Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Talya wrote:
On a more serious note, I approve of "Urban Sprawl." Large population centers may be useful, but nature never intended for humans to live that way. I have nothing against people spreading to every nook, cranny and corner of the earth that they find comfortable in.
We rule this planet. Let's not be held hostage by those who think we shouldn't use it, so long as we do so in a way that doesn't use it all up.We need to live here for quite a while yet.
Anti-sprawl peeps don't advocate land going unused. It's how it's used. I don't think you quite understand what sprawl is. Sprawl is huge housing development, then over here, a highway with a bunch of businesses along it, then a farm further out, etc. The anti-sprawl people want everything mixed together. So instead of 2,000 1/4 acre lots, you'd have 2,000 1/10th acre lots, a park, and a town centre with businesses and entertainment. the point is with sprawl you have to get in your car to go anywhere - that's what folks want to avoid.
This. Let me give you an example. Dallas has to be one of the most spread out sprawls I've ever seen. I worked right in downtown, and commuted 28 miles one way to get to work. In that drive, I went by at least 2 farms with cattle, interspersed between several developments. And I didn't even live as far out as some folks did. Dallas/Ft. Worth are "sister" cities, much like Minneapolis/St. Paul yet they were 50 miles apart from each other.
In short, there really is no reason why Dallas had to be that spread out. You could have had really nice residential neighborhoods with yards and sidewalks, etc. in a fraction of the space.