Is America's suburban dream collapsing into a nightmare?

[aknowledgeableperson]

Does not compute.

That was in response to

Sounds like a bit of wishful thinking.

You made a dig at my comment and I yours.

[mean]

It still doesn't make sense. First you say it is wishful thinking to believe that people would go downtown to eat, then you say you never said people wouldn't go downtown to eat. I'm just trying to decipher what the heck you're trying to say.

[aknowledgeableperson]

You were the first one to interject the words "wishful thinking".  My response to your "wishful thinking" was just in fun.  I stand by the original statement in that their are people living in the burbs that have cut back on their visits to downtown for dining and entertainment purposes and are discovering places closer to home to visit instead.  Now if you think that is "wishful thinking" well I do hate to break it to you but there are excellent places in the burbs for both dining and entertainment - the downtown environment does not have an exclusive in these areas.

[mean]

My response to your "wishful thinking" was just in fun.  I stand by the original statement in that their are people living in the burbs that have cut back on their visits to downtown for dining and entertainment purposes and are discovering places closer to home to visit instead.  Now if you think that is "wishful thinking" well I do hate to break it to you but there are excellent places in the burbs for both dining and entertainment - the downtown environment does not have an exclusive in these areas.

Oh, ok. So you were being sarcastic. That makes more sense then. Well played.

And I'm quite aware of many excellent places in the burbs for both dining and entertainment. I frequent some, even. And frankly, I'm not a huge fan of much of the new stuff downtown, personally, although it seems to be quite a nice amenity for others to enjoy.

Anyway, by "wishful thinking" I didn't mean to imply that there weren't fine options in the 'burbs, I only meant to imply that you'd be quite content if suburbanites stayed away from downtown more in favor of those options in the 'burbs.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I only meant to imply that you'd be quite content if suburbanites stayed away from downtown more in favor of those options in the 'burbs.

I would not be quite content.  Personally I see little need to go downtown so I only go when I really have to.  But for others if they want to go there to dine and be entertained then go ahead (and spend the money for parking and for the extra gas used  ).

[mean]

Anyone who pays to park downtown is out of their mind, but in general I agree. There is merit in playing closer to where you stay. To those who want to play downtown, I would advise living close to it. For those who prefer playing in Olathe...probably a good idea to live near it.

[Highlander]

Anyone who pays to park downtown is out of their mind, but in general I agree. There is merit in playing closer to where you stay. To those who want to play downtown, I would advise living close to it. For those who prefer playing in Olathe...probably a good idea to live near it.

While it's not absolutely necassary to pay to park downtown, it's only 2$ at the P&L garages on non-event nights.  Anyone who let's that dissuade them from a night out probably can't afford the night out in the first place.  Anybody who uses it as an excuse not to go downtown probably doesn't really want to go there.  I am happy to pay it and I am a rather sane person. 

[KCPowercat]

In KC the suburbs just might win out over the city.  The job market is not centralized and likely will never be. 

This theory has been proven to be inaccurate in this very thread, yet you keep claiming it?

http://forum.kcrag.com/http://www.kcrag ... 35#p350035

[mean]

While it's not absolutely necassary to pay to park downtown, it's only 2$ at the P&L garages on non-event nights.  Anyone who let's that dissuade them from a night out probably can't afford the night out in the first place.  Anybody who uses it as an excuse not to go downtown probably doesn't really want to go there.  I am happy to pay it and I am a rather sane person. 

OK, well, pay all you want, I'm sure Cordish appreciates it. So do I, because as long as people keep paying to park, I can keep parking for free along any number of streets in the northern xroads, which I do usually several times per week, even when there are events at SC. I have to say, it is highly amusing to park for free and walk a block or a block and a half and see some poor bastard paying $15. So by all means, keep me entertained and keep the street parking clear and free!

[KCPowercat]

I'm glad there are both options....cheap, easy parking is key to making it work downtown.  The $2 helps bring in those weekly free acts, so win/win/win all around.

[Highlander]

OK, well, pay all you want, I'm sure Cordish appreciates it. So do I, because as long as people keep paying to park, I can keep parking for free along any number of streets in the northern xroads, which I do usually several times per week, even when there are events at SC. I have to say, it is highly amusing to park for free and walk a block or a block and a half and see some poor bastard paying $15. So by all means, keep me entertained and keep the street parking clear and free!

The point I was making is that, available free parking or not, paying 2$ to park should hardly put downtown at a disadvantage in competing for anyone's entertainment dollar.  If you spend 100$ on dinner, you're likely to tip nearly 10X that much alone.  I cannot fathom that paying for parking would even enter the mind of a person trying to decide how to spend an evening out.  If it's Hannah Montana someone wants to see, then they will pay the 15 bucks (or find a spot on the street) but the argument about parking is moot at that point because she ain't coming to the burbs. 

In any event, I never mind walking, I love to walk but I am not as familiar with KC as I once was, so when I am back in town, I don't mind paying 2 bucks to park in a place I know is safe and legal.  I am glad that makes you laugh, they say the most sanguine people are those most easily entertained.

[mean]

The point I was making is that, available free parking or not, paying 2$ to park should hardly put downtown at a disadvantage in competing for anyone's entertainment dollar.  If you spend 100$ on dinner, you're likely to tip nearly 10X that much alone.  I cannot fathom that paying for parking would even enter the mind of a person trying to decide how to spend an evening out.  If it's Hannah Montana someone wants to see, then they will pay the 15 bucks (or find a spot on the street) but the argument about parking is moot at that point because she ain't coming to the burbs.   

In any event, I never mind walking, I love to walk but I am not as familiar with KC as I once was, so when I am back in town, I don't mind paying 2 bucks to park in a place I know is safe and legal.  I am glad that makes you laugh, they say the most sanguine people are those most easily entertained.

I agree, the $2 is fine. In fact, that's crazy cheap. It's the $15 that gets me, when there are literally hundreds of free slots a block away. But if people want to pay it, that's fine. That means I don't have to.

[aknowledgeableperson]

This theory has been proven to be inaccurate in this very thread, yet you keep claiming it?

http://forum.kcrag.com/http://www.kcrag ... 35#p350035

Sorry, but 35% does not mean that the jobs are centralized.  If it were 55% to 60% or more then, yes, the jobs are centralized.  But 35% just means it may be #1 but it sure doesn't dominate the area job market.  Yes, I know that is 35% from DT to the Plaza but the rest of the jobs in KCMO are fairly spread out, mainly between SKC along Ward Parkway and the airport area.  Per its financial report JoCo has over 300,000 jobs.  Yes, it is a bigger area than DT to Plaza but I point out that number to counter that the jobs are centralized in the area?

It may be a matter of semantics but if it doesn't have at least HALF (Downtown to Plaza) of the jobs then the job market  is not centralized.

[KCPowercat]

What are the job location breakdowns in other cities?  Who determines what % means the job market is centralized?  How exactly do the suburbs "win out" because 65% of the jobs are spread out so sparsely around the entire metro.  The main point was how dense the jobs are in a few zip codes, while nothing even close to that density exists anywhere else around the city.  that density is a huge advantage for things like mass transit and people moving closer to their jobs.

[aknowledgeableperson]

There is a big difference between showing the number of jobs in a few zip codes and indicating how dense those zip codes are and then saying that jobs for the whole metro area are centralize in those zip codes.

Who determines what % means the job market is centralized?

Well, according to you, you have determined that the KC area job market is "centralized" in those few zip codes.  I happen to disagree with the usage of the word "centralized".  I don't believe that those few zip codes you refer to control the area's job market, is the center of the area's job market, nor are the area's jobs concentrated there.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Came across this article.  Some interesting points.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/11/defens ... xes=custom

One bit that many can dispute:

There is no reason to assume that high-density living is necessarily more sustainable or liable to damage the environment than low-density living. If everyone in the affluent West were to spread out in single-family houses across the countryside at historically low densities (and there is plenty of land to do this, even in the densest European counties), it is quite possible, with wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy, to imagine a world in which most people could simply decouple themselves from the expensive and polluting utilities that were necessary in the old high-density industrial city. Potentially, they could collect all their own energy on-site and achieve carbon neutrality.

Certainly the remedy usually proposed by the anti-sprawl lobby--increasing densities and encouraging public transit--will not solve the global warming problem. Even if all urban dwellers the world over were brought up to "ideal" urban consumption standards--say, that of a Parisian family living in a small apartment and using only public transportation--it would not reduce energy use and greenhouse emissions, since it would require such large increases in energy use by so many families who today are so poor they can't afford the benefits of carbon-based energy.

Unless we deliberately keep most of the world's urban population in poverty, packing more people into existing cities won't solve anything. The solution is finding better sources of energy and more efficient means of doing everything. As we do this, it is quite possible that the most sustainable cities will be the least dense.

And in summary:

Certainly sprawl has created some problems, just as every settlement pattern has. But the reason it has become the middle-class settlement pattern of choice is that it has given them much of the privacy, mobility and choice once enjoyed only by the wealthiest and most powerful.

Sprawl in itself is not a bad thing. What is bad is the concept of "sprawl" itself, which by lumping together all kinds of issues, some real and important and some trivial or irrelevant, has distracted us from many real and pressing urban issues. It also provides the dangerous illusion that there is a silver bullet solution to many of the discontents created by the fast and chaotic change that has always characterized city life.

[KCMax]

Seems like his defense of sprawl is "many people assume sprawl will lead to bad things, but it might not and besides if we try to reverse things it won't help anyway because the rest of the world is poor."

[AJoD]

Seems like his defense of sprawl is "many people assume sprawl will lead to bad things, but it might not and besides if we try to reverse things it won't help anyway because the rest of the world is poor."

I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

[KCMax]

I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

Well of course I'm oversimplifying, but his defense doesn't appear to me to be an effective one. He cites sprawl is slowing down in the U.S. He has numbers to back it up. That strengthens the argument. Of course, so what if sprawl is slowing down? That doesn't mean it still isn't a problem.

He says that sprawl doesn't necessarily cause environmental problems. To back that up, he imagines that if everyone lived in sprawled out communities we MIGHT not have any problems if we find alternative energies to support these communities. Well that seems like an awfully big pipe dream. First you need to find alternative energies that can provide as much energy as cheaply and efficiently as fossil fuels, secondly, you'll have to find an infrastructure that can provide that energy to far flung communities as efficiently as our current grid system. Some pretty big assumptions.

He says that density will not solve problems by citing a ridiculous example of taking everyone in the world and putting them in dense cities. This is absurd because he's also confounding the effect of taking people far below the poverty line and putting them to first world standards, which of course would take more energy. One could just as easily say sprawl is enormously bad for the environment if you take all the poor third world people in the world and put them in McMansions in Johnson County. They're both absurd statements that conflate two separate arguments. He says "unless we deliberately keep most of the world's urban population in poverty..." as a way to suggest anti-sprawl advocates want to keep people poor, ignoring the fact that continued sprawl for people emerging from poverty would be just as bad if not worse for the environment. The problem environmentally is people emerging from poverty and consuming more, not whether they live in dense or sprawled environments.

He concludes by saying, "well sprawl can't be stopped anyway, so why try?" Of course, this kinda undercuts his early argument that sprawl is decelerating, but hey, why not throw it in?

Just a lazy excuse of a defense. I think there are valid defenses to sprawl, but this was certainly not one of them.

[AJoD]

Just a lazy excuse of a defense. I think there are valid defenses to sprawl, but this was certainly not one of them.

I guess took the "defense" as more reactive than proactive.  I didn't read this as an argument that sprawl is a good thing that we should fight for, but that it gets attacked and managed as an evil in and of itself, but the real issues associated with sprawl--like inefficient energy sources, a dramatic increase in consumption, and a continual expectation of rising standards of living--go on ignored, and perhaps made worse, by efforts to manage the effect "sprawl" rather than the causes.

I'm not sure the author is right, but I think it's a worthwhile viewpoint and didn't strike me as intellectually lazy.