Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This appears on the surface to be one of the most asinine things that I've ever heard. Taking care of a home is one of the most rewarding experiences that I've ever had. I feel very fortunate to be able to do it, while many around the world cannot. I hate living in apartments.
Well actually it is true. I've read that the U.S. Government, in the interest of trying to prevent Communism from taking hold in the U.S. did purposely think of this in order to make sure people would be too busy and distracted to rally together. Go look it up if you want to learn more.
Even if it is true that they didn't create suburbia the way it was in order to prevent Communism, the fact of the matter is many Americans today do not value community or old-world (European) ideals of making places for people to gather together and have a good time. It is only now that after 60 years of bad practices that we are seeing the ill effects of creating places where people remain isolated in their home. For the past 6000 years of human history, humanity was communal. The vast majority lived in dense pockets of human settlement, they didn't have the isolationist tendencies many Americans in suburbia have today. Look at any of the old towns of America before the 1950s, the classic "Old Wild West" town. It is a strip of houses and stores, and they weren't far apart and they were dense while surrounded by nature and farmland. Everyone in the Old Wild West town knew each other and took care of each other. Some Native American settlements were in a circle, close by each other and they helped each other in many ways. Everywhere from China to old Europe were not suburban houses or houses far apart, most people except for farmers or the occasional military lookout tower lives in dense small towns. They by no means were too many people, maybe 10,000 or less, but they were close together in a development pattern more similar to cities than they are to modern day suburbs. Humanity valued community and closeness for 6000 years so why do we throw it out in the last 60?
This product of isolation is an artificial product gone very wrong. The U.S. government had to subsidize the creation of suburbs because it isn't practical to do so without subsidies, and many people DO want livable dense walkable neighborhoods, but current zoning codes do not allow it for 99% of America. It isn't that developers don't want to provide it, it is because they are restricted from providing it because the government didn't allow them to and in most cases still will not.
So I agree with the OP that there are not many walkable and community oriented places in America. The biggest reason is still that, whether it be for anti-Communism or not, the U.S. government was responsible for creating an enviornment and culture that fostered the isolated nuclear family in the 1950s and by doing so, over the least 60 years trained a generation of Americans to dislike community while emphasizing isolation.
America doesn't have that many places like traditional Europe where people valued community because they threw 6000 years of human history and experience out the window.
Last edited by JKFire108; 07-29-2011 at 12:24 PM..
In my opinion, the area of Los Angeles between downtown and Santa Monica is the best kind of place for those who want a suburban oriented neighborhood, yet still be able to have things to do and places to go. Too bad its too damn expensive.
Greece and Europe in general have urban centers that are jammed packed with bars, averns, cafes etc. I stayed in Trikala, Greece (50,000 population) and the small city seems so active with a wonderful hang out environment that American populated places seem to be lacking. I know the low density build up of American cities and towns play a big factor, but it seems that even the biggest and dense American neighborhoods dont have that environment where there are many places to chill, drink and enjoy the scenery the way that its European counterparts do. Can someone offer me some insight why dense American neighborhoods tend to be dry and bland compared to its European counterparts?
I noticed the same thing. I think it has to do with politics. Here in the U.S. our development standards are dictated very heavily by the rights and freedoms of private landowners, and what they have chosen to build on their land between 1900 and today.
In European cities, these areas were built prior to the automobile, and they were often done so in a completely different political environment where the concept of "private land rights" was not so important. When the King says "we're going to have a city square", then they build a city square.
By contrast, when a 1940's or 1990's American city council says "we're going to have a city square", they have to go convince people that this sort of urban space is beneficial and necessary, and then they must tax people so they can buy that land from private landowners.
Other factors -- our weather here in the eastern US is humid and extreme. It goes from 100 one day, down to 25 in the winter. In much of Europe, winters are warmer and summers are cooler than in NY or NC. It is far more pleasant to hang out outside. I'd also toss in our hangups about religion and alcohol, as another small factor. We've never seemed as open to the idea of drinking in public.
This product of isolation is an artificial product gone very wrong. The U.S. government had to subsidize the creation of suburbs because it isn't practical to do so without subsidies, and many people DO want livable dense walkable neighborhoods, but current zoning codes do not allow it for 99% of America. It isn't that developers don't want to provide it, it is because they are restricted from providing it because the government didn't allow them to and in most cases still will not.
What were these subsidies? Are you referring to the tax deductibility of mortgage interest?
There are dense neighborhoods being developed in many cities, mostly in the form of gentrification of distressed areas. If folks really want dense development but can't get it because of local zoning boards, then those same folks would make their feelings known at the ballot box.
What were these subsidies? Are you referring to the tax deductibility of mortgage interest?
we subsidized suburbia by paving public roads for automobiles. If developers had to pay the cost of every piece of asphalt in America without the government's help, I bet this country would be different today.
i'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just that we're so inured to subsidized roads that we don't even think of them that way anymore.
we subsidized suburbia by paving public roads for automobiles. If developers had to pay the cost of every piece of asphalt in America without the government's help, I bet this country would be different today.
i'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just that we're so inured to subsidized roads that we don't even think of them that way anymore.
I would agree that impact fees should be commensurate with the infrastructure costs required, and that would likely mean that they would be significantly higher. I don't know that that would've changed the development patterns of this country, other than people maybe settling for smaller houses.
we subsidized suburbia by paving public roads for automobiles. If developers had to pay the cost of every piece of asphalt in America without the government's help, I bet this country would be different today.
i'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just that we're so inured to subsidized roads that we don't even think of them that way anymore.
Doesn't the government also pay for urban streets, sewers, etc? I don't think private developers paid to put down the grid of city streets in Chicago.
The idea of "subsidized suburbia" seems to be the rallying cry of pro-density types who hate the idea that Americans live in sprawly suburbs by their own choosing.
Doesn't the government also pay for urban streets, sewers, etc?
Yeah, like I said, they pay for streets.... upon which the automobile rides.
They pay for sewers as well, but I'm not aware of any alternative to sewage treatment.
Quote:
I don't think private developers paid to put down the grid of city streets in Chicago.
my point exactly. Chicago is a huge mess of suburbs, like most American cities, and it is far from being the most egregious example.
Quote:
The idea of "subsidized suburbia" seems to be the rallying cry of pro-density types who hate the idea that Americans live in sprawly suburbs by their own choosing.
You "seem" to make ad hominem attacks in place of a logical argument. I just call it like I see it: America, its states, and its cities, have prioritized funding its road network.
OP, it may also have to do with values. I read something a long time ago that stuck with me. The author claimed Europeans place more value on experiences and American place more value on possessions. Americans work hard to accumulate our houses, boats, SUVs, large screen TVs, designer kitchens and baths, etc. which we then enjoy. In order to acquire so much, we also tend to take less vacation time. Europeans, on the other hand, would prefer to spend their money on vacations and other communal activities. As such, their homes are also smaller, so in the evening, they prefer to congregate in pubs, cafes, etc. There are of course, other factors at work, such as less land to develop, etc.
Of course, generalizations such as this do not describe all Americans or Europeans. I am not saying one value set is superior to the other - just sharing an explanation that holds some weight with me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
