Sprawl reminds me of a donut. All the goodie is on the outside with nothing in the middle. As everyone moves further away it is evident those moving inch closer to those moving from the other direction. Revitalization can only be done through City Planning and condemming of disfunctional properties.Then we hear the screaming of property rights. No builder in his right mind is going to pay a premium price for city land and price himself out of a market when land is cheaper on the outer edge of the donut.

The challenge with most "media" debates around issues is that they often end up being framed as either-or.

Often many solutions are available outside these simplistic boxes. For one thing discussing what kind of sprawl would be valuable. European suburbs range from 1 to 6 stories while most american suburbs range from 1 to 2 stories. The typical subdivision layout in the US now is different than it was 40 years ago and very
different than european ones. The width of the street, the set back of the housing, the position of the garage, the inclusion of open spaces or open public areas, all these and many more features make a huge difference in how sprawl impact us. Of the dozens of suburban models
to be created, we tend to see the same few uninspired versions repeated endlessly.

It must be remembered that urban sprawl in the US was created by the FHA lending program in which the government gave low-interest loans to *white* WWII vets to help them become homeowners while denying the same opportunity to black WWII vets. Further urban sprawl occurred following Brown v. Board of Education, which made segregated public schools illegal. So let's not forget the real reason for urban sprawl in America: the desire of white Americans to not live near black people.

Sprawl is Cheney's non-negotiable American way of life - and that right there is considerable reason to hate it with passion.

However, the plan preceded Cheney...
Decimate inner cities and urban cores, then replace them with donut rings...spreading out like shock waves from the real ground zero (not the pile of rubble left in lower Manhattan).

Promotes huge profits for the auto industry, the insurance industry, oil corporations, and housing conglomerates.

Sprawl is sort of like the spreading waist-coated symbol of prosperity left over from a bygone era - the doctor could predict future health decline (with great accuracy) yet the symptoms were regarded as an inevitability.

Needless to say, there is much vested interest to make Americans feel good about their sprawl, and ignore its consequences. Millions of home owners don't want to be faced with the prospect of declining property values and diminishing quality of life.

The saddest thing -is that we would fight the rest of the world and perhaps bring the planet to the brink of armageddon - all over the diminishing non-renewable resource it takes to run the whole thing.

Sprawl is ugly. Period. In many ways and for numerous reasons. Dispensing with the logic of its unsustainability because of its wastefulnes and expense, one can only marvel at the ponderous mass of blind-eyed meek acceptance for such spirit-numbing decrepitude.

Modern life disappeared inside a soap operatic sudsey swoon, hauling common sense and any competent accumulation of healthy public will with it.

Charlatans continually dream up these pathetic attempts to convince us otherwise. Sooner or later their efforts will fall short of the mark.
The great sleepwalk will end with the $5 gallon of gas, and the upside down mortgage.
When the beast awakes, it will all be such good fun then, will it not?

Funny how in Curitiba "The bankers ALL wanted the rivers enclosed; instead city hall took the same loan and spent it on land," or, actually, PARKS!
In Santa Monica, CA, every new real estate project has to include an "open space" of equal size.
This entire issue is another case of what the gov. needs to do, but doesn't. And now there's always the excuse that there isn't enough money...