Amazon.com Widgets

Should cities place a ban on private greenfield development in order to curb urban sprawl?

  • Corporations can't be trusted with sustainability unless it is enforced!

    The suburbs that contribute to urban sprawl (especially the ones that have been built since 1980) show that there is nothing but profit in mind for land developers. Many neighbourhoods are hawked as "products", with houses built so that if you've seen one, you've seen them all.

    The majority of suburban neighbourhoods are built with a bias towards the car (you have to use a car to get anywhere), so that you are forced to contribute to air pollution, and the sprawl means that you have to make an incredible amount of emissions in order to get to the city centre.

    Rural land and animal habitats are swallowed up as a result of urban sprawl, contributing to loss of food production and loss of biodiversity.

    And do the developers care? No! They would pave paradise and put up a thousand parking lots if it made them money!

    If they developed on brownfield or greenfield land, it wouldn't be as much of a problem, but instead, we get sprawl!

  • No they shoundn't

    So everything eventually will still be the same so this time we don't want any more buildings because of farmlands and neighborhoods history that we learn from. And many people must live in a lower density with lots of privacy, lower crime and safer neighborhood and people still want to raise children with a lawn. So the farmland and every county's empty land must be remand and survive, so that's why the land development is a problem.

  • No they should not

    Adding more urban areas is not an options so we want less noise more privacy. And the crime rate must be a lot lower and safer neighborhoods. You know any way a big farmland and wildlife areas will not be missed... . .. . . . . . . ..

  • No they should not

    Building more businesses and neighborhood can be a problem. You building too much crap are not an options so this the building growth must be stop in the future so this time populations are already started to decrease so this is 39 years from now and it will be a farm with b lots of acres of land and fewer developments and soon placing the urban areas can be stop in the future and will never think of it again.

  • It is consumer choice..

    Don't buy into any of the nonsense about "urban sprawl." A lot of people prefer to live in a lower density areas with less noise and more privacy. It also correlates with lower crime and safer neighborhoods. Even the EPA admits lower density means less smog and congestion. This is an issue of choice and freedom. A lot of people prefer being able to raise their children with a lawn.

    And last time I checked, only about 5.2% of the United States is what we'd call "developed." It is fear mongering to pretend all the land is vanishing, especially farm land. And as for the whole "car bias" argument, that can be defeated when you realize that people that choose to live in the suburbs because they also prefer driving.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.
>