If We Want Everything To Be A 15-Minute Walk From Home, State Needs To Get Involved

[mhays]

Wrong, Crawford -- per your own link if we hit "escape" and pan back.

Your image is a waterfront town. The hilly middle is uninhabited.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mhays

Wrong, Crawford -- per your own link if we hit "escape" and pan back.

Your image is a waterfront town. The hilly middle is uninhabited.

I don't understand your point.

HK is low density, not empty, as the Streetview indicates. There are homes everywhere around HK, like Boston.

Of course most of the land is technically uninhabited. Same is true with Boston. If I own 5 acres in suburban Boston, odds are my land is 95% empty. And HK is heavily mountainous. Obviously they typically aren't building SFH on steep elevations. But on developable land, there are homes scattered about everywhere.

[mhays]

You're apparently familiar enough with Google Maps to post a link using it. Hitting the "escape" button on your keyboard allows a map view. Then you can hit the aerial photo view button. Then you can pan out, meaning you're seeing a larger area of the photo view.

You'll see Lantau Island, which has some developed areas along the permimeter like the one you posted, plus large uninhabited areas. It's mostly the latter, with no housing for miles.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That's not true, though. Most of HK is lightly populated, not empty. Fishing villages, homes in the hills for the wealthy, isolated New Towns, etc. Of course the vast majority of people live in superdense apartment neighborhoods, but most of the land is sparse.

Obviously HK doesn't have SFH for average people, that wouldn't make sense. Boston is one of the richest metros on earth; HK is relatively poor for a first world city. And HK is extremely land constrained, so the land is worth too much for SFH with land.

There are some parks, which are obviously uninhabited, but, like Boston, HK is a metro with low overall density but high weighted density. HK is just an an extreme example.

This is common HK living outside of the core. Looks like suburban Mexico:
https://www.google.com/maps/@22.2358...7i13312!8i6656

Hong Kong is dense not because weighted density, but by pure density.

Hong Kong is a 1,000 km² territory where 7 million live. You compare that with Boston MSA/CSA sized, not with Boston UA. Hong Kong urban area, however, has only 200 km² where some 6.9 million people live in.

By pure urban area density (that one where Boston has only 2,400 people/sq mi), Hong Kong is extremely dense: almost 7 million living in 70 sq miles or 100,000 people/sq mi.

BTW, select Boston in this map and its urban area is showing as defined by US Census Bureau: http://citypopulation.de/en/usa/ua/ . It takes 5,000 km². 5x times larger than Hong Kong territory and 25x larger than Hong Kong urban area.

We can love the cute, old money, good taste exurban Boston. But it's ultra-low density sprawl. Period.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Very low-density environment is still an issue regardless how many people you have living in high densities in the core.

What exactly is the "issue" here? Is there something inherently wrong with living in a low density environment? Not sure what you're complaining about.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by badrunner

What exactly is the "issue" here? Is there something inherently wrong with living in a low density environment? Not sure what you're complaining about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl#Effects

In short, land loss, habitat loss, longer commutes (and therefore more polluents pumped into atmosphere), massive infrastructure to serve fewer people, car dependency, you know those things we discuss daily in this forum since its inception.

Other than that, nothing wrong... Imagine each one of the 8 billion people on Earth having their 10-acre property. The world would be an interesting place.

[badrunner]

Nobody said the whole world can afford to live that way.

[mhays]

It would be hard to turn time back on sprawl. But we can certainly slow future sprawl, and make current sprawl more sustainable.

I suspect some percentage of sprawl residents would also like to see more town centers and walkable areas, both for current lifestyle and so mom can still live there as she gets older.

Hell, when I live in sprawl as a kid I'd have killed for something to walk or bike to other than the god damn Quick-e-Mart.

[Crawford]

The point isn't that HK and Boston are the same, obviously, but they display the same issues by relying on overall density, rather than weighted density. HK is technically less dense than certain suburbs of Miami and LA, but this is obviously misleading.

HK is an ultra-dense city. But you have sparse development wherever there's developable land. Yeah, not on top of mountains, but in the (former) jungle lowlands. It looks a lot like Latin American suburbia/exurbia:

https://www.google.com/maps/@22.2697...7i13312!8i6656

In the real world, Boston would be less functionally dense and more autocentric if you had higher density sprawl. The point isn't to densify the semi-rural parts, it's to concentrate development in the historic centers, and that's what's generally happening, even if overall density remains low.

[10023]

Guys, there is a point where sprawl ceases to become sprawl and actually becomes rural. And those can be nice places to live. Sure they are “auto dependent”, but so are small villages in England or France or Germany.

This…



… is absolutely as auto-dependent as this…



… but at least the latter is actually a nice place to live, with greenery, animals and even a walkable Main Street. The density calculation for the former would be higher but this is meaningless in any practical sense.


As for Boston, you guys can’t possibly be looking at the outskirts which are filled with lots of reservation and conservation land (you know, nature) and saying “iT’s SO sPRawlY!”

[Yuri]

Just because you have some trees in your garden, that’s not nature. That’s a landscape changed by human action.

Obviously the second trip is prettier, but people on the first definitely burn less oil. As Boston sprawl seems to be above any criticism, let’s talk about Atlanta: its urban footprint is the size of Los Angeles-San Bernardino these days, despite having only one-quarter of population.

I find beautiful to look at, but Atlanta sprawl eats a massive amount of land that could otherwise to be reverted to nature. And also, people have to drive longer distances for everything.

And before people claim dense suburbs lack trees, using Los Angeles or Phoenix as examples, we have Johannesburg for instance: their northern suburbs are incredibly green, but density is much closer to LA than to Atlanta.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The point isn't that HK and Boston are the same, obviously, but they display the same issues by relying on overall density, rather than weighted density. HK is technically less dense than certain suburbs of Miami and LA, but this is obviously misleading.

HK is an ultra-dense city. But you have sparse development wherever there's developable land. Yeah, not on top of mountains, but in the (former) jungle lowlands. It looks a lot like Latin American suburbia/exurbia:

https://www.google.com/maps/@22.2697...7i13312!8i6656

In the real world, Boston would be less functionally dense and more autocentric if you had higher density sprawl. The point isn't to densify the semi-rural parts, it's to concentrate development in the historic centers, and that's what's generally happening, even if overall density remains low.

You're mixing different concepts here: urban area, metro area, city proper...

Hong Kong urban area is one of the densest in the world even by traditional density. In fact, Hong Kong urban area weighted density is traditional density is the same.

The only places where we have those big differences between one and another are in New York and Boston, places with a dense core and very low density suburbs. In the rest of the world, those numbers are very similar.

[10023]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Just because you have some trees in your garden, that’s not nature. That’s a landscape changed by human action.

If that’s your standard then there is no nature in my entire country.

Almost all landscapes have been changed by human action. In Europe there is very little primeval forest left. In fact I don’t think there is a single landscape anywhere in England not changed by man (maybe in Scotland).

But there are still birds and rabbits and deer walking around in that environment. There are still a variety of plants, flowers, insects, fungi, etc.

This is a landscape entirely created by man:

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Obviously the second trip is prettier, but people on the first definitely burn less oil. As Boston sprawl seems to be above any criticism, let’s talk about Atlanta: its urban footprint is the size of Los Angeles-San Bernardino these days, despite having only one-quarter of population.

I think you’re wrong. The photo I posted (of Lexington, MA) has an active village Main Street that is probably closer to most of those houses than the nearest strip mall is to the houses in the first photo. And because it’s a nice setting, people might even bike there.

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

And before people claim dense suburbs lack trees, using Los Angeles or Phoenix as examples, we have Johannesburg for instance: their northern suburbs are incredibly green, but density is much closer to LA than to Atlanta.

The nice suburbs of LA are the ones in the hills, which are the least dense.

But greenery is not exactly what I’m talking about when I say “nature”. The reason those Boston suburbs are less dense is also because of actual land set aside for nature.

See Lexington, MA again:

Lexington
https://goo.gl/maps/mFJWud56LN35qGFP6

Zoom in and you will see places labelled “Ada Govan Bird Sanctuary”, “Parker Meadow Conservation Area”, “Chiesa Farm”, “Lower/Upper Vine Brook”, etc.

These places certainly lower the measured density but it’s better to have them than not.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by 10023

If that’s your standard then there is no nature in my entire country.

Almost all landscapes have been changed by human action. In Europe there is very little primeval forest left. In fact I don’t think there is a single landscape anywhere in England not changed by man (maybe in Scotland).

But there are still birds and rabbits and deer walking around in that environment. There are still a variety of plants, flowers, insects, fungi, etc.

This is a landscape entirely created by man:

England is precisely known for that. A place completely transformed by human action. It's a big garden.

Maybe we should do the same with Amazon, "anglify" the whole thing, after all it will still be "nature". What's your toughts on that?

Originally Posted by 10023

I think you’re wrong. The photo I posted (of Lexington, MA) has an active village Main Street that is probably closer to most of those houses than the nearest strip mall is to the houses in the first photo. And because it’s a nice setting, people might even bike there.

Does this tiny village provide jobs for people living in this endless sprawl around it or it's inner Boston urban area and its powerful job market?

Originally Posted by 10023

The nice suburbs of LA are the ones in the hills, which are the least dense.

But greenery is not exactly what I’m talking about when I say “nature”. The reason those Boston suburbs are less dense is also because of actual land set aside for nature.

See Lexington, MA again:

Lexington
https://goo.gl/maps/mFJWud56LN35qGFP6

Zoom in and you will see places labelled “Ada Govan Bird Sanctuary”, “Parker Meadow Conservation Area”, “Chiesa Farm”, “Lower/Upper Vine Brook”, etc.

These places certainly lower the measured density but it’s better to have them than not.

I gather you're a wealth person, but the average folk cannot afford big mansions on Los Angeles hills.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Just because you have some trees in your garden, that’s not nature. That’s a landscape changed by human action.

It's still nature. What does it matter if it's privately owned or "changed by human action", which is likely most of the globe?

My brother lives in a heavily wooded lot in suburban Detroit. He has deer, coyotes and turkeys regularly strolling through his wooded back "yard" (there's no back lawn). He backs up to something like 50 acres of privately owned woodlands, managed by his neighborhood association.

How would it be "better" if his backyard woodlands were carved up into high density housing? It would become a hellscape for the existing owners. Everyone would still have 2-3 cars, and live the ultra-suburban life, it would just be much uglier and more congested, with lower quality of life, and destroy the underlying point of living in such an environment.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's still nature. What does it matter if it's privately owned or "changed by human action", which is likely most of the globe?

Ok, so let's Amazon to become a huge ranch with some trees by the rivers. It's nature.

Originally Posted by Crawford

My brother lives in a heavily wooded lot in suburban Detroit. He has deer, coyotes and turkeys regularly strolling through his wooded back "yard" (there's no back lawn). He backs up to something like 50 acres of privately owned woodlands, managed by his neighborhood association.

How would it be "better" if his backyard woodlands were carved up into high density housing? It would become a hellscape for the existing owners. Everyone would still have 2-3 cars, and live the ultra-suburban life, it would just be much uglier and more congested, with lower quality of life, and destroy the underlying point of living in such an environment.

If Detroit suburbs were twice as dense, your brother wouldn't be living in this place but likely 5-10 miles closer to Downtown and everything could be pure woodland with no humans around.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Ok, so let's Amazon to become a huge ranch with some trees by the rivers. It's nature.

If Detroit suburbs were twice as dense, your brother wouldn't be living in this place but likely 5-10 miles closer to Downtown and everything could be pure woodland with no humans around.

I don't understand your bizarre hypotheticals. No, we obviously shouldn't plow over the Amazon, and worsen climate change, poison the air, and destroy the largest extant rainforest ecosystem. And whether Metro Detroit should be built different is irrelevant. It isn't.

And if my brother weren't living in sprawl, it wouldn't be woodland, but farmland. The eastern U.S. was already transformed by man long before sprawl. It's likely much more wooded now than 100 years ago.

[mhays]

Farms are pretty important too. Some for the food supply, some so many types of food can be local.

That too requires state action to do comprehensively...basically like the entire West Coast is trying to do to varying degrees.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Ok, so let's Amazon to become a huge ranch with some trees by the rivers. It's nature.



If Detroit suburbs were twice as dense, your brother wouldn't be living in this place but likely 5-10 miles closer to Downtown and everything could be pure woodland with no humans around.

I don't think that's automatically true, and there might be a little misunderstanding of the dynamics of Detroit here (or American suburbs in general). Detroit's suburbs are relatively dense for American suburbia. Apples to apples, they are as dense or denser than suburbia just about anywhere in the U.S. that's not NY Metro or California. But that reality has had almost no effect on how close people live to downtown Detroit.

In other words, the lot sizes in exurban Detroit aren't the problem. The problem is the continuous development of suburbia in a region that has not added population in decades.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't understand your bizarre hypotheticals. No, we obviously shouldn't plow over the Amazon, and worsen climate change, poison the air, and destroy the largest extant rainforest ecosystem. And whether Metro Detroit should be built different is irrelevant. It isn't.

And if my brother weren't living in sprawl, it wouldn't be woodland, but farmland. The eastern U.S. was already transformed by man long before sprawl. It's likely much more wooded now than 100 years ago.

Crawford, when I criticize a urban development model I'm not saying you have to bulldozer anything. I'm just saying a compact Detroit is much more environmentally friendly than the actual sprawly one. If you brother loves his mansion and its private woodland, that's a completely different story.

And if Detroit or Boston can transform environment around them, why not Amazon? Why do you think Bolsonaro popularity is so high in the regions of Amazon that are being cleared? Because people there, like your brother in Detroit, the WASPs of Boston and the Merry Englanders, want to transform the environment they live in.