4 ms·

No, the density of suburbs doesn't inevitably increase. Many suburbs have ordinances enforcing minimum lot sizes and maximum building heights, which limits the

No, the density of suburbs doesn't inevitably increase. Many suburbs have ordinances enforcing minimum lot sizes and maximum building heights, which limits the density of development. Suburbs do this to prevent the character of their town and protect property values of the residents. This is why suburban sprawl is so wasteful - it spreads out, but never up.

normloman 12y ago
I meant preserve the character :/
zo1 12y ago
"This is why suburban sprawl is so wasteful - it spreads out, but never up." It's only wasteful if you have laws and regulations that prevent it from changing. Areas, and sometimes entire cities, re-invent themselves in different ways. In a normal, free environment as the needs arise the density will change appropriately. On a side note, take a few hours off and try find some old photographs of cities (or towns if you go far back enough). Compare those to what the city looks like now, and you'll know what I mean. Everyone can be an arm-chair critic and talk about what's wasteful or not according to their beliefs. But things have evolved to this point over many generations, and many individual choices.
- normloman 12y ago
  Read my comment again. I said that in the context of the exact laws and regulations you rail against. Obviously, there will always be a need for low density development, especially with a growing population. But the modern suburb is defined by restrictive ordinances that prevent high density development.
justin66 12y ago
> No, the density of suburbs doesn't inevitably increase. This is a very badly thought out statement. The only way a suburb could not increase in density over time would be if it were to spring from the head of Zeus fully formed and populated at its inception. The way reality works is, a bunch of land is owned by whoeverthefuck and is just green space and farmland until people start building on it. They don't fill up the entire suburb all at once. They'll build a few houses or a development, people who appreciate all the green space will move there, and the process repeats until the amount of green space starts to dwindle, the nature of the buildings themselves might change as land's value changes and the roads change, apartments are built instead of houses, etc. etc. The suburb's density increases. I've witnessed this enough that your denial strikes me as strange. If you want to argue that the end result of such a process isn't great, I happen to agree...

normloman 12y ago

I meant preserve the character :/

zo1 12y ago

"This is why suburban sprawl is so wasteful - it spreads out, but never up." It's only wasteful if you have laws and regulations that prevent it from changing. Areas, and sometimes entire cities, re-invent themselves in different ways. In a normal, free environment as the needs arise the density will change appropriately. On a side note, take a few hours off and try find some old photographs of cities (or towns if you go far back enough). Compare those to what the city looks like now, and you'll know what I mean. Everyone can be an arm-chair critic and talk about what's wasteful or not according to their beliefs. But things have evolved to this point over many generations, and many individual choices.

normloman 12y ago
Read my comment again. I said that in the context of the exact laws and regulations you rail against. Obviously, there will always be a need for low density development, especially with a growing population. But the modern suburb is defined by restrictive ordinances that prevent high density development.

justin66 12y ago

> No, the density of suburbs doesn't inevitably increase. This is a very badly thought out statement. The only way a suburb could not increase in density over time would be if it were to spring from the head of Zeus fully formed and populated at its inception. The way reality works is, a bunch of land is owned by whoeverthefuck and is just green space and farmland until people start building on it. They don't fill up the entire suburb all at once. They'll build a few houses or a development, people who appreciate all the green space will move there, and the process repeats until the amount of green space starts to dwindle, the nature of the buildings themselves might change as land's value changes and the roads change, apartments are built instead of houses, etc. etc. The suburb's density increases. I've witnessed this enough that your denial strikes me as strange. If you want to argue that the end result of such a process isn't great, I happen to agree...