Suburbia RIP?

[GreekMan 246]

yeah but suburbia needs more transit options

[Raysfan16 5]

And adding a light rail and bus service will bring back the farms, make cities more sustainable, and encourage people that already have cars to completely drop it and use the bus?

Cities need to become more dense, pedestrian-friendly, and ditch the whole concept of building house upon house on land meant for nature just to funnel cars onto the main roads that cannot effectively handle thousands of cars every morning.

Btw I noticed that my rant two posts ago was my 300th.

[Doofenshmirtz 0]

Suburbs were based upon old fashioned principles that seemed revolutionary and wonderful at the time, and certainly i can see the logic in reconcentration.

[diamonddog_74 32]

Originally posted by: GreekMan

I like sprawl and i hop that it dosen't go out of style....

quote>

Why?

[diamonddog_74 32]

Originally posted by: rommelgain

Most of our cities are simply not designed for mass transit. The density does not exist over the entire span of the city to make it efficient.quote>

For a lot of people who have only known sprawl, then your statement makes sense; however, as haljackey pointed out, "At the end of WWII, most cities were smaller and denser compared to today." So actually it made very good sense to have well-funded and extensive public transportation networks because it was the fastest, least-expensive, and most efficient way to get around. Another thing too, those transportation systems were privately-owned. Very few were municipally-run. The city only gave right of ways to those companies, who then set up and ran the infrastructure. It was a "public-private partnership" as we would call it today. It was in the best interest of the companies to run an efficient, convenient route so they could make a profit.

A lot has been said about the LA issue, but did you know that LA used to have an amazing public transportation network before the freeways and sprawl was encouraged? Chicago had the largest street rail system in the world when it was more compact. Chicago is still not as bad as LA has turned out though. Both cities are working to restore some of those services because the freeways have become so gridlocked, they need relief. We can't just keep adding lanes to them.

Not to mention many americans find that their vehicle during a commute is the only time they get away from everything and have some alone time. Sad, I know, but true for many.quote>

Well, that's wonderful. If privacy is your highest priority, then yeah, by all means live 40 miles away from the city where you work. Just don't expect fast emergency response should you need it.

By the way, I just moved to Chicago, and I've seen plenty of people finding quiet space at Lincoln Park on the lake front. I have plenty of privacy in my second-floor apartment overlooking a lush, tree-lined street. But when I want to socialize, I can just walk down the street and find plenty to do.

Also, I grew up in a suburban setting in a single-family home with two yards, got driven to school, driven to the shopping center, etc. But as an adult, I think it's inefficient and selfish for me to live that way, not to mention costly. I prefer to live in a modest apartment, in a city where I can walk or take public transportation to work and play. Like you're implying, it's not for everyone, but it's also not terrible.

I'm not against cars. I just don't think they should be our main mode of transportation for getting to and from work. They were originally just recreational vehicles, like a sail boat. It was when they turned into beasts of burden that their fun factor died.

[GreekMan 246]

why is everyone picking on me?

[diamonddog_74 32]

Originally posted by: GreekMan

why is everyone picking on me? quote>

Oh, Greekman, we're not picking on you. But you really haven't explained why you like sprawl. I'm quite intrigued.

[Doofenshmirtz 0]

The only reason i like sprawl (and i admit there are many exceptions to this opinion of mine) is it has character. In the same way cities have character, the sprawl around a city gives a city extra character and personality, and let's face it, much of our popular culture is set in and influenced by suburbs. Take a few shows such as Bewitched, The Simpsons, Pepper Ann, Phineas and Ferb just to name a few random examples, barely any shows are set in CBDs, with the exception of shows like Law and Order. Suburbs are normal and considered taken for granted elements of modern life. So i can understand why one could attach importance to keeping them. However from a purely unbiased perspective they are inefficient and wasteful.

[Odainsaker 2,135]

Not merely inefficient and wasteful, but ridiculously expensive, moreso if it is on behalf of television pop-culture.  We can construct an environment where everyone lived on their own private Versailles, and garner great amusement from the lifestyles and dramas such a society would create, but I don't want to pay to subsidize that.  The extravant costs born upon all of us are not worth the slim benefits of watching "Dynasty."  Too be really extreme, I might think of it this way:  the antebellum South certainly had a grand plantation culture that would inspire "Gone With the Wind," but I would happily doing without having ever seen Vivien Leight moan over Rhett Butler when you consider the cost underpinning that dandy society and its source material was the butality of black slavery.

What is worrying is that the polemic of the modern North American highway sprawl has been with us at these sorts of scales for only for about 60 years or so--a mere eyeblink when you look at how long-term economic trends, demographic displacements, and societal misdirections of resources slowly cannibalized past civilizations.  The long-term costs and impacts of megasprawl have not even been born out, and they could very well consume us, and yet we are already even now choking on it.

Sadly, it won't be Suburbia R.I.P., for we will face the undead horror of Zombie Suburbia, the Money-Eating Cannibal Ghoul, whose ravenously spreading plague and bloodsucking dependance on hidden public subsidies can never be stopped by conventional means.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Fact is Surburbia will never die.

Families like living in houses with Gardens. Just not practical for everybody in city or town centres. Also the world population is increasing which means more and bigger suburbs.

As for emergency services it's not a problem just build more fire, ambulance and police stations.

Well designed and sensibly timed bus and rail services will encourage people from their cars.

[WillG_75 19]

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

As for emergency services it's not a problem just build more fire, ambulance and police stations.quote>

Not necessarily possible. the United States is in financial trouble and not every city can afford new fire stations and police stations. The current fire and police stations are already understaffed as it is.

[Danlikebooks 6]

Maybe suburbia wouldn't be so hard hit if you could WALK ANYWHERE. The suburb where I grew up in Cincinnati only sidewalks to connect each house to each other. If you wanted to leave the neighborhood, then you had to attempt to run (or, as I usually did, bike) across the six lane, super busy Fields Ertel Road. And that's just if you want to walk to Meijer or Sam's Club. To get to the other shops, you had to run across dozens of other huge, busy roads.

The only safe way to get out is by driving, but I don't see the point in driving a quarter mile to a shop that can easily be reached in less than five minutes by walking.

[hamsterTK 93]

looking at the big picture of how cities work socially and economically it's easy to understand why suburbs or outward decentralized growth exists. I guess the more relevant question is what form they take.

[edmonton_stinks 5]

I, for one, don't see suburbia completely disappearing any time soon. As Spa mentioned, Calgary is one of the least sustainable cities on the planet; occupying as much land as New York City. The city is trying to learn, though: the Plan It project the city is putting forward involves higher density, transit oriented development, and much, much more mass transit. The problem: People hate change. A very vocal group of people is violently opposed to tearing down single-family homes located <5 minutes away from the CBD, in favour of infills, rowhomes and apartments because it's different and scary. People generally have an image of the way things should be ingrained in their head, and nothing will change that. However, it seems that young people are more likely to embrace this kind of a shift towards denser, walkable cities where you can take the bus just about anywhere. Therefore, I figure it will be far more of a gradual shift for North American cities, from mostly suburban->about 50/50->mostly urban. Wasteful suburban lifestyles may never completely disappear, but a reversal isn't completely out of the question.

[Shingure 56]

I think that it will come down to the use of the concept of New Urbanism in most of these places that have expanded too far out. There are some areas with low density with a good metro system ( Washington D.C comes to mind immediately ) but in general it's easier to have people in walking distance of transit stops. I think we need to remind people how the cities are. Even the older generation who thinks that moving farther away is where it's at. Sure it's less crowded. But some of the best healthcare , safety , activities , and facilities reside in cities. It's a matter of improving the quality first , Then we can improve density afterwards.

[Raysfan16 5]

There's only one big problem with New Urbaism (and one advantage of suburbia). Crime.

Read this article.

Burras Road was a pleasant cul-de-sac of 21 new homes in Bradford, England. Its residents were blissfully unaware that, just east of the site, approval for a proposed new shopping center required the breaching of their cul-de-sac by a bicycle-pedestrian path.

Planners favored this requirement because, they say, cul-de-sacs do not encourage movement and therefore are "auto-dependent" and "anti-urban." Opening up the site would connect residents to local services, and the path would promote walking and cycling.

The path connecting the shopping center to the cul-de-sac opened in 2000. Although there is no evidence that the path has led residents to drive less, it did have a profound effect on their lives. During the next six months, a neighborhood that had been virtually crime-free saw its burglary rate rise to 14 times the national rate, with matching increases in overall crime, including arson, assault, and antisocial behavior.

Because a secondary school was located west of the cul-de-sac, the pedestrian path opened the neighborhood to a constant stream of students and others going between the school and the shopping center. Crime and vandalism became commonplace. "The path turned our piece of paradise into a living hell," one resident complained.

At a late stage, the local police crime prevention officer had tried to prevent the route from opening, predicting it would be a disaster, only to be told that the path was "sacrosanct." Residents' quality of life apparently was less important than the dubious goal of reducing auto dependency.

Architects and urban planners who call themselves New Urbanists say their proposals, including developments that mix residential and commercial uses, have homes with tiny private yards and large common areas, and feature pedestrian paths, will solve all sorts of social problems, including crime. Yet the housing and neighborhood designs they want to substitute for the modern suburb almost invariably increase crime.

Link http://www.reason.com/news/show/36489.html

 

[Kryptowhite 9]

I live in a large suburban neighborhood [when i'm not boarding at school, of course] and quite frankly, I hate it. It takes 5 minutes just to reach the main road. There are two grocery stores about a mile away [directly]. It takes 10 minutes driving through winding suburban roads, however, to reach them. nearest restaurant? 10 minutes. Before I drove, I would have to run or bike to my outside-the-neighborhood friends. After getting out of my neighborhood I would be winded and trapped wandering aimlessly around suburbia.

Suburbia pollutes and destroys nature. It causes tons of problems. There are some things more important than a lawn or privacy, such as the health of our planet.

[edmonton_stinks 5]

I wouldn't say safety is completely sacrificed; Calgary, to my knowledge has only two New Urbanist neighbourhoods: Garrison Woods & McKenzie Towne. Since their construction, I haven't heard anything regarding high or even moderate crime rates there, especially compared to more infamous areas such as Marlborough.

One factor that may have something to do with Garrison's success is the fused-grid system it employs (search Garrison Blvd, Calgary on google maps to see--note that Garrison is all the streets named after WWI battles, not the numbered ones). Living on major through-roads and areas that get a lot of traffic, car or pedestrian, is a sure-fire way to increase crime. A fused grid is space-efficient like a grid, but not every street becomes a through-road.

For example, my grandparents used to live, until recently in Scarborough Village, Toronto, near the intersection of Markham Road and Eglinton Avenue E. A few years before they moved, they got rid of the burglar alarm they had in their house, because crime on their side street and surrounding side streets was almost unheard of. However, if one were to wander out around midnight towards Markham & Eglinton, an intersection of two very busy roads, one might be rather likely to get assaulted; Eglinton East is somewhat infamous for high crime rates among its strip malls and public housing.

Simply put, the more people come through an area, the more criminals come through the area, especially if it's easy to get to. That was the problem with Burras Road. So, using a grid system is a bit of a flaw in New Urbanism--a similar system would probably work better with fused grid or street hierarchy.

Wow, that might be my longest post ever! Deep breath now.

[GreekMan 246]

i think you guys are converting me to anti-uburbia now reading all these stories....

[hamsterTK 93]

I would say it depends on the nature of the surrounding area. If the more public areas draw from a part of the community that is safe, then they will be safe too. If the area draws partly from an area that is known to be unsafe, like a neighboring public housing complex, then it will be unsafe. It doesn't matter if the streets are well connected or not.

 

Anectedotally(not from the area), I can think of Houston's Sharpstown mall and the adjacent low-rent apartment complexes has a undesirable reputation. However, the adjoining communities of single-family homes, such as Sharpstown proper as well as Meyerland, are still nice and stable areas . What's interesting is that the two areas are well connected and the streets are a kind of fused grid and not all cul-de-sacs.

For the facts, Houston's google crime maps show burglaries and robberies seem to be dispersed throughout the area, both inside the area mentioned as somewhat safe, and also in less-connected surrounding areas, without much of a pattern other than general proximity to low-rent apartment complexes.

Thus I'd hazard a guess many of the criminals have cars(DUHH!!!)

Because a secondary school was located west of the cul-de-sac, the pedestrian path opened the neighborhood to a constant stream of students and others going between the school and the shopping center. Crime and vandalism became commonplace. "The path turned our piece of paradise into a living hell," one resident complained.quote>

I'll make sure and contact un-Reason magazine once junior high students begin to commit arson in my town

No honestly, give me some statistics that show actual violent crime, not just littering, hollering, loitering teenagers, in this supposedly peaceful community in the heart of lovely Northern England, the land of fat people on welfare.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: Danlikebooks

Maybe suburbia wouldn't be so hard hit if you could WALK ANYWHERE. The suburb where I grew up in Cincinnati only sidewalks to connect each house to each other. If you wanted to leave the neighborhood, then you had to attempt to run (or, as I usually did, bike) across the six lane, super busy Fields Ertel Road. And that's just if you want to walk to Meijer or Sam's Club. To get to the other shops, you had to run across dozens of other huge, busy roads.

The only safe way to get out is by driving, but I don't see the point in driving a quarter mile to a shop that can easily be reached in less than five minutes by walking.quote>

 Bad design that's all.

Take places like Milton Keynes, Telford etc. you can walk just about anywhere without having to cross a major road surface. All done by bridges and tunnels.

WillG_75

Not a problem in Britain, therefore shouldn't be in the states. Perhaps it's the way you fund them (or don't as the case may be).

[Wheezy 23]

Originally posted by: Danlikebooks

Maybe suburbia wouldn't be so hard hit if you could WALK ANYWHERE. The suburb where I grew up in Cincinnati only sidewalks to connect each house to each other. If you wanted to leave the neighborhood, then you had to attempt to run (or, as I usually did, bike) across the six lane, super busy Fields Ertel Road. And that's just if you want to walk to Meijer or Sam's Club. To get to the other shops, you had to run across dozens of other huge, busy roads.

The only safe way to get out is by driving, but I don't see the point in driving a quarter mile to a shop that can easily be reached in less than five minutes by walking.quote>

Absolutely.  I live in one of the northernmost suburbs of Tampa, and trying to get anywhere within a reasonable amount of time is out of the question, especially if you're walking.

The nearest grocery store?  A 20 minute walk, and that's if you cut though the forest and behind the YMCA.

Nearest form of entertainment?  There are a Borders and a Sam Ash 8 miles down the road, and a shopping mall about 20 miles in the opposite direction.

My whole 30-mile-or-so radius is serviced by one bus.  Not one route, ONE BUS, that takes two hours between arrivals. 

Most of the streets, like the 6-lane Dale Mabry Highway, which I have to cross to get out of my neighborhood, have drainage ditches where sidewalks should be in many places, so you either have to walk in the shoulder or through the ditches.

(I once saw a jogger fall right into 3 feet of water one day after it rained.  Poor guy.)

Not to mention that Tampa was voted the worst city for pedestrians in the USA, and rightfully so.  Most of the major avenues here I wouldn't attempt to cross without having a will prepared. (Especially Hillsborough and Bearss)

The US could defenitely take a lesson from Europe when it comes to transit planning.

[Raysfan16 5]

Hey Wheezy, I didnt know you live in a northern suburb of Tampa! The only place I know where a Sam ASh and Borders are is in Carrolwood. (I live in Wesley Chapel)

I definitely like Tampa, but certainly don't like its car dependence.

[Cupcake Carly 12]

I live in a Suburb,

Its quiet.

No one plays outside much.

Usually a few people my age, but they stay inside their rooms all day.

Nothing to do but sit in my room as a result since there's nowhere to hang out.

It takes 15 minutes to walk to my bus stop.

It takes 90 minutes from my bus to the school.

By car Its a 20 minute drive to nearest gas station, 50 minutes to Walmart.

My closest friend is 30 minutes by car. I rode my bide took nearly 3 hours x_x .

I would just love to walk to all these places in less than five minutes, especially school, i have to wake up at 5:00 in the morning just to get ready for the bus wich comes at 6:00 to get to school at 7:30, that's 2 hrs and 30 min off my sleep thanks to long commute >_>;; And also, I used to live in Philly and do you know how convenient and awesome it is to be able to walk to a corner store only 40 seconds slow walk away ???? I'm so moving away from this or I'll go insane Dx

[Glenni 1,444]

i live in a suburb, though not the suburb of a major city, so there's no intercity trains or metros, but there are buses. 5 routes or so that come every 15h minute, 30 for the one closest to me, but that doesn't bother me, there's only 3 minutes to the major ringroad connecting all the smaller suburban streets. And that doesn't bother me either, because there are literally tons of underpasses and overpasses to use.

One of the several walkways behind, between and crossing the streets

Another path closed for traffic

Lush and dense streets

The main road which goes through my suburb in a circle. there's several bustops every 100th metre on average. And there's also the same density of underpasses, or overpasses. There's a underpass right  where the bridge starts.

Even my street has bus routes, you just have to time it though, since the bus only goes every 30 minutes

One of the shops, easily accesible on foot if you don't have a car.

Mixed development among normal houses. These are quadplexes and yes they house a lot of young people, but that never bothers any one here.

Another pedestrian underpass going under this road

Closest shop is 4 minutes, closest community centre is 4 minutes, closest petrol station is 5. And if i want to do something i'll jsut take the bus downtown. easy enough, and they are nice and clean outside, so i don't have any problem with using them

[yamaneko 2]

There are workable urban/suburban hybrids here in the United States, and I live in one.

I'm typing from an apartment complex bordered by a neighborhood of single-family homes to the north and a business district to the south.  A supermarket that has perhaps more aisles than usual devoted to non-food items stands to the east, about a five-minute walk away.  Being a college town, the liquor store is very convenient.  A bus line with buses every half hour during the day runs past the complex's entrance;  another line stops on the far side of the supermarket. 

I think a large part of livability, though, depends on the people living in the area.  My apartment complex is dominated by graduate students at a university renowned for its engineering program that also makes substantial contributions to the fields of math, statistics, physics, chemistry and the earth sciences.  In short, a bunch of fairly introverted nerds aspiring to geekdom, who make terrible recruits for most avenues of violent crime.  The neighborhood to the north is fairly quiet.  The undergrads tend to live closer to campus.  The larger community is dominated by this university, which means that the schools are blessed with parents who ride herd on their kids to do well in school and who fight the landlords tooth and nail demanding a rise in property taxes.  The university subsidizes the bus line to the extent that students, faculty and employees ride for free -- in return the town is spared 35,000 newly-minted drivers on Wasted Wednesday, Thirsty Thursday, Fried Friday and a charming tradition of beer-for-breakfast before the Saturday tailgate. 

I love it, but it's getting pricey and my choices seem to be the sticks, a roommate or the Jerry Springer recruiting grounds near downtown. 

[Jumpthefence 74]

I don't really live in an urban area or much of a suburban area either but my opinion in pro-sprawl. I think it really shows ingenuity of people who want to densely populate people in a very small space. Look at Tokyo, the sprawl has forced builders to make the most technically advanced buildings they can, the one I especially like was built on a street corner and is a triangle about 5x40 feet. The sprawl will always force engineers to outdo themselves, so I say YES TO SPRAWL!

[hamsterTK 93]

The way I see it the term "sprawl" has a specific negative meaning to it, developments that are excessively banal and single-purpose.

Not all suburbs have to be sprawl, suburbs can be nice and well-planned. sprawl is what you call that disaster happening a few miles past what used to be fringe of regular suburbia.

The tough part comes when you realize the otherwise messy new exurbs often exist for basic economic reasons, affordable housing stock in an area that has good schools, etc. Ideally we'd figure out a way to keep those things but draw new development closer together on a organized system of roads that draw businesses and services to move in and avoid a housing "desert", plus well-placed public services and functional unified local government.

[edmonton_stinks 5]

To me, sprawl means Calgary or Houston style waste. It means huge sections of cities with little to no transit, brutal traffic congestion, and nothing but single family homes.

The nearest grocery store from my home is a twenty minute walk, though as bad as it is in west Calgary, I'm really glad I don't live in the northwest.

I played a hockey game a few months ago in northwest Calgary at Cardel Place (technically NE, but draws from a lot of NW communities), which was a beautiful, shiny new arena. However northwest Calgary's bubble neighbourhoods are among the ugliest I've ever seen. Large, expensive walkout homes are poorly insulated, hastily built, and vinyl sided. All of these houses are nearly identical, and different shades of beige. Because they have vinyl exteriors, they can't be painted and will forever remain beige. Additionally, every major road out there was a highway; no sidewalks and high speed limits. If you need to get anywhere, you're driving.

That's the kind of sprawl I don't like.

[richardhekimyan 0]

Less and Less people are using the 405 every day here in South California, because everyone has places to go in the morning majority to work at around 5:00 to about 7:30 AM, that is the majority of people that live in places Like Orange County suburbs of Los Angeles, gasoline is way too expensive and we use so much just getting to work and back people are quitting their jobs in the farther away cities for the more local suburban cities like here in the O.C, but their aren't enough jobs that we could find for our professions here rather than in L.A, and recently new office buildings have been and are being constructed here even when there is already a lot, its making areas like Orange County the suburbs of L.A turn into more Urban Cities.