http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/07/01/map/pdf/mp_download_20010701.3.pdf

Galaxies of light across the United States illuminate the scope of sprawl; yellow and red reveal its radiating creep just since 1993. People have migrated to the periphery of cities “to find more housing for less money,” says Alex Krieger of Harvard University. “Until this advantage is neutralized, sprawl will remain in our future.”

 

That's disgusting. On a lighter note, if we dropped ourselves down into each of those red or yellow areas, I doubt we'd be able tell one from the other -- certainly not enough to realize where we are.

 

KJP

Interesting... I recently sought the National Geographic issue with that map because I had somehow encountered the accompanying article, which features suburban Cincinnati, among other places.

 

There sure is a lot of yellow on that map!

And yet, Ohio's overall population growth is minimal!

The Carolinas are going wild!

The growth in the Carolinas is pretty rediculous!

 

EDIT:  Gold beat me to it!

Of course, I'm sure all the paving over in the Carolinas has nothing to do with the massive freeway expansions currently underway in NC.

Did anyone else notice that LA and San Diego haven't spread out at all since '93?

when you think of megalopolis you usually think of the dc to boston stretch, but my god look at that new line from atlanta to raleigh --ugh!

Of course, I'm sure all the paving over in the Carolinas has nothing to do with the massive freeway expansions currently underway in NC.

Or the migration to the sun belt?

 

Did anyone else notice that LA and San Diego haven't spread out at all since '93?

"W A T E R"

Of course, I'm sure all the paving over in the Carolinas has nothing to do with the massive freeway expansions currently underway in NC.

Or the migration to the sun belt?

 

If it were due to migration only, you would more likely see a linear relationship between population growth and developed land.  I can guarantee you that North Carolina has a geometric relationship between the two phenomena.  That, my friend, is Sprawl.

How about the Cleveland-Pittsburgh Metroplex.  All connected now.

Atlanta is CRAZY.  So much intense new growth.

"Growth" or "displacement"?

Cincy and Dayton have practically become one giant urbanized area.

Cincy and Dayton have practically become one giant urbanized area.

 

Do you mean one giant "populated" area?  ;)

The growth is good overall.  People get newer, affordable housing in the suburbs and their kids get a much better education than those in innercity schools.

God forbid we fix our inner-city schools.  Terrible idea!

Then why don't they do it?

Because the powers-that-be in Columbus don't believe in public education and would rather starve it to foster more charter schools, paroachial schools and, by God Almighty, home-schooling. To them, urban areas are cesspools of immorality, and they will starve the cities to prove that they are right. The rest of us are simply in need of more good clean country living where the radical right-wingers that have taken over the evangelical church can more effectively run our lives for us. Darn nice of them, don't ya think? Whoops, not allowed to think....  :evil:

How about the Cleveland-Pittsburgh Metroplex.  All connected now.

 

 

And also, if you look very closely (and it's too bad this map doesn't show Canada), but there is a sprawl "ring" around Lake Erie.

blow it up to about 300% and you will see a giant festering red spot just around Mason, Loveland, Lebanon, and West Chester...   sprawl = dilution = homogenization 

 

I am surprised by the North Carolina graphics..   I heard it now also out-paces Florida for retirees...

 

KJP - BINGO!

 

 

Well I guess for those who live in Ohio, they want that.  Thats what we vote for.  I think the inner-city schools should be just as good as those out in the suburbs.  I know that Cincinnati does spend a lot per student, but doesn't get the results, where suburban school districts spend less and get better performance out of the students.

Well I guess for those who live in Ohio, they want that.  Thats what we vote for.  I think the inner-city schools should be just as good as those out in the suburbs.  I know that Cincinnati does spend a lot per student, but doesn't get the results, where suburban school districts spend less and get better performance out of the students.

 

I think this is a much deeper debate than this thread can handle.  In a nutshell, I'll say that education starts in the home, and inner city families tend not to place a high emphasis on this (out of values or thier own education level).  This puts inner city schools into a death spiral.  Couple that with lower salaries (in most cases) for teachers to work in a less favorable environment, and you attract less talent to the workforce.  KJP nailed this part.

While this thread isn't about education, per se, it's disingenous and oversimplified to cite "better schools" in the suburbs as the primary factor driving sprawl.  How are nonexistent schools in undeveloped areas any better if they aren't built yet? 

 

As sprawl relates to education, it becomes a matter of the symptoms of concentrated poverty that results from the subsidized flight of the upper and middle classes.

I think the debate is still out whether sprawl is good or bad.  Many on this board believe it is bad.  While others may not see it as such a major problem.  We're not running out of space, so let people own property with big yards and single-family houses.

No, the debate is pretty much resolved by anyone who has even casually researched the topic.  States like Ohio have ever-increasing tax burdens and infrastructure, schools, and healthcare suffer because resources are spread too thinly over too large a geographic area.  For example, Ohio has one of the ten highest tax burdens in the nation, but is 40th in per-capita education spending and has zero passenger rail.  Meanwhile, the paved areas keep growing larger while the population remains relatively stagnant.  How is this possibly positive?

 

I don't have a problem with people having big yards and single-family houses.  I do have a problem publicly subsidizing these things for people who can afford it regardless.

 

The truth is, we are running out of space.  The best farmland in the nation is constantly being paved over, adding incredible costs to our food supply.  Some of our most beautiful and valuable natural and historic areas are being exploited for mining, drilling, foresting, and development of low-rent motels and tourist traps.  Sprawl is based on an assumption of a never-ending supply of cheap oil, and when it runs out, the results will be nothing but apocalyptic.

When oil runs out ( 50-100 years? ), people will still have cars, they will just run on a different fuel.  Your debate about running out of space is stupid.  95% of the county is undeveloped, so there is plenty of farmland available, and the main reason why prices have increased on certain foodstuffs is because of subsidies that promote farmers to not plant.  I have heard the argument time after time that this is the only way farmers can make money, well I guess they either figure out how to make money and stop farming.  This is just like the real, business world, profitable companies make it, others no longer function.  Please explain the subsidizing of the suburbs to me.

Many geologists believe that we are at, or slightly past, the global oil production peak.  Saudi Arabia has been resorting to less-than-prime wells to extract oil, which is an indicator they are not as flush as before.  Couple that with exponential demand from China and the reckless, oblivious car culture we have created in the U.S., and the oil will run out within the next 20 years.  Hubbert's Peak was dead-on with the U.S. oil production peak in the 1970s--there is no reason to suspect he would be drastically off on global oil production.  Mind you, Hubbert made his calculations in the 1950s, and no one believed him until the U.S. actually passed peak oil production.

 

Who's going to invent this new fuel of which you speak?  Will the production costs of this fuel be low enough to allow for the current rate of fuel consumption?  As a technical person, I find it hysterical when the masses think that scientists will magically dream something up to satisfy our own greedy desires.  God forbid we actually simplify our own lives.

 

The reality is that the most productive farmland is near our existing urban centers--which is part of the reason our cities were settled where they were in the first place.  We are constantly engaged in needless paving of these areas, driving farmers out of business by artificially raising the value of their land, and driving food production to greater distances from our residences, driving up the cost of food.  We subsidize farmers to offset the massive subsidies and lax regulations placed on the enormous factory farms.  Since the factory farms are large businesses, and thus tend to have Congressmen in their pocket, they enjoy numerous advantages that the traditional familly farmer does not, which applies increasing price pressure on the small farmer and when combined with his artificially overvalued land, leaves him no choice but to sell his property to Wal Mart or Pulte Homes.  The fact that you find this "stupid" tells me you could not possibly comprehend the complex web of subsidization that created modern suburbia.

If you want to read some interesting articles on energy issues, please visit the "Great Peak Oil Thread" in the transportation section.

 

By the way, oil will never run out. Why? Because the last barrels will be too damn expensive for anyone to afford. In the absence of an oil alternative, a more serious issue is the bell-shaped curve of oil production, be it on a per-well, per-reservior, per-nation or global basis. Modern economies depend on borrowing against future growth, and without a replacement for oil, there will be no future growth. Yes, I think we can develop a replacement, but it will take a national commitment on the scale of going to the moon or the Manhattan Project to achieve something that has the energy density and portability of oil -- things not even coal offers. By all estimates, it would take one to two decades for the U.S. to make a relatively painless transition to a significantly less oil-intensive economy. That includes our revamping our energy-intensive land use policies.

 

What would I do to revamp those policies? Here's a short list:

 

> Roll back over 5-10 years oil industry federal subsidies (tax breaks and direct payments for research, exploration, export financing, refinery/capacity construction, sustaining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, guarding the movement of oil supplies) which total upwards of $250 billion per year (cut personal income taxes by a like amount). Fully rolling back these subsidies would introduce market pricing which, for motorists, would increase their costs at the fuel pump by up to $1.50 per gallon. Phasing out subsidies over a period of years would soften the increase in fuel prices and promote production of more efficient vehicles, increased conservation and more private investment in alternative fuels, railways and more compact land uses.

 

> Since gas tax revenues and driving already flattening out with recent increases in gas prices, higher gas prices would likely gas tax revenues to fall. New ways to pay for roads is already under consideration by states and the federal government. One idea gaining greater favor is to lease public highways to private operators who would convert these roads to tollways to add a more free-market approach to transportation. Reduce gas tax rates by a commensurate revenue amount. Lease revenues could be used to fund other roads, and leverage private investment in high-speed rail, freight railroads and urban transit (all of which nurture more compact land use patterns than highways).

 

> Eliminate tax abatement incentives in enterprise zones which originally were intended to benefit cities based on distressed conditions (including the presence of vacant land, but is frequently used in suburbs and rural areas having "vacant" land -- meaning all of them can use it!).

 

There are other subsidies that exist, but are even more controversial. Eliminating them might also hurt cities (ie: grants and low-interest loans for building roads and utilities into new commercial/industrial parks, increasing city water rates for non-city customers, adding sewer system impact fees for impervious surfaces and others possible changes).

 

All those would cause more compact land use patterns, stop the throwaway mentality when it comes to housing/neighborhoods, and save tax dollars for having to maintain duplicative infrastructure and sustain low-income people stranded in core cities where access to exurban jobs is extremely difficult.

^ I like that world KJP. 

 

I get a bit nervous when talking about fully eliminating subsidies.  The US economy is pretty fragile when it comes to energy costs and consumer spending.  I'm ok with your phase out approach, but only if it happens over the course of 20+ years.

 

The other ideas are great (esp. the freeway privatization).

Of course, I'm sure all the paving over in the Carolinas has nothing to do with the massive freeway expansions currently underway in NC.

Or the migration to the sun belt?

 

If it were due to migration only, you would more likely see a linear relationship between population growth and developed land.  I can guarantee you that North Carolina has a geometric relationship between the two phenomena.  That, my friend, is Sprawl.

Didn't say it was due to migration only, was pointing out why it looks like so much more since 1993 than compared to the Midwest

 

If the population growth/density relationship being linear or geometric is what defines sprawl, then we have been sprawling since day 1 here. There probably is a factor to compare in the geometric relationship of population v. density that defines whne it is sprawl, or is it always subjective?

The reality is that the most productive farmland is near our existing urban centers--which is part of the reason our cities were settled where they were in the first place. 

 

I'd say access to transporation (be it water or rail) or access to "safety" (e.g. Forts) were the reason why our cities were settled where they were, a much bigger factor than proximity to farmland, it so played out that the bigger urban centers came about were situated on larger areas of productive Ag land

There are definitely objective characteristics of sprawl.  The primary ones are:

 

1) rigorous separation and segregation of land uses

2) automobile-dependent transportation at the expense of all other modes

 

 

 

There are definitely objective characteristics of sprawl.  The primary ones are:

 

1) rigorous separation and segregation of land uses

2) automobile-dependent transportation at the expense of all other modes

 

1) Zoning in general? or low desnity zoning in general. I doubt you would find many folks in support of mingling non-cohesive land uses together. Folks don't want to live in industrial areas nor intense commerical centers.

 

2) Sure, but how is that different from the past were the urban form grew around the preferred mode of transportation of the day, at the expense of the less-preferred modes?. The streetcars allowed the first suburbs develop away from the urban core and factories at the expense of walking or human or hourse powered transportation.

I beg to differ, Mr. Sparkle.  The problem with sprawl development is it does not even give the market a choice or opportunity to respond.  It's more like a "take it or leave it" choice.  It's interesting to note that in areas where densely-developed, walkable neighborhoods exist, these neighborhoods always command a tremendous premium over the new sprawl development. 

 

I'm curious to know what you define as "non-cohesive land uses".  Granted, no one wants to live next door to an oil refinery or a craptastic Wal Mart Super Center, but what about a corner store?  Neighborhood restaurants?  Shopping?  The way sprawl development is planned, it takes a trip in an automobile to buy a lousy loaf of bread.  How is that an improvement?

 

Your second claim is even more dubious.  Neighborhoods built around streetcars still allowed for transportation by other modes, be it horse, walking, or even automobile.  Even neighborhoods that pre-date streetcars, like my own, adapted to streetcars, and have since adapted to automobile traffic without discounting or eliminating other modes like subway, bus, bicycle, and foot.  In sprawling suburbia, your choice is limited to "drive or go nowhere".  In these new sprawling suburbs, it will be very expensive and difficult to ever retro-fit them to accommodate any other mode of travel than the automobile. 

 

^I beg to differ, Mr. Sparkle.  The problem with sprawl development is it does not even give the market a choice or opportunity to respond.  It's more like a "take it or leave it" choice.  It's interesting to note that in areas where densely-developed, walkable neighborhoods exist, these neighborhoods always command a tremendous premium over the new sprawl development.

 

You are acting like sprwal is being forced upon everybody. IMHO the SF home is desired by the market, and will be for a while. Obviously there has been market demand for it for quite some time.

As far as the new dense developments go, yes there is shortage of them, I agree, so lets build more -  choice is always good -- but the dense neighborhoods aren't for everybody

 

^I'm curious to know what you define as "non-cohesive land uses".  Granted, no one wants to live next door to an oil refinery or a craptastic Wal Mart Super Center, but what about a corner store?  Neighborhood restaurants?  Shopping?  The way sprawl development is planned, it takes a trip in an automobile to buy a lousy loaf of bread.  How is that an improvement?

 

Cohesive land uses do include neigborhood type services, eateries, bars etc. a limited type of facilites would fit this bill, mostly service industries - but now how folks want a great wide selection of things -- there still has to be the large stores, that few would want to live nearby, or some may, the choice isn't for all. What would be your antithesis to rigorous separated land uses?

 

^Your second claim is even more dubious.

I know I stretched a little ;-), In Cincy the first ring streetcar suburbs did not allow walking to the job centers in the Basin, at least for commuting purposes.

Well, it seems like you're operating under the assumption that you know what everyone wants.  Sprawl IS being forced on everyone--it's the law in the localities where it exists.  Just TRY to build a corner store in a new subdivision--you'll need a zoning variance.  Not only that, but sprawl is funded primarily by diverting resources away from inner cities to greenfieldsm, especially in places like Ohio with virtually zero population growth.  The irony is, in the vast majority of America, it is highly illegal to build neighborhoods like Georgetown and Beacon Hill.

 

Once upon a dream, new development paid for itself.  Henry Huntington operated the Pacific Electric Railway at a loss, but still made a profit because the real estate he was able to develop as a result made it a profitable venture.  Building new interstate highways always generates new development, but never increases revenue enough to pay for the cost of the infrastructure.  If that were the case, Ohio and every other state would have an easier time keeping its roads in repair and meeting the transportation needs of the state.

 

Secondly, you confuse sprawl with single family homes.  These are two different things entirely.  My neighborhood consists mostly of single family homes, but also apartment buildings, condos, basement apartments, and duplexes.  You can, however, still walk to grocery stores, drug stores, restaurants, bars, parks, schools, transit, the library, and other amenities.  Yes, people do want a wide variety of things, and if a community is planned properly, most of these things can be found within a 10 minute walk, vis-a-vis a 20 minute drive. 

 

I get the impression that so many people have never lived in a functional city, they immediately think of Manhattan or downtown Chicago when they hear the word "dense".  It doesn't take anything near that level to create a cohesive, walkable community.  A reversion of zoning regulations to their pre-WWII counterparts would be a very simple first step toward building places that are actually attractive and functional without exponentially increasing the amount of resources consumed.

 

^Well, it seems like you're operating under the assumption that you know what everyone wants.

 

Seems like you are operating under the assumption that you know what everyone should want

 

 

Well, considering that we built cities a certain way for thousands of years until inventing the artificial construct of sprawl after World War II, yes, I do pretend to know what people want.  If you ask Americans where they would most like to live, the majority will say "a small town", NOT "prefab contrived subdivision".  Let me break it down:

 

Traditional mixed-use neighborhood:  choice of housing type, people with different incomes in same neighborhood, ability to use variety of transportation modes

 

Sprawl development:  limited housing choice, segregated by income, travel primarily by automobile

 

I don't like sprawl because my tax dollars go to paying for wasteful, redundant infrastructure (for those who can afford it) while neglecting existing resources in my own neighborhood.  If sprawl is in such high demand, then why don't we let the "free market" do its job and create sprawl that pays for itself?  If you want to sequester yourself away to a bunker, that's fine by me--just allow me the freedom to balk at the idea of subsidizing it.

Well, considering that we built cities a certain way for thousands of years until inventing the artificial construct of sprawl after World War II, yes, I do pretend to know what people want. 

 

Is your day job to be one of the White House Press corp?  You know, the ones who were pissed because they couldn't break the story about the VP shooting someone.

 

:roll:

Well, considering that we built cities a certain way for thousands of years until inventing the artificial construct of sprawl after World War II, yes, I do pretend to know what people want.  If you ask Americans where they would most like to live, the majority will say "a small town", NOT "prefab contrived subdivision". 

 

I don't think it was "invented", it appears to be a natural progression of us to spread out.

What do you call the subdivisions constructed before WW2, as early as the 20's...those with the means were spreading out well before the housing boom. I'm sure you will find as many folks that want to live in cities, as small towns, as in subdivisions.

 

Dense cities are a relative newcomer to the scene, given the long time that humans have been sentient.

 

 

 

BTW I agree with your thoughts about subsidies..

although now you will find more TIFs and other financing ideas. Developers usually have to pay for their infrastructure in their developments, and on the outisde too. If a waterline has to be extended, then they pay for it (well--its in the price of the homes). Yeah the utilities pay for large main extensions etc. Does it cost more to maintain spread out infrastructure? of course, which is why my water bill is twice what it was when I lived in Cincinnati

 

So your water pays for itself.  What about the roads?  Schools?  Police and fire protection?  Parks?  If sprawl development paid for itself, Ohio would be flush with cash right now. 

So your water pays for itself.  What about the roads?  Schools?  Police and fire protection?  Parks?  If sprawl development paid for itself, Ohio would be flush with cash right now. 

 

^roads?

User Fees (Fed and State Gas Tax, Liscense Plate fees)

^Schools

Property Taxes (I believe fund about 58% of the SD here)

School District funding in OH is a heated topic

^Police and Fire

Property Taxes (levies)

^Parks

Property Taxes (Levy), there's both a county parks and township parks.

 

Ohio's budget issues are as a result of sprawl? Not b/c of our idiot lawmakers?

With plenty left over to be 40th per capita in educational spending, right?

 

With plenty left over to be 40th per capita in educational spending, right?

 

Cite?

Is that total spending for student, or total state spending per student