Apparently Eagan isn't so safe.. (Minneapolis, St. Paul: condo, how much, houses)

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I don't think the city is perfect, either. I also know that a lot of kids in the suburbs keep very busy. I guess where my complaint about some of the suburbs is that the schools or other centers of activities are often physically separated from the houses, and the kids either have to have someone drive them there, or they get a car as soon as they're old enough to drive. In the city teens are more likely to be able to get to and from places by either walking or taking the bus - not that they also don't get rides or get cars, but I think it's healthy to have options. In the city - or in some neighborhoods of the city - things are more integrated, with parks, coffee houses, movie theaters, restaurants, libraries, etc. - all in the same place, and all within walking distance of home (without having to cross big pedestrian-unfriendly streets).

There's another big trend lately for parents to be afraid to give their kids freedoms; I've been amazed to read some of the posts on the parenting forum and elsewhere where people mention not allowing ven their teenage kids to walk around the mall on their own. People are afraid to let their kids play outside or walk to the park because they might be kidnapped. That's not necessarily a suburban versus city thing, but I did read something recently where the anthropologist author looked at the residents of some of these sorts of suburbs and found that residents were often fearful of perceived dangers to a degree disproportionate to the actual crime rate. (not a teen-specific thing, but it does seem a shame to move to a cul-de-sac somewhere and then still be too nervous to let your children play outside - sometimes even in the backyard - without adult supervision.)

I agree that kids or teens in all environments can be bored, but do think that designing communities that are highly segregated by property use (whether in city, small town, or suburbs) doesn't improve things.

To your point on design, which is a pretty good one - We looked at a lot of places before we settled at the current location. There are some really cool areas where developers are putting common space into new communities. Some also have retail locations as well. One paticular place had a master plan with a vaireity of lot types. One area of the development had higher densitiy with alley garages and common garden area. I thought that was pretty cool.

I have seen some similar stuff in urban areas too. My builder is doing a project in St. Anthony which has a similar concept of mixing housing, retail and greenery. Shoot me PM if you want more info on that.

I have lived in the country, city and burbs. They all have some issues and room to improve. I guess my original point ,which I probably did not make very well, was supposed to be that boredom is not specific to a place.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I agree that people can find something to do wherever they live, but do think that communities need to take more responsibility to design an environment that is livable for people of all ages. Not that this in any way excuses vandalism or more serious crimes, but many of the outer suburbs seem to be one of the worst places to live as a teenager; you have to have access to a car to get around (or be very limited), there's not really a lot going on, and it's not intellectually stimulating. It might be great for (some) parents with jobs and for young kids, but it's a difficult environment for teenagers, especially those on the younger side.

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I don't think the city is perfect, either. I also know that a lot of kids in the suburbs keep very busy. I guess where my complaint about some of the suburbs is that the schools or other centers of activities are often physically separated from the houses, and the kids either have to have someone drive them there, or they get a car as soon as they're old enough to drive. In the city teens are more likely to be able to get to and from places by either walking or taking the bus - not that they also don't get rides or get cars, but I think it's healthy to have options. In the city - or in some neighborhoods of the city - things are more integrated, with parks, coffee houses, movie theaters, restaurants, libraries, etc. - all in the same place, and all within walking distance of home (without having to cross big pedestrian-unfriendly streets).

There's another big trend lately for parents to be afraid to give their kids freedoms; I've been amazed to read some of the posts on the parenting forum and elsewhere where people mention not allowing ven their teenage kids to walk around the mall on their own. People are afraid to let their kids play outside or walk to the park because they might be kidnapped. That's not necessarily a suburban versus city thing, but I did read something recently where the anthropologist author looked at the residents of some of these sorts of suburbs and found that residents were often fearful of perceived dangers to a degree disproportionate to the actual crime rate. (not a teen-specific thing, but it does seem a shame to move to a cul-de-sac somewhere and then still be too nervous to let your children play outside - sometimes even in the backyard - without adult supervision.)

I agree that kids or teens in all environments can be bored, but do think that designing communities that are highly segregated by property use (whether in city, small town, or suburbs) doesn't improve things.

I disagree. I think kids have more freedom in the suburbs to ride their bikes, get places, etc. then they do in the cities. The schools are no more removed in the suburbs then they are in the cities. Not all areas of Minneapolis are walkable nor are they safe for kids to be out alone. Our kids can easily ride their bikes or walk anywhere they need to go in our town. They have no trouble keeping busy what so ever. We have a large park, coffee shop, movie theater, stores, schools, etc. all within a mile of our house. Everything the kids need to have or do on a daily basis is less then a mile away. You have often professed to never have spent time in the suburbs so not having spent any time in the suburbs means you don't really have a good grasp on what it is like to live here.

As for the city vs suburbs and giving your kids freedom, sorry, in my experience the suburban families are much more willing to let their kids roam then everyone I know that lives in St. Paul or Minneapolis. My SIL has just recently let her 15 year old walk 6 blocks to the bookstore near their house in Highland Park. She won't be allowed to get her drivers license until she is at least 17 because it is too dangerous to drive in the city (according to them). Everyone I know that lives in the city won't allow their kids to stay home alone after school, even for 30 minutes--middle school age kids. Around here most of the kids are babysitting for other people by 6th grade.

[uptown_urbanist]

Yes, in many suburbs the schools are more removed. I've been to many of them. They have large parking lots, and due to land use and zoning laws, among other things, they are often separated from the residential areas by busy streets. I'm not saying every school in every suburb is like that, but many of them are. I also did not say that every neighborhood in the city is walkable, although they at least all do have sidewalks.

And I have NEVER said that I have never spent much time in the suburbs (although I have said that about a few specific suburbs - I don't comment much about Woodbury, Rosemount, etc., because I haven't spent much, in some cases any, time in those specific places) - I have said, in fact, that I have friends and family members who live in the suburbs, I have volunteered in schools in the suburbs, and I have visited them for both professional and personal reasons. I've shopped in them, I've worked in them. I've lived in a suburb in another city. Your suburb may be different, but many of the newer ones do not have sidewalks, have large streets separating different areas (so that one mile distance is often bisected by a dangerous busy street). I've walked many of those streets - they're scary. Drivers are not looking for pedestrians. I would be worried about letting my child cross them. It's dangerous enough for an adult. They're simply not set up for walkers (or bikers) - the assumption is that one will reach the destination places by car. It's even worse in the winter when often large snow drifts block the few sidewalks that do exist.

So your SIL is paranoid. That doesn't mean that every city parent is. To not allow a teenager to walk around Highland Park is paranoid to the extreme. I agree with her on the driving thing, though - driving a car is dangerous, and it's just as dangerous in the suburbs as it is in the city (where typically, at least in most people's cases, you do need to drive more than if you live in a walkable neighborhood like Highland Park), and I think more parents - suburban and urban alike - should think twice about letting their 16 year olds drive, too. Waiting a few years and driving supervised and witha permit isn't unreasonable. And that's great that your neighborhood parents let their kids roam. It's just been my experience that many parents in the suburbs are less likely to do so, for reasons in part due to those large busy streets that cut off subdivisions from parks or retail cores. Obviously not every suburb (or every city neighborhood) is set up the same way, but you haven't spent much time visiting some of the newer suburbs yourself if you can't think of numerous examples in which this is the case. (but, like Clifford pointed out, there are some new options out there now that do embrace this better, more family- and community-friendly zoning.)

Again, to clarify: not EVERY suburb is set up with subdivisions, no sidewalks, and busy steets separating different "zones," but many of the more modern suburbs are. Not EVERY city neighborhood is highly walkable and safe, but at least the city streets have sidewalks. Not EVERY suburban school is on its own campus, but many are. And, if you read my post more carefully, I did note that the giving-kids-freedom thing was not necessarily a suburban-vs-urban thing. I believe that walkable communities, regardless of where they're located, are better for everyone, and given the way that American development and zoning laws have worked over the past several decades, in general that has tended to be in the city, the inner-ring suburbs, and in some of the newer new urbanist-inspired developments in both city and suburbs.

[uptown_urbanist]

I should add that it's probably more accurate to talk about urban areas and suburban areas; you're from Rosemount, right? I haven't been there, but isn't it an older place? If so, then of course your development patterns are going to be different than some of these newer areas. I thought I made clear, but will clarify in case I wasn't, that I was referring to the stereotypical modern American suburban community that consists of various subdivisions linked by large roads, with schools and commercial nodes, and sometimes even the parks, separated from the residential tracts. I don't know that people ever actively wanted this sort of development, but it was what was available if you wanted to move to a new house in a new suburb. In recent years there has been change to offer more choices, which I think most people welcome with open arms.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

I should add that it's probably more accurate to talk about urban areas and suburban areas; you're from Rosemount, right? I haven't been there, but isn't it an older place? If so, then of course your development patterns are going to be different than some of these newer areas. I thought I made clear, but will clarify in case I wasn't, that I was referring to the stereotypical modern American suburban community that consists of various subdivisions linked by large roads, with schools and commercial nodes, and sometimes even the parks, separated from the residential tracts. I don't know that people ever actively wanted this sort of development, but it was what was available if you wanted to move to a new house in a new suburb. In recent years there has been change to offer more choices, which I think most people welcome with open arms.

I am not from Rosemount but I do live here. I have also lived in the City, in first ring suburbs and in rural towns and the worst area for walkability has been an inner ring suburb that some of the "city" folk here claim to be a "place they would live"--Mendota Heights. Most suburbs have centers of parks, commerce and schools making their section of that suburb like a small town in itself. Again, until you actually live in a suburb you really don't have an idea of how convenient things really are. A small section of Rosemount is older but the majority of the town has your typical suburban subdivisions.

I also disagree with the fact that driving in a suburb is as dangerous as driving in Highland Park, Highland Park has some of the worst traffic in the metro, it is extremely congested and has strange road set-ups in some spots--Cleveland and St. Paul Ave specifically. You will encounter more cars in a block there then you will see in a mile or more of driving in our area. Plus you don't have the number of cars parked along the streets here that you see in Highland Park making visibility much more difficult. Yes, my SIL is paranoid, but the like I said, all of the people I know that live in St. Paul or Minneapolis proper are pretty much the same way. Most of my niece's friends are not allowed to do anything either.

[uptown_urbanist]

I know that most suburbs have centers - the problem is that many of them are ringed by large roads unfriendly to pedestrians or bikes, often separating the center from the housing. Again, not saying all are like that - but many are. I've walked those roads, I've been almost run over on those roads. (and yes, I have lived in a suburb before.) Some suburbs are much better in terms of convenience (as in non-driving convenience) and pedestrian safety than others, and I applaud those that are. And for the record, I'm a firm supporter of city neighborhoods trying to be more pedestrian-friendly, too.

Perhaps driving in the suburbs itself isn't as dangerous as in Highland Park (don't know the statistics either way) but in general people do tend to drive more miles in the suburbs, which increases the possibility of an accident.

[Slig]

Originally Posted by golfgal

I disagree. I think kids have more freedom in the suburbs to ride their bikes, get places, etc.

How do you figure? From biking to work living in Eagan and from Minneapolis I can tell you that hands down that Minneapolis is FAR more bike accessible. My biking distance went from 4 miles to 9.6 miles and I see about half the traffic on the Minneapolis route. That's because almost my entire commute is on bike trails. It sure beats going down Pilot Knob and worrying about a car turning into me every 300 ft. Living in Eagan/Ramsey I was 2+ miles away from the nearest bus station/stop. In Minneapolis I literally walk out my back door and I'm 100 feet away from one, or a few blocks from the light rail. I suppose I had plenty of freedom to ride bikes in the suburbs I've lived in but there was really no place to go, and no bike paths to go on. I remember several times I was biking on the side of a road in Ramsey/Anoka and got honked at and yelled to "F off" by passing by drivers. I mostly felt stranded in all three suburban neighborhoods I lived in (Coon Rapids, Ramsey, Eagan). Now we walk/bike/take public transportation everywhere, we bike and walk to the grocery store, parks, restaurants, etc.

The schools are no more removed in the suburbs then they are in the cities.

This is subjective to the particular location but let me do a quick comparison of my Minneapolis home with the last three surburban locations I've lived in, in regards to proximity to schools and overall walkability:

Ramsey address:
Elementary = .54 miles
Middle School = 3.8 miles
High School = 2.8 miles
Total School distance = 7.14 miles
walkability score = 18 (Car Dependant)

Eagan address:
Elementary = .69 miles
Middle School = .8 miles
High School = 2.1 miles
Total School distance = 3.59 miles
walkability score = 35 (Car Dependant)

Coon Rapids address:
Elementary = 2.9 miles
Middle School = 1.46 miles
High School = 1.38 miles
Total School distance = 5.74 miles
walkability score = 25 (Car Dependant)

Minneapolis address:
Elementary = .6 miles
Middle School = .47 miles
High School = .23 miles
Total School distance = 1.30 miles
walkability score = 80 (Very Walkable)

Not all areas of Minneapolis are walkable nor are they safe for kids to be out alone.

What areas of Minneapolis don't you consider safe for kids to be out alone? How would it be any different than kids being out alone in a suburb? We walk through our neighborhood and nearby neighborhoods with our dog between 7-10PM several days a week. Just last night we walked through East Phillips, Powderhorn Park and Corcoran all in South Minneapolis and we saw TONS of kids outside playing. Towards the end of our walk it was dark out and we saw kids playing in their yards and in parking lots with no parents in site. We saw even more of this in East Phillips, which some would consider a sketchy neighborhood. You are going to find paranoid parents everywhere, but apparently there are numerous parents who feel fine with their kids outside unsupervised at dusk in East Phillips, so who is to say if it should be considered safe for kids to be out alone or not? If I had to choose between the opinion of the parents of these kids in East Phillips or someone out in Rosemount, I think I'd hold more value to the parents who are in the actual neighborhood. If East Phillips does not fall into one of these alleged "not safe neighborhoods" than which ones would? A list with a detailed explanation of the reasoning as to why those neighborhoods aren't safe for kids to be outside should suffice.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Slig

In Anoka the only thing to do on a Friday night besides the football game was to go cruising on Main St. That was our only form of entertainment. It depresses me to reminisce...literally nothing to do in that area. Oh yeah, you could go hang out a Perkins too I guess...

I can tell you what my Kid's do in the Anoka area.

They go to a movie, occasionally go bowling, meet friends at the ice skating rink (winter) or indoor skating during the summer, go roller skating or roller blading, walk the dogs, go swimming, go to a restaurant with friends, go on a bike ride, go shopping, go golfing etc.

Of course they could go to a friends house to play board game, go swimming at a friends house, go on a date, have a bonfire, go to a high school event like hockey or a school play or a football etc. They also do some volunteering, belong to church youth groups, etc.

One of my kids was in the band (Marching as well as Concert and orchestra), played high school fast pitch, Lacrosse, and was in Pep Band. The other is in Varsity hockey, cross country, and track as well as other activities. The sports are consuming because there is conditioning before the sport starts. Of course they have to studystudying which is their #1 priority....

My Kid's don't "cruise" on Main Street. They never have. I predict my Kid's will look back and reminisce about growing up.

I grew up in Anoka as well. I did cruise on Friday night. But, I wasn't as involved and my parents didn't encourage me to be involved. Hence, parenting has a lot to do with peoples memories; not so much to do with the town that you grew-up in.

I can guarantee my Kid's are not "bored".

[Slig]

Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised

I can guarantee my Kid's are not "bored".

I like how parents defend their suburbs by speaking on behalf of their kids. I'd like to see some posts from kids living in the suburbs saying if they feel like the place they live leaves anything to be desired as far as there being enough things to do in close proximity. My parents probably would've said the same thing about me and it couldn't have been more untrue. Having been a resident of both environments I am just speaking about my own personal experiences, the difference for me is night and day.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by Slig

I like how parents defend their suburbs by speaking on behalf of their kids. I'd like to see some posts from kids living in the suburbs saying if they feel like the place they live leaves anything to be desired as far as there being enough things to do in close proximity. My parents probably would've said the same thing about me and it couldn't have been more untrue. Having been a resident of both environments I am just speaking about my own personal experiences, the difference for me is night and day.

I was not defending "my suburb". Now if you lived in Remer MN, I could see your point and you would be spot on IMHO. If all you could find as entertainment on Friday night was to cruise and attend the football game, you were hanging in the wrong crowd. That's a reality check. It really wasn't the fault of the burbs. Dig deeper and you will have your answer.

Kid's get bored in Minneapolis as well as Ramsey. Rich Kid's get as bored as poor Kid's.

There is a correlation: involved Kid's ==Kid's that do better in school. I hear band teachers tout that band kids do better in school. It's true. They say that music supposedly helps such and such. I forget the propaganda already... Then, I heard the same thing in cross country. They say that cross country runners have some sort of discipline bla bla bla. Again, cross country runners do have higher grades on average. The real correlation is that the Kid's who are active and involved on average get higher grades. Then they hang with other Kid's that do better. Guess what, they are in the right crowd. As you know there is problem Kid's in Anoka. The key is to be in a group of higher performance Kid's (grade wise) which usually means more involved Kid's. Kids that are involved, have more friends, more friends == less mischief (on average).

Kid's with two parents on average are more involved parents. More involved parents on average keep their Kid's busy. So if you are following my logic, part of a my job as parent is to keep my kid's busy and involved so that they don't get in trouble. When they do get bored over the summer, I push them out of the house and off the computer and suggest ideas like getting together with friends etc. Involved Kid's also like their high school days a wee bit more than those who view the main entertainment as cruising on Friday night.

If your point is there is more to do in MPLS, I obviously agree. If your point was there was nothing to do in Anoka other than cruising on Friday night, you are completely wrong.

I constantly talk with my Kid's so I know their opinions.