Why not denser suburban development?

[gofeedthebears 0]

(This is just a preliminary background thingy--you can just skip to my next post)

So the other day I used factfinder.census.gov to find out the population density of my census tract, but it turned out a nine-hole golfcourse bigger than my immediate neighborhood was located in the tract, effectively cutting the density in half. So then I picked the option where you can check the denisty of every single block. I did so, and it turns out my block in a highly suburban part of Queens, NY has a density of 53,000 people per square mile! (nearly 400 people on however big a block so it would come to that number).

This intrigued me, so I started checking the blocks in my town outside my immediate dense neighborhood (the neighborhood is a small area of about 7 blocks from 65th to 70th Avenues--the densest block was nearly 70,000 people per square mile--and none of those townhouses are more than 3 stories!), and so here's the numbers:

Typical detached single-family house block (Levittown era): around 8,000 per mi. sq.

Typical two-story garden apartment block: around 20,000 per mi. sq, courtyards are the equivalents of backyard space

With these numbers in mind, I'd assume a block of semi-detached houses or narrow houses approaches 11,000 and a block of two-family houses approaches 16,000. I'm still astounded by the fact that my block of mostly townhouses and semi-detached two-family houses (we call them four-family houses for short, although it's technically an incorrect description) with fairly high real estate (my family's rent for 900 sq ft. is 1,700 a month--and this is 11 or 12 miles from Manhattan) could be so dense, but numbers don't lie, I guess.

If anyone else has the time, and if you live on a developed block that forms a definite polygon with little wasted space, I'd be interested what block densities in your suburban/outer-urban areas are. I'd also like to know what decade your neighborhood was developed in.

I'm trying to compare the development of old American cities, which are defined as small densely populated areas (Boston, Brooklyn, Newark, and especially Hoboken--the mile-square city with a population of 40,000) whereas new American cities seem to me to be overly large low-densely populated areas (Los Angeles proper average is only slightly more dense than the undisputably suburban Town of Hempstead, NY [pop 750,000], which itself is nearly twice as dense as the average density of city propers like Houston and Phoenix). It seems that the definition of urban and suburban character differs greatly based on where you live (most Queens residents, for example, consider themselves to live in suburban neighborhoods, despite an average denisty of over 20,000--and a small number of people I know in my area even consider where they live a small town).

NOTE: Downtown areas such as Manhattan are irrelevent to this little argument of mine, because what I'm advocating is denser sprawl, and obviously you can't expect sprawl to imitate inner-city areas.

And on to my argument in my next post....

[gofeedthebears 0]

All right, so as my previous post was trying to exemplify, neighborhoods suburban in character can actually be surprisingly dense (as opposed to New Urbanism, which purposely tries to imitate the urban character, thus rendering the development of suburbs in the New Urbanist style rather useless, since the point of moving to the suburbs is the character, regardless of density or walkability).

I remember being in the eighth or ninth grade when I saw an modern-day sprawled suburb for the first time. I couldn't imagine how people could live like that (living in the country or a small town is one thing, but locating a wealthy suburb two hours from the nearest city center and thus invading rural areas and small towns with cookie-cutter houses is a different story). Then last year I saw an overhead photograph of a modern day development, and I noticed that there was a sort of primeval foresty area in the middle of the block--turns out this is quite common these days, and I didn't understand it either--that forest is separated on four sides from its ecosystem and pretty much worthless (the same amount of developed land closer together would result in the same amount of leftover forest--just in a more sensible location as part of the rest of the surrounding forest). What sprawl is resulting in is tracts of undeveloped land sandwiched between tracts of developed land, and I'm sure you didn't need me to tell you that. But what I'm curious about is why it seems so impossible these days for developers to build dense neighborhoods that are suburban in character like they used to. To me, it just makes more sense environmentally to keep sprawl limited to the areas immediately around cities (thus preventing wasted land in between that can barely be considered nature) and to develop neighborhoods as densely as plausible to prevent the land coverage of sprawl.

I feel like I have a lot more to say, but I'm gonna pause here and see if anyone is interested in this discussion. So as an alternative to the wasteful (and anti-neighborhood) modern development and the good-willing but impractical New Urbanism, I propose densification of America's suburbs as a solution. I'm going to take pictures of my block and probably a few others in my neighborhood to show how a suburban character is maintained in a surprisingly dense setting.

I feel what is needed are: construction of two- and three-family houses that are desirable to own, live in, and rent out; construction of more desireable attached properties mixed in neighborhoods with signle family houses; extreme reduction of backyard size in favor of more large nearby parks. I feel development in new suburbs and cities should maintain at least a block density (see my last post) of 12,000 people per square mile, and strive for numbers closer to 20,000. I also believe desireable apartment buildings should also be located throughout suburban neighborhoods (2-6 story brick or whatever standard fare) and integrated instead of separated with the single-family detached house neighborhoods so that young and displaced residents can have someplace affordable to live in their own neighborhood. Oh yeah, and I'm also all for the end of the cul-de-sac trend (any that result because of impossibilty of linkage on both sides makes sense, but a neighborhood entirely made up of them makes it impossible to walk from one place to another without taking unneccessarily long routes).

Any thoughts? Opposition would be fun.

[louisville327 0]

Date: 12/1/2005 3:30:30 AM
Author: gofeedthebears
I feel like I have a lot more to say, but I'm gonna pause here and see if anyone is interested in this discussion. So as an alternative to the wasteful (and anti-neighborhood) modern development and the good-willing but impractical 'New Urbanism', I propose 'densification' of America's suburbs as a solution.

quote>

The problem with densifying the suburbs is the amount of space they take up. There simply aren't enough people to turn the low-density suburbs of places like Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix and even my relatively-small home of Louisville into neighborhoods like those found in NYC. The boroughs of New York are so dense because they are built on islands---land within a decent proximity to the center of the city is very limited, forcing people to stack on top of each other as is common in places like Queens and Brooklyn.

In Louisville, the suburbs have spread so far out that it would take several million people to increase the density to levels you advocate. It's just not possible with the current population.

What would be needed is a systematic demolition of many existing suburbs, and residential development would have to be restricted to specific areas. An invisible line would have to be drawn around the entire city of Louisville and a giant you no live out here sign erected beyond the line. The hundreds of thousands of Jefferson County residents would have to be relocated to within the original city limits of Louisville for densities to even approach the 20,000 per square mile level. That's not going to happen any time soon.

The cause of such low densities and such widespread suburban growth is the availability of cheap land. NYC doesn't have that, and that's why it is so dense.

New York is an anomaly, at least in the United States. No other city in the country has built so much in such a small area, and to expect other cities to do so on the massive expanses of developed land that already exist would be unrealistic. Unless they made strict size limitations on suburban developments and mandated the construction of denser living areas, it just won't work.

I find it curious that you criticize New Urbanism when that is exactly what you are advocating. Here in Louisville there is a suburban New Urbanist development called Norton Commons being built as I type this. It is way out in the county in a sprawl zone, but it includes multi-family buildings, detached and attached homes, and a general density level much higher than surrounding subdivisions. It is precisely the suburban development you desire, and it is very much a New Urbanist design.

Unless we relocate people living in existing low-density subdivisions to new higher-density areas with restricted outward growth, what you seek will simply not be possible. Even if that was economically or politically viable, you'd have one heck of a time erasing 60 years of American history and convincing people in Phoenix that what they really want is to live in Brooklyn.


All that said, I agree with you that higher densities are better and think all future suburban developments should be built with those in mind.

[gofeedthebears 0]

Date: 12/1/2005 6:27:51 AM
Author: louisville327

Date: 12/1/2005 3:30:30 AM

I find it curious that you criticize New Urbanism when that is exactly what you are advocating. Here in Louisville there is a suburban New Urbanist development called Norton Commons being built as I type this. It is way out in the county in a sprawl zone, but it includes multi-family buildings, detached and attached homes, and a general density level much higher than surrounding subdivisions. It is precisely the suburban development you desire, and it is very much a New Urbanist design.

quote>

I do not disagree with New Urbanism, but I feel it's kind of misguided in trying to recreate an urban atmosphere--I'd imagine most people who choose to live that far from the city center would be looking for a suburban atmosphere. The houses I've seen in pictures of most New Urbanist developments look a lot more like Trenton, NJ than Flushing, NY.

[louisville327 0]

Date: 12/1/2005 3:50:52 PM
Author: gofeedthebears

Date: 12/1/2005 6:27:51 AM
I do not disagree with New Urbanism, but I feel it's kind of misguided in trying to recreate an urban atmosphere--I'd imagine most people who choose to live that far from the city center would be looking for a suburban atmosphere. The houses I've seen in pictures of most New Urbanist developments look a lot more like Trenton, NJ than Flushing, NY.

quote>

I'm sorry, maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but aren't you advocating for a more urban atmosphere by increasing the density of suburbs? Suburbs are suburbs because they lack the density that creates truly urban spaces. If you increase the density of suburbs to levels you listed above, they're no longer the suburbs that people seem to want to live in. An area with a density of 20,000 people per square mile ceases to be a suburb---in the way that most people conceive of them.

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by a suburban atmosphere. That atmosphere is created by very low densities, which you wrote above should be increased.

Maybe I just need you to clarify your position further.

[ACEfanatic 7]

Date: 12/1/2005 4:16:53 PM Author: louisville327

Date: 12/1/2005 3:50:52 PM Author: gofeedthebears

Date: 12/1/2005 6:27:51 AM I do not disagree with New Urbanism, but I feel it's kind of misguided in trying to recreate an urban atmosphere--I'd imagine most people who choose to live that far from the city center would be looking for a suburban atmosphere.  The houses I've seen in pictures of most New Urbanist developments look a lot more like Trenton, NJ than Flushing, NY.

quote> I'm sorry, maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but aren't you advocating for a more urban atmosphere by increasing the density of suburbs?  Suburbs are suburbs because they lack the density that creates truly urban spaces.  If you increase the density of suburbs to levels you listed above, they're no longer the 'suburbs' that people seem to want to live in.  An area with a density of 20,000 people per square mile ceases to be a suburb---in the way that most people conceive of them. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by 'a suburban atmosphere'.  That atmosphere is created by very low densities, which you wrote above should be increased. Maybe I just need you to clarify your position further.

quote>

What he seems to be advocating is closely packed, single-family (or duplex, or whatever) housing.  In contrast, most New Urbanist developments try to create urban housing- apartments, etc.

@gofeedthebears:  I agree with you.  My city (Harrisonburg, VA) is starting to suburbanize now, and the results are not pretty.  The problem is this:  NYC does not have much land, even out in the outer boroughs.  Thus, land values are higher, and land cannot be wasted.  Whereas, out in the far suburbs, etc, the land value is much lower, so developers have fewer qualms about wasting space.

-ACE

[brtim2 10]

I myself live on the fringe of 'wasted space'. My area is quickly going from farmland to single family houses. Although I don't like it I feel like there is nothing I can do about it, and I'll tell you why I think this:

People want their space.

The ability to own (as opposed to renting) thier own house with thier own yard is a very powerful thing to people. It does not matter what size the yard, as long as they have that piece of grass in front of them where they can entertain and hold cookouts or fence off and escape to they are happy. And yes, you are right those 'forrests' are not doing their job well as they have been planned, but they are to be considered community areas. No one owns that piece of property it is protected from development. Usually it's because there is a small stream or creek running through it, or it is a reforestation area. But it gives cover to the other houses and it makes the yard seem bigger.

But the motivation to own land and own their own house will continue to push the suburbs out into farmland and sprawl them away from the city. That's why there is a lot of wasted space, the pursuit of land.

[+Guest]

Date: 12/1/2005 3:30:30 AM

I feel what is needed are: construction of two- and three-family houses that are desirable to own, live in, and rent out; construction of more desireable attached properties mixed in neighborhoods with signle family houses; extreme reduction of backyard size in favor of more large nearby parks. I feel development in new suburbs and cities should maintain at least a 'block density' (see my last post) of 12,000 people per square mile, and strive for numbers closer to 20,000. I also believe desireable apartment buildings should also be located throughout suburban neighborhoods (2-6 story brick or whatever standard fare) and integrated instead of separated with the single-family detached house neighborhoods so that young and displaced residents can have someplace affordable to live in their own neighborhood. Oh yeah, and I'm also all for the end of the cul-de-sac trend (any that result because of impossibilty of linkage on both sides makes sense, but a neighborhood entirely made up of them makes it impossible to walk from one place to another without taking unneccessarily long routes).


Any thoughts? Opposition would be fun.

quote>

I respect your opinion in this matter, as long as you don't force it on people in the form of public policy. In places where more two- and three-family houses are needed, they are built. In places where they are not wanted, they are not.

Also, keep in mind, that increased residential density leads to increased traffic... just think about what happens to the gray-paved streets when you add water to a medium-density residential zone! People move to the suburbs to get away from that! If people in my Los Angeles area community wanted an apartment in a higher-traffic location, they wouldn't have moved out to the valley in the first place! The same logic applies to your proposed end of the cul-de-sac trend... Moving to a single-family dwelling on a cul-de-sac is wonderful simply because of its inefficiency of travel. You can let your children play roller hockey in the street in front of your house without having to worry about some Audi-driving commuter taking a shortcut down your street and mowing them all down! The same applies to letting your children walk to school in said neighborhoods.

A little background on that last comment... In the southwest end of Los Angeles's San Fernando Valley, one of the most well-traveled east-west roads is Ventura Blvd. It gets extremely heavily traveled during the morning and afternoon rush hours. Less than a quarter-mile south of that main artery is a road called Wells Drive (SC4 would call it a street). Because of its 5-miles of continuity from Woodland Hills to Encino, it is also a heavily traveled commuter route, complete with traffic noise, horns blaring, and, during off-peak hours, speeding maniacs. Had this community been built as a cul-de-sac area, it would be safer to and more desirable to live on this route.

Next, if apartment buildings located throughout suburban neighborhoods was in fact desirable, then believe me, in today's hot housing market, believe you me, they would be sprouting up like beanstalks all over my neck of the woods... multi-family dwellings are to my knowledge far more profitable properties to own for the purpose of renting out rooms.

Higher density, while better to people who live outside the area, is *not necessarily better*. It's a matter of opinion. Some people love the urban convenience of being able to get Chinese delivery at 3am, some people love the quaint peace of the suburbs, and are willing to deal with slightly more inconvenience to have it... they can't walk to the store, but they don't get woken up by some jackass on a Harley in the middle of the night! (Not that I have anything against Harleys... whoever wants them has the right to have them, just as I reserve the right to get the hell away from them!)

The more I analyze your comments, the more I take issue with them. The stats of 12,16 and 20k per square mile that you mention... they're not just numbers. They're *people* who are capable of making decisions regarding their own happiness far better than you or I can do it for them. Bottom line, if people *wanted* to live in such densely packed neighborhoods, outsiders such as ourselves would not have to strive for numbers closer to 20,000 [ppsqmi]

I know that you never literally called for a forceful redevelopment of suburbia and relocation of its people, but I have the nagging suspicion that if someone like you rose to a position of power, that you would have few qualms about doing such a thing. The idea of making people use their part of the world in the way *you* feel is best is imperialist in nature... not much different in my opinion from Gee-Dub's hopes of turning the Iraqi nations into a homogeneous Presbyterian culture that gets all its shopping done at Wal-Mart. (Yes, Iraqi nations is a plural... the only reason it's a single state is that a bunch of drunk Europeans got together after the Great War and divvied up the Ottoman Empire without any regard to local cultures.)

I, however, like to wonder just like you, how much more *I* would like communities if I had supreme reign over them. This is why I love the SimCity games! I can make my own dream metropolis (not very well, yet) without making decisions about the lives of *real people*, and you can do the same! It's a good outlet for social-minded thinkers! We get to play benevolent dictator without telling people what kind of house they can live in, and where. It's the same as stressed-out teens playing GTA to let their anger out without hurting anyone, or watching certain kinds of adult films so you don't become some STD-ridden virus host.

This is about *freedom of choice*... I don't know about other countries, but America was supposedly supposed to be the land where you could live the way you want on your own property, as long as you don't force people to live your way on theirs.

Okay, I can feel myself rambling, so I'll just post and gather my thoughts!

[spacenuteskimo 0]

    I think it depends on location.  Hong Kong, for example, grew up from a thriving port colony.  It now has 7 million people.  Most of its land is the 1,500 feet between the harbour and the hills.  For land value, I will give Hong Kong a 10 out of 10.

    Let's take another city, let's say Edmonton, Alberta.  For those of you that don't know, Edmonton is the capital of Alberta.  The downtown is a handsome area on the top of a river valley, and it makes the towers look taller than they are.  Also, there is a 500 foot height restriction over the CBD.  There is a lot of room to grow, mostly to the north and east.  I will give it a 4 out of 10.

    See, my example is that it all depends on location.  For Hong Kong, there isn't much room at all.  For Edmonton ,there is.  There is obviously a bit of demand, history, jobs etc... , but if it's a small area with a large population, well, that area should grow.

 

    Matthew

[+Guest]

I urge all readers to listen to the eskimo! It's all about supply and demand to guide builders in what kind of dwelling they will build. Hong Kong has zero supply of available land, and extremely high demand from entrepreneurs who seek opportunity in the freer-trade climate. Edmonton has much more room around it, and fewer people flocking to its, well... let's just say less-economically-free-than-Hong-Kong climate where fewer entrepreneurs are willing to risk setting up shop for fear of high taxes and regulation eating up all their investment... kinda like America will be pretty soon!

In my part of the Los Angeles metro (Woodland Hills/Warner Center), land values are high because there is a high demand and a low supply of easy-to-build-on land. However, it is still low enough that it is economical to build single-family dwellings on side streets.

The more heavily traveled arterial roads such as Topanga Cyn Blvd and Canoga Avenue in Warner Center (the downtown of the southwest San Fernando Valley) are very attractive to businesses due to their high traffic (their name and services are exposed to commuters who pass by). Thus Co and Cs Sims are bidding against R Sims for the same pieces of land on those spots. Even if a single family dwelling on these roads was desirable, the extremely high cost of the land would make it a very poor decision to build one. Thus, the most heavily traveled roads attract apartment complexes... it's just too much extra cost for the same amount of benefit that could be accrued by building in the side streets. There's just too many people wanting to live there, and willing to pay a high price to do so (because they want to be able to walk to the mall, or whatever), that it would be silly to build a single-family house for yourself on an acre of land.

In a couple decades, land value will be far too high to support even single-family homes in the San Fernando Valley (except on the valley rims, where hi-rises are not very safe or economical to construct). The single-families will cash in their houses' (increasing in value because of the increasing demand and decreasing nearby land supply), and build a new single family dwelling in say, Thousand Oaks, Camarillo, or Santa Clarita and Palmdale, where there is still a good bit of room.

A dirty industry or manufacturing plant stays far away from my part of the valley... land value is just too high to make efficient use of it with factories. The only factories in the valley are remnants of the mid 20th century, when hardly anyone lived out here... land was cheap. I expect to see I-D and I-M such as the Miller bottling plant move out to the Antelope and San Bernadino Valleys (not Conejo Valley, the weather is too nice... R and Cs/Co want it more!) fairly soon... even though they own the land they're on and pay no rent (except the rent called property taxes they pay to our supreme landlords at Temple and Main, 10th and Capitol, and soon Pennsylvania and Maryland), the prices they're being offered for their land by Co, Cs, and R is just getting far too tempting... i.e. the opportunity cost of sticking around will grow too high.

Supply and demand determine the proper way to zone land, not government, and certainly not ivory-tower forum lurkers like you and me!

[Pepster 1]

after all, all depends on desirability and land prices, i live in mexico city and here in Santa Fe, there is a Boom in construction mainly to build great skyscrapers for residential, towers of 20 and 30 floors, with lakes, etc...  and Santa Fe is a suburban area and bussines centre next to some highways and hills, indeed in Santa Fe is the Tallest Mexican Residential Only Tower... with 183 meters and over 50 stories.

also mexico city it's expanding towards the rest of the State of M

[Meat67 0]

One of the main things missing from GFB?fs original post was the discussion of zoning.  If you want higher densities you must zone for higher densities.  If you don?ft zone any low density areas there aren?ft going to be any low density areas.  As many N. American cities are learning, lower densities mean higher prices for services. i.e. police, water, road maintenance, etc.  If there are fewer low density areas in a city they will become more expensive because of the zoning and this will create the demand for higher density living.  Why would this be a good thing if everyone wants to live in lower density areas?  Well, there is only so much money in a municipal budget.  If the same amount of money is spent serving the 20,000 people in a high density area as is spent serving 3,500 people in the low density then obviously the low density area people are getting a better deal which is totally unfair.  Those extra dollars could be used for other things, like free health clinics, more parks, better mass transit, more teachers and after school programs to name a few.  There are also many hidden costs (i.e. non-monetary) associated with low density development.  These include, but are not limited to increased pollution, lack of community, habitat destruction, etc.

I would totally have to disagree with SilentRob about ?gThe Market?h being the proper arbiter for zoning.  ?gThe Market?h means money and therefore those with more of it get a bigger say then those with less, which is no way to run a democracy.

[+Guest]

Date: 12/2/2005 1:58:46 AM
Author: Meat67

I would totally have to disagree with SilentRob about �gThe Market�h being the proper arbiter for zoning. �gThe Market�h means money and therefore those with more of it get a bigger say then those with less, which is no way to run a democracy.

quote>

Right, but in a free market, people who have money don't keep it by making dumb decisions on how to spend it. Even if there were no laws against it, putting a toxic waste dump at the corner of 85th and Central Park West would be utterly retarded because the land owner could make far more with a high-density residential development. An oil refinery half the size of Manhattan would cost trillions of dollars that nobody has... thus, they are located across and down the Hudson, where such an operation is profitable!

Having a lot of money does *not* give you the freedom to trash the whole world without any harm coming to yourself. Not many people want to bankrupt themselves with bad decisions on how to use their land. Anyone with tons of money who wants to put a house in the middle of a downtown area will eventually give in to the pressure of making tons more money by building an office building complex to appeal to commercial agglomeration.

Zoning laws actually work more in the favor of the corrupt wealthy people that Meat67 vaguely refers to. Considering that someone with enough money to leverage the political system probably owns all three kinds of RCI property, passing zoning laws makes him *richer*, by artificially limiting the supply of land available for those kinds of respective development. Not allowing Co developers to build in R zones limits the supply of land they can work with, thus jacking up the price they have to pay. Not allowing R developers to build in Co zones jacks up the cost of laying down condo developments... thus stopping the middle class from owning their dwelling instead of renting.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if zoning laws were designed by wealthy landowners... few people would suspect them. Kinda like when Wal-Mart's CEO advocated a couple weeks ago to boost the minimum wage... WallyWorld is profitable enough at the moment to survive a hit like that to their balance sheets. Most of their small-time competitors probably can't, and they'll end up having to close up shop. Result? Wal-Mart increases their monopsonistic grip on the working class, and can further postpone any increase in employee benefits... give 'em a little taste now so you don't have to feed them the whole dish later! Devious, eh?

Economically harmful laws always are advertised as a great idea for the average Joe. That's how they get passed in a democratically representative land! Economic laws such as zoning exist *only* to stifle economic advancement by the little guy, and concentrate financial power in the hands of the big dogs. If that isn't the case, I don't see how an increasing proportion of the UASR's wealth can continue to funnel into the hands of a decreasing proportion of the population, given how many laws have been passed in the past century to supposedly stop it!

As per Meat67's comment about how to run a democracy: Perhaps a democracy shouldn't be run in the first place... while Reagan might have shown that democratic socialism works better (i.e. dies slower) than dictatorial socialism, it does not necessarily mean that democracy is good. I've just pointed out two examples of democracies approving of laws that have done enormous harm to the economic well-being of those people they claim to protect. Aspartame kills you a lot slower than cyanide, but that doesn't mean you should gulp down three gallons of Diet soda every day!

[organicsabre 1]

The problem with Dense suburban areas is the amount of people crammed into such a small space. This brings up its own problems of crime, heavy traffic (because no mount of idea of good public transport systems, people just like their cars and in America this is even more so)denser development means more problems in case of fires, Tokyo is known to be one of teh mopst dense cities of the world, the amount of fire engines per sq mile is the largest in the world, and it has to be as the risks are so high with the amount of people in each block, so close together. Also theres the fact that more concrete jungles as High denisty would inivertably be, less greenery is left and whether you like this or not, this does impact on our environment, so to put it into perspective, Higher density = more crime, Higher risk of life loss due to fire, environmental impact and not to mention what about health care, more hospitals have to be built, then you have to provide jobs for the people, the surburban sprawls of less dense devlopment, iron this problems down, so they are easier to manage, that is why large dense zones are not looked upon that much. I kn ow in some asian countries i.e. Shanghai theya re building these dense concrete jungles for the farm workers, but they are having problems with high crime levels, larger imortatlity rate for these zones and the amount of traffic in the city.

Being an architect I have looked at high density zones and as proved in the Uk the problems that came with these zones, msot new development is low rise rather than dense hi rise.

[Voar Tok 4]

The whole idea behind suburbs is the little cozy house with the white picket fence.  In other words, it is a small plan for utopia.  I have seen the effects that the big city has on my relatives, and have literally grown up in an enviroment where suburban is taken to the extreme.  Frankly, I hate it; but they love it and cherish it as the ideal way to live.

 

A backyard is great if you are raising a family, but frankly, when I get out of college, I will probably get an apartment somewhere.  Now a lot of people think of an apartment and they start coming up with reasons why they wouldn't want to live there like, You don't own anything or You have to pay a monthly rent.  I really don't care if I own the place that I live in.  In fact, it would be easier on me if I didn't.  In one case, I pay for rent.  In the other case, I pay for property taxes, utility taxes, lawn maintenance, building maintenance, insurance, and who knows what else.  The way I see it, I would probably pay about $300 a month for an apartment in Houston in a decent part of town.  I would pay a lot more than that to own a house out in the burbs.

 

Eventually, when I get married and have a family to raise, then I would definitely consider moving to the suburbs so that there is space for the kids to run and play.  Until then, I plan on finding myself a nice apartment with a good view.

 

[DJGspinNhitz 7]

Changing the currant mind set of urban and suburban developement is almost impossible. Unless stricter zoning and developement plans are brought to the table. Next we in the USA at least need to support private farms and prevent them from becoming new houses. The problem is that developers build all these new houses, but they are way overpriced. Middle income housing in Macungie and suburb of Allentown, PA cost $300,000, now accord to what we were taught a home purchase should be no more than twice your annual income, now comes the kicker, the annaul average income for the area is a mere $37,000 per person, figure 2 people working at $40,000 means that a new home should be $160,000 ar so. Reality they are swamping people in debt and many of the homes bought in the last 2 years there are up for sale or auction. The loss is enormous, people out of a home and some of the most productive farmland in the US destroyed. The Lehigh Valley produces more per acre than any Mid-West farm land. NYC on the other hand is a complete urban mess, people packed like sardines, polution, traffic, crime, limited ability to improve conditions due to the sheer expense of doing anything there. What is worse is they pay no better than areas in PA and NJ that have far less than all of the above. Beats me why anyone would live there. My girlfriend does, and I think she is nuts. I hear people want thier space and individualism but we build CLOMES (look a like houses) packed on 1/2 or 1 acre lots and sell them for 300-400 hundred thousand. The solution is cities and towns carefully planning out developement and trying to preserve vital areas, farms, river and stream buffers, and major woodland tracks. Forcing developers to build affordable housing and apartments based on real world data. Many of these new developement cost communities far more than the give back, in terms of road maintanence, police, fire, medical, and schools. The constant expansion  means that more people are driving farther for jobs and with increasing fuel cost people take home less money and well eventually there will be a colapse, first the poor, than the lower middle class. With no support for public transit or the infesability of it in large urban spraw means high unemployment, increase in welfare, and further state debts. This is especally a problem in the NE like PA, where the infastructure can not support the new developement and many people are commuting to NYC or Philly to work, the communties don't have the taxes or money to expand the roads and schools and in turn rack up debt or tax the people to death, the kids have no where to go and nothing to do, the poor can find jobs and the problem just gets worse. Developement is out of control and mostly because local and state governments don't force re-developement of areas already developed and in need of new input. Many old suburban neighborhoods have available houses but people believe new is better, and that older neighbor aren't worth investing in. I am not saying don't build we just need to build better and inspire people to re-build instead of buying new, whether through tax breaks or stricter urban planning. As for NYC well it si far the few nuts that want that kind of like and my girlfriend is one of them, I now live on a state park in Florida which is a tad to isolated but better than NYC. that was my view and vent on urbanism, backlash welcome, I respect other peoples views so please feel free to rip this apart. Sorry if I went a little off topic too.

GQ

[+Guest]

Date: 12/3/2005 2:22:08 PM
Author: DJGspinNhitz

Changing the currant mind set of urban and suburban developement is almost impossible. Unless stricter zoning and developement plans are brought to the table.

quote>

If you need stricter zoning laws, then it's proof that people really don't want what politicians and other world-improvers say they want. Perhaps they do want it, but just don't know it... I'll address that in the following replies.

Date: 12/3/2005 2:22:08 PM
Author: DJGspinNhitz

Next we in the USA at least need to support private farms and prevent them from becoming new houses.

quote>

The only way we can support private farms is if we start giving them public funds. But then they become public farms. Of course, the government with its USDA can stop paying big-time corporate farms with small-farmer dollars to grow nothing. That might help.

Date: 12/3/2005 2:22:08 PM
Author: DJGspinNhitz

The problem is that developers build all these new houses, but they are way overpriced.

quote>

If they were overpriced, nobody would buy them. The price they sell for it the one that only one person wants to pay for it. If they were forced to charge less, people would get into physical fights over them.

Date: 12/3/2005 2:22:08 PM
Author: DJGspinNhitz

figure 2 people working at $40,000 means that a new home should be $160,000 ar so. Reality they are swamping people in debt...

quote>

You have however made a good point here. The major reason homes are so expensive is that there's so much money available for people to borrow, thanks to the FED counterfeiting what I think is about $2x10^9 *weekly* in order to finance our conservative president's endeavors. This also applies to the farm problem mentioned above. Back in the 20's and 70's, the deficits were running so out of control that the FED had to print up obscene amounts of money. It had to go somewhere, so banks encouraged farmers to take out huge loans so they could start competing with the big corporate farms (who started the competition problem largely by accepting huge amounts of public money). Anyway, farmers got indebted up to their eyeballs, then the FED increased interest rates, and they went bankrupt. Read a book called Harvest of Rage -- it does a good job explaining how this happened in the introduction.

Date: 12/3/2005 2:22:08 PM
Author: DJGspinNhitz

NYC on the other hand is a complete urban mess, people packed like sardines, polution, traffic, crime, limited ability to improve conditions due to the sheer expense of doing anything there. What is worse is they pay no better than areas in PA and NJ that have far less than all of the above. Beats me why anyone would live there.

quote>

They do it just so they can say they do. It's fashionable. I don't need the glamour, so I won't be moving there.

Date: 12/3/2005 2:22:08 PM
Author: DJGspinNhitz

The solution is cities and towns carefully planning out developement and trying to preserve vital areas, farms, river and stream buffers, and major woodland tracks. Forcing developers to build affordable housing and apartments based on real world data.

quote>

If you force people into doing thy bidding, you're no better than the wackjob politicians who started the problem in the first place. Besides, by preserving vital areas, you're constricting the supply of land to build affordable housing and apartments -- Now, what happens when we constrict supply in an economic environment where demand is rising? Very good, prices go *up* and become less affordable. You're trying to have things both ways. The only way I can think of to make housing more affordable is to stop these maddening national deficits and bring an end to central fractional reserve banking. After a period of adjustment, prices will go down, and ordinary environment-loving folks such as you and I will be able to afford with our savings to buy a piece of the streamlands, woodlands and whatnot... and protect it ourselves without the need for a bloated bureaucracy that doesn't really care about it.

Date: 12/3/2005 2:22:08 PM
Author: DJGspinNhitz

Many of these new developement cost communities far more than the give back, in terms of road maintanence, police, fire, medical, and schools.

quote>

Agreed. Let's have people who want those services pay for them themselves, or at least start their own local departments independent of the regional government. Then we won't have to worry about how much they give back to the community.

Date: 12/3/2005 2:22:08 PM
Author: DJGspinNhitz

The constant expansion means that more people are driving farther for jobs and with increasing fuel cost people take home less money and well eventually there will be a colapse, first the poor, than the lower middle class.

quote>

They wouldn't have to drive so far to their jobs if the powers that be didn't dispense massive amounts of corporate welfare to companies in their central business districts. This corrupt practice shrinks the number of companies by allowing anti-competitive practices. Less companies means a more monopsonistic labor market, meaning they don't have to care about how far their workers drive, or how much they pay them (see my Wal-Mart comment above). Ending corporate subsidies will allow the sprouting of innumerable small central business districts in each suburb. In addition, more competition for labor will allow people to have more money and pay for the services I described in the above comment. I'm really glad you brought up that point!

Date: 12/3/2005 2:22:08 PM
Author: DJGspinNhitz

With no support for public transit or the infesability of it in large urban spraw means high unemployment, increase in welfare, and further state debts.

quote>

Not if people follow the advice above.

Date: 12/3/2005 2:22:08 PM
Author: DJGspinNhitz

Developement is out of control and mostly because local and state governments don't force re-developement of areas already developed and in need of new input. Many old suburban neighborhoods have available houses but people believe new is better, and that older neighbor aren't worth investing in.

quote>

Actually development is out of control because so many parts of the city have been impoverished by the monopsonistic environment created by crony capitalism. The resulting crime makes them undesirable to redevelop. Redevelopment in such communities just makes pretty buildings in a place full of pissed-off and hopeless downtrodden victims of monopsony. (If readers still haven't figured out what that last word means, they should look it up, as they already understand the concept of it).

------

I have unimaginably high respect for what DJGspinNhitz wants to do for the world through socialist means. That's why I don't mind socialists. The huge problem with plans like those just proposed by him is that they only look at the symptoms and try to cover them up... not the disease!

These plans are like taking an aspirin for a dehydration-caused headache, or Viagara because you're too stressed out to get it up, or statin drugs for cholesterol without trying to find out why your body is producing so much of it! Most people of DJGspinNhitz's political slant are fully aware of the gross epidemic of prescription drug use and know that treating symptoms is no substitute for treating the disease.

It's high time they started applying such a philosophy to politicoeconomic diseases.

Date: 12/3/2005 2:22:08 PM
Author: DJGspinNhitz

Sorry if I went a little off-topic.

quote>

I'm afraid I'm the one who started that trend in this thread. So people can just blame me.

[storms991 0]

Well, I have a simple and short opinion, instead of a world with dense suburban communities that travel 50 or 60 miles to work. Suburbs are both inconvenient and not environmentaly friendly. Imagine a world where places as dense as for example, Elizabeth,N.Y., like you said, its density it 73,000 per square mile. If you were to say, put Elizabeth 50 miles from New York instead of a couple miles which it is now, It would just be nonlogical to commute to places like New York, Traffic would be horendous, there would obviously be more crime, more pollution, and less building density. If you have tons of medium sized buildings, there will not be the need for large centralized locations with dense downtown buildings where people go. City's are meant to be centralized not spread out where people go to work all over the place. As an example again, New York, is a place where 4.2 million people commute to work everyday. I don't know things at the top of my head, but New Jersey, has a population of 7 million, and New York has a population of around 28 million. I don't know Conneticut's population, but if you add up 7 and 28, and divide it by four, then you can see that around 1/9 or the regional population + 9 million people who live in New York City all work in one large, centralized location. This is why I'm against suburbs and urban and suburban sprawl. Instead of building to the side, build up

[Meat67 0]

One of the most dangerous things you can do is do what people ?gwant?h.  The problem is how you frame the question.  If you ask people, ?gDo you want the government to give your hard earned tax dollars to lazy, good for nothing bums??h most people will say no.  If you ask those same people, ?gDo you want the government to help the less fortunate??h many of those same people will say, Of course.  This same thing can be seen in how the questions about development and zoning are framed.  ?gDo you want to live in a large, inexpensive house with lots of privacy and a big yard??h Vs. ?gDo you want to live some place you can?ft really afford because of a super hot housing market brought on by ridiculously low interest rates, even when it means traveling by everywhere by car, thereby contributing massively to global warming as well as to the trade deficit that could, if oil starts to be traded in Euros instead of US dollars, cause the whole economy to collapse??h  Aside from taking a long time to figure out the massive run-on-sentence question, most people will say yes to the first and no to the second even if, most of the time you can be talking about the same place.

I don?ft have tons of time to fully go into it right now, but like anything else, zoning can be good and bad.  A good city council that listens to the needs of all the citizens of the city will make good zoning decisions that will lead to a nice urban environment.  A bad city council, in the pocket of developers will make decisions good for the developers and bad for citizens .  That being said, I would rather take my chances with a bad city council that I can vote or not vote for than I would with developers not having any restriction what ever.  I could go on about an informed electorate and city council meeting attendance (I?fve been to a few) but I?fve gotta go pretty soon.

I like to think I?fm pretty informed and I ask myself the right questions, which is why two and a half years ago when I got a new job I moved.  I now live a 5 minute bike ride from work (there is nothing like setting your alarm clock wrong, waking up at 7:54, not 6:54, and still getting to work before the 8:05 morning meeting.  Phew.) and 30-50 minutes by train from various parts of downtown <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Tokyo, the biggest city in the world.

I?fd write more, but I have to go.

[spacenuteskimo 0]

    Like I said before, it's all supply and demand.  All cities exsist because there is something nearby that supports it:  something that creates both supply and demand.  The city is more influential if there is more demand from abroad, and therefore, probably bigger.  Denser development is built because people see the opprutunity and move in quickly.  It has happened many times before.  New York City and Hong Kong are good examples.

    Matthew

[ardecila 124]

To get off topic for a little bit here - I understand the desire for land, but when we build sprawly subdivisions, we leave too much of the city behind us. Sidewalks, for example. Most subdivisions around here don't have sidewalks. The problem is, they're being hypocritical. They try to put parks in the subdivisions, because people liked them in the city, but the subdivision parks are always more empty, because no one can walk there.

Subdivision developments in general are based on hypocrisy - they try to mix'n'match city neighborhood and country house/land sizes. The two don't mesh at all.

[Jasoncw 11,839]

The negative effects of suburban sprawl have already been proven. The only reason it happens is because developers make money off them and because people think they want them.

I think more regionalized goverments (at least for zoning) and a public more educated on the subject would make sprawl stop.

[spacenuteskimo 0]

    I do agree that suburban sprawl is getting a bit crazy (to see what I mean download Google Earth and look at Chicago), but where I live (Edmonton, Canada), sprawl isn't really a problem.  But, there is a lot of new houses going up in the north end of town.

    Matthew

[baldman 0]

In my opinion the whole reason for living in the burbs is to get away from the dense urban style of living, the crime, the traffic, the various homeless people bumming of money for a smoke or a drink, the full classrooms and hospitals. The main reason for living in the burbs is to be in a much smaller community, the whole white picket fence thing, the ideal form of living. Supply and demand also has alot to do with it, as does anything in capitalist based society. If the people want to live in a single family home (even just so there aren't all those crazy parties upstairs, parties they don't get invited to) then developers build them those homes, cause it makes money, if people didn't want to live in suburban communities, there wouldn't be any, but the fact is that lots of people do. It isn't usually the young, hopeful and hardworking people that just got out of college that live in the burbs, those people usually live in urban areas, where it's more economic for them to live (no need for play space for the tots). The reason people live in places like NYC is because they are the centers of commerce, cities are where the jobs are, so that's where people try and live if it makes sense for their budget. People also live in cities because they like interaction with other people and because the cities are cultural centers. NYC for example is basically the cultural center for all of the US, so people move there because they can go see a play, a real broadway play, or sit under a tree in central park, or to the ballet or the opera, because cities are cultural centers for the regions where they exist. I, personally, would much rather live in a city because suburbs are too quiet for me, and because I like being in that hustle and bustle and cause that's where the jobs are, the large mass of opportunity (in commerce at least) resides in the big cities. Trying to urbanize the Suburbs defeats the purpose of having suburbs in the first place, that takes away from the fundamental concept of the quite life which is the whole reason (mainly) for people moving to the burbs. Also, in the original post, it talked about the little forest type thing that was isolated in the community and how environmentally stupid that is (which it is), but the point of having that there isn't for the environment (as far as the developer was concerned there is no such thing as a good tree unless its a money tree), what I'm guessing is that whoever built the area wanted the residents to feel like they were in touch with the natural world, it was probably basically left there just as something nice for people to look at, not to be part of nature.

[ardecila 124]

I think the key here is that we as a society don't realize that single-family homes with reasonable yards are possible without building the crazy effed-up subdivisions they build today.

Look at any suburb built before the 1950s. Oftentimes, they're built along rail lines. They have great areas, chock-full of attractive single-family homes, that really do function as neighborhoods. Most of Chicago proper is like this, although the houses are probably too unattractive/small for the wants of most homebuyers now.

My town was built along a rail line. Go through its central area, and you'll find plenty of this kind of neighborhood, but the houses are larger and more attractive/traditional than the ones in subdivisions. Same kind of neighborhood sense, sidewalks, and safety. Look at Chicago's North Shore towns. They are ALL like this. These neighborhoods used to be somewhat modest, but now they get some of the highest home prices in Chicagoland. People want this kind of community.

A key component of all this, by the way, is a grid street layout. Cul-de-sacs, 3-way intersections and gated communities encourage isolationism and elitism, and discourage through traffic and efficiency in general. In response to Rob's point - yes, through traffic. A main reason for grids is to discourage everyone from taking the same route, which creates isolated islands between the heavily-traveled roads. By the way, kids aren't stupid. They can easily incorporate watching for cars into their street games and whatnot. They have to start looking out for themselves at some point.

I guess the whole point here is that we can build new neighborhoods just like the old ones. Not New Urbanist, none of that. Just attractive, pedestrian-friendly and gridded. It's not too hard.

[madnick 0]

If it was really the free market that decided what kind of neighborhoods to build, we would have more neighborhoods of the kind gofeedthebears lives in. The reason dense, walkable neighborhoods are so expensive is precisely because people want to live in these areas, that's the reality of supply and demand. The best way to lower that prices in these kinds of neighborhoods is to simply build more real neighborhoods and less sprawl. The demand will be there or the prices wouldn't be so high.
And in response to the more traffic argument, transportation in low-density and high-density areas are significantly different. In high-density areas, transit is prevalent whereas in low-density areas, everyone has to drive, they have no other choice.

Also, the way to densify the suburbs is not to demolish and build anew, but rather to fill in the gaps in the inner suburbs, eliminating the need to destroy more farmland in the exurbs.

[louisville327 0]

madnick is on to something. Very simply put, and very correct.

Traditional neighborhoods are becoming so expensive because they are an endangered species. Sprawl housing is so cheap because there is a ridiculous supply of it---and the supply grows every day. If EVERY neighborhood in the United States was built like an actual mixed-use, dense and walkable neighborhood, you'd see prices go down. Since traditional neighborhoods are such a market anomaly these days, they draw very high prices.

It's very simple.

[Odainsaker 2,133]

Sometimes pointing out supply and demand ignores those factors which modify supply and those which modify demand, for there is no such thing as a perfect market.

 

Consider the whole artificial array of zoning laws, city ordinances, approval processes, and funding schemes that drive supply.  In many cases, it is simply and predictably easier in the short-term to cheaply sprawl a new subdivision in unincorporated land, rather than jump all the hoops required for alternative urban planning.  Tell a bank you need a loan for a new home, and entire mortgage formulas and payment structures already exist, unlike the hurdles you will face when instead explaining how you plan to retrofit an old existing infill.  We won't even mention how many home builders exist for a few quick cash developments, after which they close out with their profts while evading any future costs and liabilities.  And just why won't the city let me rent out my empty garage loft...I'm sure it really is about avoiding strain on public utilities and has nothing to do with making things here too affordable for those people of the lower socio-economic class, who we don't really want in our communities.

 

Then we have demand, which is so heavily loaded with the menu, that it is dangerous to equate apparent demand with what the people want.  You buy what is on the menu provided for your affordability range, even if that means a new home in a fast-buck subdivision.  In the long-term, you may discover that all the installed plumbing hardware was purchased wholesale from a supplier trying to clearout stock of non-standard sizes that are being phased out of the market (I know several nieghborhoods that did that).  However, it is not has if you had much choice.  Or did you?  Afterall, demand is also driven by the marketed menu, which helps set all the expectations.  How many of us are still culturally sold on the idea that cul-de-sac sprawl brings us back to private spaciousness and quiet nature, even if the trees are knocked down and the lots are so small that my neighbors kitchen window stares into my tiny dogpen yard?  How many of us still expect to live conformingly amongst our homogenous equals, away from all those people of undesireable socio-economic-racial class?

 

Ooops, i'm ranting.  Supply and demand may be the law of the market, but that does not mean we can't or don't pull at their strings to achieve desireable ends.  We can and do tug them a little, politically and socially, to try to envision a better living environment for our cities.

 

[madnick 0]

But if the suburbs were to change their zoning laws there wouldn't be any hoops to jump through. And it's to their advantage, the municipality gets a larger tax base for existing areas, with existing services. Even if they would only rezone areas close to existing transit, that still would go a long ways towards mitigating the sprawl on the outer edges of the metro and increasing the density of the inner suburbs.

[Odainsaker 2,133]

To a certain extant perhaps, but once you have physically built an area and its infrastructure under one planning strategy, its wildly difficult to reorganize it under a different or more enlightened planning strategy.  Not impossible, but difficult.  Certainly cul-de-sacs are not going to be torn out for a new neighborhood grid, and myriad property owners and community associations will aid or drag their feet based on their own perceived interests when it comes to changing the details of their properties.

 

But, regardless, we both may see the same thing...the realm is in wrestling with and reworking governing public policy, which sets the overarching framework within which the market works.  Currently, the system often leaves it too easy and convenient to quick-build sprawl in comparision to filling out existing areas.  No-growth boundaries are one radical way, as are controls on undeveloped inner city land being held for useless speculation (oops, I just went socialist on us, sorry).  In what ways can we encourage or discourage results by giving the right combination of breaks on property taxes or charges on public service and utilities?  Less radical ways can begin with a real city master plan with teeth that developers can look to for guidance.  Indeed most cities do try these, but it remains a complex minefield to resolve, as the current state of our cities can attest.  As an example, I remember a debate on a new project which would ultimately raise the land value of an existing older neighborhood, much to the horror of homeowners and tenants, who now faced higher property taxes and rents but not increased personal incomes.  For the sake of the greater good of the city, some were forced out onto the streets.

 

Oops, approaching ranting again, but then I live in a city whose very modest tree protection ordinance was sidestepped by allowing most new suburban developments to be grandfathered out of its enforcement!  Real estate and public policy is like swimming with Satan in a pool of poo.