The concern about sprawl is that land is a finite fucking resource and we need to keep 30-50% of it pristine so bull dozing to build you McMansion isn't useful to this goal. If I was in a room with any tech bro I would probably end up in jail after 30 minutes.
The concern about sprawl is that land is a finite fucking resource and we need to keep 30-50% of it pristine
Broadly speaking, quite a bit of the US is entirely undeveloped. 1.9B acres, of which around 2% is actual urbanized real estate. A plurality (41%) goes to grazing pasture. Some 25-odd% is forestland and another 17% is agricultural. (Apologies for the shit url)
McMansions aren't any significant share of the hard real estate figures. They're just black holes for electricity, water, and transit resources, such that they require huge subsidies from the general public in order to function as attractive residencies. One of the reasons you don't see people piling out into South Dakota or Northern New Hampshire or or West Virginia is because there's no physical hook-ups to the national grids. 80 years ago, the entire Tennessee Valley suffered from this problem and we set up the Tennessee Valley Authority to roll out a bunch of these amenities. Great Society, similarly, expanding public services through the Gulf Coast and the Mountain West. But since the 80s, we more or less stopped this infrastructure expansion. And since the turn of the millennium, we've basically stopped repairing/maintaining the legacy infrastructure.
So now you've got a 10,000 sqft mega-house sitting on the California/Nevada border that's hooked up to a bunch of wires and pipes with at best a tentative connection to the sources of electricity and water. And because of the political influence of those far-flung communities, we continue to invest significant amounts of money in maintaining those far-flung networks while more efficient dense urban networks go the way of Flint.
The cost ineffectiveness of urban sprawl gets me every time—if you want to live in a rural area, live in a rural area. If you want to live with the amenities of a city, live in a city.
The suburban larp of pseudo-estate landed gentry makes the bloodmist fall over my gaze and all is oblivion until at least one jacked up commuter truck has been defiled.
I hadn't thought of the utility use/accessibility that you'd brought up, interesting.
But just to elaborate on the land conservation that I'd brought up, the location matters, conserving 90% of the areas people don't want to live doesn't make up for developing other habitats because those other habitats that developers like to develop are also important, if not arguably more important since maintaining these ecosystems can actually allow more people to live by them.
For instance mangrove forests protect Florida coastlines from storm surge, by cutting them down and not conserving a decent proportion of them your cities can get fucked by storm surge. Or in the case of Southern California by developing habitat that has small burns regularly you risk having large uncontrollable burns now next to development when you put out every small fire.
For instance mangrove forests protect Florida coastlines from storm surge, by cutting them down and not conserving a decent proportion of them your cities can get fucked by storm surge.
I agree. Although this then becomes very regionally specific and functionally we're talking about making the exigent city sustainable rather than just maintaining the biosphere generally speaking. In theory, you can have it both ways with even more artificial infrastructure. The only economic question is whether you think a man-made jetty or other barrier is more cost efficient than simply not tearing out all your mangroves.
Coastal real estate (particularly vacation real estate) also tends to be much more densely developed than inland properties. Building a twenty story high rise on the coast isn't superior to a McMansion, particularly if the high rise is accompanied by a mile-long stretch of peer buildings. Hell, the McMansion might be better simply because the resident is more likely to preserve the natural character of the property they just purchased.
Although this then becomes very regionally specific and functionally we’re talking about making the exigent city sustainable rather than just maintaining the biosphere generally speaking.
I agree that it's regional specific on some level, cities protected by mangroves in Baja or India can be treated the same as in Florida, though not everywhere has mangroves. But it's important to maintain them because most people live along waterways so maintaining wetlands for their ecosystem services is generally important.
The only economic question is whether you think a man-made jetty or other barrier is more cost efficient than simply not tearing out all your mangroves.
That's fair, but it's also more than just pure economics, when you remove these ecosystems it's difficult to bring them back so there's a hidden cost of making a miscalculation. It's also regional in the west you can maybe afford to build a levy and maintain it, but in other parts of the world it could make more sense "economically" to leave them there, presupposing that economics are the only thing to take into consideration, which I don't think you were saying but far too often people disregard the intrinsic value of maintaining nature.
Building a twenty story high rise on the coast isn’t superior to a McMansion, particularly if the high rise is accompanied by a mile-long stretch of peer buildings. Hell, the McMansion might be better simply because the resident is more likely to preserve the natural character of the property they just purchased.
I see where you're coming from but I think the car culture associated with suburbanization (McMansions) is a greater factor when you have fewer high rises.
I'm an ecologist from Southern California, it's a suburban hellscape. People wouldn't know this, but Southern California is a biodiversity hotspot, there are more species of plants and animals per area there than in most parts of the planet. It's also highly and unnecessarily developed, which fragments many of the unique ecosystems that occur there, putting them in danger of going extinct largely due to the way that we develop. It's not due to habitat development perse, just the way we choose to develop under a capitalist organization of the economy.
Built-up areas makes up a small fraction of earth's landmass but land where it makes sense for people to live is a very finite resource. People want to live in urban areas or in reasonable distance to them and have access to infrastructure, socialisation, culture, employment etc.
Today capitalist development squanders that land on building bullshit "luxury apartments" or McMansions, thereby creating a housing crisis. A reasonable society would have used that land to build housing for ordinary people.
The concern about sprawl is that land is a finite fucking resource and we need to keep 30-50% of it pristine
That's a concern, but not the only concern. Besides land use, it's also resource and energy inefficient. The distance between everything and low density forces everyone to have a car. Sprawl also encourages shitty chain stores and strip malls. Overall it's just a horrible place to live.
Also keeping 30-50% of the world pristine is ahistorical. Much of the "natural" beauty settlers saw in the western hemisphere was being shaped by humans for millenia. So in the US's case I think we should prioritize landback over simple conservation.
Edit: Also urban sprawl relies on a transfer of wealth from the cities
The concern about sprawl is that land is a finite fucking resource and we need to keep 30-50% of it pristine so bull dozing to build you McMansion isn't useful to this goal. If I was in a room with any tech bro I would probably end up in jail after 30 minutes.
Broadly speaking, quite a bit of the US is entirely undeveloped. 1.9B acres, of which around 2% is actual urbanized real estate. A plurality (41%) goes to grazing pasture. Some 25-odd% is forestland and another 17% is agricultural. (Apologies for the shit url)
McMansions aren't any significant share of the hard real estate figures. They're just black holes for electricity, water, and transit resources, such that they require huge subsidies from the general public in order to function as attractive residencies. One of the reasons you don't see people piling out into South Dakota or Northern New Hampshire or or West Virginia is because there's no physical hook-ups to the national grids. 80 years ago, the entire Tennessee Valley suffered from this problem and we set up the Tennessee Valley Authority to roll out a bunch of these amenities. Great Society, similarly, expanding public services through the Gulf Coast and the Mountain West. But since the 80s, we more or less stopped this infrastructure expansion. And since the turn of the millennium, we've basically stopped repairing/maintaining the legacy infrastructure.
So now you've got a 10,000 sqft mega-house sitting on the California/Nevada border that's hooked up to a bunch of wires and pipes with at best a tentative connection to the sources of electricity and water. And because of the political influence of those far-flung communities, we continue to invest significant amounts of money in maintaining those far-flung networks while more efficient dense urban networks go the way of Flint.
Excellent summary.
The cost ineffectiveness of urban sprawl gets me every time—if you want to live in a rural area, live in a rural area. If you want to live with the amenities of a city, live in a city.
The suburban larp of pseudo-estate landed gentry makes the bloodmist fall over my gaze and all is oblivion until at least one jacked up commuter truck has been defiled.
deleted by creator
I hadn't thought of the utility use/accessibility that you'd brought up, interesting.
But just to elaborate on the land conservation that I'd brought up, the location matters, conserving 90% of the areas people don't want to live doesn't make up for developing other habitats because those other habitats that developers like to develop are also important, if not arguably more important since maintaining these ecosystems can actually allow more people to live by them.
For instance mangrove forests protect Florida coastlines from storm surge, by cutting them down and not conserving a decent proportion of them your cities can get fucked by storm surge. Or in the case of Southern California by developing habitat that has small burns regularly you risk having large uncontrollable burns now next to development when you put out every small fire.
I agree. Although this then becomes very regionally specific and functionally we're talking about making the exigent city sustainable rather than just maintaining the biosphere generally speaking. In theory, you can have it both ways with even more artificial infrastructure. The only economic question is whether you think a man-made jetty or other barrier is more cost efficient than simply not tearing out all your mangroves.
Coastal real estate (particularly vacation real estate) also tends to be much more densely developed than inland properties. Building a twenty story high rise on the coast isn't superior to a McMansion, particularly if the high rise is accompanied by a mile-long stretch of peer buildings. Hell, the McMansion might be better simply because the resident is more likely to preserve the natural character of the property they just purchased.
I agree that it's regional specific on some level, cities protected by mangroves in Baja or India can be treated the same as in Florida, though not everywhere has mangroves. But it's important to maintain them because most people live along waterways so maintaining wetlands for their ecosystem services is generally important.
That's fair, but it's also more than just pure economics, when you remove these ecosystems it's difficult to bring them back so there's a hidden cost of making a miscalculation. It's also regional in the west you can maybe afford to build a levy and maintain it, but in other parts of the world it could make more sense "economically" to leave them there, presupposing that economics are the only thing to take into consideration, which I don't think you were saying but far too often people disregard the intrinsic value of maintaining nature.
I see where you're coming from but I think the car culture associated with suburbanization (McMansions) is a greater factor when you have fewer high rises.
I'm an ecologist from Southern California, it's a suburban hellscape. People wouldn't know this, but Southern California is a biodiversity hotspot, there are more species of plants and animals per area there than in most parts of the planet. It's also highly and unnecessarily developed, which fragments many of the unique ecosystems that occur there, putting them in danger of going extinct largely due to the way that we develop. It's not due to habitat development perse, just the way we choose to develop under a capitalist organization of the economy.
That's all very fair and true and I agree.
Built-up areas makes up a small fraction of earth's landmass but land where it makes sense for people to live is a very finite resource. People want to live in urban areas or in reasonable distance to them and have access to infrastructure, socialisation, culture, employment etc.
Today capitalist development squanders that land on building bullshit "luxury apartments" or McMansions, thereby creating a housing crisis. A reasonable society would have used that land to build housing for ordinary people.
That's a concern, but not the only concern. Besides land use, it's also resource and energy inefficient. The distance between everything and low density forces everyone to have a car. Sprawl also encourages shitty chain stores and strip malls. Overall it's just a horrible place to live.
Also keeping 30-50% of the world pristine is ahistorical. Much of the "natural" beauty settlers saw in the western hemisphere was being shaped by humans for millenia. So in the US's case I think we should prioritize landback over simple conservation.
Edit: Also urban sprawl relies on a transfer of wealth from the cities