Objective: I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Why would I do that? The city is more crowded than the suburb. What this has to do with beauty I don’t know.
Yes and it will also be more expensive for less space, no yard and horrid parking. Oh yeah, and not every city has places to buy. Again, New York City is the exception.
We have a moat around our city and it doesn’t seem to stop y’all from getting in. 
I have never heard of a city in my life where you cannot buy property. You can own in Miami, San Fran, Detroit, Chicago, DC. Where are these mythical cities where you cannot own property?
Two things: density is not necessarily a good quantity to try and maximize, from any perspective. You can have city/area A that’s numerically denser than city/area B, which may well be simply because B has more parkland. A better measure to look at would be the weighted density, which gives a better counting of the nearness of neighbors by finding the density per precinct tract (or other secondary division) and weighting by population. For better or for worse, that’s the relevant quantity.
Really, it’s a quantity that we use because it’s a proxy for a much more difficult one to measure, which is walkability. At its best walkability leads to thriving, safe commercial areas that encourage diversity in culture, ethnicity, and communities well-within a couple minutes walk to home.
(As a side note, one thing I’d really like to see is more small- and mid-sized towns. Not Wasilla-style strip malls, but legitimate towns of a couple thousand to a couple tens of thousands of people with a defined central core, mixed-use development, and a high degree of walkability. Sadly, though, I get the impression that most people with those values are flocking to the big cities. That’s how people’s preferences shake out.)
In the end, when we ask which is better–suburbs or city or rural areas–it’s a very hard question to answer. Primarily because it’s an ill-posed one. People have different sets of preferences, and there’s not anything wrong with that. Even though I personally place a high value on being able to get to a grocery store or farmer’s market on foot, walk to church with family, and have the opportunity to have pleasant run-ins with neighbors, it’s perfectly acceptable if someone dislikes proximity to others and prefers to drive. That’s what the free market allows for: given properly formulated and enforced property rights, labor and capital are allocated in the way that best meets peoples desires and preferences.
That doesn’t leave suburbs off the hook, of course. There are significant externalities in resources disproportionately used by the suburbs. Petrochemicals in the form of gasoline and coal-derived energy are the big standouts, here, though others exist as well. Most urban externalities, such as noise, are limited to the immediate area and don’t preferentially subsidize cities versus non-cities.
The solution isn’t to ban suburbs, which no one is arguing for; it’s to incorporate those external costs into the goods in question. Then the free market will do its magic, and the subsidy to suburban living will be removed. Then 49% of people will live in the suburbs instead of 51%.
You’ve no place to question my assessment of my personal finances and any information I volunteer is purely a favour. It is cheaper for me to live in the suburbs than in the city; I would save no money by living in the city, and would get less of what I want for the money I spent. If you want a fully audited report of my personal finances, too bad.
You seem to be assuming that all big cities are like New York and that everyone in the world WORKS in a big city, whether or not they live there. Neither is true. In fact, there is no place in the world I could live that I would not need a car for the job I do.
You wanted reasons people would prefer to live in suburbs. You’ve been given the reasons. You claimed that “people cannot come up with real benefits of living in the suburbs,” but you have been given examples of real benefits. You need to come to grips with the fact that not everyone wants to live in New York City, and they have real, tangible reasons for it.
Wow. You may want to look into what cantaliver means (that was your suggestion).
Please show what is incorrect. You seem to think that cities can exist with no support from outside communities.
How was your dinner by the way?
As per wikipedia. A cantilever is a beam supported on only one end.
I am imagining solar panels arranged like this: |//////////| on city roofs.
No. I think we are dependent upon RURAL farmers. What I think is silly is the notion that you receive no benefits from the city.
Haven’t had dinner yet.
You didn’t answer my question. Pure and simple.
No, I never said anything remotely resembling this. This thread is about sprawl, not about the bug you have up your ass against us big city elitists. You notice how people who live in the suburbs are far more offended that we don’t like your lifestyle choice than we are about your dismissal of our lifestyle choices?
Actually no. I wanted reasons as to why the suburbs are SUPERIOR to the city. Not why you like them better. This thread is about SPRAWL and its effects.
I am sorry I was so unclear. I was talking mainly about environmental impact, not personal lifestyle choices. The reasons people live in the suburbs are mundane and don’t really need to be elucidated, they are obvious.
Come to grips eh? :rolleyes: I understand why you made your choices, but that has little to do with the subject of the thread, which is sprawl. I am sorry if I mislead you to believe that I wanted to talk about why you like the suburbs.
You asked for personal information regarding my finances. The relevant point is that it’s cheaper for me to live in the suburbs than in Toronto to get what my family wants. That’s enough of an answer for you and it’s rude to ask for more.
Cars cost the same no matter where you live (unless you have to pay for parking, not a problem with my suburban home) and my house costs far less than an equivalent house - or even an inferior house, going pretty far down the house continuum - would in Toronto. Why this is hard for you to believe I don’t really get, but you’ll just have to believe it or live in denial.
Who’s dismissed your choices? Not I. I think it’s great if people want to live in a big city. Have at it. If I was single and rich I’d totally live in Manhattan. One’s personal choices are their own.
What you said was:
The benefits have been provided, in detail.
Well, then, start presenting your arguments and evidence on that topic. Don’t say things like population is shifting from suburbs to cities, or that there are no real benefits to living in suburbs, and start talking about the environmental issues. If you’re going to veer off into other topics, especially with claims so easily disproven, don’t complain about “Gotcha” tactics and the topic changing.
Well based on your answer which included car as an expense when you lived in Toronto but not when you lived in the suburb, makes it sound more expensive. So some clarification. I am not asking for a line item on your checking account but details like whether or not you own two cars now instead of one in Toronto, or things like that, would be helpful. If I moved to the suburbs, I would have to get two cars, one for myself and one for my wife, so I have to count that against the savings of moving out of the city.
Hard for me to believe has nothing to do with it. You didn’t answer the question properly and when I asked for clarification started acting like I was treating you like a child. A strange reaction to say the least. In New York City, both gas and insurance are far more expensive than they would be outside of New York, so there is an example of how the city makes owning a car more expensive, forgetting about parking and all the rest.
I don’t have a problem with people living in the suburbs, I have a problem with the layout of modern suburbs. That’s why the issue is sprawl and not specifically living in the suburbs. I am only commenting on the level of vitriole that has sprung forth because some of us find suburban sprawl distasteful. I really don’t care if someone doesn’t like the city.
Yes, it was unfortunate. I was meaning to say that everyone is listing benefits of living in rural areas talking about how we are dependent upon farmers. Farmers don’t live in the suburbs. That’s what I was talking about.
Individual benefits yes, but that doesn’t address the issue of sprawl.
Well the point is that cities HAVE been growing recently. Maybe not at the expense of the suburbs, but it is also the case that a lot of suburban sprawl lies fallow due to overdevelopment and subprime. Much has been written about the urban renaissance in recent years. But, I didn’t just start talking about environmental issues, I brought those up on page one as did many others.
If somebody DOESNT like crowded, it dont take no genius to figure out for them a suburb is a better choice than a a city. Though, apparently some dopers do have problems with this advanced concept.
We understand that, but you were using terms like, “objective”, and “by definition”.
That is not a cantilever, and it makes no difference as there is simply not enough roof space in the city to make it worth while.
Who has said that they receive no benefits from the city? I myself get none unless you count that businesses I frequent are in the ‘city’. I pay extra taxes so I can shop there and those taxes do not support ANY infrastructure where I live.
Define ‘worth while’.
You said that we need people from out of the city but they don’t need us. Why did you make that comment if you are not retracting it?
I’ll just grunt and point then next time.
I think all this talk about “inefficiency” is bogus.
It would be one thing if folks were thinking something was “good” for the environment when it was actually bad. Like, say IF ethanol made from corn actually took more than a gallon of gas to produce a gallon of corn squeezings.
What you guys REALLY dont like is that someone else is spending their money in a way that (may) consume more “resources” than you think is “neccessary”.
But anyone can say that about just about anyone else about some aspect of their “lifestyle” choice.
Just because you are raping the earth at a slightly slower rate (maybe) really doesnt give you any moral high ground in my opinion.
Cost/benefit comes to mind.
Huh? Good luck behind your moat.
Oh, are you referring to the fact that I purchase things in the city? Things that are not created in the city but shipped there from outside. And that I pay city tax and get no benefit from it?
Like I’ve said, I don’t begrudge city dwellers for the extra tax I pay even though I see no benefit from it. But IMHO, city dwellers need to take notice that while they may be a center for shopping, they are not the center of the universe.
That’s basically what you did this time.
What does ethanol have to do with the topic?
.
I’m glad you were able to find a hidden message that was exactly what we were saying explicitly.
Yes, they can, this thread isn’t about big screen TVs or SUVs it’s about suburban sprawl.
Well as long as you gave it the minimum amount of thought to feel righteous in your decision. I assume that your interest in this thread is concluded since you’ve dropped this bomb then?
How exactly do solar panels provide more benefit based on whether or not the environment is urban?
Thanks!
No, I am referring to our current political/economic organization system where we exist in a mutually interdependent commodity where labor is specialized and divided accordingly.
I am talking about the things you buy in the city being designed and their supply chains administered by people in the city.
That’s true. New York City isn’t the center of the universe, just the pinnacle of human achievement.