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 ask this, because of the demand for walkability, safety and good schools, among other things, it seems like this may be the way to go. Now, I know that it isn't cut in dry, as there may be an issue with one or more of these demands or there are other demands like diversity(ethnic, racial, cultural, etc.) or public transportation that come into play for some people. Some places may or may not be incorporated, which could inpact tax burden. With this said, are there such places that can fit all or most of the criteria mentioned? What are some examples? Is this option the best in terms of all or most criteria?
Depends greatly on the metro, and individual village/city. They may not be as walkable as a center city neighborhood and just feel different in character. Best of both worlds is subjective. Built similar to a denser, walkable city neighborhood but outside the city limits might be the best of both world for those who are looking for "urban" but are looking at schools. These are often expensive
For Boston, Brookline is the classic example. Great schools, very safe, much of it pedestrian oriented similar in form to Boston proper. For New York City, Hoboken is similar in style to Brownstone Brooklyn but its schools are if anything worse. You'd have to look at each place individually.
I ask this, because of the demand for walkability, safety and good schools, among other things, it seems like this may be the way to go. Now, I know that it isn't cut in dry, as there may be an issue with one or more of these demands or there are other demands like diversity(ethnic, racial, cultural, etc.) or public transportation that come into play for some people. Some places may or may not be incorporated, which could inpact tax burden. With this said, are there such places that can fit all or most of the criteria mentioned? What are some examples? Is this option the best in terms of all or most criteria?
London was originally villages surrounding the city so many London suburbs do have their individual charm but of course they are now very expensive and often too trendy.
I'm Australian and live in NSW and the capital of that state, Sydney, is surrounded to the south by another city, Wollongong, to the north by 2 regional areas (Central Coast, Lake Macquarie) and a city, Newcastle, to the west by a group of towns in the Blue Mountains. The way that gets to the country regions quickest is via the Southwest. Each of those regions have their own demographic make-ups.
If one wants to feel like they live in a village but still not be too far from the city centre, there is the Blue Mountains. There is also a tiny town just north of Sydney called Brooklyn which is halfway between Sydney and the Central Coast - it has the feel of a fishing village and there are also many homes that are only able to be reached by boat.
In regards to Australia's capital city, Canberra, if one wanted to, one could work in the city but live in a small unspoilt country town and commute to work (that's what I'd do if I lived in Canberra).
At present, I live a long way from any major city and I love it
Of course. The auto dependent suburb is dead (good riddance) the successful new developments will be based on town models or new urbanism principles. The developments that fail to do this will lose out to the town centric developments and bit by bit they will decay until a tipping point is reached at which point they will rapidly become modern slums. In the meantime, almost all demand will be for either living in the city or living in near a town center in a mixed use walkable neighborhood with a variety of housing types for many different income levels. By far the most successful of these developments will be located on transit lines allowing most households to give up a car.
Of course. The auto dependent suburb is dead (good riddance) the successful new developments will be based on town models or new urbanism principles. The developments that fail to do this will lose out to the town centric developments and bit by bit they will decay until a tipping point is reached at which point they will rapidly become modern slums. In the meantime, almost all demand will be for either living in the city or living in near a town center in a mixed use walkable neighborhood with a variety of housing types for many different income levels. By far the most successful of these developments will be located on transit lines allowing most households to give up a car.
I agree that auto-dependent sprawl may very well be on its way out, but people who desire more living/breathing space will continue to enjoy big custom homes on big lots, the sort of which were interspersed between the dense, walkable village centers you and the OP speak of. I didn't have a sidewalk on my street, but I was only a ten minute bike ride away from a few of these village centers. A lot of people also did the old park and ride on the regional rail into the City.
I agree that auto-dependent sprawl may very well be on its way out, but people who desire more living/breathing space will continue to enjoy big custom homes on big lots, the sort of which were interspersed between the dense, walkable village centers you and the OP speak of. I didn't have a sidewalk on my street, but I was only a ten minute bike ride away from a few of these village centers. A lot of people also did the old park and ride on the regional rail into the City.
It seems to be doing fine here.
Maybe more of a balance. You have Curtis Village (more "new urban") and Greenbriar (less "new urban," but built along the proposed light rail line to the airport, Township 9 broke ground earlier this year on the first welfare housing project. Still could be awhile until any market development occurs.
I said "may very well" for a reason. The problem with sprawl is that it tends to age poorly, and I believe there's only so many shiny, new rings of it that can be built before it becomes outright unsustainable. It's definitely more a "watch and wait" thing though.
I think dwindling roadbuilding funds pose much more of a threat to exurbs than demand itself.
California probably is ahead of the curve there because of our low property tax rates. Even conservative, Tea Party stronghold areas like Granite Bay and EDH haven't been slowed down by the dwindling roadbuilding funds. They just levy a Mello-Roos fee and get it done that way. Turns out that even Tea Party activists like to pay taxes as long as they are local taxes going to things like schools, parks, and roads.
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.
