Sprawl

[SpringTX]

Ok, so we all agree sprawl is a bad thing. We revile those large residential lots, scattered tracts of undeveloped land, low-density commercial development (strip malls), golf courses, and roads tying it all together. So which of the following 2 scenarios sounds like a better solution?

1) We could collapse all American cities into 100 regional megalopolises. Each one would cover 10 square miles, and would consist exclusively of 200-story-tall high-rises. Each megalopolis would house 20 million people like bees in a honeycomb. The remaining 98% of the land in the country would be converted back into sylan paradises for the wildlife and the occasional hiker. No one would need to own a car, except for commercial/industrial purposes. There would be few roads, and there would be hardly any cars on them. In fact, a lot of roads would be closed and converted back to forest. Public transportation would be required by law, and private cars would be outlawed. To get to work each day, everyone would walk or take the subway.

2) Some new technological invention appears that makes cars go at speeds of 500 mph, and they're all computer-controlled, so there are never any accidents, and there are never any traffic jams. And they're all powered by some new form of clean energy, so there is no pollution. So the popular thing for people to do is now to buy 5 acres for a residential lot way out in the country for a dirt-cheap price, and building a home on it. Since cars can go so fast now, a residential lot near Lufkin, TX is only a 20-minute commute to downtown Houston. Pretty soon, laws are enacted that says every new residential lot must be at least 5 acres in size, and 90% of the trees on them must be preserved (a la The Woodlands). And no building can be taller than 1 story. So now we have more sprawling campuses for office buildings instead of high-rises. After a few years, the old high-rises start to come down with the wrecking ball. So eventually most of the country starts to look something like The Woodlands, only less dense. And cities continue to expand and sprawl out so that much of the geographic area of the country is covered. What used to be farmland and small towns across America are now huge pastoral lots, each with a shiny new 3000 sq ft house smack in the center of them, with a 500 mph computer-controlled car in the driveway. All the high-rises and downtowns of America are gone. It's just one endless, mostly pastoral, monotonous suburbia from sea to shining sea...

[RedScare]

I'll take option number 3. Give me a gun, so I can shoot myself.

[Talbot]

Yeah, I wouldn't want either.

I want to drive my car occasionally while still living in an environment that balances out dense urban areas with suburban areas with good mass transit.

But I don't want to live in 10 million sq. mi. with 19,999,999 other people, but yet I don't want to live out in the middle of nowhere, even if my car did go 500 mph so that my commute would be only 20 minutes from downtown Houston.

[UrbaNerd]

Yep. Both are too extreme.

I'd like to see densification in the inner city, but, not the type that would make a person feel "trapped". Midrise would be good. In the suburbs, single family homes would sit on narrower lots, but, would be up to 4 stories in height. They would have a decent(as in larger than 20x10) backyard, but, most recreation would be done in the many parks scattered around the neighborhood. Retail would be done in a mixed use, medium density manner (sort of like in Midtown, with offices or residences overhead), and big box stores would have underground parking/surface garages. Of course, you would be able to walk anywhere.

Good sized lots would still be available, in some places, but, not rediculously oversized. Freeways would be wide enough, to prevent traffic, and there would be commuter lines and other forms of alternate transit.

OH, and yes, we would be using alternate fuels, too.

[Casual Observer]

I'm bothered by two things here..

1. This topic of sprawl was started by someone with the name "SpringTX".

2. Both options reak of Communistic Socialism.

Here's my answer - everyone just relax, Sprawl will reach an apex eventually. There are too many factors that are slowly growing against it. When it finally does come to a head, one of two - well maybe three - things will happen:

1. Inner & Mid-city densification.

2. Edge-city & Suburb centralization & densification.

3. Fallout - watch Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome for details.

Either way I'm stocking up on gold, water purifications equipment, medicine, solar panels, and guns. See you fools on the other side!

[SpringTX]

1. This topic of sprawl was started by someone with the name "SpringTX".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sprawl in Spring? Well... You been to Olde Towne Spring lately?

3. Fallout - watch Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome for details.

Either way I'm stocking up on gold, water purifications equipment, medicine, solar panels, and guns. See you fools on the other side!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL

[YakuzaIce]

Spring, why just put the two extremes?

Yep.  Both are too extreme.

I'd like to see densification in the inner city, but, not the type that would make a person feel "trapped".  Midrise would be good.  In the suburbs, single family homes would sit on narrower lots, but, would be up to 4 stories in height.  They would have a decent(as in larger than 20x10) backyard, but, most recreation would be done in the many parks scattered around the neighborhood.  Retail would be done in a mixed use, medium density manner (sort of like in Midtown, with offices or residences overhead), and big box stores would have underground parking/surface garages.  Of course, you would be able to walk anywhere.

Good sized lots would still be available, in some places, but, not rediculously oversized.  Freeways would be wide enough, to prevent traffic, and there would be commuter lines and other forms of alternate transit.

OH, and yes, we would be using alternate fuels, too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I actually really like these ideas. Though I would still like an area or two of town to be dense high rises, not just midrises.

And regarding the cars going 500 miles an hour, I believe there is something in development (granted, it will probably take more than 5 decades to become common place) that uses magnets similar to mag lev trains. It would be implanted underground with a grass field above it. The cars would be able to go extremely fast and would be computer controlled.

[SpringTX]

In the suburbs, single family homes would sit on narrower lots...They would have a decent (as in larger than 20x10) backyard, but, most recreation would be done in the many parks scattered around the neighborhood.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What would average lot size be and how much park space are we talking about?

I think it would be amazing to have a 3/4-acre park on every block of every street.

[Talbot]

Spring, why just put the two extremes?

I actually really like these ideas.  Though I would still like an area or two of town to be dense high rises, not just midrises.

And regarding the cars going 500 miles an hour, I believe there is something in development (granted, it will probably take more than 5 decades to become common place) that uses magnets similar to mag lev trains.  It would be implanted underground with a grass field above it.  The cars would be able to go extremely fast  and would be computer controlled.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like something out of I, Robot.

And lmao @ Casual Observer.

[kjb434]

I don't like the assumption that everyone thinks sprawl is bad.

I don't think it's really that bad.

[brijonmang]

i agree...until there is a way to completely end it...which i dont know if there ever will be, we are going to deal with it so i think people need to chill out because it is inevitable because not everyone wants to live downtown

[brijonmang]

...sorry...internet screwed up and posted the same thing 3 times

[Heights2Bastrop]

Sprawl is a "choice", and I am Pro Choice.

[RedScare]

Sprawl will not end until 2 things happen.

1) The trend toward bigger homes for smaller families reverses.

2) The automobile ceases to be the primary form of transportation.

Sprawl may be minimized prior to these two events by other means, but it will only end when the economics work against it.

Remember, these cities that we admire for their density were built prior to 1900. Houston was built after the automobile.

[Kirzania]

I don't like the assumption that everyone thinks sprawl is bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm all for sprawl. I think some of it is a result of living in places like Allentown and Lexington for a good many years. Lexington, for instance, is growing immensely because people realize that they don't want to live in Louisiville or Cincy, so they live in Lexington. (Only an hour's communte, just like Katy / Spring / Sprawl->Downtown.) But Lexington refuses to grow with it (see: no road expansions or additions or changing of traffic light timing and absolutely no passable mass transit. GRR! ) New Circle (Lexington's "loop") and Man O' War (Lexington's "half-around-outer loop") have become the boundaries of any kind of suburb. If you need anything, it most likely only exists inside this boundary. And, whatever it is, it's on the otherside of where you are. And to get to it, there are only a dozen or so roads which will take you and everyone else there. And there's usually only one of it, such as the airport, the mall, the skyscraper, Rupp arena (oye) and the university. It may seem quaint and endearing to some, but there are no "highways" into town and you don't have to put up with the bloody traffic lights that are so poorly timed, you hit Every. Single. One. #$@%! [/rage]

You hardly have to travel anywhere in Houston for anything and there's a zillion routes to get there. (When we lived in 2016 Main, we found taking Gray out to Dunlavy/Shepherd and down to Richmond and then Sage was the best way to avoid traffic - and potholes - to the Galleria.) Randalls/Kroger/HEB is almost always right down the street, schools are never far, and your suburb is your own city (Cinco).

Don't even get me started on Allentown ... I should say Lehigh Valley, which is 35 minutes to the grocery store - without traffic.

[kjb434]

Good point from experience. Many towns that have experience growth have enacted laws to stop it. The only problems is they don't end up solve other problems that arrive from appathy. The area around the town grows and the area in the town can't handle the growth. The Lexington example it good. The town and maybe the county don't want to give any road improvents but the sprawl it happening anyway. The situation gets much worse. A mass transit is opposed and they probably wouldn't recieve federal funding anway because the population doesn't exist.