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.
I never said an urban environment was a paradise, I wasn't discussing that. I gave a negative of suburbs based on MY experience. Am I not supposed to criticize places I've lived in? Sure, not all suburbs are similar to where I lived, but most are harder to get around without a car, and someone without a car would have less independence.
Neither did I mention about going into the city for culture, that's a different subject.
That is pretty much what this topic started out to be. The OP seems to believe by sending our kids to suburban schools, we are depriving them of walkability, vibrance, independence and culture. The point that we are making is that, we want to send our kids to the best school possible, even though if we did send them to a low performing urban school they could probably still succeed, and that just because we live in the suburbs, our kids did not or will not miss out on this culture and vibrance. Will our kids be attending art gallery openings, museums, the opera, or theatre everyday like apparantly city kids do, probably not, but everything that city kids experience or you think experience, our kids can to.
That is pretty much what this topic started out to be. The OP seems to believe by sending our kids to suburban schools, we are depriving them of walkability, vibrance, independence and culture. The point that we are making is that, we want to send our kids to the best school possible, even though if we did send them to a low performing urban school they could probably still succeed, and that just because we live in the suburbs, our kids did not or will not miss out on this culture and vibrance. Will our kids be attending art gallery openings, museums, the opera, or theatre everyday like apparantly city kids do, probably not, but everything that city kids experience or you think experience, our kids can to.
You were responding to my post. I am not the OP, I didn't say that.
The OP said he/she lives outside the city limits in a close-in suburb though urban. I'm wondering where the OP lives, I could probably narrow it down to 3-4 communities...
I'm sorry, isn't the main benefit of the suburbs that they're more spread out (lower density), thus providing a quieter, less hectic place to live? With that environment, aren't zoning regulations largely in place to designate single zones for residential development, commercial development, etc.? I can understand arguing that cities have more face-to-face robberies, or that suburbs have better schools, but I have a really hard time understanding how anyone can argue that suburbs at large provide the walkability and carless indepedence that urban environments do.
Are there suburbs that are walkable? Yes! Is the average suburb more walkable than the average urban environment? NO! People can't have it both ways. Kids can have independence in suburbs, but if anyone thinks that this carless independence in the AVERAGE suburb is greater than carless independence in the AVERAGE urban environment, you're wrong.
Now, that's not to say a kid can't grow up perfectly happy in the suburbs with a degree of independence, but it doesn't mean that that kid has the carless mobility that a kid in an urban area necessarily has. There are exceptions to the rule, but then again, what are we talking about here? One person's exception?
Last things first. You are wrong that "98%+ of the homes in suburbia are NOT walkable to much of anything". Depending on what you call "walkable" a defintion that seems to change to fit the user's points, my house is walkable to a lot of places. First of all, there are a lot of kids living right here in the neighborhood, so it's walkable to their friends' homes. Secondly, there is a church in this neighborhood for those of that faith (Mormon). The church has two baseball fields on their property which they have said the neighbors can use when they are not using them for church purposes. There is a park about 1/4 mile away, though you'll never find it on a walkscore map. There is a hiking/bike path to the park, so kids don't even have to walk on the streets.
Next, the elementary school is about 1/2 mi. away. Some kids from this neighborhood walk to school, others ride their bikes. Another, bigger park is about 3/4 mile away. A shopping area is about a mile away, not too far for older kids. There is a bus stop by the church from which kids or anyone else can go pretty much wherever they want. We also have a service from the public transit co. called "Call and Ride" whereby you can call and the bus will pick you up at your home or wherever and take you to wherver in town for the same fare as a regular bus.
Shockingly, there are kid friendly restaurants in the suburbs. Why wouldn't there be? There are also plenty of recreational activities through the rec center and the YMCA.
We also have a number of festivals. I am going to post my suburban cities' website, and you can puruse it.
As far as going out with kids in tow, it sounds like you don't have any kids. You have no idea how much work goes into putting these kids in these double strollers you mentioned above, and getting out of the house. What looks like a carefree stroll down the street is often quite a hassle to pull off.
Fine, so your suburb in Louisville is walkable in areas. It certainly isn't too walkable here, which is very close to the center of town:
Are these places beautiful places that provide a high quality of life? Sure. Are they truly walkable? No! The definition of walkable isn't measured within the confines of a person's physical ability to walk places (sure, we could all walk 1.5 miles to the closest grocery store, but it isn't going to happen frequently), it's measured against whether it is as convenient or more convenient to walk to amenities (e.g. stores, school, etc.) than it is to drive.
All of the place chosen above are pretty standard suburbs; some more walkable, some less walkable. And before you cherry pick places within city limits that are not walkable, I agree that there are places within cities that are not urban enough, thus providing a real walkable environment. The point here is that the average suburb is not as walkable as the average urban neighborhood.
I'm sorry, isn't the main benefit of the suburbs that they're more spread out (lower density), thus providing a quieter, less hectic place to live? With that environment, aren't zoning regulations largely in place to designate single zones for residential development, commercial development, etc.? I can understand arguing that cities have more face-to-face robberies, or that suburbs have better schools, but I have a really hard time understanding how anyone can argue that suburbs at large provide the walkability and carless indepedence that urban environments do.
Are there suburbs that are walkable? Yes! Is the average suburb more walkable than the average urban environment? NO! People can't have it both ways. Kids can have independence in suburbs, but if anyone thinks that this carless independence in the AVERAGE suburb is greater than carless independence in the AVERAGE urban environment, you're wrong.
Now, that's not to say a kid can't grow up perfectly happy in the suburbs with a degree of independence, but it doesn't mean that that kid has the carless mobility that a kid in an urban area necessarily has. There are exceptions to the rule, but then again, what are we talking about here? One person's exception?
1. Not all suburbs are created equally, and I think urbanist underestimate the amount of the suburbs that have high density.
2. People move to the suburbs for different reasons, do some move for more quiet, less hectic, yes they do, but that is not reason for every person in the suburbs.
3. I still don't know what walkability and indepedence means anyway. If walkability is being a 5 minute walk from a grocery store, you can find that in the suburbs.
4. The much bigger point is, being in an urban enviroment doesnt automatically mean you are going to have culture, vibrance, independence, and walkability. I have family that grew up and still live in the projects, none of my cousins can sit there and say they had independence and could walk anywhere they wanted to. I also doubt they have ever stepped into an art museum.
Well, yes. And there's no reason you can't walk somewhere in the suburbs, either. Where are you going to take little kids who fit in strollers? Not to a bar; not even to a coffee shop unless it's for the parent. There's nothing for a kid to enjoy at Starbuck's.
Where would you take little kids who fit in strollers in the suburbs? Are the following examples not good enough? Because they were provided when you asked the question 10 posts ago:
Quote:
The squares around where we live often have festivals on weekends, for example last weekend was one called "Honk!" and many of the local kids were our enjoying the festival and watching the parade as went through town. These festivals are pretty common and are a great way to bring the community together.
Two farmers markets are walkable from our house.
Teens are free to walk to one of three local squares where they can go to restaurants, get ice cream, etc. Kid friendly restaurants abound and when you go to dinner for the early shift, the restaurants are full of kids of all ages. Teens are also free to jump on the train and go to others parts of the city, car free.
That very same poster (who lives in an urban suburb) stated that they have lots of events and places they take their children by walking out the front door with a stroller. This means that they get to bypass dealing with loading up the car, unpacking and then putting them in the stroller (plus the return trip). Are these not real activities?
1. Not all suburbs are created equally, and I think urbanist underestimate the amount of the suburbs that have high density.
2. People move to the suburbs for different reasons, do some move for more quiet, less hectic, yes they do, but that is not reason for every person in the suburbs.
3. I still don't know what walkability and indepedence means anyway. If walkability is being a 5 minute walk from a grocery store, you can find that in the suburbs.
4. The much bigger point is, being in an urban enviroment doesnt automatically mean you are going to have culture, vibrance, independence, and walkability. I have family that grew up and still live in the projects, none of my cousins can sit there and say they had independence and could walk anywhere they wanted to. I also doubt they have ever stepped into an art museum.
You're failing to read and/or comprehend here. Here's what I posted in the post that you quoted:
Quote:
Kids can have independence in suburbs, but if anyone thinks that this carless independence in the AVERAGE suburb is greater than carless independence in the AVERAGE urban environment, you're wrong.
The AVERAGE suburb does not provide the carless independence that the average urban environment. It simply can't, based on average build. In other words, there are many many very unwalkable suburbs, which is what a lot of people want.
Where would you take little kids who fit in strollers in the suburbs? Are the following examples not good enough? Because they were provided when you asked the question 10 posts ago:
That very same poster (who lives in an urban suburb) stated that they have lots of events and places they take their children by walking out the front door with a stroller. This means that they get to bypass dealing with loading up the car, unpacking and then putting them in the stroller (plus the return trip). Are these not real activities?
I put my kid in a stroller and take him to the park almost every day along with the dog. People in car dependent suburbs do walk their kids in strollers. i know its shocking to hear that, but people car dependent suburbs do walk in their neighborhoods.
Now, that's not to say a kid can't grow up perfectly happy in the suburbs with a degree of independence, but it doesn't mean that that kid has the carless mobility that a kid in an urban area necessarily has. There are exceptions to the rule, but then again, what are we talking about here? One person's exception?
More than one, gauging the responses from this thread.
There weren't too many places I couldn't go as a suburban kid. The bus took me downtown and to the farther-flung shopping centers and movie theaters, everywhere the kids in the city could go. I walked or rode my bike to school, to friends' houses, to our suburban Main Street and nearby shopping plazas, to church youth group, or to my after-school jobs. School buses took us to athletic events in neighboring districts. After I took the bus downtown, I could catch a ferry to the beach. Bumming a ride from Dad was a convenience (or his insistence) rather than a necessity.
The buses and ferries still run same -- I think there's more bus service now, actually, going more places, and a new trolley route -- so the transportation options have not changed for kids living where I grew up.
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.
