Re: sprawl: What is it?


<hancock4@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1143224333.454766.100880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Larry Gross wrote:
some folks say that sprawl is auto-dependent development to
areas that have substandard (or none) infrastructure and services that
end up requiring the use of the auto to not only go to work but
to shop,...go to the theatre, school, etc, essentially almost
anything..

whereas .. "compact" development allows one to not use an
auto for many of these activities.

Actually, a heck of lot of suburban areas today, even older ones, fit
your first definition, where an automobile is required to do just about
anything. There is nothing within walking distance, even other kids
for your kids to play with.

It is rare to have places that meet your first definition, today, most
places just don't have _everything_ within walking distance.


What I'd like to see is developments with higher density so that
walkable features, such as a bus or stores, are justified. I support
things like transit development where stores and things like day care
are associated next to a train station. (There is a daycare next door
to my local train station and it does very well.)

Unfortunately, for some reason, sprawl enthusisists are vehmently
against any of these proposals. It's not even NIMBYs, but just people
who for some reason go nuts when anything suggesting higher density is
proposed. No one is forcing them to live in it yet they react as if
that was the case. I don't understand, maybe someone could explain it
to me.

Fear... apartment buildings = renters = lower income = higher crime =
minorities... in some people's minds. Please understand I'm not saying
that ALL people who are opposed to a big apt building in their neighborhood
are bigots or xenophobes, because there are lots of GOOD reasons to be
opposed to such development in certain areas.

I can't help but suspect some of this is lead by developers who make
more money off of building on new empty land.

Further, it seems many people are dead set against any kind of
walkability at all. They don't want sidewalks or bike trails or easy
pedestrian access. There's an elemtary school near me and they
proposed a paved path along the highway leading to the school. It did
NOT face any homes. Yet, people went ballistic opposing it, though it
was still built, and very widely used (not just by kids, but by bikers
and joggers.)

More fear... fear of passers-by = reduced privacy = kids = noise = gangs of
youth = intimidation = crime... again in some cases I can see the point but
most of it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Well-designed paths
can be a huge boon to a community.

I was just in The Woodlands, TX, north of Houston, I think that whole town
is a planned community. Sure is nice looking... walking paths everywhere
in that town (mixed use actually, bikes allowed). The building code out
there apparently puts a high premium on asthetics of development -- shopping
was all well off the road and pretty well concealed by trees... must be
where the town got its name, the whole time it's like you're driving thru
the woods but are surrounded by homes and businesses...

brink


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: sprawl: What is it?
    ... end up requiring the use of the auto to not only go to work but ... auto for many of these activities. ... There is nothing within walking distance, even other kids ... against any of these proposals. ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • Re: still births
    ... requiring a stillbirth certificate. ... question related to what obligations the law did or did not place on the ... I did respond to your intimation that "any total stranger would be pressed extremely hard to give a very clear and a very good reason before they were issued with a certificate relating to such a personal matter" ... There is no requirement at all to press anyone hard let alone extremely hard to give a very good reason. ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)
  • Re: MPH in the UK
    ... Freely bestowed or obtained; granted without claim or merit; provided without payment or return; costing nothing to the recipient; free. ... Performing the action implied without reason or justification. ... Requiring no proof; axiomatic. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: MPH in the UK
    ... without payment or return; costing nothing to the recipient; free. ... Done, made, adopted, or assumed without any good ground or reason; ... Requiring no proof; axiomatic. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Oyster Renewal
    ... I use auto top up and have done so for a couple of years without many ... The reason I do so is convenience. ... I have not seen anybody mention collecting refunds, ... Watford Junction but not PAYG top-ups;) A fair proportion of the ...
    (uk.transport.london)