Seriously, what's wrong with living in the suburbs?? (suburban, downtown, schools)

[Yankeerose00]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Great points, that weren't brought up before in our other "grocery shopping" threads. Another issue is that every time one goes to the store, "impluse buying" comes into play.

Thanks! I know this from experience. I read a few blogs years ago that caused me to completely overhaul how I shop. I cut a good 30% off my bill. I'm cheap like that.

[JR_C]

I don't think anyone here wants to get rid of cars. (I suppose there are extremists out there who might) IMO, what most "urbanists" want is a better balance of walkable, transit friendly communities to auto-dependent communities. I think many more people would choose to give up their cars if they could. As has already been mentioned, it's generally more expensive to live in the city. (outside of the rustbelt) This is probably because the demand exceeds the supply.

But to give you an idea of how unbalanced the system can be, here is one example: In Ohio, less than 1% of the state's $3 billion transportation budget is used for public transportation. Ohio has over 11 million people, and over half of them live near a major city. Why try to take away peoples' cars, when many would give them up, if they had a better public transportation system to use?

And, transportation funding is only one facet of the city vs. suburb relationship. As a non-driver, it's just the one I'm most interested in.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

And what is this "pattern"?

The one you continue in this latest reply. Distorting what people are saying and debating against the distorted viewpoint of your own devising. In logic this is known as a "straw man."

Let me demonstrate.

So there are no urbanists who would like to do away with cars and who believe that people who have cars are selfish? Is that what you are saying?

That isn't what I'm saying, because I can't deny with any degree of certainty that a viewpoint exists. Given the scope of humanity and the broad range of opinions therein, I could only assume that a given mindset - no matter how absurd - has to exist in someone's head. That said, you are going on and on about viewpoints that the people here, such as wburg and myself, are not expressing. See "straw man." Debate our viewpoints with us, not someone else's.

I made it very clear in my posts that I am PRO city, suburb and country. All of it. It's all good with me.

Good to hear. It's a shame such an openminded viewpoint apparently has to be buried beneath a bunch of ranting about one set of people to another, and broad generalizations. When you put words in my mouth, so to speak, no, I'm not going to respond so favorably.

It takes cities 20 years to finish highways for pete's sake. They are going to bring in public transit and actually change communities before we are all on social security? Sorry, but when I hear about all of these plans, color me skeptical.

You know the old saying of how Rome wasn't built in a week? Well, let me say something a little less cliched here, something on which people seem to lose perspective. Remember, in case you are actually reading my posts, about how I touched the other day on building for the future rather than for now, because what you build today will outlive today? Well, after you're on Social Security, and after you're gone - after we're all gone - the world will exist and there will be people living on it, and living in the places where we used to live. For that matter, there were people living where we do before we came around, and things have changed drastically since their time.

If we slip into a mindset where we don't think something is worthwhile because we'll never live to see the day something is finished or is yielding results, then we will stop progressing as a society and as a species. That's not a good thing. It's an acute lack of vision, and such thinking is not what built this country. Indeed, it's what's destroying it.

Do people really think that cars are preventing people from exercise?

Driving does not in itself prevent anyone from exercising, but it is certainly doesn't qualify as exercise, and if someone's life revolves around working at a desk in an office, spending an hour or two commuting to work and then getting home to sit at a desk and do things like post on internet forums - then it's highly plausible that proper exercise may not enter some people's personal schedules.

LIke I said, using cars less, carpooling, smaller cars.....all good and plausible.

I don't disagree. Maybe if you will quit debating unspecified "urbanists" and start actually reading the posts made by the people currently participating in this thread, you might see that you'll agree with some of the ideas being put out there.

Another note, I hope you all realize that the model of grocery shopping that most urbanists use is the LEAST cost effective method of shopping. It's pretty much proven that small trips to the grocery store add up to more money than buying in bulk when stuff is on sale. Take out and having food delivered also results in paying top dollar for food.

Once again, here we go with the unspecified "urbanists."

If it's proven, then maybe you can answer this for me - how does it cost more money if you do not necessarily have to drive for every trip? Regarding stuff on sale - do you consider the possibility that going to the store with the idea of buying lots of stuff could make some people buy things they normally wouldn't because it's 50 cents cheaper than normal? The retail business model is more or less built around promoting the idea that you will save money by spending money.

Having the ability to travel to a store that is 3 miles from one's home than being confined to the store that is 1 mile allows for more savings.

Where I am, I have at least six supermarkets within a mile of me, probably more I'm not thinking of. You know what really drives down prices? Competition.

This is a planned community not far from where I used to live in Tampa. IMO it was a very well planned community far different from the typical Tampa metro cookie cutter subdivision. The housing had much more character and diversity, the community had its own schools, there was plenty of shops one could walk to as well as doctor and dentist offices, restaurants, etc. It was aesthetically pleasing and very walkable. But there was no public transportation such as cabs or a metro/train line or anything. It saved people some trips in their car and gave people someplace to walk on Saturday afternoons, but in no way did it sever or even lessen dependability on having a car. I'm all for communities like this for aesthetic purposes. But for true walkability and barely using a car....well, I just don't see that happening.

Several suburbs around the country have these "town centers." They are developed using more traditional urban elements but, being in the middle of an otherwise car-centric suburb, people indeed drive to get to it. It's not that far removed from the enclosed shopping malls of modern suburbia's heyday, just without the enclosure. Now, some of these such as this one in The Woodlands, Texas - those are my photos, if they would interest you - there is a residential element tied to it as there is a midrise apartment building on the edge of the development. It may be visible in some of those photos. Of course, rather than transforming the entire community, it merely provided an extra choice. Nobody was forced into the apartments, and nobody was forced to give up their cars. They're choices.

[Yankeerose00]

Remember, in case you are actually reading my posts, about how I touched the other day on building for the future rather than for now, because what you build today will outlive today?

Whenever someone is proposing change, and in some cases demanding it, and that change can only come with 20-30 years of construction resulting in MORE traffic and congestion, tax hikes, and overall headaches that we will not ever reap the benefits of, the burden of proof is on that person to prove that these changes are good.
You can't just say, "This is how it should be" with no proof. It seems the straw man arguments are coming from people who are doing nothing but speculating how they think things should be. The truth is, nobody knows what is best for the future 20-30 years out.

All of the questions I've asked in my posts were valid questions. They weren't what if the sky falls type of questions. Asking about needing a trip to the hospital, walking in pouring rain or snow, shopping for a family of 5 are all valid questions. Any urban and regional planning board should have logical and clear answers on demand for these types of questions because they apply to the majority of people these changes will affect. Most single people do end up married and most married couples end up having kids. It's just the way it is.

Debate our viewpoints with us, not someone else's.

This is the first time I'm even talking to you so I don't know what you are talking about. What words did I put in your mouth? I'm confused.

and the word urbanist is offensive? I thought that is what they were calling themselves?

how does it cost more money if you do not necessarily have to drive for every trip? Regarding stuff on sale - do you consider the possibility that going to the store with the idea of buying lots of stuff could make some people buy things they normally wouldn't because it's 50 cents cheaper than normal? The retail business model is more or less built around promoting the idea that you will save money by spending money.

No, the retail business model is built around convenience. Why do you think convenient stores can get away with charging almost double what a regular grocery store would cost? People will pay for what is faster.
Anyone who is a hardcore coupon clipper and grocery shopper knows that you save money by taking less frequent bigger trips and stocking up with what is on sale. Small, frequent trips end up costing more.

Where I am, I have at least six supermarkets within a mile of me, probably more I'm not thinking of. You know what really drives down prices? Competition.

This is true. But only a really dense environment could support 6 supermarkets withing a mile. I don't think I've seen that even in NYC. It's not likely to happen within most neighborhoods. So competition is better achieve when stores are within a 3-7 mile radius. People can easily take a 10 minute drive and have several stores to choose from.

There are loads of post on this topic with absolute vitrol for the suburbs. People cannot dish out that kind of hatred and not expect to take some heat back.
If a poster comes to this board and says, "Hey I want to move to the city and not have a car. Give me some tips on what you do" that would call for people talking about their lifestyle.
But I don't see that. I see people who live in the city who just cannot fathom how people don't want to live in the city and would choose the suburbs. There's a lot of overblown drama about how people waste their lives away in their cars. It's absurd. Come on now. You're telling me there is no backlash for people living in the suburbs and I'm imagining all of this?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by jfre81

You know the old saying of how Rome wasn't built in a week? Well, let me say something a little less cliched here, something on which people seem to lose perspective. Remember, in case you are actually reading my posts, about how I touched the other day on building for the future rather than for now, because what you build today will outlive today? Well, after you're on Social Security, and after you're gone - after we're all gone - the world will exist and there will be people living on it, and living in the places where we used to live. For that matter, there were people living where we do before we came around, and things have changed drastically since their time.

If we slip into a mindset where we don't think something is worthwhile because we'll never live to see the day something is finished or is yielding results, then we will stop progressing as a society and as a species. That's not a good thing. It's an acute lack of vision, and such thinking is not what built this country. Indeed, it's what's destroying it.

Giving you props because I can't give you more positive reputation for a while. The idea that we shouldn't bother fixing cities because we might not live to see it is indeed a short-sighted philosophy: obviously, it is the point of view of someone who doesn't have kids. Any parent would want a better future for their children's and grandchildren's generations, even if they never get to see it themselves! Big changes take time, but for those of us with our eye on the future, not the short-term bottom line or stuck in an idealized (but nonexistent) "Leave it to Beaver" past, long-term incremental projects make a lot of sense.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by Yankeerose00

and the word urbanist is offensive?

Where did I say this? You're doing it again!

Let me make something clear right now. You're not offending me. Nobody on this forum is capable of offending me. I can't get offended by people who don't know me. Now, I might see something posted and think "well, this goofus certainly has his/her head someplace that receives very little natural light" or I might think "you know, there's nothing really wrong with this person other than he/she's simply a poor debater" but I don't go "oh, no, somebody slapped a label on me, I'm offended!" I might establish that I do not necessarily hold the views you would project on me based on your dealings with some other people, who you have yet to specify. (You're welcome to do this in a PM if you don't feel like calling someone out)

As it stands, every post I read from you in response to one of mine has my views and, apparently, my emotional reactions to your posts completely misconstrued.

But only a really dense environment could support 6 supermarkets withing a mile.

You'd be surprised. Note when I say "within a mile" I might mean one or two of them are a mile north of me, another two or three are a mile west of me and another one is about a mile south of me. In any case, a mile is a pretty long distance in urban terms.

I'm not going to delve too much into what drives retail, as it's kind of off-topic. I will ask you to consider that some people may pay a little more to lead a lifestyle they choose to live. There are people who do not value money over everything else.

I would say this seems a foreign concept to proponents of suburban living, but I'd hate to generalize so much.

It would make sort of a hypocrite of me.

[wburg]

Paying for a lifestyle is give and take. If I can save $100 by spending $10 in gas, that's worth it. Spending $10 in gas to save $1, not so much.

There are plenty of ways to buy in bulk without having to drive to the store all the time. You can join a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) collective, where you pay a set amount to receive a large box of fresh, in-season fruits and vegetables, higher in quality and lower in price than even a discount market. There are also meat/butcher CSAs. Dry, non-perishable goods (pasta, dry beans, wheat etc.) can be bought at extremely infrequent intervals, minimizing the cost and hassle of renting a car or paying a taxi. As mentioned repeatedly before, there are many ways to increase the carrying capacity of one walking person, like carts, grocery baskets, bicycles with cargo panniers, trikes or trailers, or even a little red wagon, to facilitate carrying large loads. Insulated grocery bags make carrying meats, dairy or frozen goods by hand easier (and more comfortable!)

But, in general, it's a matter of opportunity cost. It's more cost-effective for me to walk to the grocery store for incidental trips, sometimes buying a smaller-than-optimal size, than to plan a special trip to a store far away to get the "jumbo economy size." And yes, often "Costco Syndrome" sets in, where you get far more crud than you need because the sale was too good to pass up, or you put five times as much mayonnaise on every sandwich because you want to use up that gallon of mayo before it goes rancid. But mostly, my nearby shopping trips are for perishable goods that wouldn't last the month anyhow (fresh fruit and vegetables, milk, etc.) or items I would purchase in smaller quantities because it's not worth it to me to buy the larger size (like that gallon of mayonnaise.)

It would be a challenge to count the number of grocery stores within a mile or two of my house: two chain groceries, one discount market, one department store with a grocery section, a big Asian market, a natural food co-op, six or seven weekly farmer's markets, six or seven small ethnic markets, two catering to special diets (vegan and gluten-free), a couple of wholesale places that market mostly to restaurants and resellers, and roughly a zillion corner markets (some of which carry little but chips and beer, while others have fresh produce and ethnic food sections.) And I don't live in a very dense neighborhood: barely 10,000 people per square mile, mostly 2-3 story buildings.

But really, how many grocery stores do you need?

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by jfre81

I'm not going to delve too much into what drives retail, as it's kind of off-topic. I will ask you to consider that some people may pay a little more to lead a lifestyle they choose to live. There are people who do not value money over everything else.

I would say this seems a foreign concept to proponents of suburban living, but I'd hate to generalize so much.

It would make sort of a hypocrite of me.

Instead, you come off as arrogant and condescending, then YOU ask for civility.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Instead, you come off as arrogant and condescending

As a counterpoint, I humbly submit the possibility I am being more cordial than I should be with people who are grossly misrepresenting my positions and insisting to debate some nebulous third-party collective of "urbanists" instead of the people actually participating in the discussion right now.

[Yankeerose00]

As it stands, every post I read from you in response to one of mine has my views and, apparently, my emotional reactions to your posts completely misconstrued.

Other than that other post, I don't recall even responding to any of your posts. I don't even recognize your name. I just went back and read my posts and I don't see where I even addressed you about anything! Other the post above this one, I haven't quoted you about anything. I honestly don't know wtf you are even talking about. My post #435 was the first time I talked to you and I was addressing what you said to me.

But, yeah, I really don't get what you are saying since apparently all of my conclusions are wrong.

When you said this

Once again, here we go with the unspecified "urbanists."

I thought you were offended by the word the way you put it in quotes.

But, in general, it's a matter of opportunity cost. It's more cost-effective for me to walk to the grocery store for incidental trips, sometimes buying a smaller-than-optimal size, than to plan a special trip to a store far away to get the "jumbo economy size."

But that is fine for a single person or a couple. For a family, the jumbo economy size is cheaper when you break down cost per ounce, pound, gallon, whatever in most cases.

And yes, often "Costco Syndrome" sets in, where you get far more crud than you need because the sale was too good to pass up, or you put five times as much mayonnaise on every sandwich because you want to use up that gallon of mayo before it goes rancid.

I don't go to Costco and yes there are some people who waste money shopping but you are not giving suburban shoppers enough credit if you think everyone shops this way.

But really, how many grocery stores do you need?

More than one if I want the best deals.

Okay, so what is the goal here? I'm not getting what is being advocated. Since I'm misconstruing every God damn thing you are saying, please break it down for me like I'm 5.

I'm not advocating that people move to the country so my only justification for my lifestyle is that it works for me. If I was advocating country life for the masses, I would have a clear cut plan as well as be able to easily answer how my lifestyle would work for all families. I'm just not reading that here.

Fixing up the cities? Great idea. Improving existing infrastructure? Great idea. I'm very frugal. Utilizing and maximizing what already exists works for me. But then I'm reading about bringing public transit to cities, or getting people to leave the suburbs (Not you wburg or Jfe. This board in general) Lots of hostility toward people who live in the suburbs as though their choice to have more house and yard for their money is single handedly leading to the decline of Western civilization.