« "The American People" | Main | Coffee Shop Discrimination » Satellite15 Nov 2007 07:42 am
There's something pretty cool about the shape of the Miami-related sprawl when you pull it out to an appropriate distance. I'd been interested to know what, if anything, is legally or practically preventing the city from just expanding further and further west if anyone happens to know. UPDATE: Yes, yes commenters I know it's a freaking swamp but there's plenty of development on ex-swampland in Florida -- hence all the canals and weird-looking lakes. Comments (128)
Indeed. Swamp. 
Super deep swamp - crocodiles and protected wetlands.
Everything west of the development you see is under about 1 foot of water for 6-8 months/year. It's called the Everglades. New development requires new canals to drain the land, which used to be no problemo, but these days actually requires some work on the part of politicians (most of whom are bought and paid for by developers) to get happening.
Not just any swamp, but a National Park swamp
Don't build your McMansion next to an alligator.
Also, about 50% to 70% of the undeveloped area in the picture consists of Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve. No bulldozers allowed.
Matthew's thoughts on Miami's future Western development: Why can't Miami expand Westward? I have no idea and I don't think there's any way to figure it out. It's just a very frustrating thing to spend one's time thinking about.
There needs to be a Matthew Yglesias parody blog -- Petey's comment could lead it off. :)
a whole river of grass... the real question is, why not expand eastward? some kind of structural hurricane-proofing is long overdue, and that kind of public works project could be something both insurance firms and unions/enviros could get behind. use your voice, harvard man: make it happen.
I'd like to think MY was being disingenuous.
Note also that as we continue to drain the swamp through piping the water to sea in canals, development has slowly moved west, using the areas heretofore uninhabitable.
Remember, this is the same guy who expressed wonderment that there was a large body of water by Chicago. Are all native New Yorkers such hicks?
I've previously opposed the use of this rhetorical gambit against Matt (and in general), but I can't help but feel it's appropriate here: Don't they teach American geography at Harvard? I mean geeze, I've never even been to Miami and I know it's hemmed in by the Everglades.
LOL
All wrong. The "Jewban" lobby is preventing this growth.
Matt raises a good question. Given the fetid swamp behavior already practiced by today's right wing punditocracy, I see no reason why the area as is wouldn't provide a wonderful home for our nations' conservative idiocracy.
Don't they teach American geography at Harvard? No, they deconstruct the geographical paradigm.
The problem with Matt is that he is limiting his geographical discourse to that allowed by the oppressive imposition of an east-west, patriarchal binarism.
The alligators would object to the inevitable gerrymandering.
Come on Matt, tell us you were kidding with that question....
There's something pretty cool about the shape of the Miami-related sprawl when you pull it out to an appropriate distance. Am I the only one to notice its phallic shape?
Also the whole point of living in Florida is to be as close to the beach as possible. Which makes me wonder why the heck Orlando even exists.
"Which makes me wonder why the heck Orlando even exists." Because it's a small world after all.
New Yorkers aren't hicks. They just happen to have this perverse belief that the New York Metro area happens to make up about 75% of the continental United States.
National Park and Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation.
Yep -- all NYC natives are provincial hicks. And there needs to be a "Matt sees America" parody blog. Kansas -- Did anyone know how flat this -er- arae was? Denver -- Wow. Those mountains are huger. They could really develop some ski resorts up there. Phoenix -- I've been here three days and it still hasn't rianed. It's really dry here.
Didn't I read just recently that a substantial percentage of what was the Everglades had now been turned into sprawl? Think so. And doesn't that area to the west look a bit more brown than it should? I understand that development is altering the water-exchange process that keeps the Everglades healthy. My guess is that before my kids are dead, they won't be there. And as for this post. Either Matt is a strong believer in self-parody or he should slow down his posting and think a little more. My prior fave was his disparagement of the waitress who pronounced "bruschetta" as "brus-ket'-a", which, unfortunately for Matt, turns out to be how the Italians say it.
"New Yorkers aren't hicks. They just happen to have this perverse belief that the New York Metro area happens to make up about 75% of the continental United States." Your math is waaaaay off. Are you from Dubuque or something? Everyone knows that Manhattan alone makes up 75% of the continental US. The rest of Metro NY makes up about 20%. The remaining 5% is split between New England and Los Angeles.
I blame the terrorists, and the people who give them aid and comfort.
Sprawl seems to have stopped to the east of Miami as well - is there something legally or practically preventing the city from expanding that way if anyone happens to know? I would hazard a guess that the difficulties of implementing a proper scheme to count votes in those areas (pace 2000) has limited development there, but what has happened and what needs to happen are of course two different things.
On the status of the Everglades from a NY Times editorial of Nov. 10, which Matt may even have read: "Seven years ago, Congress and the Clinton administration set in motion the most ambitious environmental initiative on the planet: an $8 billion, 40-year project to restore South Florida’s ecosystem and, in particular, the Everglades, which had been punished by a half-century of uncontrolled development and starved of fresh water. "It was a 50-50 deal, and so far Florida has lived up to its share of the bargain, contributing more than $2 billion already. The federal response, crippled by an inattentive president and a divided, ineffectual Congress, has been pathetic — a mere $363 million — putting the whole enterprise way behind schedule." One part of the water bill, which Congress recently passed to override Bush's veto, rectified this situation.
OK, I'll take the bait - Just what is "pretty cool" about the shape of the Miami sprawl? Seconding Nicholas Beaudrot's comment about Orlando - a bunch of us were there for a conference recently, and people who hadn't been to Florida before were surprised how unattractive that part of the state was.
You blew it, Matt. Never ask a bunch of smart-ass locals about their area. You will pay. It is well known that Miami folks carry fully-developed topological maps of the 10 major urbam areas in their heads. Next time ask about Seattle. That will be fun.
As a former planner in South Florida, and someone pretty aware of the geography, I think that the question has merit. So, let's look at the responses given so far in this comment thread as to why the development is shaped the way it is. 1. The Everglades are stopping development. 2. Legal Designations ..... Ok, here is the problem. Laws and geography are not really powerful obstacles to motivated private interests who may want the land for development purposes. In other words, points 1. and 2. are technical reasons for no westward development. In FL, one of the most important economic sectors is the nexus of agricultural, development, and building interests. It isn't as though this, most powerful of FL lobbies, isn't able to sway opinions (locally and statewide). Practically, there are probably two reasons why westward development hasn't occured. 1. A/D/B interests are fighting wars elsewhere 2. Access Issues Furthermore, what if the Toll Brothers offer the Miami-Dade School District "free land" and the Miami-Dade MPO free collector roads (and the Miami-Dade County Commission thousands of campaign dollars) if they all support a land-use change that, by the way, won't actually be encroachment because the land is spoiled by exotics anyway. Is it realistic for them to "sway" the Republican Speaker and Republican Senate President and Republican Governor? With enough will, laws can change. Wow, long post. Sorry.
I was in Miami a little while ago and visited the everglades. You don't really appreciate what a swamp really is until you see one. I would recommend visiting, if just briefly. Sure there are ways for development to continue regardless, but its pretty clear that its a little different in the everglades.
Gus, can you provide an example in the past 30 years where real estate in a National Park has been opened for private development? Anywhere?
MPowell, But up until very recently, a vast majority of the currently developed land looked just like that (a rough estimate would be that the eastern extent of the Everglades would have been to approximately where Military Trail is now - very close to the Intercoastal Waterway). What's more, this past year has been extremely dry. So much of what has been previously under water is not right now (and we're entering the dry season). How do you defend something as a wetland when it hasn't been wet in years? Don't get me wrong, I want to defend that, but what about developers?
intracoastal
Looking at a map, there does seem to be a vast swath of undeveloped real estate betweeen the National Park, National Preserve, Indian Reservation, and urban areas. Who owns that land, and is there a regulatory structure preventing it's drainage?
i see in the image that there is a large blue mass to the east of miami. Perhaps people are drawn to this blue thing, causing sprawl to happen north and south.
yeah, unfortunately, Chris, you and I subsidize a great deal of the insurance sold to people who decide to buy homes near that blue thing. I wonder how big the cities near that blue thing would have grown absent the insurance subsidies.
The city hasn't stopped expanding to the west. The house where I grew up, used to be located right at the edge of the Everglades in the early 90s. By the time I graduated high school ten years later there were at least 3 or 4 miles of housing developments and attendant streets and shopping malls to the west. and the process is still going on, albeit maybe a bit more slowly.
I was wondering with the bleg for an answer to an obvious question if Matt had wandered too close to Jonah Goldberg and was hypnotized by the powerful demon residing under that mask of doughy chickenhawkery ... but after reading Petey's distillation of the essentially nature of this post, I realized that the influence was not so much Goldberg as Althouse. MY -- get thee to a Rebbe fast so he can assemble a minyan and exorcize whatever demon is posessing you. We liberals need big media spokespeople like you, and we need you demon free :) Don't let what's happened to other media "liberals" happen to you!
i see in the image that there is a large blue mass to the east of miami Yeah! I'd been interested to know what, if anything, is legally or practically preventing the city from just expanding further and further east if anyone happens to know.
For real muckracking on Florida development, google "alan farago: counterpunch"
Will, Gus, can you provide an example in the past 30 years where real estate in a National Park has been opened for private development? Anywhere? I see your point. My worry has been, and continues to be, that these interests can overwhelm conventions that have previously been sacred. Of all of the obstacles to development, my experience has been that legal obstacles are the easiest to overcome. I mean, the area really has experienced much of what CG has noted - that what was vacant years ago is now developed. Now, I'll concede that these lands might not have been protected the same way as the Everglades, but it's important to recognize that the developers keep winning this war. And, as they get bigger and have deeper pockets, why wouldn't they be able to change those existing designations (especially if they can back it up with claims that sound reasonable)...especially in South FL whose politicians are known for their ethical pliability (is that a word?).
I've never understood the fasincation some people have with the Everglades. It's a swamp, people.
Sorry for the typo, I means "too precious."
Damn, another one!
Well, Gus, I would agree that there are some regulatory hurdles which can be breached by motivated people with deep pockets, but I'd wager a large sum that private development on land that is part of a National Park ain't one of them. As I said, there appears to be a large swath of undeveloped land still existing between the National Park, National Preserve, Indian Reservation, and urban areas. I wouldn't make any predictions for that land. Also, I really do believe this is an area where not just overcoming regulatory barriers has been an issue, but also government subsidies, mostly in the form of insuranceand disaster relief, has had a tremendous effect. Really, what would the coastal areas, especially of the Southeastern United States look like, absent Federal insurance subsidies and such generous disaster relief? After a few hurricanes bankrupted some insurance companies paying for wind damage and people who had built without flood insurance, what would the development patterns be? Yes, there is a place for federal disaster relief. Seattle is going to need it when Rainier blows it's top again, just to relocate people, and much of California is dependent on it. Of course, when the Yellowstone caldera blows again, nothing you or I say or do will matter much at all, although the Mexicans will have their own heated debate about the supposed evils of illegal immigration. However, for events as frequent as hurricanes, Federal insurance subsidies and disaster relief has been entirely too generous, with all sorts of unfortunate outcomes.
Again, heartless, without the Federal insurance subsidies and disaster relief, there would be far less desire to develop the Everglades, so there wouldn't be much arguing about preserving it. The analogy between drilling in ANWR and urban development draining the Everglades is entirely inapt, for so many reasons that I really don't want to take the time to explain it.
"The analogy between drilling in ANWR and urban development draining the Everglades is entirely inapt, for so many reasons that I really don't want to take the time to explain it." Or maybe it's just over your head. But I don't want to waste your time (or have you waste mine).
No, trust me, heartless, the sort of person who would draw an analogy between drilling for oil in an arctic wilderness, thousands of miles from any population centers, and the promotion of urban development in a subtropical swamp in one of the most active areas in the world for cyclonic storm development, is really in a poor position to comment about anything being over someone else's head. Sheesh. Endeavor to acquire a clue. Good grief, does anybody learn anything about geography anymore? This is like trying to discuss sports with someone who has no concept of what a ball is.
For decades in South Florida there's been an official limit on westward growth. It's called the Urban Development Boundary, and although it occasionally get moved some, it has mostly limited wholescale development of the Everglades for a long time. The main reason for it, by the way, isn't that they love the Everglades so much -- but they like fresh water a lot, and without the Everglades there, millions of people in South Florida wouldn't have the water supply of Dubai. Google for "Urban Development Boundary" and you'll find out all about it. And, yes, I grew up in Pinecrest.
My comparison was merely between two very different geographical regions which environmentalists want to preserve for unfounded reasons. My comparison between the Everglades and ANWR has nothing to do with population centers, and urban development versus drilling for oil. Cyclones are irrelevant.
Matt went to Harvard and he is unaware of the Everglades? I'd sure like to have his pundit job.
yeah, unfortunately, Chris, you and I subsidize a great deal of the insurance sold to people who decide to buy homes near that blue thing. Only 34% of homes and 23% of business hit by Katrina had flood insurance -- I take it this is what you're talking about. Living here in Florida, it's actually difficult to get. You have to live in a flood zone, for one. And, amazingly, they make you pay for it. Of course, I guess you'll want people not to live near rivers like the Mississippi which flood a lot (and where a lot of our food is grown) for the same reason. Or near earthquakes, volcanoes, fires or near anything that can go wrong (probably should just stay indoors). The Medicare drug plan, FDIC, the airline industry, the defense industry, the Iraq war, oil and gas exploration and development, farmers, tax free bonds for municipal or state development, PILOT programs for business, hell, any grower or producer of commodities or pretty much anything -- all these subsidies are ok. But you assholes living near the beach have to go. *rolls eyes*
heartless, perhaps you think fresh water supplies for a huge amount of people, and preventing all structures from being flooded during frequent hurricanes, are unfounded reasons for preservation. This is perhaps why you should refrain from making comments about something being over someone else's head.
mcd, you apparently believe that 34% of homeowners is a small number, and what is more silly is that you seem to imply that the premium you pay for flood insurance reflects it's true risk. Yes, subsidized flood insurance near the Mississippi is a bad idea as well, as are most of the other subsidies you mention. No, I don't think people near the beach have to go. I just think that it would be better if people who lived in higher risk areas were less able to lay that risk off on people who lived in lower risk areas, because people would then behave in a manner which more closely matched the risks they had chosen, which would entail a more wise use of resources. *rolls eyes*
And since we're on the subject of various aspects of government ... There's nothing more I love than people decrying socialistic tendencies of govt -- and then turning around and cheering on the local professional team. Because revenue sharing is the bastion of capitalism. Hmm ...
mcd, anybody who thinks that federally subsidized flood insurance is critical to productive agriculture near the Mississippi, well, it is probably better that we just drop the matter.
Will, Agreed. It is inequitable and in many, many, many cases it represents a subsidy for the rich. Even if it didn't, though, the extension of this insurance has many negative consequences. Heartless, I am confused by this. You say it's a "swamp" as though this type of environment is lesser than another. Do you have something against this type of ecology? You then draw a connection with ANWR, a very different environment. I mean, it sounds like you have a problem with development restrictions on the basis environmental protection. That's fine if you do, but there are scientific reasons for protecting these places. Here comes the science: "Both point and nonpoint sources of pollution have impacted surface water quality within the watershed. Although virtually all point source discharges have been controlled, inadequately treated stormwater runoff from urban and agricultural areas continues to have adverse impacts on surface water quality. Ground water quality in the region is variable and is susceptible to pollution in some places due to chemicals from urban and agricultural areas or salt-water intrusion." Development, being the cause of said point/non-point pollution, would further increase the denigrating of the water resource in an area with diminishing supplies. Why do I get the feeling that the answer of "saving our drinking water" won't be enough to sway you?
mcd, a person who would draw an analogy between a partnership of privately owned professional sports team who play each other and share revenue streams, and state compelled socialism, again, the silliness entailed in such reasoning is somewhat pronounced.
Wasn't it true that the swamps in Louisiana actually served to lessen the impact and intensity of hurricanes? Wouldn't this also apply to Florida, and therefore be a good (and not at all naive, foolish or romantic) reason to keep them around. Will Allen,
MY sighting -- National Airport Metro station platform around noon gnawing on the end of a water bottle. Other than that odd behavior, he seemed relatively normal (sorry to disappoint) based on the short chat we had on the subway ride into DC. No sign that he absorbed any sun while in Miami. There was indication that he may sympathize somewhat with Jonah Goldberg regarding the loaded one's changing book titles. By now he should be back at the Atlantic office or perhaps the flophouse.
matt: have you ever even BEEN to miami? have you any idea what a NIGHTMARE of sprawl it ALREADY IS? unlike new yawk, noone builds UP, only OUT. seriosuly, go there. not to the city center, but someplace like fucking kendall. see how much you like it.
I dunno, F, it's huge mountain. Do the volcanologists really think Seattle would be spared?
Will, 60 miles is a long way to go. Especially when the easiest downhill path goes straight through downtown Tacoma into Commencement Bay.
F, is it thought that Ranier is of the same type as Mt. St. Helens, one that is expected to erupt rather explosively? Maybe 60 miles is enough, and certainly the predominant wind patterns will likely help (wouldn't want to be 60 miles to the east), but let me just say that to my inexpert eye, I would prefer to not be visiting that city (which I really do like quite a bit) on that particular day.
Great entertainment everyone, and yes Rainier is slowly being dissolved by the weak sulfuric acid that is created by the combination of its volcanism and glaciers. Usually one thinks of a giant mountain as being solid rock - Cascade volcanoes not so much.
It seems to me that Will Allen is the only commenter who should be saying anything, since he is obviously an expert on all types of sophisticated issues, and everyone else here is an idiot unworthy of kissing his boots.
The danger from ash and lava is limited to areas within the park and to the east that are pretty much uninhabited. It might get a little darker, like it did in Portland after St. Helens, but nothing dangerous. The real danger is from mudflows and as I said, it'll take out Tacoma, although parts of Auburn and Kent might get some flooding.
Suggestion, are you normally so illiterate as to take one's self description as having an inexpert eye as a claim to expertise? One would not think that it takes any pronounced expertise to realize that Florida is extremely low lying and beset with hurricanes, which has some implications as to the effect of development, but perhaps your view of the term "expert" is somewhat different than mine. No, everyone else here is not an idiot, but you may be.
You convinced me, F. I'll wait it out in Seattle, where I know the saloons!
Matt,
Will, Here is what I was referring to: These comments just indicate that you think very highly of yourself. I do as well, and think that everyone else should just shut up and let you do all the commenting.
Good point about the Everglades. I think that civilization has moved way beyond the point where we need to worry about ecology. Also, I think that we should chop down the Amazon and other forests, drain the Great Lakes, and kill all the bees. If I don't understand how it works, it can't be too important.
I think another thing to consider aside from the swamp/national park aspect is the fact that there are a lot of land in the US that hasn't been developed. There just hasn't been a demand for it. Asking why Miami doesn't take up the whole of south Florida is kind of like asking why New York City doesn't take up all of New York State, or why Washington, D.C. hasn't simply spread west to the Appalachians.
ugh, "there is a lot of land"
Hi, has anyone mentioned that it's a swamp yet? 'Cause it totally is.
And by the way, the Amazon is totally overrated.
pedestrian, I don't think you're worth responding too. Do you have any idea how important it is that bees exist to pollinate the plants?
If you want high-quality maps of the swamps which inhibit the Westward expansion of Miami, go to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's terrific website http://data.labins.org/2003/index.cfm If you're a Floridian who likes maps you can spend hours poking around in there. Go to Mapping Data / Digital Raster Graphics to download USGS quad maps, complete with elevation contours. These are large bitmaps in .tif format. To see them in a web browser you'll need some kind of plug-in. Unfortunately when you install Apple QuickTime it tends to seize control of .tif files, and my experience is that it regularly chokes and dies when trying to display a really large .tif bitmap. The best browser plug-in viewer I know of for .tifs is called Alternatiff; it is free and available from
Suggestion, do you normally think that asking a question about real estate development trends over the last thirty years is indicative of thinking highly of oneself? Is knowledge of the geography of Southern Florida so unique that possessing the bare essentials is indicative of thinking highly of oneself? Or is reacting with hostility to those who have signaled a desire for a hostile exchange indicative of thinking highly of oneself? I plead guilty to being mildly impatient with someone who thinks a good analogy can be drawn between ecological preservation on the northern shore of Alaska, and ecological preservation in Southern Florida. I'm a bastard that way.
oh jesus i live right on commencement bay in Tacoma, and to think those yuppie transplants up north will be safe.
The 3:18 comment was not mine.
The 3:20 comment was also not mine.
Is there some reason you think it useful to employ my name?
Maybe they should move some of the Katrina refugees to Miami. (As if the city didn't have enough crime already!)
Suggestion, have you even been to Florida? I somehow doubt it.
Will, concerning this: "mcd, anybody who thinks that federally subsidized flood insurance is critical to productive agriculture near the Mississippi, well, it is probably better that we just drop the matter." I think you need to study it more. There is definitely an intrinsic relationship between flood insurance and protecting agriculture. The Clinton administration issued a report on this in 1997.
Sorry, Matt. It's just an incredibly ill-informed comment. Take one drive across Alligator Alley from Miami to Naples and you'll see why. Swamp? Yes. One of the biggest swamps in the world? Yes. Engineering nightmare? Yes. Most importantly: they already began draining the Everglades once, it was an environmental disaster we are still trying to rectify and now it's illegal to touch the Everglades. You also have no idea how criminal, bloodthirsty and resourceful real estate developers are in Florida. Trust me, if they could have, they would have, LONG AGO.
Please define "protecting agriculture". Is this to mean that absent Federally subsidized flood insurance on the Mississippi flood plain, productive agriculture could not take place on that land? I'd love to see that argument made. Is the study available online?
Whoever wrote that comment at 3:34 pm was not me. I am not aware of any such study from the Clinton administration.
I've never understood the fasincation some people have with the Everglades. It's a swamp, people. It's a swamp, but technically it's also a very wide, very slow-flowing river. It's the source of fresh water for all of South Florida. No Everglades, and South Florida is uninhabitable. Sheesh.
The Rockies are a very wide, very slow-flowing river too, if you take into consideration continental drift. It's the source of rock for all of Montana.
Weds, you wouldn't happen to be heartless' twin would you?
We do not want to do to the Everglades (or its inhabitants) what Saddam Hussein did to the Marsh Arabs. From Wikipedia: "The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and subsequent coalition and Iraqi efforts to restore the marshes have led to signs of their gradual revivification as water is restored to the former desert, but the ecosystem may take far longer to restore than it took to destroy. Only a few thousand of the nearly half million original inhabitants remain. Most of the rest that can be accounted for are refugees living in other Shia areas in Iraq, or have emigrated to Iran." This to me was (and remains) the most significant reason for invading Iraq.
enviro,
Yes, Will, I do. I think the primary purpose behind the Iraq War was humanitarian in nature. The Marsh Arabs were an oppressed minority, and the environmental damage from Hussein was incalculable. (I seem to recall you saying something similar on this or one of the other Atlantic blogs.)
The 3:55 comment was not mine. Really, must we ask Matt to moderate this forum, so we can know who is writing which posts?
Will, do you have a day job? Or do you just sit around on the computer all day and write comments on blogs?
This is getting ridiculous.
I'm wealthy, confused. Stole it all from poor people, of course. Do you have other questions, and how do you have time to make such inquiries with me?
Okay, I guess we do have to request a moderator. |
A lot of swamp?
Posted by slolernr | November 15, 2007 7:58 AM