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 05-22-2013, 07:17 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,414 posts, read 11,913,851 times
Reputation: 10533

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by citylover94 View Post
Not all street car suburbs have uses separated and single family homes. For example both Somerville and Cambridge in the Boston area developed as streetcar suburbs but are almost entirely built up with double and triple decker apartments with some larger apartments in and near the squares which act as neighborhood shopping areas.
No, I understand, but the residential density was typically lower.

For instance, here in Pittsburgh, the streetcar suburb neighborhoods, while mostly detached, have a fair number of duplexes (two houses next to one another). By the early 20th century, Pittsburgh was experimenting with its own version of the double decker as well, but it wasn't very prominent. Occasionally there were small stands of rowhouses, but usually no more than 4-6 attached, with ample front and back lawns.

Still, this was much different than the former urban typology, which had zero to near-zero setback from the street, and the houses either very close or directly touching one another.

Perhaps I should have said "universal residential" rather than "universal single-family housing" looking back on it though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2013, 05:08 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,555,922 times
Reputation: 5662
Having a bunch of single family homes is definitely "suburban" to me... and of course there are areas like this in Chicago and NYC. I personally don't like these areas, but are a good balance of suburban quietness yet still close to the city. I'd say for them, they live in a suburban neighborhood in feel but close to urban amenities. For full on suburbs, the neighborhoods look mostly the same yet lack the urban commercial corridors. Many people I know in Chicago live in areas like this and I kind of wonder what is the point of living in the city... They don't really want "city/urban" life, they want their suburban type quiet neighborhood with SFH's yet closer in to work with suburban amenities example Lincoln Square, West Ridge or Roscoe Village and still driving their cars to Whole Foods, Home Depot and Target, basically the same life they did in the suburb but now they can go out to more cool restaurants or bars. To me, these type of people are suburbanites at heart that just happen to live in the city. If not, they'd choose to live in a more urban area of the city like East Lincoln Park, Printers Row, East Lakeview, River North, West Loop, Old Town, etc. Even some neighborhoods can have an "urban" aesthetic, then a suburban aesthetic. For instance Rogers Park by the Lake and Loyola is pretty urban built up. Go over west of clark street and it feels way more suburban. Same can be said for other wide neighborhoods like Lakeview.

Hence why many sunbelt city people will get mad at me when I tell them virtually their entire city is suburban... Oh well. City limits don't mean anything, it's the look and functionality of the area. Downtown Evanston is more urban than several actual neighborhoods of Chicago. Jersey City is more urban than many areas of Staten Island. etc. etc.

Last edited by grapico; 08-10-2013 at 05:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 05:56 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,985 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Having a bunch of single family homes is definitely "suburban" to me... and of course there are areas like this in Chicago and NYC. I personally don't like these areas, but are a good balance of suburban quietness yet still close to the city. I'd say for them, they live in a suburban neighborhood in feel but close to urban amenities. For full on suburbs, the neighborhoods look mostly the same yet lack the urban commercial corridors. Many people I know in Chicago live in areas like this and I kind of wonder what is the point of living in the city... They don't really want "city/urban" life, they want their suburban type quiet neighborhood with SFH's yet closer in to work with suburban amenities example Lincoln Square, West Ridge or Roscoe Village and still driving their cars to Whole Foods, Home Depot and Target, basically the same life they did in the suburb but now they can go out to more cool restaurants or bars. To me, these type of people are suburbanites at heart that just happen to live in the city. If not, they'd choose to live in a more urban area of the city like East Lincoln Park, Printers Row, East Lakeview, River North, West Loop, Old Town, etc. Even some neighborhoods can have an "urban" aesthetic, then a suburban aesthetic. For instance Rogers Park by the Lake and Loyola is pretty urban built up. Go over west of clark street and it feels way more suburban. Same can be said for other wide neighborhoods like Lakeview.

Hence why many sunbelt city people will get mad at me when I tell them virtually their entire city is suburban... Oh well. City limits don't mean anything, it's the look and functionality of the area. Downtown Evanston is more urban than several actual neighborhoods of Chicago. Jersey City is more urban than many areas of Staten Island. etc. etc.
Pretty judgmental, aren't we?

And where is it written that "urban" has to mean "multi-family housing"?

One night, I was watching "House Hunters" (yeah, I know), and this couple was looking for a house in a hipster neighborhood of Denver. They ended up in a more residential neighborhood because. . . . the homes were less expensive and had more amenities. One house in "Hipsterville" had the master bedroom in the basement!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2013, 07:30 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,555,922 times
Reputation: 5662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Pretty judgmental, aren't we?

And where is it written that "urban" has to mean "multi-family housing"?

One night, I was watching "House Hunters" (yeah, I know), and this couple was looking for a house in a hipster neighborhood of Denver. They ended up in a more residential neighborhood because. . . . the homes were less expensive and had more amenities. One house in "Hipsterville" had the master bedroom in the basement!
No, it's true based on years of experience. Also, that is STRAIGHT UP what they tell me they like when asked about it. These are usually people who maybe have pets or whatever, or are actually from the suburbs, or are trying to start a family, or the more urban areas of the city was too much for them. It's also true based on the very fact that these areas exist, they are in high use, and continue to be built. I never said a single single family detached house would destroy an urban environment... But when you have block after block of SFH's on a street and happen to be in the city limits, I'd say you are living with a suburban aesthetic, in the city limits. I never said that was a *bad* choice, but it's definitely a choice they made.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,893 posts, read 7,653,336 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Having a bunch of single family homes is definitely "suburban" to me... and of course there are areas like this in Chicago and NYC. I personally don't like these areas, but are a good balance of suburban quietness yet still close to the city. I'd say for them, they live in a suburban neighborhood in feel but close to urban amenities. For full on suburbs, the neighborhoods look mostly the same yet lack the urban commercial corridors. Many people I know in Chicago live in areas like this and I kind of wonder what is the point of living in the city... They don't really want "city/urban" life, they want their suburban type quiet neighborhood with SFH's yet closer in to work with suburban amenities example Lincoln Square, West Ridge or Roscoe Village and still driving their cars to Whole Foods, Home Depot and Target, basically the same life they did in the suburb but now they can go out to more cool restaurants or bars. To me, these type of people are suburbanites at heart that just happen to live in the city. If not, they'd choose to live in a more urban area of the city like East Lincoln Park, Printers Row, East Lakeview, River North, West Loop, Old Town, etc. Even some neighborhoods can have an "urban" aesthetic, then a suburban aesthetic. For instance Rogers Park by the Lake and Loyola is pretty urban built up. Go over west of clark street and it feels way more suburban. Same can be said for other wide neighborhoods like Lakeview.

Hence why many sunbelt city people will get mad at me when I tell them virtually their entire city is suburban... Oh well. City limits don't mean anything, it's the look and functionality of the area. Downtown Evanston is more urban than several actual neighborhoods of Chicago. Jersey City is more urban than many areas of Staten Island. etc. etc.
I think you're setting the bar for urban way too high. I don't know those neighborhoods, but looked at them quickly with Google streetview, and assuming they have good transit and walkable commercial districts, those would be my ideal kind of city neighborhood to live in.

Finally, if those neighborhoods are suburban, then what do you call this? https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&l...,98.4,,0,10.07 Which would you rather live in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 08:35 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,555,922 times
Reputation: 5662
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR_C View Post
I think you're setting the bar for urban way too high. I don't know those neighborhoods, but looked at them quickly with Google streetview, and assuming they have good transit and walkable commercial districts, those would be my ideal kind of city neighborhood to live in.

Finally, if those neighborhoods are suburban, then what do you call this? https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&l...,98.4,,0,10.07 Which would you rather live in?
Where did you look exactly? Those neighborhoods are 3+ square miles so have a mix. Maybe you aren't sure where to look. Which ones are you looking at? This mix is a blessing for some, and a detractor for others. But the mix totally makes Chicago, well Chicago, and not one of the major east coast cities.

That is definitely suburban also and there are levels of it. Older and newer suburbs will have stylistic differences. Many of the neighborhoods I reference in Chicago *were* streetcar suburbs and were annexed in by the city. They might be highrises in one section but if you go 2 miles west you are in a pre WW2 suburban built environment, the only difference is you will have a commercial boulevard street running approximately every .5 miles intersect with it. The level of development styles on these commercial blocks is also different throughout the city. In some parts it is blocked up nicely to the street, in others you might have giant big box stores. Chicago, like Los Angeles but not to that extreme, is more of a mixed bag than some of the older East Coast cities in this regard. I can easily tell the different development style and feel as well as measure out why it works that way though. This is why you have many urban enthusiasts when they post Chicago areas or stats staying within a threshold of the lake of about 16-20 blocks going up from downtown on the Northside near the red and brown lines.

Last edited by grapico; 08-11-2013 at 08:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Youngstown, Oh.
4,893 posts, read 7,653,336 times
Reputation: 4508
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
Where did you look exactly? Those neighborhoods are 3+ square miles so have a mix. Maybe you aren't sure where to look. Which ones are you looking at?
I looked at the 3 you mentioned: Lincoln Square, West Ridge and Roscoe Village. I typed those names, followed by Chicago, Il. into Google's map page, and got an outlined shape on a map.

After getting the location, I'd look near the pin, which was usually near or at the commercial district. Of the 3, Roscoe Village appeared to have the most pleasant commercial street, but they all had commercial districts.

Then, I'd look at a couple random spots within the shape that Google defined.

I didn't see anything that came even close to my suburban example.

No fair, you significantly edited your post after I replied!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 09:03 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,985 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Some of you (not you JR_C) set a pretty high bar for "urban". Not only does it have to be walkable, thisable, thatable, it has to have a majority of multi-family housing, people shouldn't have pets or kids (now we know why people think a crying baby is a violation of a warrant of habitability), yada, yada, yada. We'll never have a definition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 09:29 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 24,555,922 times
Reputation: 5662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Some of you (not you JR_C) set a pretty high bar for "urban". Not only does it have to be walkable, thisable, thatable, it has to have a majority of multi-family housing, people shouldn't have pets or kids (now we know why people think a crying baby is a violation of a warrant of habitability), yada, yada, yada. We'll never have a definition.
You are twisting my words as well as everybody elses around in this thread. Yes it should be walkable and not have blocks after blocks of single family homes. That is good urban planning. If it isn't walkable, it was designed poorly. Why would you want crappy design where you can't walk to where you need to go? That is what suburbs are for, to get in your car and drive everywhere. City limits mean absolutely NOTHING as far as what good urban design is or not. If you want to argue some odd definition of " 1,000 people per square mile "is still urban by some weird UN stat or whatever statistic you want feel free, but actually talk to urban planners and they will look at you crazy. I feel like I am in some bizarro world on this forum where nobody has actually been to a well planned city built on a human scale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2013, 09:40 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,985 posts, read 102,540,351 times
Reputation: 33045
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
You are twisting my words as well as everybody elses around in this thread. Yes it should be walkable and not have blocks after blocks of single family homes. That is good urban planning. If it isn't walkable, it was designed poorly. Why would you want crappy design where you can't walk to where you need to go? That is what suburbs are for, to get in your car and drive everywhere. City limits mean absolutely NOTHING as far as what good urban design is or not. If you want to argue some odd definition of " 1,000 people per square mile "is still urban by some weird UN stat or whatever statistic you want feel free, but actually talk to urban planners and they will look at you crazy. I feel like I am in some bizarro world on this forum where nobody has actually been to a well planned city built on a human scale.
Holy Cats!

What's wrong with "block after block of single family homes"? Some of those bungalows in Chicago are on 25 foot wide lots. That's hardly "suburban" in character, by most anyone's definition.

I'm not arguing any of the above; my main argument is if it's in the city limits, it's the city. Period. That definition has its limitations, but it's simple and easy to implement. You're entitiled to your opinion, but you are not required to post on here.
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