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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-22-2013, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,074 posts, read 16,102,108 times
Reputation: 12647

Advertisements

Also, the bigger shift from cities to suburbs occurred not because of the automobile but the train. Posted about that before, and I'm just too lazy to dig up the source material again. Cars just continued what the train started in making it possible for more and more people to live farther than they could walk to everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-12-2013, 02:02 AM
 
6,353 posts, read 5,167,603 times
Reputation: 8528
"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." -WJC

If by "cookie cutter" you mean "repetitive," then some of the most beautiful streets of London, Paris, Boston, etc. are cookie cutter. However, it has become a term of abuse, so what I think the OP meant is "nice" or "not nice."

The Philly and Brooklyn row houses are very nice. They are what a cookie cutter should be used for. The Chinatown building is kind of meh, although we know that the rest of New York is just around the corner so we tend to think of it as nice by association. There is no way the great castles of Upper Montclair were made using a cookie cutter, and I think they're very nice. I wish I had one (so that I could sell it). The Maplewood street is the same but on a more modest scale. I can't figure out the South Central LA picture. I hate Stuy Town to no end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 07:30 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,663,662 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." -WJC

If by "cookie cutter" you mean "repetitive," then some of the most beautiful streets of London, Paris, Boston, etc. are cookie cutter. However, it has become a term of abuse, so what I think the OP meant is "nice" or "not nice."

The Philly and Brooklyn row houses are very nice. They are what a cookie cutter should be used for. The Chinatown building is kind of meh, although we know that the rest of New York is just around the corner so we tend to think of it as nice by association. There is no way the great castles of Upper Montclair were made using a cookie cutter, and I think they're very nice. I wish I had one (so that I could sell it). The Maplewood street is the same but on a more modest scale. I can't figure out the South Central LA picture. I hate Stuy Town to no end.
And on the other hand, tract housing, built in the suburbs and meant to be affordable to young people buying their first house, is "not nice"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 08:12 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,109,839 times
Reputation: 3117
Where are such suburban tract developments for young people being built?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 08:42 AM
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
45,991 posts, read 42,018,377 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
And on the other hand, tract housing, built in the suburbs and meant to be affordable to young people buying their first house, is "not nice"?
imo, no not as nice. Aesthethically less interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Monmouth County, NJ & Staten Island, NY
407 posts, read 408,013 times
Reputation: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
imo, no not as nice. Aesthethically less interesting.
I can totally understand how this is a matter of opinion, but I don't see how a neighborhood can be inherently more or less aesthetically interesting because it's "suburban" versus "urban". I don't see how this can inherently determine the aesthetics of a place. To me, it's about subjectively looking at a specific place and determining it's aesthetics.

For example, while neither one of these next two examples would be anywhere I'd ever want to live (way too dense), I'd find this to be really nice looking, and wouldn't mind enjoying a walk around here if I was visiting the city for a while, as opposed to this, which despite being "urban and dense", is completely hideous and would be a hellish place for me to live, probably giving me panic attacks and being enraged all the time having to live "on top" of each other like that. I need space.

The same goes for suburban communities: I would find a place like this to be very aesthetically pleasing, an acceptable density and a nice range of different styles of homes, and I'd even go so far as to say that I would love to eventually buy a home in this type of neighborhood, made fun of for being "cookie cutter McMansions", however I can clearly see several different styles of home. That, and I find them (and the neighborhood) to be very comforting, homey and aesthetically pleasing. That being said, I find a suburban community laid out like this has way too high of a density for my liking, and is not very aesthetically pleasing either. I cherry-picked a few examples from across the country, since were just talking about suburbs versus urban areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 11:10 AM
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
45,991 posts, read 42,018,377 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft View Post
I can totally understand how this is a matter of opinion, but I don't see how a neighborhood can be inherently more or less aesthetically interesting because it's "suburban" versus "urban". I don't see how this can inherently determine the aesthetics of a place. To me, it's about subjectively looking at a specific place and determining it's aesthetics.

For example, while neither one of these next two examples would be anywhere I'd ever want to live (way too dense), I'd find this to be really nice looking, and wouldn't mind enjoying a walk around here if I was visiting the city for a while, as opposed to this, which despite being "urban and dense", is completely hideous and would be a hellish place for me to live, probably giving me panic attacks and being enraged all the time having to live "on top" of each other like that. I need space.
I was comparing to the two urban "cookie-cutter" examples the OP used that I think are aesthetically appealing, I wasn't comparing to all urban, dense locations. Nor do I think all urban locations are aesthetically more interesting. I find your first link much more appealing than the second, though I won't go so far as to call the second hideous or hellish. The first one is probably denser than the second, possibly by a lot.

I don't care that much about space, within limits, but to each his (or her) own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Monmouth County, NJ & Staten Island, NY
407 posts, read 408,013 times
Reputation: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I was comparing to the two urban "cookie-cutter" examples the OP used that I think are aesthetically appealing, I wasn't comparing to all urban, dense locations. Nor do I think all urban locations are aesthetically more interesting. I find your first link much more appealing than the second, though I won't go so far as to call the second hideous or hellish. The first one is probably denser than the second, possibly by a lot.
I understand. It wasn't so much directed towards you, I should have specified that I find that a lot of people on here have that blind approach to things like that. The first urban space does appear a lot denser, but I was mainly comparing the aesthetics of the two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I don't care that much about space, within limits, but to each his (or her) own.
I think what it comes down to is people's desire for personal vs public, individualist vs collective, private spaces/experiences vs public spaces/experiences.

One making a decent salary could choose to live in downtown Brooklyn in a decent apartment and pay high enough rent/cost of living, versus someone who could live in a southern/midwestern suburb and spend the same amount of money on a decent sized suburban home and plot of land. The person who chose the city might prefer more public, shared and collective lifestyle: walking around crowded "vibrant" streets, taking mass transit, using public parks/pools, preference for closer proximity to cultural institutions. The latter such as me, would choose the more personal, individualist and private lifestyle: shopping at big box stores, malls and strip malls, having a large backyard with a pool to hang out in, having a big driveway and garage to wash and/or work on cars (and extra space for visitors), larger interior space for extra rooms like a sizable home office, more bathrooms (mainly to do with families), more room for people to spread out and be comfortable, room for a home movie theater setup in the basement, playrooms for kids, big kitchen and dining room for company/parties, big backyard deck for summer barbeques, etc.

It's beyond a simple preference for density and space, but rather what a person's real desires are out of their lifestyle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 01:28 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,663,662 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
Where are such suburban tract developments for young people being built?
In the (gasp!) suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 01:48 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,109,839 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
In the (gasp!) suburbs.
I mean that was obviously your point, but I just don't see it here, really.

I cant think of a single 20 or 30 something I knew who purchased new construction, anywhere.

I think it might be a dated notion, except for expensive communities.

Last edited by HandsUpThumbsDown; 03-12-2013 at 02:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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