Why do so much people hate on the Suburbs?? (metro, suburban, highway)
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.
I have no idea! I was out taking a walk through the big park near my house, took a (unauthorized ) shortcut to get home, and stumbled upon this little fiesta in the neighboring township's festival grounds. Go figure ... I didn't see anything in the paper about it. Serendipity!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweat209
Box stores and power center came in the 90's
All stores are "boxes", and they've been around a lot longer than the 90s.
Good to hear that you like where you live. That said, i really dont think there is as much to do in suburbs as in the city. Cities are just bigger. They have more clubs, more bars, more festivals, more theaters, more stores, more sporting events etc... They tend to accommodate numerous different lifestyles and interests.
Suburbs can be really hit or miss for me. In Florida, for example in the area where I live when not up at school, the areas by the coast are really nice with a decent amount of things to do. The suburbs to the west are completely inefficient, monotonous, and boring, and no suburbs to me are nearly as fun as Miami. In Massachusetts, some of the suburbs Ive been to are nice but there is not nearly as much to do as there is in Boston.
Suburbs are good for families, but for young and middle age singles or couples without young kids, there just is usually more to do in a city.
Rats! I just had a great reply going and my internet crashed and blew it away. I'll be briefer this time.
I find it ironic that cities are defended as "just bigger" when there have been posts on this thread dissing "big box" stores for being so, well, BIG, and a whole thread on the big box issue a while back. I agree that if what you want to do is go to bars and clubs, there are more choices in the cities. Ditto for sporting events, although there are a fair number of major league teams that are acutally located in suburbs, for ex, the NE Patriots.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 09-10-2012 at 08:00 AM..
I've never had a problem with suburbs. Although I think they're generally wasteful, people have a right to live where and how they want. Aside from murder, rape and other arrestable offenses, I'm pretty much fine with people doing whatever they want so long as they are willing to deal with the consequences of their choices.
And that's where the problem comes in. My brother, for example, lives about 30 miles outside of Atlanta and has the typical (stereotypical?) suburban lifestyle: McMansion on a half acre, two cars and an SUV, etc. We talked yesterday and he says, "Obama's still got my vote, but he really needs to do something about these gas prices. Now." As if Obama can throw a whole bunch of dinosaur bones in a pit in Georgia and create more fossil fuels. There's a stubborn refusal to make any accommodation to the lifestyle he has chosen. He's still free to live how he wants; he just has to pay $4 per gallon at the pump now in order to do it.
Many posts argued about money. People need to remember that the growth of the suburbs was made possible by huge subsidies from the Federal government in the form of highway building and home loans. Socially, the growth was also part of racism of white flight. I am not saying that those who live in the suburbs now are racist, their growth in the 1950s - 1970s was an unanticipated consequence of school integration.
The defining characteristic of the suburbs is sprawl. Some suburbs were small towns that existed outside of the city. Over the years, the sprawl created when more people move to the suburb merged the suburb with the city. After the gaps between the city and these small towns disappeared, the suburbs sprawled in the opposite direction.
I am not sure how much stock I put in the "white flight" scenario as I live in Canada. However, I question where you think everyone would live if the subburbs were never built. Toronto now has a population of 2.6 million within the city proper, and an additional 4.4 million in the surrounding subburbs. I fail to see where there be housing for all 6 million inhabitants of the GTA if they were all to move back to the city tomorrow.
I am not sure how much stock I put in the "white flight" scenario as I live in Canada. However, I question where you think everyone would live if the subburbs were never built. Toronto now has a population of 2.6 million within the city proper, and an additional 4.4 million in the surrounding subburbs. I fail to see where there be housing for all 6 million inhabitants of the GTA if they were all to move back to the city tomorrow.
Uh, if the suburbs were never built, wouldn't there just be more urban neighborhoods to accomodate the full population? This is how most societies lived throughout human history prior to the advent of transportation that allowed for sprawling development.
4. lack of homes build on the main road. Please tell me why I should live on a highway.
Then don't. Few neighborhoods where apartmenets exist above stores are the norm do they actually consist of more than a fraction of the housing stock. Plenty of other places to choose from. Families with children have plenty of other choices
I lived above a store during the summer in college. Liked the location and having a lively area right out my door. There were some negatives, but most of them didn't have much to with living on a main road (the apartment appeared not to be maintained for sixty years, warped wood floors, cracking paint, a keg from March had been left in a corner, looked like had punched a hole in the wall). The bar next door annoyed my housemates with windows above it, but if the apartment was in a different spot in would have better. On the plus side, being in a noisy area meant not having to worry about noise complaints!
The apartments above the store in my town go for decently high rents. One of my friends found no objections to living there.
Not all main roads are highways. It depends on the area. Often not true in Massachusetts, sometimes true in Long Island, sometimes not. This:
The first can still be busy but definitely not highway-like.
Of course, in a layout like the latter where the main road are highway-like, living on a main road is much less appealing which is why few residence are on those arterials. Perhaps sweat209's complaints are the layouts he presents prevents old-style commercial streets. Or maybe he believe wide suburban-style arterials should have housing and the housing on these Hicksville arterials are examples of great urban planning :
I am not sure how much stock I put in the "white flight" scenario as I live in Canada. However, I question where you think everyone would live if the subburbs were never built. Toronto now has a population of 2.6 million within the city proper, and an additional 4.4 million in the surrounding subburbs. I fail to see where there be housing for all 6 million inhabitants of the GTA if they were all to move back to the city tomorrow.
As ANJOA said, obviously new neighborhoods would be built. The difference is their form could be more similar to older city neighborhoods.
Uh, if the suburbs were never built, wouldn't there just be more urban neighborhoods to accomodate the full population? This is how most societies lived throughout human history prior to the advent of transportation that allowed for sprawling development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
As ANJOA said, obviously new neighborhoods would be built. The difference is their form could be more similar to older city neighborhoods.
So, if I understand correctly, you don't like suburbs sprawling toward the city but you have no problem with the city itself sprawling out toward the subburbs? Do you not realize the new houses in your scenario would be built on the same land the ones in the suburbs sit on now? Housing for six million is housing for six million no matter which way you want to categorize and tally it up.
Most people in Mexico City do not have cars, and the city itself was built long before the advent of transportation. I fail to see how you think the sprawling, chaotic mess that nightmare of a city has become is somehow more desirable than what we have today in the Greater Toronto Area.
So, if I understand correctly, you don't like suburbs sprawling toward the city but you have no problem with the city itself sprawling out toward the subburbs? Do you not realize the new houses in your scenario would be built on the same land the ones in the suburbs sit on now? Housing for six million is housing for six million no matter which way you want to categorize and tally it up.
You're attacking straw man arguements and I'm very confused by what you mean by the first sentence.
Population growth requires more housing, but urban form and housing styles have changed. I'm unfamiliar with Toronto, but most newer suburban housing uses up more land and is designed more towards automobiles and less towards pedestrians. Newer suburban developments with the same urban form as older city developments, for example.
Do you not realize the new houses in your scenario would be built on the same land the ones in the suburbs sit on now? Housing for six million is housing for six million no matter which way you want to categorize and tally it up.
Most people in Mexico City do not have cars, and the city itself was built long before the advent of transportation. I fail to see how you think the sprawling, chaotic mess that nightmare of a city has become is somehow more desirable than what we have today in the Greater Toronto Area.
Transportation has existed (horses, carriages) long before what you see in Mexico city today. Advances in transportation technology made it convenient/easy to sprawl at a much lower density than before. The sprawling mess you see in MC is of pretty high density. Keeping it simple, MC's density is at 15,000/sq.mile...~8M+ people for ~550+ miles. If you were to develop that in lower density suburbs (let's say 4,000 sq. mile, which is high for many suburbs), you'd take up about 2,000 square miles. Hardly the same thing.
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.
) shortcut to get home, and stumbled upon this little fiesta in the neighboring township's festival grounds. Go figure ... I didn't see anything in the paper about it. Serendipity! 
:
