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.
Over the last sever decades, the way we build our cities has changed. Many would argue that these changes have been for the worse. So, while I'm all in favor of something new, the easiest way to correct these bad changes would be to look at what we did right in the past.
Back on topic, people have been raising children in cities as long as cities have existed. It's only recently, I think, that some feel it's wrong to raise children in an urban environment. (whether that urban environment is in a city or a suburb)
The things you mention that appeal to adults, with the exception of the first, are appealing mainly to upper midde-class yuppies. Most around here love Olive Garden and Applebee's and get their coffee from the gas station (or at best, Caribou Coffee or Starbucks). I would say with certainty that there are a lot more Bud Light drinkers than mimosa fans.
In the city where I live, Pabst Blue Ribbon has more cachet than mimosas, and they sell that too, along with inexpensive lunches, including a Subway, a Round Table pizza and multiple places for sandwiches, ice cream, hot dogs and hamburgers (I had a burger and fries in that neighborhood today, $5 lunch special and mighty good) and the gourmet coffee is as cheap as you'd get at the gas station (but even gas stations and McDonald's pitch their coffee as "gourmet" these days.) The daytime scene is definitely a working-people/middle-class attraction, if the people I see there all the time are any indication--and the nightclubs aren't really the pinky-in-the-air set either. The point is that it's an urban environment that features attractions for both kids and adults, relatively regardless of social class. If anything, many of my downtown friends criticize our museum/tourist district as not having enough appeal for the urbanite/hipster set--the emphasis is deliberately on families.
Quote:
That's interesting that you say that, because in the 1950s most kids walked or biked to school - very few were driven and school buses were apparently much less common than they are today. The girl I was referring to had lived in that home, which is walkable to many destinations and within biking distance of many more, her entire life.
(Note that I am, most of the time, a critic of suburbia as it presently exists. I just want to point out some glaring flaws in the arguments of "urbanists".)
I know kids were more likely to walk in the 1950s--but the objective was to get people away from walking, which is why they are less likely to walk now. That's kind of my point--things have gotten worse in the suburbs since the 1950s (in terms of walkability.) The auto suburb was still in its infancy and people were still transitioning from older, more walkable neighborhoods and hadn't unlearned a lot of old urban social habits. The ideal goal in the 1950s through the end of the 20th century was promoting auto ownership as an idealized goal and rite of passage--getting your first car was a rite of adulthood, and those who didn't have a car were lesser beings. That attitude is starting to change--due in part to regulation and concerns about safety, and in part to a change in attitudes about cars, driving and their necessity.
My issue is not that Pittsburgh or Albany don't have sidewalks in some neighborhoods (because they do in some, as I've shown). My issue is that you're taking a couple examples and acting like it's really not more common for sidewalks to exist in suburban neighborhoods in the NE based on timeframe (aka streetcar suburbs). It just sounds like a strawman argument.
If that's what you're saying, then why don't you provide proof that more streetcar suburbs lack sidewalks vs. have sidewalks in the NE. If that's not what you're claiming, please elaborate.
Why is it that my examples are considered the exceptions, while yours are considered "gold standard"? No matter how many google images I posted (and that post I blew away had several) someone would come on here and say "those are just isolated examples". The examples you gave from Pittsburgh were all from the SAME neighborhood, whereas I showed several different burbs w/o sidewalks, but my examples are "exceptions". I lived in the Pittsburgh area for 21 years (including some time in the city itself), and have had family there continuously that I visit, but you drove through once and therefore know a lot more than I do about it. I also lived in Albany for a year, and I got around. The only place outside of the city limits of Albany/Schenctady (sp?) where I saw sidewalks was Troy, NY. I remember thinking at the time that apparently only actual cities in NY have sidewalks, just like in the Pittsburgh area.
Thanks, Ohiogirl81!
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 10-06-2011 at 08:32 PM..
I know kids were more likely to walk in the 1950s--but the objective was to get people away from walking, which is why they are less likely to walk now. That's kind of my point--things have gotten worse in the suburbs since the 1950s (in terms of walkability.) The auto suburb was still in its infancy and people were still transitioning from older, more walkable neighborhoods and hadn't unlearned a lot of old urban social habits. The ideal goal in the 1950s through the end of the 20th century was promoting auto ownership as an idealized goal and rite of passage--getting your first car was a rite of adulthood, and those who didn't have a car were lesser beings. That attitude is starting to change--due in part to regulation and concerns about safety, and in part to a change in attitudes about cars, driving and their necessity.
Oh, come on! Both my kids were in high school from 1998-2005, and that is simply UNTRUE. Period. It certainly wasn't true when I was in high school or even college in the late 60s/early 70s.
Those all look pretty old, but I googled King of Prussia and found sidewalks there, but sort of a mixed bag. So perhaps it is common in Philly to have sidewalks in the burbs. If so, that's a good thing.
Those all look pretty old, but I googled King of Prussia and found sidewalks there, but sort of a mixed bag. So perhaps it is common in Philly to have sidewalks in the burbs. If so, that's a good thing.
Much of Phillys burbs are old - those built in the 70s and 80s are less likely to have sidewalks and those built today even in the exurbs typically do
And yes it is absolutely the exception to not have sidewalks in the burbs of Philly. Even on the Jersey side, or in DE
Based on my experience this is also the case for most of North Jersey and NY suburbs of NYC
Here is an example of more recent exurban construction. nearly all has sidewalks - it to me seems as though there was an ~ 20 year span where they were installed less frequently limerick pa - Google Maps
I know kids were more likely to walk in the 1950s--but the objective was to get people away from walking, which is why they are less likely to walk now.
Will you please abandon your conspiracy theories?
Kids are less likely to walk to school now because of consolidations both within the district, and with other districts. It's that simple.
Districts determined they could save money by merging two elementary schools into one. Poof! There go the neighborhood schools, and the new school is built in a cornfield somewhere and most of the kids have to be bused there.
Other districts determined they could save money by merging with neighboring districts, or by dissolving and splitting one district among many surrounding districts. There go the neighborhood schools again ... and kids must be bused because of the combination of distance and of the need to cross major arterial streets.
It happened in the public school district I attended in 1965, and again in 1999. Two small districts in separate towns merged into one in 1965, and built a new high school (on the town dump!) in one town, where more land was available; high school kids were bused from one town to another to attend school At the time, the new district kept both towns' elementary schools open as neighborhood schools. In 1999, the district closed one elementary school, and all students began attending a brand new elementary school big enough to house both towns' students. This district -- which once operated six schools -- now has two, and with the same number of students. But now, more of them must be bused.
I'm surprised someone as well-versed in planning like yourself is not aware of how school districts operate, especially since these mergers and consolidations have been been going on for more than 60 years. Probably longer, since rural school districts have been consolidating since the 19th Century.
Last edited by Ohiogirl81; 10-07-2011 at 07:16 AM..
Myself, I wondered if it would have been more fun (at least past the age of 12 or so) to grow up in the city. It's hard to tell how true that is, as it's a bit of "the grass is greener on the other side" effect. But the people I've met who grew up in cities seemed very happy with it.
I grew up in the city, but we raised our kids in the suburbs.
From my own personal experience, I wouldn't choose to raise kids in most cities (there are some exceptions). The education and recreational opportunities were far better in the suburban areas.
Regarding some of the discussions about urban living and changes through time, I grew up in Philly in the 1950's and 1960's, about five miles directly north of downtown. Lived in a row house, and attended public schools. The experience isn't one I'd want my kids to have growing up, so for us choosing between city and suburbs was very easy.
Fancy coffee or "pure" foreign food restaurants is generally irrelevant to kids, and frankly to a lot of adults too. Safe playgrounds, being able to go out with friends, and having places to have group activities is far more important. Part of the issue I see in these discussions is that each city is a bit different in safety and opportunity for kids, so to some extent debating living in urban Sacramento vs urban Philadelphia kind of has folks talkin' past each other.
The city experiences are vastly different.
Last edited by NewToCA; 10-07-2011 at 08:02 AM..
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.
