Sprawl illustrated: 1950 to 2005

[BKM]

BKM - I dare to say that lots of people probably DO want to live in Modesto, CA or outer Phoenix, AZ. To many, a house with a yard is the main focus. So many people aspire to own a plot of their own land. If this is what you want, it is nearly impossible to find in the central city. Although those places may not necessarily be attractive to us, they are to a lot of people - who WANT a lawnmower and SUV. I have actually met people who turn their noses up at San Francisco, saying that it is "too crowded" and that they would prefer to just buy a home over an hour away! One of my own relatives obsesses over the fact that I willingly walk 15 minutes to the grocery store instead of drive (even though I don't have a car) - a lifestyle that is not suburban is unimaginable to lots of people.

Can't be denied that that's what most people "want.".

My "elitist" response, especially to the last sentences, is that these people are seriously fooling themselves (oil is $73/ barrel right now-and the Evil Cabal is hurrying us towards war with Iran so look for the Starits of Hormuz to be closed-and massive oil shortages) When the Excursion costs $75/tank to fill up, and natural gas or electiricy for the air conditioners in the 105 deghree temperatures common in both Modesto and Las Vegas costs $500/month-we'll see how sustainable this ideal is.

And, although I don't fully accept DIRECT causality, are hurting the future physical health of themselves and their children. I'm sorry to be elitist, but I am appalled by people who are so opposed to everyday physical activity in their daily lives (and I'm not talking about driving the SUV to the club and plodding up and down on a Stairmaster for 45 minuts!). That is NOT a healthy philosophy of life. Thes people also have probably totally "organized" their childrfen's lives-driving them everywhere from organized activity to organized activity, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

[Michele Zone]

Can't be denied that that's what most people "want.".

[don Elitist Snob hat]
I think most folks don't understand the situation well enough to really evaluate their choices and even when they do, a lot of times they simply don't have the means to make another choice because it mostly isn't available.

[doff Elitist Snob hat]

[BKM]

[don Elitist Snob hat]
I think most folks don't understand the situation well enough to really evaluate their choices and even when they do, a lot of times they simply don't have the means to make another choice because it mostly isn't available.

[doff Elitist Snob hat]

True, all. Most metropolitan areas don't provide any choices, because there is frankly no "need" (until now) for alterantives. Even now, is gasoline really that much more expensive as a percentage of income? No.

The alternatives are NOT usually as nice as driving a leather-clad SUV (or gas guzzling sports car ) with a nice sound system blazing. Come on, even BART or The Tube are not as nice as a luxury car.

Other people are a pain in the neck, and the privacy provided by the automobile-and-suburban-single-family-home lifestyle is hard to sneer at. Plus, there are opportunities to grow limited food (as LeeNellis has pointed out).

Luca: Your description of suburban villages is what I really meant. I would never anticipate returning to isolated rural villages as an option for most people. Heck, the claustrophobia and social control of Small Town America was a vein mined by many turn of the Twentieth Century authors in the United States. The only small town I would enjoy living in is one directly and firmly tied to a metropolitan area (Sonoma, CA comes to mind. I just need six magic numbers, and I'm in a modernist rammed earth stucco Tusan style villa in a minute. As a supplement to my Telegraph Hill, SF townhouse, of course )

[imaplanner]

I just need six magic numbers, and I'm in a modernist rammed earth stucco Tusan style villa in a minute. As a supplement to my Telegraph Hill, SF townhouse, of course )

You just made a very good point. That the American dream is changing - where it used to be the dream to own a home in a nice suburban neighborhood- it changed to become owning a very large home in a semi-rural/suburban neighborhood on a large lot - and now it has become the American dream to own both a very large home in a semi-rural neighborhood on a large lot AND a urban condo/townhouse in a lively downtown area.

The American dream has changed to want both. And people see this in the media- on tv shows and so on that this is desirable. Yet for obvious reasons it is entirely unrealistic for the majority of people and it is definately not self sustaining.

[lopsidedfrock]

Dan,
Too bad this isn't a GTC challenge, because i'm posting right now from the library of Community #1 (just west of where the photo is cut off). The photo may be a little misleading since the people living in the northwest section of it are a few minutes walk from Shoregate (groceries, banks, etc). But who am I kidding, the only people who live in the place are 70+ years old and can't get anywhere without a walker.

[cch]

From my point of view, things seem to be looking up for your community. The 2005 aerial has a lot more through-streets than in 1975, and lots of natural corridors.

[BKM]

You just made a very good point. That the American dream is changing - where it used to be the dream to own a home in a nice suburban neighborhood- it changed to become owning a very large home in a semi-rural/suburban neighborhood on a large lot - and now it has become the American dream to own both a very large home in a semi-rural neighborhood on a large lot AND a urban condo/townhouse in a lively downtown area.

The American dream has changed to want both. And people see this in the media- on tv shows and so on that this is desirable. Yet for obvious reasons it is entirely unrealistic for the majority of people and it is definately not self sustaining.

True. Gluttony and expectations of more! more! more! are insidious and I am certainly an example. I think the "country house/city apartment scheme is pretty common in New York area and in many european countries. But, the difference is the Finnish or Swedish family has an 1100 square foot City apartment and a 700 square foot fishing shack/sauna, not a 2,000 square foot loft and a 5,000 square foot Tuscan villa.

[Michele Zone]

The American dream has changed to want both. And people see this in the media- on tv shows and so on that this is desirable. Yet for obvious reasons it is entirely unrealistic for the majority of people and it is definately not self sustaining.

Somewhere on this website (perhaps one of these articles) is an article which makes the point that fewer "middle class" people and poor people can afford a home -- especially in "tourist towns" -- because of the rich owning two homes and driving up the costs and driving down the availability. Sigh.

[btrage]

Somewhere on this website (perhaps one of these articles) is an article which makes the point that fewer "middle class" people and poor people can afford a home -- especially in "tourist towns" -- because of the rich owning two homes and driving up the costs and driving down the availability. Sigh.

This is also happening in large central cities where we actually want people to return to. The cost of downtown and near-downtown living is so high, I often wonder if downtowns of the future will become enclaves for the rich, as opposed to the mixed-income areas that they once were.

[BKM]

This is also happening in large central cities where we actually want people to return to. The cost of downtown and near-downtown living is so high, I often wonder if downtowns of the future will become enclaves for the rich, as opposed to the mixed-income areas that they once were.

The Latin American and sorta the Continental geography of affluence?

Well, if society doesn't do a Kunstleresque total collapse, but energy prices continue to spiral (and availability becomes more difficult), than this could be the case in cities that remain the economic core of their region.

[Chet]

Looks like the last one is a poor execution of so-called "cluster" or "conservation" subdivision.

its curvilinear, predating the cluster concept by almost 40 years.

[crisp444]

Somewhere on this website (perhaps one of these articles) is an article which makes the point that fewer "middle class" people and poor people can afford a home -- especially in "tourist towns" -- because of the rich owning two homes and driving up the costs and driving down the availability. Sigh.

This has happened to where I was raised: Florida Keys, FL - the 1,070 square foot home for which my parents paid $85,000 in 1984 would now sell for nearly $750,000. There are entire neighborhoods down there where most of the houses have hurricane shutters on their windows (signaling that no one is home) for 6-9 months per year. Someone with whom I attended primary school has parents who still own a home in Sugarloaf Key, FL. Out of the 15 or so ( 1200-2000 sf, $900k-$1.4million+) houses on their dead-end street, only about 4 or 5 routinely have cars in the driveway. Ironically, they always comment that "No one lives here full-time anymore! We don't know the neighbors!" The ironic thing is that not even THEY live there full-time: their primary residence is now in Northern Florida! However, unlike a lot of others, they have not "cashed out" and left town completely. So many of my childhood friends have parents who have (within the last few years) sold their small houses to "snowbirds" (which mean part-time reisdents, normally from the northern US) for $500,000-$1 million + and left for the "greener pastures" of northern and central Florida and states like North Carolina, where they were able to buy a home three times in size for 1/3 of the price they received for their former Keys home.

These high housing costs are a huge burden for the average person in the Keys. Almost all jobs in the area are fairly low-paying and in the tourist industry, and affordable housing is not merely an issue - it is a crisis. The average home price to average household income ratio is alarmingly high and most likely one of the absolute highes in the US. The people who seem to be buying all the newly expensive houses (prices have skyrocketed in the last 6 years but are now cooling) are people who have already "made their fortune" in the NE United States or Latin America, or well-off people who want second or third homes in the islands. How do so many "locals" (long-time residents) own their own homes? - They bought before houses prices doubled, tripled, and quadrupled. My own parents and almost every family friend I can think of would never be able to afford their own homes if they had to buy them today. People my age (early to mid 20s) who have graduated from college and want to return to the Keys are sadly finding out that even with two "middle class" incomes (for the recently married), it is a struggle to buy even a 1 bedroom apartment. Luckily, the market has cooled and price increases will most likely fall flat for quite a while.

[PennPlanner]

Already happening. Manhattan is almost completely the preserve of the rich and wannabe rich. Ditto for San Francisco, and all other major east/west coast cities with historic downtowns are well along this trend.

This is also happening in large central cities where we actually want people to return to. The cost of downtown and near-downtown living is so high, I often wonder if downtowns of the future will become enclaves for the rich, as opposed to the mixed-income areas that they once were.

[BKM]

Already happening. Manhattan is almost completely the preserve of the rich and wannabe rich. Ditto for San Francisco, and all other major east/west coast cities with historic downtowns are well along this trend.

Well...one of the reasons for this is that so few American cities have retained a good, strong core. Thus, these few are bid up by those who can afford it. Suburban Houston's (and the like) sprawl is not being bid up for a very good reason.

[IlliniPlanner]

Keep in mind that the amount of cars per household in the 50's was much less than 2005. I can only imagine how that neighborhood illustrated in the 1950's photo is handling all the cars of the 2005 homeowners. What I do like in the 1950's photo is the detached garages which are located in the rear yard, rather than attached and most likely front-loading in the 2005 photo.

[Luca]

Keep in mind that the amount of cars per household in the 50's was much less than 2005. I can only imagine how that neighborhood illustrated in the 1950's photo is handling all the cars of the 2005 homeowners. What I do like in the 1950's photo is the detached garages which are located in the rear yard, rather than attached and most likely front-loading in the 2005 photo.

Correct, but the direction of cuaslity is unclear, though. Obviously if you have tod rive everywhere to ane ven greater extent than 1950 AND you ahve DINK fmilies living in mansions, then the density of cars per person rises and you 'need' more vehicle space.

In London, some councils (municipalities) have gone from requiring minimum extra parking when hpousing units are added to maximum extra parking.

I do think that if the government is going to ration parking and car usage, they might use criteria other than simply cost.