View Full Version : OKC gets low marks in recent study on sprawl



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Pete
04-02-2014, 01:23 PM
Study just released by Smart Growth America shows 73% of the Metropolitan Statistical Areas of the U.S. have less sprawl than Oklahoma City.

http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/measuring-sprawl-2014.pdf




http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sprawl1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sprawl2.jpg



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sprawl3.jpg




Measuring “sprawl”
This study analyzed development in 193 census-defined Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)—or metro areas—as well as 28 census-defined Metropolitan Divisions, which comprise MSAs, in the largest 11 MSAs. All of the analyzed areas had at least 200,000 people in 2010. MSAs with populations less than 200,000 people were not included in the study. This study also analyzed development in 994 metropolitan counties.


The four factors
Development in both MSAs and metropolitan counties was evaluated using four main factors: 1) development density; 2) land use mix; 3) activity centering; and 4) street accessibility. These factors are briefly explained below.2


Development density
Development density is measured by combining six major factors: 1) total density of the urban and suburban census tracts; 2) percent of the population living in low-density suburban areas; 3) percent of the population living in medium- to high-density areas; 4) urban density within total built-upon land; 5) the relative concentration of density around the center of the MSA; and 6) employment density.

Land use mix
Land use mix is also measured through a combination of factors: the balance of jobs to total population and mix of job types within one mile of census block groups, plus the WalkScore of the center of each census tract.

Activity centering
The proportion of people and businesses located near each other is also a key variable to define an area. Activity centering is measured by looking at the range of population and employment size in different block groups. MSAs with greater variation (i.e., a wider difference between blocks with a high population and a low one) have greater centering. This factor also includes a measure of how quickly population density declines from the center of the MSA, and the proportion of jobs and people within the MSA’s central business district and other employment centers.

Street accessibility
Street accessibility is measured by combining a number of factors regarding the MSA’s street network. The factors are average length of street block; average block size; percent of blocks that are urban in size; density of street intersections; and percent of four-way or more intersections, which serves as a measure of street connectivity.

Scoring
Researchers used these factors to evaluate development in all 221 MSAs and 994 counties. These four factors are combined in equal weight and controlled for population to calculate each area’s Sprawl Index score. The average index is 100, meaning areas with scores higher than 100 tend to be more compact and connected and areas with scores lower than 100 are more sprawling.

warreng88
04-02-2014, 01:28 PM
And we're still behind Tulsa...

RadicalModerate
04-02-2014, 01:47 PM
Anytime that I see a foreign survey on Oklahoma City and low marks . . .
I have to wonder just how far up the other end of the digestive tube
said surveyors have their collective heads.

(sorry . . . I saw that episode of the X-Files involving The Fluke Creature . . .
I'm happy he survived to become a remote surveyor.)

bchris02
04-02-2014, 01:54 PM
Our "Activity centering" score is what kills OKC in this rating, at least as compared to Tulsa. OKC is a very fragmented city with multiple centers of activity spread far apart from each other.

PWitty
04-02-2014, 02:03 PM
I'd be curious to see that list shrunk down to only the 52 largest metros of 1 million+. It really throws the rankings out of perspective when a lot of the metros on the list are much smaller.

RadicalModerate
04-02-2014, 02:20 PM
Our "Activity centering" score is what kills OKC in this rating, at least as compared to Tulsa. OKC is a very fragmented city with multiple centers of activity spread far apart from each other.

Prior to reading this analysis of actual reality, I thought I knew what total bullsh!t was.
Thank you for reminding me that I was wrong . . . or at least underinformed.

Just the facts
04-02-2014, 02:22 PM
I think the study confirms what we already knew, all this did was quantify it. For example, we already knew OKC has one of the worst connected street networks in the country because in the vast majority of the city all traffic is funneled onto major arterials with almost no connectivity with a 1 sq mile block. If the whole city was built at the block density of the urban core and first ring streetcar suburbs our score would have improved drastically.

jonathan
04-02-2014, 03:09 PM
yea this makes sense. Downtown just feels dead to me most of the year.

mkjeeves
04-02-2014, 03:35 PM
Our "Activity centering" score is what kills OKC in this rating, at least as compared to Tulsa. OKC is a very fragmented city with multiple centers of activity spread far apart from each other.

Bingo. The base assumptions are fouled up. We have decentralized jobs. No way can we, or would we want to put all our jobs and people in one central location. Best to figure out how to work with what we have rather than attempt to cram our square peg in someone's theoretical round hole.

Dubya61
04-02-2014, 03:41 PM
Bingo. The base assumptions are fouled up. We have decentralized jobs. No way can we, or would we want to put all our jobs and people in one central location. Best to figure out how to work with what we have rather than attempt to cram our square peg in someone's theoretical round hole.

I agree. To be honest, though, we have a lot of decentralized jobs because of sprawl, no?

SoonerDave
04-02-2014, 03:58 PM
I think the study confirms what we already knew, all this did was quantify it. For example, we already knew OKC has one of the worst connected street networks in the country because in the vast majority of the city all traffic is funneled onto major arterials with almost no connectivity with a 1 sq mile block. If the whole city was built at the block density of the urban core and first ring streetcar suburbs our score would have improved drastically.

Worst connected street networks in the country? Huh?

I'm no world traveler or expert, but based on my limited travels to places like Dallas, Houston, and LA, I'd say the opposite is true. I can't think of too many other cities where you can get from the southern edge of town to the northern edge on either city streets or one of several highways. You hardly have to be an OKC resident very long to get a pretty good handle on how to get from Point A to Point B merely by knowing a numbered, east-west cross street and one of the corresponding N/S streets. If someone gets a basic familiarity with Shields, Santa Fe, Walker, Western, Penn, May, Portland, Meridian, Rockwell, and Council, you can become a successful navigator here is short order.

I've talked to people who visited here and were STUNNED how easy it was to get across town. They'd contrast their own experience back home with their poor road/city layouts, and would talk about "the same kind of trip across town (back home) would take at least an hour."

I have no desire to shove OKC into someone else's notion of what amounts to some urban nirvana, because we're not NYC, Dallas, or any of those places. And trying to say that our street system doesn't provide access just doesn't pass the sniff test to me after 30+ years of driving these streets.

Rover
04-02-2014, 04:08 PM
It is interesting that all top ten best big cities are confined on one side by water. Hmmm. Maybe it has a little to do about commerce emanating out from a point from which was the origin of their commerce. And, they couldn't spread out equally to all directions. Here in OKC, we have no real geographical restrictions.

Just the facts
04-02-2014, 06:35 PM
Worst connected street networks in the country? Huh?

I'm no world traveler or expert, but based on my limited travels to places like Dallas, Houston, and LA, I'd say the opposite is true. I can't think of too many other cities where you can get from the southern edge of town to the northern edge on either city streets or one of several highways. You hardly have to be an OKC resident very long to get a pretty good handle on how to get from Point A to Point B merely by knowing a numbered, east-west cross street and one of the corresponding N/S streets. If someone gets a basic familiarity with Shields, Santa Fe, Walker, Western, Penn, May, Portland, Meridian, Rockwell, and Council, you can become a successful navigator here is short order.

I've talked to people who visited here and were STUNNED how easy it was to get across town. They'd contrast their own experience back home with their poor road/city layouts, and would talk about "the same kind of trip across town (back home) would take at least an hour."

I have no desire to shove OKC into someone else's notion of what amounts to some urban nirvana, because we're not NYC, Dallas, or any of those places. And trying to say that our street system doesn't provide access just doesn't pass the sniff test to me after 30+ years of driving these streets.

You are thinking about it from an automobile point of view. The study was done looking at the world as a pedestrian. The difference is scale. OKC is scaled to the automobile (just look at the streets you listed which are all 1 mile apart). Cities that scored well are scaled to the human.

One of the best ways to identify sprawl is to count the number of 4 way intersections per sq mile. OKC doesn't have very many.

Snowman
04-02-2014, 06:38 PM
It is interesting that all top ten best big cities are confined on one side by water. Hmmm. Maybe it has a little to do about commerce emanating out from a point from which was the origin of their commerce. And, they couldn't spread out equally to all directions. Here in OKC, we have no real geographical restrictions.

There seems to also be some correlation with being a larger cities before the automobile was common

Spartan
04-02-2014, 07:08 PM
The defensiveness on this forum in the face of facts is absurd. It's called anti-intellectualism.

Are you all really surprised that OKC is sprawly?!? **** idk what to say then...

PWitty
04-02-2014, 08:34 PM
The defensiveness on this forum in the face of facts is absurd. It's called anti-intellectualism.

Are you all really surprised that OKC is sprawly?!? **** idk what to say then...

Nobody was denying OKC is sprawled, besides maybe RM. All anyone pointed out are obvious statements about why the least sprawling cities exist as they do. Feel free to take a chill pill my friend.

bchris02
04-02-2014, 09:13 PM
You are thinking about it from an automobile point of view. The study was done looking at the world as a pedestrian. The difference is scale. OKC is scaled to the automobile (just look at the streets you listed which are all 1 mile apart). Cities that scored well are scaled to the human.

One of the best ways to identify sprawl is to count the number of 4 way intersections per sq mile. OKC doesn't have very many.

One thing I don't understand about OKC is why even so many of the older neighborhoods lack sidewalks and streetlights. It's understandable that newer neighborhoods lack them but there is no reason why neighborhoods built before 1950 should not have them. This is clearly a city that was built around and for the automobile since the very beginning, even before other cities abandoned walkability for sprawl.

Snowman
04-02-2014, 09:38 PM
One thing I don't understand about OKC is why even so many of the older neighborhoods lack sidewalks and streetlights. This is clearly a city that was built around and for the automobile since the very beginning, even before other cities abandoned walkability for sprawl.

You can see sidewalks around the old streetcar and interurban routes, the split seems pretty drastic in older homes about most pre US entering WW2 having sidewalks and those after it ended not. How much longer would you say it was till other parts of country had shifted?

boitoirich
04-02-2014, 09:59 PM
I would like to disabuse some poster here of the notion that because there is decentralization of jobs, the city sprawls. That is a absolutely a false association. Decentralization of jobs is actually a desirable trait of dense cities. Compact, decentralized patterns can be found in places with outstanding spatial orientation such as Tokyo and Hong Kong.

Oklahoma City sprawls because we're still building crap further and further out for no good reason.

Just the facts
04-02-2014, 10:54 PM
I would like to disabuse some poster here of the notion that because there is decentralization of jobs, the city sprawls. That is a absolutely a false association. Decentralization of jobs is actually a desirable trait of dense cities. Compact, decentralized patterns can be found in places with outstanding spatial orientation such as Tokyo and Hong Kong.

Oklahoma City sprawls because we're still building crap further and further out for no good reason.

Let me add that until the last 10 to 15 years places like London and Paris didn't have any mass concentration of employment either, and really for the most part still don't. It wasn't until La Defense (Paris) and Canary Warf (London) that either city even had a discernible skyline.

OSUFan
04-03-2014, 07:49 AM
The defensiveness on this forum in the face of facts is absurd. It's called anti-intellectualism.

Are you all really surprised that OKC is sprawly?!? **** idk what to say then...

I'm reading this thread and this comment seems totally out of place.

GaryOKC6
04-03-2014, 08:07 AM
What does all this mean? I see people relocating to OKC in the thousands every month. I see the lowest unemployment in the country. I see no traffic congestion for the most part (except 8:00am & 5:00pm). I see one of the lowest costs of living in the country. I see companies calling us for relocation help into OKC and we are always on their short list. This is a place where people want to live and raise a family, including me.

Pete
04-03-2014, 08:31 AM
Oklahoma City sprawls because we're still building crap further and further out for no good reason.

And the City itself is the biggest culprit by building four-lane roads and even highways in the middle of cow pastures, then rubber-stamping any and all rezoning requests from agriculture to housing/commercial, and also providing utility, fire and police services out in the middle of nowhere.

Every single week there are a bunch of new housing plats approved in the most out-lying areas, without discussion or even any type of basis for legitimate review.

Hopefully some of this will change through the Plan OKC process but the City itself is by far the biggest enabler of far-flung sprawl and it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.


And of course there are still plenty great places to live in and around Oklahoma City, but at the same times huge areas that were considered "nice" just a generation ago have fallen off greatly, not only in appearance and up-keep but in crime. And this is a trend that does not seem to be slowing at all. When lots of people now consider the PC North area (let alone PC or PCW and almost all of the OKC PS district) as a place they no longer wish to raise children, we have a very serious problem as a City.

Think about this: Virtually all neighborhoods inside the Kilpatrick Turnpike and I-240 loop are now considered less desirable (and for most those neighborhoods, that is being kind) than everything outside of them. And that happened in just the last 20-30 years.

Just the facts
04-03-2014, 08:59 AM
Maybe a visual reference will help. Here are two 1 sq. mile section of OKC. The green dots represent 4 ways intersections and the red dots represent dead-end streets. If you had to walk to a friends house which area do you think would be the easiest and fastest. If you had to drive to a friends house which do you think would be the easiest and fastest. Which area do you think can handle traffic better. Hint: The answers are all the same one.

Bad:
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKC%20Stuff/Bad_zps17d6de63.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/OKC%20Stuff/Bad_zps17d6de63.jpg.html)

Good:
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKC%20Stuff/good_zps5cc66c07.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/OKC%20Stuff/good_zps5cc66c07.jpg.html)

Jeepnokc
04-03-2014, 09:15 AM
Maybe a visual reference will help. Here are two 1 sq. mile section of OKC. The green dots represent 4 ways intersections and the red dots represent dead-end streets. If you had to walk to a friends house which area do you think would be the easiest and fastest. If you had to drive to a friends house which do you think would be the easiest and fastest. Which area do you think can handle traffic better. Hint: The answers are all the same one.

Bad:
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKC%20Stuff/Bad_zps17d6de63.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/OKC%20Stuff/Bad_zps17d6de63.jpg.html)

Good:
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKC%20Stuff/good_zps5cc66c07.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/OKC%20Stuff/good_zps5cc66c07.jpg.html)

The top example looks to be a residential area which begs the question....which one would you want to raise your kids in? I would want the top one with dead end streets. I lived at NW 21st and Robinson and before that I was on NW 21st just east of McKinley. I dealt with all the drive through traffic that basically would gun it to see how fast they could get from one stop sign to the next. The "bad" example hinders drive through traffic flow which is what I want in the neighborhood where my kids are playing outside. This along with the poor quality of OKC Schools are the two primary reasons we moved out of the inner core and moved to the burbs.

Just the facts
04-03-2014, 09:21 AM
I assume in the top picture you would want to live on one of the dead end streets because the houses on the thru streets see far more traffic than any house in the bottom picture. If you choose to live on a dead street I suggest you read up on the problems related to what has become known as Cul-de-sac kids. It isn't pretty.

bchris02
04-03-2014, 09:46 AM
One thing about OKC compared to elsewhere is that most cities with as many centers of activity as we have here are much larger. I think the OKC metro could easily get to 2-2.5 million in population by infill only and still have plenty of quaint, suburban subdivisions. Future development should center around three focal points.

A) Downtown.
B) NW Expressway
C) Memorial/Gaillardia

There is no reason to keep building farther out for the simple sake of building farther out.

As for sidewalks, the 1950s seemed to be when they stopped being built, though many areas still built them after that. Go to Phoenix, AZ, a city not known for its density, and their suburban areas have adequate sidewalks. Its the same in Charlotte.

Urbanized
04-03-2014, 10:01 AM
Sidewalks are unimportant when there is nothing to walk to. The biggest failing of the past 60 years was the absolute, iron-clad segregation of residential and commercial. A suburban neighborhood can be a fine place to live, but it is infinitely better when you can easily access some basics or even luxuries/entertainment on foot. The requirement to drive everywhere is what made the suburban dream less dreamy and led to the creation of JTF's afore-mentioned cul-de-sac kids, who don't have cars. And when they GET cars, heaven help us.

Dennis Heaton
04-03-2014, 10:53 AM
I can't seem to find it right now, but I recall reading a study that showed that sidewalks reduced the number of pedestrian fatalities.

Spartan
04-03-2014, 11:22 AM
One thing about OKC compared to elsewhere is that most cities with as many centers of activity as we have here are much larger. I think the OKC metro could easily get to 2-2.5 million in population by infill only and still have plenty of quaint, suburban subdivisions. Future development should center around three focal points.

A) Downtown.
B) NW Expressway
C) Memorial/Gaillardia

There is no reason to keep building farther out for the simple sake of building farther out.

As for sidewalks, the 1950s seemed to be when they stopped being built, though many areas still built them after that. Go to Phoenix, AZ, a city not known for its density, and their suburban areas have adequate sidewalks. Its the same in Charlotte.

Geez ever been to the south side??

Plutonic Panda
04-03-2014, 11:52 AM
What does all this mean? I see people relocating to OKC in the thousands every month. I see the lowest unemployment in the country. I see no traffic congestion for the most part (except 8:00am & 5:00pm). I see one of the lowest costs of living in the country. I see companies calling us for relocation help into OKC and we are always on their short list. This is a place where people want to live and raise a family, including me.+1

Plutonic Panda
04-03-2014, 11:53 AM
Maybe a visual reference will help. Here are two 1 sq. mile section of OKC. The green dots represent 4 ways intersections and the red dots represent dead-end streets. If you had to walk to a friends house which area do you think would be the easiest and fastest. If you had to drive to a friends house which do you think would be the easiest and fastest. Which area do you think can handle traffic better. Hint: The answers are all the same one.

Bad:
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKC%20Stuff/Bad_zps17d6de63.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/OKC%20Stuff/Bad_zps17d6de63.jpg.html)
Honestly man, I like this one better.

LocoAko
04-03-2014, 12:02 PM
What does all this mean? I see people relocating to OKC in the thousands every month. I see the lowest unemployment in the country. I see no traffic congestion for the most part (except 8:00am & 5:00pm). I see one of the lowest costs of living in the country. I see companies calling us for relocation help into OKC and we are always on their short list. This is a place where people want to live and raise a family, including me.

Why so defensive? No one is saying that OKC doesn't have low unemployment, low cost of living, etc. They're saying it sprawls. Which it does. All that "means" is that there are plenty of Americans who like sprawl, which should surprise no one...

Jeepnokc
04-03-2014, 12:23 PM
So I spent some time looking at the cul-de-sac kid problem. Basically it boils down to when kids are teenagers, they don't walk to where they need to go because they are so far tucked into their cul-de-sac. The pros are that they are safer. I don't buy into this argument of teenagers walking everywhere versus being driven. If I still lived at either of my houses in Gatewood or Heritage Hills East, there isn't any teenage entertainment within walking distance of either place. I would still be driving them everywhere including school. They would be in private schools so none of their friends would be nearby but even if public schools, the middle school and high school serve such a large area that chances are their friends wouldn't be near either. There isn't anyway I would let my kid bike up to Penn Square Mall. Where I live now, my kids are constantly running or biking to the neighbors house down at the end of the street which is a little over a 1/4 mile away. They ride their bikes in the street and I don't have to be concerned about somebody racing from one stop sign to the next hitting them.

Just the facts
04-03-2014, 12:50 PM
Its not just driving. There are issues around social isolation, suspended childhoods, drug use, smoking, alcohol use, suicides, obesity, asthma, diabetes, pregnancy, employment, and a whole host of other problems.

MustangGT
04-03-2014, 12:56 PM
Bingo. The base assumptions are fouled up. We have decentralized jobs. No way can we, or would we want to put all our jobs and people in one central location. Best to figure out how to work with what we have rather than attempt to cram our square peg in someone's theoretical round hole.

Absolutely. It is long past time we give a crap about what others think of us. We need to define ourselves and refuse to let out of state lick boots do it for us. If you do not currently live here you are miles behind the curve to start with. Internet connectivity only goes so far and it cannot give the feel aka ambience of what is going on right here right now.

BoulderSooner
04-03-2014, 12:56 PM
Yet another case where corelation does not equal causation.

Just the facts
04-03-2014, 01:02 PM
Yet anoth case where corelation does not equal causation.

Just saying that doesn't make it true. The linkage is well documented - you just need to have the courage to believe it. Alas, no one can make you believe it. That is something you have to find inside yourself.

As an example, I know it is from the government so you can just dismiss it out of hand, but for those who care....

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/problem.html

BDP
04-03-2014, 01:59 PM
So I spent some time looking at the cul-de-sac kid problem. Basically it boils down to when kids are teenagers, they don't walk to where they need to go because they are so far tucked into their cul-de-sac. The pros are that they are safer. I don't buy into this argument of teenagers walking everywhere versus being driven. If I still lived at either of my houses in Gatewood or Heritage Hills East, there isn't any teenage entertainment within walking distance of either place. I would still be driving them everywhere including school. They would be in private schools so none of their friends would be nearby but even if public schools, the middle school and high school serve such a large area that chances are their friends wouldn't be near either. There isn't anyway I would let my kid bike up to Penn Square Mall. Where I live now, my kids are constantly running or biking to the neighbors house down at the end of the street which is a little over a 1/4 mile away. They ride their bikes in the street and I don't have to be concerned about somebody racing from one stop sign to the next hitting them.

I feel safer in the grid because acceleration can only occur for a block. There are always some nut jobs that may gun it from one intersection to another, but I know that in the disconnected suburban neighborhood I grew up in, the curvy lay out did nothing to slow anyone down. In fact, it made it more fun to race through with less required stops or intersections (not me though, of course).

While I'm not criticizing your lifestyle choice at all, I do find the default opinion that suburbs are better for kids and families a bit unfounded. I have a lot of friends with kids in large urban areas and I don't see how it's any worse for them or that they are denying their kids something. In fact, those kids get a ton of experiences I could have only dreamed of when I was growing up. I'll admit that I am the typical irrationally over-paranoid parent of today, but I wouldn't have any problem raising my son in an urban area. Then again, I lived in a large urban city after college and saw plenty of families, so maybe it's just not as foreign to me as it is to a lot of people who grew up here. Either way, I don't see either as better, safer, or more kid oriented. Just different.

boitoirich
04-03-2014, 02:09 PM
The focus on gridded streets is still a bit off topic. Some places develop just fine using compact development and something called a fused grid. Basically, it combines Jeep's concerns with thru streets and JTF's desire for connectivity. To be honest, you two are really advocating for some of the same things when you really get down to it.

Jeep did mention that he still has to take his kid(s) places, which at bottom is actually an argument against sprawl. Because of our size, it is difficult and expensive to provide safe, reliable public transit that connects the entire city, and with reasonable headways. With compact development, transit is much cheaper and easier. I don't recall ever waiting much longer than 5-10 minutes for a bus in any dense city I've ever lived in. In fact, buses were often coming one right after the other, and sometimes two or three at a time. That made it easy for myself and my students (I taught English at a private high school) to get home anywhere in the city.

Just the facts
04-03-2014, 02:24 PM
I feel safer in the grid because acceleration can only occur for a block.

It's not just about speed either, but traffic count. In the grid model traffic is dispersed across many more streets. In the first picture there are only 14 access points to the entire sq mile and only 2 roads that carry through traffic. Every car has to use one of these 14 access points and the vast majority have to use one of the 2 collector roads. In the second sq. mile there are 40 access points and since there are no dead end streets every road goes all the way through.

Anyhow, this is why cities with well connected streets scored better in this study.

boitoirich
04-03-2014, 02:29 PM
The expectations I have out of PlanOKC are:

1) Limit sprawl.
2) Institute a Complete Streets program.
3) Eliminate failed Euclidian zoning in favor of a form-based code.

So many of of our livability goals (walkability, transit, placemaking, promoting active lifestyles, social capital) will be much easier to achieve with those policies in place.

GaryOKC6
04-03-2014, 02:41 PM
Why so defensive? No one is saying that OKC doesn't have low unemployment, low cost of living, etc. They're saying it sprawls. Which it does. All that "means" is that there are plenty of Americans who like sprawl, which should surprise no one...

I an definitely not defensive about it. I was just making a comment. Sorry if it came across defensive.

Jeepnokc
04-03-2014, 03:04 PM
Its not just driving. There are issues around social isolation, suspended childhoods, drug use, smoking, alcohol use, suicides, obesity, asthma, diabetes, pregnancy, employment, and a whole host of other problems.

The studies I read actually pointed to cul de sacs having more social interactions and less deviant behavior as all the kids know all the neighbors are watching. It was interesting that one study showed they were 6 pounds heavier but also said that cul de sacs increased outside activity and that the weight gain could be from other factors. Not a single one of the approximately 10 articles that I looked at including the Wikipedia page on cul de sacs that outlined the pros and cons mentioned any of the other stuff you are describing. I think the biggest challenge for parents nowadays is getting the kids off the electronics regardless of whether they live in a cul de sac or not.

Just the facts
04-03-2014, 03:58 PM
Just to clarrify, the phrase cul-de-sac kids doesn't literally mean kids living on cul-de-sacs, it means kids living in subdivisions, of which cul-de-sacs are a defining characteristic.

boitoirich
04-03-2014, 06:06 PM
The studies I read actually pointed to cul de sacs having more social interactions and less deviant behavior as all the kids know all the neighbors are watching. It was interesting that one study showed they were 6 pounds heavier but also said that cul de sacs increased outside activity and that the weight gain could be from other factors. Not a single one of the approximately 10 articles that I looked at including the Wikipedia page on cul de sacs that outlined the pros and cons mentioned any of the other stuff you are describing. I think the biggest challenge for parents nowadays is getting the kids off the electronics regardless of whether they live in a cul de sac or not.

I would be very interested in seeing a well-designed developmental psychology study on the effect of neighborhood typology on development. In the end, though, I really don't think it's about cul-de-sac vs. grid, but more about access to outdoor activities, fresh food, good schools, and having parents of some means. If suburban children are less anxious, might that be because their wealthier parents provide them with luxury of living a less stressful life? If those parents all moved to the inner city (thereby improving those schools in the process, and bringing with the the range of amenities they expect), wouldn't future studies then show the opposite? So we have to be careful when talking about correlations between street types/neighborhood types and psychological and socioeconomic outcomes. There are clear, intervening variables in the way.

At any rate, a well-designed, compact development is better for families and cities than a sprawling one.

bchris02
04-03-2014, 06:39 PM
The studies I read actually pointed to cul de sacs having more social interactions and less deviant behavior as all the kids know all the neighbors are watching. It was interesting that one study showed they were 6 pounds heavier but also said that cul de sacs increased outside activity and that the weight gain could be from other factors. Not a single one of the approximately 10 articles that I looked at including the Wikipedia page on cul de sacs that outlined the pros and cons mentioned any of the other stuff you are describing. I think the biggest challenge for parents nowadays is getting the kids off the electronics regardless of whether they live in a cul de sac or not.

I heard an ice cream truck today and I wondered to myself how they stay in business when the kids are inside on their xboxes rather than playing outside.

PWitty
04-03-2014, 06:57 PM
I assume in the top picture you would want to live on one of the dead end streets because the houses on the thru streets see far more traffic than any house in the bottom picture. If you choose to live on a dead street I suggest you read up on the problems related to what has become known as Cul-de-sac kids. It isn't pretty.

I googled "Cul-de-sac kids" and the only results that came up were a bunch of links to a lovely children's book series, plus definitions for "cul-de-sac". I know you don't like suburban-esque topics, but you can't make up something and claim it to be the beginning-of-the-end for all suburban kids. It may not be your preference but some people do prefer living in those types of neighborhoods. Not everybody has to live the same way.

Spartan
04-03-2014, 07:43 PM
All of the urbanists articulating why one of these sprawl aerials are worse than the grid aerial are missing the point. The visual clicks for me because I also espouse the argument behind it, but for others an indicative photo depiction doesn't seem to be the right message.

People want nice things. They want social justice and sustainability for other communities because the concept is great, and they can recognize which photo shows that. But they want the most luxurious for themselves. The argument needs to be how Mesta Park is simply more luxurious than Kelley Pointe or Morning Woods subdivisions in Edmond. It's not even close. MidtownR properties and Deep Deuce apartments are more opulent than MacArthur Park Apartments.

You can have your cake and eat it too. It's not enough to point out what is sprawl. Get people to actually want the alternative and not just feel bad about the standard behavior.

Rover
04-03-2014, 09:04 PM
Its not just driving. There are issues around social isolation, suspended childhoods, drug use, smoking, alcohol use, suicides, obesity, asthma, diabetes, pregnancy, employment, and a whole host of other problems.

Wow. This is great stuff. Square street grid. 4 way stops....or is it round abouts (I'm confused which is the most urban). Buildings within 10 feet of the street. Back in angled parking. Sidewalks and bike lanes. Everyone living on top of each other. Bars on every block. Streetcars and busses. AND THEN all social and health problems are solved. Who knew.

boitoirich
04-03-2014, 09:24 PM
^ Really, Rover? That's the best you got?

Rover
04-03-2014, 09:38 PM
Sorry. It's been a long day. :tongue:

Just the facts
04-04-2014, 06:19 AM
^ Really, Rover? That's the best you got?

Sadly yes it is. I believe he is of the mindset that every facet of life happens in its own vacuum with nothing having an impact on any other part of it. I happen to believe that all activities of life are connected.

ME: Kids who can't take themselves to a park won't go to the park, which will result in a sedimentary lifestyle, which in turn can lead to obesity, which in turn can lead to diabetes.
Rover: There is no connection between being able to walk to a park and diabetes.

I'm not saying it happens to every child but Rover is saying it doesn't happen to any child.

mkjeeves
04-04-2014, 06:25 AM
Wow. This is great stuff. Square street grid. 4 way stops....or is it round abouts (I'm confused which is the most urban). Buildings within 10 feet of the street. Back in angled parking. Sidewalks and bike lanes. Everyone living on top of each other. Bars on every block. Streetcars and busses. AND THEN all social and health problems are solved. Who knew.

I wonder why Hell's Kitchen comes to mind. when you're a jet...



ME: Kids who can't take themselves to a park won't go to the park, which will result in a sedimentary lifestyle, which in turn can lead to obesity, which in turn can lead to diabetes.

I lived in Albuquerque for a bit when I was a young teen. One of the things I liked best about it was I could walk or ride my bike to a number of city parks and straight out of my suburban neighborhood to the base of the mountains, and did, often. Explored all the underground culverts with my friends too. We didn't have good supervision but didn't have computers and electronic games and were limited on how much TV we could watch.

Most of the suburban places I've lived as a kid were short walking or biking distance to something approaching *wild*, undeveloped lands needing exploring.

mkjeeves
04-04-2014, 06:52 AM
The first trend stats I could find. I'd bet the decline of kids on bikes has been steady since the '60s and completely unrelated to density of their neighborhood.


Bicycling is not for kids any more. The number of children who ride bicycles declined
more than 20 percent between 2000 and 2010, while the number of adults who ride
increased slightly.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEAQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gluskintownleygroup.com%2Fdow nloads%2FThe%2520US%2520Bicycle%2520Market%2520-%2520A%2520Trend%2520Overview%2520Report.pdf&ei=Gao-U-fCKfLisATLgYH4Ag&usg=AFQjCNEDKbntod6JGV7rI6sWLNA8FwlWSg&sig2=1fhO5KhucBuwDUSdHZAcCA&bvm=bv.64125504,d.cWc&cad=rja

Just the facts
04-04-2014, 06:55 AM
I lived in Albuquerque for a bit when I was a young teen. One of the things I liked best about it was I could walk or ride my bike to a number of city parks and straight out of my suburban neighborhood to the base of the mountains, and did, often. Explored all the underground culverts with my friends too. We didn't have good supervision but didn't have computers and electronic games and were limited on how much TV we could watch.

Most of the suburban places I've lived as a kid were short walking or biking distance to something approaching *wild*, undeveloped lands needing exploring.

I grew up in suburbia also and just like you I rode my bike every where. The only time I watched TV was Saturday morning. But that suburbia and today's suburbia are two different things. For one, we didn't have near the traffic back then because while I lived in suburbia, most people still lived in traditional neighborhoods which didn't require as much driving. Today, the vast majority live in suburbia which requires driving to everything. Also gone are the neighborhood parks which gave way to large regional parks (just look at OKC). Due to poor planning most of what I explored as a kid has turned into people backyards because we allowed private ownership of creek/river banks and other natural features. You can't get to the cool stuff today without going through someone's backyard.

We have a park in our subdivision but my kids rarely use it. Why, first off it is 1.5 miles round trip thanks to the curvilinear roads. Second, due to the low density nature of our subdivision there is a good chance that once they got there, there wouldn't be any other kids to play with. If they wanted to play by themselves they could do that in the backyard. The next park is 3 miles away but the only way there is down a major arterial road with cars that routinely go +55 mph and no sidewalk. My oldest son is 15 and loves basketball, but he can count on his fingers the number of times he has played a pickup game of basketball with more than 2 people on a team - and that makes me sad because those are some of my best childhood memories.

Rover
04-04-2014, 07:51 AM
When people lose perspective because of single minded adherence to one set of beliefs and are narrowly assigning absolute cause and effect it is intellectual dishonesty or laziness. Fitting all things into one package is simple minded. To say that the results of inactivity CONTRIBUTE to health problems is one thing. But to ignore all other effects and blame all ills on cars and sprawl is silly, at best.

mkjeeves
04-04-2014, 08:01 AM
When people lose perspective because of single minded adherence to one set of beliefs and are narrowly assigning absolute cause and effect it is intellectual dishonesty or laziness. Fitting all things into one package is simple minded. To say that the results of inactivity CONTRIBUTE to health problems is one thing. But to ignore all other effects and blame all ills on cars and sprawl is silly, at best.

Well said.

Just the facts
04-04-2014, 08:12 AM
When people lose perspective because of single minded adherence to one set of beliefs and are narrowly assigning absolute cause and effect it is intellectual dishonesty or laziness. Fitting all things into one package is simple minded. To say that the results of inactivity CONTRIBUTE to health problems is one thing. But to ignore all other effects and blame all ills on cars and sprawl is silly, at best.

I agree which is why I have spent the last several year re-educating myself on these subjects, and then provided that information to others so those searching for the same answers I was searching for can read and watch what I read and watched. Prior to 2008 the average person wouldn't have been able to tell JTF and Rover apart, but the near economic collapse of 2008 made me revaluate how the world works - and guess what - it doesn't work the way I thought it did. So I took a bottom up approach to re-educate myself on economics, urban development, race relations, human history, the Federal Reserve, government, transportation, religion, education, the military, and a whole host of other issues. The result of this re-education is what I am today. I have a much clearer understanding of how the world interacts with itself, why people do what they do, and the relationship between actions and reactions. I wasn't born a New Urbansit and it wasn't taught to me, and in fact, until a few years ago I didn't even know the movement existed, but when I found it did exist and that the people in it came to the same conclusions I did, then hell yes - I jumped on and I haven't looked back.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/33058-new-urbanism-library.html

Okay - personal rant over. :)

C_M_25
04-04-2014, 11:29 AM
Sorry if this has already been mentioned. I just haven't read through everything yet. I've always wanted to get outside city limits because I really enjoy target practice. That being said, the wife and I have been paying attention to where city limits actually occurs, and I was amazed the the NE city limits extends almost out to Welston. Why oh why does OKC need that much land area? It makes no sense!

I had a friend tell me that OKC is one of the largest cities in the US as far as land area is concerned. Does anybody know if that is true?