Urban sprawl, yay or nay?

I feel like I should be writing on this more. But eh, it mostly for myself, so if I get to it, I get to it. So much for my goal to write at least once a week. I've got plenty to vent about, but don't have to time to rant, what with the thesis, class and work that I need to do. sigh. One of these days I'll have a job I love and won't have to go to school anymore and work at some crappy place just to pay the bills. So anyway. On to today's rant.
As a self proclaimed environmental freak there are things that I agree with and others that I don't. And my opinion is bound to change the more I read and the more information I gather. Although, my opinion is also just as likely to stay and become more grounded the stuff I read. And from someone that reads Scientific American for fun, well, you can see where I get my info. I'm not sure I've mentioned, but I'm doing my thesis on the ACTUAL cost of development. I mean including the cost when environmental services are destroyed, you know, stuff like flood mitigation, water filtration, soil maintenance, just the general things that we DEPEND on to keep up from being buried under a mudslide, or killed by poisoned water. But I digress. So, because of this development research I have certain ideas of how things can be done. Currently development is occurring unchecked all over the world, and 60% of environmental services are being degraded or used unsustainably. Not a pretty picture, when you realize how much we depend on those services. but again, I digress. Currently I'm taking a class for NEPA, which is the National Env. Policy Act, which outlines the regulations that federal agencies have to abide by when building something that will impact the environment. We were thinking of different alternatives for a problem most larger and even smaller cities face, traffic. We were throwing out ideas on ways to decrease the number of cars on the road at any one time, and the prof threw out the idea that we should decentralize the city. hmmmmm. now, if you've read anything like what I've read, this idea would seem a little....um, wrong. Although when he explained what he meant, the idea actually has merit. But, if you look at the data and do all the number crunching and look at all the articles people have written, you might come to the same conclusion I have. Maybe. We need to go back to the villages and towns of the 1910's and 1920's. Now before YOU blow a gasket at my logic, let me explain why I think this would work. (but it won't cause of zoning and the societal mentality of today) In the early 1900's the villages and towns were very centralized, the school was next to the court house which was next to the grocery store and everyone lived within 5 miles of the town. Those that didn't live that close were the farmers that provided the meat and veggies for the town. nice little set up, no cars necessary, everyone could walk to their destination and their environmental footprint was minuscule to that of today's society. Then came the industrial revolution, and the manufacturing of cars. There is much debate about what came first, the road or the car, either way, people realized they could move out of the city, where, by the way, the factories also were established. You might also remember that after WWI there was a huge outbreak of Spanish flu when lots of people in the US died. Many equated that with city living and being close together. Because of disease and factories, many people feel that cities are dirty nasty places to live. Me, I just don't like all those people, I like my solitude and my space. I freely admit that I'll be living on a farm once I get out of school. But I also plan on being self sufficient and not dependent on stores for most of my food. But again, digression. So, if we want to decrease the amount of time traveled by cars, which would decrease the amount of roads and emissions created by cars, we need to centralize our suburban jungles. We need to look at multi-use developments, that include apartments, houses, townhomes, retail stores, doctors offices, and governmental buildings, like the post office. I understand that people like there nice little yard or maybe large yard and they don't like being close to neighbors, but if you want to live in a suburban development, I think some ideal is kinda of askew. But people can have their own personal yards with space while conserving large open green areas, the individuals would just have to give up about half of their own personal property to contribute to the green space. One of the problems with these types of developments is that townships don't like to zone for them. They township trustees or whoever is in charge of that kind of thing is stuck in the antiquated ideal of the 40's and 50's when the soldiers had returned from WWII and the American Ideal was the little cookie cutter houses in the suburbs that said "you have arrived." Yeah, time to get rid of that. We need to recognize that our population is growing. We should probably stop having kids, but who's going to deny anyone that privilege? Since I want lots (yes, that's kids), I can't complain about others having lots of their own. So with that knowledge in mind, we need to build developments that are more environmentally friendly, and actually more people friendly as well. I'm sure you've seen the headlines that today's suburbia is actually a cause of obesity since we drive everywhere and walk nowhere . I can see that. Suburbia also increases the release of greenhouse gases, decreases environmental services and increases our ecological footprint. Okay, I will stop now, cause I've already thought about continuing on about the over sized ostentatious homes that people seem to think they need today. But that is another rant for another day.