I was going to write a thing talking about how people who lived in the poorer areas knew what they were getting into when they bought houses there and it's not "unfair" to have the planes take off over them as they've probably always taken off there (which, would have been why they were the poor areas).

But then I went over the article and found that the flight path changed to its current model four years ago... Clearly there's at least a few current residents of Las Vegas who have been around for more than four years. They didn't opt in to the low-flight plan neighborhoods or the non-low-flight plan neighborhoods.

So, yeah, since it's a new situation, I don't mind them changing it back on "fairness" grouds. Had the airport been there for fifty years and had the planes always taken off over the poor neighborhoods (again, take a guess as to why they would have been poor) then I would have said the people who paid for houses outside of the flight paths had a right to gripe. It's like paying for an house with an ocean view and then having the city announce that they're going to build a giant wall in front of your house.

Fair point, but when buying a house in a nice neighborhood, there are no guarantees that flight plans might need to change, a highway might need to built nearby, etc. And if those things happen, then the nice neighborhoods would probably relocate out of necessity. That was an issue with building wind farms off the southern coast of Massachusetts, "ruining" the views of some wealthy houses on Nantucket, etc. Such is life.

So even if the flight plan had been in effect for 50 years, I would support the plan -- not because it's fair to the poorer neighborhoods, but out of necessity.

Building a new airport in the desert
brings certain risks though. There
is a huge opportunity for something
cool to happen, if Las Vegas builds
the airport and then makes people
have to take a light rail from
the downtown area out into the desert,
at high speed. It would take 15 minutes
as you said and might deter the extremely negative flipside-- suburban sprawl that would eventually extend Las Vegas twenty miles out.

If it's necessity, that's fine. Of course if you need to change the flight paths because the number of flights into the city, or the wind patterns or something have changed, then it's fine. But if you're changing the paths becuase they're unfair to the poor folks, that's what I would object to.

Again, in this case, I don't care. They changed them a few years ago, they can change them again.

Well, Vegas already extends 20 miles out on all sides -- now all the holes are being filled in.

But that's a fatalist approach.
Just because a few drops of oil
have fallen into the sea doesn't
mean that should drain the oil
tanker because of a small leak.
Bad analogy, but you probably
understand.

I think the fact that the city of Las Vegas will end up filling the entire valley is pretty preordained, and has pretty much already happened. Sprawl in terms of geographic size isn't in itself a bad thing -- it's the sort of cookie-cutter anti-social communities that result from it that I dislike. I don't anything about who owns the land southwest of the Las Vegas Valley, but since the highway goes down that way towards some small gambling towns and ultimately to LA, that to me seems like a better place to put an airport. Plus it's far away from the military airforce base in the northeast.

I don't agree. Physical growth is usually a bad thing-- because it destroys natural
resources and the character of a city.

In fact, what is created are communities running together that essentially become meaningless, like Malden in Boston or Arlington, or Allston. In Boston's case these communities existed prior to Boston sucking them up, and are thus forgiven.

I don't know much about Las Vegas, but I am guessing that if it is like most other
places in the west, then there is little
excuse for outward physical growth. People
who choose to live in large cities should be prepared to live in large apartment buildings as the populations of most of these places will only continue to grow.

Of course, who wouldn't rather have a spread of private space and a nice home that was near to a city, yet not have to deal with
the negative aspects of urban environments?

Do you really want to see Las Vegas (or
any other community) for that matter
spread into a mess of Walmarts, Targets,
Old Navys, and Outback Steakhouses? Of
course, as you say a lot of this has already happened, but I for one want as little as possible more of it.

I have witnessed some of the ongoing destruction of character in my hometown, and I don't like it. Forests are being torn down for Walmarts, Waffle Houses, and Publixs.

It's all becoming a cookie cutter world. Do you really think Las Vegas will rise above such mediocre development?

I don't mind communities running together, and I actually think there is nothing wrong with either Allston or Malden. All I was saying is that big does not necessary equal bad. Take New York City, for instance, which is rather large but has some amazing isolated communities (and is environmentally better than most sprawly western cities). But maybe it sort of does in the west, because there is so much space out here.

So we're arguing about nothing: I dislike the fact that Vegas doesn't have any urban, walking communities. But people like it because it's cheap to buy out here. Some idiots take that to mean that people prefer spread out communities, as if cost-of-living and social satisfaction are the same thing. Take this op-ed, for example, which exemplifies this terrible attitude:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Nov-17-Thu-2005/opinion/4311...

I quickly read through the article
and its a good piece of journalism
from a neo-conservative point of view.

I guess we are getting off topic, but
it's fun arguing... just like the old
days.

As for flight patterns, it's been a long time since I've lived near somewhere where
planes regularly flew overhead. I do
know that a lot of studies are occuring
that relate to flight patterns in wilderness areas. It's a little bit over the top, but aims to show how even our country's most protected areas are affected.

Vegas seems like the kind of place where not only do they not see anything wrong with a million strip malls full of Chili's restaurants, but they would welcome them. "Hey, great, now we don't have to get on the freeway to go to California Pizza Kitchen!" Present company of course excluded.

I can think of at least one thing wrong with Malden.

Although the attitude is obnoxious, I agree with the main point of the article. People choose to live on the outskirts of larger communities becuase they want to. They prefer to live in cheaper neighborhoods that give them easy access to urban environments. Hell, who doesn't like that? I've only had enough money to live on the outskirts, it's what I do.

Costing more to commute? Costing more to run water and sewage lines? Did they remember to subtract the markedly lower cost of housing and land on the fringes as opposed to the in the centers of society? Try to buy a house with a back yard in Manhattan and compare that to the price of a house with a back yard at the far edge of Queens... I'm pretty sure one is so expensive it's become unobtainable. It doesn't matter how much it cost to run water and power out to the edge of Queens, the savings in the price of land alone will overpower them all.

I like urban environments. I've been living in urban environments (at least partially urban environments) for the last 9 years. I've lived for at least a month in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, DC and London over that time. I've spent at least a week in Atlanta, New Orleans, Madison, Portland, Spokane, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Milwaukee and Boulder. I have no desire to go back to live in the real suburbs... however, if people choose to live on the edges and create a cookie-cutter-topia, well, I admit it drains some of the life from the city but who I am to tell them that they have to choose otherwise?

(PS. Although google sort of disputes it, I want to claim that I'm the first person to use the phrase 'cookie-cutter-topia')

But again, it may be the case that these people would prefer to live in a house of slightly more cost in a denser area, but because of various reasons, that isn't practical. Just because they choose to live in cookie-cutter-topia, that doesn't mean that's how they ideally view their city. Just like someone who takes a low-paying job doesn't necessarily prefer that job to one they would like -- but they've kept it out of necessity. And you might think that that's fine. But my point is that it's presumptious to assume that people *want* to live in isolated suburbia, rather than have to out of economic necessity.

You say that you "dislike the fact that Vegas doesn’t have any urban, walking communities." There may be an environmental reason for this. In the summer Las Vegas is hot. Not wear-a-T-shirt hot, but elderly-people-are-going-to-die hot. Too hot, in fact, to be spending any extended period of time outside of your air-conditioned home or workplace. Vegas is an unforgiving dessert environment and just because people live there doesn't change that fact. When it is 110 in the shade this summer, I promise you you will not be walking around enjoying the fresh air much.

It's impossible to separate economic desire from economic necessity. And even if it were possible, would you really want to take away the low rent, cookie-cutter options away from someone who was living there by necessity? Where would they live instead?

Of course, socialized housing is an answer. I'm personally not a big fan, but if you are, then that's where this conversation is heading.

AC, one could say the same thing about Montreal in the winter, yet it's still a happening place during the summer.

DF, I wouldn't recommend pure socialized housing, but zoning laws, crazily strict already, could certainly be put in place to encourage certain kinds of development. And then I might encourage housing vouchers or something like that. I'd also discourage the federal government from selling land to residential developers in Nevada, since it encourages sprawl. But I've never really thought about it, I just don't like the results.

When Las Vegas is as old as montreal, give me a call. How long ago did Vegas form? Last week?

Las Vegas is unique in that it began during the automobile age, so no matter how old it gets it will likely never look like Montreal or Boston, and I don't think that's a bad thing. I don't want Vegas to created in the image of an already pre-existing city.

And you're right, Vegas is young, and in 50 years time it might evolve into an excellent city.

But great cities aren't created solely by accident and evolution; they require good urban planning -- and I don't see anything wrong with looking at cities that have gotten things right as influential examples.

But the really important question is why I haven't gotten any credit for making fun of our neighbor from Malden in an amusing way?

We're just waiting for him to defend himself.

doorframe, most of those that you visited for a week are 2nd tier cities.

I read through the posts. Very interesting.

I live in Las Vegas so I thought I would dispell some misinformation. Slater said "People who choose to live in large cities should be prepared to live in large apartment buildings as the populations of most of these places will only continue to grow".

1. There are no large apartment buildings in "urban" Las Vegas (known as close to downtown). There are only condominiums that start at $700,000 for 900 square feet. Being near the strip in a tall building is called luxury living. Small apartments in the area just outside the strip (one such area is known as the "Naked City")are dangerous and houses are generally in drug and gang areas. I am talking 800 crimes a month, hundreds of cars stolen and we have lots of homicides. These areas are being bought up anyway for redevelopment and more luxury condos that local residents cannot afford. THEY ARE NOT BUILDING APARTMENTS.

Okay so if you are not megarich and dont want to die from crime, you have to live away from the strip....

2. The number of available apartments in Vegas (regular ones about 5-10 miles out) are being converted to condos. So there is an affordable housing shortage with over 95% occupancy in existing apartments.

2. So that leaves the outer areas (referred to as sprawl) which reach to about 20 miles out from the strip and are where most of the lower middle to upper middle class residents live. These are not cheap either. A house will generally cost you $200 per square foot (in the cheaper area) and $300-$400 a square foot in the expensive areas. That is $400,000 for a 2000 sq ft house in a normal neghiborhood.

Flight path - Five years ago planes went over the same spot where they are trying to send them now. So most of the people who are in the Southwest (current flight path) bought homes there BEFORE they had planes. Much of which is about to happen with the change back to the old path (over Summerlin).

Problem? the return to the original path is now over the RICH RICH area of Summerlin, the Lakes and Red Rock. So they are poo pooing that they have to live under the planes. If you go to the meetings they are having, many Summerlin residents are yelling about how loud it used to be before the planes got moved off to the Southwestern neighborhoods and they dont want it back. Oh well......as if the rest of the valley doesnt have to deal already with the planes from Nellis air force base. Vegas is a destination city and is compacted. At some point, planes will go over everyones homes.

Good comments. Mayor Goodman seems to be trying (or at least pretending) to revitalize downtown, with the hopes that it could become a safe, high-density neighborhood. Do you think there's any chance of that happening?

Ronnie, you make some good points. As I said, I don't know much about Las Vegas.

Your defense of sprawl as the only place to live in Las Vegas where it is
reasonably safe and affordable is
appropriate. Nonetheless, as someone
who does not live in that city, I
feel fine retaining the philosophical
view that such a fatalist attitude banishes us to a world of apathetic
mediocrity. You should not accept
sprawl so readily. You have power
even within your own community to
stop it-- but only if you actively
choose to use your power.

I don't want to portray myself as righteous, because my reality is
one of compromised values as well.

But as a conservation professional
it is my duty to pass judgement on
sprawl as the world's population
grows. Natural resources are our
greatest asset-- not casinos or
cities. In fairness to Las Vegas
though, I know that its culture
as a city depends on glamorizing
urbania and entertainment to its max.

Las Vegas is a shrine to money, luck,
and the dreams of a developed world.

Not exactly the type of place I'd
want to live, maybe visit for fun
though.

I live in the area of Tropicana and Durango. The new flight pattern now has the aircraft flying almost directly over my home as they are turning. Yes, It is loud. Some of the aircraft are noisier than others. From early a.m. til 1:00 a.m.

My question is why can't the aircraft fly due West to the mountains before turning. They have plenty of time after takeoff to reach altitudes of 10,000 ft or more
before making their exit turn. Most of the noise complaints would then be eliminated.

There may be a reason why the FAA can't modify their plan to the above. I'd like to hear an explanation.