It is conventional wisdom in enviro circles that a big part of a green future is green cities, and a big part of green cities is dense, mixed-use development, wherein people interact with their neighbors, walk or bike to amenities, and generally have a much smaller environmental footprint than suburbanites. In other words: new urbanism.
Supporters of new urbanism face a daunting challenge, though: namely, the apparently overwhelming preference of Americans for sprawling, single-use suburbs. If dense, mixed-use urban communities are so great, how come there just aren't that many? How come nobody seems to want to live in them?
There are two basic schools of thought on this question.
One is that people prefer privacy and space. They prefer big-box stores with huge selection and low prices. They prefer wealthy schools. They're willing to accept long commutes, lots of driving, a lack of street life, and a lack of diversity in exchange. Perhaps young people enjoy the hustle-and-bustle of dense urban areas, but once they have kids they will prefer the yards, space, safety, privacy, and good schools of suburban life.
Another school of thought is handily summarized by Alex Steffen in a recent comment on WC (which I happened to read while writing this post, fortuitously):
... much of the best work on regional planning over the last ten years has shown just how political suburban sprawl is: there is almost not a single element of the creation of suburbs (as we think of them in N.America) that isn't massively influenced by political choices made in large part to benefit the people who build and live in them -- cheap gas; mortgage deductions; state subsidies for new schools, emergency services and infrastructure; the absorption of environmental externalities by the public; the practice of exclusionary zoning to keep the less wealthy out (and thus disproportionately shirk social obligations); the list goes on and on. As someone said, suburbs are less designed than legislated.
I honestly don't know the answer. And neither does Stuart Buck, who asked the pointed question last year: "Why isn't there more new urbanism?" He points out that housing prices in existing new urban communities tend to be sky-high, which would indicate considerable unmet demand. Is the market failing to meet a demand? If so, why? There's some great discussion in comments too, before the comment spambots take over.
I found Buck's post via the Crunchy Con blog on National Review Online. The blog takes off from Rod Dreher's profligately titled new book Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, gun-loving organic gardeners, evangelical free-range farmers, hip homeschooling mamas, right-wing nature lovers, and their diverse tribe of countercultural conservatives plan to save America (or at least the Republican Party). I recently finished the book and will be writing a review soon. The capsule review: It's chock full of interesting, engaging, provocative ideas -- many of which I think Gristmill readers will find resonant in their own lives. However, it remains frustratingly shallow; it doesn't follow those ideas to their logical conclusions, or explore any of the contradictions that hover around the margins. It's a snack, but not much of a meal. Recommended, though.
Oh, but to get back to the point: Why do you think there isn't more new urbanism?
Comments
View as Flat
John Vermylen Posted 10:33 am
14 Mar 2006
I think someone at Grist should consider reviewing the book. An interview with Bruegmann would make a good feature as well.
I'm in the middle of the book, so I can't comment substantively on what Bruegmann thinks of the political dimensions of sprawl. The book is a history of sprawl, and I think it will be seen as iconoclastic by many adherents of new urbanism. But it is a significant book, and Grist readers would benefit by learning more about it. Your thoughts?
Permalink
urbancole Posted 10:40 am
14 Mar 2006
Fundamentally, though, there is not the kind of powerful "vision" that has been fleshed out to make "urbanism" as cool as "suburbanism" was to the returning vets and retiring Rosie the Riveters who gave birth to the Baby Boom. A convergence of powerful incubating ideas crested during the 40s and 50s to meet the demographic demands of that time with single family housing tracts, shopping malls and office parks.
I believe that too will come. Especially with high oil prices and the obesity epidemic, new urbanism will continue to catch on.
Finally, I hope it doesn't all come at once. You can do it very badly and that would not do anyone any good. We need to get really good at it before we start spreading it all over the (infilled) landscape.
Permalink
meander Posted 11:05 am
14 Mar 2006
Permalink
cyclelicious Posted 3:38 pm
14 Mar 2006
In my city, there's a vocal group of residents who fight the good fight against big boxes and sprawl. In our last city council election we had a number of good candidates -- for each seat (including the one for mayor) there were pro-sprawl and anti-sprawl candidates. Although the anti-sprawl crowd make themselves known, write letters to the editor, and attend city council meetings and appear in the news and television, the pro-development candidates were the clear winners by large percentages.
Permalink
oilman2 Posted 11:35 pm
14 Mar 2006
Why don't these New Urbanism developments end up working? My opinion is that the drive for profits outweighs whatever the original concept was. 30 years ago, the rules in this community included no cutting of trees from lots with a diameter greater than 3". This resulted in most homes being nearly invisible, and created a very natural feel for the development. There were also restrictions on home placement, preventing identical or mirrored floor plans from going up near each other. Roadways were asphalt (oh so much quieter...) and the drainage system was compoased of grates flat in the ground in yards - no curbs and no ditches. All in all, a very pleasant effect was achieved.
Unfortunately, this is now a very small piece of the current development, like 7%. The remainder, if you drive through it chronologically, can be seen to morph into typical sprawl. Asphalt streets gave way to much noisier concrete. The rules about tree cutting gradually were ignored or else given variance over time. Now the yards are all tiny green strips with humongous houses rising to treetop level. The old natural looking flat grate drainage system can be seen evolving to typical curb and gutter as the concrete streets became more prominent. There are numerous places in this development where identical home designs are staring across the street at one another!
The driver for this is profit - maximizing the number of homes on a given swatch of land means more dollars for the developer - period. Using curb and gutter drainage requires less design and construction time than the flat grate drainage. All the landscape people lobbied for reduction in the "natural landscape rule", and so now every yard is St. Augustine grass strips broken with typical decorative garden plots - the "woodland feel" is gone. And each of these homesteads is supported by monthly spraying of pesticides and chemicals to "hold the woodlands at bay" and keep that grass green.
In similar fashion, the small businesses have been driven out by the Walmarts and Targets and Krogers and other big chains. My parents were the victim of this, watching helplessly as their landlord ratcheted their rent up 25% a year until they couldn't afford to lease their space. Now we have a local "mega-liquor" chain store where my parents once ran their business. The "green belts" have gradually become filled with fast food and convenience stores. First the city grants a single variance, and tax revenues increase. Now there is little compunction to deny other variances, and finally the old policy is dead in favor of revenue growth. Only the bike trails have any type of real woodland surrounding them, and that extends no more than 10 feet either side of their paths. Sadly, even that underbrush is thinned for the sake of "safety" - to allow patrolling police to view what is happening on the bike trails.
The drive is simply profit. For developers, landlords, local service businesses, and especially the city itself. To deny a city ever-increasing revenues is unheard of. Every city government wants more and more money - thus things get bartered and given away to special interests. Economic growth AT ALL COSTS....it's uniquely American...
It's a phenomenon of our "growth culture" - if we aren't growing, we are failing. While this isn't true, it's an American axiom. And until we chill out and realize that growth is often unwise or even bad for the local populace, little will change. And in the end, it's we Americans who have to stand up to local elected officials and developers and others and simply say "ENOUGH!"
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:02 am
15 Mar 2006
www.grist.org
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:19 am
15 Mar 2006
The sound of birds singing is drowned out by a growling diesel engine that pulls into a driveway. A Smallish guy climbs down from his giant 4x4 truck, walks into his oversized house, pets his great dane that is bigger than he is, gets a supersized beer out of his doublewide fridge and hops up on his overstuffed recliner to watch his bigscreen TV. The camera goes outside and pans back to contrast the ridiculously large house he lives in to a neighborhood filled with beautiful and efficiently designed small homes, maybe with solar panels built into the roofs (computer simulations would come in handy since no such place currently exists).
Birds sing as a Prius silently pulls up to the small house. The door slowly opens and Bill gates steps out. He notices a penny laying on the ground, bends down and picks it up. No words spoken, birds continue to sing in the background.
Businesses have to give people what they want. The key is to change what they want.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
kmp Posted 5:11 am
15 Mar 2006
Permalink
Chris Schults Posted 5:52 am
15 Mar 2006
Sir Peter Hall reflects on the term 'sustainability' as applied to urban planning. He talks about the chief concerns facing urban planners today and discusses the different styles of urban design in Europe and North America. He talks about China's continued, rapid economic growth. He ends by suggesting that European planners in particular can provide the Chinese with much useful advice with regards to new urban design.
I haven't watched them myself, but thought someone might find them interesting.
Look out! It's a media shower!
Permalink
Saucerman Posted 7:40 am
15 Mar 2006
I would be curious to see how many people following this post live in what they preach - who here actually lives in a new urban, high density setting? I do not; I live in an older duplex on the edge of downtown, 5-mile bike ride to work, walking distance to most residential services (restaurants, theater, bookstore, etc.) How about you David, or anyone else?
sustain - it's harder than you think.
Permalink
couchrock Posted 7:40 am
15 Mar 2006
The driver for sprawl and developments is indeed economics, but a very distorted sort. As a previous poster noted, various subsidies and policies prevent suburban homeowners from paying all of the costs associated with their lifestyle. And yet the core problem is elsewhere.
One word: zoning. Local governments create incredibly repressive zoning laws that restrict the size and shape of buildings, depending on how the property is zoned. If anyone hasn't come across this before, a typical town is divided into commercial, residential, manufacturing, and mixed-use zones, which are then subdivided into two or more categories.
Each category then has restrictions on what can be built there. R-1 (Residential Class I) is often zoned for single family homes, R-2 for anything in R-1 plus duplexes, etc. Even the most lenient residential zone (high-rises) limits the footprint relative to the size of the lot and height. Sometimes these are further restricted by required that parking for tenants be located on the lot.
In my city of residence (Arlington, VA), building height seems to top out around 13 or 14 stories, tapering down fast as a metro stop becomes further away. Why are there s An awful lot of development is happening, but it's not enough. Prices are crazy here.
The result is that people move to the suburbs where land is cheaper, and businesses pop up to support them. Keep in mind that the suburbs are also highly zoned, often to keep the buildings short, so driving is the only convenient option.
The simple solution: bigger buildings closer to transit and enhanced mass transit systems. This wouldn't eliminate the suburbs, but it could check their continued growth.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:41 am
15 Mar 2006
I'm honestly not sure whether my situation would be classified as "new urbanist." I live in a condo building with hundreds of other people. I'm within easy walking distance of groceries, coffee, movies, doctors, etc. etc. I take a short bus ride to work. And street life, at least around the center of Ballard (in Seattle), is pretty robust. But I don't feel any real sense of kinship or community with my immediate neighbors. Don't know if that's something to do with the physical infrastructure or just my socially maladjusted self.
I think, in addition to the physical structure of communities, spending time in them is an important facet. People used to live in one place for decades. Now people move routinely. It makes it hard to build communities that people invest in. People view real estate as a pure commodity now, to be "turned over" for a profit. No one values particular places. That works against community.
www.grist.org
Permalink
Lyn Vaughan Posted 9:58 am
15 Mar 2006
I am going to read the Poverty & the Environment series to see if that gives any ideas.
Lyn Vaughan
Permalink
Janne Posted 11:33 am
15 Mar 2006
most people would choose in an ideal world, but it is a product of people doing what makes sense for themselves.
Municipal codes. These prevent urban residential areas on many levels due to engineering requirements. Civil engineering is more the process of meeting codes than being creative simply because meeting the codes is a task in itself. This can be in the form of limitations on maximum building heights, maximum residential units per acre, minimum street widths, parking requirements, or limitations on use to industrial or commercial that undervalues what the land would go for in an open market. Municipalities on the fringes of suburbia are generally more thirsty for new revenue, see a bigger % increase in revenue from new development, and are more like-minded in getting it because their council members live in suburbia themselves.
Re-Development costs. It can cost a lot less to buy a parcel on the fringe of development and install new utilities (which are 1/3 of the finished lot price)than to dig up old utilities and pay throw-away costs for any old structures onsite. It is also generally more straightforward to build on new land unless it is in an environmentally sensitive area. For redevelop that increases concentration, if there is any pollution present say, on an old industrial site, the purchaser can be liable for cleanup costs. Overall, to change zoning to increase density in a large city can be very expensive, it can take a long time, and it carries no guarantees.
Organization and cooperation. Most developers cannot afford to buy enough land to plan an entire "new urban" village themselves. Cities or suburbs either are not funded to do that level of planning or don't have the code in place to encourage it. Even if the developer wants to concentrate their lot sizes (which would maximize their profits)they can't be assured that the mixed use areas will arise on their own because what the other area land owners will do is out of their control.
The nature of sprawl. Once sprawl is surrounding the urban area that you want to live in your options become less. Either you can build an entire village on the outskirts on unused land, which requires an extremely large developer (Issaquah Highlands outside of Seattle is a moderate example of this) or you need to demolish and re-plumb the existing housing that was the outskirts of sprawl 40-50 years ago. Either option requires big financing to get started and makes the end product much more costly per square foot due to throw-away costs (and more costly the closer you are to the center of the city).
Trend towards bigger corporations and less small business. This in not always true but a few corporate offices on the outskirts of a city can provide a lot of incentive for their employees to move into less dense areas. It brings a lot of tax base to a city and simultaneously allows them to strong-arm the city because of their dependence on that new revenue to maintain their new infrastructure. If your job is with a corporation on the outskirts of a city you then can choose either between reverse commuting and renting a smaller place in the city or buying a bigger place in the suburbs, driving less, and gaining equity in your home. As long as jobs are moving into the suburbs people will also follow.
That's just what I've observed on the practical level of what motivates the individual stakeholders involved. The automobile is certainly the primary enabler for the suburban lifestyle, as is people's concerns about where they want to raise their children. My belief is that developers want to pack in as many units as they can sell onto the land that they own. They can be pro-density but they are limited by limits on density and the costs to re-develop. It is generally municipal code and people's personal preference to own more house (versus rent small) that drives sprawl. Perhaps as the younger generations, who thrive more on social interactions, grow up and gain equity we'll see a shift towards more compact mixed use scenarios.
Permalink
Sinequanon Posted 12:00 pm
15 Mar 2006
Regardless of what you call it, New Urbanism is also Neo-Traditional Planning, and frankly it is taken directly from the European Models of urban form. The European Models were from ancient cities of the past.
Rarely did U.S. cities have a plan prior to their beginnings. Those that did, like Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., New York City, Augusta and Savannah, New Orleans to name a few, have morphed over time, adjusting to change, population growth, immigration, industrialization and social factors. Most cities west of the Mississippi River did not evolve until after the Civil War thanks to nationalist historical writings by F. Turner who didn't have a clue what he was talking about. This land grab, was just that. It forecast all of our 'property rights' laws that we have today - ownership is everything. We didn't learn much from the Native Americans, at all, in our arrogance, then and today.
Today, we are left with a heritage from invention of the automobile, development of the highway system (which purportedly was due to evacuating in case of Nuclear war during the Cold War in Eisenhower's Administration), mass (replacement-based) consumerism, HUD, tax incentive for purchasing homes, FHA, and other government programs which lent a hand in creating the Capitalist state we have today. Basically, we can thank the government.
As an urban planner and designer, I have worked for the past 20 out of 29 years to make a difference in curtailing the physical growth of cities. It is difficult. Additionally, an earlier commenter is correct, in that early zoning laws created in the 1960s are still in use today. The seperate uses, create walls between people and communities, and created the NIMBY syndrome among other horrors. We can also thank the real estate field for passing on the bad information relative to land values, perpetuating myths to the NIMBY. As for developers and builders. Most of them are not very creative. They do what the see and all they see is seperation and single-family homes on tract lots.
However, there have been many advances. Cities all over the nation have created ordinances which allow transit oriented development, neo-traditional planning and development, or new urbanism. One of the best ways to do this is to completely throw out the old code. Create a flex based code that allows anything (almost) but requires a higher standard of development and design based on density or impacts. I recently did this in a city and developers jumped at the chance to use it and the outcomes have been great thus far. It also requires them to plan in advance rather than as they go along, which is what they tend to want to do and what they are used to doing.
Bank of America and other lenders, along with insurance companies such as Lumberman's have invested in New Urbanism, et al, communities for about 10- of the 20- years I have been designing or writing code regarding these types of development.
John Fregonese,, Peter Calthorpe and Duany Plater-Zyberk (and the Congress for New Urbanism) are probably the most well-known in the field today. There are certainly a plethora of others that do the same work all over the country. And, some progressive communities are more receptive than others who subsist on the same regimens and bulwurks we all have to live with today.
I often believe that half the problem entails not having any other choices but an apartment complex or a single family home to choose from in communities. Where garage apartments, live-work units, true townhomes, shotgun houses, granny flats, and other types of living accommodation were once available, they are seriously rare today. However, I have also participated in and seen projects like these that were infill developments and were created for low-income housing that turned out beautifully.
Once a new product is available - perhaps people will become interested in other choices. They may be forced into making new housing choices when prices for energy become more excessive than the masses can afford.
Note: I have posted a variety of articles on [my] site relative to cities and growth should anyone want to followup on this issue:
Growth Management: It's Back
Forces Shaping Cities
The Evolution of Cities in a Nutshell
Alternatives to Metropolitan Framentation
Suburban Growth, Character, and Change
Suburban Growth, Character, and Change Part II
On `Weeds', Suburbs, Artists, & Intellectuals
PAST as PROLOGUE: The Influence of World Expositions on Urban Form
Permalink
Sinequanon Posted 12:10 pm
15 Mar 2006
Permalink
accel2 Posted 11:47 pm
15 Mar 2006
http://www.planetizen.com/node/19010
I think it gives a good introduction to the current state of affairs -- how it encourages sprawl and why it's neither free-market nor sustainable.
-Mike
Permalink
sprawlkills Posted 1:07 am
16 Mar 2006
Permalink
EcoReason Posted 2:45 am
16 Mar 2006
David's revealing honesty about his sense of his own neighborhood is important. David's not alone, we're not a very community oriented culture in the United States (despite all the mytholgizing we do about it). Buildng community requires an effort to build community. Here's a great how to:
Turn off your television and computer
Leave your house (without taking the car)
Know your neighbors
Greet people and introduce yourself
Look up when you are walking and make friendly eye contact
Sit on your stoop a lot
Plant flowers in your yard
Use your local library
Buy from local merchants
Share what you have
Help find a lost dog
Take children to the park
Respect elders
Talk to your mail carrier
Listen to the birds
Help someone carry something heavy
Start a tradition
Ask thoughtful questions
Hire young people to do odd jobs for you
Organize a block party
Bake an extra share when you make goodies and share them
Ask for help when you need it
Open your shade, open your windows, open your door
Share your skills
Take back the night
Listen before you react to anger
Mediate a conflict
Learn from new and uncomfortable perspecives
Work to help people be heard
Procede with virtue
Celebrate the future today
Peace,
Kip
Permalink
Payton Chung Posted 1:36 pm
16 Mar 2006
One of the biggest barriers is finance. Property development is typically very highly leveraged, i.e., it's often 90% borrowed money. These days, lenders lend money, then bundle up similar loans and sell them as bonds. It's a very efficient way to spread risk and recycle capital, but the result is that developers are under even greater pressure than before to build stuff just like the last guy did -- it's very hard to get a loan to do something that will be literally one of a kind. Hence, our financial system has practically outlawed the creation of those unique places that many people cherish, in favor of building bland, formulaic (but market tested) strip malls and garden apartments. It's not surprising that so many New Urbanist developments have some sort of wealthy patron behind them, like a landed developer who "got religion" or an activist public official willing to risk the public purse; it's genuinely a huge challenge to get "conventional financing" for unconventional developments.
But hold on tight. Some New Urbanist market researchers have pointed out that the suburbs were built for nuclear families with children, which are a shrinking slice of America's population. In most large American cities, detached housing now accounts for less than half of new construction. The market success of pioneering developments have paved the way for those gun-shy lenders to lend to more interesting developments.
As for me, I'm writing this a block from home, at a local independent coffeehouse, watching the train disgorge streams of passengers into the station. It's quite nice.
PS. Shout-out to Rick Cole in Ventura!
Permalink
Forrest Posted 8:56 am
17 Mar 2006
I can't speak to the ins and outs of the economic and political arguments, but I think it is important for us to understand that many people, myself included, don't really like living in dense, urban environments, no matter how well designed. Yes, as an environmentalist I hate being dependent on my car, and I also hate the extra expense. I hate commuting. But when I get home, there might be elk grazing in my field. It is quiet. I can make as big of a garden as I want, and I can walk off into the woods. The stars shine at night, and coyotes howl in the swamp. My neighbors live half a mile away - but when I need them, they are always helpful. I might add that I'm fortunate to live in a city small enough that I can have all of these amenities, and still be less than one hour's bike ride from my office. We need to remember that people who don't choose to adopt the "new urbanism" aren't necessarily SUV driving rubes. They may be nature lovers who want nature to be something other than a manicured city park or a weekend trip out into the mountains. I think the philosophy of new urbanism is great - but I've yet to be convinced that it has anything to offer somebody like me. Perhaps you can convince me otherwise.
Permalink
jgray008 Posted 11:45 am
17 Mar 2006
In many ways I think America is like a 3rd world and 1st world country wrapped into one. Anything that denotes 3rd world -- such as trash in the streets, strangers with an agenda, and brown people in general -- must be avoided at all costs by '1st world' people, especially whites. For this reason, most Americans don't feel comfortable in cities and they viscerally hate them. They will be close to cities - give me access to Lion King and Old Spaghetti Factory in the city on a Saturday night, but after the show, get me the hell out! Give me my order and predictability. That is why they love suburbs and climate-controlled malls. And Lion King for that matter. And most of them are not like Forrest, wanting to be close to nature. They want to be able to drive to nature. They also don't want their children in '3rd world' schools with a majority of brown people.
I recently had an experience that confirmed this idea to me. I was walking home from a fun run downtown one summer day. I live about 10 blocks from downtown. Just as I was starting to walk through one part of my neighborhood - which has older homes with porches, is mostly African American, lower middle class and always has people around on a summer day - a woman caught up to me and asked me if we could walk together to her car that was parked a few blocks away. Although I feel more comfortable in my neighborhood than almost anywhere in the world, this woman was afraid to walk through it on a balmy summer afternoon.
That's how Americans feel about cities.
Permalink
jbunch Posted 12:44 am
21 Mar 2006
When I see plans for "new urbanism" in magazines and online, I get very excited. Nothing would make me happier than to see people in the cities live in a more eco-responsible manner. However, I, personally, would go nuts surrounded by all of that activity. I know my car is melting the icecaps, but it is relatively new and to replace it would be like throwing out the old copier paper to replace it with recycled paper. One step at a time.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:30 am
21 Mar 2006
Adding a plugin hybrid conversion to the back wheels of a front wheel drive car may soon be an affordable option.
17 million new vehicles are purchased every year in the US. To wait for total conversion to electric transportation power at this rate of vehicle replacement would be too slow. Global climate change is stalking humanity like a creeping leviathan.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
jrslide Posted 1:43 am
21 Mar 2006
Urban enviros are great at talking about nature and the environment, but fail to acknowledge another segment of the population that isn't satisfied just talking about it and actually wants to surrounded by it. I like birds, trees, a little bit of my own green space and afternoon naps that aren't subject to the blare of car horns, or the moods of my neighbors blasting their surround sound - so sue me.
I DON'T patronize big box retailers and while I don't care for a wealthy school, I do care for a safe school with good educational standards. As for diversity, but you also forget that it is not limited only to ethnicity. You need to appreciate that people themselves have diverse needs separate from your own.
I think everyone is missing the mark - most suburb and exurb dwellers are often people who would prefer to live in small to mid-size cities, and some even prefer small towns, but in this economy we have to go where the jobs are. My choice then is to in live like a sardine which would stress me to death, win the lottery and live anywhere I want, or move far out and face the dreaded commute. When will we stop being so critical of each other and work together to solve the real problem - if we bring jobs and opportunity back to small cities who need the growth, we can relieve the pressure on major metropolitan areas that have sprawled too far.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 6:14 am
21 Mar 2006
Living in a city could be tough, also fun and rarely boring, especially if you don't like trees and birds and all those things which are super-quiet compared to the normal hustle and bustle in the city. On the other hand, walking through Times Square does not appeal to me and kind of bores me, since I do like trees and birds and all those things. Side note: I just got back from NYC and I swear that my hearing was worse when I got on the bus back than on the bus there.
There is usually a wide array of food shops in cities, but getting farm-fresh food is harder. You are constantly surrounded by other humans, and it is harder to remember what 'environment' even is, except for a sycamore in a 3x3 opening in the sidewalk and asphalt, concrete, and brick. It is slightly more energy efficient, but show me an adult in outer boroughs who doesn't think that public transport isn't for suckers or for getting drunk or for getting to Manhattan, and I will give you 5 bucks (jk, I'm sure there are plenty of people like that here).
It all depends on personal opinion and it is hard to police that. Maybe that is why sprawl is predominantly American (more freedom = I do what I like).
Permalink
atreyger Posted 6:18 am
21 Mar 2006
I think that's what I wanted to write originally, but I got a little sidetracked.
Permalink
pps21649 Posted 7:34 am
21 Mar 2006
Permalink