers keep losing connection about every 30 seconds, only to pop back in. I have no idea why. New batteries and all.

[Karried]

If they are wireless, maybe you have some interference ? I don't know much about it.... maybe someone in our tech forum?

Back to urban sprawl.. I did read an interesting article on a blog about suburbs falling into great decay in the future due to poor construction, foundation failure, abandoned homes due to foreclosures, etc etc.. opposed to more solidly built highrises and downtown construction.

They projected that people will start moving closer to downtown due to fuel costs and babyboomers children moving out, etc etc...

Some might be happy to hear it, gives more room to sprawl. lol

Just something I read about that I thought pertained to this subject.

[Pete]

Here's why I didn't buy in the NW sector. It's crowded. It's old. It's got a lot of lower income areas that I prefer to not live around. I wanted a new home with all the energy efficiency, doodads, and reliability that come with it. I wanted to be close to where I work. I didn't want to pay a premium because of preconceptions of value based on zip code.

Again, I don't fault anyone for where they choose to live. You have to make that decision based on what's best for you and your family.

However, merely abandoning one area for another is exactly why the city is now trying desperately to redevelop huge areas. I don't blame citizens for moving to a newly developed tract, but the city shouldn't be in the business of facilitating it's own decay.

In most other cities, older areas get redeveloped and rejuvenated when new/younger families move back in. That doesn't happen in the OKC area. Once one generation ages and their kids move out, the children then go to Edmond, Moore and even Deer Creek. All the people I went to school with at Putnam City in the 70's now live in Edmond or even further out.

The whole point that people don't want to live in areas that just one generation ago were considered 'good' is precisely the point. And the problem is, these areas never had much going for them other than the families that lived there... Just like most the new development, which will likely meet the same fate in another 20 years or so.

At some point, you have to break this cycle.

[Karried]

ha Pete, we were posting at the same exact time and pretty much saying the same thing..

Prompt twilight zone music

[kmf563]

I would take Karried's gorgeous house over any cramped over priced space polluted with noise and lack of transportation any day!

[MadMonk]

I give this thread 5 stars. I couldn't agree more OGTS/Karried/kmf563.

I'm all for redevelopment of the downtown area and older neighborhoods etc. If that's what you like then more power to ya, but the whining about sprawl after every announcment of a new business *gasp* NOT placed downtown or mention of an outlying neighborhood is tiring.

As a balance to the post from OKCCrime, here are some counter-arguments from that same wiki, most of which OGTS has already covered.


Consumer preference for sprawl

Peter Gordon, a professor of planning and economics at the University of Southern California's School of Urban Planning and Development, argues that many households in the United States, Canada, and Australia, especially middle and families, have shown a preference for the suburban lifestyle. Reasons cited include a preference towards lower-density development (for lower ambient noise and increased privacy), better schools, less crime, and a generally slower lifestyle than the urban one. Those in favor of a "free housing market" also argue that this sort of living situation is an issue of personal choice and economic means. One suburban Detroit politician defends low-density development as the preferred lifestyle choice of his constituents, calling it "...the American Dream unfolding before your eyes." Recently however, a number of studies have suggested that many affluent "empty nesters" are heading back towards the inner city areas to "downsize" their housing and take advantage of the increased cultural offerings that such areas often have to offer.

Debate over traffic and commute times

Those not opposed to low density development argue that traffic intensities tend to be less, traffic speeds faster and, as a result, air pollution emissions are lower per square mile. (See demographia's report.) Kansas City, Missouri is often cited as an example of ideal low-density development, with congestion below the mean and home prices below comparable Midwestern cities. Wendell Cox and Randal O'Toole are the leading figures supporting lower density development.
Longitudinal (time-lapse) studies of commute times in major metropolitan areas in the United States have shown that commute times decreased for the period 1969 to 1995 even though the geographic size of the city increased. More recent data suggests that this trend has reversed, with the 2000 U.S. Census showing commute times increased over all previous periods.

Risk of increased housing prices

There is also some concern that Portland-style anti-sprawl policies will increase housing prices. Some research suggests Oregon has had the largest housing affordability loss in the nation, but other research shows that Portland's price increases are comparable to other Western cities. Another report suggests that zoning and other land use controls play the dominant role in making housing expensive.
In Australia, it is claimed that by some that housing affordability has hit "crisis levels" due to "urban consolidation" policies implemented by state governments. In Sydney, the ratio of the price of a house relative to income is 9:1. The issue is being debated between the major political parties in the lead up to the Australian federal election.

Freedom

There are some sociologists such as Durkheim who suggest there is a link between population density and the number of rules that must be imposed. The theory goes that as people are moved closer together geographically their actions are more likely to noticeably impact others around them. This potential impact requires the creation of additional social or legal rules to prevent conflict. A simple example would be as houses become closer together the acceptable maximum volume of music decreases, as it becomes intrusive to other residents.

Crowding and increased aggression

There have been numerous studies that link increased population density with increased aggression. Some people believe that increased population density encourages crime and anti-social behavior.


(That last paragraph, I can attest to personally)

[bdub02]

In 1988 the average commute was 20% shorter than it is today, yet the cars of the time got 6 miles per gallon on average more than they do today. I can see both sides of the argument but with the coming fuel crisis (we haven't seen anything yet) I wish people would come to their senses about smart development. If you are going to live way out, at least do it in a hybrid or high MPG car and not a Hummer that gets 10 mpg. That said, I understand why many people choose the suburbs. Suburban schools as a whole usually perform better and are safer than urban schools. I think if inner city schools were to be improved to match or exceed suburban schools, there wouldn't be as much of an incentive to live in the suburbs. Parents just want whats best for their children, and are willing to make sacrifices for it.

[Pete]

No one is advocating the population density of Manhattan.

Just reasonable, planned growth that doesn't systematically destroy any neighborhood more than 30 years old.

You can still buy plenty of big pieces of property within a few miles of downtown OKC, so I don't think density is going to be an issue any time soon.

[BDP]

I don't think Oklahoma City's problem has as much do with sprawl per se, it's that it has no alternative to it. Most American cities are sprawling communities when you consider the entire metro area. However, many more of them at least have an urban option for people that do want that lifestyle.

But, much of the decay of the city can be attributed to its sprawling nature. We have developed our city in a disposable fashion and its beginning to show. The areas that are characterized as bad today are that way because they were abandoned by people as they fled to the suburbs. This meant less money for schools, infrastructure, transportation, etc. as that money was either redirected to support the spreading out or at least thinned out across the area. Not to mention the inability to achieve some level of population density has been a deterrent for attracting some basic service and retail options common to most American cities and to many much smaller than ours.

One reason to oppose continued sprawl is to preserve the very attributes for which you chose your current neighborhood. Without any reasonable and rational planning, that area will have the exact same fate as the northwest side. Efforts to reinvigorate the inner city is in one aspect an effort to keep the "boonies" the "boonies". The more viable the city can make itself within its currently developed areas, the less motivation some people have to move to new developments on its fringes, the less money has to be spent on maintaining an infinitely growing infrastructure, and the less crowded the areas that were original sold as isolated crime-free sanctuaries become.

Of course, not everyone wants to live in a dense pedestrian friendly tight knit community. But if we don't make an effort to provide a place for the people to live who do like that kind of lifestyle, their only option will be to join you in the very community in which you located based on the fact that these people weren't there to begin with.

So, really, planned growth has nothing to do with forcing you or anyone else to live an urban lifestyle, it's about keeping the density out of your backyard and providing it to those that do want to live like that.

I don't think density is going to be an issue any time soon.

Especially when you consider that Oklahoma City ranks 197 out of 200 in population density for cities with a population of over 100,000:

US Cities Over 100,000 Ranked by Population Density: 1990

[OKCCrime]

As a balance to the post from OKCCrime, here are some counter-arguments from that same wiki, most of which OGTS has already cover

I'm glad that you did. I was hoping someone would. Every coin has two sides. Maybe each us will flip the coin and take the time to see the other side.

[fire121]

OGTS I am with ya!!! My posse rolls outta SW 44 & Cemetary Rd. Good points made on both sides, I just love my acreage. The dogs can run, plenty of room for a garden, if I find a bargain on a tree I know I'll have room somewhere to put it. Traffic way north on the two-lanes is terrible. Bad planning.

[jbrown84]

The problem is not with the consumers, but the developers. Consumers will buy where they amenities are, but the developers aren't building inward, they just keep building further and further out. It's a little different when it's in a suburb like Mustang or Edmond, because that doesn't effect OKC as far as infrastructure needs, but why is there so much empty land in mid-inner OKC? It just sits there and rots.

[bdub02]

The problem is not with the consumers, but the developers. Consumers will buy where they amenities are, but the developers aren't building inward, they just keep building further and further out. It's a little different when it's in a suburb like Mustang or Edmond, because that doesn't effect OKC as far as infrastructure needs, but why is there so much empty land in mid-inner OKC? It just sits there and rots.

If you notice the newer development follows school district borders. That is why NE OKC is so void of development until you cross into Edmond schools. NW OKC is in Putnam City school district and most of South OKC is in the Moore or Mid-Del districts so they don't suffer from this effect.