What of Growth? Balt/DC and beyond....

getontrac · February 4th, 2007, 01:23 AM

Growth has been a topic much broached and often discussed. However, posters don’t usually define in which sense they mean. We are sometimes referring to economic growth, development, or population growth without being clear.

I’d be interested in gaining people’s insights on “growth”. As Skyscrapercity has grown from being more about big buildings to urban development and planning, I think mentalities have shifted a bit.

My view:

Population growth in the near and mid-term appear inevitable. Population growth in and of itself, is not. I expect that perhaps at least for the next 15-20 years growth in numbers will be unavoidable, especially with immigration continuing into the US.

I favor the population growth that does come to be concentrated (as physical development new or old) in previously developed areas and areas immediately adjacent and contiguous to developed areas. Near-term growth can help revitalize and repopulate our devastated pre-WWII, walking and transit oriented cities, and small towns with railroad access. I’m not convinced we can pull back enough suburbanites soon enough to re-energize our cities if growth were to stop now. Denser cities are marvels of efficiency for the post-neolithic human. I want the farms we’ll need to feed us to stay, and the forests we leveled 100 years ago to fully return and have clearer boundaries between developed land and non-developed land, and I’d like to maximize the non-developed. Simply because we can build, does not mean we should.

Over the long term, population growth is not likely to be sustainable without new sources of energy or extreme environmental degradation and destruction. Barring nuclear fusion or something of the like, flat population is what our planet’s future needs to be. The “in growth we trust” model can’t fly. I don’t feel the need to keep growing just because we can and build more and more. There is the architect and urban planner in me that likes building cities and watching them function, and when we arrive at the needed zero population growth, a certain frustration might arise. I think that many here would feel the same. But, I think as members of a state (and DC) with pre-WWII cities and towns, there is plenty of opportunity to rebuild and reimagine. We can celebrate our urban way of life when we are finished to a degree we may not be able to do now; though we will never truly be finished, everything changes in someway. But we’ll have the opportunity to feel satisfaction in our efforts, and move on to different endeavors and enterprises. Or is the sense of growth purely manifested in our human behaviour, destined to continue in perpetuity?

I digress, what are you views on growth in metro Baltimore and DC (and beyond for those so inclined). Where should it go? Should it end? Should it reverse? Can we have economic growth without population growth? Do we need economic growth? even with an fully idealized Baltimore and DC? Have you thought about it? Do you care? What about the Bay? What about the animals? The horses? The Colts, and da Bears?

Nate

BalWash · February 4th, 2007, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by getontrac

I digress, what are you views on growth in metro Baltimore and DC (and beyond for those so inclined). Where should it go? Should it end? Should it reverse? Can we have economic growth without population growth? Do we need economic growth? even with an fully idealized Baltimore and DC? Have you thought about it? Do you care? What about the Bay? What about the animals? The horses? The Colts, and da Bears?

I see growth as essential to the Baltimore-Washington Metroplex. Growth is what boosts the economy, increases diversity and supports the creation of greater cultural institutions. I see one large city connecting Baltimore and Washington. I want our city to assert itself within the nation and the world by taking its rightful spot as an Alpha Global City, and asserting itself as a peer with cities like Paris and London. We took our biggest step in 2005 when we overtook Chicago to become the continent's 3rd largest economy. Because of our position as the National Capital Region in the world's only superpower, nothing short of greatness is our future. Growth is the electricity that drives our train down the track to greatness that we are set to take.

Densification is the key, we need to set boundaries of development and prevent those boundaries from sending home prices skyrocketing by introducing some form of rent control. Public mass transit is definately the key to keeping our megacity livable from a traffic/pollution standpoint. Strong Bay conservation practices are necessary to protect our environment and to keep us from looking like a toxic dump.

getontrac · February 4th, 2007, 04:08 AM

I believe you're right in that densification can solve or at least drastically slow or mitigate overpopulation and environmental issues.

However, getting the public to understand density is the key to everything is the task at hand. Check out the February Urbanite. Our good friend Anirban Basu of the Sage Policy Group (formly of RESI at Towson U--always quoted in The Sun and WYPR-FM) points this out directly.

Referring to partially to BRAC:

Hopefully, at least a seventh of those 1.4 million new residents will live in Baltimore City, allowing the city's population to re-emerge around 850,000, which it can comfortably accommodate.

Rent control seems to have more adverse effects than positive. Our circumstances are a bit different than NYC's. Increasing density allows more affordable housing by pure physical economics. It also creates great urban areas, and consumes less space and energy.

The question becomes when or if, growth should stop?

Nate

NovaWolverine · February 4th, 2007, 04:18 AM

We just need to build denser. We ought to set out select areas in the region that are well equipped for dense use in the future and be more strict about how we zone developments. Developers will get the picture. Infrastructure is one of my concerns. We need to show the commitment to developing infrastructure and our public transportation to be prepared for lots of growth. But the main thing in my mind is targeting certain areas and developing from there. As for the natural resources, I'm in favor of saving it for sure. We can't just let people hack down all the trees they see and make the region ugly. The Bay is a situation in itself b/c it's got so much progress to make if it's going to be even mediocre.

ajoutz · February 4th, 2007, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NovaWolverine

We just need to build denser. We ought to set out select areas in the region that are well equipped for dense use in the future and be more strict about how we zone developments. Developers will get the picture. Infrastructure is one of my main concerns. We need to show the commitment to developing infrastructure and our public transportation to be prepared for lots of growth. But the main thing in my mind is targeting certain areas and developing from there. As for the natural resources, I'm in favor of saving it for sure. We can't just let people hack down all the trees they see and make the region ugly. The Bay is a situation in itself b/c it's got so much progress to make if it's going to be even mediocre.

I honestly would not mind if the Counties used eminent domain on bad areas, just sent in bulldozers, and auctioned off the land for large developments. I hate it when people keep on building out instead of trying to work on fixing up the already established areas. Rockville Pike is my biggest pet peeve on that matter.

gohorns · February 4th, 2007, 07:46 AM

I honestly don't understand why you guys keep going on and on about density. What the hell has density done for New York? What has it done for the mega cities of Asia? Maybe you guys would like to turn the Baltimore/DC area into something like that but I love the fact that it isn't like that here. I love the fact that there is parking right in front of my apartment. I've used mass transit for 4 years straight in the past and it is not the greatest experience. You get wet in the rain, you slip on ice, and you sweat in the heat. Why should I give up my car and my parking spot in the suburbs and move to a dense area where I'll have to park in a garage 5-10 minutes away from home, put up with inclement weather, and spend a bigger part of my day on the backed-up roads?

I live in Howard County, next to the Patapsco Valley state park, and it's beautiful out here. The love the views. Why would I want to move to a high-rise building surrounded by other high-rise buildings? So I can enjoy the views of concrete structures instead of mountains and trees?

Maybe it works for some people but I think the peace and quiet we have out here is amazing. The crime rate is also pretty low as far as I know. I've lived in megacities all my life so this is a blessing.

harlem87 · February 5th, 2007, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gohorns

I honestly don't understand why you guys keep going on and on about density. What the hell has density done for New York? What has it done for the mega cities of Asia? Maybe you guys would like to turn the Baltimore/DC area into something like that but I love the fact that it isn't like that here. I love the fact that there is parking right in front of my apartment. I've used mass transit for 4 years straight in the past and it is not the greatest experience. You get wet in the rain, you slip on ice, and you sweat in the heat. Why should I give up my car and my parking spot in the suburbs and move to a dense area where I'll have to park in a garage 5-10 minutes away from home, put up with inclement weather, and spend a bigger part of my day on the backed-up roads?

I live in Howard County, next to the Patapsco Valley state park, and it's beautiful out here. The love the views. Why would I want to move to a high-rise building surrounded by other high-rise buildings? So I can enjoy the views of concrete structures instead of mountains and trees?

Maybe it works for some people but I think the peace and quiet we have out here is amazing. The crime rate is also pretty low as far as I know. I've lived in megacities all my life so this is a blessing.

Very Good Point.

I've said before and I'll say again, Mass Transit alne does not reduce traffic on existing roads/highways and it will not combat suburban/urban sprawl.

Using the "Mass Transit is better than Building Highways and Developing the Surburbs" scapegoat is just Bull Shit to Make Maryland less attractive for Business/Economic/Revenue Growth in order to make Virginia look better because I can name 5 new Roads/Highways that were built or widen within the last 10 years in Virginia that further help complement future growth/sprawl in Virginia.

NovaWolverine · February 4th, 2007, 03:19 PM

I agree to an extent, but you have to ask yourself whether that is sustainable or not with millions of people coming into the area. That's why we ought to develop corridors of density, and keep other areas as untouched as possible. If this was done, the naturally beautiful areas would stay that way instead of having developers come in and build whatever the trend is at the time at a low quality.

Long story short, the area will become more dense, do you want more and more people coming to your suburb to live, or do you prefer them to live somewhere else that's better equipped for higher growth?

I agree with how the change is welcoming, my parents lived in dense cities their whole life, and I didn't like the move to a suburb like arlington in 9th grade, but I completely understand it now.

harlem87 · February 5th, 2007, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NovaWolverine

I agree to an extent, but you have to ask yourself whether that is sustainable or not with millions of people coming into the area. That's why we ought to develop corridors of density, and keep other areas as untouched as possible. If this was done, the naturally beautiful areas would stay that way instead of having developers come in and build whatever the trend is at the time at a low quality.

Long story short, the area will become more dense, do you want more and more people coming to your suburb to live, or do you prefer them to live somewhere else that's better equipped for higher growth?

I agree with how the change is welcoming, my parents lived in dense cities their whole life, and I didn't like the move to a suburb like arlington in 9th grade, but I completely understand it now.

Another way of explaining the reason why you people for years are against any new highways being built in Maryland but support new highways being built and widen in Virginia. Then say that growth is better served along corridores like I-395, I-95, I-66, Dulles Toll Road/Greenway, Fairfax County Parkway, Prince William Parkway, VA 28, and the Proposed Tri-County Parkway. The same amount of growth is not respected on the Maryland side because of You Peoples long history of opposing new highways(the ICC, Techway, Eastern Bypass, I-95/I-270 extension to DC, widening the B-W Parkway, turing US 50 into an Interstate and building a new Bay Bridge) which is why the very last highway ever built in Montgomery/PG County was the 1964 Capital Beltway.

NovaWolverine · February 5th, 2007, 05:48 AM

You're an idiot. Did I ever say that I was happy with the way Northern Virginia has been developed in the past 15 yrs? Nope. In fact, I've expressed the opposite. This thread is about the future, and in the future, my plan for the region is the same as if I were starting a place from scratch.

Nice try, but you're a failure.

getontrac · February 6th, 2007, 05:08 AM

So....

Assuming both Baltimore and DC and our old small towns/suburbs were revitalized, would everyone be happy if 20 years from now, we simply stopped building because of no population growth?

Or take it a step farther--our total population decreased with vacation from outer suburban locales--but our cities more populated than now and vibrant?

Nate

BalWash · February 6th, 2007, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by getontrac

So....

Assuming both Baltimore and DC and our old small towns/suburbs were revitalized, would everyone be happy if 20 years from now, we simply stopped building because of no population growth?

Or take it a step farther--our total population decreased with vacation from outer suburban locales--but our cities more populated than now and vibrant?

Nate

Growth is a must. The United States is one of the least dense countries in the (industrialized) world. We can take a lot more people. I hope BalWash's population is soaring in 20 years just as it is now. We live in one of the world's greatest cities, its natural that lots of people will want to live here. I hope nearly all of the growth comes in the form of densification though.

getontrac · February 6th, 2007, 05:18 AM

But you're not directly answering my question here.

Is growth a must beyond 20 years out?

Simply because the US is a large country with lots of open space does that mean we need to fill it up? History has lead the US to be big. Europe is different. Russia is big with lots of empty natural resources, should it be filled up like the rest of Europe?

Will we have enough water? Frederick and Carroll counties are already having problems. There was an article in The Sun paper yesterday or today about Carroll.

What about gross oil consumption? Will we have enough? Even if we use it efficiently with densely developed operation?

Nate

harlem87 · February 6th, 2007, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by getontrac

So....

Assuming both Baltimore and DC and our old small towns/suburbs were revitalized, would everyone be happy if 20 years from now, we simply stopped building because of no population growth?

Or take it a step farther--our total population decreased with vacation from outer suburban locales--but our cities more populated than now and vibrant?

Nate

Maryland needs to continue to grow to compete with other growing states, but you probably don't want that because it will compete against Virginia, The Carolina's, and Georgia.

harlem87 · February 6th, 2007, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NovaWolverine

You're an idiot. Did I ever say that I was happy with the way Northern Virginia has been developed in the past 15 yrs? Nope. In fact, I've expressed the opposite. This thread is about the future, and in the future, my plan for the region is the same as if I were starting a place from scratch.

Nice try, but you're a failure.

Playing the Delusion of Grandeur again........

drewbwhite · February 6th, 2007, 06:44 AM

I wonder if it's possible to have a healthy economy and flat population? It seems that a healthy economy would by virtue attract immigrants so long as living standards are so skewed between countries. The world's population growth is expected to peak around 2050 at 9 billion, or at least according to the UN. I guess it's impossible to say how living standards throughout the world will change in that period. I personally would like to see continued, well managed population growth here to help inject vitality into our cities for the next few decades, after which growth tapers off. Anyhow, I don't think we're in danger of seeing a Judge Dread-style "Megacity One" taking up the whole east coast anytime soon.

Maudibjr · February 9th, 2007, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drewbwhite

I wonder if it's possible to have a healthy economy and flat population? It seems that a healthy economy would by virtue attract immigrants so long as living standards are so skewed between countries. The world's population growth is expected to peak around 2050 at 9 billion, or at least according to the UN. I guess it's impossible to say how living standards throughout the world will change in that period..

Many European have flat or even negative birth rates. Germany would of actually lost population if it wasn't for immigration.

As far as mid-atlantic area is concearned, I think geography and poltics will continue to concentrate our growth. The bay limits our growth to the east and you can't really go further west than Fredrick before the mountains limit large scale development. Politics have already set aside large swaths of land that will not be developed and nimby's will block other areas. Further very few people will drive more than 1-1/2 hrs one way to there job. I think all of these factors will mean a higher density in central Md.

I am in favor of concentrating growth , not limiting it. Dense devlopment in certain areas is a much more efficent use of land and your tax dollers. Would you rather pay to fix a road serveing thousands or 7 1 acre mcmansions?

NovaWolverine · February 6th, 2007, 05:39 AM

I feel like we do have the capacity. If we target area that can be denser, we will be fine. Technology will be better, and oil consumption will be better than if we didn't build that way. Economically, we need modest growth. We don't need explosive growth, but at the minimum we ought to be growing at a modest rate and that's feasible w/ the kind of economy we have. Also, we should look into preserving areas too. One thing I know is that if we grow in sprawly form, a lot of these potential issues will be heightened as opposed to if we build dense.

The US shouldn't be filled up, that would be a shame. That's why we should preserve land and build denser. I'm not advocating asian density here, but more organization, transit options, etc. We can still have yards and detached homes, which is the form of housing I prefer for families, which will be integral to our growth.

getontrac · February 6th, 2007, 05:47 AM

But, if we keep growing, even densely and modestly, the country will fill up eventually, when do we stop then?

Nate

NovaWolverine · February 6th, 2007, 06:19 AM

Yeah, I'll be dead when that happens, haha. It's pretty far away, but I agree. It's a global problem. I don't know what we do when the earth and the country become overpopulated. We'll probably try to implement some kind of limit on how many children are born. It's a weird concept, glad I won't have to deal with it. We need to colonize some planets quick.

February 4th, 2007, 01:23 AM	#1
getontrac Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mt. Vernon in Baltimore Posts: 924 Likes (Received): 0	What of Growth? Balt/DC and beyond.... Growth has been a topic much broached and often discussed. However, posters don’t usually define in which sense they mean. We are sometimes referring to economic growth, development, or population growth without being clear. I’d be interested in gaining people’s insights on “growth”. As Skyscrapercity has grown from being more about big buildings to urban development and planning, I think mentalities have shifted a bit. My view: Population growth in the near and mid-term appear inevitable. Population growth in and of itself, is not. I expect that perhaps at least for the next 15-20 years growth in numbers will be unavoidable, especially with immigration continuing into the US. I favor the population growth that does come to be concentrated (as physical development new or old) in previously developed areas and areas immediately adjacent and contiguous to developed areas. Near-term growth can help revitalize and repopulate our devastated pre-WWII, walking and transit oriented cities, and small towns with railroad access. I’m not convinced we can pull back enough suburbanites soon enough to re-energize our cities if growth were to stop now. Denser cities are marvels of efficiency for the post-neolithic human. I want the farms we’ll need to feed us to stay, and the forests we leveled 100 years ago to fully return and have clearer boundaries between developed land and non-developed land, and I’d like to maximize the non-developed. Simply because we can build, does not mean we should. Over the long term, population growth is not likely to be sustainable without new sources of energy or extreme environmental degradation and destruction. Barring nuclear fusion or something of the like, flat population is what our planet’s future needs to be. The “in growth we trust” model can’t fly. I don’t feel the need to keep growing just because we can and build more and more. There is the architect and urban planner in me that likes building cities and watching them function, and when we arrive at the needed zero population growth, a certain frustration might arise. I think that many here would feel the same. But, I think as members of a state (and DC) with pre-WWII cities and towns, there is plenty of opportunity to rebuild and reimagine. We can celebrate our urban way of life when we are finished to a degree we may not be able to do now; though we will never truly be finished, everything changes in someway. But we’ll have the opportunity to feel satisfaction in our efforts, and move on to different endeavors and enterprises. Or is the sense of growth purely manifested in our human behaviour, destined to continue in perpetuity? I digress, what are you views on growth in metro Baltimore and DC (and beyond for those so inclined). Where should it go? Should it end? Should it reverse? Can we have economic growth without population growth? Do we need economic growth? even with an fully idealized Baltimore and DC? Have you thought about it? Do you care? What about the Bay? What about the animals? The horses? The Colts, and da Bears? Nate

February 4th, 2007, 04:18 AM	#4
NovaWolverine Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 2,622 Likes (Received): 1	We just need to build denser. We ought to set out select areas in the region that are well equipped for dense use in the future and be more strict about how we zone developments. Developers will get the picture. Infrastructure is one of my concerns. We need to show the commitment to developing infrastructure and our public transportation to be prepared for lots of growth. But the main thing in my mind is targeting certain areas and developing from there. As for the natural resources, I'm in favor of saving it for sure. We can't just let people hack down all the trees they see and make the region ugly. The Bay is a situation in itself b/c it's got so much progress to make if it's going to be even mediocre. Last edited by NovaWolverine; February 4th, 2007 at 05:44 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

February 4th, 2007, 04:08 AM	#3
getontrac Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mt. Vernon in Baltimore Posts: 924 Likes (Received): 0	I believe you're right in that densification can solve or at least drastically slow or mitigate overpopulation and environmental issues. However, getting the public to understand density is the key to everything is the task at hand. Check out the February Urbanite. Our good friend Anirban Basu of the Sage Policy Group (formly of RESI at Towson U--always quoted in The Sun and WYPR-FM) points this out directly. Referring to partially to BRAC: Hopefully, at least a seventh of those 1.4 million new residents will live in Baltimore City, allowing the city's population to re-emerge around 850,000, which it can comfortably accommodate. Rent control seems to have more adverse effects than positive. Our circumstances are a bit different than NYC's. Increasing density allows more affordable housing by pure physical economics. It also creates great urban areas, and consumes less space and energy. The question becomes when or if, growth should stop? Nate

February 4th, 2007, 07:46 AM	#6
gohorns Registered User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: NoVA Posts: 753 Likes (Received): 2	I honestly don't understand why you guys keep going on and on about density. What the hell has density done for New York? What has it done for the mega cities of Asia? Maybe you guys would like to turn the Baltimore/DC area into something like that but I love the fact that it isn't like that here. I love the fact that there is parking right in front of my apartment. I've used mass transit for 4 years straight in the past and it is not the greatest experience. You get wet in the rain, you slip on ice, and you sweat in the heat. Why should I give up my car and my parking spot in the suburbs and move to a dense area where I'll have to park in a garage 5-10 minutes away from home, put up with inclement weather, and spend a bigger part of my day on the backed-up roads? I live in Howard County, next to the Patapsco Valley state park, and it's beautiful out here. The love the views. Why would I want to move to a high-rise building surrounded by other high-rise buildings? So I can enjoy the views of concrete structures instead of mountains and trees? Maybe it works for some people but I think the peace and quiet we have out here is amazing. The crime rate is also pretty low as far as I know. I've lived in megacities all my life so this is a blessing.

February 4th, 2007, 03:19 PM	#8
NovaWolverine Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 2,622 Likes (Received): 1	I agree to an extent, but you have to ask yourself whether that is sustainable or not with millions of people coming into the area. That's why we ought to develop corridors of density, and keep other areas as untouched as possible. If this was done, the naturally beautiful areas would stay that way instead of having developers come in and build whatever the trend is at the time at a low quality. Long story short, the area will become more dense, do you want more and more people coming to your suburb to live, or do you prefer them to live somewhere else that's better equipped for higher growth? I agree with how the change is welcoming, my parents lived in dense cities their whole life, and I didn't like the move to a suburb like arlington in 9th grade, but I completely understand it now.

February 5th, 2007, 05:48 AM	#10
NovaWolverine Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 2,622 Likes (Received): 1	You're an idiot. Did I ever say that I was happy with the way Northern Virginia has been developed in the past 15 yrs? Nope. In fact, I've expressed the opposite. This thread is about the future, and in the future, my plan for the region is the same as if I were starting a place from scratch. Nice try, but you're a failure.

February 6th, 2007, 05:08 AM	#11
getontrac Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mt. Vernon in Baltimore Posts: 924 Likes (Received): 0	So.... Assuming both Baltimore and DC and our old small towns/suburbs were revitalized, would everyone be happy if 20 years from now, we simply stopped building because of no population growth? Or take it a step farther--our total population decreased with vacation from outer suburban locales--but our cities more populated than now and vibrant? Nate

February 6th, 2007, 05:18 AM	#13
getontrac Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mt. Vernon in Baltimore Posts: 924 Likes (Received): 0	But you're not directly answering my question here. Is growth a must beyond 20 years out? Simply because the US is a large country with lots of open space does that mean we need to fill it up? History has lead the US to be big. Europe is different. Russia is big with lots of empty natural resources, should it be filled up like the rest of Europe? Will we have enough water? Frederick and Carroll counties are already having problems. There was an article in The Sun paper yesterday or today about Carroll. What about gross oil consumption? Will we have enough? Even if we use it efficiently with densely developed operation? Nate

February 6th, 2007, 06:44 AM	#16
drewbwhite Registered User Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 91 Likes (Received): 0	I wonder if it's possible to have a healthy economy and flat population? It seems that a healthy economy would by virtue attract immigrants so long as living standards are so skewed between countries. The world's population growth is expected to peak around 2050 at 9 billion, or at least according to the UN. I guess it's impossible to say how living standards throughout the world will change in that period. I personally would like to see continued, well managed population growth here to help inject vitality into our cities for the next few decades, after which growth tapers off. Anyhow, I don't think we're in danger of seeing a Judge Dread-style "Megacity One" taking up the whole east coast anytime soon.

February 6th, 2007, 05:39 AM	#18
NovaWolverine Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 2,622 Likes (Received): 1	I feel like we do have the capacity. If we target area that can be denser, we will be fine. Technology will be better, and oil consumption will be better than if we didn't build that way. Economically, we need modest growth. We don't need explosive growth, but at the minimum we ought to be growing at a modest rate and that's feasible w/ the kind of economy we have. Also, we should look into preserving areas too. One thing I know is that if we grow in sprawly form, a lot of these potential issues will be heightened as opposed to if we build dense. The US shouldn't be filled up, that would be a shame. That's why we should preserve land and build denser. I'm not advocating asian density here, but more organization, transit options, etc. We can still have yards and detached homes, which is the form of housing I prefer for families, which will be integral to our growth.

February 6th, 2007, 05:47 AM	#19
getontrac Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Mt. Vernon in Baltimore Posts: 924 Likes (Received): 0	But, if we keep growing, even densely and modestly, the country *will* fill up eventually, when do we stop then? Nate

February 6th, 2007, 06:19 AM	#20
NovaWolverine Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 2,622 Likes (Received): 1	Yeah, I'll be dead when that happens, haha. It's pretty far away, but I agree. It's a global problem. I don't know what we do when the earth and the country become overpopulated. We'll probably try to implement some kind of limit on how many children are born. It's a weird concept, glad I won't have to deal with it. We need to colonize some planets quick.