Considering today's homes in the United States and other similarly developed countries, we see two growing trends that mark the main housing situations in the country. They do not include isolated residential areas or short-term tenants such as farms, ranches and RV parks. Most Americans live in dense urban or urban environments or in extended outer cities that contain a network of suburban neighborhoods. I will explore the interests and interests of these two types and their impact on people, wild and domestic animals and the environment. The term “deforestation” usually refers to the removal of a forest or trees to gain access to land, which is then converted for use in non-forest conditions. This term often goes hand in hand with the terms “Urban / Suburban Sprawling, Urbanization and Suburbanization”, which generally describe the continuous expansion of the human population away from central areas (cities) into widespread, vehicle-dependent community or suburban cities, These suburban Cities are most obvious when you fly over any part of southern California, and every year developers create more of these houses for cookies. What for? There is a high demand for large houses, because our society teaches us that our property is what measures our wealth and value. Preserving a pure capitalist mind is what allows for further development. It is because of this deforestation and urban sprawl that non-domesticated animals are forced out of their natural habitat and stumble into residential areas and roads in search of food, shelter and water. However, there is another side to this coin. Mainly due to greed and unfounded fear of an apartment in more congested urban areas, it is extremely expensive and often has restrictions on animals. This will mean that those who live in this area will be less likely to have as many pets as they do. It also means that those who already have pets (especially dogs) are less likely to move to the inner city. These houses for cookie cutters provide certain functions that do not correspond to urban residential buildings. These features include greater privacy, a greater sense of security, and obviously more opportunities for families and pets. Most of those living in the suburbs are members of a larger family and are much more likely to have larger domestic animals, namely, larger breeds of dogs. The death rate from people has dropped significantly since the introduction of modern medicine, which means that there are more people in the house. The architects are faced with the challenge of developing solutions for humane, ethical, and rational placement of this growing population in a sanitary apartment building that will not contribute to the growing problem of deforestation and global warming. This problem is especially difficult because the number of variables, Just as there is no clear variable, there is no clear solution. I will deal with this subject, exploring the work of urban designers, interviewing individuals and pet owners and identifying several basic issues. Physical issues, cultural issues, legal issues and economic issues. Finally, I will briefly review several possible solutions that I have discussed with several licensed architects.
According to Howard Frumkin, author of Urban Sprawl and Public Health, the development act of these suburban cities adversely affects the lives of people and animals. Distribution is, in essence, a decrease in proximity, which means that an area has fewer destinations and a smaller variety of applications. Zoning laws, which allow only one use for certain areas, are called Euclidean zoning laws. In one case, they ensure that residential buildings are not built next to an industrial building, which is one of the positive aspects. However, they also perpetuate the growing problem by not allowing or restricting the creation or adaptation of multi-purpose buildings, such as living space above a business. The zoning laws set the scenario in which people depend on motorized vehicles to travel to work, to school, to the store and in shopping centers. This means that roads often need to be extended to accommodate more traffic. This expansion is also reduced in the natural environment, leaves oil and other debris on the roads, which ultimately end up in the oceans, and more cars used mean a larger carbon footprint. The argument is that people can use public transport. The problem is that in widespread suburban cities, public transport is not only time consuming and unreliable, but also uneconomical. Passengers are simply not enough to make it worthwhile. “In one study, in the Seattle area, the road crossing began to decline when employment density reached about thirty employees per capita and plummeted to levels above seventy-five. A similar picture was evident for purchases. ”
When conducting polls of an obscure topic, such as urban sprawl, which is not very well known, I needed to make sure that the people I came up with understood the questions I asked. I tried to select a wide range of demographic characteristics to include: fellow students, clients, family, friends, and blind research that I conducted with a few random strangers on the Internet. I started with a basic questionnaire to determine which questions I should use to continue my research. I started by creating five categories in which I can place a person. They are: have pets / live at home, have pets / live in the city, do not have pets / live at home, do not have pets / live in the city, and finally do not have pets, but want pets / lives in the city. For this study, I focused mainly on dogs because they need more attention, space, and training. Those who did not have pets and did not want pets to be used as a group of conflict (a group of people with opposite points of view). I formulated a lot of questions to ask both the pro-favorite group and the anti-pet group to get a general idea that their thought processes did not give them an understanding of my own opinions. Then I continued the interview with several architects in order to learn about my opinions regarding the effects that dense cities and suburban cities have on the inner and wild life. I wrote my questions and wrote down every architect when he answered hearing this question for the first time. I think urban sprawl is a problem that many architects and urban designers are looking at right now. The problem is more related to social anxiety caused by the idea of conformity to denser cities and smaller space and privacy. Now architects need to think about how to design a building or community that will attract those who are used to country sprawl. The task is to essentially change the mentality of a whole generation in order to slowly retreat to the cities. I grew up in a suburban area of Texas. The state of Texas is one of the biggest criminals regarding the development of sprawling communities. I grew up to go to school every morning for 40 minutes, because my “city” did not have a high school. I have lived in California for seven years now, and I realized how funny it is and what they created. However, I am not interested in living in the city center, although I know that it is better for the environment. I took a course in urban planning and came to the conclusion that city life should be feasible for people with many different lifestyles and animals accompanying them.
Out of a hundred people I interviewed, I learned that the percentage of those who lived in the suburbs and had pets was almost equal to the percentage of people who lived in the city and wanted to have pets. Which I found an interesting coincidence. I asked every person I asked these key questions.
Do you have a dog or other large pet?
Could you move to the city center with your pet? Why or why not?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a larger pet in the city?
Would you describe the area in which you live to be "city" or "suburban"?
Do you consider getting a large pet (for example, a dog) while living at your current address? Why or why not?
What are your feelings about sharing a wall or fence with an animal?
What are the possible improvements that architects need to learn in order to ease current difficulties and convince more people with pets to live in denser areas?
For those who have dogs or large pets, common or similar answers to questions two, the three are as follows:
2) No or not. They have a big energetic pet or several pets, and they are worried about the lack of space, bothering neighbors or other people, the dog will not have so much time with nature.
3) The advantages are that pets adapt to urban life if they are exposed to it early and properly trained. They have more time to walk and enjoy the time with their pets, because they do not need to travel to work. The disadvantages are that there are not so many places that a dog can enjoy on a leash, and some things still do not allow pets.
For those who live in an urban environment:
5) No or not. They want to wait until they have a larger house with a yard or more time to devote an animal. Currently, they have no time or money to walk and train any animals.
6) I do not care, or it bothers. Some people shared that they were allergic to a pet, fear of dogs or specific breeds of dogs, while others expressed a general aversion to the noise and odors that certain animals created.
Finally, the responses of all volunteers were interviewed:
7) Many people asked for more semi-private and enclosed spaces for animals. Others demanded that rules be made only so that large or energetic pets on the lower floor would reduce noise. Many pet owners have requested more pets around the city.
In addition, I gave an interview to several architects with a separate list of questions.
What are your general thoughts about urban centralization in urban poetry?
Catherine Herbst: “I'm a big fan of seals. I think that in the future we spread more impact on resources, the more we have on the habitat ... its total environmental degradation, fuel, garbage, sewage .. it becomes harder to manage, I think that you the harder it is to manage all these services. ”
Do you think everyone affects wild life? And pets?
Catherine Herbst: “I’m really interested in how wild life actually adapts to urbanization ... There are creatures that are incredibly adaptive,” “you should understand that animals are wild, they are not domestic animals, and they are not toys, and they are just as much right to this world is like ours ”,“ San Diego has a large multi-unit act that allows animals to move from the coast to the mountains in a kind of uninterrupted landscape. I think it's a pretty smart way to plan a city. "
Father: “I think adaptation is happening,” “I think this is a question of how you want to interact with animals ... people adapt to urban conditions, if their life choices are still animals,” “I I think we are anthropomorphizing. We think that a dog cannot be in the city, because it has nowhere to run, but I think that this is our reading. ”
Is this more of a physical or social problem?
Hector Perez: “The questions relate to how we enact laws on animal breeding. We should at least teach people the differences that they accept "," We should control the population as much as possible so that we belong to those who are born as humane as possible ",
Your thoughts on how we, as architects, can better accommodate those who prefer to have large breeds or several pets?
Hector Perez: “I think that areas for dog parks ... are very important. On a smaller scale, we plan to have our residential units made up of materials that are resistant, resistant to sound insulation between floors, when you have styling, so that their legs do not make as much sound, "" I have a building down the street, and I was quite open, allowing people to deliver their pets until recently, it became and make a sound when you have a little ... hyperactive animal. ”Looking back, I should have thought that it was better to say that animals ... on the second floor should not be allowed. On a pet in the carpet [area] how to become a huge problem "
I identify problems that are related to physical space, resources, and health. I believe that the most important issue between centralization and growth is social or cultural resistance. I feel that this term will cover much of our impact on our environment. I believe that if the breeders were limited to the number of puppies per year, they were allowed to produce, if the "puppies" were closed for being inhuman, and if pet owners were attracted to the higher accountability of their pets, pets should not were affected or adversely affected by the centralization or consolidation of or our existing cities. I believe that architects, city planners and engineers can develop sensible living quarters for families and pet owners if we start to offer more interest in multi-purpose buildings and weaken the laws of Euclidean zoning.
