25 Years of Urban Growth and Density Change in 66 Global Cities - Page 7

Centropolis · #**121** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Well sure, but energy is the main environmental impact. It takes energy to move water and denser suburbs would be more efficient. It takes energy to move energy as well.

I would imagine folks in denser suburbs use their automobile less than their lower density peers. Newer/faster growing area would have more energy efficient buildings as well than their slower/steady growing peers.

one of the first things you learn in urban planning classes is the importance of connectivity and design. for sprawl, it's true that dallas isn't so bad, and there's plenty of really bad examples of new jersey exurbia (see: the sopranos opening sequence).

the northeast is just far more dynamic and changeable on the ground, though, so blanket statements just do not apply such as they might for north dallas.

Centropolis · #**122** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschaton

Florida suburbs are in the east, and built very densely as well. Don't think it's about water rights there.

actually, i think it is, although not in the same way as in the desert.

Steely Dan · #**123** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschaton

Florida suburbs are in the east, and built very densely as well.

that's why i used qualifying words like "mostly" and "mainly".

the world is of course full of exceptions to the general rules.

10023 · #**124** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trae

And right behind that shopping center, the neighborhood looks like this: https://goo.gl/maps/eCMfeHQqqjw. Isn't that some of what this forum likes? Minimum curb cuts and alleyways. Downtown Plano is also larger than one block and growing with more development. It was also already pointed out how suburban Norwalk is outside of that strip of Downtown that's of similar size to Plano: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0957.../data=!3m1!1e3

No, not really.

And no, downtown Plano isn’t larger than one block. At least not anything that remotely resembles what you posted. That only exists for one single block. There is much more of that in Norwalk, or any NE small city or town.

I have no idea how we even started talking about Norwalk, either. It’s a pretty down on its luck place and there are better examples everywhere.

Steely Dan · #**125** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:03 PM**

also, i feel it's important to point this out.

plano - 3,820 ppsm

schaumburg - 3,860 ppsm

and as we should all know by now, schaumburg totally fucking sucks.

but yes, let's all continue fawning over all of that magnificent texas sprawl.

it's so damn responsible!

eschaton · #**126** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

I have no idea how we even started talking about Norwalk, either. It’s a pretty down on its luck place and there are better examples everywhere.

Crawford brought it up.

I wouldn't call Norwalk down on its luck though. Economically diverse and gentrifying (though there were always wealthier suburban parts of Norwalk as well). From a perspective of where growth is occurring in Fairfield County, it's probably only second to Stamford right now - although that isn't saying much honestly.

10023 · #**127** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

also, i feel it's important to point this out.

plano - 3,820 ppsm

schaumburg - 3,860 ppsm

and as we should all know by now, schaumburg totally fucking sucks.

but yes, let's all continue fawning over all of that magnificent texas sprawl.

it's so damn responsible!

/thread

ThePhun1 · #**128** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

also, i feel it's important to point this out.

plano - 3,820 ppsm

schaumburg - 3,860 ppsm

and as we should all know by now, schaumburg totally fucking sucks.

but yes, let's all continue fawning over all of that magnificent texas sprawl.

it's so damn responsible!

Texas suburbs suck except college towns and places that used to be cities themselves, like Galveston.

ThePhun1 · #**129** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:14 PM**

And I take part of that back, Denton is terrible. But San Marcos is cool. I'm also partial to Round Rock, which is obviously not a college town.

Trae · #**130** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

No, not really.

And no, downtown Plano isn’t larger than one block. At least not anything that remotely resembles what you posted. That only exists for one single block. There is much more of that in Norwalk, or any NE small city or town.

I have no idea how we even started talking about Norwalk, either. It’s a pretty down on its luck place and there are better examples everywhere.

It for sure is. The walkable Downtown Plano doesn't go by your definition just so you can try to prove a point. Norwalk was brought up by Crawford which is why it was used. Just like Norwalk isn't the best example, well neither is Plano. It's just one that was used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i disagree. it's not just semantics. people (such as yourself) have been making constant references to "the sunbelt" and the "northeast" in this thread, when, in reality, the issue of contemporary sprawl density patterns is mostly an east vs. west issue mainly stemming from water rights/restrictions. it has nothing specific to do with "the sunbelt vs. the northeast".

Yes I stated numerous times that the NE or EC sprawls more. Does it matter that its denser sprawl because of the water issue? The only thing that matters is that it's much better for the environment than how the east does it. The western Sunbelt suburbs (is that better for you?) have done a much better job.

Yes the Texas/western sunbelt sprawl is more responsible than the East Coast. You got that right! Good thing the east coast has cities with better urbanity to make up for it.

And I'm not the biggest fan of Plano either and it wouldn't be my first choice to live. But at least I can recognize a place that is making strides to be better and build on its own older urban core (connected to the city via rail), and at the same time create new ones.

jd3189 · #**131** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023

I just can’t fathom that people seem to be claiming that this is somehow laudable, because it’s slightly denser than Northeastern suburbia:

That looks like hell on Earth.

That's not what I thought people here were supporting. At least I wasn't. Maybe I was considering streetcar suburbia, which can become functional as dense and walkable as any prewar neighborhood.

Steely Dan · #**132** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trae

Yes the Texas/western sunbelt sprawl is more responsible than the East Coast.

it's roughly as responsible as fucking schaumburg.

which is another way of saying "who gives a fuck about shithole sprawlburbs that are as dense as fucking schaumburg!?!"

TexasPlaya · #**133** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centropolis

one of the first things you learn in urban planning classes is the importance of connectivity and design. for sprawl, it's true that dallas isn't so bad, and there's plenty of really bad examples of new jersey exurbia (see: the sopranos opening sequence).

the northeast is just far more dynamic and changeable on the ground, though, so blanket statements just do not apply such as they might for north dallas.

Is the NE far more changeable though? Lots more bureaucracy and slower growth makes changing harder in my opinion.

I’m a big proponent of park and ride, sun belt cities need to step back from rail and think about more flexible connections taking advantage of multi polar activity centers.

TexasPlaya · #**134** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yes.

roughly as responsible as fucking schaumburg.

which is another way of saying "who gives a fuck about shithole sprawlburbs that are as dense as fucking schaumburg!?!"

Lol. That’s the attitude that has made the Chicagoland the booming, prosperous metro of the 21st century.

TexasPlaya · #**135** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189

That's not what I thought people here were supporting. At least I wasn't. Maybe I was considering streetcar suburbia, which can become functional as dense and walkable as any prewar neighborhood.

Park and rides.

Steely Dan · #**136** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Lol. That’s the attitude that has made the Chicagoland the booming, prosperous metro of the 21st century.

quality > quantity.

hell, i'd much rather live in urban milwaukee than anywhere in texas.

build all of the booming prosperous "responsible" sprawlburbs you can, all the way to the oklahoma border. the metroplex be home to 8 billion people. the glory of it all!

but it'll still just be an overgrown schuamburg.

america hasn't constructed interesting, worthwhile built environments for like 75 years, which is sad.

Trae · #**137** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it's roughly as responsible as fucking schaumburg.

which is another way of saying "who gives a fuck about shithole sprawlburbs that are as dense as fucking schaumburg!?!"

Okay Cartman, that's fine if you want to believe that. Keep in mind that Plano's density is increasing at the same time Schaumburg loses people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

quality > quantity.

i'd much rather live in urban milwaukee than anywhere in texas.

build all of the booming prosperous "responsible" sprawlburbs you can, all the way to the oklahoma border. the metroplex be home to 8 billion people. the glory of it all!

but it'll still just be an overgrown schuamburg, which is sad.

Which is what Chicagoland basically is outside of the North Side (so a VERY small percentage). How's that for a blanket statement.

ThePhun1 · #**138** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:38 PM**

You can't seriously be defending a place like Plano.

TexasPlaya · #**139** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

quality > quantity.

hell, i'd much rather live in urban milwaukee than anywhere in texas.

build all of the booming prosperous "responsible" sprawlburbs you can, all the way to the oklahoma border. the metroplex be home to 8 billion people. the glory of it all!

but it'll still just be an overgrown schuamburg.

america hasn't constructed interesting, worthwhile built environments for like 75 years, which is sad.

Lol I wonder if much of Chicagoland would prefer a bit of “quantity” or do they prefer urban snobbery? They certainly are voting with their feet, so good luck with that.

LA21st · #**140** Posted **Aug 16, 2018, 7:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

I wish i could take a giant eraser and remove all of it from the world. Anything past Santa Clarita in the High Desert, and anything past Claremont to the south east of LA and everything between Corona and the Coachella Valley

LA's sprawl is older and more geared to the street car than these other sunbelt cities too. LA's suburbs are just filling in.