Are people who live in suburbs/exurbs morally inept? (Boston, Walmart, Philadelphia)

[Vampgrrl]

^New Urbanism has nothing to do with glass condo towers, that's actually very anti New Urbanist....
And stupid froo froo stores has nothing to do with New Urbanism either. I'm not against everyday corporate stores...I'd prefer a mixture of mom&pop stores along with Targets, WalMarts, etc but they can be built in a traditional city center. I used to live in Woodstock GA where some of this is occuring actually...but it's near impossible to shoo it in giving preexisting retail projects and 6 lane highways in the middle of such projects.

And subdivisions should not be roads to no where built directly off major highways...small 2 lane roads that actually go somewhere say in a grid framework should be built and housing is built around that framework.

I don't think most people understand what New Urbanism is...

[NCN]

I can only speak for our family. I am not a very materialistic person. Most people who were teens in the 60's are anti-materialism. We tried living in a development that you may think of as suburbs on the outskirts of Charlotte. I just couldn't live that way, having to look over my shoulder all the time for whatever crime might be brewing. We moved here to Union County for a more country atmosphere and for the safety of our children. It was a good choice. Unfortunately the city has moved out to us. I imagine we will probably die before it gets too bad and our children have moved to other cities. One child lives within jogging distance of downtown in a small Virginia town and the other lives about an hour North of Raleigh. The child who lives near downtown in Virginia is much more materialistic than the one who lives in the suburbs of Raleigh. They both have very nice homes but thank goodness neither has an SUV. I consider those vehicles an accident waiting to happen. The center of gravity is too high on them for them to be safe to drive.

[M TYPE X]

I've never seen both so much urbanist and agrarian nonsense in the same place.

Originally Posted by North Carolina Native

Most people who were teens in the 60's are anti-materialism.

Do you have more than anecdotal evidence on this?

[Katarina Witt]

There were so many posts I wante to reply to, I combined them all into one.

Originally Posted by mpope409

I think I missed the memo that explained how purchasing big houses and nice cars makes somebody morally decrepit. The suburbs might look like sweet heaven to someone who came up in an urban, dirty gutter. Believe it or not, urban life can get old.

I missed that memo as well. I don't think where you live has anything to do with your morality. In general, there is more crime in the cities, as far as morality goes.

Originally Posted by mpope409

But where are they a majority? Even in my area, cookie cutter suburbs are only a few.

Mine, too. There are many suburbs of Denver that were once independent towns, some as old as Denver itself.

Originally Posted by jonjj

Much of this has to do with our leaders and our government. If our government had supported mass transit as the governments of Europe and other places do, then we would have more build up areas near those lines and a denser pattern. Also, we refused as a nation for a long time to invest in our cities with both crime prevention, education, and health-care issues. All of this led to a decentralization of our urban fabric which created the invasion of nature and sprawl. Meanwhile, we still spend millions in Iraq while our own infrastructure falls apart one bridge, one city, at a time.
With all of that, what choices did people have. It became a "fend for yourself society". People wanted to escape those ills so they could place their child in a better school or in a less crime-ridden area. And along with that came our isolation as a society. I don't blame folks for living in the burbs. What choice did they have? I never took that route having realized long ago that there really is no place to hide. Now, we gas prices surely to rise, that lifestyle seems even more unbecoming to me. But, just my opinion!

The statement in bold is very condescending. I didn't move to the burbs to hide from anything. And why is it assumed that everyone who lives in a suburb drives 40 miles to work in an SUV? I drive 4 1/2 miles in a mini-SUV, my DH drives 6 mi. in a compact car.

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

The suburbs have been associated with "the american dream" for a while now. To attain this "dream" life, you need to have a big house on a large lot with an expansive lawn-plus 3-4 cars. It really is a shallow existence if that's all that matters to those people.

Ever seen "The Real Housewives of Orange County"? What a bunch of materialistic, vain, superficial, plastic and ultimately sad women. And their kids are just horrible!

Most people be it in suburbs or in The City are normal folks just trying to get ahead-but its the over the top ones who get all the attention.

Dont get me wrong, Im not condemning them, heck more power to them. I live in a very upscale suburban area myself, but people here just dont act that way-we're a bit more aware of the world in Marin.

Very condescending!

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

I know this sounds like a cop-out, but I actually believe this. Suburbs like the inner suburbs and satellite cities (Joliet, Naperville) aren't suburbs. They have a built form not unlike the city neighborhoods. These places are the city with another name attached to them. When I say suburb I am meaning the stereotypical subdivision.

What is the "stereotypical" subdivision? I have lived outside large cities most of my life, and I never lived in such a place. The media have created this image of a suburb that does not exist. Some of these reporters need to get out more.

Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim

A lot of places that today people badge as "city neighborhoods" are really just old suburbs. A lot of the suburbs built 100 years ago are as cookie cutter as can be-- but for some reason, they escape the blame of the urban elitists. Some far-flung leapfrogging sprawl really is a disaster, but contiguously built suburban developments over time become more and more centrally located. Many cities, like Denver, have light rail systems that reach all way into the suburbs-- so you can still live in the suburbs and commute downtown without driving the whole way.

So to answer the original question-- some are, but most people who live in the suburbs are normal people-- from all walks of life. I agree that burning gallons and gallons of gasoline everyday is a problem-- but that's the "tragedy of the commons," not an individual moral problem. I think the "new urbanists" are really elitists-- wannabees, really.

I agree with most of the above. Most of northwest Denver was once a suburb. I know people who live in hip Denver neighborhoods who drive to the burbs to work. Most cities are pretty de-centralized these days; people don't all work downtown. I don't like new urbanism all that much. It seems so artificial. A lot of the retail recruited to these places is "frou-frou": expensive little boutiques and coffee shops. Someone wrote in glowing praise of her New Urban 'hood that it even had a church. Religion is a very personal thing; you should not just go to the closest place.

Originally Posted by Vampgrrl

I would definitely call myself a New Urbanist...but not an elitist.
Just instead of developers saying everyone wants tract housing far away from city centers...others like myself are saying, let's return to a more traditional city and town layout.

Most New Urbanists would never say suburb dwellers are immoral...hell I'm not against suburbs but I am against the post WW2 version of a suburb. And I'm for developing retail 2-3 levels high up to the roadway and not placing housing off in little alcoves but build urban or suburban housing against a pre existing roadway, not a cul de sac.

Again, the stereotype of a suburb. We don't all want to live on a busy highway. Cul de sacs are safer for kids to play outside.

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

It isn't the cookie-cutter of suburbs, it is the seperation of people that is inherent to most post-war suburbs. You can live in century old sprawl, and still enjoy the benefits of a city like a sidewalk, busline, et. cetera. Even some older suburbs from the depression and war eras (which are outside city limits) are perfectly great places.
How far would a city like Denver have to spread out before its newest suburbs become centralized? Age will not bring anymore density, age will not build a sidewalk. A light rail line that connects a station to downtown does not create everyday transit for errands, et. cetera. It is certainly preferable to other forms of transit; but simply not the same.
The gasoline burnt from automobiles is relatively small problem, that is hardly the issue. It is more the factors of time lost, economic problems of continously expanding roads, et. cetera. This is a tragedy of the commons only when an individual person chooses to participate. It is explaining that behavior by claiming that everyone else is doing it; that you are helpless to do any different. How unbecoming. It is pretty elitist; but the point supercedes petty names. The current state of our built environment is unsustainable economically, socially and environmentally. Why keep building in that manner? It is actually less expensive to do it right.

People have to live somewhere, as far as how much is Denver going to spread. Virtually all the Denver suburbs have sidewalks. That is another stereotype that doesn't hold up, that suburbs don't have sidewalks. From what I've seen of Minneapolis, it has more of a traffic problem than Denver, and less public transit. Again, an assumption that everyone is working downtown.

Originally Posted by Colts

Tell their fat a**** to get on a bus

Do you expect 5 yr olds to ride the bus?

Originally Posted by M TYPE X

I've never seen both so much urbanist and agrarian nonsense in the same place.

Agreed. Most people are making unwarranted assumptions. It seems that especially the urban supporters assume that all of us in the burbs drive 50 miles a day in a Ford Expedition or Humvee, we sit around all night and watch "American Idol", while all the city people take the bus and spend their spare time doing charity (since morals was in the title of the thread).

[Minnehahapolitan]

Pitt, No one is debating that people have to live somewhere. That should imply that we build places in a smart and sustainable way. The number of family households in most places is decreasing. Why do we keep building houses with such big yards? I can't really speak for Denver, but most post-war suburbs are built horribly. No transportation bar commuter buses. Few sidewalks (they have to be on most streets, not just arteries), large parking lots. Shoddy construction and clear cut trees. Who finds these suburbs a good place to live? There are alot of exceptions. (Hopkins, Saint Louis Park, Columbia Heights, Richfield, Excelsior, et. cetera; just in Mpls.) but for every good suburb there are two bad ones (Eden Prairie, Maple Grove, Blaine, Woodbury, Lakeville, Prior Lake; just in Mpls.). My opinions do not stem fron newscasts, they come from living in Lakeville, Minn. for a decade. Mpls. transit is horrible in these suburbs. Not because of a lack of willing people, but because having 2,000 ppl/mile does not support a public bus.

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim

I think to assign 1945 as a magical date when the modern suburb was created is inaccurate. Suburbs have been built the way they are today pretty much since the 1920s. Heck, since the Model T. Americans have been driving cars-- and in large numbers-- for almost century now. Sure, houses have gotten bigger over time, architectural styles have changed, and more garages have been added, but the general form of having commercial stuff along 4-6 lane major arterials, with single family homes on individual lots with quiet residential streets in between the arterial grids, hasn't changed much. The main difference with the post-WWII era is that MORE suburbs were built-- same game fundamentally, just a lot more of it.

I'm not sure what your city is like, but in Denver most suburbs DO have sidewalks and bus lines. A lot of people in the suburbs live in "garden style" apartment complexes located right off a major arterial street, so they can walk a short distance right to the bus stop. The only major problem I've seen is when the snowplows sometimes dump the snow right on the sidewalk, making them unusable. That's a management issue, though, not a design issue.


It all depends which part of town you're talking about, but sometimes not long at all! That's because while downtown is still a major employment center, probably just as many people, if not more, work in the Denver Tech Center, a huge office park corridor along I-25 in the middle of the south suburbs. Areas that even 15 years ago might have been considered "the boonies," on the edge of town are now very close in, convenient locations. Now there's a light rail line going all the way from the southernmost part of the core metro area, paralleling I-25 through the office parks, connecting all the way to downtown. Huge parks and rides have been constructed, and a lot of them are PACKED. The errands, everyday stuff really doesn't matter. Over time, as the newest suburbs become more built up, the grocery stores, retail, etc, will move in-- retail follows population. It's the commute to work trip that's the big Kahuna-- and light rail, if executed properly, can be a great transportation solution.


I agree, but I would hardly consider the New Urbanism movement to be an example of "doing it right." Most of those projects going up are all glass condo towers, extremely energy inefficient. When they do include things like ground-level retail, it's usually high priced boutiques and fancy restaurants with faux French names. Not very practical living for most people. I also happen to think the so-called "postmodernist," "industrial" style architecture of these condo towers these days sucks.

The answer isn't to stop building suburbs or to throw all development from the last 90 years in the garbage can, it's to start building SMART suburbs, and redevelop and retrofit older suburbs into more urban, mixed used places. Some of the most egregious, far-flung sprawl, will be abandoned and turn into virtual ghost towns, but the majority of the contiguously-built up metro areas will remain habited-- they will just have to evolve. I predict that once gas hits $5.00/gal and up, three things will happen:

1. Property values in the most far-flung, leapfrogged sprawl areas, semi-rural, exurban areas, and satelite suburbs will plummet dramatically, as the commute from those locations is no longer affordable. Also, within each square mile grid in the core metropolitan area, houses right in the middle, farthest from any arterial roads, will plummet in value, since it will be a pain in the *** to walk to the bus stops/ train stations from there, whereas houses closest to the entrances of the subdivisions will increase in value tremendously-- especially those close to bus stops and/or rail stations.

2. Huge multi-family housing redevelopment will take place, not necessarily all in the "city," but within the suburbs themselves. There will be a lot of bulldozing and a lot of rebuilding going on to meet the new market demands for T.O.D..

3. Bus ridership will skyrocket, and new light rail lines will be built in a frenzy, to meet to the new demand for mass transit. Imagine a light rail going down every single major arterial street in certain core parts of a metro area. Sounds crazy now, but just wait. The cost of building these lines and the time it takes to construct them will plummet, once there is a real sense of urgency. Also, high speed inter-city rail lines, similar to what Europe and Japan have, will be built in this country.

I think we are fundamentally on the same page, so I'm not trying to provoke you.
Comparing a new suburb to 1920s style developemnt is silly. Cars were a luxury, eventhough they existed. This sort of development followed streetcar lines. Public transportation was built into the area before there was an area at all. Even old sprawl has pretty high density. A small backyard, a comfortable house, a narrow and gridded street. Richfield, Minn. is built in a similar style and has twice the density of newer suburbs in the area. On old arterial streets, things are put on a human scale such as that they are walkable. New commerical areas are on arteries, but there isn't pedestrian activity in front of most suburban Targets bar a walk to the car.
I also think you are confused on the definition of new urbanism. New urbanism mimics the 1920s style developments. Single-family homes and duplexes on small lots with front porches and alleys. Buildings are somewhat better built. Commercial and public amenities are walkable. Most New Urbanist areas don't have a building over four storys. You seem to be referring more to urban infill (which occurs in both city and suburb). These areas overcompensate and build excessively high. (tall buildings are generally best left for downtown-like areas) I would not call them energy inefficient. I generally like most buildings that don't go for the nostalgic, faux-historic look. New brick always looks like new brick. The unnecessary limestone window keystones don't cut it either.
You are right about severely exurban areas.
I think a good number of bad suburbs could be made into coherent and sustainable areas if you had the power of the wand. The problem lies in tha fact that most people who move to these areas (in Mpls. anyways) think they live 50 miles into the prairie. Traffic is a pestulance, density brings crime, other bull**** srguments ad nauseum. Frankly, zoning and democracy precludes good planning on any practical level.
I am not opposed to the idea of suburbs, but they have to be built in a manner which is responsible. For something that plays such a fundamental role in so many of our lives, we pay little attention to their function and vitality. That is the difference between a great city and Orlando.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Pitt, No one is debating that people have to live somewhere. That should imply that we build places in a smart and sustainable way. The number of family households in most places is decreasing. Why do we keep building houses with such big yards? I can't really speak for Denver, but most post-war suburbs are built horribly. No transportation bar commuter buses. Few sidewalks (they have to be on most streets, not just arteries), large parking lots. Shoddy construction and clear cut trees. Who finds these suburbs a good place to live? There are alot of exceptions. (Hopkins, Saint Louis Park, Columbia Heights, Richfield, Excelsior, et. cetera; just in Mpls.) but for every good suburb there are two bad ones (Eden Prairie, Maple Grove, Blaine, Woodbury, Lakeville, Prior Lake; just in Mpls.). My opinions do not stem fron newscasts, they come from living in Lakeville, Minn. for a decade. Mpls. transit is horrible in these suburbs. Not because of a lack of willing people, but because having 2,000 ppl/mile does not support a public bus.

Lots in Denver are small by midwestern/eastern standards. Most are 5000-8000 sq ft. 10,000 sq ft is considered huge. Sidewalks are everywhere. The RTD public transit goes out much farther than it does in Minneapolis. My DD went to college in Northfield, there was no public transportation to Mpls. Out here, there is transportation out that far. It's not utopia, but it's decent. Not everyone wants to live in a condo with no yard. My reference to the media was in reference to artilces I have read that depict the burbs as endless rows of tract houses with no public buildings, parks, or stores. I have never lived in such a place.

[4"L's"]

Originally Posted by Colts

Tell their fat a**** to get on a bus

That is IGNORANT and RIDICULOUS. I am going to tell a bunch of 6 year olds to take the city bus to soccer practice.......GET REAL........and none of them are Fat A**** either because we take them to sports and gymnastics etc.

[Elbarto150]

This thread is complete nonsense. Judging the moral quality of a person in a such a broad sense is impossible. Think of all the people living around the urban core one year, and then transfering to the burbs a year after because of a prosperous job offering. There are many reasons why someone would move away from the city center, and not all of them involve the alleged safety and friendliness of the burbs. Remember, just because a place seems nice on the surface does not mean that crime isn't lurking underneath (meth dens come to mind).

It makes no sense that one would become morally inept just from moving somewhere different. People should have personal sets of morals that remain the same no matter what the circumstance, whether it be living in the ghetto or a place that resembles the cookie-cutter 'perfection' portrayed in the film "Pleasantville".

[RuralGuy]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

Comparing a new suburb to 1920s style developemnt is silly. Cars were a luxury, eventhough they existed. This sort of development followed streetcar lines. Public transportation was built into the area before there was an area at all. Even old sprawl has pretty high density. A small backyard, a comfortable house, a narrow and gridded street.

This might be a little off topic, but the statement above reminded me of one other major difference between now and then. In older subdivisions and neighborhoods with single-family homes, houses were built in a way that encouraged social interaction among neighbors. Something as simple as including a front porch on the home made it inviting. Sitting on the front porch allowed people to be more aware of their neighborhoods and encouraged them to participate in them.

Now people can live in the same neighborhood for years and never get to know the people right next door. As a society, I think we've become private and withdrawn to the point of obsurdity, preferring to hide on our back decks overlooking yards surrounded by eight-foot-tall fences, oblivious to what's going on around us.