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 grew up in a low-density suburb (neighborhood had 1 acre lot sizes). It was quiet, well treed and gave an impression one was in a private park. The developer did NOT bulldoze the entire lot. Why bother? You don't anywhere near a full acre to build a house on it. About half of the property was just left to grow wild. I definitely felt closer to nature by growing up there. It was also extremely isolating to be carless there.
Once I lived in more rural areas (or rather large towns near more rural areas) I found the scale and wildness of the "country" areas compared to be nothing like the low density suburbia I grew up in. Nature doesn't survive is lots between houses but exists uninterrupted for long distances.
In any case, low-density suburbia ends up using up a lot of open space and the ugly sprawl you just linked to might be better for preserving open space.
And, yes, I remember a visitor from the city (Manhattan) thinking our house was the "country".
Stating that all suburbs are sprawl and that all suburbs are nothing but subdivisions is incorrect. It's no longer a matter of opinion.
Suburbs are a product of sprawl. Sprawl is the expansion of . That is a fact, it is unavoidable. All suburbs are sprawl--you're just choosing to call suburbs you don't like "sprawl" while pretending that the ones you like are not.
Quote:
What do you think I'm the only person who thinks that suburbs are diverse? And that you can't paint all of the suburbs with one brush?
I don't think all suburbs are alike. They come in many different forms, different patterns, and different densities, serving many different functions, from residential to commercial to employment center. But they are all the product of urban sprawl.
Quote:
You are forgetting one big huge thing.....this is what people from the CITY are sold when they look to leave the city. Oooh a tree! See? You're in the country! Only a person from a city would see a few trees and think they are in the country.
Who's painting with one brush now? In my city, where there are trees everywhere, including downtown, we're hardly lacking for trees.
Quote:
People who were born and raised in the burbs or have spent any significant time in the burbs are VERY well aware it's the burbs! I promise you.
Well, yes, they are...I grew up in the 'burbs, and was very well aware of it the whole time. The fact that people tend to fool themselves into believing that living in the suburbs constitutes "the country" is part of the appeal--but it's also part of the problem.
Quote:
And no all the trees weren't bulldozed. My house was across from a forest that had trees over 100 years old. There were huge trees all over place.
It's obvious you don't know sh*t about the east coast. It's probably best you address the suburbs as western suburbs or whereever the heck you live.
You don't like that street view of the NJ burbs? Don't live there. But don't even try to say that view is anything like this view and expect a shred of credibility
This is sprawl. This should be what pisses you off. Not neighborhoods.
That sprawl doesn't look all that different from the neighborhoods you linked, aside from the climate around the terrain. It's a bunch of single-family homes, low-density, lousy unwalkable street pattern.
Lots of trees, a bit more single-family-house oriented than I like, but the lots are small and closely set, the street has a great grid pattern with shaded sidewalks, there is a little downtown with excellent access to Metra, aside from the parts they demolished to make more parking lots.
Still lots of single-family homes, lots of trees, little lawns--but there is no mistaking this neighborhood for the country! Great sidewalks. You can drive down the street, and park there, but obviously they are too narrow for lots of high-speed driving, which makes the neighborhood safer for pedestrians and kids, but because it's laid out in a grid, it is highly permeable, unlike those suburban feeder-street neighborhoods that loop back on themselves and force longer trips, in an effort to slow down auto traffic while still leaving streets unnecessarily wide. I picked this view because I'm a sucker for Craftsman bungalows but there are also apartments in the neighborhood.
Here's the business district on the north end. Note that there isn't a skyscraper in sight. It's not super gorgeousness, but the businesses face directly on the street, not sitting behind parking lots, so they're handy for pedestrians walking in from the nearby residential blocks.
There are plenty of towns in New Jersey and the rest of the northeast that look exactly like the links you posted. I really don't see a difference. I'm not going to sit here and post all of them. You'll just have to take my word, or look them up yourself.
Wait... I'll play one more time.
How about this. Here is the town of Morristown, NJ. A suburb. Does this past the test?
There are different levels of density and that is what, IMO, makes the US great. You don't HAVE to choose between city or suburb. You can choose one of the many variables of the city or the suburbs. You can have a dense suburb if you want it or you can live in a neighborhood with 1 acres lots and lots of foliage. Something for everybody. What a concept!
I never said there weren't trees in the city. I said that if you think that people in the suburbs "pretend" it's country, you are mistaken. Only city transplants think that a suburb is country.
But you know what? If a person wants to "pretend" that their half acre wooded back yard is the country, they are free to do so. Who is anyone to judge them and tell them it's not real country? WTF is real country when you think about it? Little House on the Prarie? Most people know there is a difference between wilderness,true rural and the country. Just like I know the difference between a real farmer versus my garden and 5 chickens.
You need to give people a little more credit.
Last edited by Yankeerose00; 09-05-2011 at 10:47 PM..
What do you think I'm the only person who thinks that suburbs are diverse? And that you can't paint all of the suburbs with one brush?
You're certainly the only person repeating it page after page, and I've maintained that I accept what you're saying. Just that there are a lot of people who grew up in places where, yes, the modern-day suburbs are essentially sprawl and when that is what you're used to, you start to think of suburbia and sprawl in the same context. The rest of America is not like the Northeast.
In the South, much of the suburbs are more like the Florida bubble-era growth, although not quite at the same breakneck pace. Which is why Florida hurt a lot worse when the bubble burst. "Smart growth" doesn't happen.
Now, I haven't seen you as receptive to the idea that all cities are not the same. You didn't think a golf course could exist within a city when we last went over this.
Because it appears that people are asking for (and questioning!) other posters' qualifications in urban planning, here are mine:
My Master's thesis is based on the history of urban planning in the United States, and its specific application in a particular neighborhood. This included a fairly thorough review of the existing academic literature on urban history and urban planning. I took several graduate-level classes specifically on urban planning and urban history (much of which is focused on how cities develop and grow, aka "urban planning,") and interned for a year in a city's planning department. I am a board member of a nonprofit that focuses on planning issues in the city where I live, including preservation and enhancement of our mixed-use urban neighborhood via infill, better public transit, and preventing overly car-centric uses from disrupting our neighborhood. I also volunteer with this nonprofit, coordinating events and giving talks on these topics, including designing and conducting tours of neighborhoods based on the urban planning principles of Jane Jacobs' "Death and Life of Great American Cities," considered one of the fundamental works of modern urban planning. I have written three (admittedly short) books on local transit history, the history of an urban neighborhood, and a history of my city using its urban development as a framework. I also write articles for a local magazine on local history, redevelopment, urban planning, transportation, and local government.
Prior to going back to graduate school, I was a social worker. I worked with disabled adults in transitional housing and in long-term residential hotel housing in an urban core. Most could not afford a car, and some were physically incapable of driving. I specialized in life skills, especially money management, budgeting, meal planning, cooking and shopping. For about a decade, I taught thousands of people how to shop for groceries and otherwise take care of their needs without a car. I based my classes on research and reading, my own experiences living without a car and cooking from scratch, and the experiences of my clients, many of whom had never owned a car and used the same principles in their own lives. So I do feel that my experience in social work does, in fact, uniquely qualify me to talk about the benefits of being able to walk to the grocery store.
Those are my qualifications to argue with total strangers on the Internet about urban planning. I'm eager to hear what other regulars here are bringing to the table!
I'm not surprised that you have such strong qualifications, given that your posts are almost always informative and well through-out. I've learned a lot from your posts and I appreciate you participation
Now, I haven't seen you as receptive to the idea that all cities are not the same. You didn't think a golf course could exist within a city when we last went over this.
I ASKED if there were golf courses in a city. I did not say there were none. How does asking translate to I did not think a golf course could exist??? I don't play golf. I've only seen golf courses all over the suburbs. So I asked.
When I told someone I used to go riding in Manhattan, they asked me "There are horses in the city?" I told them there used to be stables that closed down a few years ago. They weren't into horses so they wouldn't have known there was riding in Central Park. Same thing.
And I have said, AD NAUSEUM that one cannot judge a city nor suburb. They are all different. Yes I have repeatedly said that suburbs are as diverse as a city. To make a statement about suburbs is as ignorant and short sighted as a person making a blanket statement about a city. They are all different.
I've had to tell people many times that Manhattan is not one big city but rather many different neighborhoods all strung together. I'm very well aware at how diverse cities are. If someone says they live in X city, if I'm familiar with that city, the first thing I'd ask is "What neighbhorhood?" because I'm aware that is what cities are. I believe I've stated this many times in my posts.
All I said was to be specific about a particular suburb rather than target all of them. And you better believe if a person was spouting about how all cities are full of filth, crime, dilapidated buildings, etc (as my inlaws do about NYC) then I'd make an attempt to educate them, or I'd say nothing and realize how ignorant they are about cities.
I still don't understand the disdain for suburbs. I can understand how a city is appealing to a person even though it's not appealing to me personally. What is so hard about understanding that some people like the suburbs? What is so hard about understanding that no all suburbs look the same? What's so hard about understanding that what to you might be the worst of both worlds, to another person, it's the best of both worlds? We are all different. I agree that many places grew too fast with not enough care taken to making it smart growth. But that doesn't mean that every single suburb was built that way.
To say that people who live in the suburbs are pretending it's city is really condescending. That would be like me saying people who live in the city are pretending to be these metropolitan hipsters who think they are better than everyone else.
Some people enjoy the suburbs. They want to be close to a city, but not IN the city. They want a taste of nature around them without having full blown wilderness. They want to be able to open their windows and not hear horns honking. The suburbs give them that. This should not be a hard concept to grasp.
Last edited by Yankeerose00; 09-06-2011 at 11:25 AM..
I've had to tell people many times that Manhattan is not one big city but rather many different neighborhoods all strung together.
Good, all cities are kind of like that. But not all of them are like Manhattan.
Quote:
I still don't understand the disdain for suburbs. I can understand how a city is appealing to a person even though it's not appealing to me personally. What is so hard about understanding that some people like the suburbs?
For my part I'm not really putting "disdain" for anything out on here, except maybe disdain for people getting offended over nothing, or disdain for the idea that people have the need to defend their decisions, whatever they may be.
I've shared my disdain for developers building sprawl for the sake of building sprawl.
(^And of course this will get taken as equating all suburbs with sprawl. Back to square one...)
And of course this will get taken as equating all suburbs with sprawl. Back to square one...)
It won't be taken that way by me! I'm the one who is saying that all suburbs are NOT sprawl. Wburg said they are right here in post 552
Quote:
All suburbs are sprawl--you're just choosing to call suburbs you don't like "sprawl" while pretending that the ones you like are not.
Suburbs are very coveted and desirable in the northeast, specifically NJ, NY, CT. A lot of people living there who absolutely have the means (money) to live in a big city and yet they choose not to. This is why the tri-state suburbs continue to be some of the most expensive real estate in the United States.
since the northeast is the most populated area in the US (other than California maybe) I think it's very short sighted to dismiss the popularity and desire of the suburbs here.
I'm sure there are plenty of places throughout the US that has very beautiful suburbs. That is why I don't care for blanket statements about them. They have their purpose and they aren't going anywhere in spite of some poorly built suburbs in the past.
Good, all cities are kind of like that. But not all of them are like Manhattan.
For my part I'm not really putting "disdain" for anything out on here, except maybe disdain for people getting offended over nothing, or disdain for the idea that people have the need to defend their decisions, whatever they may be.
I've shared my disdain for developers building sprawl for the sake of building sprawl.
(^And of course this will get taken as equating all suburbs with sprawl. Back to square one...)
Yeah, the whole point of this thread came from someone who likes the burbs, and decided to solicit feedback from other posters as to what's "wrong" with living there. Therefore, people gave their opinions and others don't like it.
IMO there is no right or wrong with where someone wants to live, unless that is misaligned with what is sustainable for society. This is where the discussion of costs/subsidies, sustainability, negative side-effects, etc. come in. This does not mean that I blame people for choosing where they want to live or how they want to live; it's their life. However, people will always get defensive when their decision is at odds with information that's presented like what's cost-effective for society, or what's sustainable for society, etc.
So, then starts the weak arguments and distractions to wreak havok on progressive conversation. Some of it's ingenious; some is down-right confusing. In any event, the one thing that will change in this country is money....when money runs low, things are bound to change. This country cannot sustain unchecked, poorly-planned development. Everyone is entitled to live where they want IF they can afford it. The government will continue to slowly transfer the cost of living in the burbs as they have less money to budget with. It will encourage people to live where it's most profitable for the politicians writing the rules, which will likely be planned burbs and other places where transit is possible (because it will be cheaper to subsidize). This will be the real test IMO.
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.
