Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Jul '14 13:10
    Great article in Time yesterday about suburban sprawl and the problem of the resources that are required to maintain it.

    Are spread our suburbs maintainable? Should we all move to urban high rises?

    What say you?

    http://time.com/3031079/suburbs-will-die-sprawl/
  2. 30 Jul '14 13:27
    Originally posted by sh76
    Great article in Time yesterday about suburban sprawl and the problem of the resources that are required to maintain it.

    Are spread our suburbs maintainable? Should we all move to urban high rises?

    What say you?

    http://time.com/3031079/suburbs-will-die-sprawl/
    I personally enjoy living in the Suburbs. I like the extra space, the better schools, the increased privacy and the decreased pollution.
    The article seemed to indicate that one of the driving costs of suburbs were illogical regulations. Perhaps we should not take costly regulation which provides little benefits as a given.
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Jul '14 14:47 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I personally enjoy living in the Suburbs. I like the extra space, the better schools, the increased privacy and the decreased pollution.
    The article seemed to indicate that one of the driving costs of suburbs were illogical regulations. Perhaps we should not take costly regulation which provides little benefits as a given.
    I think the article also distinguishes between suburbs that have relatively small properties and large properties. I also love living in the suburbs, but I don't see why everyone needs an acre of property. Though I have less, a village near mine requires that every single family home have at least 35,000 square feet of property (about 4/5 of an acre). The point of the article is that, while people have the right to do what they want, the property tax that people are willing to pay can't pay for that sort of lifestyle.
  4. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    30 Jul '14 14:49
    Originally posted by sh76
    Though I have less, a village near mine requires that every single family home have at least 35,000 square feet of property
    What?
    You have to have x-amount of land to live in that village???

    Really?
  5. 30 Jul '14 15:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    What?
    You have to have x-amount of land to live in that village???

    Really?
    Here is a wiki item on Los Altos Hills, CA.

    "The town has no commercial or industrial zones. The town government contracts with Santa Clara County for police and fire services (making it a so-called "contract city" under California law). The town's only retail commercial operation is the book store on the campus of Foothill College. The town also does not have a post office, telephone exchange, or library. Mail delivery and telephone service are provided from nearby Los Altos, so the town shares ZIP codes and telephone exchange numbers with Los Altos. Town residents desiring library services must visit county-operated libraries in nearby Los Altos or Cupertino.

    The town's zoning regulations are among the strictest in California, requiring a minimum lot size of one acre (4,000 m² ), setbacks from the property boundary, and easements for public pathways.[2][3] Landowners are limited to one primary dwelling per lot, which effectively bans multifamily housing; this ban and the minimum lot size were upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1974.[4] The ban on commercial zones was upheld by the California Court of Appeal (First District) in 1973.["
  6. 30 Jul '14 15:15
    Originally posted by JS357
    Here is a wiki item on Los Altos Hills, CA.

    "The town has no commercial or industrial zones. The town government contracts with Santa Clara County for police and fire services (making it a so-called "contract city" under California law). The town's only retail commercial operation is the book store on the campus of Foothill College. The town also does not h ...[text shortened]... ban on commercial zones was upheld by the California Court of Appeal (First District) in 1973.["
    I like the demographics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Altos,_California
  7. 30 Jul '14 15:17
    Originally posted by sh76
    I think the article also distinguishes between suburbs that have relatively small properties and large properties. I also love living in the suburbs, but I don't see why everyone needs an acre of property. Though I have less, a village near mine requires that every single family home have at least 35,000 square feet of property (about 4/5 of an acre). The point ...[text shortened]... they want, the property tax that people are willing to pay can't pay for that sort of lifestyle.
    You are certainly correct that there is huge variety in suburbs. I would not be surprised if certain suburbs (for example I live in Nassau County) is more densely packed than certain cities (I went to school in a small Midwestern city).
    I don't believe you meant for your statement "should we all move to urban high rises?" to be taken completely literally. Nevertheless, even a less radical question such as: should we encourage people to live in densely populated areas like (somewhere between Boston and DC) rather than less populated area (such as between the Appalachians and the Rockies) has implications far bigger than just property tax bills.
  8. 30 Jul '14 15:23
    If you can afford it and want to do it, do it.

    Better question is what sort of control freak would care what people do with their money and where they would choose to live? Oh yeah, a liberal.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Jul '14 15:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    What?
    You have to have x-amount of land to live in that village???

    Really?
    Well, you can rent a house. You don't have to own it, but yes, the house itself must be situated on a minimum amount of land.

    http://ecode360.com/8769753

    (The village I refer to has R-35 zoning)
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Jul '14 15:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If you can afford it and want to do it, do it.

    Better question is what sort of control freak would care what people do with their money and where they would choose to live? Oh yeah, a liberal.
    Of course, but the question is whether towns should build the infrastructure necessary to support these massive properties without a realistic chance of raising the revenues necessary to support it.
  11. 30 Jul '14 15:33
    Originally posted by Krod Mandoon
    I like the demographics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Altos,_California
    But would they like you? The Wiki article says "In 2013, Forbes ranked Los Altos Hills as the 2nd most expensive zip code in America with a median home price of $5.4 million."
  12. 30 Jul '14 15:36
    Originally posted by sh76
    Of course, but the question is whether towns should build the infrastructure necessary to support these massive properties without a realistic chance of raising the revenues necessary to support it.
    If the town decides to do it, great. If they don't, then great.
  13. 30 Jul '14 15:38
    Originally posted by sh76
    Great article in Time yesterday about suburban sprawl and the problem of the resources that are required to maintain it.

    Are spread our suburbs maintainable? Should we all move to urban high rises?

    What say you?

    http://time.com/3031079/suburbs-will-die-sprawl/
    Locally the SF suburbs are seeing more multi-family construction (apartments and condos) near expanding rail commuter systems. Employment is gravitating toward SF and Silicon Valley, which are getting too expensive, housing-wise, to live in.
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    30 Jul '14 15:40
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If the town decides to do it, great. If they don't, then great.
    That they decide to do it doesn't mean it's not a bad decision.
  15. 30 Jul '14 15:50
    Originally posted by JS357
    Locally the SF suburbs are seeing more multi-family construction (apartments and condos) near expanding rail commuter systems. Employment is gravitating toward SF and Silicon Valley, which are getting too expensive, housing-wise, to live in.
    Those quiet upscale suburban communities surrounding San Franicsco/Oakland area that have rail commuter systems going through them are experiencing some problems as "urban youths" use them to take a quick trip in large groups and cause all manner of mayhem for a day's outing. Of course the media ignores it.
    I'd post the videos but don't want to offend anyone.