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.
They've been bad for the environment for sure, and not so good for the health of the cities they left behind (most of which have rebounded in recent years), but many people prefer that safe, sterile type of living so I don't see them going away.
One thing which needs to change is having schools funded evenly throughout states based on population, not funded on the local level by property taxes. The current situation ensures educational disparities will never improve and a large percentage of our children will indeed be "left behind" due to funding disparities between the schools. Politically, voters from wealthier enclaves will probably fight tooth and nail to prevent it from happening, but it's what is needed.
meh.
find the highest performing high-spending school district and figure out how they achieve that. What can be incorporated at the state and then national level?
find the highest performing low-spending school district and figure out how they achieve that. What can be incorporated at the state and then national level?
Apparently they're less of an eyesore than the crumbling urban centers whose diaspora we "cookie-cutter" suburbanites are currently taking in by the busload.
As a humanist, I love being on top of people which is why high density housing is not only the anti racist thing to do, but it promotes climate Justice and puts everyone on equal footing if our housing is the same for all. So yes, the suburbs were a mistake and should be corrected. Let nature reclaim it all and consolidate housing and jobs into a few areas of the country.
They've been bad for the environment for sure, and not so good for the health of the cities they left behind (most of which have rebounded in recent years), but many people prefer that safe, sterile type of living so I don't see them going away.
One thing which needs to change is having schools funded evenly throughout states based on population, not funded on the local level by property taxes. The current situation ensures educational disparities will never improve and a large percentage of our children will indeed be "left behind" due to funding disparities between the schools. Politically, voters from wealthier enclaves will probably fight tooth and nail to prevent it from happening, but it's what is needed.
In NJ, since the Abbott v. Burke decision in 1985, the state has been required to spend as much per student in the 31 poorest districts that they spend in the wealthiest districts. Our state income taxes subsidize the property taxes in the poor districts to pay for this.
As a result, we spend $30k+ per student, per year, in some of the poorest inner city school districts. These districts are STILL the worst school districts in the state. You could send these kids to some of the better private academies for that money, but instead, we are sending them to horrible and often dangerous schools.
After 35 years of this experiment, it is safe to assume that your premise is wrong. When it comes to schools and education, more money doesn't change anything.
As long as they are still being raised by the same person/people, and as long as their peers are the same people, these children will not improve no matter how much you fund the school they attend.
I like the suburbs, but hate cookie cutter suburbs. There are many suburbs that each house is unique and the neighborhood, as a whole, felt unique. This is what should continue to occur.
Yeah I agree. I do want new developments to feel a bit more unique.
That said, a lot of the houses in Levittown developments finally feel like they’ve acquired their own characters. I’d just rather this happen out of the box.
Most people seem to prefer a suburban setting. So, I don’t think you can just count on urban development to be the thing which most people want. However. I do think it’s a good idea to be a little more circumspect in designing suburban settings. It would be nice, as mentioned, to have a variety of styles, lot sizes, and home sizes. It would also probably not be bad to have a “master planned” aspect where certain amenities are packed in to a certain area and could promote something of a walkable experience. You may have to drive a bit to some kind of town center, but once there you can do what you need by walking after parked.
That was the idea behind suburban malls, but I guess that needs to be tweaked a bit. Combine it with residential and transit hub stuff and I’ll bet a lot of suburbs start to become at least somewhat more interesting even to folks who aren’t suburbanites.
That’s also, I guess, a little bit like having decentralized business districts and stuff. I think it can be done, though I don’t have great examples of it.
I like the suburbs, but hate cookie cutter suburbs. There are many suburbs that each house is unique and the neighborhood, as a whole, felt unique. This is what should continue to occur.
I grew up in a suburb that had eight floor plans, but it seemed the builders did their best to make the same-floorplan houses look somewhat different from each other. One of my friends lived in a house that had a floorplan like ours, but some differences that I remember:
1.) Their house was 'mirrored' from ours (which didn't mean it wasn't still the same floorplan, but at first, you might not realize it.)
2.) They had a sunken living room, we didn't.
3.) Both houses had wide, covered porches. Ours had three large, white, round pillars going up from the porch to the overhang. Theirs had four black, wrought-metal poles. (They also had a matching 'fence' between some of the poles, we didn't.)
4.) Our house was white with red brick trim. Theirs was a smoky blue with grey brick trim.
Nowadays, it seems like all exteriors are virtually identical, and it's really kind of depressing. I went to visit a friend in her subdivision years ago, and I literally could not tell one house from the other.
Not to those who live in them and like them. Imo, they are greatly preferable to the tent cities now prevalent in so many large cities now.
However, if interest rates go up again, I think that there it will only be a relatively few people who will be able to afford even a a cookie-cutter suburban house, imo -- and so those who live in them will be considered to be wealthy, I think.
But my attitude to this, as it is toward most things of this nature, is to live and let live. If you don't like the suburbs, then don't move there.
I personally am really not a fan of suburbs. I've lived in the middle of nowhere (town of a few hundred people) as well as in major cities on the east coast. I'd take living in the heart of a city or in the middle of nowhere to a suburb any day.
I like the term 'suburban wasteland'. There's a lot to be said for the efficiency of cities, the ease of public transit, not needing a car, etc.
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.
