Why do so much people hate on the Suburbs?? (problems, square, cost)

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by im_a_lawyer

how could anyone argue that this:



is better than this:




both are in columbus, OH...

Well, for starts, it's probably that in picutre #1, the applicances, furnaces, roofs, cabinets, etc are all in good repair; the houses are more energy efficient; the streets and sidewalks are in better repair,e.g. not full of divots; no overhead wires, etc. The houses are no more "cookie cutter" in picture 1 than in picture 2. I see several styles of houses there.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by im_a_lawyer

we're wasting space with useless cheap suburbs that don't really add any value to this country only wasting more resources

Aren't there people living in them? Where would you rather they live, in somebody's basement?

[GraniteStater]

^
A more efficient model that is gaining steam in the US is mixed use developments and new urbanism which combines the best aspects of city living but at lower densities with more green space. I am starting to see more condex style develpments that use land more efficiently, yet still allow for greenbelts for all to use. The inherent issue with suburbs is the land footprint they occupy. For those wanting larger lots they should expect to pay a premium compared to those that want the smaller lots. Also, it does boggle my mind how a metro the size of Atlanta could allow developers to carve up huge tracts of land and plop houses on .5 to 1 acre lots each. That is just an absurd waste of land.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

^
A more efficient model that is gaining steam in the US is mixed use developments and new urbanism which combines the best aspects of city living but at lower densities with more green space. I am starting to see more condex style develpments that use land more efficiently, yet still allow for greenbelts for all to use. The inherent issue with suburbs is the land fooprint they occupy. For those wanting larger lots they should expect to pay a premium compared to those that want the smaller lots. Also, it does boggle my mind how a metro the size of Atlanta could allow developers to carve up huge tracts of land and plop houses on .5 to 1 acre lots each. That is just an absurd waste of land.

You don't think people are paying more for big lots now?

[pvande55]

First a grammatical point. Why does the verb "hate" have to be followed by "on?" When I was in school my English teacher would have marked that off. Second, some suburbs have bad development patterns. Schaumburg IL was mentioned. Many from more-rural Lake County use that as a bad example. It has wall-to-wall malls and office buildings with stoplights every block and is almost synonymous with traffic jams. Many from the City, even if they work in the suburbs, see them as so boring. The older railroad suburbs? Even more so. No nightlife at all, very quiet.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Well, for starts, it's probably that in picutre #1, the applicances, furnaces, roofs, cabinets, etc are all in good repair;

I did some research, and picture #2 is, indeed, of German Village. (German Village - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) So, I'm guessing that these things in picture #2 are probably in equal or better repair, (and possibly even newer, in the case of appliances, furnaces, and cabinets) than those found in pic #1. In pic #1, these things are still probably original to the houses, (from the 80's or 90's?) and are approaching the end of their life-expectancy.

the houses are more energy efficient;

This may be true, as a solid brick exterior wall has a lower R-value (unless it's been furred-out and insulated) than a typical wood-framed exterior wall.

the streets and sidewalks are in better repair,e.g. not full of divots;

I think the residents in pic #2 would put up a rather large protest if the city of Columbus decided they were going to pave over those 100+ year old brick streets with asphalt, and tear out the brick sidewalks and stone curbs, and replace them with concrete.

no overhead wires, etc.

That is a nice feature. When that infrastructure was installed in pic #2, it may not have been practical to tear everything up to install underground utilities. Or, the city leaders at the time might not have felt the neighborhood--just another old neighborhood in the city when it was electrified--was worth the extra expense.

The houses are no more "cookie cutter" in picture 1 than in picture 2. I see several styles of houses there.

The houses in pic #1 may be different shapes, but all of the "details" (I use that term loosely) are the same, because all the houses are aluminum or vinyl sided, with a little brick veneer thrown in here and there. While not that apparent in pic #2, there really are buildings/houses of different styles in German Village. Take a tour for yourself: German Village, Columbus, OH - Google Maps

[Katarina Witt]

^^Duly noted. I was just giving some reasons why someone migh prefer #1 over #2. We don't all want to live in "gentrified" neighborhoods. You can be sure the original gentrifiers did not find new appiances, furnaces, etc in their homes. And if German Village is a high-end city 'hood, why not use a high-end burb in comparison, not some tract house area?

[nighttrain55]

Originally Posted by BobMarley_1LOVE

I hear people talk so much trash about the suburbs in there metro region for some reason. People in the Twin Cities diss our suburbs over the internet but in person if they meet someone from the suburbs there all friendly and nice.

Chicago seems to diss on there suburbs too. epically Schaumburg (which actually seems like a really awesome suburb)

But really all i hear is "Your cookie cutter homes are too boring" "Everyone in the suburbs are sheltered and boring"

I grew up in a Suburb and i loved the Homes with large yards and Large shopping centers. I moved to a city mostly because its more convenient for me. I do like the public transportation and how i can walk a couple blocks to University Ave where i can do all my shopping and get food.
It's basically two different lifestyles, some people choose the suburb lifestyle and enjoy it, they prefer to have more room live more spread out and not dense.

For whatever reason, urbanist hold this belief that everybody should live on top of each other, should only live in 400 sq ft houses/apartments/condos, should never drive, should be forced to live in crime ridden areas, go to sh*t schools, etc. They believe that their way of living is superior and that anything else is horrible. Thats my best guess.

[im_a_lawyer]

Originally Posted by nighttrain55

For whatever reason, urbanist hold this belief that everybody should live on top of each other, should only live in 400 sq ft houses/apartments/condos, should never drive, should be forced to live in crime ridden areas, go to sh*t schools, etc. They believe that their way of living is superior and that anything else is horrible. Thats my best guess.

you call this "living on top of each other"?



^ this neighborhood in particular is very walkable and close to public transportation thus a lot of people could live without cars not that I'm suggesting that everyone should it's just that there is an option to not have a car and that's great. It's ironic that people associate driving with freedom... it's actually the opposite.

the reason for crime and ****ty schools in urban areas is due to all that wealth being invested outside the cities in the middle of nowhere in some lakeview/sunshine/valley/village that has zero future and will surely collapse in value once this ponzi scheme of suburbia will end....

[nybbler]

Originally Posted by im_a_lawyer

^ this neighborhood in particular is very walkable and close to public transportation thus a lot of people could live without cars

Yeah, great. Everyone just loves living right next to a large school.

not that I'm suggesting that everyone should it's just that there is an option to not have a car and that's great. It's ironic that people associate driving with freedom... it's actually the opposite.

It's always about the car, isn't it. You know, compared to using the NYC MTA, driving in the suburbs really isn't that difficult.

the reason for crime and ****ty schools in urban areas is due to all that wealth being invested outside the cities in the middle of nowhere in some lakeview/sunshine/valley/village that has zero future and will surely collapse in value once this ponzi scheme of suburbia will end....

And here, the view that suburbanites are escaped chattel from the tax-farms of the city. No, we're not, and suburbs are not going away. The reasons for crime and bad schools in urban areas are to be found squarely within those urban areas, not in the suburbs. Reduce the crime, improve the schools, and you'll get some of that suburban population to move back. Try to do it the other way around and you'll only spread blight.