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.
Suburbs were laided back before the 1950s, too. It's a 14th century term, and suburbanization in America occurred during the Victorian era. It's not something that started in the 1950s.
I think the best type of human settlement is one where modern man is more or less living in harmony with the natural world instead of against it. Which might be impossible to do a 100% but the goal being to consciously and collectively striving to make as minimal environmental impact as possible. To achieve a better balance between the demands of the modern world and preservation of the natural world.
some random examples,
* ban clear-cutting of forests, implement and enforce responsible forestry and replanting techniques. at the rate they are chopping everything down, the amazon rainforest may be nearly gone within our lifetime. because companies just want to make a quick buck. they could care less about using responsible methods. they just want to cut down anything and everything in sight as fast as they can, while dreaming up evermore elaborate methods and fancy machinery to do it. they call it 'productivity.'
* ban the use of plastic bags, which forces people to bring their own bags to the store when buying stuff, helping to reduce the number of toxic landfills.
* replace sprawl with compact mixed-use development, making cities more walkable, preserving greenspace, reducing reliance on dirty fossil fuels and automobiles, etc.
* ban GMO food products in the US and Canada, or at least require strict labeling of all GMO products. as they have done in the EU and Japan. and ban factory farming too, both hugely environmentally destructive.
Having a discussion with a friend, and this question came up.
What do you think?
Why or why not?
No, not the way they are today. I don't think people were meant to live in over crowding cities crammed in like sardines. That's what i think of when you say cities. It's good to socialize but when to many people are gathered together in cities (living space) they can become less caring, less empathizing. People can't get to know everyone in one city so it's not really good for socializing either. The need for survival kicks in because too many people crammed in one living space (neighborhood) can be threatening.
I just don't see many cities that crowded, at least not in the United States. Nor do I think that not knowing everyone in a city constitutes "not good for socializing"--if you want to socialize in a city, you can, but you're not necessarily required to do so. What constitutes "crammed"?
I've felt far more constrained in a small town, where everyone knows everyone and therefore everyone knows everyone's business (whether it is their business or not) than in a bigger city where there are actually things to do other than gossip about what the neighbors are doin.
Personally i think suburbs are similiar to any royal place or fort. Suburbs were moved into to show power and respect. Only recently have suburbs no longer become a place of isolation to show power since they have become more populace and have gained a somewhat laided back city atmosphere.
I disagree about the comparison. Palaces and forts, by and large, were the most densely populated structures in the middle ages. They were also not created for isolation (until really, really late for some palaces) but in order to strategically control local resources.
I do agree that the purpose of modern suburbs was to show people could be isolated from the lower classes however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
Suburbs were laided back before the 1950s, too. It's a 14th century term, and suburbanization in America occurred during the Victorian era. It's not something that started in the 1950s.
True. But there's a difference between the earliest suburbs and later ones.
Look at Connecticut, for example. The first few suburbs which developed along the rail lines, Greenwich and Stamford, were built as mini New Yorks. There was an understanding there had to be somewhere for servants and shopkeepers and the like to live, so a poor section was designed near the railroad tracks. It was only when the next suburb was laid out (New Canaan) they realized they could make a town with no affordable housing and force the poor to commute in for work. It was the first "fake community" of nothing but estates. Happened well-before the 1950s of course, as the rail connections to NYC allowed it.
Gosh, I've been reading along and clicking posts I want to respond to. I think I've got almost every post clicked! I'll try to cut it back here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyurban
Would it be safe to say that the majority of people in suburbs don't even know their neighbors. Most suburbs don't even have sidewalks, so I know for a fact no one is interacting. You don't even have a safe path to walk on. It's creating more dense housing around public gathering spots. Whether it be a school, park, or civic center. That's what creates social networks. Think about the old charming small town's back in the day where people did most of their everyday things in the town center. The town center was where people went to work, socialize, shop, eat, buy groceries and on their way back home they would bump into neighbors. All of this done by walking, biking, or a very very short drive.
Living in houses straight off the baking sheet where one has to drive to the nearest gym just to run on a treadmil becuase their own neighborhood doesn't have a safe path to run on doesn't create a community. The same with big congested cities where you can't interact with anyone because you're too busy fighting for some space. It's about creating a balance.
This is the typical "suburbs area all alike and they're all bad" mantra. I'll address a few points.
It seems that older suburbs, and sometimes newer ones too, in the eastern US are built w/o sidewalks. That is not the case in the midwest and the west, where practically every subdivision is built with sidewalks. Now granted, I'm only talking about what I know, something that seems noticeably absent on CD, not just on this forum, but on many, if not most forums. The suburbs of Chicago, Omaha and Denver have sidewalks. It is not necessary to have sidewalks to interact with one's neighbors, either. In my suburb, one constantly runs into neighbors acquaintances in stores and restaurants, no matter how one got there. Most burbs out here in metro Denver also have biking and walking paths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
I'm personally a big fan of cohousing, as I think it's a more natural setting for humans, although I'm fairly sure I'll never live in any, as it's too rare and expensive within the U.S. But it solves a lot of the problems with modern single-family living - particularly around child care. It could easily be built in an urban setting as well - say with a large block with rowhouses ringing it, and a central courtyard open to the whole community.
What do you mean by that? Surely you don't expect the to leave your kids at home alone and expect the neighbors to watch them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid
I should include villages and towns in the historical precedent category. In European countries you see tons of these little villages and towns everywhere, many serving an agricultural function. Because of their historical status, many also enjoy a substantial income from tourism. They seem to be the equivalent of suburbs. Examples of sustainable human settlements that have survived through the ages and will probably still be standing for a long time to come.
The European countries I visited did not have tons of these little villages and towns. They had cities, big cities, and bigger cities. Germany seemed to have the most open land and farmland. Again, I'm talking what I know; Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
Who decides on this "meant to" stuff? Even agriculture is a relatively recent invention. Were we "meant to" cook food, wear clothes, use flush toilets? Who did this "meaning" in the first place, and who thinks they have a particular insight into how we were meant to live?
I agree. Having grown up in Amish country, I have seen a society that decided when progress or whatever you want to call it ended.
Except for the very low density suburbs, all of Nassau County (Long Island) has sidewalks. My suburb didn't but it was on a very quiet street, I don't see why it needs one.
What do you mean by that? Surely you don't expect the to leave your kids at home alone and expect the neighbors to watch them?
Absolutely I do. One of the standard things cohousing involves is shared child care. Sometimes this means the cohousing has a formal day care attached. In other cases it's just a matter of you watch my kids, I'll watch yours. It's the way it was done through most societies since the dawn of the human race (although admittedly, in those cases your neighbors were often family). What's so odd about it?
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.
