Why do so much people hate on the Suburbs?? (metro, suburban, transportation)
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.
Well, yeah, that sums it up pretty well. I don't think everyone wants to live in Manhattan. But there's high demand for more walkable suburbs, and studies have shown that that's what many people DO want. Not all people, and maybe not even most people, but a lot of people. That doesn't mean they all want to go live in urban apartments downtown or live in a townhouse, but there seem to be a LOT of people out there who want to live in suburbs where their kids can safely walk to school and where they can stroll to a nearby coffee shop or to the library. And among brand-new developments new urbanist subdivisions (which I admit have their problems) tend to come with a higher price tag than conventional subdivisions nearby. Recent numbers have shown that rent and sales prices is higher in walkable communities. That suggests that people increasingly DO want some more "urban" elements to their suburban neighborhoods. It also, I think, suggests that since walkable comes with a higher price tag, there must be people out there who would prefer more walkable, but can't afford it (or would consider walkability a plus, but put it at a lower priority than house size, etc.). Seems like it's to society's benefit to ease up restrictions to better allow new developers to give people what they want, especially since what the people want also has the added benefit of reducing total trips by car and potentially saves money on building and maintaining infrastructure (and yes, I know that many places are doing just that, which I think is a positive trend.).
There are 2 main issues I have with this post:
1. You seem to completely ignore the fact that if walkable communities were in such high demand, real estate developers, city governments, state governments would go out of their way to see these walkable communities developed. I refuse to believe people in these positions to influence urban policy and public policy have been trying to build these auto-dependent suburbs despite the fact there is a high demand for walkable communities. That wouldn't make good business sense.
2. One of the flaws in pointing out downtown urban areas that have high prices is that I can easily point out an equally number of walkable neighborhoods where people would give their left arm to move to the suburbs. I think urbanist make the mistake of thinking that because an area is pricey, there is probably high demand. There are plenty of suburbs that have high prices. I live in the suburbs of philadelphia, the mainline is very expensive, but that doesn't mean people in other suburbs are ready to pounce on the opportunity to live there if they got the chance. There are factors that go into setting prices for real estate.
I acknowledge that there are people who live in the suburbs that would love to move to an urban environment, but there are just as many people who would love to move to the suburbs, but can't. Maybe its just my lack of understanding urban and public policy, but I don't see the benefit in creating restrictions to pervent urban development if there is huge demand that urbanist claim there is.
Anyway, it's not surprising that living in the city costs more; this is not at odds with a preference for the suburbs, because
1) Its often the case that only a relatively few areas in the city actually cost more. They're the only places anyone with a choice would live, but they're not the whole city. A few years ago a row house in the Art Museum District of Philadelphia would run you a half million, probably more now. A row house a few blocks north of Gerard Ave, on the other hand, would be quite inexpensive.'
As far as being a "myth-buster," I think the vast majority of posters on here are aware of suburbs. We've lived in them, worked in them, visited them.
Maybe, but many people are apparently unaware of what's really going on in suburbs. For example, we were having a discussion at one point this summer about public transportation in the burbs. I posted links to maps and schedules showing that such transportation does exist in my suburban city. Nevertheless, I was accused of being untruthful. This caused me to get extremely frustrated, and express my frustration by saying I was done with the conversation, which in turn caused me to get a reprimand.
***
I think the whole urban/suburban conversation would better be discussed without turning it into a morality play. Thinking one holds the moral high road is not conducive to a good debate.
I think the whole urban/suburban conversation would better be discussed without turning it into a morality play. Thinking one holds the moral high road is not conducive to a good debate.
Agreed. For me, anyway, it's a question of convenience first, and preference second. Right now it's more convenient for me to live in the 'burbs. That may not hold true next year, or even next month. Que sera sera.
Does anyone mind that I don't care if suburbanites get upset when I talk about how much I like living in cities?
I don't mind, and I don't get upset when you talk about that. I once said that it sounds like you like where you live, and that's a good thing. (Paraphrasing, I'm not going to dig up the old post) What I don't like is city people criticizing the "suburban lifestyle" that they obviously know nothing about. Why do I say "obviously"? Because they make assumptions that ALL suburbanites (and it's been said that way on this forum) have no interaction with their neighbors, sit around drinking alone and watching reality shows, yada, yada, yada. This morning I walked to the park (that's not on walkscore) and back with my friend; I gave her a bag of green beans from my garden; later this morning I'm going to a friend's house to paint pottery in her studio. Yes, suburban people do that stuff too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown
I don't think policy is necessarily a "who," so we could talk about that - right?
People write policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
Im not sure from UU's posts that he believes that someone living in a car dependent suburb 35 miles from the center city has made a less ethical choice independent of A. Employment location (where I at least would argue that a long reverse commute can overcome other energy saving associated with high density living) and B. Other aspects of the choice ("I couldnt afford 3brs in the city, so I put my 3rd and 4th kids up for adoption" or "I moved 35 miles away, but I still live in a tiny townhome, and I used the resulting cash savings to build wells in villages in the Sahel")
Anyway, UU definitely seems more concerned with policy questions than with evaluating others for their "goodness" or "badness"
of course not all here agree. Thats what makes it interesting. I would suggest that all or almost all of the "urbanist" regulars (as opposed to the "drive by" folks) are mostly interested in policy discussions, and that its certain of their regular adversaries who like to turn it into a discussion of personal morality.
You can assume all you want, but even though I have posted extensively that I live 4 1/2 miles from my work, that is never acknowledged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
It definitely would have. But functionally, the meaning isn't too different. The last several pages are partly a debate over word choice, which is rather annoying.
As any journalist can tell you, "words have meaning".
It would be better to live in a rural area. If you live in a rural area, you live closer to the beauty and wonder of nature. Seriously, living in or near a downtown of a major city seems like an awful idea. Aside from living like a sardine in a can, you have to deal with noise, pollution, higher crime, traffic and the costly and potentially deadly effects of urban heat island.
That's not what nighttrain was getting at. He's basically driving straight at the heart of the issue, which is that UU views people who have made a willing and conscious decision to live in the suburbs as having made an unethical choice on some level.
do you think there is such a thing as an ethical choice? Is giving to charity more ethical than not giving?
Or do you think that altruism is a falsehood and a lie, and that "objective" morality is pursuing ones own interest, period?
If the latter, well than we may be too far apart to discuss practical ethics. If the former, than it seems possible that some transportation choices, and some location choices, ARE more ethical than others, all other things being equal.
You can assume all you want, but even though I have posted extensively that I live 4 1/2 miles from my work, that is never acknowledged.
by whom? since i come to this forum to discuss policy, etc and not to judge Katiana, where you live and work isnt a concern to 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.
