Why do so much people hate on the Suburbs?? (suburban, downtown, park)
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.
and i currently live in a TH that adjoins such areas, and have lived in such areas. And visit friends in such areas, have coworkers in such areas, and read threads on the NoVa forum about such areas.
The notion that "urbanists" are not aware of the considerable demand for SFHs on quarter acre lots is either intentionally false, terribly ignorant, or involves a very odd and narrow definition of what constitutes an "urbanist"
and i currently live in a TH that adjoins such areas, and have lived in such areas. And visit friends in such areas, have coworkers in such areas, and read threads on the NoVa forum about such areas.
The notion that "urbanists" are not aware of the considerable demand for SFHs on quarter acre lots is either intentionally false, terribly ignorant, or involves a very odd and narrow definition of what constitutes an "urbanist"
well based of UU previous post he/she seems to be under the impression if people had more options for an urban environment, we would see a shift in more people living an urban lifestyle and than a suburban lifestyle.
I think what me and yankee are saying is, its seems like urbanist have this belief if everybody had the option between the city/urban environment or suburbs/sprawl, most people would pick the urban environment. These auto-dependent suburbs keep being built, so whoever is bulding them must be looking at the market data and seeing that more people seem to desire auto more than urban.
if thats what ya'll are saying, y'all are wrong. LOTS of urbanists regularly quote a Pew study saying 33% of people would tradeoff house/lot size for convenience to transit and walkability. last I checked, 33% is less than "most". And its also been pointed out that at least some of that 33% would make that tradeoff only on unrealistic terms - IE they would accept a SLIGHTLY smaller house/lot, in return for being VERY close to a heavy rail metro line AND a walkable neighborhood with LOTS of shops, restaurants, etc - IE a tradeoff they will never get even if policies that are favorable to "urbanism" (but are realistic) are adopted.
My sense in metro DC where I live is that about 10% of the metro area population lives an "urbanist" lifestyle - that includes folks in high density/walkable suburbs, and excludes folks living in the city on large lots in less walkable areas, and poor folks living in the city who'd rather leave. Id say another 10% of the metro area is people who WOULD move to urbanist places IF they were more reasonably priced - and for whom the price reduction is realistic, if we remove some obstacles to high density development, build more (but not fantasy map) high frequency transit, improve the walkability of some existing areas, etc. Another 10% are so SAY they would like urbanism, but the prices will never be low enough to make it work for them. So thats 20% out of the whole metro area. A minority. But also double the current population of "urbanist" areas, and enough to make a big difference in the metro area. Its also possible that as "urbanism" becomes more common, SOME folks who currently prefer lower density will change their minds (or their children will)
well based of UU previous post he/she seems to be under the impression if people had more options for an urban environment, we would see a shift in more people living an urban lifestyle and than a suburban lifestyle.
in metro DC apartments near a metro station are at a considerable premium, as are apts and houses in "walkable" areas. The prices considerably exceed the cost of construction, as demonstrated by high land prices. Its not clear if that will resolve itself simply with time, or if policies that restrict the amount of development near transit stations, and the limited number of transit stations themselves, will keep those prices so high.
Clearly there are metro areas where urbanist living is cheap, and restrictions dont matter that much.
I think what me and yankee are saying is, its seems like urbanist have this belief if everybody had the option between the city/urban environment or suburbs/sprawl, most people would pick the urban environment. These auto-dependent suburbs keep being built, so whoever is building them must be looking at the market data and seeing that more people seem to desire auto more than urban.
some points
1) A lot of "urban" neighborhoods in the US aren't all that urban, and don't give a walking city atmosphere. BajanYankee has pointed this out ceaselessly. Without that, an urban environment loses much uniqueness compared to "sprawl" and you're just getting homes packed closer together.
2) Schools and crime are a major cause of leaving the city. It's a negative spiral
3) Many of these safe urban places have high housing costs compared to "sprawl" suggests there is demand. These areas are all built out, there's no space left. Building housing on the edges of a metro is difficult
4) It's hard for developers to build new urban centers, developers plop a bunch of houses in one area, stores go in another spot. A new urban center would require lots of planning
5) Many suburban government actively discourage higher densities by law. If there was no demand higher densities there would be no need for anti-density restrictions.
No one said most people would pick the urban environment. At the most, more than currently live in one today. Maybe I don't like most people's preferences.
The notion that "urbanists" are not aware of the considerable demand for SFHs on quarter acre lots is either intentionally false, terribly ignorant, or involves a very odd and narrow definition of what constitutes an "urbanist"
That's not what nighttrain was getting at. He's basically driving straight at the heart of the issue, which is that UU views people who have made a willing and conscious decision to live in the suburbs as having made an unethical choice on some level. UU tried to soften his stance by suggesting that some poor souls end up "trapped" in the burbs, and thus make an unethical choice against their will (akin to the guy selling drugs to buy pampers), but then that still leaves the people who looooove the suburbs and promote even more suburban development by taking out mortgages. Those people, in his view, are making an unethical choice.
And you can't just pin the "immorality" on the boogeyman planners and politicians, as nighttrain is saying. There are many people who love and want that big 4,600 sq. foot house with a pool, so they are just as morally culpable as the builders. After all, the builders would not build those houses if people didn't want them in the first place. So he can't get around calling individuals "unethical" by simply blaming the creation of McMansion subdivisions on big, bad greedy developers, politicians and planners who seek to isolate people from the joys of urban living.
whenever you bring morality and ethics into any discussion, you pretty much are acting as if you are responsible for telling people what is moral and what is immoral. You make it seem like a car-dependent suburb is somehow solely responsible for all the problems with the environment. I'm failing to understand how a suburb that may be 20-40 minutes away, is affecting a community that lives in the city?
There is a lot you are failing to understand. Morality and ethic can be a part of any discussion without people preceiving it as a personal attack.
It has been explained to you many times, NO ONE IS CALLING YOU IMMORAL!!!
As a society, in a time of dwindling resources, there are better policy decisions than promoting sprawl.
And anyone who thinks peacocks are unethical is immoral.
There is a lot you are failing to understand. Morality and ethic can be a part of any discussion without
people preceiving it as a personal attack. It has been explained to you many times, NO ONE IS CALLING YOU IMMORAL!!! As a society, in a time of dwindling resources, there are better policy decisions than promoting sprawl.
UU is saying that designing auto-dependent is unethical. Well there are people who are living in those unethcal suburbs, so I would consider that a personal attack.
There is a lot you are failing to understand. Morality and ethic can be a part of any discussion without
people preceiving it as a personal attack. It has been explained to you many times, NO ONE IS CALLING YOU IMMORAL!!! As a society, in a time of dwindling resources, there are better policy decisions than promoting sprawl.
Honestly, I think the words "wise policy" or "bad policy" would have resonated with people much better. There's a certain perception of pretentiousness associated with the urbanist lifestyle. "I shop at Trader Joe's. Good choice! They shop at Walmart. Bad choice. I walk to work. Good choice! They drive to work. Bad choice. I pity them." Saying that the matter is an "ethical" one doesn't do much to change that perception.
Honestly, I think the words "wise policy" or "bad policy" would have resonated with people much better.
It definitely would have. But functionally, the meaning isn't too different. The last several pages are partly a debate over word choice, which is rather annoying.
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.
They shop at Walmart. Bad choice.
I walk to work. Good choice! 
