When will sprawl stop? When will will the edge just be too far?

[miketoronto]

Well over the last month two of my cousins have announced they are leaving the City of Toronto city limits for the farthest out suburbs of Toronto.

Right now these two cousins are raising their families in the extreme eastern suburban area of Scarborough which is part of Toronto. So they already live on the edge so to speak in a very suburban area. But thats not good enough. They want bigger houses, but don't want to spend the $600,000 for larger homes in the area they live in. They won't move to a different area of Scarborough which has amazing and nice homes at lower prices, because they don't want to have neighbours that might be non-white. So they are packing up and leaving for the farthest out burbs they can get to.

But this very move has made me wonder when will the moving out stop?
One cousin is moving to Aurora, and the other to Stouffville. Right now there is nothing but farms north and east of Stouffville.

But whos to say that in 10 years black people, Indians, or other cultures might not move to Stouffville for example? Or whos to say that in 10 years maybe Stouffville won't be considered the classy place to live?

Then what. Are they going to move even further out? When is it just going to stop this whole moving farther and farther out over stupid things like race and house size?

And to add even more to this, another one of my cousins is looking for a house now, since he is married and has a kid.
A really and I mean really nice large house on a ravine is going up for sale in my subdivision. The lady who was like 90 died and was the owner of the home for like 40 years. She kept it up to date and its an amazing home. It is the kind of home you will not be able to buy today with the shoddy construction.
So my dad tells my cousin that he might want to look at the house, because its a really nice house, and its only a 5min bus or car ride from my cousins wifes work, and its only a 15-20min drive from my cousins work at the nuclear plant.
And what is the comment said to my dad. "oh we don't want to live in Scarborough".
We also know why they don't want to live in Scarborough. Because Scarborough has black people, asian people, and every other culture you can think of. And they only want to be surrounded by white people. Ontop of that Scarborough's homes are not brand new. Does not matter they are better built. But they are not new and so called classy like Woodbridge.


So instead they are looking at homes in Woodbridge that is considered the classy suburb for Italians to live in. Moving to Woodbride is going to put them both at about 45min drives in good weather and traffic conditions from work, and they are going to get a cheap and poorly built new home out there. But thats o.k. because its "classy".

My dad thinks they are idoits, because even taking kids into account our location is far better. Our location atleast has a university campus a 5min bus ride away, a community college a 10min walk away, subway 5min away, etc. Woodbridge has none of that.

Anyway just wondering when this sprawl will stop. :)

Sorry for the rant, but it really makes me wonder how idiotic some people are now a days. There are perfectly good suburbs already here, yet they will want farther out to have this so called classy white life :shrug:

Just for reference.

This is the house going up for sale on my street.
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/miketorontoscar/pegw7.jpg

And this is the kind of house you will get in Woodbridge.
http://pictures.mls.ca/mls/reb82/highres/8/n9541181.jpg

[Buckeye Native 001]

I forget: Was miketoronto part of the original "Axis of Drama" or was he nominated later on?

Anyway, the endless sprawl will stop when the last nuke wipes us all off the face of the earth.

[bryson662001]

What if everyone thought exactly the way you do and only wanted to live in Scarborough? Then where would you be? People are different one from another and make different choices.....often based on life experience.....and it will always be that way, fortunatly.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Q: When will sprawl stop?
A: When population growth stops.

[miketoronto]

I know this sounded a little like drama. Sorry for that.

About everyone thinking the same way. This is not about everyone thinking the same or everyone living in Scarborough.

My point is that you already live in a nice area, you live in an area that has everything close at hand. And now your just going to move because some black people move in, or the area is going from 97% white to 95% white. Its stupid. And ontop of that your moving just so you can say you live in "Stouffville" or "Aurora" and act all classy. Its stupid.

And then we have to listen to them complain latter about the traffic and how far it is to drive places.

We already listen to them complain about that now, and they are in Scar.

I just can't stand the whole attitude of moving out and acting like their are no choices in the suburb you already live in and have to move out.

Its one thing to say you want to move out. Don't friggen have a conversation with me at a party and go on how your basically being pushed out of Scarborough because you can't afford the 5 bedroom house thats going for $600,000 in your neighbourhood. Yet there are amazing nice homes like the one in the pic above that are are just as large, that you can get cheaper just 10min away. Ohh but you won't move there because some of the neighbours might be indian or asian.
So you go on this "ohh well we can't afford Toronto or Scarborough anymore".

Basically I am getting tired of that attitude and wish they would just cut the crap and admit why they are really moving. Because we find out after what they really are thinking. And I am just tired of that attitude.

[James Bond Agent 007]

^
This brings back the boogeyman that arose in the segregation thread in CE a few weeks ago, but . . .

If at least *some* of the white people didn't move out of Scarborogh, the newcomer Asians and blacks who are moving into Scarborough now would have to move *somewhere else.* It would probably be *them* who are moving to Woodbridge instead of the white people. Either way you'd get new sprawl. It's simply a function of an increasing population.

[miketoronto]

Thats true James Bond. But some of this sprawl could be stopped if people stopped moving out so much.

I think the thing that bothers me is when I was growing up Stouffville was this cute little victorian town. It was the place to go to the famous flea market, and it was surrounded by farms and wilderness, etc.

And now they just celebrated the opening of a Wal-Mart supercentre, and the last time I went through there its just turning into this sprawl burb. And I don't like the change. It is totally ruining this one nice town that offered a little get away that was close to the city.
And people like my cousin are adding to this devestation, and they don't give one thought about it.

I guess I also don't like the looking down on older areas, and how they look down on Scar just because its not spanking brand new, and it has non-whites living in it.
It really bugs me, because I would for sure stay in Scar before ever moving out to Stouffville :)

I guess I was expecting better from these cousins considering they grew up in my very subdivision and know Scarborough. But they to are fleeing the old for the new cheap exurbs.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Thats true James Bond. But some of this sprawl could be stopped if people stopped moving out so much.
Where would all the additional people move to? If the population increases by 50%, you need 50% more housing units. Unless we start building large amounts of new houses in the backyards of existing houses (unlikely), most of the new housing will have to go . . . outside the neighborhood. Probably in some far-flung area where there's lots of undeveloped land.

I think the thing that bothers me is when I was growing up Stouffville was this cute little victorian town. It was the place to go to the famous flea market, and it was surrounded by farms and wilderness, etc.

And now they just celebrated the opening of a Wal-Mart supercentre, and the last time I went through there its just turning into this sprawl burb. And I don't like the change. It is totally ruining this one nice town that offered a little get away that was close to the city.
And people like my cousin are adding to this devestation, and they don't give one thought about it.

I guess I also don't like the looking down on older areas, and how they look down on Scar just because its not spanking brand new, and it has non-whites living in it.
It really bugs me, because I would for sure stay in Scar before ever moving out to Stouffville :)

I guess I was expecting better from these cousins considering they grew up in my very subdivision and know Scarborough. But they to are fleeing the old for the new cheap exurbs.
I agree that cute little Victorian towns are cute, but as long as you have an increasing population, the new development will tend to follow modern development patterns rather than ones from the 1910's. Sad, but true.

If it was the newcomer black and Asian people who were tending to move to the new suburbs instead, you would be disappointed in *them* for moving to the "new cheap exurbs."

Can't win either way. *Somebody's* gonna end up moving into those things.

[wong21fr]

I know this sounded a little like drama. Sorry for that.

About everyone thinking the same way. This is not about everyone thinking the same or everyone living in Scarborough.

My point is that you already live in a nice area, you live in an area that has everything close at hand. And now your just going to move because some black people move in, or the area is going from 97% white to 95% white. Its stupid. And ontop of that your moving just so you can say you live in "Stouffville" or "Aurora" and act all classy. Its stupid.

And then we have to listen to them complain latter about the traffic and how far it is to drive places.

We already listen to them complain about that now, and they are in Scar.

I just can't stand the whole attitude of moving out and acting like their are no choices in the suburb you already live in and have to move out.

Its one thing to say you want to move out. Don't friggen have a conversation with me at a party and go on how your basically being pushed out of Scarborough because you can't afford the 5 bedroom house thats going for $600,000 in your neighbourhood. Yet there are amazing nice homes like the one in the pic above that are are just as large, that you can get cheaper just 10min away. Ohh but you won't move there because some of the neighbours might be indian or asian.
So you go on this "ohh well we can't afford Toronto or Scarborough anymore".

Basically I am getting tired of that attitude and wish they would just cut the crap and admit why they are really moving. Because we find out after what they really are thinking. And I am just tired of that attitude.

Call it what it is, racism. Pure, blind, bigotry. Call your family on it and shove it in their faces.

[scribeman]

Why do people constantly keep trying to play the race card in discussions of moving to nicer neighborhoods? It's pure nonsense.

[James Bond Agent 007]

If at least *some* of the white people didn't move out of Scarborogh, the newcomer Asians and blacks who are moving into Scarborough now would have to move *somewhere else.* It would probably be *them* who are moving to Woodbridge instead of the white people. Either way you'd get new sprawl. It's simply a function of an increasing population.
OK I made this chart to show what I mean, in case it isn't obvious to anyone.

Pretend that gray = Scarborough and orange = Woodbridge.

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/3218/segregationjz3.jpg

[Reverberation]

Thanks,
Plus not everyone wants to move into high rise complexes. I think the sprawl will be changed to be more eco-friendly, but its never going to stop. In 30 years people will be talking about how people are leaving the older neighborhoods that are a mere 20 miles from the city center and are moving 60 miles out. The automobile will change before our growth patterns do.

[SD_Phil]

So we all know that there's a difference between sprawl and responsible development. If the question is "when will sprawl stop" then the answer is going to be either when the government stops subsidizing the lifestyle such that urban living becomes economically at least as viable an alternative as living in the suburbs and/or people undergo a shift in values such that things like diversity, cultural attractions, environmental responsibility, and sustainability become more valued than things like large private properties, quality schools, and safety. Granted these last two are illusions, the burbs are just as likely to have poor schools and violence but it is a distinct (mis)perception that people have. There, there's your answer.

Bond, would you agree or do you think sprawl is inevitable whenever population increases? I'm not quite sure after your graph what exactly it is that you think on this.

[miketoronto]

Well it is worrying. When is this issue with having a house thats over 10 years old going to stop?????

Now people are not leaving cities. They are leaving established suburbs.

So in ten years when their new suburb is extablished, are they going to move further out? Maybe an hour and a half out of the city instead.

I just don't get the obsession with always moving.

My parents choose Scarborough and have been in the same house now for over 35 years, as have most of my neighbours.
My parents could have went out and bought a bigger monster home, and they thought about it real quick once. But they decided location was more important then a bigger home, and they like our neighbourhood. Same goes with my neighbours. One of my neighbours needed more room, so they built a great looking extension to their home.

Today people just continue to move out and cause more traffic, etc. I just don't understand why people continue to move out and out and out.
Sooner or latter its got to stop.

[waterloowarrior]

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/Library/1/3925705_detail_map.gif

[arbeiter]

you have more cousins than Utah!

[HomeInMyShoes]

I have friends who have homes in somewhat established neighbourhoods in the 1600sq ft range, but think they need a 2500sq ft house to raise two kids in. It's ludicrous. I lived with my parents and brother in a 1350sq ft house. It wasn't crowded. People just have a seriously phucked sense of needs these days. And I don't care about the arguments that the houses are close together and not sprawly. More materials are used in a larger house, it's more expensive to heat and uses more resources (true, it might be more energy efficient than the older home, but if it takes 1 unit to heat a sq ft in the old home and .75 in the new home, but the home is twice the size then where's the efficiency gone?

[CGII]

Suburbs will stop when gas prices run high and there are few popular alternatives (ie hydrogen).

[brian_b]

You can't stop it, you can only hope to contain it.

[Crawford]

Why do people constantly keep trying to play the race card in discussions of moving to nicer neighborhoods? It's pure nonsense.

You're from Detroit, right? Why are there no white people buying homes in Southfield? It's a fairly respectable area (decent incomes, ok schools, moderate crime, above-average housing stock) but only black people buy into Southfield. There are no whites or Asians who are buying homes anywhere within city limits.

Farmington Hills is even nicer than Southfield, yet whites are leaving, directly in proportion to the black inflow. Why is this?

[crisp444]

Well it is worrying. When is this issue with having a house thats over 10 years old going to stop?????

Now people are not leaving cities. They are leaving established suburbs.

So in ten years when their new suburb is extablished, are they going to move further out? Maybe an hour and a half out of the city instead.

I just don't get the obsession with always moving.

My parents choose Scarborough and have been in the same house now for over 35 years, as have most of my neighbours.
My parents could have went out and bought a bigger monster home, and they thought about it real quick once. But they decided location was more important then a bigger home, and they like our neighbourhood. Same goes with my neighbours. One of my neighbours needed more room, so they built a great looking extension to their home.

Today people just continue to move out and cause more traffic, etc. I just don't understand why people continue to move out and out and out.
Sooner or latter its got to stop.

I don't understand why you're so up in arms about population growth that is destined to occur in the Toronto area. You say people are leaving the inner suburbs, but for every household that leaves, doesn't another household move in to take its place? If the original residents never left, the new residents moving in (given that they wanted a single family home) would have to move to the outer suburbs. True, private developers could start buying up these single family home areas and turning them into rowhomes and apartment towers, but this is unlikely to happen soon for large tracts of most American and Canadian mid-density suburban areas like yours. I realize lots of towers in suburban Toronto are being constructed around subway/train stops, but let's be honest here: that's not going to happen anytime soon in your single family home neighborhoods with woods/ravines and all... For every household that leaves your suburban neighborhood Mike, there is one waiting to take its place. There is no Detroit-style abandonment of your suburb going on whatsoever... people move out, new people move in!

I don't know much about real estate desirability in Toronto and its suburbs, but here in the United States, often the absolute most desirable suburban areas are inner suburbs like Coral Gables, FL; Evanston, IL; Great Neck, NY; Brookline, MA; and Beverly Hills, CA. The houses may be bigger in the outer suburbs, but they often don't cost as much. People with money live where they want to live, and yes, proximity to a city (or amenities and services associated with a city) is often a big factor in making the decision of where to buy a home. Woodbridge may have big houses, but I would imagine that many people with money would look down upon living in a development with few trees and few cultural amenities nearby. New money Italians and Italian-Canadians like it because they can buy a huge brick house with a fountain in the front yard and a three car garage to park all of their cars. Old money (and where old money lives is usually considered the most prestigious addresses) would find Woodbridge tacky and mundane, so I would imagine they would prefer __________ (insert the name of the old money inner suburban Toronto neighborhood here).

You're right that the average family has wanted a larger and larger home over the years, but whether or not living in these monster homes is considered more prestigious - or, "classier" as you say - than old money inner suburbs is debatable and in my experience not true.

[Tony]

Simple Answer: When development reaches the edges of the Urban Area Boundaries of their respective Municipalities and then intensification increases due to Provincial Legislation and Municipal Official Plan policies that are required to conform with said Provincial Legislation.

[Chicago103]

MikeToronto and I have this exact same major pet peeve. I also come from a big extended family with alot of cousins and I experience this same phenomenon all the time from them and just random people I speak to or overhear talking.

Either these people are consciously trying to hide the real reasons they are moving (when it comes to race some dont even try to hide it) or they are just so caught up in a pre-concieved notion oh how people like them must live (white-bred all american family must have the white picket fence suburbia with big house, big yard and big cars to drive everywhere) that there preferences borders on the sub-conscious, its almost as if there brain is in automatic mode, you try to present them with alternatives to stay in the city or inner suburb and they have a dumbfounded look almost as if they are a robot that is about to short circuit and say "that does not compute, error, error".

Many parents have such rediculous notions at how much space it takes to raise a family in nowadays and thats why there is a percieved housing affordability crisis in a place like Chicago. Ok, let me clarify, I understand it when some working class hispanic family from Pilsen fears gentrification making their neighborhood unafordable, even though many hispanics do make do in many neighborhoods, the same applies to anyone else that is dirt poor and being pushed out could mean homelessness, public housing or some other very undesirable outcome. However it annoys the hell out of me when you come accross some white professional couple that is middle class or upwards, often making more than the median household income for the City of Chicago talking about how they "cant afford to live in the city". That is such classic grade A bullshit, that probably means they will only consider living in huge houses that would be very expensive in the city and/or they only look at hyper yuppified neighborhoods like Lincoln Park or Lakeview and overlook large swaths of the city like the southwest side.

Also I can see right through people in another way, to alot of people its about faux wealth and showing off. If they live in the modest house in the city, even if its in a nice neighborhood or building they know that their relatively modest income will be apparent with their smaller house or condo but if they move out to the outer suburbs and have a huge house with all the top of the line finishings and big cars they will appear rich and impress the neighbors, family and friends.

[LordMandeep]

the truth is that i don't think the city of Toronto cares, as the population still grows by 25-30k in the city itself, so they don't mind.

[liat91]

Why do people constantly keep trying to play the race card in discussions of moving to nicer neighborhoods? It's pure nonsense.

Are you kiddin',
Someone who is white, is saying some of his "white" family members are moving away so they can live somewhere more "white". How is that playing the race card?

[hoosier]

Sprawl will continue until the Earth can no longer support such construction. Sprawl consumes vast quantities of energy (gasoline, propane, coal) and destroys critical ecosystems. Already the Earth has too many people consuming and wasting too many material, high-energy, products. The planet's ecosystems are stretched to the limit, but we keep building anyways. Over 40% of the Earth's surface has been altered by human hands (as of 2001, just imagine what that figure is now:hell: ). Unless human kind can discover a new, cheap, and environmentally sound way to power their homes and automobiles, vast changes will be necessary to ensure the planet's and humankind's existence.

[Xelebes]

The longest daily commute in the world is 7 and a half hours. It's a guy who works at Cisco Systems in California.

[justremember]

This thread caught my attention as an education major. What happens, at least in the U.S., as many of you know, is white flight drains money (because, historically, whites have mor $), from the community being left, say, the city limits. They take their money, and, as a result, good schools to the inner suburbs. This is reinforced by black flight: African Americans fleeing the city, leaving their poorer counterparts, most, but not all, minorities, to fend for themselves. Black flight leads to more white flight, and the cycle continues. Given all this, the reason that this thread caught my attention is that I have often asked myself, how far would people be willing to move to avoid the "changing neighborhood"? If we knew this, we could re-draw school district lines to close the education gap between rich and poor (which, let's face it, ends up being a gap between whties and non-whites). The willingness of people to move farther from the city can determine the effectivness of such a plan.

[liat91]

This thread caught my attention as an education major. What happens, at least in the U.S., as many of you know, is white flight drains money (because, historically, whites have mor $), from the community being left, say, the city limits. They take their money, and, as a result, good schools to the inner suburbs. This is reinforced by black flight: African Americans fleeing the city, leaving their poorer counterparts, most, but not all, minorities, to fend for themselves. Black flight leads to more white flight, and the cycle continues. Given all this, the reason that this thread caught my attention is that I have often asked myself, how far would people be willing to move to avoid the "changing neighborhood"? If we knew this, we could re-draw school district lines to close the education gap between rich and poor (which, let's face it, ends up being a gap between whties and non-whites). The willingness of people to move farther from the city can determine the effectivness of such a plan.

I don't think it's so simple anymore. Look at Los Angeles, the more distance from central LA, the more non-white it gets, as minorities look for cheaper locals for that american dream. Examples; Palmdale, Lancaster, Fontana, Moreno valley, Riverside etc., In the New York CSA minorities are flocking to far flung Monroe county in PA. In Chicago, Plainfield and Bollingbrook are minority magnets. It comes down to green. Those who can afford inner suburbs pretty much form the new white "bubbles" you may be thinking about. Take Chicago for example, in comparison there are more predominately white sububrs in the ring. The whitest being Kenilworth, in the outer ring the do have Kouts, IN which is 99% white, but look where it is. The country is full, the only way for whites to stay in their bubble would be to move to some "Mayberry midwest small city, or be wealthy enough to stay in the Metro metros which have pockets of white/wealth. I really don't know what will happen to the white middle class, who will have no where else to go once their last settlements have gone multicultural. If you have already picked up the theme of this thread, it's the white upper class who can keep their sterile llifestyles, while raking in the doe from all those new Immigrant consumers (despite their race). My friends, immigration serves the rich and the rich only, ferget, we are helping those less fortunate. The Rich folks will keep them down any way to perpetuate this viscous cycle. Elitists' aren't all bad, but they do share the same preconviction, "the classes want nothing to do with the masses.:(

[miketoronto]

Well I have a friend who I have not talked to in a couple months since we both have been busy with new jobs, and stuff.

Anyway her and her husband are big downtown supporters and love living in midtown Toronto.

However they just bought a house, and she informed me its in Markham all the way out at 9th line, which is basically the last street before farm land. Granted she will only be 15min up the road from my house :)

But she said downtown was just to expensive for a house, and they wanted more then just a condo. So they got a nice little house in Markham, near downtown Markham. Only 45min to downtown by express bus.

But still it does make me wonder. She said they plan to go into the city all the time. But I have a feeling once they get set in they will just turn into the suburban style residents that already live out there. Kinda sad, considering right now they live in the best spot ever, in one of Toronto's richest areas. But they rent, and want to own now, and can't afford those homes in the inner city there.

[plinko]

^How come everybody just doesn't wanna be like Mike?

People make their own choices about where they live based on a whole host of issues. And the vast majority of people don't base their housing decision on how close it is to a trendy downtown area.

[fflint]

What, sprawl like the titles of all of Mike's threads? Wayyyyyyyy out to the edge......

[arbeiter]

How many downtown advocates/Markham/Scarborough/cousin/sister/fag hags do you know?

[miketoronto]

^How come everybody just doesn't wanna be like Mike?

People make their own choices about where they live based on a whole host of issues. And the vast majority of people don't base their housing decision on how close it is to a trendy downtown area.


Plinko, it has more to do then being close to a trendy downtown area.

Places like Ninth Line are not the best places to move to. They are far removed from everything.

This is a couple who is use to walking out their apartment and having bakeries, food stores, subway, etc all within a block of home.

Out at Ninth Line, you are lucky if the food store is a 5min DRIVE away. There is nothing out there, and its not the best planned area for the suburbs, thats for sure.

Its actually very depressing out there. Anyway I hope they like it.
But it is sad that our cities can't seem to keep normal middle class families, and that people feel they have to move out to these development on the edge of civilization.

[LSyd]

I forget: Was miketoronto part of the original "Axis of Drama" or was he nominated later on?

Anyway, the endless sprawl will stop when the last nuke wipes us all off the face of the earth.

he was an OG, along with Jazzman and NYCTowers. (or was it Mike, Jazzy and VHF? Mike was an OG, that much i'm sure of.)


so, the answer to the question is: NEVER!!! sprawl, of all forms (be it intelligent and manageable like streetcar suburbs, satellite cities or the crap of the past 50 years in North America) has always happened during humanity whenever there's civilized growth.

sprawl happens in the animal kingdom too; bigass ant colonies, bee hives, massive clumps of seaweed, coral reefs, etc...

as long as life's living and growing in an area with right conditions, there'll be sprawl. don't cry over spilled milk.

-

[LSyd]

The longest daily commute in the world is 7 and a half hours. It's a guy who works at Cisco Systems in California.

one way, or round trip? what about trucker's daily commutes, or do they not count?

-

[crisp444]

sprawl happens in the animal kingdom too; bigass ant colonies, bee hives, massive clumps of seaweed, coral reefs, etc...

as long as life's living and growing in an area with right conditions, there'll be sprawl. don't cry over spilled milk.


I nominate this for quote of the week! The observation that sprawl happens in nature is one of the most interesting comments I've ever read on SSP.

[AZheat]

I have to agree with Bond 007 on this one. We're approaching 300 million people in this country and they simply have to have a place to live. People are looking for a place that's affordable and also has jobs. Most of the very small towns across the country have few job opportunities and kids out of high school usually move to a bigger city. Then when you add all of the immigrants who tend to move to major cities like Los Angeles you've got a whole lot of people looking for jobs and homes. Some will find a place in the center of the city but many more will move to the more affordable suburbs and add to the sprawl. As the largest and most spread out cities become less desireable then new hot spots like Salt Lake City or even Boise will grow and develop their own sprawl. It's very simple, a growing population means growing cities.

[LSyd]

I nominate this for quote of the week! The observation that sprawl happens in nature is one of the most interesting comments I've ever read on SSP.

thanks. :tup: humans are animals, after all.

-

[Topher1]

^^ Conversion of new land for increased housing is not the problem. In most areas that is necessary. The type of development obviously is what qualifies it as sprawl. The choices shouldn't have to be between a dense inner city or auto-only burbs. The problem is simply that these laudable old streetcar suburbs just aren't being built anymore.

One of the most sickening stats I ever saw posted on this site concerned rate of population growth vs. rate of land development. I don't remember exact numbers, but I remember being appalled at some of the slow-growth regions, like Buffalo and Pittsburgh that were developing land at a rate FAR greater than their population growth. If anyone can find those stats, they're very revealing (IIRC, something like a 30% increase in developed land for a negligible population increase in Pitt alone). I can't find any legitimate justification for this gross destruction of land, but it clearly demonstrates that sprawl is correlated just as much to social changes as it is to population changes.

[arbeiter]

I have to agree with Bond 007 on this one. We're approaching 300 million people in this country and they simply have to have a place to live. People are looking for a place that's affordable and also has jobs. Most of the very small towns across the country have few job opportunities and kids out of high school usually move to a bigger city. Then when you add all of the immigrants who tend to move to major cities like Los Angeles you've got a whole lot of people looking for jobs and homes. Some will find a place in the center of the city but many more will move to the more affordable suburbs and add to the sprawl. As the largest and most spread out cities become less desireable then new hot spots like Salt Lake City or even Boise will grow and develop their own sprawl. It's very simple, a growing population means growing cities.

You're trying to equate a growing population with irresponsible land use. That's an apologist's line of reasoning for Chandler, Arizona. The thing that is not going to change is that America's population is going to continue to increase. The thing we can change is how we build and where we direct new development. Why does the inevitability of population growth mean it HAS to be in the form of irresponsible, low-density sprawl?

[miketoronto]

Well of course a growing pop is going to cause expansion of the urbanized land area.

But it still does not mean people always have to move right out to the fringe.

I just think different I guess, because I value the city more then most people. But I would never live on the fringe unless I really had no choice.

But thats just the way I think. My parents think the same way. They would never under any conditions move further out then we live now. My mom says this is far enough.

I just can't even fathom the idea of living in a place like Ninth Line, where you are on the edge of civilization in a suburban kind of way :)

If I ever could not afford a place in the city or inner suburbs. I would move to an outter suburb much closer to the city then the urban fringe. But then again thats just my view.

In enough people shunned the urban fringe, you can bet developers would do something to build housing closer in ore more around train stations or something.

[Chicago103]

You're trying to equate a growing population with irresponsible land use. That's an apologist's line of reasoning for Chandler, Arizona. The thing that is not going to change is that America's population is going to continue to increase. The thing we can change is how we build and where we direct new development. Why does the inevitability of population growth mean it HAS to be in the form of irresponsible, low-density sprawl?

The average size of an american house has more than doubled in a generation while average household sizes have decreased, thats the problem right there. Most people equate quality of life with quantity of house and that coupled with the ingrained car culture has created the problem we have today. Of course developed land should have increased after 1950 but not to the degree that it has, land usage has increased far more than the population has increased. When I lived in downstate Decatur, IL my mom couldnt believe the city and Macon County was losing population because of all the new housing construction (exurban in nature) going up, I had to explain to her many times that it was because people were abandoning housing closer to the center of town for the fringes. Thats right I have seen relatively massive sprawl in an area DECLINING in population.

[Owlhorn]

I personally could care less where people move to, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me some. Here in DFW its getting ridiculous. I still remember when half of Plano was almost uninhabited and EDS sat almost alone in a field way out in West Plano. That was in the 90s. Now, Plano is old hat, and most are moving to Frisco, which is now becoming old hat. They are headed to the next frontier of Celina and Prosper. I always hear, "Well, there are lots of job centers up there", well that certainly doesn't explain the daily jams on the DNT and Central headed south each day. Obviously most of these people don't work up there. I understand that everyone wants a brand new house and a lawn(I hate grass, and don't get the whole grass thing. Most people just mow it and that's its whole usefulness). But seriously, where are these people going? Royse City is now the new hot place in North Central Texas. I remember as a kid going on trips to East Texas. Royse City was the first country town about 30 minutes outside the Dallas city limits. Now its being swallowed in suburbia. Forney, was a small town just 10 years ago, about 45 minutes east of the Dallas city limits. Now it is swallowed in suburbia. People say they want quiet country living, but there are so many cars and houses, its not quiet. My sister now wants to buy her first house. She lives 5 minutes from her job. Her husband lives 5 minutes from his job the other way. They live in an apt complex surrounded by new subdivisions near DFW airport. Wouldn't they want to live there(incredibly out of the noise paths)? Nope, they want a new home far out in Denton County. 30 minutes from her job, 20 from his. I don't say anything, but I don't get it. There is no school reputation there. Its the ugliest part of the metroplex. I dunno. Something just bothers me about it all. Its big house envy or something. My cousins get a new house, and everyone oohs and ahhhs about their 'big ole' house'. Yet, everyone raves about the smaller 1920s home in emaculate condition that my gf lives in. Perception about living in Dallas? 700 less sqft for the price? Only want brand new? Don't get it. I'm at the point where I love McMansions going in.

As for race, answer me this: Why, in DFW do you have suburbs north of I-635, that are majority white. I mean big majority white. So much so, as small as the Asian population in the US is, percentage wise, you see more Chinese and Indian people than you see black. Yet, south of I-30 in places like Cedar Hill, Duncanville, South Grand Prairie or DeSoto you see people in the same income bracket as you do north of Dallas. Many in the same companies(my office is like this), but huge black majorities in these southern suburbs. I fault both sides for this self segregation as well as for sprawling out so damned far, then complaining at work about traffic. You live in friggin West Plano and work downtown. What do you expect?

Rant over. As you can see, it just bothers me for whatever reason.

[AZheat]

arbeiter,
I just noticed your comments about my earlier post. I wanted to point out that I live in a neighborhood that's pretty densely populated. My yard, such as it is, is very small and has only native plants that do well in the desert. My house is also quite small. While the northern states are sucking up fuel oil and natural gas I don't need any heating at all and in the summer my electric bills are much less than they were when I lived in Colorado. I get the feeling that everybody thinks that living in the desert is always poor land management but that's really not accurate. Of course Phoenix is well known for its sprawl and I agree that it's gotten out of hand but cities like Atlanta have even more sprawl but they don't seem to get as much criticism as we do. Also, I've noticed that new developments in the western states have extremely small yards as compared to the older homes. I know that's a result of land prices but it does have a beneficial effect on sprawl.

[zilfondel]

Plinko, it has more to do then being close to a trendy downtown area.

Places like Ninth Line are not the best places to move to. They are far removed from everything.

This is a couple who is use to walking out their apartment and having bakeries, food stores, subway, etc all within a block of home.

Out at Ninth Line, you are lucky if the food store is a 5min DRIVE away. There is nothing out there, and its not the best planned area for the suburbs, thats for sure.

Its actually very depressing out there. Anyway I hope they like it.
But it is sad that our cities can't seem to keep normal middle class families, and that people feel they have to move out to these development on the edge of civilization.

Hey, that's not bad. I lived in a city where the nearest gas station and grocery store was over a 45 minute drive away! Just miles after miles of residential ranch houses, stuck in traffic moving at 3 mph, night and day.... I hated it. Arizona sucks!

[MonkeyRonin]

While the northern states are sucking up fuel oil and natural gas I don't need any heating at all and in the summer my electric bills are much less than they were when I lived in Colorado. I get the feeling that everybody thinks that living in the desert is always poor land management but that's really not accurate.

Living in the desert IS poor land management. the fact that desert cities like Phoenix couldn't even be settled by large numbers of people until the advent of air conditioning, while other US cities could, is proof enough. the availability of water is another problem as well. well colder cities like those found in the northern states aren't perfect either, due to the cold winters, they are much more practical than setting up shop in the desert.

Of course Phoenix is well known for its sprawl and I agree that it's gotten out of hand but cities like Atlanta have even more sprawl but they don't seem to get as much criticism as we do.

Just a quich check of Google maps and it would appear that Atlanta is the same size as Phoenix, if not a tad smaller. however, Atlanta = 5.2 million, while Phoenix = 3.7 million.

[arbeiter]

arbeiter,
I just noticed your comments about my earlier post. I wanted to point out that I live in a neighborhood that's pretty densely populated. My yard, such as it is, is very small and has only native plants that do well in the desert. My house is also quite small. While the northern states are sucking up fuel oil and natural gas I don't need any heating at all and in the summer my electric bills are much less than they were when I lived in Colorado. I get the feeling that everybody thinks that living in the desert is always poor land management but that's really not accurate. Of course Phoenix is well known for its sprawl and I agree that it's gotten out of hand but cities like Atlanta have even more sprawl but they don't seem to get as much criticism as we do. Also, I've noticed that new developments in the western states have extremely small yards as compared to the older homes. I know that's a result of land prices but it does have a beneficial effect on sprawl.

Atlanta has worse sprawl, I will agree with that. But even so, a slightly smaller yard and a smaller house still doesn't change the fact that it's not the right kind of development for a world with increasingly scarce resources.

[Chrissib]

Q: When will sprawl stop?
A: When population growth stops.

You have to make building barriers. Then the land prices go up and more highrises are built, the population is getting densier, and the distances shrink. More space van be used for nature, parks and so on, but that is impossible in low density suburbs.

[skylife]

There is no "too far." People already commute from West Virginia and even Pennsylvania to DC! And what's 5 miles more from there? Then just 5 miles more from there?

[Xelebes]

one way, or round trip? what about trucker's daily commutes, or do they not count?

-

Roundtrip.

And we are talking about people who work at an office or a factory and essentially stay there to do all their work.

[Dalreg]

One comment.

The US and China are very close in size geographically speaking a few thousand square miles difference. Yet China has 4 times the population of the US.

Does China have 4 times the sprawl/urban areas? Sprawl doesn't have to continue and can't continue at the pace it is going. It would eventually reach the point where it would be uneconomical to travel to and from home and work. At some point people will realize they may have to sacrifice some of the suburban dreams if they want to work in the big cities.

[MolsonExport]

The only way to stop sprawl is through legislation and zoning. There is no other way. Even with population stagnation, there can still be plenty of sprawl (donut effect).

[lawsond]

white flight is a fairly new phenomenon in toronto.
but no one in toronto talks about it...so good for you mike to raise its ugly head.
they just use code like "bigger home" and "better place to raise a faimly".
i expect it is especially acute in scarborough where african-canadians (yes, they exist) are pouring in. (the term scarlem has replaced scarberia).
MY cousins in houston are much more up front on that score.
they moved from southwest (airport rd)...to stafford...and then up to conroe "because black people took over".
they sold their church to "some very nice blacks".
they were all very calm and quite well adjusted with the idea.
canadians are far too polite for such bald faced racism no matter how genteel.
but they do it anyway...and it IS a huge factor in suburban growth...to finish my point.
we just don't discuss it.
and for those who tell mike to "bring it up with his family"...
sure, go ahead and ruin christmas.
that'll rattle the ornaments...

[Jasonhouse]

When will sprawl stop? When will will the edge just be to far?
When the edge is gone.

[MonkeyRonin]

white flight is a fairly new phenomenon in toronto.
but no one in toronto talks about it...so good for you mike to raise its ugly head.
they just use code like "bigger home" and "better place to raise a faimly".
i expect it is especially acute in scarborough where african-canadians (yes, they exist) are pouring in. (the term scarlem has replaced scarberia).

Huh? if thats the case, why are some suburbs less white than the city centre, as well as being the destination for about 2/3 of all immigrants to Toronto?

As for "Scarberia", its getting safer, not worse. it was much more dangerous back in the 90s.

[miketoronto]

Huh? if thats the case, why are some suburbs less white than the city centre, as well as being the destination for about 2/3 of all immigrants to Toronto?

As for "Scarberia", its getting safer, not worse. it was much more dangerous back in the 90s.



Inner City Toronto is going white. But the old suburbs have seen a huge number of white's flee for the outter suburbs or into the inner city.

There's a reason I am the only white guy sometimes on the bus going through my area. Its because a large segment of whites have left.

[BlackRedGold]

Inner City Toronto is going white. But the old suburbs have seen a huge number of white's flee for the outter suburbs or into the inner city.

The least white city in Ontario is Markham. In your mind is that an inner or outer suburb? I'd say outer because they don't tend to do new housing developments in inner suburbs.

[mdiederi]

When will sprawl stop? When will will the edge just be to far?
When the edge is gone.
That's exactly what is happening in Las Vegas. They've already counted the remaining acreage left in the valley, and then there will be no more contiguous sprawl. We're surrounded by mountains and protected federal or native lands. The city will start growing upwards, and they are planning multiple urban villages around the valley. But, there are still about five years of more sprawling to fill all the empty gaps along the edge of the valley. After that it will be 30-60 mile commutes to the next available valleys on the other side of the mountains planned for future communities, like Coyote Springs (http://www.coyotesprings.com/vision_location.html).

[lawsond]

[HTML][/HTMLInner City Toronto is going white. But the old suburbs have seen a huge number of white's flee for the outter suburbs or into the inner city.

There's a reason I am the only white buy sometimes on the bus going through my area. Its because a large segment of whites have left.]

yeah it's kind of a donut/hole thing.
the donut of older and more affordable suburbs keeps spreading outward into the older suburbs on the tide of immigration. the hole left in the middle gentrifies and whitens up.
doesn't mean there are ONLY white people in the outer burbs.
markham is a good example of a suburb with an unwhite ethnic orientation.
but i stand by my white flight assertion.

[miketoronto]

Well not all the outter suburbs are white. But a large majority of them have large white populations compared to the inner suburbs now.

The inner suburbs tend to have very white areas in certain parts. So the whites are either segregating in certain parts of the inner suburbs or fleeing to the inner city or outter suburbs.

My area is mostly Indian and Pakistani now. But go ten min down the road to South Scarborough by the lake, and its white as ever yet.

So some areas the whites have not left. But there is a white flight and you can see it. Hell two more people I know are leaving Scarborough for the outter suburbs, and I know its because the ratio of whites on their street is not high enough for them anymore.

Two each their own. But I do miss the mix we had when I was small, when my school was like the united nations with all different nationalities. You don't see that anymore.

[boden]

There are about ten people in Belleville that commute to Toronto every day.
I would if they build the high speed train.....though that seems to be a dead duck lately.

[oldpainless]

When will sprawl stop? When will will the edge just be to far?
When the market doesn't support it anymore.

[DizzyEdge]

Well not all the outter suburbs are white. But a large majority of them have large white populations compared to the inner suburbs now.

The inner suburbs tend to have very white areas in certain parts. So the whites are either segregating in certain parts of the inner suburbs or fleeing to the inner city or outter suburbs.

My area is mostly Indian and Pakistani now. But go ten min down the road to South Scarborough by the lake, and its white as ever yet.

So some areas the whites have not left. But there is a white flight and you can see it. Hell two more people I know are leaving Scarborough for the outter suburbs, and I know its because the ratio of whites on their street is not high enough for them anymore.

Two each their own. But I do miss the mix we had when I was small, when my school was like the united nations with all different nationalities. You don't see that anymore.

If only people, white, black, indian, etc didn't feel the need to group themselves together by race then none of this would happen, but I think a lot of it is ignorance of the 'other' culture, I mean really, if you live in superniceexpensiveville and you're white and a black family moves next door, do you really think they're crack dealers or something? of course not, they're probably just as freaked out about that kind of thing as you are, people figure because the skin is different that somehow they're like aliens.. but enough of stating the blatantly obvious.

[WesTheAngelino]

One comment.

The US and China are very close in size geographically speaking a few thousand square miles difference. Yet China has 4 times the population of the US.

Does China have 4 times the sprawl/urban areas? Sprawl doesn't have to continue and can't continue at the pace it is going. It would eventually reach the point where it would be uneconomical to travel to and from home and work. At some point people will realize they may have to sacrifice some of the suburban dreams if they want to work in the big cities.

You do realize that China is beginning to sprawl just the like the United States right? The government's current highway construction is unparalled save for one project in history: the Interstate Highway Act.

China has long had a huge, poor, agrarian population. That population is continually being drained due to mechanization and education. Just give 50 years and its metro areas will have plenty of sprawl to rival that of the United States.

[vid]

Metros will just merge, à la New York/Philly/Boston, Washington/Baltimore, Toronto/Hamilton. It won't end until the entire continent is a suburb.

[jcchii]

there are inner ring suburbs where whites simply refuse to move, or the type of whites stay who don't mind - who are more liberal or whatever. Such as oak park, IL.
pretty integrated and right on the edge of the west side of chicago.

so maybe other burbs could eventually mature this way.

I've found that most of the true movers in chicago are transplants who moved here two years ago and want a bigger house. Or they moved to lincoln park 15 minutes after getting out of ohio state. They act like they're so into the city until 15 minutes after they get married, and then they move to naperville

[LMich]

When the market doesn't support it anymore.

That would be the valid answer if our state governments didn't encourage and subsidize sprawl by setting aside more money for new road construction and the like, than they do for maintenance and reuse of our current infrastructure. The fact of the matter is that the market is supporting sprawl, because the government is right behind it propping up this market up as a "successful" and preferred market. The mainstream idea that reuse of our infrastructure is someone a niche market, or some kind of alternative is just criminal.

Sprawl's not going to slow down until the government (both national, state, and local) stops viewing reuse of infrastructure as some alternative niche policy instead of the norm. Until they stop buying into the the "spreading ourselves too thin" school of thought as success and as a preferred public policy, nothing's going to change.

[staff]

You do realize that China is beginning to sprawl just the like the United States right? The government's current highway construction is unparalled save for one project in history: the Interstate Highway Act.

China has long had a huge, poor, agrarian population. That population is continually being drained due to mechanization and education. Just give 50 years and its metro areas will have plenty of sprawl to rival that of the United States.
Wrong.

As long as I've lived in China, as well as travelled around the country, I haven't seen any indications of that China is "beginning to sprawl just like the United States". Sure, there are new areas consisting of single family homes being built at the edges of the cities, just as there are in Europe. That doesn't mean that China is sprawling like the US. Most of the new residential developments (probably well over 90%) are tall condos and appartment blocks.

The highway system China is currently constructing is just to support the increasing car ownership levels in the country. It's still way below the average in US (not even close) and also way below Europe.
When this highway system (including all the highways in the large cities such as Beijing and Shanghai) is finished, neither China or it's cities will have more or as many highways per capita as neither the US or Europe.
Sure, it may seem like a lot, but you have to remember that China has 25%, or so, of the world's total population.

Also remember that huge mass transit developments are under construction in all Chinese cities. Already today public transportation is much better than in the United States, and it's improving every day.
Shanghai will have the largest metro system in the world along with Tokyo in 2015-2020, and Beijing will be a close second in the world.
Add to that the systems in other cities such as Tianjin, Xi'an, Wuhan, Nanjing, Hangzhou, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Kunming (etc.) that will be as big or bigger than systems in larger European cities.

So, no, China is not "beginning to sprawl like the United States". :)

[liat91]

In a nut shell:
-Many inner city areas are getting whiter
-formerly white working class inner suburbs are becoming more diverse
-choice and already well established inner suburbs are holding their white populations (Beverly Hills, Bronxville NY)
-outer suburbs are generally pretty white
-exurbs are either white or very diverse affordable options for those who want a big house etc.

[tunnelbana]

The problem with arguing that the edge will eventually get so far as to make commuting uneconomical is that this assumes everyone works downtown. The sprawl can go indefinately because the jobs creep outwards as the housing does. As cities become more dispersed and multinucleic, the edge can keep stretching.

Look at the classic sprawl example of L.A. Most of the jobs in are not located in downtown L.A., so people who live 20 miles inland are not generally people who work downtown. There are job centers in many of the suburbs that allow although economically reliant on their proximity to L.A. don't require employees to drive all the way into the heart of the city.

There are things that can be done to curb sprawl either directly through zoning, or indirectly through transportation planning. Left alone, however, there is no quantifyable "limit" to how far sprawl can spread.

[miketoronto]

That is true. Hardly anyone works in "the city" anymore.
And that is why we have sprawl.

But work aside, there are other things that need to be centred, and sprawl does become to far.

School for example. I deal with riders everyday at my job trying to get from the fringe, into schools in the heart of the city, or inner suburbs, etc. And its hard.

Sooner or latter things just get to spread out for their own good no matter where the jobs are.

I have customers commuting over two hours one way to school, because they live on the extreme eastern edge of the metro area, and have to commute to the extreme western edge. Things like that were not as common before, when things were centred in cities.

[BuffaloBill]

There is no "too far." People already commute from West Virginia and even Pennsylvania to DC! And what's 5 miles more from there? Then just 5 miles more from there?

I can attest to seeing the West Virginia growth in Jefferson Co. WV this past weekend. I was amazed and it looked quite odd. There's pop-up developments from south of Sheperdstown to near Harpers Ferry. Probably the weirdest example of sprawl I have ever seen. Is there a rail service there? Otherwise it is a 70 mile drive each way to either Baltimore or DC.

Then I saw that neighboring Berkeley Co. WV had 46,000 residents in 1990 and they are now flirting with 100,000.

I saw subdivisions with nothing else around. No stores, no schools, it was weird. All desolate fields and then these pop-up developments, many of them.

[DaveofCali]

Either these people are consciously trying to hide the real reasons they are moving (when it comes to race some dont even try to hide it) or they are just so caught up in a pre-concieved notion oh how people like them must live (white-bred all american family must have the white picket fence suburbia with big house, big yard and big cars to drive everywhere) that there preferences borders on the sub-conscious, its almost as if there brain is in automatic mode, you try to present them with alternatives to stay in the city or inner suburb and they have a dumbfounded look almost as if they are a robot that is about to short circuit and say "that does not compute, error, error".

Exactly. Americans have been "brainwashed" into thinking that the goal in life is to live in the suburbs in a big house and with cars and a family. Part of it is that "American Dream" thing, other things I think are the mental association of house and cars with wealth status symbols (and who doesn't want to show up?) And another is that the second generation of Americans have grown up in suburbs, and are thus more comfortable and familiar with suburban life than urban life. The suburbs plays on Americans' ownership culture as well (some may say greed culture) which of course has been promoted by big business. Also, I don't think the alternative (urban life) has been portrayed well in especially the media.

Many parents have such rediculous notions at how much space it takes to raise a family in nowadays and thats why there is a percieved housing affordability crisis in a place like Chicago.

Well, people making erroneous assumptions is human nature and is even used by advertisers in promoting products.

BTW, if the Government started subsidizing urban housing, and if urban housing developers would couple that with aggressive advertising of an alternate american dream, as well as help from the media, Its highly likely that a reverse migration would happen to the cities.

[-GR2NY-]

"When will will the edge just be too far?"

Well in the case of NYC, the inarguable outter edge of sprawl on long island is around 60 miles. Further in other places depending on how you measure.

[MolsonExport]

What is now the edge may, in certain cases, very well become the 'centre' (or at least, not the periphery). Therefore the edge may never be classified as 'too far'.

Take Toronto. Sprawled up to Brampton and almost to Kitchener. But many people work in those latter two cities...perhaps commuting from places like Barrie and Woodstock. Which in turn, have people commuting from...

It will not end, until the world looks like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/Coruscant.jpg/270px-Coruscant.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3c/Coruscantsky.jpg/800px-Coruscantsky.jpg

^Toronto actually is starting to look a bit like this along the 401, with the neverending skyscraper clusters!

[SpongeG]

the family sounds a little racist - do they burn crosses on their lawn?

[Chicago103]

What is now the edge may, in certain cases, very well become the 'centre' (or at least, not the periphery). Therefore the edge may never be classified as 'too far'.

Take Toronto. Sprawled up to Brampton and almost to Kitchener. But many people work in those latter two cities...perhaps commuting from places like Barrie and Woodstock. Which in turn, have people commuting from...

It will not end, until the world looks like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/Coruscant.jpg/270px-Coruscant.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3c/Coruscantsky.jpg/800px-Coruscantsky.jpg

^Toronto actually is starting to look a bit like this along the 401, with the neverending skyscraper clusters!

That is not sprawl, if anything that is the perfect example of mega density, its just that its on such a grand scale that its super dense for countless thousands of square miles, if the entire earth had Manhattan level density would that therefore be sprawl? Maybe you can argue that since the highrises sprawl all over the place but that is simply a theoretical in our world sprawl usually means low density, single use and auto-centric.

Now if you were to say it wont end until the entire world is covered in subdivisions that is something else, if that were to happen I would say bring on the apocolypse!

On a side note, look at that picture of Coruscant from Star Wars the clusters of "shorter" buildings appear to be just like buildings in Manhattan, almost as if when they made the movie they just put the Manhattan skyline there and then added all those mega-tall skycrapers, we are talking like mile high plus towers here. In a hypothetical world like that I suppose people would live and have jobs all over the place but just the mega-density mixed use nature of it would mean that people would probably live and work in nearby towers if not in the same skyscraper they live in.

[Master Shake]

Sprawl arguabley never has to end barring geographic or legal restrictions. Just look at LA, you can drive 70 miles inland and still be in LA suburbia, are you still in LA? Maybe, it certainly is Southern California.

Surburbia these days feeds upon itself with its own economic logic so that it is not really dependent on the central city. The idea of commuting downtown is pretty dated these days. Most city residents commute to the suburbs anymore, not the other way around.

It seems that some form of limit on immigration would probably reduce the pressure on housing, but that is highly unlikely in our current political environment, both in the US and in Canada.

[PhillyRising]

Also I can see right through people in another way, to alot of people its about faux wealth and showing off. If they live in the modest house in the city, even if its in a nice neighborhood or building they know that their relatively modest income will be apparent with their smaller house or condo but if they move out to the outer suburbs and have a huge house with all the top of the line finishings and big cars they will appear rich and impress the neighbors, family and friends.

Have you ever stopped to think that people may view your move into having an address at the John Hancock Tower as being showy? Isn't a small apartment in a duplex just as good as living 90 floors aboce street level in an iconic tower? People in Naperville could turn the tables on you very easily when you rail on them....

[crisp444]

Sprawl will not stop because when MikeToronto becomes a planner, he will ensure that suburbs 100 miles/kilometers/lightyears away from the central city will have bus service on each block with a bus coming every 15 minutes sharp. But first priority: a full blown subway line connecting his neighborhood in Scarborough, ON to downtown Toronto. :D

[PhillyRising]

arbeiter,
I just noticed your comments about my earlier post. I wanted to point out that I live in a neighborhood that's pretty densely populated. My yard, such as it is, is very small and has only native plants that do well in the desert. My house is also quite small. While the northern states are sucking up fuel oil and natural gas I don't need any heating at all and in the summer my electric bills are much less than they were when I lived in Colorado. I get the feeling that everybody thinks that living in the desert is always poor land management but that's really not accurate. Of course Phoenix is well known for its sprawl and I agree that it's gotten out of hand but cities like Atlanta have even more sprawl but they don't seem to get as much criticism as we do. Also, I've noticed that new developments in the western states have extremely small yards as compared to the older homes. I know that's a result of land prices but it does have a beneficial effect on sprawl.

The Northeast is the sucking up all the oil to heat our homes? Ok...so that offsets all the gasoline that is sucked up in the sprawlers due to lack of effective mass transit systems that would take cars off the road like they do in the Northeast. As for poor land management...you have the same population as Philadelphia with three times the land size. That sounds like a poor use of land to me.

[atl2phx]

arbeiter,
I just noticed your comments about my earlier post. I wanted to point out that I live in a neighborhood that's pretty densely populated. My yard, such as it is, is very small and has only native plants that do well in the desert. My house is also quite small. While the northern states are sucking up fuel oil and natural gas I don't need any heating at all and in the summer my electric bills are much less than they were when I lived in Colorado. I get the feeling that everybody thinks that living in the desert is always poor land management but that's really not accurate. Of course Phoenix is well known for its sprawl and I agree that it's gotten out of hand but cities like Atlanta have even more sprawl but they don't seem to get as much criticism as we do. Also, I've noticed that new developments in the western states have extremely small yards as compared to the older homes. I know that's a result of land prices but it does have a beneficial effect on sprawl.

hmmm, i think most folks would agree that atlanta is THE posterchild for sprawl. although, being second to atlanta is no prize. superfically, atlanta "does" sprawl better than phoenix, however, there are signs of improvement in phoenix with the recent proposal to widen I-10 to mega wide. i kid, i kid.

[Chicago103]

Have you ever stopped to think that people may view your move into having an address at the John Hancock Tower as being showy? Isn't a small apartment in a duplex just as good as living 90 floors aboce street level in an iconic tower? People in Naperville could turn the tables on you very easily when you rail on them....

I am a person who loves skyscrapers and height and I had an opportunity at a 91st floor apartment in the JHC and I took it. Sure, I like to say I live in the Hancock but I didnt move to the Hancock because I wanted to one up people I know, I did it first and foremost because I wanted to. Since I love height a duplex at street level would not be just as good from my point of view. I cant speak for everyone but there are alot of people who move further and further out for reasons they really cant even explain other than its just something that everyone else is doing or they are in search of some cliched lifestyle. Also my lifestyle doesnt leave as big of an ecological footprint as people living out in sprawl, I live with just as much space as I need, the fact that its suspended 300 meters above the ground has minimal additional environmental impact.