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.
These things can't just be magicked into existence. You can put a "town center" type place in your suburb (see Columbia, MD for a version of this idea, there are many others of course), but you can't make the businesses come or (especially) stay. And "reachable by walking from anywhere in the suburb" is dreaming. You can do it on paper, sometimes, but by the nature of the suburbs it's going to be quite a long walk for most people... and they won't do it, preferring to drive. Especially to the grocery store.
But if the area is reasonably dense, taking transit for the couple of miles from the "suburban part" to the "downtown" shouldn't be too hard.
But if the area is reasonably dense, taking transit for the couple of miles from the "suburban part" to the "downtown" shouldn't be too hard.
Few with a choice will do it. Your scenario is played out all over various planned communities like Columbia, and in lots of towns in Northern New Jersey where I live (where it is fashionable to create, recreate, or rehabilitate downtowns). People still drive from the residential sections. Partially because people don't just go to their own town's downtown, partially because even at dense suburban densities, there just aren't enough people within walking distance.
Transit tends not to work well unless your town is linear. In order to cover an area, bus routes have to wind all over the place and end up taking forever. And of course the (non-commute) ridership is low so the buses will be infrequent as well. And buses are terrible for grocery shopping.
Is it safe to leave your car for a few days in a poor neighborhood? In our poorer neighborhoods (and some of the not-so-poor ones) leaving a car unattended for days is inadvisable.
Here's some photos of what might happen to cars left in not so good places. Granted they were probably abandoned.
Mostly the first 10 or so, but the rest of the photos are interesting though a bit cherry picked. The commentary is interesting, too but I feel like the urban apocalypse tone is over the top.
That's how a lot of people perceive cities. I guess my difference of opinion is that there are neighborhoods that were equally decaying and crime-ridden in my neck of the woods that consisted of primarily one-story detached single-family homes with driveways. Contrary to the predictions of social planners who thought that poor people moved to pastoral single-family neighborhoods, living in lower density doesn't reduce crime, it just reduces the number of potential witnesses.
That's how a lot of people perceive cities. I guess my difference of opinion is that there are neighborhoods that were equally decaying and crime-ridden in my neck of the woods that consisted of primarily one-story detached single-family homes with driveways. Contrary to the predictions of social planners who thought that poor people moved to pastoral single-family neighborhoods, living in lower density doesn't reduce crime, it just reduces the number of potential witnesses.
I feel that the large amounts of people on the streets (a lot of the bad neighborhoods have a lot of people walking around) makes New York feel safer. Looking at my link, it looks like that wasn't always the case in New York. The densest neighborhood in NYC is the low-crime high-income Upper East Side at 125,000 people per square mile, putting the lie to the idea more density = more crime.
I was surprised how low density midwest and west coast ghettos are when I first learned about other cities. And for California especially, looking at photos of bad neighborhood, I would have never guessed they were bad without knowing about the area.
I think this is another aesthetics debate, similar to the different reactions people had to the row house photos I posted. I doubt I would find the zero lot line housing sterile. I find a lot of lawns and houses that leave a wide gap between themselves in the street rather sterile. If there's little or no landscaping just lawn, I feel like it's just blank space that would be better off deleted. If the buildings look nice, it would be a better streetscape to see them close to the street rather than have lots of empty space. I don't see landscaping as a necessity in an urban environment, either. A little bit is nice, but I care more about having large natural areas anyway than small amounts of greenery nearby.
The parts of Europe you've seen were likely cities not suburbs. Did you look at the Paris link memph posted? Those had some landscaping and a little bit of space between the house front and street, just not a lot. I'm a big fan of the way a lot of the old homes in my town are: 5 at most 10 feet from the sidewalk. Feels more like a place to me, and less like the houses are "plopped in the middle of nowhere". I liked when my bedroom window faced the street and I watched people on the street. Felt like I could see the world go by...
I can't find any photos I've taken of my neighborhood that show what I mean and google streetview has poor coverage of my town. I found a couple nice views of houses with little setbacks in the Boston area:
Both the Boston area links I posted and the Paris link I posted I think are close to ideal ways to lay out a neighborhood. The Paris links are post-war, the Boston ones not. I feel like the Paris links present a far less sterile appearance while still having some backyard space (I think) though are maybe not that walkable, but at least more attractive than most American suburbs.
Here's a neighborhood that I think looks fine with a zero lot line and no landscaping:
well i guess you could respond "who's to say to your tastes are better? there's no rational basis behind it." But while most postwar development in this country has been suburbia with lawns and setbacks (and I gather your tastes) while little has been to my tastes. In many suburbs, the setbacks are mandated my law. You couldn't build neighborhoods that look my links in these places.
I would like to mention the Brookline and Cambridge street view pictures are of areas that range from 8,000 or 10,000 to 15,000 ppsm and the fourth link is a neighborhood in Boston with a density of around 20,000 ppsm.
I would like to mention the Brookline and Cambridge street view pictures are of areas that range from 8,000 or 10,000 to 15,000 ppsm and the fourth link is a neighborhood in Boston with a density of around 20,000 ppsm.
Your numbers are way too low. Those Brookline views are at 24,000 ppsm. The Cambridge one 25,000-30,000 ppsm and the Charlestown one maybe 35,000 ppsm.
Your numbers are way too low. Those Brookline views are at 24,000 ppsm. The Cambridge one 25,000-30,000 ppsm and the Charlestown one maybe 35,000 ppsm.
Your right I just gave the overall density for those areas not those specific areas.
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.
