Developing new Towns and Cities?

[Crewman47]

When travelling between the Towns around my area I can't help but notice the acres and acres of land that are sometimes lying empty occasionally used by Cows and Sheep and the occasional wildlife.

Anyway, although I realise that developers are building resedential and commercial buildings within and on the outskirts of current towns and cities I was wondering if the idea of developing new towns and cities could still be possible, ignoring the economic cost for now as I guess this would be the limiting factor in making these decisions.

I realise that some people might come back and ask why would we want to when we have enough of what we have just now but as I said earlier developers are always expanding within current areas so why not develop a new area?


Also curious as to what the youngest Town and City you know of just now and how long ago it was first developed?

 

[Michael Chris]

I'm not entirely sure what the youngest would be near me. The city I live in was developed mostly in the 80s, but it is a suburb...

 

[gwud]

Well Preston is the newest city in the UK, but it was there beforehand, it's just been upgraded. I suppose it's the cost of getting the infrastructure in place, getting people to move there and getting businesses to open. There would be no reason for shops to open in a place where no one lives and offices wouldn't open if no one was around to work there. Equally why live there if there are no oportunities for work?

 

[FordSVT]

We should be condensing our living spaces, not expanding them.

Where are you going to grow food or take a nice walk or go hunting if every place is an apartment complex or strip mall?

 

[John Picard]

We should be condensing our living spaces, not expanding them.

Where are you going to grow food or take a nice walk or go hunting if every place is an apartment complex or strip mall?

Agreed. Especially in the US where urban sprawl runs amok.

 

[Spot's Meow]

Well I would imagine it's not too fun to build a new city out of nothing because you don't have all of the amenities and resources that are necessary. You would have to create a post office, fire department, police department, all new utility lines, phone lines, etc. Why go through all that trouble when you can build out from an area that already has these basic things?

There ARE new cities being added every year, but they did not spring up out of nowhere. What seems to be happening now is that a city will become too large or will overtake the county line and so part of it will be chopped off to become a new city.

 

[Michael Chris]

Agreed. Especially in the US where urban sprawl runs amok.

Urban sprawl is awesome. I love going to places that actually have it, it's so cool. I'd prefer they laid down their roads on grids, of course, but still very cool.

Where in NM are you?

 

[Canadave]

Agreed. Especially in the US where urban sprawl runs amok.

Urban sprawl is awesome. I love going to places that actually have it, it's so cool. I'd prefer they laid down their roads on grids, of course, but still very cool.

You and I obviously had very different views.

I spent much of my day today in Ottawa's sprawl. It's left me rather exhausted.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

I don't think Ottawa really has much urban sprawl. Perhaps in the newer suburbs, but most parts of Ottawa proper I've been through have grid streets, relatively walkable neighborhoods, and small shopping districts within residential neighborhoods.

Here's an interesting article about why the pro-sprawl outlook that many Republicans in Congress advocate actually works against the core values of many conservatives.

Pro-highway, anti-transit, anti-pedestrian policies work against the core beliefs of American conservatives in another and even more important way: they create social environments that are hostile to real community.

Dense, walkable settlements are not just a pleasant lifestyle choice. They are a precondition of the strong, inter-connected communities that social conservatives desire. It is not difficult to envision how these communities can make our lives comprehensively better. Americans are not obliged by any law of nature or rule of the market to live in mediocre, anti-social places. With changes in public policy, over time we can begin again to create neighborhoods that promote real community.

I can't imagine why people would want to live in a faceless suburb cul-de-sac with no sidewalks and be forced to drive 10-20 minutes to the mall, school, church etc. when you could have the same sized lot and house in a traditional neighborhood with a shopping district (neighborhood hardware store, library, church etc.) 5 minutes walk away. It's called "new urbanism" but it's really just a return to traditional neighborhoods. And this is why cul-de-sacs are our greatest enemy!

 

[Canadave]

I don't think Ottawa really has much urban sprawl. Perhaps in the newer suburbs, but most parts of Ottawa proper I've been through have grid streets, relatively walkable neighborhoods, and small shopping districts within residential neighborhoods.

Ottawa actually has a fair bit of sprawl, unfortunately. Mostly because when our greenbelt was created in the 60s, it set to close a boundary to the core, and the city has spilled over it to create a number of large, very car-oriented neighborhoods in the outskirts. This neighborhood, which is one of the ones I was in, is a good example... it's a very boring and faceless suburb. Don't get me wrong, Ottawa's core is great, but we do have a serious problem with sprawl.

 

[John Picard]

I don't think Ottawa really has much urban sprawl. Perhaps in the newer suburbs, but most parts of Ottawa proper I've been through have grid streets, relatively walkable neighborhoods, and small shopping districts within residential neighborhoods.

Here's an interesting article about why the pro-sprawl outlook that many Republicans in Congress advocate actually works against the core values of many conservatives.

Pro-highway, anti-transit, anti-pedestrian policies work against the core beliefs of American conservatives in another and even more important way: they create social environments that are hostile to real community.

Dense, walkable settlements are not just a pleasant lifestyle choice. They are a precondition of the strong, inter-connected communities that social conservatives desire. It is not difficult to envision how these communities can make our lives comprehensively better. Americans are not obliged by any law of nature or rule of the market to live in mediocre, anti-social places. With changes in public policy, over time we can begin again to create neighborhoods that promote real community.

I can't imagine why people would want to live in a faceless suburb cul-de-sac with no sidewalks and be forced to drive 10-20 minutes to the mall, school, church etc. when you could have the same sized lot and house in a traditional neighborhood with a shopping district (neighborhood hardware store, library, church etc.) 5 minutes walk away. It's called "new urbanism" but it's really just a return to traditional neighborhoods. And this is why cul-de-sacs are our greatest enemy!

BINGO! The suburbs do more to quash a sense of community and unity, not to mention those obscene curved streets (did someone forget how to build a road in a straight line?).

As noted in my sigline, I am a Conservative hippie: I believe in fiscal responsibility of the Government, personal responsibility of the citizen, a minimal amount of social programs, the free market, yet I believe in recycling, community, and environmental responsibility.

 

[Daedalus12]

I can't imagine why people would want to live in a faceless suburb cul-de-sac with no sidewalks and be forced to drive 10-20 minutes to the mall, school, church etc. when you could have the same sized lot and house in a traditional neighborhood with a shopping district (neighborhood hardware store, library, church etc.) 5 minutes walk away. It's called "new urbanism" but it's really just a return to traditional neighborhoods. And this is why cul-de-sacs are our greatest enemy!

Are you Canadian? You mentioned Ottawa but I am not sure if you live there or you are just using it as an example. Here in the US middle and upper class people started fleeing the urban communities in the 60s. The sprawl of the suburbs provided them a certain feeling of isolation and distance from those inner city ghettos. For example lets take a look at the "faceless" North Atlanta suburb where my advisor lives. It's the neighborhood is near Sandy Springs in the Walton High School district of East Cobb around the Chattahoochee river. See this. For him it's the ideal community to live in. It's in the top notch school district in the state. The cul-de-sac is very quiet and isolated from all the major roads. His neighbors are also highly educated professionals. Golf courses are nearby along with parks. The shopping centers are only 5 to 10 minutes away by driving.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

I can't imagine why people would want to live in a faceless suburb cul-de-sac with no sidewalks and be forced to drive 10-20 minutes to the mall, school, church etc. when you could have the same sized lot and house in a traditional neighborhood with a shopping district (neighborhood hardware store, library, church etc.) 5 minutes walk away. It's called "new urbanism" but it's really just a return to traditional neighborhoods. And this is why cul-de-sacs are our greatest enemy!

Are you Canadian? You mentioned Ottawa but I am not sure if you live there or you are just using it as an example. Here in the US middle and upper class people started fleeing the urban communities in the 60s. The sprawl of the suburbs provided them a certain feeling of isolation and distance from those inner city ghettos. For example lets take a look at the "faceless" North Atlanta suburb where my advisor lives. It's the neighborhood is near Sandy Springs in the Walton High School district of East Cobb around the Chattahoochee river. See this. For him it's the ideal community to live in. It's in the top notch school district in the state. The cul-de-sac is very quiet and isolated from all the major roads. His neighbors are also highly educated professionals. Golf courses are nearby along with parks. The shopping centers are only 5 to 10 minutes away by driving.

I'm originally Canadian but live in the US now. I grew up in Vancouver, which was kind of looked down on for not ramming giant urban freeways through the entire city, but now is viewed as one of the examples of good urban planning. For example, 27% of all trips to downtown Vancouver were made by walking in 2004.

But all of the good things you described about the suburb (good school district, quiet streets, good neighbors, nearby parks and shopping) are better served by pedestrian, bike, and transit friendly urban planning. Although "white flight" started the trend of sprawl, it has been 40 years of extreme government subsidy of car-centric urban design (and penalization of mass transit projects) that caused most of the problems. No one is saying you need to live in an apartment block in a heavily built-up area. Suburbs aren't bad, but poorly designed sprawling suburbs are.

 

[ThunderAeroI]

Urban Sprawl has a number of things that lead up to it. First of all some people like to live in homes, so homes have to be built. Easier to build homes out of the city than inside of the city.

The other main contribuor is just population growth. As the number of people grow they must have a place to live. Thus we build out and then up.

Then there is the support structure of a city. There needs to be so much airable land around a town so that it can be supplied with food and resources. If we take a purely futuristic approach we could consider the enitire US one large city where all of our resources come in from Africa.

The problem being at this will only get you so far. At some point you will have to realize you can not just keep expanding into nothingness. Grouping into cities is more efficient, if anything states should eliminate many of their county roads and only leave the main roads to and from city centers.

 

[Daedalus12]

^PlixTixiplikhttp://www.trekbbs.com/member.php?u=5387 By your standard Atlanta is pretty much the worse offender in the suburban sprawl category. Ironically my advisor drives a hybrid to commute to work so he can reduce his carbon footprint.

Actually the reason the psychological motivation behind the car-centric suburban planning is as I hinted before and you mentioned directly "white flight". There is an arguably irrational fear among a lot of people that any public transit system will attract crimes and gangs from the inner ghettos.

 

[John Picard]

Urban Sprawl has a number of things that lead up to it. First of all some people like to live in homes, so homes have to be built. Easier to build homes out of the city than inside of the city.

The other main contribuor is just population growth. As the number of people grow they must have a place to live. Thus we build out and then up.

Then there is the support structure of a city. There needs to be so much airable land around a town so that it can be supplied with food and resources. If we take a purely futuristic approach we could consider the enitire US one large city where all of our resources come in from Africa.

The problem being at this will only get you so far. At some point you will have to realize you can not just keep expanding into nothingness. Grouping into cities is more efficient, if anything states should eliminate many of their county roads and only leave the main roads to and from city centers.

The problem is that people aren't given economic incentives to remain in the city until it is too late. Look at how many historic neighborhoods in various cities across the US were havens for crime and became run down because people had an economic incentive to flee.

Also, planning commissions don't perform their jobs very well with rampant sprawl, gated communities, a lack of facilities, poorly designed streets (DoveTail Way, which becomes DoveTail Court, which breaks into DoveTail Street and DoveTail Boulevard, which becomes etc. etc. etc.)

It's ridiculous. Europe has been able to contain unnecessary expansion and preserved its land. The US should do the same.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

^PlixTixiplik By your standard Atlanta is pretty much the worse offender in the suburban sprawl category. Ironically my advisor drives a hybrid to commute to work so he can reduce his carbon footprint.

Actually the reason the psychological motivation behind the car-centric suburban planning is as I hinted before and you mentioned directly "white flight". There is an arguably irrational fear among a lot of people that any public transit system will attract crimes and gangs from the inner ghettos.

Yes, Atlanta is one of the least dense urban areas in the US (274th!). The densest urban area in the US (Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana) has four times the population density!

 

[Ariadne]

I don't think Ottawa really has much urban sprawl. Perhaps in the newer suburbs, but most parts of Ottawa proper I've been through have grid streets, relatively walkable neighborhoods, and small shopping districts within residential neighborhoods.

Ottawa actually has a fair bit of sprawl, unfortunately. Mostly because when our greenbelt was created in the 60s, it set to close a boundary to the core, and the city has spilled over it to create a number of large, very car-oriented neighborhoods in the outskirts. This neighborhood, which is one of the ones I was in, is a good example... it's a very boring and faceless suburb. Don't get me wrong, Ottawa's core is great, but we do have a serious problem with sprawl.

It doesn't have sprawl to the same extent as a lot of western North American cities do (try looking at Calgary and Ottawa at the same magnification on Google Maps).

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Agreed. Especially in the US where urban sprawl runs amok.

Urban sprawl is awesome. I love going to places that actually have it, it's so cool. I'd prefer they laid down their roads on grids, of course, but still very cool.

Where in NM are you?

I agree. Urban sprawl is pretty in its way.

I know in the OC (don't call it that) that Laguna Woods became a new city a few years ago.

 

[Hoser]

We should be condensing our living spaces, not expanding them.

It just was on the news, that Flint is discussing demolishing entire neighbourhoods with a lot of abandoned buildings to save money.