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.
If indeed there are private companies interested in building new subways, let them start with suburban office parks, preferably when they are being developed. A subway line to the airport and to affordable housing reserves would help attract tenants.
Nobody will ever build subways to suburban office parks. Suburban office parks are located based on two things: cheap land, and proximity to highways. The cheap land is far from the city center where densities are high enough to justify the enormous expense of a subway, and they are sited next to highways specifically because the developer doesn't have to pay for the highway.
Suburban office parks are about the least transit-friendly form of land use, aside maybe from those ultra-caucasian suburbs that require multiple acres per lot to keep the poor people out. Transit networks are what define a city's form. Build a car-centric transportation network, and you'll have flat, sprawling cities with low densities, and public transit will have a difficult time keeping schedules, let alone making money. Build a transit-centric transportation network, and you get higher densities and more altitude.
Suburban residential development also follows the highways to the cheap land. Not sure what kind of "affordable housing reserves" you are talking about, but the "drive til you qualify" method of housing development is also inherently anti-transit.
Suburban office parks are about the least transit-friendly form of land use, aside maybe from those ultra-caucasian suburbs that require multiple acres per lot to keep the poor people out.
The primary motivation of large lot size suburbs (1+ acres) is lots of private space and greenery. As my parents say, they wanted a private park. Not my thing, I can appreciate its pros. Can't really see the neighbors houses because they're behind a wall of trees. Though about a third of the time, power tool equipment mar the quiet.
There were plenty of suburbs in the area that were on a smaller lot size that were priced high that poor people can't buy them, and they are still homogeneous white (though that is slower changing). And there were small lot size suburbs that were just as expensive if not more because of a better location.
Hm. Different form, same function. But regardless of motive, it's pretty unlikely that your folks will be able to take the subway from their house anytime soon--just as suburban office "parks" ("park" as in "parking lot," not the kind your parents were looking for) won't.
Nobody will ever build subways to suburban office parks. Suburban office parks are located based on two things: cheap land, and proximity to highways. The cheap land is far from the city center where densities are high enough to justify the enormous expense of a subway, and they are sited next to highways specifically because the developer doesn't have to pay for the highway.
Suburban office parks are about the least transit-friendly form of land use, aside maybe from those ultra-caucasian suburbs that require multiple acres per lot to keep the poor people out. Transit networks are what define a city's form. Build a car-centric transportation network, and you'll have flat, sprawling cities with low densities, and public transit will have a difficult time keeping schedules, let alone making money. Build a transit-centric transportation network, and you get higher densities and more altitude.
Suburban residential development also follows the highways to the cheap land. Not sure what kind of "affordable housing reserves" you are talking about, but the "drive til you qualify" method of housing development is also inherently anti-transit.
I am trying to shake things up a bit. The problems with suburban office parks (or "Edge Cities" per Joel Garreau) are lack of transit and not located close enough to affordable housing. Garreau states in his book that traffic at an edge city will get to the point where it is unbearable, but not enough to build a mass transit system. Then development jumps to the next development, where traffic is not yet a problem.
Hm. Different form, same function. But regardless of motive, it's pretty unlikely that your folks will be able to take the subway from their house anytime soon--just as suburban office "parks" ("park" as in "parking lot," not the kind your parents were looking for) won't.
scroll down to #3--one house has a small yard, but lots of privacy. The other has an enormous yard, none of it private.
No, there's no subway near my parent's house, nor will one ever be built. However, one of my parents takes the train to work (a 36 mile journey) every workday. The train station is a drive but it's short, making gas usage low.
Interesting article. But my parent's large lot doesn't look at all like that. About a third to half is wooded (the trees are quite a bit taller than the houses) and some of the rest is landscaped. I have no clue why anyone would buy a property with a large blank lot like that photo.
I agree that with good landscaping and design, one can make a very small lot look nice (and bigger than it seems). I'm not really interested in living in a place with a large lot.
If indeed there are private companies interested in building new subways, let them start with suburban office parks, preferably when they are being developed. A subway line to the airport and to affordable housing reserves would help attract tenants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55
I am trying to shake things up a bit. The problems with suburban office parks (or "Edge Cities" per Joel Garreau) are lack of transit and not located close enough to affordable housing. Garreau states in his book that traffic at an edge city will get to the point where it is unbearable, but not enough to build a mass transit system. Then development jumps to the next development, where traffic is not yet a problem.
And he would be wrong. The RTD goes to the Denver Tech Center just south of Denver and the Interlocken Office Park in Broomfield. Light Rail also goes to the DTC. There are plans to extend LR to Interlocken, but the economy is slowing them down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Nobody will ever build subways to suburban office parks. Suburban office parks are located based on two things: cheap land, and proximity to highways. The cheap land is far from the city center where densities are high enough to justify the enormous expense of a subway, and they are sited next to highways specifically because the developer doesn't have to pay for the highway.
Suburban office parks are about the least transit-friendly form of land use, aside maybe from those ultra-caucasian suburbs that require multiple acres per lot to keep the poor people out. Transit networks are what define a city's form. Build a car-centric transportation network, and you'll have flat, sprawling cities with low densities, and public transit will have a difficult time keeping schedules, let alone making money. Build a transit-centric transportation network, and you get higher densities and more altitude.
Suburban residential development also follows the highways to the cheap land. Not sure what kind of "affordable housing reserves" you are talking about, but the "drive til you qualify" method of housing development is also inherently anti-transit.
See above.
I also find "drive till you qualify" contemptuous of people who don't have as much money as the speaker. Just b/c one can afford a "pied a terre" in the city, that doesn't mean everyone can, and that "those people" should rent forever.
Publicly subsidized freeways and cheap gasoline, combined with initially uncongested traffic caused the private transit systems to go under or be taken over by public agencies. Apparently now there are private firms willing to build and operate subways? Then why haven't they done so? Let cities and suburbs put it out for bids and see if they are any takers. If there are it has to be better than trying to get federal funding, a process that moves at glacial speed.
Maybe wburg will go into more detail. But the short answer as I see it is: if roads weren't subsidized, it would be a lot more expensive to drive, and more people would then choose to use mass-transit.
That was going to be my response, but you beat me to it.
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.
