3 ms·
I wouldn't go that far. It's also possible to do denser, transit-oriented, actual urban, development. Which is what happened naturally everywhere prior to WW2.
by FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
I wouldn't go that far. It's also possible to do denser, transit-oriented, actual urban, development. Which is what happened naturally everywhere prior to WW2.
I'd also say that the "rural vs. city folk" dichotomy is nonsense for several reasons, not least because The Sprawl is not at all rural. Indeed, continued sprawl destroys rural areas, converting farmland into tract homes, parking lots, Home Depots, and Starbuckses. Rural towns -- actual towns, with Main Streets, the stuff of Small Town America -- used to exist, and sprawl is its enemy.
But, yes, continued development is absolutely necessary. Home building has not kept up with population growth.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoYou're just wrong here. In a rural area your grocery store may be a 10-15 minute drive or more, good luck establishing a bus route for that.
- FooBarBizBazz 3y agoI think we're talking about different things. I'm talking about the process that turned orchards outside San Francisco into Palo Alto, Mountain View, and I-280. I'm talking about what turned Connecticut or New Jersey outside NYC into a collection of parking lots and onramps. That which shat itself all over Virginia horse country outside DC. The entire essence of Dallas and Houston -- of basically all Sunbelt cities. That is The Sprawl. Each of those places could be a Tokyo or a Paris, but it isn't. Americans lack the organizational capacity, the taste, the standards, and the ambition. I'm not talking about Hiko, Nevada or Rapelje, Montana.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoyes, if you turn a rural area into a non-rural area, suddenly you can do things that you can't do in rural areas. In other news, water is wet.