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.
The ghetto will be forced to move to the suburbs. When rents skyrocket in the city the poor cant afford it. They then move to the outer suburbs farther from the city. Better sell your suburban home now before its to late. its only gonna be worth $20,000 in a decade or two. section 8 will also speed this up.
The ghetto will be forced to move to the suburbs. When rents skyrocket in the city the poor cant afford it. They then move to the outer suburbs farther from the city. Better sell your suburban home now before its to late. its only gonna be worth $20,000 in a decade or two. section 8 will also speed this up.
Something else that is happening is the required government standard of Section 8 housing is becoming substantially higher. Massive lead abatement and other expensive changes are being required (or enforced) for the first time ever. S8 landlords are going broke and new S8 landlords won't touch the properties for the above mentioned reasons. But you know where there are a lot of properties that are inexpensive and don't need the expensive remodels? .... many of the townships and suburbs.
I think our well planned suburban communities will continue to do just fine. I worry about the poorly planned townships and unincorporated areas though.
Maybe the apartment should be built with soundproof walls and ceilings. I think that is possible without adding a tremendous amount of cost.
Neighbors are on part of the equation for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq
Occasionally I have to turn a fan on to drown out noise because I hear people on the street, but other than that it is completely quiet where I live. My place is off a an ally that is off of a side street, so it just as quiet as the suburbs. I only hear people when my neighbors have parties (which is the same as the suburbs in most places!) The idea that it is always noisy in cities no matter what is a large misnomer. Not everyone in cities lives on a street with bars/restaurants.
Soundproofing is very easy to do between walls. I live in a townhouse that is almost 110 years old, and even with such old building materials I rarely hear the people in the next house over. Newer construction uses great soundproofing materials so you really don't have an issue hearing neighbors.
That is really great to hear. I've never lived in a large city before but i've supported people over the phone that did and yikes... They had to close the window for me to hear them in anyway. The people talking is understandable because its a hall, so everything echos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycistheplace2
The ghetto will be forced to move to the suburbs. When rents skyrocket in the city the poor cant afford it. They then move to the outer suburbs farther from the city. Better sell your suburban home now before its to late. its only gonna be worth $20,000 in a decade or two. section 8 will also speed this up.
To go off-topic a little bit...
I hate S8. It only applies to poor people with too many kids. I am $100 too much from being considered eligible for food stamps and all that S8 types comes with. It's silly. S8 should be reserved for two people. Severely disabled and elderly. The people of old of this country, for the past 100 years, have gone through so much.
I say this because how many youth have seen the horrors of WW2? Korea? Vietnam? How many youths have built a bomber by hand? How about a bomb for that bomber? None. Why? Because we aren't old enough. I can't even imagine how many boomers will not be able to retire nor make a living wage because of the large age discrimination in the world.
To go back on-topic, the social structure and leadership of this country has to change to make cities sustainable.
You can always get in your car and drive to the city if you need an urban fix.
Well, for starters: suburbia creates urban sprawl, which is churning up the open spaces, and destroying habitat for endangered wildlife, (as well as top soil for farmland). Getting in one's car and driving to the city is creating smog, contributing to lung disease, and general environmental toxicity.
The increased miles of sprawl adds demands on power grids, water lines, and ranges of distances to be covered by public safety personnel.
Building up makes better sense for our society, our use of resources, and our environment.
I'd rather take a bus to the country to get my rural fix.
You know, some pro-suburb folks have made some good points on this thread. Honestly, I don't get the appeal, but that's just me. Whatever floats your boat. But after reading through the thread, I think I get now what bothers me more than anything about suburbs, and it's that I resent the expectation that because you're a parent you're supposed to give up your life for your children and become nothing more than MOM and DAD. Many suburbs lack any kind of adult fun. Everything, and I mean, EVERYTHING is geared towards families with children. Why is it considered healthy and desirable in American culture to give up your likes and personality when you become a parent and sequester yourself off in a community not reflective of the world, one that is removed from different kinds of people? To me it seems unnatural. Doesn't anyone else find this aspect of suburbs slightly odd, or are we so used to it that we just take it for granted?
When I see posts like this I just have to wonder, has this person ever been to a suburb? More than one? What do you consider "adult fun"? I know one suburb near Pittsburgh that has pole dancing. Most burbs have bars, movie theaters, golf courses, recreation centers with adult leagues, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorRain
I don't think pro suburb folks make any good points. They gave their individuality up, how can you expect to converse with them reasonably. They became the bubble, don't even try at this rate to reason.
I am a pro urban living kinda guy, but I am not gonna refer to me or others as "We urbanists" like some do.
I just hate the burbs, it is dull and boring and am looking to leave. I dont like what people became.
I will take the risk of an infraction and say, what a bunch of arrogant hot air!
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiphead
Though one thing that bothers me is this book is the author himself.
Writers are good at telling stories, their version of their story and their thoughts. Are there any books taking an analytical, scientific approach to this problem? I am questioning it because I've read a few books attempting to write about scientists, engineers, ect. and their theories. But they always come out short using their imaginations instead of fact.
Are there any scientific studies or quotes, done verbatim, in this book? What about scientific credit? Only curious. Not trolling. I promise.
Reading through this thread, I was thinking the same thing myself. I see that someone repsonded, but I still don't buy that that author knows anything about urban issuses, except for his own opinions. It doesn't matter that he cites all sorts of statistics; if he doesn't know what he's talking about, he can't put it together. I work in health care; I know full well that a little bit of learning is a dangerous thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookinForMayberry
Well, for starters: suburbia creates urban sprawl, which is churning up the open spaces, and destroying habitat for endangered wildlife, (as well as top soil for farmland). Getting in one's car and driving to the city is creating smog, contributing to lung disease, and general environmental toxicity.
The increased miles of sprawl adds demands on power grids, water lines, and ranges of distances to be covered by public safety personnel.
Building up makes better sense for our society, our use of resources, and our environment.
I'd rather take a bus to the country to get my rural fix.
And of course, the land a city is located on was never open space, habitat for endangered wildlife or farmland. (Sarcasm intended)
You'll be hard put to find a bus to the country. Surprising as it may seem to you city dwellers, rural areas are not usually serviced by public transportation.
Reading through this thread, I was thinking the same thing myself. I see that someone repsonded, but I still don't buy that that author knows anything about urban issuses, except for his own opinions. It doesn't matter that he cites all sorts of statistics; if he doesn't know what he's talking about, he can't put it together. I work in health care; I know full well that a little bit of learning is a dangerous thing.
.
To me it just seems like common sense (this is in reference to the Green Metropolis book); the US has a lot of people. If they all live spread out at an equal density level they will cover a vast amount of land. That would eat up our agricultural land, our remaining wilderness, etc., not to mention lead to more duplication of services, meaning using yet more resources. Living in a city generally encourages smaller living spaces, shared resources, and less driving; all of that is also good for the environment. You don't need to have a PhD in a relevant field to evaluate the general gist of his argument. It is opinion, but it's opinion shared by many others as well, including organizations like the Sierra Club. The book isn't perfect (and I think does contain some mistakes, or misunderstandings), but the main argument is sound: more people in less space use up fewer resources than the same amount of people spread out over a much larger space. (I suppose in rare cases, like those who truly live off the land, that might not hold true, but that's not a realistic lifestyle for most people). None of that is to say that everyone should move to a dense urban environment, or that cities don't also have a long way to go when it comes to minimizing their environmental impact.
To me it just seems like common sense (this is in reference to the Green Metropolis book); the US has a lot of people. If they all live spread out at an equal density level they will cover a vast amount of land. That would eat up our agricultural land, our remaining wilderness, etc., not to mention lead to more duplication of services, meaning using yet more resources. Living in a city generally encourages smaller living spaces, shared resources, and less driving; all of that is also good for the environment. You don't need to have a PhD in a relevant field to evaluate the general gist of his argument. It is opinion, but it's opinion shared by many others as well, including organizations like the Sierra Club. The book isn't perfect (and I think does contain some mistakes, or misunderstandings), but the main argument is sound: more people in less space use up fewer resources than the same amount of people spread out over a much larger space. (I suppose in rare cases, like those who truly live off the land, that might not hold true, but that's not a realistic lifestyle for most people). None of that is to say that everyone should move to a dense urban environment, or that cities don't also have a long way to go when it comes to minimizing their environmental impact.
"Common sense" is not necessarily correct. As someone who deals with parents of sick kids every working day, I know that if I know anything. Someone whose expertise is golf is not qualified to write a book on urban issues. I would like to see some real research to support the contention that living in the city uses fewer resources per person.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,060,466 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yo!
Suburbs are the destruction of mankind. Their entire existance is based on false dreams and schemes to make money off of people. The auto industry surged with the growth of the suburbs which was part of the plan of General Motors.
The suburbs are an invention, created to make profit off of fellow man. the cookie cutter houses have no flavor, no style. Just plain ol' the same.
You have to drive everywhere which increases the need for gas and automobiles. The only places to shop are giant super markets. Its just not a good place for mankind.
Yes my main beef with the suburbs isn't aesthetic - some suburbs, especially if they are a bit older and have tree-lined avenues - are actually quite nice places, and offer a decent compromise between urban and rural.
But that doesn't change the fact they are the most unsustainable, environmentally damaging form of residential development out there. I see so much wasted space, wasted fuel, pollution.etc in the suburbs, and the people in many suburbs aren't much nicer than those in the city. Some may say it's the best of both worlds but it's also the worst of both worlds: some of the isolation of the country but some of the noise and unfriendliness and pretension of the city.
"Common sense" is not necessarily correct. As someone who deals with parents of sick kids every working day, I know that if I know anything. Someone whose expertise is golf is not qualified to write a book on urban issues. I would like to see some real research to support the contention that living in the city uses fewer resources per person.
His expertise isn't golf (or only golf); he's a journalist at the New Yorker with a lot of experience under his belt (since being an expert in golf doesn't mean that one is not also an expert in other areas). And while I don't have the book in front of me, I believe he does his include end notes; those will bring you to some of the relatively current studies out there on the topic. He bases his opinions on existing studies regarding waste, energy usage, etc., per capita. He's not the scientist doing the studies, but he's the journalist who pulls them together and gathers them into one place. It was a well-researched book, and has generally received good reviews from people who study these issues. Some parts are far more controversial than others, but I don't think the idea that lower density places are are generally more resource-intensive than higher density places was one of them.
I agree with the OP. There is not one thing wrong with suburb living.
In my area there is a big difference between the post WWII pre-fab neightorhood with the two bedroom bungalows of the 40's and the three bedroom home in the suburbs on 1/2 acre lots of the 60's that were build among rolling hills and heavily forested areas. The biggest problems jn both these areas was construction cost; availablity of design and zoning laws passed from the city planning department. If you are keen on architecture you can drive through our city an see how it developed throgh the different eras by the style and size of home. and where it was located. Today it is changing again. The new suburbs are in the plains where McMansions are built on small lots with no greenery, no trees and no curb appeal - but 20 years from now, it will be a beaiutiful area.with curbs and sidewalks and paved streets - just like it was when houses were built 70 -100 years ago.
I like rural where very little changes.
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.
