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.
Such hostile responses. See the bolded parts of my original statements. I think I made it pretty clear that I have no problem with someone liking a typical suburbaban/exurban cul de sac, it just doesn't suit me personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferraris
Though it's not for me, I can see the appeal. I think that front porches and plenty of walkable local "institutions" are better for community building (parks, pools, sports facilities, playgrounds, schools, library, coffee shop, neighborhood bar, etc.) .
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferraris
It's funny how two people with the same goal of safety can come to completely different, yet equally valid conclusions. Cul-de-sacs are usually found in the most car centric suburbs and exurbs. I'd much rather live in a less car centric place and limit the amount of time my family and I are spending in vehicles. Car accidents are the number one cause of death in kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGab
Neighborhood bar
Neighborhood bars can be a great Third Place.
I'm not talking about places that have crime or crazy binge drinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGab
Anyway, you can still have parks and playgrounds in communities with cul-de-sacs!
You certainly can, but on average fewer people will be able to reach them on foot and not as quickly, because you don't have the efficiency of a street grid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGab
So, you would rather live in a city like downtown Chicago or NYC? I think a suburb is actually safer for kids, but just my honest opinion!
It's not all or nothing. There's a whole spectrum of areas to choose from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
You can have all that and cul-de-sacs, too. I don't get this binary thinking. And all those amenities take a bigger population than my 'hood of about 100 houses or maybe even the 'hood in this picture. We don't know what's outside the picture, which is a common tactic of the "urbanista" types when they want to show "urban sprawl".
I will credit the neighborhood in OP's picture for at least having sidewalks.
Winding cul-de-sac subdivisions can certainly have those amenities nearby, it's just that fewer people will be able to reach them or it will take longer to get there because of the lost efficiency due to the street layout. Lots of people are okay with that trade off due to benefits like lower traffic, and that's ok for them; it's just not for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
In other words, pave over the country with multi-family housing and no lawns but you avoid the dreaded car! Sorry, I cared more about my kids quality of life (as well as my grandson's) than to jump on that bandwagon.
No need to be sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with someone who is holier than thou.
Nice job putting words in my mouth, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
And if you think you can reliably train the most intelligent, pliable kid to never ever violate safety regulations, you clearly haven't raised more than one child.
You missed my point. I said a kid has "more control" over their safety when playing in the street or a yard. A kid in the seat of a car has zero control over what happens.
While I can understand that some might enjoy that lifestyle, it is absolutely, completely not for me - I'd be miserable.
Fortunately, we have different options for different people with different preferences.
Herein lies the problem. The true urbanists want to tell everyone what to like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferraris
Such hostile responses. See the bolded parts of my original statements. I think I made it pretty clear that I have no problem with someone liking a typical suburbaban/exurban cul de sac, it just doesn't suit me personally.
Neighborhood bars can be a great Third Place. I'm not talking about places that have crime or crazy binge drinking.
You certainly can, but on average fewer people will be able to reach them on foot and not as quickly, because you don't have the efficiency of a street grid.
It's not all or nothing. There's a whole spectrum of areas to choose from.
I will credit the neighborhood in OP's picture for at least having sidewalks.
Winding cul-de-sac subdivisions can certainly have those amenities nearby, it's just that fewer people will be able to reach them or it will take longer to get there because of the lost efficiency due to the street layout. Lots of people are okay with that trade off due to benefits like lower traffic, and that's ok for them; it's just not for me.
No need to be sorry, I didn't realize I was dealing with someone who is holier than thou.
Nice job putting words in my mouth, too.
You missed my point. I said a kid has "more control" over their safety when playing in the street or a yard. A kid in the seat of a car has zero control over what happens.
Bolds:
Every bar has binge drinking. Every. single. one. Crime? Well, people are more likely to commit crime when drunk. Why do the new urbanists think bars are so great?
I don't think any subdivision is laid out in grid form any more.
I think the picture in the OP is from California. Out west here (I'm in Colorado) we do have sidewalks everywhere. Just about every picture posted of so-called "urban sprawl" from the western US shows sidewalks, even in places where there is a lot of auto-related business (car dealerships, big box stores, etc.). "Fewer people will be able to reach them", lol! It's a few more steps in most cases.
Lets just chop down every bit of nature and pave over everything !!!
Pavement for a front yard, how stupid. But maybe some day a 737 might have to do a U turn ?
Cul de Sacs are FINE! That congested mess of a subdivision, filled with houses packed tightly on tiny slivers of property, with neighbors so close? THAT looks awful! I'd never want to live in a place like that!
But THAT has nothing to do with the Cul de Sac.
I grew up on a lovely, well planned Cul de Sac, in the 1960s and 70s. We had old growth trees. (the place was built around the trees) The homes were on a .33 acres.
It was a great, safe, friendly place to grow up! So much so that when we purchased our own house, we chose a Cul de Sac similar to the one on which I grew up.
That picture, however, looks like suburban hell. And this, from someone who generally likes suburban life.
Telling an obese person what to eat and how to exercise isn't a problem. That obese person still has the free will to live his life and disregard any suggestions he may receive, just like how you have the freedom to live in a suburb.
In London, the neighborhood pub is cherished and protected. There are planning laws that restrict in their conversion into other uses. Plus, there is the Agent of Change law that stipulates that if a pub, bar, or music venue exists in the area first, any new residential development must be responsible for providing soundproofing. This will prevent residents from moving into a hip area that is conducive to noise, then they start complaining about noise, which will eventually shut those establishments down. Believe it or not, it's actually the Conservative Party that legislated those laws.
And pubs are all over the UK -- in cities, villages, even in rural places (although US-style suburbs are rare in the UK). Every neighborhood in London has a local pub or two. Have I mentioned that London is a city of 1,400+ villages? If not, please visit my other post to learn more about London's villages. In most of these villages, there is a local pub that people can go to drink and socialise. Every Londoner has a "local" that they go to frequently. Kids can come in as well with their parents; after all, a pub basically stands for "public house". Some pubs have quiz nights where you can win cash if you're great at trivia. Some have board games you can borrow. Some have specialised in craft beers, while some specialise in gourmet dining (gastropubs).
Here is a typical scene in London after work. The pubs are overflowing with office workers after a day's work. It must be a hotbed of crime as you claim (regardless of what we may think of bankers). Sure, they might be more prone to insider trading when drunk, but is that enough to close these down? Peter Rees, the former city planner for the City of London, said it best when he said that it is usually in those environments where business relationships are forged. And that is also the beauty of living in London -- even these wealthy bankers do not drive, so we can all be sure that none of them will end up drinking and driving.
Or what about this picture? Only a Puritan from America would consider them criminals. I'd rather have these good people carry a pint of beer than a gun. And yes, it is perfectly legal to drink outside in the streets in the UK.
Herein lies the problem. The true urbanists want to tell everyone what to like.
Bolds:
Every bar has binge drinking. Every. single. one. Crime? Well, people are more likely to commit crime when drunk. Why do the new urbanists think bars are so great?
I don't think any subdivision is laid out in grid form any more.
I'm not telling people what to like or where to live.
It's completely fine with me if you or someone else don't want to live near a bar. As I said earlier, a good bar can be a great "third place" and does not have to be a nuisance to the neighborhood. If someone doesn't want to live near one, that's completely up to them. It's just not my preference.
I think you are correct about the bolded part. There're been almost half a century of non-urban development. So someone who prefers a more little more urban lifestyle has to either compromise and live somewhere more suburban than they'd prefer, pay out the nose for one of the hot neighborhoods in an urban core, or live in an mediocre or undesirable area due to crime, unacceptable schools, or blight. I have lived in all 3 of those options.
Quote:
I think the picture in the OP is from California. Out west here (I'm in Colorado) we do have sidewalks everywhere. Just about every picture posted of so-called "urban sprawl" from the western US shows sidewalks, even in places where there is a lot of auto-related business (car dealerships, big box stores, etc.). "Fewer people will be able to reach them", lol! It's a few more steps in most cases.
That's great to hear that sidewalks are common out there even in modern subdivisions. But still, fewer people will be able to reach fewer places. It's not an opinion, it's just the geography of it. It will take longer to get to places, and "a few extra steps" eventually adds up to "Let's just drive"...what people perceive as "walkable" quickly drops off beyond half a mile to a mile. Which, AGAIN, is completely fine if someone wants to live like that. It's just not for me.
Telling an obese person what to eat and how to exercise isn't a problem. That obese person still has the free will to live his life and disregard any suggestions he may receive, just like how you have the freedom to live in a suburb.
Just like you have free will to continue living in London.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovelondon
In London, the neighborhood pub is cherished and protected. There are planning laws that restrict in their conversion into other uses. Plus, there is the Agent of Change law that stipulates that if a pub, bar, or music venue exists in the area first, any new residential development must be responsible for providing soundproofing. This will prevent residents from moving into a hip area that is conducive to noise, then they start complaining about noise, which will eventually shut those establishments down. Believe it or not, it's actually the Conservative Party that legislated those laws.
That may be but the picture you are responding about isn't from London. Venues that generate smells and noise after hours or attract drunks and misdemeanor types might be popular in London residential areas but they don't tend to be welcome in U.S. residential suburbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovelondon
And pubs are all over the UK -- in cities, villages, even in rural places (although US-style suburbs are rare in the UK). Every neighborhood in London has a local pub or two. Have I mentioned that London is a city of 1,400+ villages? If not, please visit my other post to learn more about London's villages. In most of these villages, there is a local pub that people can go to drink and socialise. Every Londoner has a "local" that they go to frequently. Kids can come in as well with their parents; after all, a pub basically stands for "public house". Some pubs have quiz nights where you can win cash if you're great at trivia. Some have board games you can borrow. Some have specialised in craft beers, while some specialise in gourmet dining (gastropubs).
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovelondon
Here is a typical scene in London after work. The pubs are overflowing with office workers after a day's work. It must be a hotbed of crime as you claim (regardless of what we may think of bankers). Sure, they might be more prone to insider trading when drunk, but is that enough to close these down? Peter Rees, the former city planner for the City of London, said it best when he said that it is usually in those environments where business relationships are forged. And that is also the beauty of living in London -- even these wealthy bankers do not drive, so we can all be sure that none of them will end up drinking and driving.
... and you may find plenty of "pubs" near downtown areas or in commercial developments - not so often in residential developments in "suburban" developments in the United States. In addition at least some of the "business relationships" you find okay in London is illegal throughout virtually all of the United States and generally unwelcome near residential suburbs as is any establishment attracting such "business".
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovelondon
Or what about this picture? Only a Puritan from America would consider them criminals. I'd rather have these good people carry a pint of beer than a gun. And yes, it is perfectly legal to drink outside in the streets in the UK.
Fortunately your preference as to what people carry is not binding on anyone in this country and the options aren't exactly mutually exclusive. In your country carrying a gun is not really an option due to governmental restrictions?
Looking at the age and genders in your picture - it's pretty obviously more of a singles bar than a family place. You will find them in "downtown" areas but typically not near residential subdivisions in the U.S.
You'll probably find those "Purtians" from America will be more than happy to have you hauled out of the residential neighborhood if you are openly drinking on public streets/sidewalks - at least in cities or areas where the local government isn't exclusively focused on other criminal activity.
I'm not telling people what to like or where to live.
It's completely fine with me if you or someone else don't want to live near a bar. As I said earlier, a good bar can be a great "third place" and does not have to be a nuisance to the neighborhood. If someone doesn't want to live near one, that's completely up to them. It's just not my preference.
I think you are correct about the bolded part. There're been almost half a century of non-urban development. So someone who prefers a more little more urban lifestyle has to either compromise and live somewhere more suburban than they'd prefer, pay out the nose for one of the hot neighborhoods in an urban core, or live in an mediocre or undesirable area due to crime, unacceptable schools, or blight. I have lived in all 3 of those options.
That's great to hear that sidewalks are common out there even in modern subdivisions. But still, fewer people will be able to reach fewer places. It's not an opinion, it's just the geography of it. It will take longer to get to places, and "a few extra steps" eventually adds up to "Let's just drive"...what people perceive as "walkable" quickly drops off beyond half a mile to a mile. Which, AGAIN, is completely fine if someone wants to live like that. It's just not for me.
LOL! First you say you're not telling people what to like, then you talk about how awful cul-de-sacs are! You do conclude that it's OK if someone wants to live "live that", with the implication that "like that" is somehow faulty. How do you know how people in the suburbs make decisions? You apparently don't live in one.
Have you ever lived near a "neighborhood bar"? They're all kind of a nuisance, which is why in many places they're zoned out. (Zoning, OMG!)
LOL! First you say you're not telling people what to like, then you talk about how awful cul-de-sacs are! You do conclude that it's OK if someone wants to live "live that", with the implication that "like that" is somehow faulty. How do you know how people in the suburbs make decisions? You apparently don't live in one.
Have you ever lived near a "neighborhood bar"? They're all kind of a nuisance, which is why in many places they're zoned out. (Zoning, OMG!)
We had a zoning case here recently where a guy wanted to reopen his bar. He'd closed his previous location which abutted a residential area and it was constant complaints about parking, noise, trespassing, public urination (all he had were portajohns because he'd driven the business through huge and now closed loophole in our zoning).
His new location was also abutting a residential area and the neighbors went nuts. We had to approve his application because he met all our requirements.
He ended up not doing anything because he had no money so the building is still there with its 30 year business in it (owner wants to retire and is tired of selling appliances and furniture).
That's not how cul de sacs look in my neck of the woods. They have trees, and larger yards, and the kids play in the street after dinner and there is virtually no traffic. Little ones learn to ride bikes without fear of being hit by a car. On pleasant evenings, the adults pull out chairs and gather and socialize together while the kids play.
My experience with them also. Especially an advantage where kids are concerned.
We love our cul-de-sac. Because of the cul-de-sac, it's a pie-shaped lot, so it's actually bigger than most lots here. And we can't see into our neighbors' houses and vice versa. I love having no traffic. I especially loved it when my kids were little. Lots of soccer games in front of our house. It was also great when the kids were learning to ride bikes. All the neighbors in our cul-de-sac get along great. We have cul-de-sac parties a few times a year where we bring grills, chairs, tables, and games into the 'sac and just hang out. We have no plans to move, but if we ever did, I would seek out another one.
Oh, and want to add that we have sidewalks and are walking distance to the community park and pool, and several businesses - restaurants, stores, coffee shops, and a great ice cream parlor.
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.
Especially an advantage where kids are concerned.
