circa 1959 warning about urban sprawl.

[canuck]

From the National Association of Homebuilders. 53 little years ago, a nice little film with a great soundtrack.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/hou...rawl-1959/824/

I like the chinese wall analogy myself.

[oladub]

The film stated that the population of the US was 185M in 1959. Now, we are something like 311M so of course there are more roads, houses, malls, etc.. The smaller lot idea comes with more green spaces and parks which together with the higher density still require more as do the roads, and service businesses required to accommodate more people. Unless our country wants to address the population increase, sprawl will continue.

[ghettopalmetto]

The film stated that the population of the US was 185M in 1959. Now, we are something like 311M so of course there are more roads, houses, malls, etc.. The smaller lot idea comes with more green spaces and parks which together with the higher density still require more as do the roads, and service businesses required to accommodate more people. Unless our country wants to address the population increase, sprawl will continue.

Oladub, you're conflating "sprawl" with "growth". They are NOT one and the same. If sprawling development were due strictly to population growth, then you would expect a linear relationship between developed acreage and population. Instead, there is a geometric relationship, primarily because almost all new development since World War II has required massive amounts of land for highways and parking lots. Case in point: Southeastern Michigan has grown its developed area by something like 40% since 1970 while having virtually Zero population growth. Where is the "need" for additional development?


...and at the same time you speak of the "need" for more roads, houses, and malls, many American cities have severely underutilized infrastructure and building stock. Where is this "NEED" of which you speak???

[oladub]

gp, I am not confusing sprawl for growth. More people, even if placed in stacked apartments, will need more restaurants, recreational facilities, parks, stores, school grounds, shopping center parking lots,and most everything else. All those things require space and roads to connect them. Having denser urban housing like Europe or NY City reduces the footprint of housing but parks, for instance, are needed to replace, in part, the backyards where a lot of kids play.

For anyone else who thinks there is a positive correlation between sprawl and population growth, consider that:
Immigration is the largest factor contributing to population growth in the U.S. Immigration contributes over 2.25 million people to the U.S. population annually [[1.5 million legal immigrants and illegal immigrants as of 2001-2002, now estimated at 1.7 million in 2003) plus 750,000 births to immigrant woman annually). The total foreign-born population in the U.S. is now 31.1 million, a record 57% increase since 1990. 9-11 million of those are here illegally - a 4.5 million increase since 1990.

I don't mean to go off on a tangent and rail against legal immigration but we have to decide if population growth and it's resultant sprawl is worth the benefits of legal immigration.

[ghettopalmetto]

gp, I am not confusing sprawl for growth. More people, even if placed in stacked apartments, will need more restaurants, recreational facilities, parks, stores, school grounds, shopping center parking lots,and most everything else. All those things require space and roads to connect them. Having denser urban housing like Europe or NY City reduces the footprint of housing but parks, for instance, are needed to replace, in part, the backyards where a lot of kids play.

So explain why the developed area of Metropolitan Detroit has increased 40% since 1970 while population growth has remained stagnant. Did Detroit really "need" all those new shopping malls?

[antongast]

Having denser urban housing like Europe or NY City reduces the footprint of housing but parks, for instance, are needed to replace, in part, the backyards where a lot of kids play.

Are you saying that suburbs don't have parks?

[oladub]

So explain why the developed area of Metropolitan Detroit has increased 40% since 1970 while population growth has remained stagnant. Did Detroit really "need" all those new shopping malls?

Detroit's population has declined from something like 1.9M to .75M so there are roughly 1M fewer people in Detroit offset by an additional 1M people living in the suburbs. There are a lot of empty lots in Detroit these days. Since so many shops closed due to crime and population declines in Detroit, shopping centers were needed further out. Whether too many were built is another question. That is between developers and their bankers.

antongast: "Are you saying that suburbs don't have parks? "

Nope, just that when comparing dense housing places with typical sprawl housing, people who live in multi-family units would need space for their kids to play and places to walk their dogs if they don't have backyards.

[ghettopalmetto]

Detroit's population has declined from something like 1.9M to .75M so there are roughly 1M fewer people in Detroit offset by an additional 1M people living in the suburbs. There are a lot of empty lots in Detroit these days. Since so many shops closed due to crime and population declines in Detroit, shopping centers were needed further out. Whether too many were built is another question. That is between developers and their bankers.

There have been about 4 million people in the region since 1970. How much of the new, sprawling, automobile-oriented construction in the suburbs was necessary due to population growth, as you claim?

Rationalize away....

[oladub]

There have been about 4 million people in the region since 1970. How much of the new, sprawling, automobile-oriented construction in the suburbs was necessary due to population growth, as you claim?

Rationalize away....

In your post #5 you asked a different question [["So explain why the developed area of Metropolitan Detroit has increased 40% since 1970 while population growth has remained stagnant.") to which I replied. First you asked about Metropolitan Detroit and now you are asking specifically about the suburbs.

The answer to your second question: There was population growth in the suburbs and there was consequently "new, sprawling, automobile-oriented construction in the suburbs." The lack of population growth in the Detroit Metropolitan area is made of of the set of growing sprawling suburbs combined with a depopulating central city.

[East Detroit]

Unless our country wants to address the population increase, sprawl will continue.

Metropolitan Detroit has not had a population increase. So, why does sprawl continue?

[ghettopalmetto]

Metropolitan Detroit has not had a population increase. So, why does sprawl continue?

Didn't you read Oladub's post? Population growth occurred in the suburbs! That's why!

I mean, it's difficult to argue with circular logic like that.

[oladub]

Metropolitan Detroit has not had a population increase. So, why does sprawl continue?

GP: Metropolitan Detroit has not had a population increase. So, why does sprawl continue?

I don't know how to make this any simpler. "Metropolitan Detroit consists of
1) the City of Detroit which has lost over half of it's population because of uncontrolled crime and
2) it's suburbs which have gained population and consequently 'sprawled' during the same time frame.

Since Detroit takes up as much area as it always has despite it's population losses while it's suburban neighbors have been meanwhile building up to accommodate growth, the urban sprawl the Metropolitan Detroit area [[#1 + #2) has a larger urban footprint a.k.a. 'sprawl'.

[ghettopalmetto]

I don't know how to make this any simpler. "Metropolitan Detroit consists of
1) the City of Detroit which has lost over half of it's population because of uncontrolled crime and
2) it's suburbs which have gained population and consequently 'sprawled' during the same time frame.

Since Detroit takes up as much area as it always has despite it's population losses while it's suburban neighbors have been meanwhile building up to accommodate growth, the urban sprawl the Metropolitan Detroit area [[#1 + #2) has a larger urban footprint a.k.a. 'sprawl'.

Cities have existed for thousands of years. Never in the history of civilization has it taken so much physical space to accommodate a person as in the 21st Century United States of America. Why is this? Sprawl isn't necessary to accommodate growth--cities grew for thousands years without building tacky strip malls, 10-lane highways, and subdivisions with streets that curve every which direction for no reason.

I think back to my college thermodynamics class, where the most important consideration in solving a problem was where you drew the boundary around your system.
If you don't understand the question, you can't find the answer.

Oladub chooses to draw the system boundary at the City Limits of Detroit, isolating them from the suburbs. When we know from experience that there is most definitely a socioeconomic interdependence that does not end at Eight Mile Road. Thus, I draw the system boundary around the entire Metropolitan Area.

So, ONCE AGAIN: With a fixed population, why does a region need to build so much new shit, while abandoning what was already existing? In other words: Southeastern Michigan has not "grown" ONE STINKING IOTA in 40 years, yet increased its developed area by 40%. WHY??????

If you have a pile of money on a table, and then you use your hand to spread it around over a greater area, do you have more money? Or does it just cover more of the table area? What you call "growth", I call "displacement".

And please show us where the City of Detroit had "uncontrolled crime" when people began fleeing to the suburbs in the 1940s. One gets to thinking that you're just inventing facts to justify your opinion.

[oladub]

What on earth are you talking about? You asked a question about Metropolitan Detroit in your post #5 which I answered in my post #7. Then you asked a question specific to suburbs in your post #8 which I responded to in my post #9. Ignoring both of my responses, you basically repeated your post #5 in your post #11.

Now you are questioning why Americans have such a sprawling lifestyle which you did not ask me about and has little to to with the specifics of either Metropolitan Detroit or it's suburbs.

So, ONCE AGAIN: With a fixed population, why does a region need to build so much new shit, while abandoning what was already existing? In other words: Southeastern Michigan has not "grown" ONE STINKING IOTA in 40 years, yet increased its developed area by 40%. WHY??????

See my answers in posts 7 and 9. I didn't invent city boundaries. If you want to change laws regarding municipal boundaries, go for it but the how are you going to prevent people from moving to Traverse City? Meanwhile you will have to live in your imagination and "draw the system boundary around the entire Metropolitan Area." An alternative would be to designate large areas of the City of Detroit for exclusive Ag zoning to offset suburban growth and sprawl. Planners could call it a 'green space' to sound really contemporary. Logically, denser growth should be happening in Detroit with it's hub city advantages and cheap real estate prices. Gp, if you are right, maybe you could make a fortune moving back to Detroit and being a progressive landlord.

And please show us where the City of Detroit had "uncontrolled crime" when people began fleeing to the suburbs in the 1940s. One gets to thinking that you're just inventing facts to justify your opinion.

Detroit's population grew by 14% on the 1950's and reached 1.85M by 1950. I suppose building acreage was pretty much used up and development land was cheaper further out. Detroit wasn't always hammered by crime. Rapid population losses began in the 60's. The riots didn't help. The loss of auto manufacturing didn't help. I think uncontrolled crime is the biggest problem Detroit has in attracting development today if we are talking about today rather than the 1940's.

[ghettopalmetto]

So what you're saying, Oladub, is that you can't answer the question without betraying the CORRECTNESS OF YOUR OPINION?

Among your litany of excuses, you have yet to demonstrate the "necessity" of a geometric relationship between developed acreage and population growth.

[oladub]

So what you're saying, Oladub, is that you can't answer the question without betraying the CORRECTNESS OF YOUR OPINION?

Among your litany of excuses, you have yet to demonstrate the "necessity" of a geometric relationship between developed acreage and population growth.

gp, I answered your questions in as simple of terms as I could. If you wanted to find out whether or not there is a 'necessity" of a "geometric relationship between developed acreage and population growth" you would have had to ask me about that instead of "why the developed area of Metropolitan Detroit has increased 40% since 1970 while population growth has remained stagnant. Did Detroit really "need" all those new shopping malls?" Returning to the last question you didn't ask about 'necessity', I don't think there is a "'necessity" of a "geometric relationship between developed acreage and population growth". What is and what could be are of course different. In fact, I have a terrific idea which I occasionally post on the Detroit side of this site to double the population of parts of the City of Detroit above the density Detroit had at its zenith which always gets shot down.

[ghettopalmetto]

gp, I answered your questions in as simple of terms as I could. If you wanted to find out whether or not there is a 'necessity" of a "geometric relationship between developed acreage and population growth" you would have had to ask me about that instead of "why the developed area of Metropolitan Detroit has increased 40% since 1970 while population growth has remained stagnant. Did Detroit really "need" all those new shopping malls?"

It is the same, exact question. I have posed that same question three times in this thread. You have yet to answer it.

Returning to the last question you didn't ask about 'necessity', I don't think there is a "'necessity" of a "geometric relationship between developed acreage and population growth". What is and what could be are of course different.

You have implied [[at least twice on this thread) that sprawl was necessary to accommodate population growth in the suburbs. You have not illustrated why this is so.

[oladub]

gp, I answered your original questions. Please get help in understanding my responses. In regards to your new and different question about the necessity of geometric relationship, more people require more classrooms, bathrooms, parks, stores, medical help, and most anything else you can think of and ways to connect them. All these things take up space. Space equals sprawl. I even provided you with a partial solution for offsetting detroit's suburban growth and sprawl; zone major abandoned sections of Detroit Agricultural. I also hinted at a far better solution.

[ghettopalmetto]

gp, I answered your original questions. Please get help in understanding my responses. In regards to your new and different question about the necessity of geometric relationship, more people require more classrooms, bathrooms, parks, stores, medical help, and most anything else you can think of and ways to connect them. All these things take up space.

So how much of this new "stuff" is necessary when your population growth is ZERO? And why does newer "stuff" necessarily have to consume more land than the same "stuff" that was built prior to WWII? Again--Southeastern Michigan continues to pave farmland to accomodate the EXACT SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE it had 40 years ago.

Space equals sprawl.

Bullshit. People have built cities for 6000 years, and only now do they look like the clusterfucks you see in Oakland and Macomb counties. Again: WHY???

Ancient Rome was over 1 million people at its peak, and they never had 10-lane highways running willy-nilly between the office parks, the strip malls, and the vinyl-clad subdivisions.

[canuck]

Talk about curbing urban sprawl in Florida! Some folks have found the solution to the overarching problem of urban sprawl and the love of our car culture.

http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/20...e-living-room/

[oladub]

ghettopalmetto: "So how much of this new "stuff" is necessary when your population growth is ZERO? And why does newer "stuff" necessarily have to consume more land than the same "stuff" that was built prior to WWII? Again--Southeastern Michigan continues to pave farmland to accomodate the EXACT SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE it had 40 years ago."

Again, the population grew in the suburbs. That is where the growth and sprawl was. Maybe you can figure out some way of getting families to move back to Detroit so the growth would be there instead of in Oakland and Macomb counties. I have just such a solution.

Bullshit. People have built cities for 6000 years, and only now do they look like the clusterfucks you see in Oakland and Macomb counties. Again: WHY???

Ancient Rome was over 1 million people at its peak, and they never had 10-lane highways running willy-nilly between the office parks, the strip malls, and the vinyl-clad subdivisions.

The slave quarters were small, the utilities were less complicated, and only the rich folks had chariots and toga parties.

[rb336]

The slave quarters were small, the utilities were less complicated, and only the rich folks had chariots and toga parties.

What about Trajan's toga parties for the poor programs?

[ghettopalmetto]

Again, the population grew in the suburbs. That is where the growth and sprawl was. Maybe you can figure out some way of getting families to move back to Detroit so the growth would be there instead of in Oakland and Macomb counties. I have just such a solution.

That's the entire point. The population DIDN'T GROW in the suburbs--it was DISPLACED from the City of Detroit. You can't convince me that you are so unsophisticated as to be unable to understand that.

The sprawl you are spending so much energy defending is the result of a reallocation of resources, not because of some pent-up need to accommodate more people.

[oladub]

That's the entire point. The population DIDN'T GROW in the suburbs--it was DISPLACED from the City of Detroit. You can't convince me that you are so unsophisticated as to be unable to understand that.

The sprawl you are spending so much energy defending is the result of a reallocation of resources, not because of some pent-up need to accommodate more people.

The fact is that the population did grow in the suburbs while it declined in Detroit. Displaced is an acceptable term but the population of the suburbs did grow which you seem to be denying. I am not defending sprawl. Acknowledging it's existence does not constitute it's defense. Don't forget the unaddressed crime problem in Detroit as a reason for developers avoiding Detroit like the plague.

OLADUBS PLAN TO JUMP START DETROIT

You won't like this and it is not a panacea but it would work as far as it goes.

Proposals have been made to turn part of Detroit back into farmland or green space to reduce services that have to be provided. By clearing out depopulated sections of their remaining population, city services would no longer have to be provided in those areas and could more effectively be marshaled in remaining areas of the City. This is stupid because the city has a grid of utilities and roads which would be very expensive to duplicate as is being done in the suburbs.

What Detroit should instead do is give rights to developers to large sections of the city, as is, with the franchise to basically build huge gated communities of between, for instance, 4-50,000 residents with their own private schools, security services, fire departments, shopping centers, professional offices, etc.. The residents of such communities would still have to pay City taxes to maintain Detroit Public Schools, roads, and other city services. Jobs would be created for other Detroiters in construction and then in providing services for such new communities. This would be a win-win plan because large areas of Detroit could spring to life while the City's tax base could drastically expand to pay for services in the remainder of the City. Huge condo associations could manage many of the affairs within such communities. Did I mention JOBS?

One thing the city should require in such gated communities is a population density of twice as great as existed in Detroit when Detroit had a population of 1.85M. This would combat sprawl. What assortment of single family homes and multi unit homes should be left to the developer. The City would have to establish some sort of charter to authorize such communities. If Detroit ever became nice again, such gated communities could get rid of their gates.

The criticism this idea usually gets is that so many people hate the concept of gated communities because it reeks of exclusivism. Maybe so but every existing condo or apartment building with a key to the lobby is already a gated community and some of these units already have thousands of residents. What's wrong with that? There would still be the option of living in the balance of Detroit or the suburbs. I wouldn't want to live in a gated community or condo myself but sure wouldn't want to try raising a family in Detroit the way it is with lousy schools and rampant crime.

GP, if you can come up with a better idea of how to provide an alternative to suburban sprawl, let's hear it. Meanwhile, you will have a difficult time forcing anyone to move their families to Detroit if they can have better schools and more safety in the suburbs or places beyond the suburbs or really nice cities like Minneapolis.

[ghettopalmetto]

GP, if you can come up with a better idea of how to provide an alternative to suburban sprawl, let's hear it. Meanwhile, you will have a difficult time forcing anyone to move their families to Detroit if they can have better schools and more safety in the suburbs or places beyond the suburbs or really nice cities like Minneapolis.

I'm not inclined to force anyone to do anything. All I would like to see is a level playing field, for example, where the State of Michigan would invest as much in transit as it does in new highway construction.

I do think, however, that you're trying to address symptoms [[crime, schools) rather than the disease [[urban disinvestment). Three quarters [[75%) of all American households do not have school-age children, so let's stop pretending that we have to wait for the Detroit Public Schools to improve before anyone can get off their ass to improve Detroit.

And why would I want to live in a gated community [[read: prison) in Detroit if I can already live in such a place in a pretentious phony-baloney suburb? What advantage would Detroit provide to these recluses? And what advantage would such recluses bring to Detroit?

Just because you crack some eggs onto a plate doesn't make it an omelette, Oladub.