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.
Also the key thing is, the suburbs can continue to be suburban, there should just be more urban planned areas around each transit stop.
True, and making parking a big factor for each rail station. I don't believe that we will ever get to a point where there are no "suburbs" in the sense that we have today. There might be urban centers within the suburbs, but most people enjoy having a yard and a driveway with there own personal vehicle. I am one of them.
True, and making parking a big factor for each rail station. I don't believe that we will ever get to a point where there are no "suburbs" in the sense that we have today. There might be urban centers within the suburbs, but most people enjoy having a yard and a driveway with there own personal vehicle. I am one of them.
I agree, I would like a small single family house on a small lot in a walkable and bikeable neighborhood.
There might be urban centers within the suburbs, but most people enjoy having a yard and a driveway with there own personal vehicle. I am one of them.
Maybe, maybe not. I know several people who don't want a yard and don't have a personal vehicle. This represents about 20-25% of the people I know!
Personally, I don't want a yard, a patio garden or window box would be more than enough for me. And I want to get rid of my car altogether. I have no desire to have a personal vehicle...car share is enough for me!
There are lots of different desires out there, but we don't build accordingly.
It is a mixed bag. Insulation is better but doors are hollow. There are tougher requirements, but lower quality materials and less craftsmanship.
As a builder that has been in the trenches for close to 40 years I agree with the above, especially for the vast amount of production housing. .
So back on topic, I also agree with the earlier response that "sprawl can be upgraded to urbanity" without bulldozing all the houses. As pointed out, big boxes, strip malls and outdated malls and shopping centers are perfect opportunities to create a more urban, walkable environment in a suburban setting. Generally speaking even a very sprawling area has commercial streets with the opportunity to increase both commercial and residential density, often on a commercial street with transit.
Last edited by nei; 03-29-2014 at 04:33 PM..
Reason: removed off topic part
First off, it's worth mentioning this is happening already in cities like Portland and Seattle. "Suburban" style neighborhoods (which are mostly gridded and have Craftsman-era bungalows) are seeing small groups of houses bought out near major transit lines, knocked down, and replaced with smaller to midrise apartment buildings. Hell, this kind of retrofitting has long gone on in areas of high demand, such as around universities.
A far better example would be Vancouver or Toronto where older suburban neighborhoods get very density infill, often near transit stops. The result is a very different form than older urban neighborhoods, but nearly as high dessity.
Quote:
Also, one should keep in mind that while people like suburbs in general, many individual suburbs, particularly older first-ring ones, are not so desirable. The house square footage of the first true suburban developments built between 1945 and 1960 was often smaller than houses in the city proper. Except for some of the more high design/larger houses, the future for many is not bright. In low-desirability areas, these neighborhoods are becoming poorer, and seem to be transitioning into "new ghettos." In high desirability areas, the houses are knocked down, with McMansion infill put in their place. But no one seems to really care about their integrity as a built form. I don't expect the next 30 years to be kind to them.
I've seen this repeated elsewhere, it always seemed like a bit of a myth. I haven't seen much evidence of first-ring suburbs declining, though the cheapest ones have seen their demographics become heavily minority. Neither Daly City nor Levittown have declined, though Daly City lost most of its white population [that doesn't mean it declined]. First ring suburbs often have fairly good locations, with decent access to both city and suburban job centers.
I've seen this repeated elsewhere, it always seemed like a bit of a myth. I haven't seen much evidence of first-ring suburbs declining, though the cheapest ones have seen their demographics become heavily minority. Neither Daly City nor Levittown have declined, though Daly City lost most of its white population [that doesn't mean it declined]. First ring suburbs often have fairly good locations, with decent access to both city and suburban job centers.
This is very true. There may be a few parts of the first ring suburbs that decline, especially those parts that might have been 1920s workers' cottages (many first rings were originally separate little hamlets or villages) or that were once supposed to be temporary worker housing during WW II, but for the most part most of the first ring suburbs continue to prosper.
I think it depends on what you mean by declining. For instance, Toronto's early post-war suburbs have seen their income relative to the metro average decrease, but I think in most cases the actual income has still gone up.
This is very true. There may be a few parts of the first ring suburbs that decline, especially those parts that might have been 1920s workers' cottages (many first rings were originally separate little hamlets or villages) or that were once supposed to be temporary worker housing during WW II, but for the most part most of the first ring suburbs continue to prosper.
Many of the inner-ring suburbs in my area have declined, but they were rather urban in form to begin with. Also, because they are declining in population, there's no real reason to densify them further.
Many of the inner-ring suburbs in my area have declined, but they were rather urban in form to begin with. Also, because they are declining in population, there's no real reason to densify them further.
They're quite old -- settled late 18th to early 19th century. Most current buildings probably date back to the early 20th.
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.
