Discussion:
Urban Sprawl
(too old to reply)
William
2007-06-10 21:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Urban sprawl is the spreading out of a city and its suburbs over rural
land at the fringe of an urban area.Residents of sprawling
neighborhoods tend to live in single-family homes and commute by car
to work. Low population density is an indicator of sprawl. Urban
planners emphasize the qualitative aspects of sprawl such as the lack
of transportation options and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods.People
of sprawling neighborhoods tend to emit more pollution per person and
suffer more traffic fatalities.Sprawl is also linked with increased
obesity since walking and bicycling are not viable commuting options.
George Conklin
2007-06-10 23:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Urban sprawl is the spreading out of a city and its suburbs over rural
land at the fringe of an urban area.Residents of sprawling
neighborhoods tend to live in single-family homes and commute by car
to work.
Cities have always grown at the edges, even before there were cars. Cars
have nothing to do with it.



Low population density is an indicator of sprawl.

Define "low." This is usually a code word for "You are forbidden to have
a single-family house."

Urban
Post by William
planners emphasize the qualitative aspects of sprawl
They ridicle suburbanites as shallow, non-communal and everything else
they can think of. It is a lie.


such as the lack
Post by William
of transportation options and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods.
People who live in cities like NYC cannot keep cars. They are the ones
with NO transportation options except what the city decides to provide.
That is, standing only to and from work.

People
Post by William
of sprawling neighborhoods tend to emit more pollution per person and
suffer more traffic fatalities.
As city density goes UP, pollution goes UP. You don't know what you are
talking about.


Sprawl is also linked with increased
Post by William
obesity since walking and bicycling are not viable commuting options.
Wrong again. As social class goes up, weight goes DOWN.
William
2007-06-11 01:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by William
Urban sprawl is the spreading out of a city and its suburbs over rural
land at the fringe of an urban area.Residents of sprawling
neighborhoods tend to live in single-family homes and commute by car
to work.
Cities have always grown at the edges, even before there were cars. Cars
have nothing to do with it.
Low population density is an indicator of sprawl.
Define "low." This is usually a code word for "You are forbidden to have
a single-family house."
Urban
Post by William
planners emphasize the qualitative aspects of sprawl
They ridicle suburbanites as shallow, non-communal and everything else
they can think of. It is a lie.
such as the lack
Post by William
of transportation options and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods.
People who live in cities like NYC cannot keep cars. They are the ones
with NO transportation options except what the city decides to provide.
That is, standing only to and from work.
People
Post by William
of sprawling neighborhoods tend to emit more pollution per person and
suffer more traffic fatalities.
As city density goes UP, pollution goes UP. You don't know what you are
talking about.
Sprawl is also linked with increased> obesity since walking and bicycling are not viable commuting options.
Wrong again. As social class goes up, weight goes DOWN.
Thats true because 59 million obese people currently in the US is just
a fluke right?
William
2007-06-11 01:37:45 UTC
Permalink
(And its still going up)
George Conklin
2007-06-11 11:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
(And its still going up)
Life expectancy is still going up.
George Conklin
2007-06-11 11:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Post by William
Urban sprawl is the spreading out of a city and its suburbs over rural
land at the fringe of an urban area.Residents of sprawling
neighborhoods tend to live in single-family homes and commute by car
to work.
Cities have always grown at the edges, even before there were cars.
Cars
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
have nothing to do with it.
Low population density is an indicator of sprawl.
Define "low." This is usually a code word for "You are forbidden to have
a single-family house."
Urban
Post by William
planners emphasize the qualitative aspects of sprawl
They ridicle suburbanites as shallow, non-communal and everything else
they can think of. It is a lie.
such as the lack
Post by William
of transportation options and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods.
People who live in cities like NYC cannot keep cars. They are the ones
with NO transportation options except what the city decides to provide.
That is, standing only to and from work.
People
Post by William
of sprawling neighborhoods tend to emit more pollution per person and
suffer more traffic fatalities.
As city density goes UP, pollution goes UP. You don't know what you are
talking about.
Sprawl is also linked with increased> obesity since walking and
bicycling are not viable commuting options.
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Wrong again. As social class goes up, weight goes DOWN.
Thats true because 59 million obese people currently in the US is just
a fluke right?
It has nothing to do with urban sprawl. In Europe they also have more
people who are 'fat.' It is a global issue these days, and one which is
overreated too. You try to worry your young mind with ever issue the press
brings up. Remember, you cannot get a story in the paper unless you
proclaim a new crisis every day. The population still lives longer than it
did just a few years ago. This seems to disappoint the AMA, which is
predicting now we will live shorter times 60 years from now. Now the crisis
will be in 60 years. Why not 100?
Baxter
2007-06-11 18:39:31 UTC
Permalink
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by George Conklin
Post by William
Urban sprawl is the spreading out of a city and its suburbs over rural
land at the fringe of an urban area.Residents of sprawling
neighborhoods tend to live in single-family homes and commute by car
to work.
Cities have always grown at the edges, even before there were cars.
Cars
have nothing to do with it.
Growth and Sprawl are two different things. Pity you can't tell the
difference.
William
2007-06-12 04:27:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Growth and Sprawl are two different things. Pity you can't tell the
difference.
You are rediculis. I have not said the word "Growth" Throughout this
entire thread.
George Conklin
2007-06-12 12:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by Baxter
Growth and Sprawl are two different things. Pity you can't tell the
difference.
You are rediculis. I have not said the word "Growth" Throughout this
entire thread.
Farmers were sprawled. City dwellers are concentrated.
William
2007-06-12 12:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by William
Post by Baxter
Growth and Sprawl are two different things. Pity you can't tell the
difference.
You are rediculis. I have not said the word "Growth" Throughout this
entire thread.
Farmers were sprawled. City dwellers are concentrated.
George your all over the place. What the heck are you trying to say
here?
Pat
2007-06-12 15:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Post by William
Post by Baxter
Growth and Sprawl are two different things. Pity you can't tell the
difference.
You are rediculis. I have not said the word "Growth" Throughout this
entire thread.
Farmers were sprawled. City dwellers are concentrated.
George your all over the place. What the heck are you trying to say
here?
Maybe he forgot his meds today. I know he forgot to get me the
example I am waiting for.
George Conklin
2007-06-12 18:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Post by William
Post by Baxter
Growth and Sprawl are two different things. Pity you can't tell the
difference.
You are rediculis. I have not said the word "Growth" Throughout this
entire thread.
Farmers were sprawled. City dwellers are concentrated.
George your all over the place. What the heck are you trying to say
here?
What I am saying is a demographic fact. Urbanization has concentrated our
population in a very few areas. Farmers were spread out all over the
landscape. Cities have always sprawled, if you follow the conclusions of
"Sprawl, A Compact History." To say that is something new is a historic
error. It is NOT dependent on automobiles alone. What started the strong
growth of cities was industrialization and for the USA it was the trolley
car system, moving the effective radius of Chicago from 3.2 miles (1-hour
walking) to 12, which was 1 hour on a trolley car. Automobiles only filled
in interstitial areas later. With an industrial society, the percentage of
population in rural areas drops dramatically while the proportion in the
cities rises sharply. But overall population concentrates with economic
development, which is the opposite of sprawl.
Pat
2007-06-12 19:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by William
Post by George Conklin
Post by William
Post by Baxter
Growth and Sprawl are two different things. Pity you can't tell the
difference.
You are rediculis. I have not said the word "Growth" Throughout this
entire thread.
Farmers were sprawled. City dwellers are concentrated.
George your all over the place. What the heck are you trying to say
here?
What I am saying is a demographic fact. Urbanization has concentrated our
population in a very few areas. Farmers were spread out all over the
landscape. Cities have always sprawled, if you follow the conclusions of
"Sprawl, A Compact History." To say that is something new is a historic
error. It is NOT dependent on automobiles alone. What started the strong
growth of cities was industrialization and for the USA it was the trolley
car system, moving the effective radius of Chicago from 3.2 miles (1-hour
walking) to 12, which was 1 hour on a trolley car. Automobiles only filled
in interstitial areas later. With an industrial society, the percentage of
population in rural areas drops dramatically while the proportion in the
cities rises sharply. But overall population concentrates with economic
development, which is the opposite of sprawl.
Now you've got me confused. In the beginning of the post you said
"cities have always sprawled" but at the end of the post you're saying
"overall population concentrates with economic development, which is
the opposite of sprawl". In your mind is this some type of semantic
arguement or what?

Sprawl or not to sprawl, that is the question ....

BTW, I'm still waiting for my example.

Loading...