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.
Suburbs are more diverse now than they used to be because it is no longer legal to segregate them in order to keep them exclusively white. Large lot sizes are used as a filtering mechanism to keep poorer populations (and, for the most part, nonwhite populations) from moving into these low-density suburbs.
And the older suburbs are merely surviving proof of the fact that we didn't always build cities (or suburbs) this way: the disposable suburb is a product of the postwar era.
Which war? Korea? Vietnam? The first Gulf war?
My mom's house was built in 1955. When does her neighborhood become "disposable"?
Suburbs are more diverse now than they used to be because it is no longer legal to segregate them in order to keep them exclusively white. Large lot sizes are used as a filtering mechanism to keep poorer populations (and, for the most part, nonwhite populations) from moving into these low-density suburbs.
Really? I thought the large lot sizes were to keep the neighborhood quiet. There were few poor people in the parts of my suburb that had smaller lot sizes.
I remember as a kid being taken by my family to a hearing where the developer wanted a zoning variance to build on smaller lots. Everyone knew the houses would be too pricey for poor people, the main worry was that it would destroy the "country" look of the area. And, as one kid said, where would the foxes live?
Of course, the real country feel had been destroyed by those already living there. But once you live there, why develop more?
Once you started to talk about affordable housing, especially if it's in apartment buildings, people got worried about the poor moving in.
Wburg, I had posted links to towns in NJ and CT that are what would be considered desirable by most standards (good schools, educated populace, low crime, clean, upscale) and you didn't like them because they weren't walkable.
It seems like if a place isn't walkable, you don't like it. But that is what separates the city from the suburbs. Suburbs aren't walkable. You need a car. But just because one needs a car in a town, doesn't mean the town should be written off a disposable.
Walkable downtown has become a buzz phrase. But walkable downtown is not the same as walkable town. A lot of places have walkable downtowns with fancy boutiques, coffee or ice cream shop. It's a fun way to spend a Saturday or Sunday. But the towns themselves are not walkable. Most poeple living in the towns can't walk to the downtown. The need to drive to get to the "walkable downtown" and the downtown is rarely someplace that could sustain a person's lifestyle anyway even if they could walk there.
So a lot of new urbanism's attempt at creating walkable downtowns STILL doesn't alleviate the need for a car. It's just something that sounds nice and looks nice. It gives the town more character and charm and takes a town from being a bedroom community into something more Norman Rockwell. It's not going to alleviate the need to drive.
You figured it out! That describes my tastes as well.
Yes and I can get on board with that. To me the WORST of all worlds would be having to live in a city and still need a car. But there are many cities, more specifically, sections of cities where people live and still need a car. So you have dense housing and multiple cars per house! See, many parts of northeast New Jersey and Long Island. My idea of hell.
Many people feel that way as well. They figure if they can't truly live the city life with urban loft apartment and no car, then why not live in a suburb and have a big backyard and some space between neighbors?
Wburg has every right to not like a place that isn't walkable. Just don't call them disposable, subsidized sprawl where people with "no sense" go to gyms and schools suck tax dollars away from the city. (He didn't say this all in once breath, but this has been said)
They have their place, they come in as much variety as any city, and obviously a lot of people are very happy living there.
Most cities are not prepared fiscally or spacial enough anyway, if everyone decided to leave the suburbs for the city. Be glad the suburbs are there. Most cities would end up looking like New Delhi.
Toronto's downtown is not as diverse as it's suburbs either. It used to be more diverse but not anymore.
The pre-WWII section of Toronto has minorities make up about 30% of the population, but the suburbs of Markham and Brampton and former suburbs of Scarborough and North York which are home to a total of about 2 million people have minorities make up around 60% of the population. I would say that it's mostly due to a limitted supply of housing in the core area of Toronto which means higher costs of housing.
Anyways, sprawl to me is just a negative word for low density. The thing about very low density, like where Yankeerose grew up is that while I can see why some people would want to live there, it's not a feasible way of housing an entire city because it would take up an insane amount of space. If everyone in the North East lived on 1-2 acre lots, the entire region from Pittsburgh to Boston to Washington would be covered in this sparse suburbia. Most people would have to live in denser neighbourhoods, because they would be less expensive to provide services to, less expensive to live in and allow most of the countryside in the North East to be kept intact.
Yes and I can get on board with that. To me the WORST of all worlds would be having to live in a city and still need a car. But there are many cities, more specifically, sections of cities where people live and still need a car. So you have dense housing and multiple cars per house! See, many parts of northeast New Jersey and Long Island. My idea of hell.
Driving a car is hell for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankeerose00
Many people feel that way as well. They figure if they can't truly live the city life with urban loft apartment and no car, then why not live in a suburb and have a big backyard and some space between neighbors?
Not true at all. How many people you know want to get rid of their car and live in a dense environment suddenly pack up and move to a McMansion in the suburbs? I don't know one.
I'm wanting to move to a denser environment, but you can forget getting rid of my car; living the way I want is expensive, yet I'm not running to live in Sugarland or The Woodlands.
My mom's house was built in 1955. When does her neighborhood become "disposable"?
In general, after World War II, but it really took off in the 1950s. I don't know if your mom's neighborhood was disposable or not, but my mom's neighborhood was built about the same time, and it's just about used up.
Wburg, I had posted links to towns in NJ and CT that are what would be considered desirable by most standards (good schools, educated populace, low crime, clean, upscale) and you didn't like them because they weren't walkable.
It seems like if a place isn't walkable, you don't like it. But that is what separates the city from the suburbs. Suburbs aren't walkable. You need a car. But just because one needs a car in a town, doesn't mean the town should be written off a disposable.
Nonsense! Plenty of suburbs are walkable. Although it isn't walkability (or lack of it) that makes suburbs disposable--it is their ability to be easily surpassed by new layers of suburbs, their cheap construction, their design with an aim for selling lots of land cheaply with the bare minimum of other investment, and of course the potential for future cannibalization and teardown/rebuild. Building memorable, durable places discourages this sort of thing, but it costs more.
Quote:
Walkable downtown has become a buzz phrase. But walkable downtown is not the same as walkable town. A lot of places have walkable downtowns with fancy boutiques, coffee or ice cream shop. It's a fun way to spend a Saturday or Sunday. But the towns themselves are not walkable. Most poeple living in the towns can't walk to the downtown. The need to drive to get to the "walkable downtown" and the downtown is rarely someplace that could sustain a person's lifestyle anyway even if they could walk there.
So a lot of new urbanism's attempt at creating walkable downtowns STILL doesn't alleviate the need for a car. It's just something that sounds nice and looks nice. It gives the town more character and charm and takes a town from being a bedroom community into something more Norman Rockwell. It's not going to alleviate the need to drive.
Well, yes and no. Calling a little strip of cutesy boutiques and cafes a "walkable downtown" is a common device in some nurbanist developments, but it's not my idea of a walkable downtown. Nor is a downtown "walkable" if people are supposed to drive there, walk around, and drive home.
My city has a walkable downtown, for example. What that means is, I can walk there from where I live, and it has more than a few boutiques and restaurants. It has many places of employment, many types of stores (including hardware, grocery, drugstore, clothes etc.) that I'm likely to need for everyday life, AND a bunch of restaurants and boutiques (admittedly, we're a bit weak on consumer electronics.) And not only does it have stores and places of employment, it has residents. Not enough (not NEARLY enough, in my opinion) but the downtown is also a residential district. People call it home, and those folks have an even shorter walk to work than I would.
Also keep in mind that one of the things you should be able to walk to in a "walkable" neighborhood is a transit stop! So you don't have to live within walking distance of downtown for it to be walkable--as long as you can get there conveniently via transit. You don't have to worry about finding a parking space or getting a parking ticket.
Now, a lot of small towns had their cores devastated by the rise of big-box stores, which has hurt walkability, but in many cases we're seeing a return to localism, featuring local businesses, but there are even efforts towards "small-box retail" as big chains like Tesco and even Wal-Mart experiment with small neighborhood stores instead of gigantic big-boxes. We'll see how that progresses--people sick of the generic big-box approach are starting to turn back to local businesses, demanding "Made in America" products and the unique character of small business. No Norman Rockwell appropriation is required--this is as much about going to the local tattoo/piercing studio for an ampallang as it is about getting a malt at the local diner.
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.
Driving a car is hell for you? 
