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.
It seems like a lot of the people who post anti-suburban rants are people who live in the suburbs and don't like it, not people who live in cities and are writing about someone else's living situation. I try to write about what I see, from my own experience--which does include a significant chunk of suburban living. But I'd rather write about what I do like than what I don't like, even if it doesn't match people's illusions about city life.
I live on an alley, and have an alley-facing garage. I don't use it all that much (street parking where I live isn't all that hard if you don't drive often) but when I do it's generally not all that risky because people don't drive fast down alleys. I don't leave the garage quickly when I do, and I back into the garage to make it easier to see out when I leave. It is also easy to see pedestrians when exiting an alley garage because the tight dimensions mean you have to be careful. Narrow streets are safer streets for pedestrians because cars don't have room to go fast safely--this applies to alleys.
I think you are most effective at that when you are being objective. It's important, and you're good at it. However, who is saying these things in the first paragraph is important. There area great many regular posters don't often say these things, so it's important not to lump everyone who likes cities together. Just as I don't equate NT's vision with your own.
Well, certainly I give more weight to some posters' posts than to others. However, on this morality thing, a frequent poster on this forum, a former mod and winner of a 'most helpful poster contest' was the one who brought up the immorality of suburbs just recently. Like nighttrain, I found this offensive. Another person I discussed this with did not feel it was offensive, however, that person does not live in a suburb.
When I objected to this morality talk, the poster backpedaled some, saying it was suburbs, not the people who were 'forced to live in them', that were immoral. I find this to be, quite frankly, meaningless. Only people can be moral or immoral, and it IS offensive to impugn other people's moral. No one knows what goes on behind closed doors. The person who liveds in an "exurb" (what some might call a small town away from the city) may be working at home, or working locally. Who knows? Likewise, someone who lives in "the city" may be driving 20 miles to work. Again, who knows, unless they tell you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
It seems like a lot of the people who post anti-suburban rants are people who live in the suburbs and don't like it, not people who live in cities and are writing about someone else's living situation. I try to write about what I see, from my own experience--which does include a significant chunk of suburban living. But I'd rather write about what I do like than what I don't like, even if it doesn't match people's illusions about city life.
I live on an alley, and have an alley-facing garage. I don't use it all that much (street parking where I live isn't all that hard if you don't drive often) but when I do it's generally not all that risky because people don't drive fast down alleys. I don't leave the garage quickly when I do, and I back into the garage to make it easier to see out when I leave. It is also easy to see pedestrians when exiting an alley garage because the tight dimensions mean you have to be careful. Narrow streets are safer streets for pedestrians because cars don't have room to go fast safely--this applies to alleys.
I'm not so sure about your first sentence. Yes, we get our share of posters lamenting their unhappy childhoods in the burbs, as if their childhood would have somehow been miraculously different if they had lived in "the city". However, I can't tell where most of the anti-suburban posters who are discussing their adult lives live. Seems like a lot live in "the city" and think all us suburbanites zoom into our behemoth garages when we get home from work, fix a TV dinner and watch DWTS every night, while they are walking home from the office or bus stop, having dinner in some "fine dining" establishment, then going on to volunteer at a homeless shelter until time to go to bed.
Regarding auto safety, I've discovered it's hard to find links, at least with the search terms I've been using. In any event, it is well known that most accidents occur close to home, and indeed, 23% occur less than one mile from home. Might I presume that includes backing out of garages? (See 2nd link) Also, interstate highway driving is the safest, higher speed limits and all. (See first link) Distracted driving is the most common cause of accidents. (3rd link)
Another thing about the hatred of the suburbs that I never got was the value system. Anti-suburban wackos think we all should value things the same. One thing I always hear is how people in the city are "only a 5 minute walk from the grocery store" as if that is the most important thing. They will also brag that they only use a car 3 times a year, or they only need 200 sq ft of space to live, their neighorhood is more interesting because the houses look different. They constantly point this out and I sit there and wander, do they want a cookie or something. Apparently i'm supposed to care about living in the smallest place possible, making sure I never need a car, and make sure that my that in no way shape or form my house resembles my neighbor's house. Oh yea, I'm supposed to only like eating at independently owned mom and pop resturants. Eating at applebees, mortons, tgif is just awful.
. They constantly point this out and I sit there and wander, do they want a cookie or something.
Only from the gourmet bakery around the corner.
Quote:
Oh yea, I'm supposed to only like eating at independently owned mom and pop resturants. Eating at applebees, mortons, tgif is just awful.
Well, Applebee's maybe ... But what the people you're referencing fail to understand is that there are plenty of independently owned restaurants -- heck, independently owned everything -- in the suburbs as well.
Well, there were those threads about "morality" and the suburbs. And I'm sure if I felt inclined to do a search, I could find more than one post about how suburbanites are boring; they (we) all like to ;hide behind our garage doors", we don't know our neighbors, there's no sense of community, yada, yada.
Of course they're there, there'll always be some extreme posts, but I think the criticisms of suburbs and the way they are built are more common.
Quote:
I like to think of myself as a "myth buster" on this very pro-urban forum. I like to correct misapprehensions that people have about the burbs. I hope I have accomplished that, at least a little bit.
I think I've become a bit careful about what I wrote, and try avoid the more careless unsustantied suburban criticism that I can think of any concrete support for. I think some of my anti-suburb exaggerations when I first started posting came from that I liked my (then new) current neighborhood far better than my parent's neighborhood, and some of the stereotypes were partly true (while how much you know your neighborhoods depends on your socialization, from my street-facing bedroom I could sometimes see my neighbors and other walking down the street and have occasional random conversation. And walking down to the center of town, there was a chance I could bump into someone I know on the street). People care about different things, so some might rate suburbs much more harshly than others, and the no center / unwalkable criticism is accurate for many. There was a suburb near me where I grew up that was livelier (or more) than my impression of Louisville, but I don't consider it typical.
But when reading The Bicycle Diaries by David Byrne recently, I picked up on some "suburb stereotypes" which I found a bit over the top. I never picked up on them first time I read (half) of it. I'm guessing you're partly responsible. And David Byrne thinks arson is a proper fate of suburban housing stock:
In a bit of a tangent, some of what you might consider misconceptions on suburban form / layout mentioned might just be from different standards on what we're used to or think is good. I took for granted that there was little objectionable of the near-zero setback homes I showed photos of, while (it seems) you think having a yard and decent setback are obvious positives. For example, your response to one of my first posts on the forum (Not trying to rehash an old argument, just trying to point out the difference in perspective):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
I wish sprawling suburbs weren't forced upon us by zoning regulations. It makes me sad that old dense neighborhoods that seem so appealing to me cannot legally built anymore because their lot sizes are too small and don't have parking.
Where on earth are you talking about? Out here in metro Denver, a 10,000 sq. ft. lot (~1/4 acre) is considered HUGE. We lived in one suburban community where the minimum lot size was 5000 sq. ft, and the minimum quickly became the maximum.
My wording made that post a bit unclear, but... I already knew some suburban homes had 5000 square foot lots, I spent part of my childhood in one! I meant something denser. Things that are often banned by zoning rules that I like are low setback homes such as the ones of my neighborhood I showed in my photos. Probably didn't occur to you since they're rare where you live and you wouldn't have thought of them as a positive. What I meant by "no parking" are downtown or old "main-street" districts that typically front the street without setback and don't had their own parking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nighttrain55
I think the argument/debate was about both people and how its constructed. If you were to list all the reasons why people hate the suburbs or the city, especially in this forum (not necessarily this thread, but in general), you have people criticizing other people. One argument against the suburbs I constantly hear is there is no sense of community. Urbanist seem to believe people in the suburbs go into their houses and don't talk to neighbors.
To both of you (and maybe others), most of the more extreme criticisms are not made by me. Since I'm clearly the most important poster here, those criticisms deserve far less attention.
Well, you are the mod. OTOH, I think people should be very careful before they decide to use words such as "immoral". (Not that you ever did)
In today's society, I think requiring some off-street parking for one car per dwelling unit is a necessity. You can quibble about lot size, but you can't build a single family house on much less than 4000 or so sf.
This should be OBVIOUS, but there is a difference between "backpedaling" and clarifying.
I think modern suburban sprawl IS immoral. We know that we have an environmental crisis looming; why wouldn't we want our national policies to encourage more responsible development? That doesn't mean that everyone needs to live in highrises, but it's reasonable to expect that any new development in our cities or suburbs should be designed in ways that lessen our negative impact on the environment. That doesn't mean that the people who buy those houses are immoral, but the ethical thing for us, as a collective society, would be to demand that our government change its policies to encourage a new form of living that is updated for today's realities. Our needs (and our information) is different now than it was 50, 40, even 20 years ago. New policies should reflect that. But hey, I have a young son. I care about what the planet and this country is going to be like when he's an adult. I don't think individuals can be blamed for living in, say, a McMansion in sprawlville, but I DO think we run into some ethical problems if we create policies that provide incentives or encouragements to make that choice easy. The easy, default, affordable option should be something that benefits society as a whole. It doesn't have to be urban living, but there's no reason that modern suburbs can't be better designed (and some are). It benefits everyone. I also think people should spend a little more time thinking about their own lives and impact (and do what they can, although of course all of us have our limits, including financial -- a lot of times the most distant, sprawling, auto-dependent 'burbs are the cheapest, and the only real option for families who want to buy a house), but it takes a lot more than individual action to create meaningful change. And yes, I do think that people should at least in theory want to decrease their car use, and in theory support more independent businesses (which yes, I know, are also found in suburbs.). And buying local keeps more money in the local economy, and isn't that a concept that everyone, wherever they live, supports? I know it's not possible or realistic all the time, but surely most people value having independent businesses in their community and want to support the when they can?
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.
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 08-21-2012 at 08:40 PM..
In today's society, I think requiring some off-street parking for one car per dwelling unit is a necessity. You can quibble about lot size, but you can't build a single family house on much less than 4000 or so sf.
I wasn't specifically limiting to single family houses, could be rowhouses or two family houses. The smallest I've seen for single family houses is about 2500 a square foot lot, maybe slightly less. A house that's maybe 1400 square feet and two stories would take up about 700 square feet. 2000 square feet should be more than sufficient space to build a home, though it would obviously be rather packed.
Of minimum parking requirements, if customers want parking developers would build it with or without the requirements. And there's always street parking. I don't see why I needs to be required more than say, a dishwasher. Since I don't use my car my much and until a few years ago didn't own one, it seems like a pro-car bias to me. I agree one car dwelling isn't that onerous for most places. For low enough densities, it's easy to add one parking space per dwelling and it would be added anyway regardless of law. Street parking can take care of the overflow. Rowhouse neighborhoods often look rather awful with parking in front of them, for high density housing I'd rather have green space than use up land for parking. These places are usually manageable without a car, and those who want a car can juggle with street parking and deal (and I know some who do) or just live elsewhere where there's more space for cars. Since space is limited in these places, parking requirements limits the amount of housing that can be constructed. In the most extreme cases, such as Brooklyn, the parking requirements add substantially to the cost of housing since more could be built with the same amount of space. The developers hate them and try to use any loophole they can find, often not all the parking required actually gets used anyway.
For example, I thought behind these row houses would be nicer with any space for cars:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Looking at this alley, I think it would be a much nicer block if all the garage and driveway space was replaced with shared green space. Perhaps lawn, hedges and trees? With small gardens added if the residents wish?
High density, walkable and more attractive looking.
The same I believe applies to not just dense big cities, but the centers of small towns. But yes, in lower densities place I don't think one parking space per dwelling isn't that stringent. I have some examples to post that I'll get to later.
This should be OBVIOUS, but there is a difference between "backpedaling" and clarifying.
I think modern suburban sprawl IS immoral. We know that we have an environmental crisis looming; why wouldn't we want our national policies to encourage more responsible development? That doesn't mean that everyone needs to live in highrises, but it's reasonable to expect that any new development in our cities or suburbs should be designed in ways that lessen our negative impact on the environment. That doesn't mean that the people who buy those houses are immoral, but the ethical thing for us, as a collective society, would be to demand that our government change its policies to encourage a new form of living that is updated for today's realities. Our needs (and our information) is different now than it was 50, 40, even 20 years ago. New policies should reflect that. But hey, I have a young son. I care about what the planet and this country is going to be like when he's an adult. I don't think individuals can be blamed for living in, say, a McMansion in sprawlville, but I DO think we run into some ethical problems if we create policies that provide incentives or encouragements to make that choice easy. The easy, default, affordable option should be something that benefits society as a whole. It doesn't have to be urban living, but there's no reason that modern suburbs can't be better designed (and some are). It benefits everyone. I also think people should spend a little more time thinking about their own lives and impact (and do what they can, although of course all of us have our limits, including financial -- a lot of times the most distant, sprawling, auto-dependent 'burbs are the cheapest, and the only real option for families who want to buy a house), but it takes a lot more than individual action to create meaningful change. And yes, I do think that people should at least in theory want to decrease their car use, and in theory support more independent businesses (which yes, I know, are also found in suburbs.). And buying local keeps more money in the local economy, and isn't that a concept that everyone, wherever they live, supports? I know it's not possible or realistic all the time, but surely most people value having independent businesses in their community and want to support the when they can?
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.
Point made. We got urbanist/anit-suburban telling us how we should live. Here we have a wacko urbanist telling us the urban lifestyle should the desired way of living. This supports my argument. I'm supposed to hate applebees, but want to eat at mom and pop shops everytime. I'm supposed to want to walk everywhere and depend on a bus or train. I'm supposed cram my family into a 200 sq ft shack because that is great for society. Can you tell me the address I'm supposed to go to drink the urban lifestyle kool aid.
Point made. We got urbanist/anit-suburban telling us how we should live. Here we have a wacko urbanist telling us the urban lifestyle should the desired way of living. This supports my argument. I'm supposed to hate applebees, but want to eat at mom and pop shops everytime. I'm supposed to want to walk everywhere and depend on a bus or train. I'm supposed cram my family into a 200 sq ft shack because that is great for society. Can you tell me the address I'm supposed to go to drink the urban lifestyle kool aid.
That is NOT what I said, and you know it.
How come everything has to be so starkly black and white? There is a happy medium, you know. It doesn't have to be mega-mansion on 2-acre lot with only big box chain stores versus tiny apartment in the heart of Manhattan.
I don't care if anyone hates Applebees, but don't you think it's a positive thing to have businesses in your neighborhood owned and operated by your neighbors, and with all the profits being pumped back into your immediate neighborhood? Not that chain stores and restaurants can't also have a place in communities, but are there people out there who seriously don't see the value of having independent businesses? That's not a suburban versus urban thing. That's a community thing.
Yeah, I do with more people would walk and take the bus. Clearly many are not. That's their choice. But I wish society as a whole would make that choice easier, and tip the playing field to make walking/biking/public transportation an easy, safe, cheap option. Right now in many places it's the opposite. (that also need not be an urban versus suburban issue, for that matter.) And really, even if you prefer to drive everywhere, wouldn't it be to your advantage if all of your neighbors chose to walk/bike/bus? You'd have less traffic and cleaner air!
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.
But what the people you're referencing fail to understand is that there are plenty of independently owned restaurants -- heck, independently owned everything -- in the suburbs as well.
