U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-22-2013, 12:07 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,011,094 times
Reputation: 1349

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
But, in the views of some, it's all evil suburbia if one doesn't live in close proximity to the city center in a pre-war streetcar suburb regardless of the reason.
If you look at the nation as a whole, auto-centricity is costly, above and beyond what individual consumers (drivers, homeowners/renters) pay directly for that auto-centricity. And suburbs tend to be auto-centric. It's easy to then say, correct or not, that suburbs are net negative, cost-wise, as a development form.

"Evil" is such a vague, flexible term, and, while I feel it is inappropriate to use to describe an area, I can see why someone might feel so strongly as to use the term.

 
Old 01-22-2013, 12:11 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
10,238 posts, read 18,787,773 times
Reputation: 10164
I thought hipsters were people like Anita O'Day, Red Rodney, Charlie Parker and Lenny Bruce.
 
Old 01-22-2013, 12:16 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,130,556 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Well, well, well. Welcome back! I coined "urbanista" to describe a FEW, very "hard core" urbanists on this forum. I quit using it a while back, when some (you?) said they found it offensive. "Hipster" is a regular word in use and not intended to be pejorative. Any offense is in the recipient's head.
Hipster these days generally used as a negative; it's describing yourself as 1-D stereotype, not something anyone would want to describe themselves.

As to "urbanista" I found it slightly offensive but didn't mind enough to complain much. But thanks for stopping. And unlike "sprawlites" urbanista was aimed at particular people on the forum. It's hard to figure out who counts as "hard-core" by your definition, I assumed I might count. In any case, I'll present a "hard-core urbanista" view. If one's looking for an urban, non-car reliant neighborhood, one has to look at something more urban than (most) but not all streetcar suburbs.

Old Urbanist: Downtown is for People

It could be said that Detroit was a city built around the automobile before the automobile existed. Low-density, use-segregated, single-family detached homes on wide streets lent themselves to motorized personal transport much more than mass transit. And once the car had arrived, why not simply move the department store, the supermarket, and even the workplace itself closer to one's residence?

Last edited by nei; 01-22-2013 at 01:07 PM..
 
Old 01-22-2013, 12:20 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,011,094 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Which really aren't properly characterized as suburbs at all now and in most instances are for intents and purposes, central city neighborhoods now. They we're frequently built on grids, with interconnected streets, most houses in narrow lots, mixed use and all-in-all quite urban.

They bare almost no resemblance to the modern post war automobile oriented suburbs, built on dendritic pattern of roads on large lots, in pod-like separation and not urban at all.

Frequently on these discussions someone invariable points to a streetcar suburb as evidence suburbs aren't terrible places. Streetcar suburbs are not the same animal as modern suburbs and not properly characterized as such.
While I think the use of "terrible" makes the post read as biased against suburbs (ignoring other posts), I also think that streetcar suburbs and auto-centric suburbs are so different in form and, therefore, predominant mode of transit as to, generally, support Komeht's point. Streetcar suburbs should not be used to defend auto-centric suburbs, though they are both sub-urban.
 
Old 01-22-2013, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,085 posts, read 102,844,640 times
Reputation: 33152
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
In lots of cities peak-schedule transit (which teachers would be using) would be at a frequency where careful adherence to the schedule is not really that critical. If someone was teaching somewhere where the bus had 1 hour or 40-minute frequencies, then yes it would be inconvenient.
I don't want to get into a hijack talking about teachers, but. . . most of them work funny hours like 7:30 to 4:00 and the like, not exactly right in the rush hour mode. Nurses in hospitals work these gawd-awful 12 hour ****s which can be anything, most commonly 7-7, but also some other combos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
While I think the use of "terrible" makes the post read as biased against suburbs (ignoring other posts), I also think that streetcar suburbs and auto-centric suburbs are so different in form and, therefore, predominant mode of transit as to, generally, support Komeht's point. Streetcar suburbs should not be used to defend auto-centric suburbs, though they are both sub-urban.
Perhaps not, but not all non-streetcar suburbs are "auto-centric suburbs". There's more to suburbia than that, if we can even define what suburbia is.

ETA: I don't know what the filter didn't like about the word "shift" to ** it out.
 
Old 01-22-2013, 12:31 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,126,244 times
Reputation: 3118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I don't want to get into a hijack talking about teachers, but. . . most of them work funny hours like 7:30 to 4:00 and the like, not exactly right in the rush hour mode. Nurses in hospitals work these gawd-awful 12 hour ****s which can be anything, most commonly 7-7, but also some other combos.
I will desist. In most cities with good transit, however, it wouldn't be an issue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
not all non-streetcar suburbs are "auto-centric suburbs".
Which ones were designed with the dominant mode of transport something other than auto? I'm not aware of any, personally.
 
Old 01-22-2013, 12:31 PM
 
6,637 posts, read 4,619,242 times
Reputation: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
If you look at the nation as a whole, auto-centricity is costly, above and beyond what individual consumers (drivers, homeowners/renters) pay directly for that auto-centricity. And suburbs tend to be auto-centric. It's easy to then say, correct or not, that suburbs are net negative, cost-wise, as a development form.

"Evil" is such a vague, flexible term, and, while I feel it is inappropriate to use to describe an area, I can see why someone might feel so strongly as to use the term.
The OP's stance is that any suburb built post-war is "evil" and only "sprawlites" live in them. In his or her view, the only "good" suburbs are ones built pre-war that were or currently are served by streetcars and are in close proximity to the urban downtown core.

Clearly the OP is basing their opinions on cities he or she is familiar with. My point is that not all cities are created the same. The OP assumes all cities have just one central business district, located in the most urban part of the downtown core and that's where most of the people work. And if that's true, then I would say in that city, someone living in the suburbs would likely have a longer commute than someone living in downtown.

But, what about cities that have more than one business district like mine? What possible benefit would arise from building urban housing for people who work in the 2 large suburban business districts? Those people would have a longer commutes if they lived downtown. Their choice to reside in the suburbs close to their jobs actually decreases their auto use and dependence. How exactly does that make living in a post-war suburb an "evil" choice?
 
Old 01-22-2013, 12:33 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,126,244 times
Reputation: 3118
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me View Post
What possible benefit would arise from building urban housing for people who work in the 2 large suburban business districts?
How can you allocate for whom housing is built? Why are you alleging that housing built downtown is intended for these people?
 
Old 01-22-2013, 01:05 PM
 
6,637 posts, read 4,619,242 times
Reputation: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
How can you allocate for whom housing is built? Why are you alleging that housing built downtown is intended for these people?
Sigh... I'm not allocating or alleging anything. I'm simply stating that based on what some urbanists post on this forum and others, if they had their way housing would be built only in the central urban core and suburbs would be forbidden. Some urbanists are unable or unwilling to recognize that urban development is not always the appropriate answer. Sometimes one has to quit looking at everything through "urban" colored glasses and consider that all cities are not built the same and that what is appropriate for one could possibly be inappropriate for another.

People need to stop generalizing. Is that really all that hard to comprehend?
 
Old 01-22-2013, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Poshawa, Ontario
2,986 posts, read 3,332,157 times
Reputation: 5622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Not all suburbs are sprawl. Not all sprawl is negative. What's wrong with the term "suburbanites" for people who live in the suburbs? Not pejorative enough?
ITYM not inflammatory enough, and just as ignorant as referring to urbanites as "roach herders."

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
whatever the term… of those who do commute to the city center, I doubt they are unaware of the length of their commute. Choosing to have a very long commute* is rather odd to me, but regardless of the merits of their choice, those have long commutes know what the pros and cons of their choice. After commuting for years, you know how long it takes. Maybe some people deliberately underestimate in conversation.
It funny you mention this. I have a friend who used to take the subway from Scarborough to downtown Toronto to work. She said this used to take 90 minutes on average. Since moving to Oshawa (aka "the subburbs") her commute has been reduced to 75 minutes, which is directly in line with my commute from Oshawa to Toronto as well.

Yep... City living sure has its benefits!
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top