Most suburbs were created to draw a line between black & white. Ditto some 'twin cities.' It is idiotic for Normal & Bloomington Illinois to be separate -- and even more idiotic for Unit 5 & District 85 to be separate school districts. But the populations of Normal & Unit 5 won't vote for combining. Mostly race. Unit 5 has nibbled off some of the wealthier or 'whiter' areas of Bloomington.
Carrol > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:pen-l- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Naiman > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 4:20 AM > To: Progressive Economics > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Are "suburbs" roughly enviro-neutral if you don't drive? > > Chuck notes that the distinction between "city" and "suburb" can be > somewhat arbitrary - some parts of LA are former suburbs which were > absorbed, so you have to ask yourself to what extent those former > suburbs became more city-like when they were absorbed. > > In the DC area one has to some extent the opposite phenomenon: there > are areas of Maryland and Virginia close to DC that in another part of > the country might have been absorbed but weren't in this case because > there was a state boundary in the way. > > So perhaps the question is really about density and public transit, > not whether one is technically in a suburb or a city. > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 6:41 PM, Chuck Grimes <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> But suppose you managed to live in a suburb without ever using a car, > >> and without anyone in your household ever using a car. > -- > >> Robert Naiman > > ---------- > > > > I think to see a suburb, you have to fly over it and look down on the > > approach. First you come to miles and miles housing and wide streets all > > within a couple of stories, then the cityscape changes into other features > > by everything gets taller, maybe in the distance and you land and have to > > take something to get you into the city. LAX is a little different because > > you land in a former suburb that is actually now part of the city because LA > > is almost all suburb, just older and old. SF is pretty much the same, except > > drastically smaller. At SFO you land on landfill after crossing suburbs that > > reach down to Los Gatos south of San Jose. > > > > What are you looking at, from an eco point of view. You are looking at > > concrete and asphalt, man-made surfaces that reflect and absorb radiation as > > well as distribute gases and so forth, a kind of massive organic/inorganic > > colony with its own ecology and environment. > > > > Sure you can bike to work and pick up groceries, etc, but that is pretty > > much irrelevant compared to the coverage of land by man made environments. > > > > This raises (in my mind) an interesting question. Which is less abusive of > > global scale ecology a set of condensed populations in cities, or the sprawl > > that surrounds them? Is the LA model easier on the enviornment than the > > Manhatten model, I mean in totality? A long time ago, maybe late 1970s out > > here, this kind of geographical question was taken up over development of > > Yosemite Valley. Should the park service close down the sprawling camp > > grounds and condense visitor activity to small areas of greater impact or > > allow it spread with thinner impact but greater area. > > > > At the time I was learning to climb with a visiting prof in the Geography > > Dept. and we used to argue this. I don't know the answer. The Valley > > experiment never really came to conclusions because of endless budget cuts. > > Instead of doing a Euro style Alpine sort of development, they just closed > > camp grounds because it was cheaper than maintaining them and of course the > > existing camping got a lot more expensive, enough to get rid of the working > > class families who used to use the camp grounds as a vacation on the cheap. > > > > So somebody has to read up on this and figure it out. Patrick's link just > > went to an intro page, but over on the right panel, there was another Harvey > > lecture on Urban Revolution which is a cool lecture as always with Harvey, > > but it doesn't address the real topic of this thread. > > > > At a guess, suburbs are very hard on the environment because of their > > sprawl, their thinner population density. It maybe that condensation of > > populations might be better---but that has to be figured out. > > > > CG > > > > CG > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > -- > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
