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.
no, but not because they necessarily think that renting doesn't happen in the suburbs, but because their blog focuses on urban issues. The same type of article could easily be written in a "new suburbanist" blog. It's an interesting article, but what I'm failing to see is how it's related to "urban enthusiasts imposing their lifestyles on all of us."
The post I responded to was about people renting apartments. I linked to an article about renting. How's everything out in CA? It's been awful in Aurora. I"ve been a little distracted lately. Thanks for asking.
I'm looking at the image on the homepage of that New Urbanism blog, and it certainly doesn't scream "Manhattan densities and no cars" to me--it's a photo of a couple of nice old buildings and people in a park with trees next to a narrow road, not exactly a vision of Soviet-style apartment houses and jam-packed mass transit. Maybe some of the folks so scared about how the New Urbanists are out to get them have an incorrect idea about what New Urbanism is?
She says the “Popsicle test” is a convenient way to use free-roaming kids to gauge a city’s health. “If an 8-year-old child can go get a Popsicle from the store by themselves and finish it before they get home, that city is probably thriving,” says Skenazy. Such an act is possible only in a walkable, reasonably safe environment that has a good pedestrian infrastructure and where retail and residences are relatively intermixed.
The funny thing is, two days after I read this column, I was walking back from the post office to my office on my lunchbreak and ran into a couple neighborhood friends, who were walking to the store with their grandchildren to get ice cream--their "Popsicle shed" was two blocks of tree-lined streets, safe for a gaggle of kids and a couple in their 80s to traverse safely in a few minutes. The scenic, comfortable idyll of kids getting Popsicles doesn't exactly line up with the threatening, paranoid picture of "New Urbanism" that the folks attempting to defend suburban development from "urban enthusiasts" would portray--but it is reality.
I'm looking at the image on the homepage of that New Urbanism blog, and it certainly doesn't scream "Manhattan densities and no cars" to me--it's a photo of a couple of nice old buildings and people in a park with trees next to a narrow road, not exactly a vision of Soviet-style apartment houses and jam-packed mass transit. Maybe some of the folks so scared about how the New Urbanists are out to get them have an incorrect idea about what New Urbanism is?
Well, as there is no specific definition, NU can be anything you want it to be!
It's a picture of a bunch of people gathered for a meeting of some sort. The "New" in New Urbanism does imply "new". ALL of the NU developments I am familiar with are new housing., e.g. Stapleton, Bradburn, Belmar.
So you have never heard people here or irl complain about San Jose being too suburban, wburg? Sacramento has Majin... sometimes it amazes me he has not left for something with tall buildings.
The point is that San Jose, as low-density and car-centric as it is, isn't a suburb, so trying to claim people are trying to turn it into a city strikes me as a bit silly. Changes that might make the people of San Jose or Sacramento less dependent on automobiles, and their neighborhoods more walkable and bikeable, won't transform them into San Francisco. Sacramento has Majin, but do you really consider Majin's opinions representative of the principles of New Urbanism? There are a few people who want Sacramento to look like Singapore, but personally I think they just like rocking it to renderings of skyscrapers.
I am confused by the desire urban enthusiasts have to completely transform urban areas into their dream cities. By that, I mean the desire to extend transit way out into suburbs that they don't live in, harboring hope that gas prices will force us to live in more dense environments, lament about chain stores they don't even shop or eat in, whine about wide freeways when they don't even drive much, etc. American cities offer a plethora of urban options, ranging from high density cities like New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, and DC and lower density choices like Phoenix, Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, etc. I can't understand why an urban enthusiast who lives in a place like San Antonio, for example, would rather exhaust themselves trying to change the urban fabric rather than just work to relocate to a more vibrant place?
You rarely, if ever, see the opposite effect happening. There aren't many in Midtown Manhattan or Noe Hill in San Francisco who stick around trying to suburbanize their environment. Those who want a suburban vibe pick up and move to the suburbs.
Why is there this desire among urban enthusiasts to turn every city into the next Portland or New York?
Alot of the Suburbanites in the Northeast welcome increase Transit and Alt forms of Transportation. It speeds up the community and improves quality of life...i'm not sure what your getting at.
I'm looking at the image on the homepage of that New Urbanism blog, and it certainly doesn't scream "Manhattan densities and no cars" to me--it's a photo of a couple of nice old buildings and people in a park with trees next to a narrow road, not exactly a vision of Soviet-style apartment houses and jam-packed mass transit. Maybe some of the folks so scared about how the New Urbanists are out to get them have an incorrect idea about what New Urbanism is?
The funny thing is, two days after I read this column, I was walking back from the post office to my office on my lunchbreak and ran into a couple neighborhood friends, who were walking to the store with their grandchildren to get ice cream--their "Popsicle shed" was two blocks of tree-lined streets, safe for a gaggle of kids and a couple in their 80s to traverse safely in a few minutes. The scenic, comfortable idyll of kids getting Popsicles doesn't exactly line up with the threatening, paranoid picture of "New Urbanism" that the folks attempting to defend suburban development from "urban enthusiasts" would portray--but it is reality.
I actually like that test. It is about daily life rather than headline attractions. I think every moderate-sized city should have those neighborhoods and most do. I mean Sacramento, to me, isn't the poster child for New Urbanism. Of course, it helps if the only kids in the neighborhood are not visiting their grandparents as most parents will chose schools, parks, sport activities, libraries, public safety, and such over Popsicle test. There is absolutely no reason that one should be mutual exclusive from the other... but too many cities put the emphasis on headline attractions rather than just focusing on making neighborhoods that are good to live in. Popsicle sheds don't garner much media attention, however, so for egomaniacs looking to leave a legacy... not that there is not room for legacy leaving as well, but cart before the horse.
Well, as there is no specific definition, NU can be anything you want it to be!
It's a picture of a bunch of people gathered for a meeting of some sort. The "New" in New Urbanism does imply "new". ALL of the NU developments I am familiar with are new housing., e.g. Stapleton, Bradburn, Belmar.
I think the "new" in "New Urbanism" refers to the philosophy, not the buildings. That said, obviously if you're going to make a "New Urban" development, _something_ has to be newer than the origin of said philosophy -- so that photo of an old park near some old buildings cannot exemplify New Urbanism.
An article about New Urbanism that I read some long time ago quoted one of the founders as saying the "Old Urbanism", what so many on this forum like/want/aspire to wasn't good either. This is supposed to be a "new" way of doing things. Of course, it's heavily reliant on technology; everyone is supposed to be working at home if not 'above the store'.
I actually like that test. It is about daily life rather than headline attractions. I think every moderate-sized city should have those neighborhoods and most do. I mean Sacramento, to me, isn't the poster child for New Urbanism. Of course, it helps if the only kids in the neighborhood are not visiting their grandparents as most parents will chose schools, parks, sport activities, libraries, public safety, and such over Popsicle test. There is absolutely no reason that one should be mutual exclusive from the other... but too many cities put the emphasis on headline attractions rather than just focusing on making neighborhoods that are good to live in. Popsicle sheds don't garner much media attention, however, so for egomaniacs looking to leave a legacy... not that there is not room for legacy leaving as well, but cart before the horse.
It does help if the only kids aren't ones visiting their grandkids--fortunately, they aren't. Sacramento isn't the poster-child for New Urbanism as a whole (that would be Portland) but the central city is a pretty good representation of what they are talking about, after a couple generations of bottom-up efforts (the grandmother in question moved here 40 years ago and is a long-time advocate for walkable neighborhoods, affordable housing, rehab of older homes, etcetera) to shift the suburban tide.
And no, just because there is "new" in the word "new urbanism" doesn't mean it requires new buildings. As my neighbor will tell you, people were heading this way decades before the term appeared, and it involves old neighborhoods--including building new neighborhoods that use older neighborhoods as models.
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.
