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, I guess we run in different circles. From all my experience in politics, I have a more governmental approach to the definition. It does become confusing on this forum when people use these terms so loosely. And when they want to castigate the suburbs, it's obvious they mean the communities outside of "the city".
I have never seen wburg castigate the suburbs. It is indeed confusing when, on a public message board, there are many different people, whose viewpoints may overlap, yet still differ considerably.
I can't speak for Ohiogirl81, though we agree on a lot of things. However, I don't care whether you criticize where I live or not; that's not the point.
I have read a lot of articles in the "American Journal of Public Health" about built environment, etc. The studies all tend to be pretty inconclusive re: whether the built environment makes a huge difference in pepole's health. (Well, other than proximitry to hazardous materials and such.)
It's really hard to know what some urbanista means when s/he (most seem to be he) uses the term suburb on this forum. It's basically any area they don't like; that's not walkable enough for their satisfaction, etc.
from what I can gather the challenges in measuring walkability have impacted this research
Neighborhood Walkability | Built Environment and Health Project (http://beh.columbia.edu/articles/neighborhood_walkability/ - broken link)
I have never seen wburg castigate the suburbs. It is indeed confusing when, on a public message board, there are many different people, whose viewpoints may overlap, yet still differ considerably.
Well, here are a few. I'm not going to spend all day searching on CD's sucky search engnine for any more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Streetcar suburbs were originally intended for the middle class, when public transit was a private business. Auto suburbs were not based on people voting with their own wallets--they were a social engneering project based on liberal use of the taxpayers' wallets. We didn't think we needed this so-called "American Dream" until we were told we were deviants if we didn't pursue it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
The problem is that car-centric neighborhoods never reach that critical mass, and public transit is generally perceived as a social ill more than a benefit. So the people in those neighborhoods never actually demand public transit, and where it does operate, it does not operate very efficiently due to the lack of density and car-centric planning. Nor does public transit of the sort found in suburbs (such as buses) promote greater walkability or density through changes in zoning or planning principles.
The American auto suburb has its form because it was planned that way by its designers and architects--it is not the result of market forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
I'm fine with 'em, but the fact is that the suburbs are heavily subsidized, and if not for those subsidies they would have a vastly different appearance and form. People laboring under the delusion that the suburbs "pay for themselves" are dead wrong, and my aim is to puncture that delusion as often as possible. People seem to think that suburban form is a result of the unrestricted free market, which is another popular delusion and complete nonsense. The closest thing to an urban form produced by the unrestricted free market is the streetcar suburb of the early 20th century. Subsidies for roads, loans, gas, construction, depreciation, utilities, etcetera radically changed urban form (specifically suburban form) in the 20th century. Part of those changes included urban redevelopment (also subsidized) primarily to subsidize the idea that nobody should ever live downtown, it should be exclusively the realm of businesses and offices. Urban renewal and redevelopment basically wrecked downtowns and destroyed more homes than it built.
This popular delusion about suburbs leads so-called fiscal conservatives to call for increases in highway spending to serve suburbs instead of public transit, on the grounds that transit is a "subsidy" but spending tax money to help the suburbs doesn't count as taxation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
The thing is, most suburbs built after World War II aren't like yours. When we talk about crappy, uniform, overwhelmingly residential car-centric suburbs, that is the kind we are talking about. The fact that you don't live in one doesn't mean they do not exist in great quantity in most of the country.
I don't like those NU subdivisions either--they generally lack the economic and income diversity of the neighborhoods they are trying to model, and the public transit that made streetcar suburbs possible in the first place. That's why I live in an "old urbanist" neighborhood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
In many burbs, you can't really walk to anything and if you don't have a car you're basically a pariah, the stores are the same generic cardboard cut-out chain stores, and the closest thing to a sense of community is seeing the same bunch of bored teenagers hanging out in front of the 7-11. It's very nice that you grew up in an older suburb that wasn't like that, but I did, and it pretty much sucked ass, and most of the other suburbs I have seen (which does add up to quite a few) don't seem much better than that.
By "we" I mean the people you are constantly complaining about for criticizing the suburbs. I am unaware of where we are building our re-education facility to brainwash the masses, but once it is complete I will advocate for an all expenses paid vacation for you at our new urbanist re-education resort.
An intersting study about Australia, a different culture than ours.
How much of a difference should being in a different culture be? Do you think an American's walking behavior would be different in a walkable and non-walkable neighborhood than an Australian. My thought is the built form matters more than culture. Obviously specifics would be different but the general trend should be the same.
Besides Canada, it's likely Australia is the closest to the US culturally in the world.
Also why must everything be relevant to the US? I like the idea of having more international examples.
Well, here are a few. I'm not going to spend all day searching on CD's sucky search engnine for any more.
almost every one of those quotes includes a qualifier about auto oriented suburbs, car centric neighborhoods (NOT suburbs necessarily), and "MOST suburbs built AFTER WW2" he seems at pains to make clear he is not making a simple suburb vs city distinction.
The studies ARE inconclusive, though. I think there's a leap from postulating known benefits of walkability to presuming an inherent deficiency in other built environments. There are parks and recreational activities in the suburbs that people do exploit. I think it's problematic that we as adult posters offer testimony about a lifestyle that's self-selecting. If you're the type to exercise, you'll exercise whether you move to the city or a suburb. In most cases the built environment offers no inherent causal relationship to physical fitness. So it's really best to limit our scope to children, who don't select their own environments.
Studies HAVE shown that suburban kids engage in as much or more unstructured physical activity than urban kids, and structured physical activity is higher in the suburbs (athletics, clubs, etc.). OTOH, there can be a wrongful presumption that safety in the city inhibits activities in city kids. The studies are seriously all over the place.
One problem is urban and suburban are often mixed up. I, for example, always felt I grew up in the suburbs. But it was a large suburb in SoCal that's fairly walkable (I was going to the grocery store by myself by the time I was 10, and I grew up across the street from a park.) Many studies would classify me as urban, though.
The ignored issue is economics. It's surprising that the rural population actually has a lower level of physical activity in some studies. That can, for youths, be attributed to the lack of sidewalks. The major factor, of course, is poverty and nutrition. That applies also to the urban poor with high obesity rates.
Seriously, the studies wander far and wide in their conclusions, and even those that promote urban built environments caution against stating causal relationships without factoring in a whole range of other issues. There have been many statements here that are rather over-confident.
Can one of you urbanites answer this question, why do ya'll dislike auto centric suburbs so much. Do yall actually believe we all should live in high density enviroment. Do actually believe that every person wants live on top of each other? Do you realize that there are people who love the suburban enviroment? I love my space, why would l want to live in a rowhouse, apartment, condo or townhouse if I can have my own garage and yard size of my choosing. I like driving, I don't want to take a bus, train, or walk all the time. Can somebody please help me out with this?
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.
