The Glade 4.0

Suburban migration encouraged sprawl, in that there popped up many housing developments with no public transportation connected to them. As soon as people need to get into their cars, businesses develop in areas to support those cars. Then, you pretty much need a car to get to those businesses and you have sprawl.

There are some areas with very tight zoning ordinances that require mixed use development and transportation that have prevented this. But this is a more recent "development", and will become more and more frequent.

Zoning practices from the 60s forward contributed heavily to the problem as well, fed by the NIMBY sentiment. As Arathain suggested though, there has been some rethinking in zoning ordinance in some of the more cutting edge areas that seeks less to separate living from work, leaving strict separations to things like heavy industrial or toxic/unsanitary facilities.

Aizle:

You seriously want me to substantiate the common knowledge that is urban flight?

_________________

Well, if road/children's bikes are your criteria, yeah. Sorry, I was thinking mountain bikes. Yeah I knew about Trek/Gary Fisher and they are a significant part of the MTB market. But there's tons of semi-big names that do their stuff in the U.S. Santa Cruz, Ironhorse, and Kona come to mind.

_________________
The Dude abides.

The reasons for sprawl are going to vary somewhat depending on where you are. In the Dallas area, at least, urban flight is at most an incomplete picture. I'm not sure that it's even the main issue. Much of what you see as "sprawl" around here came about quite organically. It all goes back to historical land use. At one time, you had lots of small, independent communities surrounded by what was then an appreciable buffer of agricultural and ranching land. Simple population growth has gradually chipped away at these buffers, causing the communities to eventually merge together into one big sprawl.

The north "corridor" of Dallas is another interesting phenomenon. There's this "spike" of urban development projecting northward along U.S. 75. It will eventually wind up reaching as far north as Sherman, TX (about 12-15 miles south of the OK border). There are a lot of things going on here. Urban flight might explain why it's not pushing southward any, but certainly no one is "fleeing" from the affluence of Richardson and Plano.

A lot of it is probably driven by the geography of the tech sector. TI's main campus is located in north Dallas at I-635 and U.S. 75. One of their main wafer fabrication facilities is in Sherman, TX, about 60 miles north along 75. Then add to this the development of the "Telecom Corridor" in Richardson. There's been a "halo" effect of supporting companies and industries all along the 75 frontage for easy access. For instance, Micron (a DRAM manufacturer) has a fairly sizable location in Allen, if I'm not mistaken.

The growth is spreading primarily along 75 rather than expanding outward from it to the east and west for a number of reasons. In part this is because of the uncommon foresight of DART to buy up all the old Sothern Pacific Railroad right-of-way for its light rail system. It's also partly a function of practical development in terms of utility access in the face of impending water shortages in Texas. Much of the water supply for the Dallas area (but not the City of Dallas proper) now comes from Lake Texoma on the TX/OK border. It's a straight shot down highway 75, so the most convenient way to deploy large water transmission lines is along the right-of-way corridor created by U.S. 75 and the parallel railways (now abandoned except by DART). In fact, they recently completed construction of the 23-mile pipeline from Melissa to Howe which the firm I work for designed a few years ago.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I'm thinking St. Louis could be the poster child for urban sprawl.

It's because of the smell.

Well, more seriously, it's because the city went to the dogs. People moved far away to get far away, not for any other reason. The crime, the decay ....

...the smell.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

No, I'm aware of urban flight. I want you to substantiate that urban flight is the primary factor in urban degredation instead of urban sprawl. From my vantage point, urban flight would not be practical or possible without urban sprawl, which in turn would not be possible without the huge amounts of subsidies provided to the automotive industry and infrastructure.

That said, they do most definately feed on each other, but because of America's love for the car, sprawl was the path of least resistance.

Aizle:

So you want me to substantiate something I didn't say? Why on earth would I do that?

_________________

Given this statement, I'm fairly confident you aren't working with the same notion of urban sprawl as that which is used when typically discussing urban and rural development.

I'm not sure why you think urban flight would not be practical without urban sprawl... in a lot of cases, it is urban flight that drives sprawl, as it is rooftops that attract commerce.

Now, you might make the case that urban flight is only practical to a majority of American's because of the automobile, but that makes it an interesting reversal in praise.

Ok, let me rephrase then.

You seem to indicate that the city degradation happens first, then people flee the city.

RD and I have stated that it's that people flee the city and then it degrades.

I want to understand the facts that support your position.

What reasons do you see being the catalyst that makes people leave the city under the "people flee first" theory?

As I said, they most certainly feed on each other. But without the housing developments that are created out in the boonies, and the road systems to connect everything in a smooth efficient manner, sprawl would not be anywhere as possible and prevailent as it is.

I'm sure there are many.

As I live out in the burbs, and technically am part of the "sprawl" if you will, I'll give you my reasons for living where I do.
- Living in a brand new house (it's almost impossible to find a brand new house in the city)
- Financial considerations (land is cheaper far out, and we got a deal because my wife worked for the developer at the time)
- Noise (when we lived downtown there was a constant hum of noise, out where we are now it's amazingly quiet in the evenings)
- Garage space (hard to find a 3 car garage inside the city)

Cheaper and more spacious housing, fresh air, peace and quiet, etc., coupled with the ability (via cars) to retain access to all the conveniences and economic opportunities of commercial/industrial/urban centers. The suburb really took hold in the 40s and 50s, while urban decay was more of a 60s-70s thing. As I said earlier, though, the two processes certainly fed off each other.

Would suburban subdivisions, roads and associated infrastructure have been built had the demand not been there?

Nobody says "Yeah, I think a 40 minute drive is just what I want!" What they say is, "I've got to get my kids out of this place!"

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

The developments are created out of the demand by those looking to flee. If there was no demand, there would be no flight, so claiming that the developments cause the flight is a bit of putting the cart ahead of the horse. As for the road systems connecting "everything in a smooth, efficient manner", that is rarely the case when urban sprawl hits an area. There are almost always an existing road, yes, but that road is configured for light rural traffic associated with agriculture or minor transportation. The main parts of the infrastructure don't arrive until after the rooftop explosion overwhelms the existing systems.

People fleeing established urban (and to some degree suburban) communities drive sprawl. The reasons are varied, but it is not as you claimed that urban sprawl spawns urban flight, at least not as any catalyst.

I just want to say, Rynar, you win for this thread title.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

And what event(s) allowed for that kind of expansion?

No, certainly not, but thanks to government subsidies, the full costs of those things weren't paid by the consumers themselves, so demand was higher than it otherwise would have been.

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.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Here's the dirty history of St. Louis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt-Igoe

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Ah. Perhaps I've merely been out of the scene for long enough for my name recognition to become outdated, but of those three, Kona's the only one I've heard of. When you say "Big Name," though, my head goes to Trek and Cannondale (even though, technically, I believe they're Canadian-owned but based in the US), Fisher, and Giant and Specialized, in that order. Then, as afterthoughts, Schwinn and Huffy.

But as I said, I haven't been in heavy with a mountain biking crowd in ten years or so, so I'm not shocked that some new names might show up, I guess.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Impossible to note everything, but some highlights would be population growth, economic growth, infrastructure construction (both roads and utilities), zoning ordinances, post-WWII GI benefits, and so on.

From the Pruitt-Igoe link in my previous post:
People left St. Louis 'cause it was a cesspool.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

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.