Seriously, what's wrong with living in the suburbs?? (suburb, freeways, Boston)

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

Yes and I can get on board with that. To me the WORST of all worlds would be having to live in a city and still need a car. But there are many cities, more specifically, sections of cities where people live and still need a car. So you have dense housing and multiple cars per house! See, many parts of northeast New Jersey and Long Island. My idea of hell.

Indeed! Density does not inherently mean walkability: the Le Corbusier model of "towers in a park" proved this. In order to make cars redundant (not "get rid of" them, just demote them to one transit mode among many, not king of the planet) you have to have complementary infrastructure for pedestrians and public transit. Fortunately, these resemble and complement each other--and as Katiana points out, auto infrastructure can also be used for buses, although buses are kind of limited in this role.

Many people feel that way as well. They figure if they can't truly live the city life with urban loft apartment and no car, then why not live in a suburb and have a big backyard and some space between neighbors?

Some cities try to get away with building dense housing but not building transit and walkable infrastructure, and then wonder why their traffic is so terrible, and the neighborhood doesn't "densify" the way they want it to. Which is why 100 years ago, they built the transit first!

Wburg has every right to not like a place that isn't walkable. Just don't call them disposable, subsidized sprawl where people with "no sense" go to gyms and schools suck tax dollars away from the city. (He didn't say this all in once breath, but this has been said)

I'll quit calling them that when they stop being that. They haven't yet.

They have their place, they come in as much variety as any city, and obviously a lot of people are very happy living there.
Most cities are not prepared fiscally or spacial enough anyway, if everyone decided to leave the suburbs for the city. Be glad the suburbs are there. Most cities would end up looking like New Delhi.

Unlikely. America in the postwar era was an enormously wealthy nation with a huge stock of natural resources, a multitude of skilled workers, and some really big brains. If the auto suburb (and single-use zoning, and racial exclusion covenants, and redlining, etc) hadn't come into vogue thanks to the efforts of the concrete lobby, most cities would have had to actually fix their problems instead of ignoring and avoiding them, fewer neighborhoods would have been demolished to make way for freeways. And most cities would probably look more like their European counterparts: more attached row houses, small yards, public transit going pretty much everywhere, and narrower streets...although cars would certainly still exist, many small towns would lack suburban appendages and vacant downtowns, and a lot of former farmland and forest would still be farmland and forest.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

and have a big backyard

But I have an enormous backyard. It's the city.

Walkable downtown has become a buzz phrase. But walkable downtown is not the same as walkable town. A lot of places have walkable downtowns with fancy boutiques, coffee or ice cream shop. It's a fun way to spend a Saturday or Sunday. But the towns themselves are not walkable. Most poeple living in the towns can't walk to the downtown. The need to drive to get to the "walkable downtown" and the downtown is rarely someplace that could sustain a person's lifestyle anyway even if they could walk there.

So a lot of new urbanism's attempt at creating walkable downtowns...

...is not really an attempt at creating a walkable downtown. What they're creating is basically the illegitimate lovechild of the shopping mall and Main Street USA at Disneyland.

Basically it's the enclosed shopping mall with the lid off, posing as the "Main Street" the malls helped put out of business in the first place.

If this is all there is to "new urbanism" then I sure as hell am not a "new urbanist" and we can go ahead and get that out of the way right now.

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by wburg

I don't know if your mom's neighborhood was disposable or not, but my mom's neighborhood was built about the same time, and it's just about used up.

Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit. There's something you don't know? Maybe you should lay off the grand pronouncements then.

[AJNEOA]

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

Really now? There are suburbs in this country that are older than some cities, sooooo..... I think you are wrong on that one.



AJNEOA here's another tidbit

[/b]

What can be concluded from Wburg's comment here other than people who use gyms don't have sense? And that he sounds like he has never set foot in a gym if he thinks it's all people walking at a city pace on treadmills. In this context, the gyms are in the suburbs

Wow, you're drawing all sorts of conclusions from what he's saying. I live in the city and I go to the gym. Plenty of people in the city go to the gym. However, I'd say folks who live in the city AND have amenities to walk to that are convenient probably get more natural/in-line walking than those who have to drive to most of their amenities. Those who walk a lot (like wburg has stated) may not see value in having a gym membership, and therefore they promote that as a pro for living in a walkable area that has many amenities. And as has been stated 1,000 times, we're talking about a place where it's MORE convenient to walk to amenities than to drive.

[AJNEOA]

Originally Posted by nei

You figured it out! That describes my tastes as well.

Me three. But let's be clear, the area has to have the following walkable attributes to be truly walkable:

1. Adequate sidewalks (probably pretty common)
2. Minimum number of fast-moving, wide laned highways with trucks ripping down it at 45mph+. (becoming less common)
3. Amenities that are more convenient to get to than if I drive. This includes groceries, restaurants, public spaces. (not very common)
4. Adequate pedestrian lighting for the evenings. (not very common)
5. A minimum number of large parking lots for the amenities that I can walk to. There can be lots in the back or the side, but if I have to walk through a 5 acre parking lot to get to the front-door, it's much less attractive to me. (not very common)

Without any one of those things above, I'd classify an area as less than walkable.

[Yankeerose00]

AJNEOA said

And as has been stated 1,000 times, we're talking about a place where it's MORE convenient to walk to amenities than to drive.

Not that is NOT where the gym comment came from. Go back and read. Wburg was talking about the irony of people who leave the city, move to the suburbs and drive to the gym and walk. And he said he wouldn't find that fun (which is fine) but then had to throw in "neither would they if they had any sense"
If you don't see this as mocking, then I assume you won't be offended the next time someone tells you a hobby of yours doesn't make any sense.

And if you don't see the hypocrisy between saying "I don't have a problem with all suburbs" at the same time saying that "all suburbs are disposable." then I don't know what to tell you. Greenwich, CT is a suburb as is Westport and Redding. Take a look at housing prices for a modest single family home. Alpine, NJ and all of the towns in Westchester county, NY. Just a few examples of suburbs that are not disposable. They are the opposite. More like coveted.

Wburg, you may want to find another euphemism for disposable if you are trying to get your point across that you don't have a problem with suburbs. It would be like me saying I don't have a problem with cities but constantly refer to them as "concrete jungles" or "urban wastelands" or "crime breeding grounds"

[Yankeerose00]

But I have an enormous backyard. It's the city.

A backyard that belongs to thousands of other people is not a back yard. Yes a person can call the city their own personal playground but in the true sense of the word, it's not if you have to share it with masses of people.

...is not really an attempt at creating a walkable downtown. What they're creating is basically the illegitimate lovechild of the shopping mall and Main Street USA at Disneyland.

Right and it's a buzz word of the moment that people seem to fall for hook, line and sinker.

If this is all there is to "new urbanism" then I sure as hell am not a "new urbanist" and we can go ahead and get that out of the way right now.

It's called "new urbanism" in many places. It seems there are so many definitions of new urbanist that it's probably best that a person not label themselves as one. It's become a politically charged word in many places. In NYC, the new urbanists are often the single, upper class, white males, often hipsters who think cars are evil, and the people who moved to the suburbs are just souless lemmings who gave up city life so they can have more bedrooms and bathrooms.
I realize that this is not what all urbanists are but I can tell you this is the image it conjures up for people in the northeast who aren't completely familiar with the term. I'm not sure what exactly urbanism is in other regions.

[Yankeerose00]

Driving a car is hell for you?

Heck no. If I had to live in a dense city and still need a car, that would be hell.
A car is more of a hassle in a big city and if I had to live in a city and still drive, that would be hell. Notice I said for me though. I don't care if other people want to live in the city and drive.

Not true at all. How many people you know want to get rid of their car and live in a dense environment suddenly pack up and move to a McMansion in the suburbs? I don't know one.

I'm wanting to move to a denser environment, but you can forget getting rid of my car; living the way I want is expensive, yet I'm not running to live in Sugarland or The Woodlands.

I'm not understanding this statement. I did not mean that people who want to live in a dense environment pack up and move to the burbs. I've found most people in the suburbs either

1) Don't make enough money to live a decent life in the city. Their choices are live in a roach infested shoebox in the city or have some space and a decent sized house in the burbs ( which is what brought my parents out of the city and into the house I grew up in)

2)Are people who can easily afford the city but still prefer more space and green around them.

I do agree that I can't imagine living without my car. I like having a car. It's a convenience I'm willing to pay for and it works for my lifestyle and where I live.

[Yankeerose00]

Originally Posted by AJNEOA

Me three. But let's be clear, the area has to have the following walkable attributes to be truly walkable:

1. Adequate sidewalks (probably pretty common)
2. Minimum number of fast-moving, wide laned highways with trucks ripping down it at 45mph+. (becoming less common)
3. Amenities that are more convenient to get to than if I drive. This includes groceries, restaurants, public spaces. (not very common)
4. Adequate pedestrian lighting for the evenings. (not very common)
5. A minimum number of large parking lots for the amenities that I can walk to. There can be lots in the back or the side, but if I have to walk through a 5 acre parking lot to get to the front-door, it's much less attractive to me. (not very common)

Without any one of those things above, I'd classify an area as less than walkable.

I totally agree. And this doesn't apply to the majority of places to live in the US including many cities.
That's why the campaigns to get America walking more instead of driving don't work.( I'm not talking about people here, just overall. It's a big movement in the northeast) Most people would rather not have to run across streets dodging traffic like a squirrel. Many places touted a "walkable" really aren't all that walkable unless one considers being able to walk to one strip mall as "walkable". I don't.

[Yankeerose00]

Anyways, sprawl to me is just a negative word for low density. The thing about very low density, like where Yankeerose grew up is that while I can see why some people would want to live there, it's not a feasible way of housing an entire city because it would take up an insane amount of space.

Very true! If everyone wanted to live on 1 acre, we would have a big problem. But not everyone does. That is why so far our model of low density works well for many people. Like I said before, the further out people live, the more practical they are with driving. People in super low density areas get more and more frugal taking one or two big trips a month for groceries and shopping.
This is where viewpoints come in because I'd rather see a home on 1-3 acres with woods still intact than tract homes sitting on top of each other with yearling trees in the center of each lawn. Yes the density is higher, and you are fitting more people into a little space but that's about it. I can see calling these types of suburbs disposable because they often are. They are many times the least desirable option for people.

See: Florida. Tons of tract home subudivisions where half of them are empty and foreclosed. Very sad.

Nonsense! Plenty of suburbs are walkable.

Let me rephrase. Suburbs are walkable, yes. But most suburbs are not walkable enough that a person could give up their car. Maybe drive their car a little less, but not give it up. And a lot of promoting these walkable downtowns is stating people will drive less, less traffic, etc. At least, that I what I see.

Well, yes and no. Calling a little strip of cutesy boutiques and cafes a "walkable downtown" is a common device in some nurbanist developments, but it's not my idea of a walkable downtown. Nor is a downtown "walkable" if people are supposed to drive there, walk around, and drive home.

I agree. I think it's cute and gives a town character, which is good. But some "nurbanists" get a little carried away with the benefits of a walkable downtown. They want to see a return to the 1950s where people had dinner and then walked arm in arm around the neighborhood. You should see some of the advertisements for these lifestyle centers or whatever the name is for them. I saw one site, they actually had cartoons of people wearing 1950's clothing, kids licking ice cream cones and their slogan was "a return to yesteryear" or something hokey like that. I wish I could find it.