If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Urban Sprawl: The Movie   (cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 90
    More: Interesting, Cosmic Log, Alan Boyle, urban sprawls, urbanizations, Space science, Death Valley, XHTML Mode, dwarf planets  
•       •       •

9378 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Mar 2012 at 5:32 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-05 11:45:10 PM  
Good lord.

But given that it's low density housing, isn't it technically suburban sprawl?
 
2012-03-06 12:51:25 AM  
30ninjas.com
 
2012-03-06 01:46:24 AM  
Sprawl. What a strange word. Rhymes with rawl. Lou Rawls.
i229.photobucket.com
Lou Rawls must secretly run Las Vegas!
 
2012-03-06 05:45:13 AM  
img217.imageshack.us
"Conform or be cast out."
 
2012-03-06 06:03:06 AM  
What happened?

Did someone see this?
 
2012-03-06 06:10:30 AM  
humans are a virus killing the planet. There are enough humans already, any couple having more than 2 kids are assholes.
 
2012-03-06 06:15:19 AM  
Keep your Veg-ass off my lawn.
 
2012-03-06 06:23:45 AM  
Most of those houses are now in foreclosure.
 
2012-03-06 06:28:05 AM  

stuffer: humans are a virus killing the planet.


Finally figured out what we are, Smith?
 
2012-03-06 06:34:21 AM  
I find it difficult to believe that they would not use the stills with the UFOs. What are they trying to hide from us?
 
2012-03-06 06:34:36 AM  
I loath developers...
 
2012-03-06 06:35:15 AM  
That's sick.
 
2012-03-06 06:37:33 AM  

ArtosRC: I find it difficult to believe that they would not use the stills with the UFOs. What are they trying to hide from us?


The UFOs, perhaps?
 
2012-03-06 06:40:05 AM  
Perhaps a picture of the urban sprawl in the article would have been helpful .
 
2012-03-06 06:47:21 AM  

stuffer: humans are a virus killing the planet. There are enough humans already, any couple having more than 2 kids are assholes.


Well, I guess that makes us that retroactively, since we had three, back in the '70s. Now that you've gotten that off your chest (and as a digression, I admire your brevity, and you are of course correct, 7 billion is way too many), I'd like to turn this thread in the direction of innovative solutions. How about Birthright Lotteries? This is a concept originated by Larry Niven, in his Known Space universe, and you'll find some discussion of it on the Internet, although the term has been highjacked and turned to unrelated discussions by some.

So, go for it- I'm not going to discuss it at length. Even convicted criminals can't be excluded from the Birthright Lottery. What's the penalty if you circumvent getting your birth control implants? Well, then the ARMs go on a Mother Hunt....and the parents are executed, their child lives, thus maintaining zero growth. Have you won a license to breed in the Lottery, and want more than one kid? Put your ticket in the pot and go in the arena and fight for it. The losers do the subtraction for the extra kid you have.

Grim? Not nearly as grim as where we're headed......the figures say world population will top out at 10+ billion in about 30 years. How long does anyone think that can be sustained? No one took Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb) very seriously in 1968 when his timeline proved to be far too short, but that book has always stuck with me, and it seems more relevant than ever in 2012. Population control by coercion has always been shunned as politically unacceptable. More acceptable than the inexorable depletion of irreplaceable resources and mass starvation?
 
2012-03-06 07:11:37 AM  

Walker: Most of those houses are now in foreclosure.


I think that's what's indicated with the red marks.

/naw, that wouldn't be enough of the city, would it?
 
2012-03-06 07:25:47 AM  

rico567: , I'd like to turn this thread in the direction of innovative solutions.


profile.ak.fbcdn.net
 
2012-03-06 07:35:57 AM  
Woo! Urban Brawl: The movie. Wait...
 
2012-03-06 07:36:06 AM  
"What sprawls in Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas."

Oh my god, that's hilarious! "What sprawls in Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas"! Ha ha! That's just like that commercial where they say "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas", except cleverly modified to apply to this situation! That's genius! Ha ha ha! I can't stop laughing! Oh, my sides hurt!
 
2012-03-06 07:52:01 AM  
Number of kids is only part of the problem (and really, it is a problem given that space is not the only issue, WATER is a huge issue in the American west), the biggest problem in this nation is the American culture's love affair with space. We each have to have houses bigger than we need taking up lots bigger than we need overlooking a "view." I mean, how many modern houses have a front room with that massive picture window that they barely use? And how much of this is a "place for our shiat" (as Mr. Carlin put it)?

Simply put: This country, it's natural habitat, simply can't afford our indulgence of wasted space anymore. We have officially run out of space. My Japanese sister in law's entire family grew up in an apartment the size I live in by myself. It's time was started cutting down on the shiat we have and cutting down on the space we take up.
 
2012-03-06 07:56:21 AM  
Can we ever get away from the sprawl?
 
2012-03-06 07:59:22 AM  

KiplingKat872: Number of kids is only part of the problem (and really, it is a problem given that space is not the only issue, WATER is a huge issue in the American west), the biggest problem in this nation is the American culture's love affair with space. We each have to have houses bigger than we need taking up lots bigger than we need overlooking a "view." I mean, how many modern houses have a front room with that massive picture window that they barely use? And how much of this is a "place for our shiat" (as Mr. Carlin put it)?

Simply put: This country, it's natural habitat, simply can't afford our indulgence of wasted space anymore. We have officially run out of space. My Japanese sister in law's entire family grew up in an apartment the size I live in by myself. It's time was started cutting down on the shiat we have and cutting down on the space we take up.


It absolutely can support more indulgence. There are miles and miles of miles and miles out there. The problem is poor people. Until we can shoehorn them into tiny homes out of view, we're going to have this problem.
 
2012-03-06 08:05:03 AM  

ronaprhys: The problem is poor people. Until we can shoehorn them into tiny homes out of view, we're going to have this problem


This would be funny, except we've already done that.
 
2012-03-06 08:13:03 AM  

eltejon: I loath developers...


sure you do. how are you typing from your hut in the forest off the grid with no roads around you?

I always find it funny when people say they hate developers. As if somehow they are so special that they arent a part of the demand that drives developers to develop. Developers build shopping centers , high rises, neighborhoods, pay for roads, parks, office buildings, pay for power lines, comunication lines, - just about all the stuff you use everyday. But they wuldnt do any of that building if you didnt pay for it. Get mad at your democratically elected government officials for allowing the city ordinances to accomodate low density suburban sprawl.

If you refuse t do that ,you could start supporting your cause by paying more per square foot than your house is worth. just pay a few hundred extra dollars per month for your rent. That way, a developer doesnt have to build and accomodate demand / current market conditions to make to worthwhile to risk / invest his money.
 
2012-03-06 08:16:23 AM  

KiplingKat872: My Japanese sister in law's entire family grew up in an apartment the size I live in by myself.


Japan is 1/20th the size of the US with a population the third the size. They're like the Hulk trying to squeeze into Bruce Banner's clothing.

While I agree developers need to be given the boot, actual housing size in the US doesn't really need to come down.

The US' main problem isn't housing, but suburbia. If we built a few more close apartments and made more garages instead of lots, we could preserve both our remaining wilderness areas and keep the footprint of our cities mostly untouched without sacrificing the roomy feel.

Trust me brother, you do NOT wanna grow up in a Japanese apartment.
 
2012-03-06 08:17:02 AM  

rico567: stuffer: humans are a virus killing the planet. There are enough humans already, any couple having more than 2 kids are assholes.

Well, I guess that makes us that retroactively, since we had three, back in the '70s. Now that you've gotten that off your chest (and as a digression, I admire your brevity, and you are of course correct, 7 billion is way too many), I'd like to turn this thread in the direction of innovative solutions. How about Birthright Lotteries? This is a concept originated by Larry Niven, in his Known Space universe, and you'll find some discussion of it on the Internet, although the term has been highjacked and turned to unrelated discussions by some.

So, go for it- I'm not going to discuss it at length. Even convicted criminals can't be excluded from the Birthright Lottery. What's the penalty if you circumvent getting your birth control implants? Well, then the ARMs go on a Mother Hunt....and the parents are executed, their child lives, thus maintaining zero growth. Have you won a license to breed in the Lottery, and want more than one kid? Put your ticket in the pot and go in the arena and fight for it. The losers do the subtraction for the extra kid you have.

Grim? Not nearly as grim as where we're headed......the figures say world population will top out at 10+ billion in about 30 years. How long does anyone think that can be sustained? No one took Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb) very seriously in 1968 when his timeline proved to be far too short, but that book has always stuck with me, and it seems more relevant than ever in 2012. Population control by coercion has always been shunned as politically unacceptable. More acceptable than the inexorable depletion of irreplaceable resources and mass starvation?


Forget the sprawl. Forget the birth rate. The world's farmers have, over the past 50 years, made so many advances in food production that we can feed a lot more than the 7 billion currently on the planet, distribution problems notwithstanding. If you want to reduce the population, get rid of the farmers. Get rid of the huge corn and soybean farms in the U.S., China, and South American countries. Get rid of the huge hog farms in China and the U.S.; halt rice production in China and the U.S. Just get rid of the farmers and all the other problems will take care of themselves.
 
2012-03-06 08:23:21 AM  
www.jpgdump.com
 
2012-03-06 08:23:24 AM  

doglover: Japan is 1/20th the size of the US with a population the third the size.


Well, they are kinda short.
 
2012-03-06 08:25:55 AM  

rico567: Grim? Not nearly as grim as where we're headed......the figures say world population will top out at 10+ billion in about 30 years. How long does anyone think that can be sustained? No one took Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb) very seriously in 1968 when his timeline proved to be far too short, but that book has always stuck with me, and it seems more relevant than ever in 2012. Population control by coercion has always been shunned as politically unacceptable. More acceptable than the inexorable depletion of irreplaceable resources and mass starvation?


Perhaps you should read up on more recent data. Population is slowing down and may peak in the next 30 to 50 years. And feeding people is a political problem. Not a technical problem.

/I was told in high school during the 80s that by now we would run out of oil
//oops
 
2012-03-06 08:29:09 AM  
Know what's funny? There's far more forest in the Northeast, the most densely populated part of the US, than there was back when far fewer people lived there. Even in sprawltastic states like Texas the rural areas are declining in population every Census...So sure, The Woodlands might be huge and incredibly sprawly, but Quanah is slowly fading away. We're not destroying all the countryside, it's just being rebalanced.
 
2012-03-06 08:29:28 AM  

bravian: /I was told in high school during the 80s that by now we would run out of oil


Funny, I was told in high school during the 60s that we would run out of oil by the 80s.
 
2012-03-06 08:36:50 AM  
img600.imageshack.us
 
2012-03-06 08:45:14 AM  
If we're going to worry about sprawl, use a better example than the Nevada desert wasteland.
 
2012-03-06 08:45:15 AM  
Meanwhile less than 5% of the US is incorporated, less than 2.5% of N. America is in incorporated.
Get out there once in awhile people, and you'll see this urban sprawl is a made up problem for Americans.
 
2012-03-06 08:57:27 AM  

Mr. Right: Forget the sprawl. Forget the birth rate. The world's farmers have, over the past 50 years, made so many advances in food production that we can feed a lot more than the 7 billion currently on the planet, distribution problems notwithstanding. If you want to reduce the population, get rid of the farmers. Get rid of the huge corn and soybean farms in the U.S., China, and South American countries. Get rid of the huge hog farms in China and the U.S.; halt rice production in China and the U.S. Just get rid of the farmers and all the other problems will take care of themselves.


That's the Green Revolution, which is only possible through the intensive use of petroleum, petrochemicals, and the various chemicals and fertilizers derived from fossil hydrocarbons.

www.oilempire.us

Oops.
 
2012-03-06 08:57:31 AM  

doglover: KiplingKat872: My Japanese sister in law's entire family grew up in an apartment the size I live in by myself.

Japan is 1/20th the size of the US with a population the third the size. They're like the Hulk trying to squeeze into Bruce Banner's clothing.

While I agree developers need to be given the boot, actual housing size in the US doesn't really need to come down.

The US' main problem isn't housing, but suburbia. If we built a few more close apartments and made more garages instead of lots, we could preserve both our remaining wilderness areas and keep the footprint of our cities mostly untouched without sacrificing the roomy feel.

Trust me brother, you do NOT wanna grow up in a Japanese apartment.


My parent's bought their 2nd house in the late 80's in a small development. One thing that was neat about theirs is that the owners had options to use the areas of the property they bought to build the house and keep the area around it as natural habitat.

I agree that developers should be giving the boot. In my area they clear cut the natural habitat and then the market falls and the land is left for years with no use. There has to be a better solution to developers.
 
2012-03-06 09:01:03 AM  
Mr. House is going to need a bigger nuke shield.
 
2012-03-06 09:04:47 AM  
 
2012-03-06 09:05:18 AM  

Mr. Right: bravian: /I was told in high school during the 80s that by now we would run out of oil

Funny, I was told in high school during the 60s that we would run out of oil by the 80s.


Funnier, I was told I'd have a flying car by the year 2000. Fark you Popular Mechanics!
 
2012-03-06 09:17:56 AM  
Molly Millions unavailable for comment.
 
2012-03-06 09:18:31 AM  
img508.imageshack.us
An elegant solution from a more civilized age. Not as random or clumsy as urban sprawl.
 
2012-03-06 09:25:50 AM  

MythDragon: [img508.imageshack.us image 640x1063]
An elegant solution from a more civilized age. Not as random or clumsy as urban sprawl.


it looks like it needs to pee
 
2012-03-06 09:30:52 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Know what's funny? There's far more forest in the Northeast, the most densely populated part of the US, than there was back when far fewer people lived there. Even in sprawltastic states like Texas the rural areas are declining in population every Census...So sure, The Woodlands might be huge and incredibly sprawly, but Quanah is slowly fading away. We're not destroying all the countryside, it's just being rebalanced.


I need to see more data on claim, because you know since I'm a landscape ecologist this sounds like bullshiat.
 
2012-03-06 09:33:43 AM  

PowerSlacker: If we're going to worry about sprawl, use a better example than the Nevada desert wasteland.


There is no such thing as a wasteland. Wasteland is a word used to justify over-development. But you make a good point. I'd love to see something like this for Atlanta. It now takes over an hour, at 70 mph, to traverse metro Atlanta from any direction. Here is is called "progress."
 
2012-03-06 09:34:39 AM  
I watched the little mountain on the lower left get whiter and whiter and for a minute I thought "hey, something is actually getting MORE snow over the years". Then I realized I was watching a mountaintop strip mine grow out of control and I had a sad.
 
2012-03-06 09:34:55 AM  

PowerSlacker: If we're going to worry about sprawl, use a better example than the Nevada desert wasteland.


Yeah, the desert around it isn't exactly prime productivity for plants. Better images would have been around the South Platte River or the Rio Grande. I've seen those, and it does chew up riparian areas and cropland.
 
2012-03-06 09:38:34 AM  

Tyee: Get out there once in awhile people, and you'll see this urban sprawl is a made up problem for Americans.


Shh...you're interrupting the circle-jerk.

/if you're really worried about the population problem, go do your part: kill yourself.
 
2012-03-06 09:41:25 AM  

JackieRabbit: PowerSlacker: If we're going to worry about sprawl, use a better example than the Nevada desert wasteland.

There is no such thing as a wasteland. Wasteland is a word used to justify over-development. But you make a good point. I'd love to see something like this for Atlanta. It now takes over an hour, at 70 mph, to traverse metro Atlanta from any direction. Here is is called "progress."


An hour? Oh noes. Try going from Ventura to Oceanside or Santa Monica to Banning
 
2012-03-06 09:47:16 AM  

poe_zlaw: eltejon: I loath developers...

sure you do. how are you typing from your hut in the forest off the grid with no roads around you?

I always find it funny when people say they hate developers. As if somehow they are so special that they arent a part of the demand that drives developers to develop. Developers build shopping centers , high rises, neighborhoods, pay for roads, parks, office buildings, pay for power lines, comunication lines, - just about all the stuff you use everyday. But they wuldnt do any of that building if you didnt pay for it. Get mad at your democratically elected government officials for allowing the city ordinances to accomodate low density suburban sprawl.

If you refuse t do that ,you could start supporting your cause by paying more per square foot than your house is worth. just pay a few hundred extra dollars per month for your rent. That way, a developer doesnt have to build and accomodate demand / current market conditions to make to worthwhile to risk / invest his money.


Eh, that's a strawman. Developers would much rather pave over a cornfield than actually help a community, even though the community is better for everybody but the developers. When a developer comes in and wants to basically build his own community where he's the one making all the money, he intentionally sites it out away from everybody else (but not too far) in order to try to artificially enforce supply and demand on a community. Instead of trying to fit into an existing infrastructure, with smaller scale development (and less profit) he wants to be able to create a whole area in his image.

A good example of this is Paul McKee, in St. Louis. Now, the north side of St. Louis has been in trouble for a long time, ever since white flight scared all of the blue collar people out and the factory jobs went away, taking education money with it. There's more to it than that, but too much to go into - suffice to say it's been on the downslope for at least the last 40-50 years. Pruitt-Igoe didn't help, either.

Now, Paul McKee made his money building an entirely planned development out in O'Fallon called Winghaven where he controlled everything from the houses, to the golf courses, to the libraries and churches. And it's at least half an hour away from the rest of St. Louis, but plenty of St. Louis types moved out there because "it stays lighter out later" and such.

Now McKee wants to come in and rebuild the north side, but in order for him to go ahead with his plan, he basically wants to bulldoze several hundred acres of historic urban area and rebuild it with his vinyl siding McMansions, cul de sacs, and big box stores. He's purchased a tremendous amount of land is doing everything passively possible to destroy property values up there, so he can acquire more land at even less cost. Once he's completely cratered the entire neighborhood, he'll move in with his bulldozers and (Republican-approved) tax credits, and remake the city as he sees fit.

That's the problem with developers. They play god with community planning, designing for profit rather than for sustainability. And when it blows up in their faces, they file bankruptcy and move on to the next development, washing their hands of the mess they left behind. We let the government try that in the fifties and sixties with urban planning like Cabrini Green and such, now we're letting private individuals play god. It's bad no matter who does it, because nobody can fully predict the multitude of factors that make a good community.
 
2012-03-06 09:48:25 AM  

bhcompy: JackieRabbit: PowerSlacker: If we're going to worry about sprawl, use a better example than the Nevada desert wasteland.

There is no such thing as a wasteland. Wasteland is a word used to justify over-development. But you make a good point. I'd love to see something like this for Atlanta. It now takes over an hour, at 70 mph, to traverse metro Atlanta from any direction. Here is is called "progress."

An hour? Oh noes. Try going from Ventura to Oceanside or Santa Monica to Banning


If you were in Santa Monica why in the hell would you want to go to Banning??
 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report