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.
To get back on topic, PA's suburbs are uniformly devoid of sidewalks,
(emphasis added)
Um, no. You grew up in Western Pennsylvania and live (I'm guessing; your profile tag says you don't) in Northeastern Pennsylvania now.
Southeastern Pennsylvania is (as some others outside it have noted) a world apart from the rest of the state. I'll go into detail about why that blanket statement is incorrect below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
And lots of the places here that don't have sidewalks are the ultra-rich, old money neighborhoods.
This statement accurately sums up the state of the suburbs that surround Philadelphia.
One thing both you and Katarina Witt overlook, I think, in reaching your conclusions is the role the mainline railroads played in creating our first suburbs. Did I just say "mainline"? As two words, that term is used to describe the most desirable suburbs of Philadelphia; they stretch along the historic Main Line of the Pennsylvania Railroad, which in turn followed something called the Main Line of Public Works, a system of railroads, canals and inclined plane railroads Pennsylvania constructed in the 1830s to compete with New York's Erie Canal.
Around many of the stations on the Main Line, you will find communities that very much resemble classic small towns, with commercial districts surrounding the station, closely spaced houses just beyond these, and sidewalks connecting everything. Google "Ardmore" for Street View images of the largest and liveliest of these; this community in Lower Merion Township (my point about townships again) is also home to the township government and one of the earliest planned shopping centers in the country. Built in 1929-30, it in no way resembles those postwar shopping malls; the parking is provided in garages and the shops are arrayed around pedestrian promenades.
But one uniform characteristic all of these communities (the ones that best fit my description are Ardmore, Wayne (not in Lower Merion Township, Montgomery County, but in Radnor Township, Delaware County; the Montgomery/Delaware county line closely follows the railroad, and parts of all three Montgomery County communities I mentioned lie in Haverford Township, Delaware County), Bryn Mawr and Haverford, in that order), is this: To the south of the rail line lie the less-affluent neighborhoods. You will find blocks of rowhouses and relatively modest twins in the south part of these communities. Homes immediately to the north of the rail line are more substantial but still located on streets with sidewalks. About a half mile from the rail line on the north, and closer around some stations (Villanova, for one), you enter the territory where large estate homes on equally large lots dominate. There, you will find no sidewalks along the roads.
IOW, it's not a geographic thing, but more closely related to factors like mode of transport that shaped the community and socioeconomic/class status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovelondon
This whole concept of incorporated vs unincorporated is a foreign concept in the UK, and perhaps most of the world.
You may not use those terms, but I'll bet you the concept exists.
I'm pretty sure that not every square inch of land outside Greater London lies within the borders of some village, borough or city with its own government. The word "incorporated" in the United States signals that a community is actually a municipal corporation with a local government. "Unincorporated" territories lie outside the boundaries of any such municipality, and basic services in those areas are usually provided by the government of the county in which they are located (and depending on the area, some of those basic services, like parks and libraries, may not exist because the territory is rural in nature; urban counties usually provide them). I know that Britain also has counties, and I'm sure their governments perform functions similar to those in U.S. counties.
You may not use those terms, but I'll bet you the concept exists.
I'm pretty sure that not every square inch of land outside Greater London lies within the borders of some village, borough or city with its own government. The word "incorporated" in the United States signals that a community is actually a municipal corporation with a local government. "Unincorporated" territories lie outside the boundaries of any such municipality, and basic services in those areas are usually provided by the government of the county in which they are located (and depending on the area, some of those basic services, like parks and libraries, may not exist because the territory is rural in nature; urban counties usually provide them). I know that Britain also has counties, and I'm sure their governments perform functions similar to those in U.S. counties.
No. Just like what you've said about Pennsylvania, all of England can be subdivided into local councils, whether it's through county councils or unitary authorities. They have the responsibility for providing services like waste management, maintaining libraries, manage transport and parking, etc.
?? So when London villages grew they weren't cancers? They grew until they encountered each other.
And that's why they've implemented the metropolitan green belt in the 1950's to stop London from growing outwards. That was even before car ownership took off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Comparing London to the U.S. is a bit absurd. London is comparatively a drop in the bucket in terms of area and population. It's smaller in geographical area than Houston and Houston is but one city in one of 50 states.
Well, London and Houston have roughly the same size area-wise (about 600 sq miles), but about 4 times the population. If WWII didn't happen and there was no systematic, government-sanctioned policy to move the population outside of London and redistribute the economy by deliberately moving businesses elsewhere, then London's population would be much bigger than it is today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Goldilocks was a trespasser who broke into a house, ate the residents' food, slept in their beds, and used and broke other furniture. Probably not a paradigm to follow.
Let's not get into Christopher Columbus or the Puritans here. I merely used "Goldilocks" as a metaphor for something that is of balance.
Someone else may have beaten me to this, but I need to point out that in five of the six New England states, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, there is no such thing as "unincorporated" territory. (Maine is the New England exception because its northern two-thirds is almost totally unpopulated, so it has no people to form or run town governments. There you will find the Midwestern pattern of "townships" and "ranges".)
Every square inch of land in Pennsylvania is in a township, borough or city, and a township, like a town in New England, has a local government. Townships are not necessarily rural, either: you'll find many urbanized townships around the state's large cities. The state's most populous township, Upper Darby, is located just beyond the western city limit of Philadelphia and has a population of 82,000. Most of the storied "Main Line" lies in Lower Merion Township, population around 60,000. Pittsburgh's closest approximation of an "edge city," I understand, is Cranberry Township, well to the north of the city in Butler County. It has a population just shy of 29,000.
I have some responses to your other question as well but will read through the thread before commenting.
In Illinois and many other States, anything outside a City or Village is deemed unincorporated, and zoning is controlled by the County. There are townships that provide some functions such as maintaining roads but do not have the power to change zoning or issue building permits.
There are also numerous "paper villages" that we're incorporated solely to keep from being taken over by others. Soon after incorporation, they contract police duties to the County Sheriff, Fire Deoartment duties to the old Fire District, and streets to the township. This probably wouldn't work in the Houston area.
Last edited by pvande55; 09-01-2018 at 07:20 PM..
Reason: Add paragraph
Um, no. You grew up in Western Pennsylvania and live (I'm guessing; your profile tag says you don't) in Northeastern Pennsylvania now.
Southeastern Pennsylvania is (as some others outside it have noted) a world apart from the rest of the state. I'll go into detail about why that blanket statement is incorrect below.
This statement accurately sums up the state of the suburbs that surround Philadelphia.
One thing both you and Katarina Witt overlook, I think, in reaching your conclusions is the role the mainline railroads played in creating our first suburbs. Did I just say "mainline"? As two words, that term is used to describe the most desirable suburbs of Philadelphia; they stretch along the historic Main Line of the Pennsylvania Railroad, which in turn followed something called the Main Line of Public Works, a system of railroads, canals and inclined plane railroads Pennsylvania constructed in the 1830s to compete with New York's Erie Canal.
Around many of the stations on the Main Line, you will find communities that very much resemble classic small towns, with commercial districts surrounding the station, closely spaced houses just beyond these, and sidewalks connecting everything. Google "Ardmore" for Street View images of the largest and liveliest of these; this community in Lower Merion Township (my point about townships again) is also home to the township government and one of the earliest planned shopping centers in the country. Built in 1929-30, it in no way resembles those postwar shopping malls; the parking is provided in garages and the shops are arrayed around pedestrian promenades.
But one uniform characteristic all of these communities (the ones that best fit my description are Ardmore, Wayne (not in Lower Merion Township, Montgomery County, but in Radnor Township, Delaware County; the Montgomery/Delaware county line closely follows the railroad, and parts of all three Montgomery County communities I mentioned lie in Haverford Township, Delaware County), Bryn Mawr and Haverford, in that order), is this: To the south of the rail line lie the less-affluent neighborhoods. You will find blocks of rowhouses and relatively modest twins in the south part of these communities. Homes immediately to the north of the rail line are more substantial but still located on streets with sidewalks. About a half mile from the rail line on the north, and closer around some stations (Villanova, for one), you enter the territory where large estate homes on equally large lots dominate. There, you will find no sidewalks along the roads.
IOW, it's not a geographic thing, but more closely related to factors like mode of transport that shaped the community and socioeconomic/class status.
<snip>
Actually, you have it backwards. SCR grew up in Scranton, now lives in Pittsburgh.
I did not mean by my prior comment to claim that Philadelphia was unique in having railroad suburbs. Most of the large cities of the Northeast have them (some of them minus the railroad now).
But your earlier comment stated that no Eastern cities had suburbs with sidewalks. The railroad suburbs most definitely do, and they have "town centers" to boot.
And that's why they've implemented the metropolitan green belt in the 1950's to stop London from growing outwards. That was even before car ownership took off.
Well, London and Houston have roughly the same size area-wise (about 600 sq miles), but about 4 times the population. If WWII didn't happen and there was no systematic, government-sanctioned policy to move the population outside of London and redistribute the economy by deliberately moving businesses elsewhere, then London's population would be much bigger than it is today.
In other words, London doesn't compare at all to the United States as previously pointed out. It doesn't even really compare to a single city. The rest sounds like a lot of whining.
There is nothing the least bit meritorious about higher density simply for the sake of density. You've done nothing beyond mere speculation about what might-have-been without considering your scenario is highly not likely due to the inevitable economic problems your artificial barrier creates. In the event London grows population-wise it will have the same affordability problem which cascades a number of other economic problems as anywhere else that put artificial boundaries. It's kind of like wrapping barbed wire around a tree and thinking it will simply constrain the tree to a particular size. It won't and you will end up with a damaged tree a few years down the line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovelondon
Let's not get into Christopher Columbus or the Puritans here. I merely used "Goldilocks" as a metaphor for something that is of balance.
Don't see where either of the other two were mentioned - reading and talking about things that aren't there doesn't sound balanced.
In the event London grows population-wise it will have the same affordability problem which cascades a number of other economic problems as anywhere else that put artificial boundaries. It's kind of like wrapping barbed wire around a tree and thinking it will simply constrain the tree to a particular size. It won't and you will end up with a damaged tree a few years down the line.
London's population has grown by at least 2 million in the past 30 years. That's roughly the whole population of Houston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
There is nothing the least bit meritorious about higher density simply for the sake of density.
Nobody is proposing density just for density's sake. People who do want density do so because they believe the benefits outweigh the downside that it brings.
Last edited by ilovelondon; 09-02-2018 at 10:33 AM..
I did not mean by my prior comment to claim that Philadelphia was unique in having railroad suburbs. Most of the large cities of the Northeast have them (some of them minus the railroad now).
But your earlier comment stated that no Eastern cities had suburbs with sidewalks. The railroad suburbs most definitely do, and they have "town centers" to boot.
When I first saw this I thought I should reply that I was referring to 1950s/60s suburbs. But . . . I grew up in a former "streetcar suburb" in the Pittsburgh area that had no sidewalks. This place was established in 1899. However, I then went back and looked at my OP, and I didn't mention sidewalks at all! See below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
After much discussion about the realtive merits of suburbia vs the city on City-Data, I have had an epiphany. It seems to me that the suburbs of the western cities are somehow different from the suburbs of the eastern cities, speaking VERY much in general, of course.
Taking a city I am somewhat familiar with, Pittsburgh, (not to pick on, mind you) its close-in suburbs are often either in unicorporated Allegheny County, or organized as "townships", which are meant for a more rural setting. Therefore, these burbs often do not offer basic services such as library, recreation centers, etc, even though some are quite large. The western cities seem to have suburbs that are incorporated into cities, e.g. City of Arvada (Colorado), City of Mesa (Arizona), City of Pasedena (California). Because they are cities, they have a city form of government. Most all, at least here in Colorado, provide other basic services such as libraries, rec centers, park districts, etc.
So perhaps the cities in the west have learned from the cities in the east, which are generally much older, that it doesn't work to build suburbs which are essentially bedrooms to the larger city. Anyone agree or disagree?
I brought up sidewalks in post #4, and did say eastern suburbs "generally" don't have them, not that none of them have sidewalks. Below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
It is the western suburbs that have sidewalks. Eastern suburbs generally do not, therefore are not walkable. Plus, there is not a lot to walk to in some of them. I am old enough to remember some suburban growth in Pittsburgh, and these burbs were built to accomodate cars: large lots, little to no retail (for years afterwards), kids bused to school, no library, few other public facilites, etc. This was in the 1950s and 60s.
The western suburb I live in was once an old mining town till growth hit Colorado in a big way. It still retains its mining heritage, and has a small downtown, where the library is. It just celebrated its 125th birthday this Labor Day.
London's population has grown by at least 2 million in the past 30 years. That's roughly the whole population of Houston.
Still not comparable in any way to the U.S. which is what you were trying to do previously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovelondon
Nobody is proposing density just for density's sake. People who do want density do so because they believe the benefits outweigh the downside that it brings.
After reading many threads here from density advocates there seems to be a false sense of benefits, an anti-car agenda, and more than a smattering of folks interested in increasing numbers solely to be able to rationalize rail-based transit.
Not clear how an additional two million people in the same area brought benefits to London. Sounds like it just got denser with all the downsides density brings.
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.
