View Full Version : A little rant about urban sprawl



Oh GAWD the Smell!
03-11-2008, 03:09 AM
You people and your bitching about urban sprawl. I see people post about it and complain about it all the time. If there's been a thread debating it specifically, I haven't seen it...So I'm starting one because I'm tired of a few people being so vocal against something that so many of us are guilty of in their eyes.

Just because you don't live in a McMansion in Edmond doesn't mean that your condo downtown is much better. Until you're willing to live like sailors stacked like sardines on a ship along with every other person on the planet, you're not minimizing your own impact on sprawl and being just a bit of a hypocrite. It's only a matter of how far you want to go with it. If we use some of the logic in the arguments against living in the suburbs...We should all move into highrises and live with around 100 sqft. of space per person. Not your nice loft a mile away from neat things. Just because it's closer doesn't mean you get to rip on others. That's like somebody with a car that gets 20 mpg bitching about somebody who drives a SUV that gets 16 when you can both ride a scooter that gets 80. The scooter is about as efficient as you can get...But you don't want one because it's not to your taste and it can be quite dangerous. Funny...Same reasons I don't want to live off 10th and Santa Fe.

Not everybody shares your love of living downtown, walking everywhere, and hearing your neighbors argue over what TV show to watch because you live 3 feet away from them.

And while some of you complain about paying taxes that provide for services way out in the burbs, just remember, those of us in the burbs also pay taxes for all those cool downtown projects that can't be supported by the taxes of people living there alone.

I don't live downtown, I don't work downtown, I don't want to live OR work downtown. I don't like being crowded for space, I don't like worrying about parking...And let's be honest...A lot of the areas surrounding downtown are pretty damn shabby and there are a lot of downright dangerous areas. I'll stick to my neighborhood in the burbs where I can forget to close my garage door once in a blue moon, and when I wake up the next day or come home from work my bicycle is still sitting in there.

If you don't live in a studio apartment less than 100 feet from where you work...Quit bellyachin' about how far away I live from something YOU deem important.

Pete
03-11-2008, 08:26 AM
Controlling urban sprawl isn't about telling people where they can and can't live. It's about responsible city planning that doesn't just rubber-stamp every building permit regardless of need or location.

In very well planned cities like Portland, plenty of people live in suburban locations. But there is also a real city there, with concentrated areas of cultural attractions, parks, shopping and restaurants and great public transportation to them -- even from the 'burbs.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
03-11-2008, 09:01 AM
Controlling urban sprawl isn't about telling people where they can and can't live. It's about responsible city planning that doesn't just rubber-stamp every building permit regardless of need or location.

In very well planned cities like Portland, plenty of people live in suburban locations. But there is also a real city there, with concentrated areas of cultural attractions, parks, shopping and restaurants and great public transportation to them -- even from the 'burbs.

I understand that, I've lived downtown in Denver and San Diego and visited dozens of other major cities around the world. Portland included. But there are people that deride anybody who doesn't live in the heart of the city like they get paid to do it. It's becoming a sport for some to act like they deserve a medal for being urban.

Maybe I'm just grumpy or something. Just tired of being picked at obliquely for an individual's choice I guess.

Dustbowl
03-11-2008, 09:10 AM
I understand that, I've lived downtown in Denver and San Diego and visited dozens of other major cities around the world. Portland included. But there are people that deride anybody who doesn't live in the heart of the city like they get paid to do it. It's becoming a sport for some to act like they deserve a medal for being urban.

Maybe I'm just grumpy or something. Just tired of being picked at obliquely for an individual's choice I guess.

Stop using logic on this board and get on the me too bandwagon. You don't have vision living out there in that surburban sprawl. Maybe if you just agree with everything you might make some friends and get free VIP passes to the games. Stop thinking so much and become a sheeple. Fat, dumb and happy. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
03-11-2008, 09:12 AM
Stop using logic on this board and get on the me too bandwagon. You don't have vision living out there in that surburban sprawl. Maybe if you just agree with everything you might make some friends and get free VIP passes to the games. Stop thinking so much and become a sheeple. Fat, dumb and happy. Yeah, that's the ticket.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i199/imawingnut/yourawesome.gif

Pete
03-11-2008, 09:17 AM
I haven't seen anyone here deride anyone else for where they live.

What people complain about -- and rightfully so IMO -- is the way the city has been developed.

OKCCrime
03-11-2008, 09:19 AM
Consider some of these arguments against urban sprawl taken from Wikipedia (slightly edited):
Urban sprawl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl)

Health and environmental impact

Urban sprawl is associated with a number of negative environmental and public health outcomes. The primary cause of these negative outcomes is that sprawl leads to people having to depend on the automobile because it will be a greater distance to travel and people will not be able to walk or ride their bicycles to their destinations.[2]

Increased pollution and reliance on fossil fuel

In the years following World War II, when vehicle ownership was becoming widespread, public health officials recommended the health benefits of suburbs due to soot and industrial fumes in the city center. However, air in modern suburbs is not necessarily cleaner than air in urban neighborhoods. In fact, the most polluted air is on crowded highways, where people in suburbs tend to spend more time. On average, suburban residents generate more pollution and carbon emissions than their urban counterparts because of their increased driving.[2]

Increase in traffic and traffic-related fatalities

A heavy reliance on automobiles increases traffic throughout the city as well as automobile crashes, pedestrian injuries, and air pollution. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of five and twenty-four and is the leading accident-related cause for all age groups.[15] Residents of more sprawling areas are at greater risk of dying in a car crash.[16]

Increased obesity

The American Journal of Public Health and the American Journal of Health Promotion, have both stated that there is a significant connection between sprawl, obesity, and hypertension.[6] Presumably, living in a car centered culture forces inhabitants to drive everywhere, thus walking far less than their urban (and generally more healthy) counterparts.

Decrease in social capital

Urban sprawl may be partly responsible for the decline in social capital in the United States. Compact neighborhoods can foster casual social interactions among neighbors, while low-density sprawl creates barriers to interaction. Sprawl tends to replace public spaces such as parks with private spaces such as fenced-in backyards. Residents of sprawling neighborhoods rarely walk for transportation, which reduces opportunities for face-to-face contact with neighbors.[4]

Decrease in land and water quantity and quality

Due to the larger area consumed by sprawling suburbs compared to urban neighborhoods, more farmland and wildlife habitats are displaced per resident. As forest cover is cleared and covered with concrete in the suburbs, rainfall is less effectively absorbed into the ground water aquifers.[2] This threatens both the quality and quantity of water supplies. Sprawl increases water pollution as rain water picks up gasoline and oil runoff from parking lots and roads. Sprawl fragments the land which increases the risk of invasive species spreading into the remaining forest.

Increased infrastructure costs

Living in a larger, more spread out space makes public services more expensive. Since car usage often becomes endemic and public transport often becomes significantly more expensive, city planners are forced to build large highway and parking infrastructure, which in turn decreases taxable land and revenue, and decreases the desirability of the area adjacent to such structures. Providing services such as water, sewers, and electricity is also more expensive per household in less dense areas. [2]

Increased personal transportation costs

Residents of low density areas spend a higher proportion of their income on transportation than residents of high density areas.[17]

Neighborhood quality

Quality of life has been argued to be eroded by lifestyles sprawl promotes. Duany and Plater-Zyberk believe that in traditional neighborhoods the nearness of the workplace to retail and restaurant space that provides cafes and convenience stores with daytime customers is an essential component to the successful balance of urban life. Furthermore, they state that the closeness of the workplace to homes also gives people the option of walking or riding a bicycle to work or school and that without this kind of interaction between the different components of life the urban pattern quickly falls apart. (Duany Plater-Zyberk 6, 28)

White flight

Some blame suburbs for what they see as a homogeneity of society and culture, leading to sprawling suburban developments of people with similar race, background and socioeconomic status.[20] They claim that segregated and stratified development was institutionalized in the early 1950s and 1960s with the financial industries' then-legal process of redlining neighborhoods to prevent certain people from entering and residing in affluent districts. Sprawl may have a negative impact on public schools as finances have been pulled out of city cores and diverted to wealthier suburbs.[21] They argue that the residential and social segregation of whites from blacks in the United States creates a socialization process that limits whites' chances for developing meaningful relationships with blacks and other minorities, and that the segregation experienced by whites from blacks fosters segregated lifestyles and can lead to positive views about themselves and negative views about blacks.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
03-11-2008, 09:48 AM
I haven't seen anyone here deride anyone else for where they live.


It's not done directly. Nobody tells Karried that she's a bad person or is hurting people for living in Edmond. Nobody has ever picked at me directly about how living in far SE OKC is bad. t

In just about every thread about anything being built anywhere other than downtown, somebody pipes up complaining about sprawl. Since businesses prefer to build close to their demographic...Well...They're going to build where people live so people shop there. Not where some planning commission wants them to. Complaining about Lowes building a store in Edmond and how it contributes to sprawl, is essentially complaining that people live in Edmond.

Is it a "cart before the horse" problem? Sure. Do I have a solution? No. I'm just bitching about the bitching.

Pete
03-11-2008, 09:57 AM
When I mentioned development, I wasn't just talking about the commercial variety.

Most cities have outlines on where housing tracts can be built, too. It's one thing to build housing as it's needed, it's another to allow hundreds of new housing tracts far from any existing services and far out of proportion to the growth in population.

I'm not talking about the guy that wants to build a house on acreage... I mean the tens of thousands of new homes being dumped in the middle of cow pastures. And then people move there and merely abandon another area (like the NW sector) and it rots and the whole city suffers.

Karried
03-11-2008, 09:58 AM
whoa! Where did I come in to this !? :eek: lol..


Do I have a solution? No. I'm just bitching about the bitching.

okay, I'm just bitching about you bitching about the bitching... oops. I'm not sure I'm supposed to use this word *washing mouth out with soap*. ( substitute complaining ) ..

Did someone have a few too many hot toddies after work last night ( ahem.. this morning?)



Actually, I feel your pain.. there have been a few people a long time ago who have made me feel really badly for my choice of cities.

I don't care, I did what I felt best for my family and kids. That's my right as an Amurican.

When they start paying my mortgage, they can have an opinion on my housing choices, until then, I don't want to hear it.

:cheersmf:

Actually, you shouldn't take it personally ogts, people just want our inner city to reach it's full potential, thrive and grow. I'm all for that too.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
03-11-2008, 10:09 AM
When I mentioned development, I wasn't just talking about the commercial variety.

Most cities have outlines on where housing tracts can be built, too. It's one thing to build housing as it's needed, it's another to allow hundreds of new housing tracts far from any existing services and far out of proportion to the growth in population.

I'm not talking about the guy that wants to build a house on acreage... I mean the tens of thousands of new homes being dumped in the middle of cow pastures. And then people move there and merely abandon another area (like the NW sector) and it rots and the whole city suffers.

My house was built brand new in the middle of a pasture about 6 years ago all the way the hell out at SE 89th and Sooner...So I'm exactly what you're talking about.

Here's why I didn't buy in the NW sector. It's crowded. It's old. It's got a lot of lower income areas that I prefer to not live around. I wanted a new home with all the energy efficiency, doodads, and reliability that come with it. I wanted to be close to where I work. I didn't want to pay a premium because of preconceptions of value based on zip code.



Actually, I feel your pain.. there have been a few people a long time ago who have made me feel really badly for my choice of cities.

I don't care, I did what I felt best for my family and kids. That's my right as an Amurican.

When they start paying my mortgage, they can have an opinion on my housing choices, until then, I don't want to hear it.

EXACTLY.

And I'm not upset about it...I'm just bellyachin' about it. I'm bored.:053:

And since I've got the next 5 days off...I'm going to be even more bored. Now you're all in big, BIG trouble. :D

Karried
03-11-2008, 10:18 AM
Come play XBox Live with me.

Out in the boonies, there is nothing else to do right ? lol.

I kid, I kid.

Let the games begin.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
03-11-2008, 10:22 AM
Come play XBox Live with me.

Out in the boonies, there is nothing else to do right ? lol.

I kid, I kid.

Let the games begin.

lol....My 360 is borked again. For some reason, the controllers keep losing connection about every 30 seconds, only to pop back in. I have no idea why. New batteries and all.

Karried
03-11-2008, 10:31 AM
If they are wireless, maybe you have some interference ? I don't know much about it.... maybe someone in our tech forum?

Back to urban sprawl.. I did read an interesting article on a blog about suburbs falling into great decay in the future due to poor construction, foundation failure, abandoned homes due to foreclosures, etc etc.. opposed to more solidly built highrises and downtown construction.

They projected that people will start moving closer to downtown due to fuel costs and babyboomers children moving out, etc etc...

Some might be happy to hear it, gives more room to sprawl. lol

Just something I read about that I thought pertained to this subject.

Pete
03-11-2008, 10:31 AM
Here's why I didn't buy in the NW sector. It's crowded. It's old. It's got a lot of lower income areas that I prefer to not live around. I wanted a new home with all the energy efficiency, doodads, and reliability that come with it. I wanted to be close to where I work. I didn't want to pay a premium because of preconceptions of value based on zip code.

Again, I don't fault anyone for where they choose to live. You have to make that decision based on what's best for you and your family.

However, merely abandoning one area for another is exactly why the city is now trying desperately to redevelop huge areas. I don't blame citizens for moving to a newly developed tract, but the city shouldn't be in the business of facilitating it's own decay.

In most other cities, older areas get redeveloped and rejuvenated when new/younger families move back in. That doesn't happen in the OKC area. Once one generation ages and their kids move out, the children then go to Edmond, Moore and even Deer Creek. All the people I went to school with at Putnam City in the 70's now live in Edmond or even further out.

The whole point that people don't want to live in areas that just one generation ago were considered 'good' is precisely the point. And the problem is, these areas never had much going for them other than the families that lived there... Just like most the new development, which will likely meet the same fate in another 20 years or so.

At some point, you have to break this cycle.

Karried
03-11-2008, 10:33 AM
ha Pete, we were posting at the same exact time and pretty much saying the same thing..

Prompt twilight zone music

kmf563
03-11-2008, 10:42 AM
I would take Karried's gorgeous house over any cramped over priced space polluted with noise and lack of transportation any day!

MadMonk
03-11-2008, 11:36 AM
I give this thread 5 stars. I couldn't agree more OGTS/Karried/kmf563.

I'm all for redevelopment of the downtown area and older neighborhoods etc. If that's what you like then more power to ya, but the whining about sprawl after every announcment of a new business *gasp* NOT placed downtown or mention of an outlying neighborhood is tiring.

As a balance to the post from OKCCrime, here are some counter-arguments from that same wiki, most of which OGTS has already covered.


Consumer preference for sprawl

Peter Gordon, a professor of planning and economics at the University of Southern California's School of Urban Planning and Development, argues that many households in the United States, Canada, and Australia, especially middle and families, have shown a preference for the suburban lifestyle. Reasons cited include a preference towards lower-density development (for lower ambient noise and increased privacy), better schools, less crime, and a generally slower lifestyle than the urban one. Those in favor of a "free housing market" also argue that this sort of living situation is an issue of personal choice and economic means. One suburban Detroit politician defends low-density development as the preferred lifestyle choice of his constituents, calling it "...the American Dream unfolding before your eyes." Recently however, a number of studies have suggested that many affluent "empty nesters" are heading back towards the inner city areas to "downsize" their housing and take advantage of the increased cultural offerings that such areas often have to offer.

Debate over traffic and commute times

Those not opposed to low density development argue that traffic intensities tend to be less, traffic speeds faster and, as a result, air pollution emissions are lower per square mile. (See demographia's report.) Kansas City, Missouri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City%2C_Missouri) is often cited as an example of ideal low-density development, with congestion below the mean and home prices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_pricing) below comparable Midwestern cities. Wendell Cox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Cox) and Randal O'Toole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randal_O%27Toole) are the leading figures supporting lower density development.
Longitudinal (time-lapse) studies of commute times in major metropolitan areas in the United States have shown that commute times decreased for the period 1969 to 1995 even though the geographic size of the city increased. More recent data suggests that this trend has reversed, with the 2000 U.S. Census showing commute times increased over all previous periods.

Risk of increased housing prices

There is also some concern that Portland-style anti-sprawl policies will increase housing prices. Some research suggests Oregon has had the largest housing affordability loss in the nation, but other research shows that Portland's price increases are comparable to other Western cities. Another report suggests that zoning and other land use controls play the dominant role in making housing expensive.
In Australia, it is claimed that by some that housing affordability has hit "crisis levels" due to "urban consolidation" policies implemented by state governments. In Sydney, the ratio of the price of a house relative to income is 9:1. The issue is being debated between the major political parties in the lead up to the Australian federal election.

Freedom

There are some sociologists such as Durkheim who suggest there is a link between population density and the number of rules that must be imposed. The theory goes that as people are moved closer together geographically their actions are more likely to noticeably impact others around them. This potential impact requires the creation of additional social or legal rules to prevent conflict. A simple example would be as houses become closer together the acceptable maximum volume of music decreases, as it becomes intrusive to other residents.

Crowding and increased aggression

There have been numerous studies that link increased population density with increased aggression. Some people believe that increased population density encourages crime and anti-social behavior.


(That last paragraph, I can attest to personally)

bdub02
03-11-2008, 11:44 AM
In 1988 the average commute was 20% shorter than it is today, yet the cars of the time got 6 miles per gallon on average more than they do today. I can see both sides of the argument but with the coming fuel crisis (we haven't seen anything yet) I wish people would come to their senses about smart development. If you are going to live way out, at least do it in a hybrid or high MPG car and not a Hummer that gets 10 mpg. That said, I understand why many people choose the suburbs. Suburban schools as a whole usually perform better and are safer than urban schools. I think if inner city schools were to be improved to match or exceed suburban schools, there wouldn't be as much of an incentive to live in the suburbs. Parents just want whats best for their children, and are willing to make sacrifices for it.

Pete
03-11-2008, 12:29 PM
No one is advocating the population density of Manhattan.

Just reasonable, planned growth that doesn't systematically destroy any neighborhood more than 30 years old.

You can still buy plenty of big pieces of property within a few miles of downtown OKC, so I don't think density is going to be an issue any time soon.

BDP
03-11-2008, 01:08 PM
I don't think Oklahoma City's problem has as much do with sprawl per se, it's that it has no alternative to it. Most American cities are sprawling communities when you consider the entire metro area. However, many more of them at least have an urban option for people that do want that lifestyle.

But, much of the decay of the city can be attributed to its sprawling nature. We have developed our city in a disposable fashion and its beginning to show. The areas that are characterized as bad today are that way because they were abandoned by people as they fled to the suburbs. This meant less money for schools, infrastructure, transportation, etc. as that money was either redirected to support the spreading out or at least thinned out across the area. Not to mention the inability to achieve some level of population density has been a deterrent for attracting some basic service and retail options common to most American cities and to many much smaller than ours.

One reason to oppose continued sprawl is to preserve the very attributes for which you chose your current neighborhood. Without any reasonable and rational planning, that area will have the exact same fate as the northwest side. Efforts to reinvigorate the inner city is in one aspect an effort to keep the "boonies" the "boonies". The more viable the city can make itself within its currently developed areas, the less motivation some people have to move to new developments on its fringes, the less money has to be spent on maintaining an infinitely growing infrastructure, and the less crowded the areas that were original sold as isolated crime-free sanctuaries become.

Of course, not everyone wants to live in a dense pedestrian friendly tight knit community. But if we don't make an effort to provide a place for the people to live who do like that kind of lifestyle, their only option will be to join you in the very community in which you located based on the fact that these people weren't there to begin with.

So, really, planned growth has nothing to do with forcing you or anyone else to live an urban lifestyle, it's about keeping the density out of your backyard and providing it to those that do want to live like that.


I don't think density is going to be an issue any time soon.

Especially when you consider that Oklahoma City ranks 197 out of 200 in population density for cities with a population of over 100,000:

US Cities Over 100,000 Ranked by Population Density: 1990 (http://www.demographia.com/db-us90city100kdens.htm)

OKCCrime
03-11-2008, 10:22 PM
As a balance to the post from OKCCrime, here are some counter-arguments from that same wiki, most of which OGTS has already cover

I'm glad that you did. I was hoping someone would. Every coin has two sides. Maybe each us will flip the coin and take the time to see the other side.

fire121
03-12-2008, 07:17 AM
OGTS I am with ya!!! My posse rolls outta SW 44 & Cemetary Rd. Good points made on both sides, I just love my acreage. The dogs can run, plenty of room for a garden, if I find a bargain on a tree I know I'll have room somewhere to put it. Traffic way north on the two-lanes is terrible. Bad planning.

jbrown84
03-12-2008, 02:50 PM
The problem is not with the consumers, but the developers. Consumers will buy where they amenities are, but the developers aren't building inward, they just keep building further and further out. It's a little different when it's in a suburb like Mustang or Edmond, because that doesn't effect OKC as far as infrastructure needs, but why is there so much empty land in mid-inner OKC? It just sits there and rots.

bdub02
03-12-2008, 09:41 PM
The problem is not with the consumers, but the developers. Consumers will buy where they amenities are, but the developers aren't building inward, they just keep building further and further out. It's a little different when it's in a suburb like Mustang or Edmond, because that doesn't effect OKC as far as infrastructure needs, but why is there so much empty land in mid-inner OKC? It just sits there and rots.

If you notice the newer development follows school district borders. That is why NE OKC is so void of development until you cross into Edmond schools. NW OKC is in Putnam City school district and most of South OKC is in the Moore or Mid-Del districts so they don't suffer from this effect.

PapaJack
03-13-2008, 05:35 AM
bdub02's analysis is "spot on." Maps for Kids put lipstick on the pig. You can buy new schools and computer labs, but you can't reverse twenty five years of decline and decadence. It took a generation for OKC schools to get in the mess they are in, so it will probably take at least that long to resolve the situation. Charter schools put control of education in the hands of parents who care, but I doubt if many of those parents moved into OKC School District to promote charter schools.

I prefer to use the term "Country Experience" rather than "Urban Sprawl." But am I also "putting lipstick on a pig"?

PennyQuilts
03-13-2008, 05:58 AM
I am not going to stay in a nasty, crowded urban area just to make sure that the infrastructure is paid for. The people who live there can keep it up if that is where they want to live. The schools are crap and if I had kids needing to be educated, I'd have to put them in private school or stay up at night worrying. If I am going to have to shell out that kind of cash, anyway, I'm heading for a community that has nice schools and elbow room. My kids all live in NYC with access to the subways. They have strong opinions about going green (they're for it). That being said, I notice that anyone who can afford to takes cabs or hires cars - my kids, their friends and co-workers, included. They DO walk a lot and it keeps them in shape. That is a definite benefit. At the same time, as much as they love NYC, I don't see them wanting to raise kids there (none here, yet). We'll see, of course.

FritterGirl
03-13-2008, 06:33 PM
I've got to say that I smell what GAWD AWFUL is cookin'. There have been times that I feel my "suburban" lifestyle has been put down by those who have a quasi-elitist attitude about life in "south of 50th," shall I say. It's not direct, but is subtly intoned in some comments about, well, rather random things sometimes. Call it "downtown/midtown/urban snobbism" if you will.

We moved "to the burbs" for two reasons:

1) more bang for our housing buck;
2) husband is not in any stretch of the imagination a "fixer-upper" type, and while I might have preferred a lovely little 1930s bungalow something in Linwood, Gatewood or the like, there was no way in heck I could ever get my DSO to get into anything more than 10 years old.

That aside, I work downtown, go to a lot of events, entertainment venues, restaurants downtown, and as some know, work for an organization involved in attracting tourism to downtown. I LOVE downtown and support all of the efforts that are being made to enhance it.

Oklahoma City offers lifestyles for a variety of folks. That, to me, is one of its greatest strengths. It adds to our diversity, and to our cultural appeal, especially for any businesses that might wish to relocate to a place where their employees can find a variety of viable housing options. Not everyone with a salary of say $60k with 2.4 kids, 2 dogs and 1 cat can afford some of the larger homes in the mid-down quadrant.

While I agree that the City probably needs to start curbing some of its urban sprawl, the "burbs" do have their place in the world, and aren't really such a bad thing.

I would simply ask that those that tend to have a somewhat "elitist" view on life in the "metro" understand that it is not the lifestyle for everyone.

Pete
03-13-2008, 06:48 PM
I mean this in all sincerity: Can someone point out posts where anyone here has criticized others for living in the suburbs?

The only thing I recall was a "Is Edmond Snobby?" thread and even that didn't come down on people for living there.

What have I missed?

FritterGirl
03-13-2008, 07:08 PM
Pete,

I'll try to dig through some threads and show you some examples via pm. Again, it's very subtle. More of a "if you're not living in the ''South 50 Zone,' you're part of the problem" type comments, but not that blatant.

It's more in the tone of the posts. And it's been in more than the "is Edmond snobby" thread.

bandnerd
03-13-2008, 07:21 PM
I'm just sitting here thinking if I've ever put off that attitude...I hated living in Edmond...hated the traffic, the way people looked down on me for being a student (just my experience, I'm sure not everyone is that way), how no one ever seemed to eat at home and was always at Chili's, Outback, et al...and the strip malls....oh the strip malls...

I like living downtown because I can walk to my gym, hair place, bank, and in the summers, the farmer's market. It's fairly pedestrian-friendly, while in the suburbs I find it more difficult to get places on foot due to large expanses of housing or large intersections that are difficult to cross in the .8 seconds they seem to give you. I also work near here, and enjoy driving through the historic neighborhoods (though I can't afford to live there...yet...ha).

I have lived rural-ish life in southern OK, suburb life in Edmond, and urban in OKC. I would choose urban or rural over suburban any day, but that's just how I feel. I hope that I have not offended anyone. I know that my viewpoint may be hard for some to understand, though.

Karried
03-13-2008, 07:28 PM
I've always thought it sort of depends on where you are in your life (stages).

I have kids... kids that I want to have the best education.. for me, that's Edmond schools, hence, living in Edmond.

Who's to say that when the kids go off to college I won't move downtown? ( that is if I have any money left after college!) lol

We all do what we do because it seems right at the time.. who really cares what other people say about it?

Architect2010
03-13-2008, 07:47 PM
If education is the problem and you think the only good schools in OKC are private then your terribly wrong. There are several schools that cost nothing and achieve higher API scores than the suburb schools. Classen SAS, Astec, Dove Science Academy, Southeast High Specialty school of Technology, and Bell Isle. These are all nice schools that have high test scores, almost all of them scoring higher than suburb schools. Only a couple of them are private and the ones that are, are cheap. The other ones are either charter, or tech schools and they are considered "public" but you have to apply to get in and maintain a GPA. Schools should not be an issue with the amount of choices in OKC. Unless your children aren't smart enough to get in these schools then I can see your problem...=/

But unless you've been in every single school and know the daily activities of each school then you really don't know what OKC PS's are like. The only reason people think they're bad is because you hear about bad schools like CH or JM and it gives a horrible image of the rest of the schools.

But then there are better schools in suburbs than some of these honor schools, example:Edmond. But all in all, its just a lifestyle choice.

Redskin 70
03-13-2008, 07:57 PM
interesting thread.:bright_id
Urban sprawl is not a sustainable concept for two much longer.
Each spike in the price of gas coupled with the inherant unreliability of current autos vis via mileage causes one more family to pull up stakes and return to the inner ring burbs of yesteryear.
There was a time when the following were considered good locations to live.
Quail Creek, Bethaney and War Acres, Del City and Midwest City etc etc etc,
But over the last thirty years due to a lack of control on the housing builders
that sprawl was allowed ebcause the builders, correctly, bet the city would provide essential lservices as needed at no cost to the builder.
Now that cities are wising up especially on the fringe areas and requiring the builders to install the water ans swere systems rather than wells and septic,
I have noticed a resurgence of builders coming in
However, the inner rings burbs best friend will be $5 a gallon gas.
Then all the employees of Tinker wont want that house in Edmond and Guthrie because the commute will be a killer.
Just trends I am noticing from govt mags around the country and these trends do and will apply to OKC also.
Folks, I can remember when you drove south of 59th and there was nothing but farm houses.
I use to rabbit hunt at Meridian and Reno and
the Trip to NW Ok C Quail creek was like going to another city.:tiphat:

onthestrip
03-13-2008, 10:10 PM
This argument can and probably will go on forever. It is just a lifestyle choice. Being a single man and in my mid-20s, I like living in the middle of the city. I want to be close to all entertainment/food options and because I hate rows and rows of houses that look just alike. Now when I have kids, it will be a different situation, but I cant really see myself ever moving to the burbs. Sure Edmond has good schools, but I have always thought a city school that has a more diverse student base offers many more things outside of whats considered your typical good education.
Not blasting anyone, these are just my opinions.

Saberman
03-13-2008, 10:43 PM
Has anyone been to the Dallas area lately. People moving are moving out of Dallas so fast it would make your head spin.

My brother lives in McKinney, TX, and niece lives in Frisco, every time I go down there another square mile of housing development has gone up.

OKC, because of urban destruction, I mean renewal, destroyed development downtown 25 years ago. Forward thinking leadership has afforded us a chance to turn that kind of trend around. With proper future planning DT OKC could become a model of how a city can redefine itself. C2S offerers us the opportunity to change the face of OKC.

The baby boomers are starting to retire, gas price on the rise, and with kids leaving the nest, a lot of those people will be prime candidates for a well planned DT area to live. Lots of activity and events with walking distance. Even younger people will find this a great place to live.

OKC has a chance to make DT into urban cities of the future, we just have a long way to go..

mecarr
03-13-2008, 11:03 PM
Maybe I'm just grumpy or something. Just tired of being picked at obliquely for an individual's choice I guess.

Hmm, I know you don't, but the way you talk makes it seem like you have some sort of an inferiority complex. I don't mind people who love the suburbs, I just think living downtown is more exciting and there's more to do. Being able to walk to places like the theatre, restaurants, etc, is a nice thing that's not found in suburbia..

jbrown84
03-14-2008, 10:06 AM
The thing is, with gas getting where it is, it's going to be less and less practical to live in the outlying areas if you have ANY interest in shopping/entertainment beyond the big box stores and suburban movie theatres. If you work downtown or have any interest in the arts or nightlife or NBA or other recreational opportunities, it's going to start getting really expensive to live in the suburbs and drive to all that. If you work from home or nearby, and only ever shop at Walmart and Ross, they you're probably OK and it won't affect you.

Oh GAWD the Smell!
03-14-2008, 03:23 PM
I mean this in all sincerity: Can someone point out posts where anyone here has criticized others for living in the suburbs?

The only thing I recall was a "Is Edmond Snobby?" thread and even that didn't come down on people for living there.

What have I missed?

Off the top of my head (I've been out of town for two days though...So bear with me :D )....Midtowner got a sprawl jab in a few days ago, and metro does it from time to time as well. I'm not calling them out for any particular reason other than I've seen them do it. I'm sure there are others. And like I said...They weren't attacking anybody directly. It's never directed at individuals. I just saw three or four comments about it in the space of a few hours (I was reading old threads too). Just do a search with the term "sprawl" and a few will come up.

Think about this though...If I start taking shots at the general demographic (but not individuals) of people living downtown, I'd get pounded. "Boy, that's all we need...ANOTHER BAR downtown where nobody will go to it and beers will cost $8 each"...That statement would fly about as well as a lead balloon here.


Hmm, I know you don't, but the way you talk makes it seem like you have some sort of an inferiority complex. I don't mind people who love the suburbs, I just think living downtown is more exciting and there's more to do. Being able to walk to places like the theatre, restaurants, etc, is a nice thing that's not found in suburbia..

Actually, ask anybody...I've got quite a SUPERIORITY complex. :tiphat: And good on you for living where you like. My whole point of this thread was people taking pot shots at entire communities for not living up to their idea of utopia.

I'm not all up in a tiff or all bent out of shape about it. I was bored....I posted a mini-diatribe on something I'd noticed.

*shrugs*

Pete
03-14-2008, 04:17 PM
I'm guilty of moaning about urban sprawl myself. The thing that frustrates me the most is that it is so incredibly extreme in OKC and there is no urban alternative.

For me, it would be far less of an issue if we already had a thriving central core. But now, we're pumping billions into an area that has been neglected for decades because it's the one place we all can come together as a community -- and that's very important to any city.


Having said all that, my entire 30 years in OKC were spent in what was definitely the suburbs at the time and I live in a suburban area now.

I think you can be an advocate for urban development (and for a community overall) regardless of where you live -- and I think that's what everyone is saying in different ways on this thread.


And finally, I think a clear distinction can be drawn between how you'd like to see a city planned and where people choose to live. Every city has thriving suburbs but any 'good' city is defined by a thriving central core and lots of great amenities for all members of the community.

windowphobe
03-14-2008, 06:00 PM
I'm where I am because I like it here: it's convenient to both downtown and suburban mallage, there's some stuff within walking distance, and the houses come from the immediate post-WWII era, after they'd learned how to make workable single-story homes, but before they'd learned how to make them all look alike.