I live in Dallas/Ft. Worth. Every day I see our metro area expanding further and further, due to the suburban neighborhoods popping up farther and farther outside the city. These new neighborhoods have no bus or rail lines available, so they have to use their cars to get to their jobs, which are usually not anywhere close to their homes. I remember large forests and vast fields that are now rows of identical homes on tiny lots.

A few years ago the Discovery Channel showed a documentary about building Sky City, Taipei 101 and other megastructures.

http://media.dsc.discovery.com/convergence...nteractive.html

I know America has a large amount of available land, however I really would like to keep that as beautiful wilderness. We have the resources to build megastructures and they would improve efficiency quite a bit.

+ When you are able to live, work, play, and shop all in the same building you have no need for a car. Building megastructures encourages the development and use of more mass-transit.

+ We could build multiple megastructures and have high-speed trains connecting them.

+ The surrounding buildings could be converted to park spaces or wilderness which clean the air, improve the look of the area, and decrease the surrounding heat index.

+ You can install counterweights in the skyscraper to counteract the gradual sway in the upper parts of the building.

+ Large atriums can be built in the center of the building every ten floors up to create a more natural landscape than your normal sterile building environment.


Other links to megastructures

Sky City 1000, on Takenaka's website
http://www.takenaka.co.jp/takenaka_e/super...ity/skycity.htm
http://www.takenaka.co.jp/takenaka_e/techn..._sky/63_sky.htm

Takenaka's Holonic Tower
http://www.takenaka.co.jp/takenaka_e/super...nic/holonic.htm

Pyramid City, on the Discovery Channel website
http://media.dsc.discovery.com/convergence...nteractive.html

I'm with you, but I'm afraid I don't know how to stop it... seems people want to have their own home, built their own way. Plus landowners want to cash in on their gold mine. Combine that with rediculously low interest rates, and you have an epidemic.

I know what you mean. Around here there are ads bombarding us everyday to get low-interest mortgages on new homes. We could spread the word on how high-density living would benefit themselves and the community, especially by showing them how expensive their suburban sprawl is.

- Since the new neighborhoods are far outside the city, people will have to drive further to reach their jobs and shopping needs. There is also no mass transit out there.

- Here in Texas, homeowners have to pay a property tax for homes they own. Low density land users pay a higher amount of property tax.

- Driving a car to and from work is more stressful than taking mass transit.

+ Eliminating your personal car can save you an average of $800 a month (I'm guessing at that figure, but it sounds right when you factor in the financing, gas, repairs, and insurance).

- The construction of new homes use a mixture of toxic chemicals that are put into the surrounding environment.

The main problem with suburban sprawl comes from the architects and builders themselves, plus the fact that zoning laws don't allow mixed use facilities. The architects and builders know exactly how to design and build these houses and shopping malls and they really don't want to do it any other way.
I suggest you go to http://endofsuburbia.com and order their documentary. It shows how we got into this mess and whats likely to happen in the future after the oil peak.

I did not know that. Thank you for the information, and it looks like I have some letters to write.

The main problem is lack of Land Use planning. As long as Republicans own the Congress and State Houses the longer lack of Land Use planning will continue. The most important thing we can do is get Democrats in office. Without Democratic leadership urban sprawl continues.

Move to Oregon, our Land Use planning is strong, with Metro boundaries in place to prevent sprawl. Those laws are from elected Dems.

SCREENINGS of End of Suburbia

Unless stated otherwise, screenings are staged by independent organizers. Please feel free to organize an event of your own. The producers of The End of Suburbia encourage you to show the documentary to audiences without permission, as long as the event is not-for-profit.

November 15 - Auckland, New Zealand at 7pm at the Green Party office, 308 Great North Road. Followed by discussion with MP Jeanette Fitzsimons, GreenParty co-leader and Transport spokesperson, and other transport movers and shakers. Email: transport@greens.org.nz Ph. 09-361-5975.

November 15 - Perth, Australia. FTI Cinema, 92 Adelaide St, Fremantle (easy access from Freo train station) 6:30pm. Evening concludes with an invigorating panel discussion on the critical issues raised in the film.

November 15 & 18 - Ithica, NY 6:30pm at the Old Jail Conference Hall, Behind the Tompkins County courthouse, 125 Court Street.

November 16 - St Paul, MN at Mad Hatters Tea House 943 West 7th Street, at 6:30pm.

November 16 - Toronto, ON at 7:30 pm at Celts Pub, 2872 Dundas St. West. Plus 'Hijacking Catastrophe: 9-11, Fear and Selling of the American Empire'. $5 at the door.

November 16 - Saskatoon, SK. 7:00pm at the Frances Morrison Library Theatre. Presented by the Sierra Club of Canada and Turning the Tide Bookstore.

November 18 - Stony Brook, NY at Stony Brook University. Presented by the Social Justice Alliance.

November 18 - Seattle, WA. Rainier Valley Unitarian Universalist Congregation will show The End of Suburbia. Contact Dick.

November 18 - Los Alamos, NM at the Mesa Public Library at noon.

November 19 - Kamloops, BC. Presented by the Kamloops Chapter of the BC Sustainable Energy Association.

November 20 - Swansea, Wales, UK at the Beyond TV Video Activist Documentary Festival.

November 22 & 23 - Houston, TX

November 23 - Waterloo, ON at 11:00am in the Great Hall of the Student Life Center on the University of Waterloo Campus. Presented by the University of Waterloo Sustainability Project.

November 25 - Missisauga, ON. Presented by the University of Toronto's Environmental Resource Network.

November 26 - Chicago, IL at 7:00pm at Healing Earth Resources, 3111 N. Ashland.

November 26 - Kansas City, MO

November 27 - Santa Barbara, CA at "Overconsumption, Oil Depletion and the Inevitable Road to Sustainability ", a one-day conference with films, panel discussions, and a talk by guest speaker Richard Heinberg, author of "The Party's Over", and "Powerdown".

December 5 - San Luis Obispo, CA at the San Luis Library. Presented by Hopedance Magazine.

December 5 - Philadelphia, PA at the White Dog Cafe.

December 9 - Portland, OR. Presented by The Portland 9/11 Truth Alliance.

December 11 - Oxford, MI. Discussion with John Richter, Dominic Crea and Tim Hudson will follow.

December 11 - Scramento, CA.

December 18 - Willits, CA.

December 18 - Chicago, IL. The Illinois Solar Energy Association is screening The End of Suburbia at their Membership Meeting at the Chicago Center for Green Technology, 445 North Sacramento Blvd.

December 13 - Seeley, WI.

Go to the following link for details. http://endofsuburbia.com/screenings.htm

Buy the DVD and organize a screening in your area. Anyone in the Dallas Ft. Worth area that wants to help organize a screening, just contact me!

Surburban sprawl is just one of many social problems that results from the fact
that community is no longer a pre-potent personal construct for most
people in the US--especially first time home owners. When the word is used by the majority, they really mean neighborhood, or it is confused with the term, social network, as in Black community, Deaf community, business community, academic
community,etc. The absence of open and functional communities is at the root of most of our social and educational problems but most people do not seem to be much aware of the fact that they are not very well integrated into one

What makes "open and functional communities" different from the other groups that you have listed above?

The concept of community is a basic building block in all conceptions
of social systems whether from traditional useage or from the social and behavioral sciences. Taking the individual person as the relevant unit of analysis for our purposes, the person can be understood as an organic Self-in-Situation Adaptation Process For this process to continue its natural trend toward
socialization and self-actualization it needs to be integrated into a primary group
usually called family. For the family to facilitate individual self-maintainence and growth it needs to be integrated into a community. All communities, the place
where one lives, have certain attributes and characteristics:Territoriality,communi-
cation system, transportation system, system for the exchange of goods and services, a political system, fire and police protection and some degree of shared traditions, assumptions and values. These later considerations become important for answering the question of how open the community is. Mainstream communities
have traditionally not been very open to minority groups--whether racial, socio-
economic class, persons with certain disabilities, non-traditional sexual orientation
or ideologies perceived to be too radical. Since the US is a pluralistic society,
communities generally need to become more open and culturally diverse in order to be more functional. All of our individual communities need to be more functional
in order for our social system to be more functional in the world. The world
will continue to become more interdependent so that our very survival demands that we recognize our interdependence and learn to become more cooperative
and less competitive.

Is there some "critical balance" of both shared traditions, assumptions and values and diversity such that a community can sustain itself and prosper? I've seen people in intentional communities struggle a great deal with this problem.

In mainstream communities, the problem is dealt with by developing new communities-----"white flight, urban sprawl, and decay of older urban centers.

I think there is a balance between both shared traditions that would benefit all. I just think that so much land is severely wasted in the US. We have sprawling megastores and shopping malls, which are usually just single-story structures. Why not increase the efficiency of land used. On top of one WalMart SuperCenter you could have a smattering of small restaurants and outside cafe shops. Or maybe several stories of affordable apartments. Why not a combination of all three?

1st story: WalMart, Home Depot, Lowes, etc.
2nd story: Restaurants, Coffee Bars, Salons, etc.
3rd, 4th, 5th, etc: Apartments or lofts

There could be a large number of stairs or escalators, and glass elevators, to take the residents up and down to the different floors.

And about parking? Residents, employees, and business owners can have gated-access underground parking. Visitors and shoppers can park in the giant sprawling existing parking lot.

We have some buildings in Dallas/ Ft. Worth that resemble this. One in Richardson known as "The Block" has a few small stores on the 1st floor along with small loft apartments on the 2nd and 3rd floor. We also have a few of these in Addison. These however, take up a very small percentage of our land usage.

What happens to this community when WalMart decides to shut down it's store at that location and open up a supercenter at a new vortex of suburban sprawl? The problem I see with this scheme is that the people who make decisions about the allocation of capital do not live in the community. The residents in the community would have little voice in the major decisions.

Good point. The general structure of WalMart is a warehouse, so it can be used for many different things. Members of the community could purchase ownership in the property used by WalMart.

However, I would think that WalMart would not want to leave such a high-density area with easy access to mass transit. Even buildings that are not SuperCenters can be modified to provide accomidations for a multitude of customers.

Let's suppose that an intentional community were to organize a financial cooperative to purchase an empty superstore building. If they could lay their hands on enough capital to design the warehouse space as an enclosed village. The simplicity in the design of these buildings might enable allow for retrofits for solar and wind power generation. I've seen some designs that actually cover roofs with sod and community garden space. There could also be quite a bit of rain water collection and storage. Might this be a model for transforming urban sprawl into more supportive, sustainable, and self-sufficient communities?

Inside could provide residential space, common space with restaurants, coffee houses, theatres, classrooms, and small manufacturing and service industries.

If the building starts out empy, capital can be found with fewer strings attached, and there is some sort of democratic process by which community stakeholders participate in governance without some corporation having the power to pull the plug.

Remember, the Dems lost the election because we didn't tap into those folks living in the burbs. Burbs aren't bad, poor land use planning is bad. Planned communities make sense. Set aside land for industrial, light industrial use, find the brown fields. Save land for farms. Make big box stores PAY to move into the area.

All too often, city and county governments PAY the big box stores to move into the area---When they stop paying, then the store splits, leaving a big empty box.

here in Texas, property taxes are a big deal. We could offer lower property taxes for higher density, multi-use structures that use the land more efficiently.

We could make eligibility for lower property taxes only under a certain condition, where community members are allowed to purchase interest in the building. I guess it could be sort of like having an account at a credit union.

We could provide further tax incentives if the owner covers their roof with at least a certain percentage of solar panels, to make the building more self-sustaining.

Good ideas. Would elected Green party representatives be more effective at getting such tax incentives into law than democrats?
----or would it make more sense to advocate for green priorities w/in the democratic party?

Honestly, I believe it depends on the elected official. A politician can say whatever he/she/it wants to get into office, but if they don't really mean it then it won't get done. I think Green party members would make a better effort to get these laws passed. I'm not saying this because I am a Green party member. I'm saying this because it's a much harder struggle to get into office as a Green party candidate. We don't accept corporate contributions, so there would be no incentive to continue dumb corporate ideals.

It helps to get elected in order to legislate a green agenda.

How does a Green party candidate get elected when the opposition has the campaign funds to plaster their candidate's name and face all over the airwaves? Where's the political machine that can give a candidate name recognition, advocate for the platform, and get out the vote.

It doesn't have to originate from deep pockets of corporations, but there needs to be an effective organization that gains access. The religious right seems to have used congregations as part of their machine.

Do greens have a unique design for grass root political organizations that can elect local and regional representatives to effect tax incentives and land use policy?



t

There is nothing really unique about grassroots political organizations. The Green party of the United States is merely a collection of multiple Green parties across the country. I am a member of the Green Party of Texas ( http://www.txgreens.org ). We have a greater chance for electing local and regional representatives than national representatives, because of the grassroots efforts. One million Greens cannot march on Washington very easily without a lot of planning, however one thousand Greens can march on the local capital to make an impact on their community. We don't have corporate contributers, however we make up for that in numbers. If you want more info about the Green party's procedures, you may visit our website.

I say the easiest way is to say your a democrat, get involved with Howard Dean's site aimed at promoting dem's at the local level. Get the required support and hopefully win the election, and then perform as a Green!

I have no love for the dem's, but you have a better chance of winning if you get their support. Just do like Dean did afterward and don't support the corporate machine.

Wow, this topic is pinned now. That's nice!

Yes, we need to make smarter, more efficient, and higher-density structures.

Great topic.

The ideas are out there (just like the truth, I suppose). We need leaders (elected and non-elected) and activists to make "smart growth" an important issue. Taking a stand that opposes greedy developers is no easy thing.

Both parties hate the greens, when an election is in issue don't wast your vote, vote for the lesser of the two evils and keep republicans out of office.

Sprawl is a result of overpopulation and too much growth too fast.

Simply stated, if illegal immigration is not dealt with then neither will the problem of urban sprawl be dealt with.

Well I live in Texas, which is nowhere near green, and there's no chance of it being green anytime soon. Now if we can lessen the Republican majority in Texas, then that would be nice.

We also strive to use instant runoff voting in elections, so there will be no "spoiler" parties.