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.
I think it's pretty clear that my comment, about most suburban neighborhoods being unpleasant to walk around in, is subjective in nature. For those whose experience is different, more power to them. After all, I didn't say every suburban neighborhood, I said most. And I believe this is especially true when new suburban neighborhoods are built (which is central to this thread), since they rarely feature mature trees which soften the monotony of the tract-style housing and huge snout garages. Furthermore, even if you happen to live in a suburban neighborhood which is leafy and pretty, the lack of diversity and civic activity is likely to contribute negatively to the walking experience.
Again... all subjective, so no documentation would be practical here.
As for the public schools comparison, you have to be joking. Whatever your opinion of your local public schools, sending kids there cannot be considered "unsustainable behavior". And it benefits everyone when these schools succeed in adequately preparing a work force for our community's next generation of employers.
And if you disagree with state parks, then that's your call... write your congressperson. But it's hard to argue that they're a bad thing, unless you are of the persuasion that every acre of America should feature a farm, a mine, or a strip mall.
And you would be wrong. Have you been in "most" suburban neighborhoods in the US? Somehow, I doubt it. To reiterate what you said " all subjective". Even here in CO, where the trees don't grow very fast, we planted a couple of trees in our backyard 24 years ago that tower above the house now. They were pretty good size by 10 years of growth.
Of course new suburban neighborhoods don't feature mature trees. Neither do new city neighborhoods. It does take a few years even for the fastest-growing trees to grow.
And what the H*** are you talking about with lack of civic activity? I spent more time than I'd like to tally going to council meetings and talking to the city council. City elections here can get very "active", with signs all over the place. Candidates usually come door to door, unlike ciites where some old ward heeler might show up, but not the candidate him/herself. Right now there is a flurry of emails going back and forth in my neighborhood about the Mormon church expanding their parking lot and building some sort of a gazebo on their own land! Do you know the name of your councilperson? Have you ever met him/her? A cute story: when our current mayor was running for office, he came to the door. He is a physician, so I asked him where he practiced. He told me and I told him I am a nurse. He asked me where I worked, and it turns out he took his kids to our practice. I probably gave his kids a few shots! Can you say the same, or anything else personal about your mayor? The former mayor lives in my neighborhood. His daughter and my younger daughter were friends in elementary school. Can you say the same?
Regarding schools and parks, do you not understand irony?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
That is true, that is definitely more of a failing on the city's part with zoning and providing adequate service go the residents.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with zoning. Would you like to live upstreet from a steel mill, like I did as small child? Of course, the mills are all gone now anyway. And who pays for city services? Why the taxpayers, that's who!
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
That sounds like it is more the failing of the city and region for not providing the options for commuting that was promised.
More like the developer for promising what could not be delivered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell
I wasn't equating "leafiness" to lack of diversity and civic activity. Those are simply the average characteristics of suburban development.
And fine... you can write your congressperson about national parks, and your state representative about state parks. Is that better?
NO THEY'RE NOT! Get thee to the suburbs. Talk to people!
1) They make this thing called rental cars. If people want to live someplace where that would not be necessary, I think that's great that they can do that just like they always could and always will be able to.
2) I don't find my suburban neighborhood at all unpleasant to walk in. If I did, I wouldn't live there. If you find all suburban neighborhoods unpleasant, I would suggest you just not live in a suburban neighborhood.
3) Mass transit is incredibly expensive, especially if you want to provide so-called "optimal access," whatever that means. Transit should provide transit. With the current usage of transit in the US making the bus less energy efficient than the average car, it's pretty clear there's too much of it and/or it's being grossly misapplied in a way that benefits no one. Minimum levels of services that are so abysmal no one with any choice would use a bus don't really help anyone. Focus on transit corridors where transit can be operated effectively and provide something of value to the community. Suddenly, Development Oriented Around Transit becomes possible naturally and you don't have to have TOD (Taxpayer Only Development).
4) Agreed. Since the bus, as used in the US, is less sustainable than the car, I do feel the costs of riding the bus should be reserved for the bus riders alone. I also think that gas taxes should be what is paying for roads and not general property tax and sales revenues. Largely this ties into the right for "optimal access" no matter where I decided to throw a dart on the map mentality of transit. Several routes here cost less than $1 per boarding (average fare per passenger is $1.10, not quite the same as passenger does not count transfers but unique trips). The routes that actually make sense cost the same as the ones that don't (Why buy a Prius when a Hummer isn't any more expensive to own and operate?) Then there's also that nearly 20% of riders are stealing the transportation. We just got AB 342 that changed fare evasion to a civil penalty from a criminal one, which means these no longer have to be adjudicated through the courts. Hopefully that helps since the courts don't have time to deal with people not paying for their bus ticket.
And you would be wrong. Have you been in "most" suburban neighborhoods in the US? Somehow, I doubt it. To reiterate what you said " all subjective". Even here in CO, where the trees don't grow very fast, we planted a couple of trees in our backyard 24 years ago that tower above the house now. They were pretty good size by 10 years of growth.
Of course new suburban neighborhoods don't feature mature trees. Neither do new city neighborhoods. It does take a few years even for the fastest-growing trees to grow.
And what the H*** are you talking about with lack of civic activity? I spent more time than I'd like to tally going to council meetings and talking to the city council. City elections here can get very "active", with signs all over the place. Candidates usually come door to door, unlike ciites where some old ward heeler might show up, but not the candidate him/herself. Right now there is a flurry of emails going back and forth in my neighborhood about the Mormon church expanding their parking lot and building some sort of a gazebo on their own land! Do you know the name of your councilperson? Have you ever met him/her? A cute story: when our current mayor was running for office, he came to the door. He is a physician, so I asked him where he practiced. He told me and I told him I am a nurse. He asked me where I worked, and it turns out he took his kids to our practice. I probably gave his kids a few shots! Can you say the same, or anything else personal about your mayor? The former mayor lives in my neighborhood. His daughter and my younger daughter were friends in elementary school. Can you say the same?
Regarding schools and parks, do you not understand irony?
I'm not sure what you're getting at with zoning. Would you like to live upstreet from a steel mill, like I did as small child? Of course, the mills are all gone now anyway. And who pays for city services? Why the taxpayers, that's who!
More like the developer for promising what could not be delivered.
NO THEY'RE NOT! Get thee to the suburbs. Talk to people!
It is the city's responsibility to zone land, if a city is going to allow new urbanism as part of an overall plan, the city should be properly zoning where transportation options can be most effective.
It is the city's responsibility to zone land, if a city is going to allow new urbanism as part of an overall plan, the city should be properly zoning where transportation options can be most effective.
I don't get your circular thinking about that. A new urbanist project will of necessity be built where there is sufficient land for it to be built. It is hardly the city's responsibility to make sure it is accessible to public transportation. In Denver, the transportation is not run by the city, but by the RTD which the suburbanites pay into as well, to the tune of about 4X more of us than there are in the city. Now one would think the transit agency would service the area after it is built and there is sufficient demand. Of course, you can't do that with light rail. The tracks go where they go.
I don't get your circular thinking about that. A new urbanist project will of necessity be built where there is sufficient land for it to be built. It is hardly the city's responsibility to make sure it is accessible to public transportation. In Denver, the transportation is not run by the city, but by the RTD which the suburbanites pay into as well, to the tune of about 4X more of us than there are in the city. Now one would think the transit agency would service the area after it is built and there is sufficient demand. Of course, you can't do that with light rail. The tracks go where they go.
A city can decide how it looks through zoning, that is the difference between good urban planning, poor urban planning, and no planning at all.
I basically live in an ideal, from a new urbanist perspective, neighborhood. My neighborhood was on a popular street car route, before the route was eliminated.
My block is a mix of condos, apartments, and single family homes. The surrounding blocks are similar.
I have, in a 1/2 mile radius, 2 parks, a busy fully featured commercial district with a grocery store, drugstore, about 40 restaurants/eateries/cafes/bars. (some are more like 1 mile away, the middle of the commercial district is 1/2 mile away). The neighborhood also has a library, post office, dry cleaners, boutiques etc.
If I expand the radius to 1.25 miles, it adds in another similar commercial district and the downtown. There are also two "subway" stations in this radius.
I have decent bus service access, 2 core routes within 4 blocks or less, and 2 other minor routes that run every 30 minutes or so and on the weekends from about 7-8 or 7-9 daily in the same radius.
I also live a couple blocks from the freeway, and most of the major interchanges are within about 1 mile of my exit.
So basically almost everything you want is within 2 miles. Easily walkable, bikeable or transit-able. There could be more jobs in walking distance. Many of my neighbors commute to San Francisco, which takes about 20 minutes to get downtown via bus, train or car in off-peak times.
It's good of you to acknowledge and admit that your title is inflammatory, but why should we "forgive" you for it? You had a choice of thread titles, and you chose an inflammatory one, which tends to lead to inflammatory rhetoric in the subsequent discussions. Threads about "car dependency" tend to be inflammatory by their very nature without needing a title which points in that direction. I think it's a minor miracle that the thread has remained so civil, which is certainly to the credit of those who have posted here.
A city can decide how it looks through zoning, that is the difference between good urban planning, poor urban planning, and no planning at all.
That doesn't have anything to do with transit, esp. when the transit agency is not a part of city government, as in Denver and many other cities.
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.
Since Congressional representatives have no jurisdiction over the state parks department, I think not. But thanks for the advice. 
Thoughts on the thread title
