As long as we hold to a moral/spiritual/cultural belief that the human race is somehow separate and superior to the rest of 'nature' the sprawl of human endeavor will win out. By our misguided view of woods, nature, 'open space' exist because we allow it out of the discretionary generosity of our hearts, not because they are in fact essential to our survival. We exist because nature allows US to, not the other way around, and we will be punished for the arrogance of our refusal to accept that fact.

Living in central Oklahoma, I've been worrying quite a bit about the ongoing sprawl. Tragically, I think we lack the political will here to do anything about it.

I think we've got some mayors who have done some lip service about greenbelts... I should check them out.

Just take a look at Boulder, CO to see the success/failure of the 'greenbelt' idea. I don't know the cronology of it, but at some point in the last 15 years they decided to 'greenbelt' the city to control sprawl. Now there is a very pleasant and green(ish) ring around the city where only the wealthy can afford to live and enjoy nature AND being able to walk to downtown while the truly hideous sprawl marches on just outside of it.

What really needs to be confronted by everyone is the thus-far sacred and unassailable notion that perpetual growth is essential and inevitable and to be encouraged.

To understand what constant growth really means take the time to check out this fantastic lecture:

http://globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461

So Andrew, when are you going to finally stop just bitching about sprawl and embrace no population growth as a policy?

Just take a look at Boulder, CO to see the success/failure of the 'greenbelt' idea. I don't know the cronology of it, but at some point in the last 15 years they decided to 'greenbelt' the city to control sprawl. Now there is a very pleasant and green(ish) ring around the city, where only the wealthy can afford to live and enjoy nature AND being able to walk to downtown, while the truly hideous sprawl marches on just outside of it.

What anti-sprawl activists don't seem to realize is that some sprawl is needed to keep housing affordable. London has a greenbelt, and housing there is insanely expensive. Portland's greenbelt has made it one of the priciest places in Oregon.

I guess the poor can live in the country, and drive an hour to get anywhere. I hope they can afford hybrids.

Population 353,000 land area ~120 sq miles but the way its grown by annexation its 30 miles end to end. And because there's so much undeveloped/under developed land there's no incentive to build UP. Only out. There's always another plot land to clear cut and build on in lieu of trying to get the city's permission to build anything more than a few floors in height. So here we have endless professional office space and strip malls most of which are never occupied (and never will be occupied) before the next one goes up next door or down the street.

If you look at the Triangle region it's even worse. Total population 1.4 million, total area 4,600 sq miles. 4 cities, 9 suburbs of 10,000 people each or more and 55 suburbs of less than 10,000 people each. Now at 340 people/sq mile that might sound like a lot but the Triangle is considered a single metropolitan area. You come to expect roads and services spread out over the large area and for all those services to work and to be affordable, which they don't and they're not.

This is one reason why we've always been in the top 10 worst air quality regions in the country for years. Nothing but roads, cars, red lights and congestion as far as the eye can see. You need a car to buy milk.

"How could anyone behold these two versions of the world and not be inspired to make it work?"

Recreational drugs and self delusion should help. Or just look at it from another angle: It's ALL nature in its horrifying transformational glory - including the parking lots - "natural" being a moot point and "unnatural" just a musty old opinion.

Portland is the priciest place to live in Oregon but that was also true 50 years ago, long before there was a greenbelt. Further, the Portland greenbelt is mostly private land with no public access. It protects prime agricultural land and limits sprawl, but it is not parkland, and the majority of us who live in Portland give little thought to it other than as a protective measure, because we can't use it.

BTW, the biggest explosion in housing prices in Portland are in old neighborhoods in the SE (I live in a 1908 bungalow in the SE) and NE and in penthouses in the Pearl.

You're driving along this seemingly remote highway bordered by green fields, but you're moments away from one of the most populous regions in the world. I always loved that drive. I think, however, that the area you describe is "the Peninsula", not the "South Bay". Maybe a technicality, but it matters to locals. I've attached a link that describes the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Peninsula

the experience described is not far from the Japanese world of tamed nature which I see as a kind of urban Garden. Your hikes to the countryside are on meticulously maintained cement or asphalt. You cannot get anywhere without seeing people and the only way you can feel joy of being alone is to be silent so others don't notice you are there.

As much as people like to point out that sprawl degrades quality of life and environment, urban spaces are degrading and dangerous although in different ways. The ever popular target of driving to go to the store for milk really means that you are not held hostage to one or two merchants. Driving means you can take advantage of choices in the commercial space. You can go to different merchants, you can control how much you purchase and most importantly, if you do it right, you can save significant amounts of time over using alternatives like public transport.

It's all about choice. You can either go with the urban high expense, rental experience, time consuming existence or the suburban low expense, ownership experience, time-consuming existence.

-- cm

ps thinking out loud about the coexistence issue, it occurs to me that one can't do anything about the 2-4x times higher real estate costs inside of greenbelts except by encouraging slum development but you might be able to solve the excessively high food and product costs if cities were to encourage mini big-box stores every few blocks. Many stores means reduced transportation and time costs to residents and it would also mean lower product delivery costs to the stores because one truck can deliver to a few stores before traveling back to the depot.