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 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.
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.
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.
Problems with places like the Woodlands is this (its great n all) But...
1. Houston is still Houston...how do you fix the existing clusterf of the lay out of the city?
2. Existing historical areas should be preserved and reutilized as much as possible (in any state)
Read this story about one of the most posh retail streets in the southern United States, and what's happening to it now...
One family's influence on Canal Street's future | News for New Orleans, Louisiana | Local News | News for New Orleans, Louisiana | wwltv.com (http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/wwl112707khretailspace.46dbfcb2.html - broken link)
"Houston is still Houston"...what does that mean, anyway?
And I don't see what The Woodlands has to do with Houston seeing as how they are two very different places in many ways. The only characteristic of HOU that someone in TW might share is the heat. Otherwise, some people in that suburb probably never even go into the city.
No, its just part of American culture. Everyone thinks its a great idea to move out to the middle of nowhere and buy up a big house with more room than they could ever need with a SUV to match that gets like 10 miles to the gallon.
In my mind this isn't a moral issue so much as it is an issue of wastefulness. Do you really need that house with 5 br/5ba if there are only 3 or 4 people in your family? Do you really need a huge SUV?
Also in my mind it just seems really tacky, but I suppose that is open to debate.
All this stuff is going to come back to bite this country in the a$$. People are spending too much money and aren't putting any money in the bank. The economy seems to be unravelling at the moment. A lot of people are probably going to be in over their heads in the near term.
Lots of people (like me) buy a big house with 5 or 6 bedrooms when we only need 3 as an investment or in my case because I live on the coast and I always have guests (none of my family is here). I agree that you should not get into a situation that you cannot really afford, but I get it all the time "Why such a huge house"........because I earned it and I want my family to come visit as much as possible!
I am guilty of the SUV thing too....sigh, but how else will I transport all my kid's friends? LOL
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.
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.
Quote:
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 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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
Lots of people (like me) buy a big house with 5 or 6 bedrooms when we only need 3 as an investment or in my case because I live on the coast and I always have guests (none of my family is here). I agree that you should not get into a situation that you cannot really afford, but I get it all the time "Why such a huge house"........because I earned it and I want my family to come visit as much as possible!
