Originally Posted by econgrad
Rebuttal for Wburg:
Wburg "The Problem is that most suburbs start out as wealthy suburbs. They seldom stay that way.
FALSE, if you do your research and know anything about real estate you would see that property values in both Urban and suburban areas fluctuate. Without Urban renewal, and all the tax money that goes with it, DT and MT would probably be just work areas and low rent ghettos, while old neighborhoods in Fair Oaks, The Fab 40's, Citrus Heights, Folsom, Roseville El Dorado Hills continue to rise in value (yes, even with the dip in the market the houses are still worth more now and will continue to rise). MOST suburbs maintain there values without all the renewal programs paid for by our taxes. This moves on to your next false statement "suburbs are a disposable product", if that were true then the values of homes would go down, not up. An $80,000 home in Folsom built in the 1960's would not be worth $600,000 now if it was a disposable product. The rest of your paragraph about the middle class moving in to more wealthier suburbs is amazingly off base as well, the middle class is moving into NEW suburbs built in natomas and Elk Grove and roseville, because this is a wise investment for them and their families.
Wburg: "At this point, the wealthiest folks pull up stakes and move on to the new suburb, and the cycle repeats."
false, seeing that values rise in the long term in most neighborhoods around the USA. Especially in CA.
Wburg: "The problem is that, despite econgrad's assumptions, this cycle simply can't go on forever. Suburbs use up open space at a prodigious rate, which depletes the available supply of developable land. Utilization of new land farther from a city means extensive public investment in infrastructure: water, sewer, electricity, and especially roads and highways. These are costs borne by the public. If, in the case of a place like the Sacramento Valley, much of the open space is subject to flooding, there are additional public costs to bear to build levees and other flood-control measures."
The available supply of land that can be developed is dictated by us, not by suburban developers. There is and always will be plenty of room. The costs you quote above are paid for by the profit and taxes the profit creates by selling these mass neighborhoods. The costs of Urban Renewal is far greater and is paid for by taxes not out of profit or investment which in turn makes the tax based investment (Our money) less valuable in the long run. The flooding issue is moot, Downtown if flooded would be a mega disaster, where if natomas flooded it would be just a disaster, the more impacted the development the more damage will be caused by natural disasters and the costs are greater. As regards to your levee comment: Levee's are used for Urban, Suburban, Farm Land, Parks, etc. How do the costs make any difference in these matters?
Wburg: Ignoring other environmental factors like running out of oil or concerns about climate change (to avoid having that discussion yet again,) building broad automobile suburbs consumes a limited resource, open space, and eventually we're going to run out. Continued suburban growth means sacrificing farmland, flood capacity, watersheds, open space, wildlife habitat, and quality of life. Why? Primarily, so suburban land developers won't have to change their business model.
Have you ever flown? There is so much room, it would take 1000 years before we started to run out of land. Also, climate change and oil shortages are a political belief, not backed by sound science, please do not use these beliefs to take away my choice of living, this is something to fight and die over. Freedom. FYI: Suburban land devlopers are just guys that build houses for families, they work hard, invest millions, and keep this country livable.
Wburg: "Oh yeah, one other thing--most of the Bay Area's suburbs, including Palo Alto, were originally created to be served by interurban railroads like the Peninsular Railway and the Key System. Many are currently served by rail-borne public transit like BART and Caltrain. So there's no inherent conflict in creating suburbs like Palo Alto and using a denser, public-transit driven development model."
We agree partially. Build as much public trans as you want to, just equally support our rights to be free and drive our cars. Equal investment in roads and public trans is fine in my book, just do not force people out of their cars for a political agenda.
Darn Good City: Read that book, and seen the movie. They are both propaganda. I do recommend them for everyone here just to see how silly the assumptions are. Example, Suburbs cause segregation? Then why is San Francisco about 60% white, and Rancho Cordova suburb more like 40%? How is a great international city not as diverse as suburbs? Because Urban living does not support families as good as suburban living. Therefore family oriented cultures, especially Hispanic, Asian and Indian (East Indian for those of you who live in Rio Linda) will be living in suburbs making them more diverse as inner city costs continue to rise as we struggle to pay for renewing it every so many years.
|
Prev
Why are you anti-urban people on this forum anyway? The skyscraper was born in the city and it is still mosty an urban form. Most of our discussion is on urban development. I just don't get it? Why don't you hang out in all-suburbia, all-of-time forums -that's where you belong. 
Linear Mode
