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.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,054,732 times
Reputation: 11862
Advertisements
Low-density, sprawling suburbs are totally unsustainable and instead of having 'best of both words' of urban and rural, tend to lack the benefits of both.
For a start, the big houses and blocks take up more land than they should without contributing anything: suburbanites don't grow food, they don't contribute to the socio-cultural capital of the city, and yet they're as artificial as an urban environment. People who celebrate the suburban lifestyle haven't really experienced an urban environment with plenty of greenery/open space, that is well-designed so it's quiet and yet with a vibrant sense of community.
By suburbs I don't mean 'single houses' - I think some of the older transit suburbs are examples of good suburbs where more attention was paid to the overall ambience and amenity of the area, not the convenience of the automobile. Many of these suburbs had fairly large houses but every square metre of the urban environment - roads, parks, sidewalks - were well utilised.
I think we should start doing away with these sprawling new developments and go back to cities with a dense urban core, less dense but still walkable urban ring, and a sort of high-density rural ring around that, surrounded by greenbelts of forest/parkland.
oh lord, another one of these silly rants?? how many threads like this must you people create?? couldn't you have found an already open thread to let out your anger??
Low-density, sprawling suburbs are totally unsustainable and instead of having 'best of both words' of urban and rural, tend to lack the benefits of both.
...
Yet if people choose to live there and enjoy it, would you not say it benefits them?
Yep'we have sepnd billions on urban renewal;80% of federal funding for poverty goes to 20% of poverty in urban areas and yet they are deacying. People are smart enough to escape if they can which is their right as citizens.OP wouldn;t be writing this if he didn't recognise it. Just look at it has epple returning to their more rural roots of the past;makes it easier to keep leel headed about.
Yep'we have sepnd billions on urban renewal;80% of federal funding for poverty goes to 20% of poverty in urban areas and yet they are deacying. People are smart enough to escape if they can which is their right as citizens.OP wouldn;t be writing this if he didn't recognise it. Just look at it has epple returning to their more rural roots of the past;makes it easier to keep leel headed about.
He's not from the US, Australia most likely has none of those problems.
I think we should start doing away with these sprawling new developments and go back to cities with a dense urban core, less dense but still walkable urban ring, and a sort of high-density rural ring around that, surrounded by greenbelts of forest/parkland.
If anyone is "selfish", its you.
You admit wanting to force people to living in an environment that you prefer instead of individuals and families making their own choices based on their preferences.
As one who grew up in the city but raised my family in the suburbs I'll just state that I disagree that it is selfish to want to have a nice home with some land and safe schools.
Haven't regretted a minute of our decisions, and we have had homes in the suburbs of five major cities over the past 35 years.
I don't think that a good portion of the people who live in suburbs can be considered selfish, many of them live there because they have no choice. It is because the 1950's government wanted suburbs because they were afraid the Soviets or the Chinese would use nuclear weapons on us, and thus we were afraid to live all close together. I don't blame the people who live in the suburbs for being selfish by choosing to live in suburbs, they have to live there because the government on all levels in league with the oil and car industry force it on us. Originally it was this Cold War mentality that everyone needs to live far apart incase nukes are used, but even with the fall of the Soviet Union people just got used to suburbs and wanted more of it since more than a generation past between then and now. I think that many people who live in suburbs would choose to live in a walkable high density city surrounded by greenbelt and wildlands if it wasn't so expensive, if they built more New York type cities there would be less cost because it would be more abundant. Not only that but if they improved schools and made it safer, so the white people would feel safe living in mixed income communities with blacks, hispanics, asians, and other people. I live in a suburb and I wish I could live in a NYC type enviornment (with some amenities like a higher square footage for families with kids), but they don't build entirely new cities from nothing anymore.
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.
