Suburbia RIP?

[Su30mki 0]

Originally posted by: chasespncr

^ kinda funny how you talk about walking around the mountains as a child and loving it but now all there is to do is to go on a hike....people being rude and judgemental is just natural...and about the "low class"..they get free health care and free government money..they suck all the money out of the system and sell the drugs to the population..quote>

Chasespncr, let's go through this step-by-step.

1) You missed the point of the poster you quoted. As much as you like pizza, do you want to eat only pizza every night? Suburbia, in its tendency to homogenize a population and predispose them towards material consumption over any other form of recreation,  manages to smash the attractions and ways-of-life that make any individual place distinctive for its residents.

2) Yes, to some extent, everyone is rude or judgmental. However, suburbia tends to isolate individuals and families, exasperating these traits.

Is anything we discuss absolute? Absolutely not! No one is saying that suburbia makes everyone the same or that everyone only consumes. However, there may be a definite tendency. 

3) I won't address your very last point as it is just incredibly ridiculous. Let's go instead to the point before. You speak so angrily of people who use the system to get services. Did you ever consider that maybe other people don't like being in a situation where they have to be given services either? Or do you want someone to give YOU services without working? Not very American of you I must say.

You might reasonably ask, what is my compentency to speak on this subject.  As a family among the top 2% of income earners, we have a definite economic incentive to support low-tax, low service policies. In fact, the amount of property tax we pay pays for the education of the equivalent of at least 4 other studentswho are not paying their share. I don't say any of this to thump my chest. I am establishing that from a purely personal economic point of view, I have no reason to support welfare. However, we recognize that we, as Americans, and Indian  immigrants at that, that we have a responsiblity towards the country and towards the poor. In our business, we rent apartments to generally low-income individuals. I have seen the gambit of people, from those who do truly suck the system, to those who work 90 hours a week at multiple jobs to support themselves. Beat that, chasespncr, before you comment on how low income individuals suck the system.

In an ideal world, we do not need welfare. However, that is only possible when we have given everyone equal opportunities. Have we given everyone equal opportunities?

Let me ask this. In this country, we fund education not through federal funding  but through a combination of state grants and the main source, property taxes. Most city income comes from  property taxes. Here's the fundamental problem, though. As density increases, the amount of income from property taxes becomes less proportionately to population. Thus, poorer education. How can we have equal opportunities without equal education?

Even more of a problem than suburbia/urbania is basic weakness in the American education systems. It is scary to see how few people understand how the economic system, political system, and international relations work, and these subjects are supposed to be America's strong suits (we'll totally leave out how woefully inadequate we are as a country at math and science). If people don't understand economics, of course they will say bailouts are a bad thing. They will always rail against government intervention,seeing it slow the growth of the country without seeing that it reduces the depth of recessions that result from uncontrolled business practices during growth periods. Returning to suburbia, they will always see the pristine, prefab suburban world around them and love it without considering the implications that aren't obvious to the naked eye.

[piccboi824 1]

North America will never be anything like Europe or Asia without a massive overhaul of infrastructure which will cost in the trillions of dollars and therefore will never happen in any of our lifetimes and maybe even in the lifetimes of the next three generations. You would have to reorganize the layout of the suburbs and develop way too much in order to have anything like what Euorpe and Asia have, at least in the younger cities in the Western and Southern United States. It is highly impractical to extend transit into the outer suburbs due to the tremendous cost of expanding and operating transit and the fact that the majority of the suburban population aren't just going to stop driving because there is public transit. In fact, in most places, transit plans are heavily opposed by those who have the option of driving. In my neighborhood in Miami, andy plan to have a street running LRT or a commuter train running on existing track, has always been voted down by the community because people won't give up their cars, especially in areas farther out. Even my sister and her husband who live on the west side of Chicago with a Blue line stop at the end of their block, will drive to work instead of taking the train, because they can then operate on their own schedule. I on the other hand would be on that train everyday I because I hate driving.

Families in the suburbs won't be making a mad dash back to city either for several reasons. The cost of living in decent areas of cities like New York, LA, Chicago, Miami, etc. is incredibly high. In Miami for example, a nice sized 3 bed/2 bath can be purchased for $300,000 outside of the city, while a place of equivalent size in a decent neighborhood within the city would be on the market fro 3 times as much. Another factor that keeps families in the suburbs is the higher crime rate and poor performance of city schools. My sister and her husband moved into a newly gentrified neighborhood in the West Side of Chicago 5 years ago. The area has made a comeback, with a lot of young professionals, med students, and such moving into the area. Most of these people are single, dating couples, or newly weds just starting out who moved there because it is only 10 minutes from the Dwntown Loop and is within walking distance of the Illinois Medical District and the University of Illinois at Chicago. They don't have a problem with the moderate crime and poor school performance, because they don't have kids. But once the kids come along, they will sacrifice convenience for good schools and the ability for their child to play out on the street without exposure to drugs and violence.

On the other hand, I do believe that living in the city affords a different experience than growing up in the suburbs. You are exposed more to a variety of cultures and encounter people from all walks of life. It is sad to say that suburbia in most cases does not demonstrate the diversity of our country bothe racially/ethnically and socio-economically. There are also a lot of good magnet and charter schools being established in major cities that perform well, plus there is always private education. You also can spend less time commuting and more time with your family. Plus there is just more of a real world experience in urban areas. I grew up in Miami which has "urban" suburbs, so it was the best of both worlds (except transportation and commuting really sucks) because I benefited from good schools, more space, and lower crime but I also encountered a formed a diverse group of friends, developed street smarts and lived the busy city lifestyle.

To sum things up, suburbia may not be ideal, but it won't be disappearing anytime soon.

[Doofenshmirtz 0]

"because they can then operate on their own schedule"

This says it all. Imo if any public transportation infrastructural investment is to happen that would do much to alleviate sprawl you'd have to overcome that mindset in the suburbs, which is based around the car. Even where there are train lines and bus services, the car represents freedom and i know in America even more so, it is almost like an American coming of age to get a car (from tv you'd think they worshipped cars). I suppose education is the key to change here, and as much as i like the character of cars and 1900s suburbs/cities, the realistic approach is not to turn to idealism or the images of freedom offered by cars but to invest in public transport. Thus i think education is the key thing required. If a generation grows up aware of the problems of sprawl and also does not worship the freedom a car gives, they will be fine using public transport. But it's a hard thing to ween these motorists off of, considering that lifestyles are based around the car.

I read earlier comments about not being able to go a small distance without a car and this is one problem. I used to go for bushwalks in the nearby escarpment and often had to use the shoulder or just the side of the road to get to the track heads, as i don't have a car and neither does my mother.

So i guess an all round approach needs to be taken, one that changes not only peoples perspectives and images of cars and the car based lifestyle but educating them about the realistic problems that sprawl generates

But all the while i'll still like the character of suburbs. Then again i like steam trains.

[hamsterTK 93]

Well you can't argue with the fact that the status quo city has it's problems, and many people live in the suburbs because it's the best option they have.

My attitude is more along the lines of asking what things can be done to improve the way suburbs are built and how they are integrated into the rest of the city.

[Cob92 360]

Originally posted by: Tarkus

Originally posted by: haljackey Land owners sold huge areas to developers and kicked the farmers out, getting enough from it to retire on. 

I don't know how farming arrangements work up in Ontario, but at least here in Oregon, just about all the farmers are land owners here.  We've got an urban-growth boundary system here, and whenever the boundary expands to include some farmland, that farmland becomes super-valuable and the farmers make loads of money selling it off. 

Something similar happened with the suburb I live in, most of which is actually part of Houston proper. The area that it sits on now used to be owned by a ranch, which sold out to Exxon in the early 20th century, who later sold to developers from the 1960's onward as the oil fields were depleted. Houston's kind of bucking the national trend right now; our economic growth has slowed down, but it still hasn't seen serious decline (even though I'm just a teenager, I pay plenty of attention to the news). And pretty much the entire city is one big pile of suburbanesque sprawl.

TBH, I like having suburbia. I wouldn't like having to be packed into an apartment building with 1000 other people. I'd much prefer driving a car and operating on my own schedule rather than being stuffed into a bus or subway train like being in a herd of cattle. The suburbs are almost free of problems like gangs, thieves, murderers, rapists, and the like which roam the streets of the inner city. And I'll admit the suburbs are probably the easiest way to seperate yourself .
 

[duack 14]

I couldn't agree more with Cobhris. Most people do prefer to live in suburbs because its better. If it wasn't better, than why would so many people live there?

I've also found an interesting statistic on this site:

http://reason.org/news/show/examining-sprawl-in-europe-and

According to that website, 75% of America's urban population live in suburbs while 65% of Europe's urban population lives in suburbs. Not much of a difference there. Even though they are more densely populated, European suburbs are still automobile oriented and aren't much more dense than the suburbs of LA. I'd just like to point that out seeing as so many people here assume that suburbanization is an American phenomenon when really, it isn't.

Also I'd like to wish a happy birthday to Nikola Tesla.

[PattyO 0]

This was mentioned a couple pages back; I would have commented on it had I been able to read it and comment on it

Before I begin, I should explain where I live. I live in a rural area outside the "exburbs" in an area to the northeast of the Twin Cities (Minneapolis / St. Paul). There is a very distinctive line between rural and exurb that one driving around western Wisconsin can see clearly. For example, the small city of New Richmond WI. In 2000, New Richmond housed just over 6,000 people; here in 2009 the city has just over 8,000 people. That means that 25% of the people in this little city moved here within the last 9 years. The heart of the city consists of older construction, mostly single family homes and businesses in a grid system that is like many other small non-suburban cities in the US - remember that before the past 10-20 years, New Richmond would be considered too far from the city center to be heavily developed. However, where 10 years ago you would find farms and woods, today you find newer housing developments. If you travel eastward (away from the Twin Cities), you will see large houses on large lots owned by Mud Ducks (a Wisconsin title for Minnesotans, just a local jab at our next-door neighbors ) that fled the city for the "country." BUT just a mile or two beyond this, you will find none of these types of developments, as if someone drew a line in the ground. My point: Cities grow outward and they always will; country becomes exurb, exurb becomes suburb, and (maybe) suburb becomes urban. Right now growth in New Richmond and Western Wisconsin is stalled, but the damage is done. St. Croix County (the center of development in Western WI) has the highest tax rates around, though still lower than Minnesota metropolitan counties. St. Croix County is an exurb in general; tons and tons of large-lot properties sprinkled with housing developments, all amid the remaining farms that haven't sold out yet. Right at this moment, development in St. Croix Co. is stalled, but this will change; A 4 lane highway was recently constructed that goes from New Richmond to the St. Croix River, and a bridge across the St. Croix River into Minnesota is planned to divert traffic off the old 2-lane lift bridge that is extremely congested and structurally deficient. As soon as that freeway bridge is completed development in St. Croix Co. will spike, as will property taxes, land values and property selling prices.

This fits in with something that all of us can and must agree on. One: under normal circumstances, cities that exist will continue to grow in population. Two: under normal circumstances, cities that have more people must have more space for those people to live. Cities can either "densify" or sprawl, and unfortunately most metropolitan areas continue to sprawl.

I can understand the desire to live in the exurbs. These small villages outside the city and the suburbs have that sort of country feeling that many people desire. Local services are typically less expensive, schools are better, and as a whole the non-suburban feel is more desired by some. The problem is that exurbs will inevitably become suburbs as more and more people move to them.

[Raysfan16 5]

That is completely true. Where I live is a northern suburb of Tampa. I live about ten miles away from the suburban(or exurban)-rural fringe. And it is obvious too. There are housing developments all over state road 54, and my neighborhood is one of them (In fact, it was also one of the first when we moved in here 15 years ago). There was a middle school located just over the 'border' on the rual side, and the elementary and high school students went to school in a nearby town which was more established. Then a new high school came in. Then here comes more neighborhoods. Then up pops an elementary school, all on the same road with the high school and middle school. More neighborhoods pop up, then a district park comes up, along with shopping centers. And I've lived to see it all happen right before my eyes. No joke. I watched out my school bus window in kindergarten how there was a new subdivision coming up, then a 7-Eleven, then a shopping center, then a professional park. If we take a drive down State Road 54 from the terminus af SR 56 and, say, CR 577 (which is a majur thouroghfare for the suburban nuts and school buses these days), I can guarantee you that less than 10% of the buildings and subdivisions weren't there when we moved in.

It's been pretty sad to see it. As Tampa grows and thrives as a city, which it will due to the good leadership by Pam Iorio, you will see development skip down towards SR 52, and the cycle will continue, as there also will be a story of a little kid watching as culture-free shopping centers and boring housing developments (trust me with those words, I live in one) go up before his eyes too. And it will also consume the exurb Zephyrhills, and maybe even Dade City, although for the fairly near future that town is safe. It is just like PattyO's story about New Richmond and St. Croix county. My town(Wesley Chapel) is just like New Richmond, except New Richmond hasn't been cursed by the interstate.

[PattyO 0]

Yes, New Richmond isn't along the interstate, but I-94 runs east-west through St. Croix Co, and multiple cities in and around the county have grown due to the highway leading directly into downtown St. Paul. New Richmond's story is repeated multiple times; the town of Roberts, just down the road and right along I-94, has doubled in size. Hudson, along the river, has exploded too. State Highway 35 was made into a divided highway down to River Falls, which has also grown dramatically. Hammond, Baldwin, Somerset, even Woodville (which is over 20 miles into the state) have all seen growth in the past few years. Luckilly, where I live, we haven't seen that sort of development yet and we might not ever see it - we're just too far away.

Actually, Raysfan, your situation sort of reminds me of the first place I lived. I lived for 6 years in Maple Grove, MN which, when I was born in '90, had already seen significant development and housed over 35,000 people. Today, it has over 55,000 people and continues to grow. When I was really little, the road leading towards our house was bordered by I-94 on one side and many sq. miles of gravel pit on the other. Today the pits are (mostly) closed up and "The Shoppes at Arbor Lakes" was built. I remember when I was little, when the very first McDonalds opened and when we got our first supermarket grocery store. I moved away in 1996, but while I was in the area a couple years ago I decided to go back to see my old house - I got lost.

And, just like anywhere else in the Twin Cities, transit sucks. There's barely a decent bus service, we have light rail but only in Minneapolis proper, and we are extremely reliant on our freeways. In '07 when the 35W bridge collapsed, they had to reroute all of interstate 35W down a seperate, 4-lane state highway (MN280). It was a mess, and yet no one seriously thought "You know, maybe we should actually improve our transportation network"

It's a shame...

[Raysfan16 5]

Wow. Tampa is the same with lack of true transportation planning. The leaders just thought "oh, let's just build freeways and we'll be fine". Well, they are fine I guess. If you look at a map of Tampa, you can tell that their freeway planning takes people from the richer areas and connects them with downtown and Westshore (which has more jobs than downtown, it is south of the airport) The Veterans Expressway takes people from Lutz and central Pasco and Hernando counties and just funnels them to the airport, Westshore, and maybe downtown. The Crosstown Expressway connects Hyde Park(Tampa's richest district) and Brandon (Tampa's biggest suburb), with Downtown in the middle. I-275 connects Wesley Chapel, Temple Terrace, Carrollwood, and New Tampa, which are all middle-class northern suburbs. And they all go to Downtown.

Tampa is also similar to the Twin Cities in that it relies on cars. Tampa has a streetcar, but how many people honestly commute from the Channelside entertainment district to the Ybor City entertainment district? And that's all it does. Luckily, Tampa's metro won't see the populations the Twin Cities currently have because the bay does a much better job of separating the Pinellas COunty side (the county with Clearwater and St. Pete).

Currently, Tampa is about to build a I-4/Crosstown Connector, which will not be that massive of a project because there's not much being demolished. But besides that, guess what was the most recent proposed transportation network? A BELTWAY. No light rail. No improvements on their piss poor bus system. Just a beltway. I don't need to say much more to get my point across.

[duack 14]

You guys make it seem like suburbanisation is an ugly thing that eats up "beautiful" exurbs and rural towns. But I disagree. I dont see the whole corny impression people have with small towns. I get why old people would want to live there, but for me it would be pretty boring. I don't get the whole nothingness about it. Like people say there's just trees and grass for miles. What's so good about that? Besides suburbs too have a lot of foilage and parklands.

So you see, suburbs can be seen in a negative light but you can also look at them on the other side of the coin. What if instead of being ruthless small town eaters, suburbs were seen as connecting urban and rural areas. Like a place where you can have the quite and saftey without sacrificing stuff you'd get in a downtown area. On top of that, servies in suburbs would be cheaper than services in exurbs, because suburbs are more densely populated than exurbs. Why does nobody ever accuse exurbs of wasting government money?

Now the whole public transport argument, I agree that public transport in suburbs is terrible to put it lightly, but I don't think public transport would really be used even if it was made better. I know for a fact that in western Sydney, they built a bus transit system to connect several suburbs to each other and to downtown areas, and it really is a fast system as the roads built for it are used only by buses. Today, ridership is a lot less than expected and the several bus stops (which look more like train stations) have become hotspots for criminal activity. Let's face it, once you can drive, your not going to use public transport. Driving is just too convenient so long as there is not much traffic which is why we need large multi-lane freeways. And by freeways I mean no tolls. Tolls can ruin everything.

I think suburbanisation is good and I like the idea of shopping malls growing like weeds around suburbs. I know of one mall that is getting permission from planning that is going to get constructed near my area and I seriously can't wait! I doubt it'd be that great, but it would be something and in walking distance too. Plus, the only place that would miss out on business as a result of this would be the main ghetto area near where I live and I really hate that area. It's mostly an immigrant ghetto, so it will continue to get more poor residents while the wealthy ones leave. Its just capitalism.

Back on the topic of exurbs, they aren't necassarily dead and buried. There are still countless exurbs across whatever country your in. If demand for exurbs rose, then the number of exurbs will inevitably rise. The only reason they are dissapearing is because demand for exurbs is falling, while demand for suburbs is rising. Like I said, capitalism. Besides, if your living in an exurb that becomes a development, your property value will rise so you can sell that and move to another exurb into a larger property (exurbs are cheaper than suburbs). So the problem sorts itself out.

Thats the end of my post.

[PattyO 0]

I don't think I said that suburbs are ugly. I've lived in pretty much every environment (suburb, exurbs, and rural areas) and each area has its distinctive positive traits. I see the appeal to living in a suburb - if I were to move anywhere it would probably be to a suburb or a city just because there's more to do and more places to go than in rural areas. But at the same time I don't appreciate what suburbs do to farmland, land that could be used for productive purposes is being used to house people. Well that's all fine and good to a point, you have massive sprawl and low-density development. Higher density development is less land "waste" but of course it has its own drawbacks.

And here's why expanding freeways are a bad idea. Suburban development is fueled by desirable areas. People who desire to live outside the inner suburbs move to the exurbs, specifically to those areas that already have freeway access (like along an interstate, in US terms at least). Those areas in turn grow and put a strain on the highway (heavy traffic) so the people in the suburbs demand that the freeways be expanded. So the government enlarges the highway, and as a result the area is viewed as desirable again and more development happens. And when more people move in, they create very heavy traffic and the pattern repeats itself. If we choose not to expand the freeways and instead incorporate mass transit, people will use the mass transit because the alternative would be hours-long sits in traffic trying to go to work. Especially if the mass transit is diverse, regular, safe, clean, reliable, and faster than car transport.

Other issues with suburbs - Suburbs have large lawns (typically) that sponge water... it's a major drain on a city water supply, that's why whenever there's dry weather or a drought cities are forced to issue watering bans. People in suburbs don't just like driving, they rely on driving - again because their area lacks sufficient mass transit. If you have no car, how do you go to work? How do you go to the store? Those cars, clean as we try to make them, will still use gasoline. This wasn't a problem a generation or two ago, but now we know that gasoline does not have a stable price and can rise dramatically, affecting all people, not just those who drive their cars and live in the suburbs.

In conclusion, I like the suburbs. They bring their own little bit of character to every metropolitan area. But they need a lot of work to keep themselves viable and to prevent their ultimate extinction.

*Edit* I forgot to comment on what you said Raysfan. A similar attitude from people in the Twin Cities. We have light rail, but unless you want to go to Downtown Minneapolis, the airport or the Mall of America, its pretty much useless. They're talking about expansion, and hopefully it will connect to Saint Paul eventually, but for right now, it doesn't help much of anybody in the North, South, East or West metro suburbs. So when Minneapolis or Hennepin County or the state talk about expanding the light rail system, people in the suburbs must wonder why, since it doesn't affect them as much as freeway expansion would.

And we are expanding our freeway system too.. Wisconsin Route 64 in St. Croix County (the highway that leads to New Richmond) has already been expanded and they are going to start building a bridge at Stillwater possibly (the bridge has been planned for the past 20 or so years but no action yet *sigh* , Minnesota 312 runs in Chaska in the Southwest Metro, a very highly developing area. Minnesota 100 was turned from a 4-lane limited-access highway into a full-fledged freeway just a couple years ago, US 169 is being expanded southbound, and a stoplight intersection on 169 in Brooklyn Park is proposed to be converted into a freeway interchange as soon as the money comes through. Minnesota 610 currently runs from the Mississippi River (technically Highway 10) all the way to 169, but there's a plan to cut through Maple Grove to connect 610 to I-94; US Highway 10 was relocated a mile or two north about 10 years or so ago so that it could convert from a 4-lane road into a freeway, which runs (I think) all the way to Anoka. The only bright spot is that in addition to this development, they are proposing the North Star line (I think that's what it's called) which would send either light rail or commuter rail from Minneapolis along I-94 or along the Mississippi all the way to Elk River.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: PattyO

In conclusion, I like the suburbs. They bring their own little bit of character to every metropolitan area. But they need a lot of work to keep themselves viable and to prevent their ultimate extinction.

*Edit* I forgot to comment on what you said Raysfan. A similar attitude from people in the Twin Cities. We have light rail, but unless you want to go to Downtown Minneapolis, the airport or the Mall of America, its pretty much useless. They're talking about expansion, and hopefully it will connect to Saint Paul eventually, but for right now, it doesn't help much of anybody in the North, South, East or West metro suburbs. So when Minneapolis or Hennepin County or the state talk about expanding the light rail system, people in the suburbs must wonder why, since it doesn't affect them as much as freeway expansion would.

And we are expanding our freeway system too.. Wisconsin Route 64 in St. Croix County (the highway that leads to New Richmond) has already been expanded and they are going to start building a bridge at Stillwater possibly (the bridge has been planned for the past 20 or so years but no action yet *sigh* , Minnesota 312 runs in Chaska in the Southwest Metro, a very highly developing area. Minnesota 100 was turned from a 4-lane limited-access highway into a full-fledged freeway just a couple years ago, US 169 is being expanded southbound, and a stoplight intersection on 169 in Brooklyn Park is proposed to be converted into a freeway interchange as soon as the money comes through. Minnesota 610 currently runs from the Mississippi River (technically Highway 10) all the way to 169, but there's a plan to cut through Maple Grove to connect 610 to I-94; US Highway 10 was relocated a mile or two north about 10 years or so ago so that it could convert from a 4-lane road into a freeway, which runs (I think) all the way to Anoka. The only bright spot is that in addition to this development, they are proposing the North Star line (I think that's what it's called) which would send either light rail or commuter rail from Minneapolis along I-94 or along the Mississippi all the way to Elk River.

quote>

(I'll respond to you in a second).

Regarding "suburbs as connectors for rural and urban areas", I wholeheartedly disagree. Suburbs rarely connect THEMSELVES never the less urban and rural areas. Suburbs are far worse than exurbs because they do disproportioantely take more money, even more than exurbs. Yes, they may be more dense, but that doesn't mean they use less money per capita or that there funding is even the same. Generally suburbs and exurbs get funding through different sources. Often exurbs lie outside metropolitan planning areas or are in areas so small that metropolitan planning areas generally don't give a hoot where suburbs actually get funding for expansion. Either way, suburbs still suck money dry from urban areas (I'll have to find the study but for ever $1 spent for the cities by state or metro agencies, the suburbs get something like $1.25). Suburbs, if done right can be good, but they rarely ever are. The main problem with suburbs is the single use zoning. 

And regarding malls... no... I can't even really address that. Beside the fact that they promote the use of the car over everything, they are architecturally bland, boring, and lack any character... a mall is a mall, be it in Georgia or North Dakota. They are basically the same and parking lots add nothing to a neighborhood....

Now to the quote...

I love that you are from the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area cause its something I can actually discuss ( as I live near the Cathedral in Saint Paul). Although, from your experiences, the suburbs have been engulfing the exurbs in Wisconsin, compared to other cities, Minneapolis-Saint Paul has a very small suburban area for our population. Minneapolis, like Portland, OR, have development boundaries so MSP doesn't expand that much. Yes the metro area is clearly into Wisconsin now, thats not saying much because the only thing between downtown Saint Paul and Wisconsin is the skinny Washington county (which in itself is still predominately rural). 

Suburbanites (as in the populace, not the governing bodies) in the Twin Cities actually support light rail in droves. Whatever decreases traffic in their morning commute is fine, even if it doesn't benefit them directly. Park and rides provide excellent alternative options for parking downtown. Its the outstate people (like Brainerd) that get upset over mass transit funding. But thankfully, MSP is getting a system of light rail going so that the current Hiawatha line will not be alone. They just started utility work on the Central Corridor, a line connecting Minneapolis-Saint Paul which will have MUCH higher ridership than the current line. They are about to choose an alignment for the Southwest Corridor (Eden Praire, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, etc) and they are doing an alternative analysis for the Bottineau Corridor (Northwest) and the Rush Line Corridor which was a commuter rail project until a light rail line from White Bear Lake to downtown Saint Paul appeared like a very cost effecient option. So 4 new lines in the work. The only issue is that suburban governments are kinda weery cause they believe crime will follow the light rail and that kids might have issues crossing the tracks (umm... this isn't hard folks). 

On top of that, the North Star Line isn't just a proposal. Its almost done, Its opening in a few months and its commuter rail. I'm excited for it and I hope it does very well to get other commuter rails going. I think a commuter rail into wisconsin would be brilliant. The Union Depot in Saint Paul is being set to become a multimodal transporation hub and the new Target Field stadium is also a new transportation hub (Hiawatha, Central, Northstar, bike highways, buses, possibly southwest corridor). Is it sad that our transportation system is centralized on a baseball stadium . Minneapolis is also working on getting 4 street car lines going for a total cost of roughly a billion dollars. Which would be awesome!!!

Also, personally I love the Hiawatha line, I find it VERY useful. It connects the Mall, Minnehaha Falls, Lake Street (which you can transfer to Uptown), the Metrodome and the warehouse district... utterly useful  Thankfully, the Hiawatha lines ridership has already reached its 2030 projections

[PattyO 0]

Originally posted by: confused04

I love that you are from the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area cause its something I can actually discuss ( as I live near the Cathedral in Saint Paul). Although, from your experiences, the suburbs have been engulfing the exurbs in Wisconsin, compared to other cities, Minneapolis-Saint Paul has a very small suburban area for our population. Minneapolis, like Portland, OR, have development boundaries so MSP doesn't expand that much. Yes the metro area is clearly into Wisconsin now, thats not saying much because the only thing between downtown Saint Paul and Wisconsin is the skinny Washington county (which in itself is still predominately rural). quote>

OK, I do know that much about Washington Co... if you drive from Hudson towards St. Paul, there's pretty sparce development until you just about reach 694/494, so that's true. There is no denying growth both in that county and across the St. Croix (although in this recession, who knows how much).

Suburbanites (as in the populace, not the governing bodies) in the Twin Cities actually support light rail in droves. Whatever decreases traffic in their morning commute is fine, even if it doesn't benefit them directly. Park and rides provide excellent alternative options for parking downtown. quote>

That I agree with too, I've gone by them in the cities and they always seem packed.

Its the outstate people (like Brainerd) that get upset over mass transit funding. But thankfully, MSP is getting a system of light rail going so that the current Hiawatha line will not be alone. They just started utility work on the Central Corridor, a line connecting Minneapolis-Saint Paul which will have MUCH higher ridership than the current line. They are about to choose an alignment for the Southwest Corridor (Eden Praire, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, etc) and they are doing an alternative analysis for the Bottineau Corridor (Northwest) and the Rush Line Corridor which was a commuter rail project until a light rail line from White Bear Lake to downtown Saint Paul appeared like a very cost effecient option. So 4 new lines in the work. The only issue is that suburban governments are kinda weery cause they believe crime will follow the light rail and that kids might have issues crossing the tracks (umm... this isn't hard folks). quote>

That's good And no, it's not difficult to stay off the tracks. The way I see it, if an idiot plays chicken with a train, then at least that idiot isn't alive to procreate and make more idiots what will ruin the world. That might be a little harsh, but I believe I've made my point.

On top of that, the North Star Line isn't just a proposal. Its almost done, Its opening in a few months and its commuter rail. quote>

I stand corrected! I guess I hadn't been paying the most attention to it.

I think a commuter rail into wisconsin would be brilliant. quote>

I can't see that getting off the ground; they still haven't built a new Stillwater bridge and people have been talking about it for decades. I don't know the opinion of a Minnesotan, but I think the bridge into Minnesota is more important for the Wisconsinites than it is for the Minnesotans... which is odd because the Wisconsin Legislature doesn't seem to want to go along with the deal. Oh well, I guess it will take the Stillwater Lift Bridge to collapse during rush hour before anything will be done about the situation.

The Union Depot in Saint Paul is being set to become a multimodal transporation hub and the new Target Field stadium is also a new transportation hub (Hiawatha, Central, Northstar, bike highways, buses, possibly southwest corridor). Is it sad that our transportation system is centralized on a baseball stadium . Minneapolis is also working on getting 4 street car lines going for a total cost of roughly a billion dollars. Which would be awesome!!! quote>

It's a shame that the Twin Cities have to basically reset the transportation network... back in the old days it had a very extensive privately-operated streetcar network from what I've read. But this sounds like good progress to me.

Also, personally I love the Hiawatha line, I find it VERY useful. It connects the Mall, Minnehaha Falls, Lake Street (which you can transfer to Uptown), the Metrodome and the warehouse district... utterly useful  Thankfully, the Hiawatha lines ridership has already reached its 2030 projections quote>

True, but you also live in the cities themselves. To outside the Twin Cities themselves, it makes no difference.

[Jay Ess 15]

Sprawl isn't nessesarily bad, there's just things that can make it immaculate. I'll take two communities in Macomb County, Michigan (northeast metro detroit) for example:

Warren is an example of good sprawl. It is a developed community with plenty of shops, it is served by the SMART bus system, and it has a good educational system.

Clinton Township is an example of bad sprawl. It is mostly cookie-cutter communities, after a certain point it is almost all residential, there are only 2 or 3 bus stops in the city, and there is less than one school, public or private, per 4 square miles.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

I'm from Macomb County, and I wouldn't categorize Warren as good sprawl. It's an inner ring suburb, though not a street car suburb. Clinton Township is an exurb.

It has shops, which line pedestrian unfriendly avenues. The shops are there, but the city is very autocentric, and does not support a pedestrian lifestyle. It has a weak bus system (it would be very very hard to get by without a car) which pales in comparison to suburban Chicago (and many other cities' suburbs) which has various forms of rail transportation in addition to a robust bus system. The city is pretty tall and cuts through several decades worth of sprawl. At the southern end where it borders Detroit (8 Mile) it's what you'd expect from a post war inner ring city, while at the northern was built decades later, and it looks like it. The schools aren't well regarded, though it is home to Macomb Community College (where the president just made his speech) which does a good job in its role as a community college. Also, Warren is almost entirely post-war single family tract housing.

Warren is also a good example of the race issues that fuel suburbs in the first place. The city is basically divided into two, there's the northern part which is more affluent (still not very affluent though) and whiter, and there's the southern part that isn't as white or affluent. The northern half doesn't like the southern half and is moving to more distant suburbs, while "they" move into the houses which suddenly lost value and became more affordable once "they" moved in. Also, I'd say that most of Warren's growth was from poaching residents and industries from Detroit and not from a regional growth in population, and that kind of development is one of the qualities of bad suburbs.

Anyway, Warren isn't the end of the world, but it's far from being the "good" kind of suburb. You can check out Warren at http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=42.493903~-83.036213&style=h&lvl=14&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

Also, since this is the Architecture/Planning forum, it's worth mentioning that Warren is the home of the General Motors Technical Center (GM's R&D campus), a noteworthy project by modernist architect Eero Saarinen.

[piccboi824 1]

I just wanted to comment on the recurring issue of improving mass transit in the suburbs. There are several reasons why making improvements to transit in the suburbs is often infeasible. Let me lay it on the table for you.

1.) Building transit takes HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars. Look up any current transit project in this country and check the price tag. If that kind of money was so easy to come by, then there would be large expansive systems in every major metropolitan area. Because building rail systems is such a huge investment to be made by the local, state, or Federal governments, they're not going to build them where projected ridership isn't high enough for the system to essentially pay for itself.

2.)The demographic of the suburb- The dominant socio-economic class calls the shots in any neighborhood. Wealthier residents fight transit extension because they feel that it makes their safe little bubble susceptible to the bad influence of the working class. Look at LA. Currently the Expo Line, which is near completion of phase 1, is being built to connect Santa Monica with Downtown Los Angeles. It travels through the westside, which is the wealthier portion of Los Angeles County. The line faces opposition form the residents of Cheviot Hills (an affluent neighborhood) with one resident making the statement --

"Do you think the people who live in Cheviot Hills are going to take this bloody train. No, they are going to get in their cars. The people who are going to use this are the people who work in the hotels in Santa Monica, and they are going to come from the Hispanic areas nearer downtown. Now they take the bus."

This is a reality that happens with alot of projects. In my neighborhood in "suburban" Miami (Miami has more of and urban suburb with denser population, but the same heavy traffic and shopping centers, though it doesn't take thatlong to get places) a commuter rail that would run less than ten blocks from my house on an existing CSX right of way was shut down because of voter opposition to the noise and frequency of trains. My neighborhood is mainly middle class, no where near the affluence of Cheviot Hills, but because the majority of households  own cars  and woouldn't have to rely on mass transit, they didn't deem it necessary. Transit is mostly ridden by the low-income bracket and because transit gets buit where it gets ridden, it won't get built in the suburbs because the main riders don't lve there.

3.)Sometimes it just isn't feasible. Let's look at the modes of transit. Heavy rail requires complete grade separation either underground, elevated, or surface(like an expressway median). Again we're talking major expense even for a short extension. Light-rail in my opinion is only really good if it's grade separated as well. LRV's can reach high speeds that make commuting comparable to heavy rail, but if it operates on the street level in mixed traffic or without grade separation at major intersections, then it becomes more of a nuisance than a god send. It'll have to run at slower speeds which means longer headways, a longer commute, and more of a hassle than just driving. Plus, LRV's can't negotiate tight corners, have restricted train length based on the length of blocks (unless trains are allowed to block intersections whole stopped), and require track to be laid in the street to go anywhere. That's why we made a switch from streetcars to buses, because they can maneuver better and more safely and because routes coud be changed without major expense. The bus is seen as something used because you don't have a car, not an alternative to it and because it has a more uncomfortable ride, you'd might as well be in your car.

This turned out to be a long post, but I hope I gave more insight to how things operate in the real world. we must remember that what are simple solutions in Simcity aren't so simple in a world with bureacracy, voting, and expense (none of which exist in Simcity).   

[Aro0w 1]

Originally posted by: piccboi824

I just wanted to comment on the recurring issue of improving mass transit in the suburbs. There are several reasons why making improvements to transit in the suburbs is often infeasible. Let me lay it on the table for you.

1.) Building transit takes MILLIONSquote>

Isn't bus a form of mass transit?

I'm sure that doesn't cost Millions...

[PattyO 0]

Originally posted by: Aro0w

Originally posted by: piccboi824

I just wanted to comment on the recurring issue of improving mass transit in the suburbs. There are several reasons why making improvements to transit in the suburbs is often infeasible. Let me lay it on the table for you.

1.) Building transit takes MILLIONSquote>

Isn't bus a form of mass transit?

I'm sure that doesn't cost Millions...

quote>

Well, if you're starting a bus network from scratch... that means buying the buses, setting up stops, most likely a bit of advertising, plus you have constant expenses, which have to be paid whether the buses are being used or not. Even a bus service would be expensive for a real city, not to mention light rail, commuter rail, high speed rail, or subway systems. As far as initial investments go, road and freeway expansion seems to give more bang for the buck. In the long run this proves not to be so as the problems of this approach alone make it very costly.

[piccboi824 1]

Sorry, I hadn't finished my post, so I had to update it.

[autofreak7 0]

Originally posted by: absolute1

if sprawl dies that would be the day, i hate it it has ruined marred, destroyed and desecrated many of those places that i held to be the most beautiful, and not to say the impact on the cities which are decayed due to lack of middle class inhabitants. Suburbs simply have nothing to do, no culture, no community, and simply serve to isolate people, so that all there is to do is shop and be good consumersquote>

I really don't agree with this, if there were a place where there is no joint sense of community, it ought to be the inner cities.

[hamsterTK 93]

I think it varies from neighborhood to neighborhood. The same goes for suburbs, too.

One street my family lived on when I was a kid, everyone did know each other and we had block parties. Then we moved, and it was the opposite. Both were suburbs, fairly similar.

In a nicer, safe urban neighborhood I'd guess by virtue of there being more people, your more likely to have that one neighbor who organizes everything and welcomes people who just moved in. For suburbs I'd guess demographics play a role, brand new subdivisions heavily marketed towards young families will have an inordinate amount of children, its just that over the years this fades away.

[Doofenshmirtz 0]

Hmm well i've read the posts above and i'd agree suburbs can work and can't work, depending on local variables. But the same can be said for all things... So focusing on those issues contained within suburbs...

I'd have to say i'm pro sprawl to an extent. For instance if i had the option to extend upwards or outwards, i would usually go for outwards in most cases. However resources such as farmland, forests etc are the main concern i would have rather than internal infrastructure... however... i daresay the future of agriculture will be vastly different, perhaps utilizing indoor farming techniques in masses of skyscrapers built for the purpose... or the creation of an all purpose artificial foodstuff... using chemicals creatable in factories such as vitamins etc

Hmm well the problem of sprawl aside from resources and such which i've noticed discussion upon appears to be that of boredom, i.e having nothing to do. Hmm well the weekenders find things to do... they live in Bahia Bay which is suburban/urban like Springfield or Hazelnut or Bluffington, and they always have stuff to do like visit the video game arcade or eat fast food. But suburban people have cars mostly and i daresay whilst there is little to do in the suburb itself, beyond the suburb i am sure there cars can take them to places such as the seaside or a mall or such

[piccboi824 1]

Originally posted by: autofreak7

Originally posted by: absolute1

if sprawl dies that would be the day, i hate it it has ruined marred, destroyed and desecrated many of those places that i held to be the most beautiful, and not to say the impact on the cities which are decayed due to lack of middle class inhabitants. Suburbs simply have nothing to do, no culture, no community, and simply serve to isolate people, so that all there is to do is shop and be good consumersquote>

I really don't agree with this, if there were a place where there is no joint sense of community, it ought to be the inner cities.

quote>

This really isn't true either. My sister lives in the inner city in a gentrified area and she knows all of her neighbors. They get together and have block parties and cleanup the garbage in their neighborhood and will help each other out whenever. Whenever we are out on her back patio, if her neighbors are out, then they will always say hi to us and start a conversation.

When it comes to having a sense of community, it all depends on the people who live there. If you and your neighbors don't take the initiative to form a community or make each other feel welcome, then you're never going to have community whether you live in the city or not.

[PattyO 0]

Originally posted by: Doofenshmirtz

I'd have to say i'm pro sprawl to an extent. For instance if i had the option to extend upwards or outwards, i would usually go for outwards in most cases. However resources such as farmland, forests etc are the main concern i would have rather than internal infrastructure... however... i daresay the future of agriculture will be vastly different, perhaps utilizing indoor farming techniques in masses of skyscrapers built for the purpose... or the creation of an all purpose artificial foodstuff... using chemicals creatable in factories such as vitamins etc. quote>

While that would be an ideal, at present time it would be impossible to sustain any major population using indoor-grown food... When things are grown indoors, you have to provide everything - all the light (unless in a greenhouse), all the water and all the plant nutrients, as well as prevent disease from entering the system (since greenhouses are more contained and independent of a greater ecosystem, a disease or insect inside causes more acute damage than in natural environments). At the present time, there's no cost-effective way to grow food indoors (if there was, we'd be doing it by now). Right now, the most efficient and inexpensive manner of producing food is by outdoor agriculture.

As for artificial foodstuff, two words - Soylent Green

Originally posted by: piccboi824

This really isn't true either. My sister lives in the inner city in a gentrified area and she knows all of her neighbors. They get together and have block parties and cleanup the garbage in their neighborhood and will help each other out whenever. Whenever we are out on her back patio, if her neighbors are out, then they will always say hi to us and start a conversation.

When it comes to having a sense of community, it all depends on the people who live there. If you and your neighbors don't take the initiative to form a community or make each other feel welcome, then you're never going to have community whether you live in the city or not. quote>

Like it was said above you, all these things aren't universal, and can change depending on a very localized and individual basis.

Aside from that, one obstacle that stands in the way of the Suburb is making public transit a desire to those living in the suburbs. It's true, if a system or network or rail line or whatever were built out into the suburbs, very few if any people would use it regularly. It's not as comfortable or convenient as a personal car.

What basically needs to happen at this point is a mass brainwashing. We need to convince all suburbanites that they'd rather ride a bus or a train than drive to work.

[Cob92 360]

Originally posted by: PattyO

What basically needs to happen at this point is a mass brainwashing. We need to convince all suburbanites that they'd rather ride a bus or a train than drive to work.

quote>

Good luck with that Big Brother.

[Fee_Nicks 7]

When mass transit becomes less of an annoyance than driving, people will start using it more often. Until then, the car will still be the preferred method of transit.

When the gains from mass transit become bigger than the losses incurred from putting in such a system, such a system will be put in place. Until then, there won't be much/any mass transit.

On a different note, I would have to agree with the statement that the sense of community depends on the conditions on which the community is in. My community is fairly historical and relatively well-established, and despite being spread out its still possible to walk into the center of town (well, at least where I am from it) - in stark contrast to several of the places I saw while my family was driving through Florida, which are probably from within the past decade and probably don't have a town center to speak of.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: piccboi824

I just wanted to comment on the recurring issue of improving mass transit in the suburbs. There are several reasons why making improvements to transit in the suburbs is often infeasible. Let me lay it on the table for you.

1.) Building transit takes HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars. Look up any current transit project in this country and check the price tag. If that kind of money was so easy to come by, then there would be large expansive systems in every major metropolitan area. Because building rail systems is such a huge investment to be made by the local, state, or Federal governments, they're not going to build them where projected ridership isn't high enough for the system to essentially pay for itself.  quote>

Building anything, mass transit or highway or not takes millions. The shear number of highway projects and their related price tags are staggering (nearly a billion dollars have been invested on 35 W in the past 2 years in Minneapolis alone). Money really isn't the issue, its appropriating it. Its not like European cities have decided to spend a lot more on their mass transit, they have just used their money differently, (as in less highways). Highways aren't cheap and certainly not at the rate we're building them.

[djcool345 9]

I live just outside Cleveland, in the area between the suburbs and the city, where it's still dirty and cramped, but I go out to the suburbs a lot. The bus network goes all the way out there but I never see anyone use it. Yet, at my high school at least 50 kids use the bus network to get to and from school everyday, including me.And the bus is usually pretty crowded. The urban sprawl and fall of industry in 60's and 70's really ruined a lot of cities.

And it is true what they say about 1 in 13 cities being vacant here, I can probably spot 2 from my window.

[saltandsauce 0]

Originally posted by: duack

You guys make it seem like suburbanisation is an ugly thing that eats up "beautiful" exurbs and rural towns. But I disagree. I dont see the whole corny impression people have with small towns. I get why old people would want to live there, but for me it would be pretty boring. I don't get the whole nothingness about it. Like people say there's just trees and grass for miles. What's so good about that? Besides suburbs too have a lot of foilage and parklands.

Now the whole public transport argument, I agree that public transport in suburbs is terrible to put it lightly, but I don't think public transport would really be used even if it was made better. I know for a fact that in western Sydney, they built a bus transit system to connect several suburbs to each other and to downtown areas, and it really is a fast system as the roads built for it are used only by buses. Today, ridership is a lot less than expected and the several bus stops (which look more like train stations) have become hotspots for criminal activity. Let's face it, once you can drive, your not going to use public transport. Driving is just too convenient so long as there is not much traffic which is why we need large multi-lane freeways. And by freeways I mean no tolls. Tolls can ruin everything.

Back on the topic of exurbs, they aren't necassarily dead and buried. There are still countless exurbs across whatever country your in. If demand for exurbs rose, then the number of exurbs will inevitably rise. The only reason they are dissapearing is because demand for exurbs is falling, while demand for suburbs is rising. Like I said, capitalism. Besides, if your living in an exurb that becomes a development, your property value will rise so you can sell that and move to another exurb into a larger property (exurbs are cheaper than suburbs). So the problem sorts itself out.

Thats the end of my post.quote>

sorry but i have to just say no to all of that

areas with a higher population density are more economically viable. FACT. if you run a school whos district covers maybe 1 square mile in total, will need at least 210 pupils for 7 individual classes of 30 pupils, the ideal minimum amount. the classes aren't too big and each class has its own grade (i'm not sure about the american system).

now if we assume that all the houses in this school district all have 1/2 acre plots that's roughly (because there are roads in the way too) 1280 houses becuase there are 640 acres in a square mile. now lets remember that not every suburband house has children of elementary school age according to the index mundi around 20.1% of all residents are children.  and that results in 257 children under 15. we are dangerously close to the minimum here then remember that out of those 14 years only 7 of those years are at this elementary school that halves it to 126 children (there is not such a thing as half a child)

now as a taxpayer you'll have to do one of two things.

1 pay for a school where kids are in dual-level classes and all the supporting staff like janitors and clerical staff which is inefficient

2 bus in children from further away (you have to pay for these buses) which pushes up the minimum amount required up which means more buses and a bigger building which is more expensive to heat and cool and clean which pushes the school roll up further and more managerial staff and you end up with a minimum of 700 pupils before you know it.

but if people live on smaller plots of land -remember that apartments are bigger but result in peope living on areas about 1'x1')say, 10'x35' the size of an average terraced house you don't have to bus in pupils .Businesses can set up since you can walk there and you don't need land for parking and prices can be lower. public transport can run without a subsidy and might actually take you somewhere useful. you can WALK to places to buy things and you can mix with other people. which you do know drives some suburban moms crazy being locked in a house all day where you have to drive everywhere even next door.

as for public transport being too expensive, i wonder if you would like being charged for using EVERY motorway to make those viable. motorways are more expensive to build since they use more materials and more land

a mile is around 1.4 km for those who only use metric