# Alternative Urban Planning: Density versus Sprawl



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Understanding urban planning means one needs to consider two important city planning characteristics: *density* and *sprawl*. Density is defined as the number of people or units located in a certain structure or area (thus, many apartments can be classified as medium- to high-density structures as many people can live in one apartment block). Sprawl, on the other hand, refers to the extent of available land used for development (thus, in Los Angeles, urban sprawl has become a significant issue that ties with massive congestion and air pollution). The problem with many urban planners nowadays is that while cities keep on growing, they prioritize more on building out rather than building up because many perceive that purchasing more land to build homes is much cheaper rather than building up existing structures and improving infrastructure at the expense of landowners and the environment, and I find it to be really disappointing to see rows upon rows of homes, with little to no commercial development to speak of.

With those two concepts in mind, I want to ask this question:

*If you were to plan a city or community, considering density and sprawl in mind, which would you prioritize, and why?* A follow up question would be *how would you prioritize density and sprawl: would you rather build up or build out? Why?*

Looking forward to your comments and examples!


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I know what 99% of people on here will say...

"The denser the city, the better".

I'm not saying that an entire city should just be one massive suburban sprawl, and have never suggested such a thing. One thing people need to remember is that cities are for...PEOPLE.

People like choice, which means a city cannot just be made of rampant apartment blocks, no matter how nice and upmarket they are. A City should have a nice dense core with nicely designed towers, the height depends on the size of the city e.g. 8million + 600m 130 floor towers in the centre etc. 500,000 200, 50 floor towers.

And then from the centre outwards, it should be a gradual reduction in density right down to 5 bedrooms detached homes with an acre between.

That gives everyone the choice of what they want rather than having a none stop high density hell hole (as some may view it) being forced upon them.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

poshbakerloo said:


> I know what 99% of people on here will say...
> 
> "The denser the city, the better".
> 
> ...


That sounds like my perception too. I believe that cities should be made *with and for* the people; sadly, though, commercial and government interests get into the way of making considerable process in building up a city rather than building out because many perceive that corporations can profit from expanding their communities into remaining available land to make even more profit at the expense of the current infrastructure and the environment. And I truly find it disappointing to see such a pattern repeated over and over without saying "Stop, we need this land to be preserved because it is crucial for our city's safety!"


----------



## Diego N (Apr 1, 2010)

This issue is very discussed in my country, Brazil. These days laws are starting to show us how we have to build in certain areas, but our poppulation growth is now very low (so the laws are "late"). Brazilian cities offer appartments almost with the same price as housing, but other thing to be known is that in our unplanned suburbs, local commerce is strong and almost everything can easily be done on foot or bicycling.
Appartments offer a safe place to live, near big stores but also keep you away from gardens and the ground feeling. Understand?! :nuts:


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
It's alway weird to think of how dense (and expensive) Brazilian cities are with so much space available.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, Los Angeles is, by far, the densest urban area in the US. Its massive congestions and pollution is due the presence of so many cars in a rather dense area. Atlanta (which is bigger than LA) is a much better example of endless sprawl.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> ^^
> It's alway weird to think of how dense (and expensive) Brazilian cities are with so much space available.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


I want to ask you: what kind/s of policies exist in Brazil that result in such "this city is so dense, yet we still have a lot of space available"? Is it like controlled development at work or something?

In respect to LA, it is a massive sprawl, sure, but what makes you think it is the densest metropolitan area in the US when most of the areas away from Downtown LA seem to be more residential in nature, with tons of residential subdivisions as if it doesn't end? Plus, what I'd say about LA is that its commercial areas tend to be limited close to either a railway station or when the cities were first planned, those streets that were zoned as commercial to begin with stayed true to their commercial commitment. I'd say that LA is pretty dense in terms of medium-density housing, but a lot of those bedroom communities consist mainly of single-family homes.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

^^
It's not me thinking, but Los Angeles IS the densest urban area in the US. Just look at its suburban patterns, way denser than the East Coast counterparts:



Yuri S Andrade said:


> Felix, uma simples passeada pelo Google Earth demonstra que os subúrbios de Los Angeles são incomparavelmente mais densos do que os da costa leste:
> 
> *Atlanta*:
> 
> ...


And now, the figures from the 2010 US Census:

*US Urban Areas 2010

Urban Area --- Population --- Area --- Density*

1. New York --- 19,274,606 --- 10,143.5 km² --- 1,900.2 inh./km²

2. Los Angeles --- 14,083,662 --- 5,907.8 km² --- 2,383.9 inh./km²

3. Chicago --- 8,608,208 --- 6,326.7 km² ---- 1,360.6 inh./km²

4. Miami --- 5,502,379 --- 3,208.0 km² --- 1,715.2 inh./km²

5. Philadelphia --- 5,441,567 --- 5,131.7 km² --- 1,060.4 inh./km²

6. Dallas --- 5,121,892 --- 4,607.9 km² --- 1,111.5 inh./km²

7. San Francisco --- 4,945,708 --- 2,096.9 km² --- 2,358.6 inh./km²

8. Houston --- 4,944,332 --- 4,299.5 km² --- 1,150.0 inh./km²

9. Washington --- 4,586,770 --- 3,423.3 km² --- 1,339.9 inh./km²

10. Atlanta --- 4,515,419 --- 6,851.5 km² --- 659.0 inh./km²

11. Boston --- 4,181,019 --- 4,852.3 km² --- 861.7 inh./km²

12. Detroit --- 3,734,090 --- 3,463.2 km² --- 1,078.2 inh./km²

13. Phoenix --- 3,629,114 --- 2,969.6 km² --- 1,222.1 inh./km²

14. Seattle --- 3,059,393 --- 2,616.7 km² --- 1,169.2 inh./km²

15. San Diego --- 2,956,746 --- 1,896.9 km² --- 1,558.7 inh./km²

16. Minneapolis --- 2,650,890 --- 2,646.5 km² --- 1,001.7 inh./km²

17. Tampa --- 2,441,770 --- 2,478.6 km² --- 985.1 inh./km²

18. Denver --- 2,374,203 --- 1,730.0 km² --- 1,372.4 inh./km²

19. Baltimore --- 2,203,663 --- 1,857.1 km² --- 1,190.5 inh./km²

20. St. Louis --- 2,150,706 --- 2,392.2 km² --- 899.0 inh./km²

21. Las Vegas --- 1,886,011 --- 1,079.6 km² --- 1,747.0 inh./km²

22. Portland --- 1,849,898 --- 1,358.1 km² --- 1,362.1 inh./km²

23. Cleveland --- 1,780,673 --- 1,999.4 km² --- 890.6 inh./km²

24. San Antonio --- 1,758,210 --- 1,546.5 km² --- 1,136.9 inh./km²

25. Pittsburgh --- 1,733,853 --- 2,344.4 km² --- 739,6 inh./km²

26. Sacramento --- 1,723,634 --- 1,219.8 km² --- 1,413.0 inh./km²

27. Cincinnati --- 1,624,827 --- 2,040.2 km² --- 796.4 inh./km²

28. Kansas City --- 1,519,417 --- 1,755.6 km² --- 865.5 inh./km²

29. Orlando --- 1,510,516 --- 1,548.0 km² --- 975.8 inh./km²


*Ranked by area*:

1. New York --- 10,143.5 km²

2. Atlanta --- 6,851.5 km²

3. Chicago --- 6,326.7 km²

4. Los Angeles --- 5,907.8 km²

5. Philadelphia --- 5,131.7 km²

6. Boston --- 4,852.3 km²

7. Dallas --- 4,607.9 km² 

8. Houston --- 4,299.5 km²


----------



## Diego N (Apr 1, 2010)

fieldsofdreams said:


> I want to ask you: what kind/s of policies exist in Brazil that result in such "this city is so dense, yet we still have a lot of space available"? Is it like controlled development at work or something?


No, this happens in Brazil due culture and development only. More in the past but still nowadays you can earn for FREE areas near the amazon, for example. The government wants to insert people everywhere, but lack of infrastructure make people look to the same big cities all the time (thank god this is now changing). Just if you are wondering, none of Brazilian states offer paved roads to all of its cities, what keeps development in the same areas. In the cities traffic is more than annoying, its hell on earth. So people enjoy our commie blocks wich are everywhere and close to their leisure and work  I would preffer Brazil as today but with more parks and gardens (in some cities houses dont have a free space, they occupy 100% of the area!) - this should be only 70%.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Now those make sense. And I am really surprised that the Bay Area is just behind Los Angeles by just a few people in terms of density! It truly means that there is indeed something going on in LA and the Bay Area that result in such high densities. I really have contemplated that NYC was the densest -- at least in the East Coast -- because of the number of tall apartment blocks in the metropolitan area, but in the country, LA? Very, very interesting.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

About Brazilian cities, I don't know why they got so denser. Maybe due the explosive growth of its urban areas and also the national obsession for real estate.

For people interested, that's a list I've organized with all Brazilian urban areas over 100,000 and their population evolution between 1940 and 2010: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=68087863

A teaser:

*---------------------- 2010 ---------- 2000 ---- Cresc. % 2000/2010*

1 - São Paulo (SP) --- 19.088.329 --- 16.846.601 --- 13,31%

2 - Rio de Janeiro (RJ) --- 11.689.015 --- 10.731.396 --- 8,92%



*---------------------- 2000 ---------- 1991 ---- Cresc. % 1991/2000*

1 - São Paulo (SP) --- 16.134.523 --- 14.417.917 --- 11,91%

2 - Rio de Janeiro (RJ) --- 10.731.396 --- 9.687.411 --- 10,78%



*---------------------- 1991 ---------- 1980 ---- Cresc. % 1980/1991*

1 - São Paulo (SP) --- 14.262.577 --- 11.709.771 --- 21,80%

2 - Rio de Janeiro (RJ) --- 9.386.365 --- 8.324.331 --- 12,76%



*---------------------- 1980 ---------- 1970 ---- Cresc. % 1970/1980*

1 - São Paulo (SP) --- 11.593.245 --- 7.592.763 --- 52,69%

2 - Rio de Janeiro (RJ) --- 8.300.686 --- 6.533.415 --- 27,05%



*---------------------- 1970 ---------- 1960 ---- Cresc. % 1960/1970*

1 - São Paulo (SP) --- 7.399.502 --- 3.804.412 --- 94,50%

2 - Rio de Janeiro (RJ) --- 6.533.415 --- 4.370.414 --- 49,49%



*---------------------- 1960 ---------- 1950 ---- Cresc. % 1950/1960*

1 - Rio de Janeiro (RJ) --- 4.370.414 --- 2.851.257 --- 53,28%

2 - São Paulo (SP) --- 3.723.942 --- 2.228.496 --- 67,11%



*---------------------- 1950 ---------- 1940 ---- Cresc. % 1940/1950*

1 - Rio de Janeiro (RJ) --- 2.773.474 --- 1.710.359 --- 62,16%

2 - São Paulo (SP) --- 2.212.235 --- 1.336.042 --- 65,58%



*---------------------- 1940*

1 - Rio de Janeiro (RJ) --- 1.643.517

2 - São Paulo (SP) --- 1.258.482



^^
Such explosive growth probably led Brazilian cities to the high density pattern.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

The 2 great sprawls of England...that no one complains about.

London (Zoomed much further out)










Manchester


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ What do you mean no one complains about them? I'd say that those two sprawls are pretty similar to the US, with a key difference being sprawl in England is somehow offset with good rail connections, while suburbs here in the US seem to be more concentrated on the freeways. It's hard to describe density without sprawl in many instances because once a city outgrows its original boundaries, it needs to spread itself out to accommodate even more people. And for it to remain an effective city, one must invest in transportation (which will be for another thread) and make existing districts near the city center more dense so that even more people can live close to the city.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> The 2 great sprawls


Sprawl is never good. I can't understand how you can continue to argue otherwise. Choice. Well if you want greenery move to a village instead of trying to turn city into one. What's so good about acres upon acres of samey suburban housing and miles upon miles of roads with soulless supermarket here and there, pollution and environmental damage? :dunno:


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Privacy is the main reason why many people prefer the suburbs (where there is a lower density) than the city center (where there is higher density). It is like, a family may want to have a supermarket or commercial center close by, but they don't want to sacrifice safety and privacy found in suburban communities. It is like, they want their peace and quiet too, away from the crowds, at the expense of long drives, tolls, and air pollution.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

El_Greco said:


> Sprawl is never good. I can't understand how you can continue to argue otherwise. Choice. Well if you want greenery move to a village instead of trying to turn city into one. What's so good about acres upon acres of samey suburban housing and miles upon miles of roads with soulless supermarket here and there, pollution and environmental damage? :dunno:


People always complain about the suburban sprawls in the US, but not about UK suburbs, which in some bases are just as big. No one in north west London thinks..."Ooh I wish I should swap my house for an apartment, this area is not dense enough"


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> "Ooh I wish I should swap my house for an apartment, this area is not dense enough"


How do you know? You do realise that there is more and more large "family-sized" apartments being built, right? You do realise that there is such thing as the green belt (direct result of sprawl), right? In another thread it was mentioned that people living in Glasgow tenements are not rushing to sell and buy in suburbia. How come?



fieldsofdreams said:


> but they don't want to sacrifice safety and privacy found in suburban communities.


But we have been through this. Suburbs are no more safe than city centres (maybe in America) and as for privacy, are there no neighbours in the suburbs? How is having someone living next door from you different from having someone live just the other side of your garden fence? The large detached mansions that Bakerloo dreams about constitute only a small fraction of suburbia. For the most part its semi-detached that rule.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

El_Greco said:


> But we have been through this. Suburbs are no more safe than city centres (maybe in America) and as for privacy, are there no neighbours in the suburbs? How is having someone living next door from you different from having someone live just the other side of your garden fence? The large detached mansions that Bakerloo dreams about constitute only a small fraction of suburbia. For the most part its semi-detached that rule.


What you're referring to are suburbs in Britain. Here in the US, suburbs with detached homes are the norm.










In here, having a single detached homes have both a literal and symbolic meaning: Literally, it allows families to have a space that allows them to grow and cultivate together, while symbolically, it gives the family a dream many long for: the American Dream, with a single family home, a garden, and a driveway to park their cars.










And that is part of the appeal of suburbs: one can live away from the city center in peace and quiet, and many pre-supposed notions of suburbs still hold true to many people today. But of course, cities continue to evolve over time, so I believe that the view of people on suburbia could change in time.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

fieldsofdreams said:


> pre-supposed notions of suburbs still hold true to many people today.


Just like pre-supposed notions of city centre living, ie that its dangerous, noisy etc.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

El_Greco said:


> Just like pre-supposed notions of city centre living, ie that its dangerous, noisy and whatever. None of them are really true, unlike criticisms of suburbs. Looking at those photos (damn thats depressing) I see that despite houses being detached they are still pretty close to each other, which means that the supposed peace and quiet is nowhere to be found. Thankfully, I believe, that even in America, the growth of suburbs is slowing down.
> 
> I think thats the reason for suburbs and not some supposed evils of city centre living. A bit like the gun thing.


True. Suburbs are slowing down, not just because of the slowing economy, but also city centers are slowly evolving that they allow downsizing of apartments to a point that "micro" units are starting to appear in the largest cities in the US. Here in San Francisco, such micro apartments are being built in the hundreds in former industrial warehouses that appeal to the growing rental market, and with demand significantly higher than supply, the Bay Area enjoys high standards of living, offset by high home prices.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

El_Greco said:


> How do you know? You do realise that there is more and more large "family-sized" apartments being built, right? You do realise that there is such thing as the green belt (direct result of sprawl), right? In another thread it was mentioned that people living in Glasgow tenements are not rushing to sell and buy in suburbia. How come?


I'm sure there might be some large apartments somewhere, not that I have really seen them. When ever I look in the estate agent windows in Manchester its all just young professional apartments in Salford Quays.

The greenbelt was set up to stop sprawl, but it really wouldn't be the death of London if the sprawl stretched right out to Reading, which it kind of does in a sparse way anyway.

If I was settled in an apartment and had been for many years then I probably wouldn't move as I would have already set everything up and not like the stress of moving. But given the choice before I moved in, I wouldn't choose the apartment, who would.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

larkins said:


> In short your suggestions that suburban housing is larger than city centre apartments is wrong. As is your suggestion that no one lives or wants to live in apartment.


I have never seen an inner city apartment that is larger than a suburban home and I have also never met anyone who would love to sell their suburban home and swap it for an inner city apartment.


----------



## Christian347 (Aug 7, 2004)

poshbakerloo said:


> I have never seen an inner city apartment that is larger than a suburban home and I have also never met anyone who would love to sell their suburban home and swap it for an inner city apartment.


Suburban houses are usually larger than inner city apartments, no doubt. But that doesn't mean you can't find really big inner city apartments that are bigger than most suburban houses, they are however not cheap. Most families would rather have a suburban house yes.


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

Some suburban houses are tiny but very nice , I have seen many of them in many suburbs


----------



## Adde (May 8, 2011)

poshbakerloo said:


> I have never seen an inner city apartment that is larger than a suburban home and I have also never met anyone who would love to sell their suburban home and swap it for an inner city apartment.


That's not really universally true. Here in Sweden, inner city apartments are very popular, and there are plenty of families raising children in inner city apartments. And there's a trend of older people selling their suburban house and moving into the city once their kids grow up an move out. That way there's less upkeep to worry about as you grow older, and all kinds of services and entertainment are close by.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

aaabbbccc said:


> Some suburban houses are tiny but very nice , I have seen many of them in many suburbs


What do you mean? And by the way, I'd rather see a cluster of those small suburban homes together in one area with a communal garden and playground in the middle (similar to the cul-de-sac models I've seen on the previous page) than seeing large homes scattered like one home every 1/4 to 1 mile.

And by the way, since I'm back to regular posting here, question: *what do you think is an ideal density for a suburban community working its way to become a more livable 'urban' community?*


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ The density of those circular settlements is certainly too low. It also looks very introverted and not very well connected, like the typical cul de sac developments, just with a better use of the area in between.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

poshbakerloo said:


> I have never seen an inner city apartment that is larger than a suburban home and I have also never met anyone who would love to sell their suburban home and swap it for an inner city apartment.


Adde is right. You might not know those people but there are lots of them. All those central new development in Vienna attract a large number of young middle class families. Do you think anyone forces them to take these pretty centrally located flats? They could also get something in the suburbs if they wanted to. And some of them come in fact from the suburbs.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

poshbakerloo said:


> I have never seen an inner city apartment that is larger than a suburban home and I have also never met anyone who would love to sell their suburban home and swap it for an inner city apartment.


Then I suggest you start meeting more people.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Slartibartfas said:


> Adde is right. You might not know those people but there are lots of them. All those central new development in Vienna attract a large number of young middle class families. Do you think anyone forces them to take these pretty centrally located flats? They could also get something in the suburbs if they wanted to. And some of them come in fact from the suburbs.


Indeed. Pretty much every expensive and luxurious projects that gets built in Norway are apartments, and many cost way more than what you would pay for a average suburban house. It's quite obvious that this is something people actually desires and aren't forced to endure to due lack of funds.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Galro said:


> Then I suggest you start meeting more people.


The whole reason why suburbs got built was for people who didn't want to live in city centres.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

poshbakerloo said:


> The whole reason why suburbs got built was for people who didn't want to live in city centres.


The whole reason why centrally located super-expensive apartment projects gets built is because people want to live in city centres. Now.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> I have never seen an inner city apartment that is larger than a suburban home and I have also never met anyone who would love to sell their suburban home and swap it for an inner city apartment.


No matter how many times your arguments get demolished you still keep repeating them. Your suburban utopia in Cheshire with large detached mansions is a rarity and out of reach for most people. This is what suburban reality looks like -

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=54.999...=lp1s9kQh62IqN0-6C2KVug&cbp=12,165.47,,0,7.99


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

El_Greco said:


> No matter how many times your arguments get demolished you still keep repeating them. Your suburban utopia in Cheshire with large detached mansions is a rarity and out of reach for most people. This is what suburban reality looks like -
> 
> http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=54.999...=lp1s9kQh62IqN0-6C2KVug&cbp=12,165.47,,0,7.99


You get your own garden and driveway which is what people like. And if they all came into money they wouldn't sell up and move into the city, they would move into another suburb with bigger houses that is more spread out...

Like this...
https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=53.36...dPJDPpg8TTq09URzSNg&cbp=12,15.06,,0,5.81&z=15


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> You get your own garden and driveway which is what people like. And if they all came into money they wouldn't sell up and move into the city, they would move into another suburb with bigger houses that is more spread out...


If that was the case then surely One Hyde Park (the most expensive apartment complex in London) would not have been built? Indeed you seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that urban apartments are being built all over the place these days and are becoming more popular by the day.

Your arguments simply don't hold any water whatsoever. People live in apartments out of choice not of desperation. And majority of suburbs are not, as you claim, made up of large detached mansions, but instead of the tiny Victorian terraces or mock-Tudor boxes.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

poshbakerloo said:


> You get your own garden and driveway which is what people like. And if they all came into money they wouldn't sell up and move into the city, they would move into another suburb with bigger houses that is more spread out...
> 
> Like this...
> https://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=53.36...dPJDPpg8TTq09URzSNg&cbp=12,15.06,,0,5.81&z=15


The most expensive square meters here in this country (Norway) are in the relatively dense western inner city from the 19th century. The absolute cheapest square meters are in detached houses in central Norway - they are even cheaper than apartments at the same locations. How can this be so if people always prefer suburbs with individual driveway and gardens?


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

All right. I'm getting a bit lost now. Help me out with how you define a "suburban" community in the European context so that I can understand the story better. Is it much denser or more of a sprawl than a typical North American suburb? How do suburbs in Europe connect with larger cities, and what is a typical "boundary" between the big city (with suburbs) and the exurbs with either vast rural areas or American-style suburban communities?


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

poshbakerloo said:


> I have never seen an inner city apartment that is larger than a suburban home and I have also never met anyone who would love to sell their suburban home and swap it for an inner city apartment.


This is a common trend actually. Empty-nesters trading houses for apartments/condos are a big reason for the urban housing boom in many cities including mine. Likewise, young adults are streaming into a lot of central cities these days. Both are about lifestyle.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

mhays said:


> This is a common trend actually. Empty-nesters trading houses for apartments/condos are a big reason for the urban housing boom in many cities including mine. Likewise, young adults are streaming into a lot of central cities these days. Both are about lifestyle.


Along with the hipsters and empty-nesters moving in closer to the city centers, such neighborhoods get an influx of trendy shops, restaurants, and services, further increasing desirability to live in such neighborhoods. Add to that efficient (if not 24/7) access to public transportation, and you've got a rejuvenation of cities, from being "unsafe and dirty" to "inviting and exciting" places to live.


----------



## Christian347 (Aug 7, 2004)

fieldsofdreams said:


> All right. I'm getting a bit lost now. Help me out with how you define a "suburban" community in the European context so that I can understand the story better. Is it much denser or more of a sprawl than a typical North American suburb? How do suburbs in Europe connect with larger cities, and what is a typical "boundary" between the big city (with suburbs) and the exurbs with either vast rural areas or American-style suburban communities?


In general European cities are much less sprawled out than American cities. Also Southern European cities are generally denser than Northern European cities. In Europe cities often have areas with green belts where no developments are allowed and then satellite towns outside these that are usually much denser than American suburbs. The US has more relaxed zoning laws which allows more sprawl development. In Europe zoning laws are much strichter but that again varies from country to country. In some European countries the boundary between the city and rural areas are very clear like in the Netherlands while in a country like Belgium the boundary is very vague.


----------



## Adde (May 8, 2011)

poshbakerloo said:


> You get your own garden and driveway which is what people like. And if they all came into money they wouldn't sell up and move into the city, they would move into another suburb with bigger houses that is more spread out...


Well, in Stockholm your average 4-bedroom apartment in the city is more expensive than your average 4-bedroom suburban house. Now this is of course because there is a limited supply of such apartments compared to suburban houses, but the price does indicate that there is plenty of people who are willing to pay handsomely for the chance to live in the city.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

That's probably true in most cities. You pay way more per square foot/meter in the center of town. Sometimes twice as much. But people are doing this in growing numbers, because they really value some combination of proximity, lifestyle, etc.


----------



## Godius (Aug 31, 2011)

Just look at this one, navajo reservation / suburb, 2011 phoenix, arizona, USA edward burtynsky (via edward burtynsky water photography)


----------



## ryansumo (Aug 16, 2013)

Wow that's a crazy picture. the contrast between the two areas is shocking.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Its a cool photo, it always amazes me how suburbs in Arizona can have so many green trees haha, although I know they don't have grass.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

It looks like two faces of hell. 

My dad used to work for the Bureau of Land Management, managing a lot of desert. Apparently desert has a lot of cool stuff in it and is worth preserving. But man, walking in that, in Arizona weather...I'd die of heat in five minutes.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

mhays said:


> It looks like two faces of hell.
> 
> My dad used to work for the Bureau of Land Management, managing a lot of desert. Apparently desert has a lot of cool stuff in it and is worth preserving. But man, walking in that, in Arizona weather...I'd die of heat in five minutes.


When I was in Utah it was like 50c but as it was a dry heat it wasn't too bad!


----------



## Fullmetal (Sep 27, 2013)

If I may ask what do you consider as sprawl? Density or expansion of the urban environment or something else?


----------



## Eric Offereins (Jan 1, 2004)

Godius said:


> Just look at this one, navajo reservation / suburb, 2011 phoenix, arizona, USA edward burtynsky (via edward burtynsky water photography)


I wonder if the residents would suffer from dust storms being so close to a desert?


----------



## castermaild55 (Sep 8, 2005)

Japanese suburb









http://sea.ap.teacup.com/nikkeif/img/1329829971.jpg









http://sea.ap.teacup.com/nikkeif/img/1329829953.jpg










http://sea.ap.teacup.com/nikkeif/img/1329829934.jpg









http://static.panoramio.com/photos/1920x1280/59429826.jpg


----------



## castermaild55 (Sep 8, 2005)

*Sendai suburb*


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

^^ As much as I like Japan, a lot of that is rather ugly sprawl unfortunately... It looks surprisingly auto centric as well with the motorways there.


----------



## castermaild55 (Sep 8, 2005)

Svartmetall said:


> ^^ As much as I like Japan, a lot of that is rather ugly sprawl unfortunately... It looks surprisingly auto centric as well with the motorways there.


indeed, street level of ugly sprawl is not bad.
there is no cookie cutter houses at all there . it is not boring
these ugly sparawl is in Takarazuka　suburb, Hyogo


http://yuro-nakao.bglb.jp/lavista_outside/gotenyama090705_3.html
http://yuro-nakao.bglb.jp/lavista_outside/houshougaoka090328.html
http://yuro-nakao.bglb.jp/lavista_outside/tsukimiyama090321_3.html
http://yuro-nakao.bglb.jp/lavista_outside/nishino090621_5.html


Hiroshima suburb




new suburb?





Japanese house is planed and built by themselves.it is not by developer. if you want a large space house, you can plan it yourself


----------



## Neungz (Jan 7, 2012)

one of the worst
*Bangkok*


Aerial view of Bangkok, Thailand by UweBKK (α 77 on ), on Flickr


Aerial View of Bangkok by A. Wee, on Flickr


2010-01-11_10-07-08DSC_4333 by Fitz_Carraldo, on Flickr


----------



## Neungz (Jan 7, 2012)

Bangkok from above by varlamov, on Flickr


Landing in Don Meung International by lost_in_sky, on Flickr


Landing in Don Meung International by lost_in_sky, on Flickr


----------



## Bre68nda (Oct 8, 2013)

and air pollution.


----------



## BriedisUnIzlietne (Dec 16, 2012)

An interesting example from Latvia:









The convenience of living the city life but with the peace, sights and feeling of living in the countryside - 8 residential buildings (including one that's 13 floors tall) surrounded by vast meadows and forests. And only 25 minutes to the very center of the capital city!

Sadly large part of both forests are fenced in because one is a _water collection thingy_ for the capital city while the other is an active military base. But that doesn't really bother anyone - last year some 300 people were caught and hundreds more weren't caught picking mushrooms or berries in the firing range even during NATO exercises :lol:









Kids enjoy playing in the field with cows and goats instead of the actual playground.


----------



## Wapper (Feb 24, 2011)

That is awesome. It's great to see that people live in a sustainable way even when they have lots of space in their country. I wish people in my country would have the same mindset.


----------



## RodolfoMedeiros (Dec 31, 2013)

In Brasilia, capital of Brazil, we have this issue with sprawl. Everything is so far away of everything:


----------



## cuartango (Apr 22, 2009)

RodolfoMedeiros said:


>


I don't understand the function of the gardens in between the roads, they only help to separate even more the building areas.


----------



## NicoBolso (Jul 23, 2007)

cuartango said:


> I don't understand the function of the gardens in between the roads, they only help to separate even more the building areas.


It's better visually, it allows future infrastructure with no demolitions and it gives the city a lung, reducing air pollution.


----------



## cuartango (Apr 22, 2009)

NicoBolso said:


> It's better visually, it allows future infrastructure with no demolitions and it gives the city a lung, reducing air pollution.


Future infraestructure? really? with that low density, I don't think it would be needed. The air pollution reduction would be done more efficiently if the gardens were only on the side of the buildings.


----------



## NicoBolso (Jul 23, 2007)

Well, Montevideo is an example of what happens when there is a low celing for future density.

Empty green spaces have no negative impact whatsoever and make the city more "flexible" for unpredicted growth.


----------



## RodolfoMedeiros (Dec 31, 2013)

cuartango said:


> I don't understand the function of the gardens in between the roads, they only help to separate even more the building areas.


Well... I think it was planned to build a BRT or a light rail in the future and then would not be needed to change the streets/avenues. 
Just remembering that Brasilia was founded in 1960 to be the federal capital of Brazil.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

NicoBolso said:


> It's better visually, it allows future infrastructure with no demolitions and it gives the city a lung, reducing air pollution.


It probably means a lot more driving (longer distances, driving instead of walking, less transit use), so it probably means a lot MORE air pollution.


----------



## NicoBolso (Jul 23, 2007)

How wide is that avenue? Two blocks?


----------



## skyshakernowlive (May 12, 2015)

I think a high rise city, surrounded by a greenbelt, surrounded with several mid rise villages which are encircled by villages of suburban housing.

Imagine SG built up to the shore, replace the water with grass, and pretend JB is a small town surrounded by small villages and large suburban housing.


----------



## skyshakernowlive (May 12, 2015)

Christian347 said:


> In general European cities are much less sprawled out than American cities. Also Southern European cities are generally denser than Northern European cities. In Europe cities often have areas with green belts where no developments are allowed and then satellite towns outside these that are usually much denser than American suburbs. The US has more relaxed zoning laws which allows more sprawl development. In Europe zoning laws are much strichter but that again varies from country to country. In some European countries the boundary between the city and rural areas are very clear like in the Netherlands while in a country like Belgium the boundary is very vague.


To expand on this using Paris:
Most cities a comprised of an urban core, usually facilities by a ubahn.
This core is then surrounded by suburban sprawl, in Europe sprawls tend to be denser and have smaller housing than other countries, which is why bed towns are increasingly popular. This sprawl is usually connected to urban core via sbahn.
After a surrounding greenbelt, there are usually several bed towns which are connected to urban areas via RER, with one or two stops in suburban areas.
These suburban areas are surrounded by villages, which tend to have larger houses. Access is limited by bus or car. Maybe cycle.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

The greenbelt in England is a bit of a bone of contention. Nothing can be built in the greenbelt so they build outside it, in open countryside.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

yep the jury's still out on whether they've actually created a monster by instating the Green Belt. Rather than limiting blanket sprawl they may have
made an even larger morass of an intra urban-rural spread. As one can see through artificial highlighting of urban areas (that don't normally show up
on satellite imagery) the Green Belt is neither green nor is it a belt. It's a dense peppering of high density dormitory communities that use the car or
railway lines to get out and about - but with more distances than blanket sprawl. Note the new developments in light pink:









http://geology.com


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ I don't know the English building regulations but they'd need an integrated concept, not just for London but at least for all of southern England (better still, for all of Britain). 
That means strict guidelines where you can build and how dense as well as other regulations about other aspects.

The aim should be that also commuter communities around London have a functional urban centre and that sprawl is on one side limited to a reasonable extend as far as it exists that it is designed in a connected way, that cars are not the only alternative.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

The problem is that the very high residential demand cannot be relaized quickly enough in London itself, because there aren't enough brownfield areas around. The rest of the built up area is typically occupied by low/mid density historical buildings. High density areas of more than 20,000 inh./km² are still grossly underrepresented in London compared to other global cities.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

it's not so much a lack of brownfield sites, it's more the developers sitting on unused land and seeing the prices skyrocket the longer they do so.
The mayor is attempting to make it illegal to do so but finding problems with pushing through the legislation. Also the 14 viewing corridors to the 
UNESCO heritage sites that cross the capital, especially the central city, that bans tall buildings on impinging on the view, coupled with the height
restrictions for the 6 international airports.

Most developments on the board are high density, but not being built fast enough. These ones are currently u/c for the centre,
but in reality you'd need several of these to keep up with demand just for the area










Nine Elms would be a good example of what new development would look like without the sightlines and height limits in place:



















This is half complete but has taken 15 years 










This only has a few buildings complete but has taken over 20 years (and theyre still waiting for tenants to move out). The middlemen have mad ALOT of money so far without a brick being laid


----------



## skyshakernowlive (May 12, 2015)

I think London should aim to build very densely within M25, and preferably mid-dense in it's suburbs within M25.

I support the idea of towns surrounded by villages, especially outside M25, but also within M25 among the suburbs; suburban towns should be relatively high dense surrounded by continuously urban villages of mid density, and unlike outside M25 these should all be connected by sbahn/suburban rail.

An extreme example of this would have Canary Wharf as a town, and I would surround it with several mid rise developments.

Anyone wanting houses should move outside M25, smaller houses in towns or bigger in villages. However only towns and larger villages would be served by rail.

I think city planners should drop any attempt to sustain houses within M25. If you want houses you'll have to move out!


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

skyshakernowlive said:


> I think London should aim to build very densely within M25, and preferably mid-dense in it's suburbs within M25.
> 
> I support the idea of towns surrounded by villages, especially outside M25, but also within M25 among the suburbs; suburban towns should be relatively high dense surrounded by continuously urban villages of mid density, and unlike outside M25 these should all be connected by sbahn/suburban rail.
> 
> ...


A lot of people try to go by the M25 rules, but I disagree. The motorway run quite far out from the city, and there are huge tracts of farm land within the motorway. London's 1930s suburbs sprawl out and the suddenly end when the greenbelt came in, so having higher density developments outside that would seem unnatural and lead to even more load on transport networks into the city centre.


----------



## djbowen (Aug 22, 2007)

Some interesting new ideas in suburb design:









Ulan Bator, Mongolia








Lekki, outside Lagos
























India

All photos are from developers.









Cairo, Egypt (New Cairo #2)

ed: also this in Morocco (no developer yet)


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

I wonder if Belgium will have proper urban planning.


----------



## Robi_damian (Jun 15, 2008)

^^ A bit lade for that. Flanders in particular has huge swaths of land boxed in by ribbon-communities.

P.S. I love Belgian suburbs and rural areas. They look pretty from the ground, with the nice brick homes (that keep some diversity too), parks, odd bike lane, but from the air the sprawl is just grose. I wonder how wildlife in Flanders travels through the non-stop obstacle course of ribbon developments.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Ribbon based sprawl isn't sustainable in the wrong run, especially in a country as crowded and small as Belgium. From what I read Flanders has stricter urban planning than in the past, but there are gaps that allow developers to continue building sprawl.


----------



## gandhi.rushabh1992 (Dec 10, 2010)

W.r.t. India, other than Mumbai, most of our cities have gone for sprawl. However there are certain factors to consider:

1) India being a developing nation with a huge chunk of its population moving to the cities every year has caused massive strain on our cities' infra. Since we are unable to provide adequate housing to all those who come in daily it has resulted into an outward sprawl where the poor and not so poor settling in the outskirts where land is cheaper. 

2) Again our past economic situation has stopped us from building CBDs with skyscrapers and towering apartment blocks in the core city. This meant that even the wealthy and middle class spilled out of the core city into the suburbs. 

3) If a city is going to sprawl then there needs to be adequate physical infra to support it. This would prove to be costly so Indian cities have gone for the fragmented commercial model i.e. cities within cities. There is a core commercial hub with several more nerve centers coming up on the outskirts of the city. These nerve centers again become the rallying point for residential development around them. Hence people who work at one of the center need to find a house near it and they are good. By and large this system has worked. This eliminates the need or rather urgent need for the government to provide transportation from the suburbs/outskirts to the core city. 

4) In the last couple of decades, with our economy booming, we have started rising vertically. Mumbai is a classic example of the redevelopment model. Old mill complexes, aging housing colonies, govt quarters, illegal slums etc are making way for mid rises and high rises in most Indian metro cities. The economically weaker section are offered housing at cheap rates. 

5) This rejuvenation of the central areas is however causing the same expected downsides. Prices are soaring with more high end development; thus causing people to again move towards the suburbs. The wealthy now live in comfortable houses on the outskirts and own offices and shops in the center while the rest are sandwiched in the suburbs since they cannot afford to buy commercial spaces in the central areas and nor can they afford to travel large distances from the outskirts to the core. 

I would say Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai and Bangalore are on the denser side. Delhi, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad and Pune have more sprawl.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

djbowen said:


> Some interesting new ideas in suburb design:
> 
> 
> Ulan Bator, Mongolia


Isn't that just 'Tower in the Park'?

High density homes with green space around sounds nice on paper but in reality it never works. All the lighting needed at night is also bad.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

I guess that fits in here very well:

Built up (urban) density of all German urban areas of more than 500,000 inhabitants:

Rhein-Ruhr -- 2,992 inh./km²

Berlin -- 3,638 inh./km²

Rhein-Main (Frankfurt) -- 3,792 inh./km²

Hamburg -- 2,787 inh./km²

Stuttgart -- 3,630 inh./km²

München -- 4,401 inh./km²

Rhein-Neckar (Mannheim) -- 3,120 inh./km²

Nürnberg -- 3,037 inh./km²

Halle-Leipzig -- 2,615 inh./km²

Hannover -- 2,783 inh./km²

Bremen -- 1,955 inh./km²

Bielefeld -- 1,791 inh./km²

Saarbrücken -- 1,801 inh./km²

Dresden -- 2,445 inh./km²

Aachen -- 2,820 inh./km²

Karlsruhe -- 3,410 inh./km²

Pretty diverse figures, at least to me.  Munich is more than double as dense as the German kings of sprawl, which are Bremen, Saarbrücken and Bielefeld.

Another fun fact: Stuttgart and Rhein-Main, the most car-crazy and car-dependent urban areas of Germany are pretty dense and have roughly the same urban density as the least car dependent area, Berlin.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^ what are the reasons for these low numbers? Are inner cities quite rarefied, or are municipal borders drawn so that they incorporate many suburbs? Cheers


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^ what are the reasons for these low numbers? Are inner cities quite rarefied, or are municipal borders drawn so that they incorporate many suburbs? Cheers


These figures totally ignore municipal boundaries, since they only take into account land where people really live on.

Urban areas in Germany in general are rather sprawly, yet they are more compact than areas in the US. The densest American urban area, Los Angeles, has a density of about 2,400 inh./km². The average in the US though is more like around 1,000 - 1,500.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Ah sorry, I didn't realize they were urban area figures, I thought they were city densities. Should have gone to bed earlier.


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

There is something I admire about the UK housing suburbs, but I also just don't like how the houses look almost EXACTLY the same row after row or even attached. When did they start building this in the UK? 

Anyways I prefer more space, like most housing area in France or even USA. In France, even in the cheapest housing areas there is space, and variation.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Fro7en said:


> There is something I admire about the UK housing suburbs, but I also just don't like how the houses look almost EXACTLY the same row after row or even attached. When did they start building this in the UK?
> 
> Anyways I prefer more space, like most housing area in France or even USA. In France, even in the cheapest housing areas there is space, and variation.


I like Uk suburbs because they offer detached houses with gardens, but tend to be built around a rail network rather then motorways. Although I don't think all the houses looks exactly the same. You'll find that different constructors have their own style, which do however get replicated around the country but not within the same town.


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

These look so similar to me, and there is a lot of this in the UK, which I think is fine for lower class instead of high rise buildings but It just seems so weird to me.

*French housing suburbs*














































This is more French style for middle class housing. What I like what they are doing now is that they are building modern style housing subrubs that look really cool and eco friendly.

I do know that the newer UK suburbs are more spread out, but the houses in London are so close together and look almost the same.


----------



## cuartango (Apr 22, 2009)

I agree with Fro7en. IMO, UK urban sprawl is horrible, and not only in the suburbs but also in the proper city, as London city for example. Density in London is ridiculously low. Small and medium cities in Spain have higher density than London.


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

cuartango said:


> I agree with Fro7en. IMO, UK urban sprawl is horrible, and not only in the suburbs but also in the proper city, as London city for example. Density in London is ridiculously low. Small and medium cities in Spain have higher density than London.


I agree too. London seems kind of almost "Quaint".


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

I find this discussion a bit weird and clearly shows that some don't know the UK so well. Look at most affluent areas outside the central cities and you'll see exactly what Fro7en has shown above for France. 

Even my old hometown of Northampton (hardly a model example) has some more modern and spacious areas:

https://www.google.se/maps/place/No...04236e4aa273:0xcdf495d0d9e86209!6m1!1e1?hl=en

https://www.google.se/maps/place/No...04236e4aa273:0xcdf495d0d9e86209!6m1!1e1?hl=en

https://www.google.se/maps/place/No...04236e4aa273:0xcdf495d0d9e86209!6m1!1e1?hl=en


Those terraced houses you show are common in older "workers" areas of cities, and they were largely victorian - Edwardian periods before semi-detached housing became popular. 


As for the density of London - overall it actually maintains a fairly uniform density - ~5500 people / km2 is actually a fairly decent density for Greater London. Now I know it's hard to measure density between countries, but Madrid city has 5400 people / km2 if sources are to be believed.


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

Exactly, this is afluent as you said. Still not much privacy. Most afluent housing areas in France are gated in with lots of garden space

https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.8953...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en


https://www.google.fr/maps/place/Li...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

From what i've seen, most UK middle class neighbourhoods are like this:

https://www.google.fr/maps/place/Lo...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

https://www.google.fr/maps/place/Lo...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

as where in France an average middle class area is like this: 

https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.8858...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Or some ugly ones like this: 

https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.8914...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

new developments: 

https://www.google.fr/maps/@49.0769...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Honestly, after research, i've found that England is so small and so highly populated that maybe this is the reason they are so close to eachother. That's why brits go to France and buy their retirment homes. More space. You can get huge homes with huge garden space in France for the same price as what you can find in the UK.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Mmmm, no. Those areas I showed there are middle-class. Heck, I used to live very close to one of them, and we were certainly not affluent by any stretch of the imagination. I said most affluent areas are on the outskirts or in the inner city of some cities like London, but the ring around the inner city tends to be poorer in the UK (this is a general rule of thumb rather than set in stone, though). 

It really depends on the city. Of course London, as a historically large city and constrained city by green belts for a long period of time has a larger degree of close housing like you show there, but I really think you underestimate the amount of semi-detached housing too. Semi-detached housing became incredibly popular in the 1950s. You can see this here as an example from my hometown:

https://www.google.fr/maps/@52.2442...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

This is actually the house I grew up in. I had a back garden that was 55m long. We were only "middle class", nothing more. 

Also, the predilection to fence off your property is not something I would want replicated in my country, thank you. I really hate fences and walls around properties. I didn't have much of that in the UK (a tiny little boundary wall if anything), it wasn't necessarily popular in New Zealand, and it very much isn't that popular in Sweden either. 

You actually been to the UK much?


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

Svartmetall said:


> Mmmm, no. Those areas I showed there are middle-class. Heck, I used to live very close to one of them, and we were certainly not affluent by any stretch of the imagination. I said most affluent areas are on the outskirts or in the inner city of some cities like London, but the ring around the inner city tends to be poorer in the UK (this is a general rule of thumb rather than set in stone, though).
> 
> It really depends on the city. Of course London, as a historically large city and constrained city by green belts for a long period of time has a larger degree of close housing like you show there, but I really think you underestimate the amount of semi-detached housing too. Semi-detached housing became incredibly popular in the 1950s. You can see this here as an example from my hometown:
> 
> ...


My grandmother lives in the UK.. well lived, now she's in Canada. She had a house outside of London.

My point is is that it seems that there is much more space in France compared to England, where most UK citizens live. Suburbs in France usually offer more space as i've seen compared to UK ones. 

https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.8768...4!1sOcdNODEaZiz9y4czOJ78Tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

These are middle class, maybe around 300-600k euro. Lots of space, pools etc... 

And yes I know gates aren't popular in the UK. In France they are for rich areas. You have your house, lots of land and a gate to make it seem more secluded. It's great in my opinion.

Although I will say I like brick (which is used more so on UK suburbs). You can find brick in France but mostly in the northern cities. In Paris, most of all the houses are now either modern box houses, or all with a smooth face.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Fro7en said:


> From what i've seen, most UK middle class neighbourhoods are like this:
> 
> https://www.google.fr/maps/place/Lo...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en
> 
> https://www.google.fr/maps/place/Lo...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en


But these are in London proper, no wonder the places are urban and dense rather than suburban. 

The first one is two miles and a half from Regent's Park, or a mile aand a half from the Arsenal stadium (the Emirates). The second example is from East London, close to the Olympic site.


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

alexandru.mircea said:


> But these are in London proper, no wonder the places are urban and dense rather than suburban.
> 
> The first one is two miles and a half from Regent's Park, or a mile aand a half from the Arsenal stadium (the Emirates). The second example is from East London, close to the Olympic site.


Even further: 

https://www.google.fr/maps/place/Lo...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

In Cheshunt 

https://www.google.fr/maps/place/Lo...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Saint-Cloud right outside of Paris: 

https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.8452...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.8456...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.8558...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Another very close to Paris:

https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.8446...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Svartmetall said:


> As for the density of London - overall it actually maintains a fairly uniform density - ~5500 people / km2 is actually a fairly decent density for Greater London. Now I know it's hard to measure density between countries, but Madrid city has 5400 people / km2 if sources are to be believed.


Fairly average, I'd say. Berlin has a density of 6,000/km² within its borders when only built up areas are counted. Munich and Frankfurt are the same, other cities are less dense than that.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

@Fro7en: you are confusing urban residential areas with suburbs. They are two different things. 

These places in outer London have been conceived from the start (in the Victorian era) like that, to host the vast population of what was then the largest city in the western world, but at the same time to keep a calm & green atmosphere of rural town. Britain is the country that idealizes rural life the most (hence it being the only country in the world where rural real estate is more expensive than urban) - otherwise these places would be more built-up and dense, instead of more rarefied. (They lie where in Eastern Europe we have commieblock after commieblock, albeit detached :lol: .) They are urban places that are very suburban in approach, instead of being suburbs that are too urban like you say.

BTW not only there are Parisian equivalents of your London examples, where high density gets transitioned to detached houses, but there are even rowhouses that look very British inspired:

https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.9167...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.9136...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

https://www.google.fr/maps/@48.9136...Gk7gi4-3ISLA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

BTW2, if in Cheshunt one strays away from the point where you linked to, there are areas with sparsely spread detached houses with a proper suburban feel.


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

alexandru.mircea said:


> @Fro7en: you are confusing urban residential areas with suburbs. They are two different things.
> 
> These places in outer London have been conceived from the start (in the Victorian era) like that, to host the vast population of what was then the largest city in the western world, but at the same time to keep a calm & green atmosphere of rural town. Britain is the country that idealizes rural life the most (hence it being the only country in the world where rural real estate is more expensive than urban) - otherwise these places would be more built-up and dense, instead of more rarefied. (They lie where in Eastern Europe we have commieblock after commieblock, albeit detached :lol: .) They are urban places that are very suburban in approach, instead of being suburbs that are too urban like you say.
> 
> ...


Hmm, most of these parisian ones don't exist anymore. I honestly do think they are cool, but man did Paris have a horrible time in the 60s-80s.....


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

deleted


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Fro7en said:


> Hmm, most of these parisian ones don't exist anymore. I honestly do think they are cool, but man did Paris have a horrible time in the 60s-80s.....


The Hauts-de-Seine department is full of lovely districts which make the transition from tall & dense, ultra-urban inner Paris to suburbs, with their own town-type architecture. The ones I know best are Asnières and its neighbours, Montrouge or Issy, but there are others that are great for urban residential (but not only) architecture from the late 19th century and early 20th. If you want to expand your horizons in this direction, follow the twitter account @EnlargeYourParis and check out also the accounts that they retweet.


----------



## skanny (Aug 9, 2012)

Those social housing have destroyed the most European urban cityscapes since WW2 ...
They'are really architectural eysores ...
One could also be very skeptikal about the social and professional integration of those who live there ...


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

In England I have a conspiracy theory about urban planning. Although I'm not totally sure of what the goal of the conspiracy is haha.

But my reason is that everyone in government talks about 'sustainability' and making things green etc. But when I look at the local plan for my area (Cheshire East) they only want to build car orientated suburbia (Handforth East, Woodford Garden Village, Tytherington Extension)...which is actually fine with me, but makes me wonder why they say one thing but do another.


----------



## Robi_damian (Jun 15, 2008)

poshbakerloo said:


> In England I have a conspiracy theory about urban planning. Although I'm not totally sure of what the goal of the conspiracy is haha.
> 
> But my reason is that everyone in government talks about 'sustainability' and making things green etc. But when I look at the local plan for my area (Cheshire East) they only want to build car orientated suburbia (Handforth East, Woodford Garden Village, Tytherington Extension)...which is actually fine with me, but makes me wonder why they say one thing but do another.


Because you cannot really say "We will focus on auto-accessible suburbs" in Europe in 2015, can you? :lol:


----------



## lianlianbibi (Sep 8, 2015)

good good


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Woodford Garden Village:
A render of the style of homes. I actually really like them!


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

I... Don't. Hideous garage featuring far too prominently. No pavement for pedestrians. Cookie-cutter architecture. Bland colours. Yuck.


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

^^


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

So those homes nowadays don't even pretend to have a pedestrian entrance anymore, do they? But that isn't a big deal as there aren't any sidewalks anyway. Terrible totally car dependent suburbian design.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Svartmetall said:


> No pavement for pedestrians.


Well, you don't need that when traffic is calmed down and cars aren't allowed to go fast. Actually shared roads are pretty pedestrian friendly usually.


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

there are less cars per people in UK than France


----------



## castermaild55 (Sep 8, 2005)

tokyo Sprawl

All of Tokyo by Tim Bueger, on Flickr

Location Hachioji :west tokyo


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Chrissib said:


> Well, you don't need that when traffic is calmed down and cars aren't allowed to go fast. Actually shared roads are pretty pedestrian friendly usually.


Yeah, the problem is that the UK has too many roads that are not properly calmed with speed bumps or narrow lanes. My friends lived down such a road, you could not play in the street because it was too busy and the cars too fast.


----------



## castermaild55 (Sep 8, 2005)

*Inagi city, Tokyo*　suburb


> Inagi (稲城市 Inagi-shi?) is a city located in Tokyo Metropolis, Japan. The city was founded on November 1, 1971.
> 
> As of 2008, the city has an estimated population of 81,134 and a population density of 4,096.33 persons per km². The total area is 17.97 km²
> Inagi as a municipality was founded on April 1, 1889 as Inagi Village in what was then the Minamitama District from the merger of 6 pre-Meiji period villages.
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inagi,_Tokyo

as for Shopping , natural environment, entertainment..., Inagi city was selected as #2　ranking Happy wives city after Fujisawa city, Kanagawa











いなぎめぐみの里山 Satoyama(Inagi, Tokyo) by jetalone, on Flickr

Desde Inagi, Tokio | 3 de mayo by Francisco Javier Argel, on Flickr

Untitled by pixikawa, on Flickr

Untitled by pixikawa, on Flickr

Keio Sagamihara Line Train on Bridge across the Misawa River by ykanazawa1999, on Flickr

Untitled by k-240, on Flickr

At the Top of Yomiuri V Road Slope by ykanazawa1999, on Flickr

Yomiuri-land gondola, gondola by h3f3f, on Flickr









https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3171/2891759237_a9ee503228_b.jpg









https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3258/2892601342_37cd16d52c_b.jpg

Nieve en Inagi, Tokyo (el día anterior) by Francisco Javier Argel, on Flickr

稲城中央公園 by Kiyochan234, on Flickr









http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Wakabadai.JPG









http://kingkurofune.cocolog-nifty.com/photos/uncategorized/2012/08/06/inagib3.jpg









http://blog-imgs-46.fc2.com/u/e/n/ueno3460/2012_0424_103249-CIMG1929.jpg


----------



## Stravinsky (Jan 20, 2012)

Robi_damian said:


> Because you cannot really say "We will focus on auto-accessible suburbs" in Europe in 2015, can you? :lol:


Yet it's a tad sad to still keep on building New Towns in 2015, in one of the most densely populated countries in Europe.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Chrissib said:


> Well, you don't need that when traffic is calmed down and cars aren't allowed to go fast. Actually shared roads are pretty pedestrian friendly usually.


Well, if they are shared roads and really work as such. I doubt that in this case. This picture above shows how the pedestrian entrance is almost hidden away and only accessible from the parking entrance which is the only prominent way to access the building which is walled in otherwise entirely by a "green fence". The whole way this is designed already screams for a car and like it is not even expected that anyone could approach it on his own two feet. This simply does not look pedestrian friendly. This is just symoblism but symbolism is quite important when it comes to pedestrian friendliness. I saw that very much when the Mariahilferstraße, the main shopping street in Vienna was redesigned. Even though it was defined as shared space already (and as pedestrian zone in the centre) it did not work as such, at all. Pedestrians still behaved like it was a regular street and so did car drivers. Only after the street was truly redesigned and newly paved and changed to a state where the look refelected the function it suddenly worked out. 

This suburb looks hostile to pedestrians, at least on the picture you showed above. If the rest looks like that, it probably also won't be a pedestrian friendly place.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

poshbakerloo said:


> In England I have a conspiracy theory about urban planning. Although I'm not totally sure of what the goal of the conspiracy is haha.
> 
> But my reason is that everyone in government talks about 'sustainability' and making things green etc. But when I look at the local plan for my area (Cheshire East) they only want to build car orientated suburbia (Handforth East, Woodford Garden Village, Tytherington Extension)...which is actually fine with me, but makes me wonder why they say one thing but do another.


Perhaps it's all because of the money and incentives to be gained for doing (or attempting to do) such sustainable efforts. It's like:

- Plot a few acres of land for a green structure
- Redo the road buffers to have grass and trees (or otherwise have the sidewalk extended to make it wider)
- Enhance power, water, and waste management

Despite those efforts, those still fail to address the more fundamental problems of urban (if not compact) development, including:

- Reducing reliance on driving solo
- Fragmented and segregated development
- Emphasis on garages as a main feature of housing
- Single family, detached housing (more energy-intensive)
- Building more single-use commercial developments with huge parking garages


----------



## castermaild55 (Sep 8, 2005)

I think　as for Tokyo,it is not known well about Tokyo cities as tokyo suburb though it is popular about inside of 23 wards.

west tokyo








http://galaxy-memories.air-nifty.com/photos/uncategorized/2015/05/21/_kai6121.jpg









http://galaxy-memories.air-nifty.com/photos/uncategorized/2015/05/21/_kai6118.jpg









https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...panorama.jpg/1920px-Tama_newtown_panorama.jpg


















https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ンターの住宅街130819.jpg/1920px-多摩センターの住宅街130819.jpg

*Tama　monorail* (Tachikawa ⇔　Tama)


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

Tokyo is way too dense


----------



## castermaild55 (Sep 8, 2005)

Najio new town , Nishinomiya, Hyogo *Kobe suburb*

Nishinomiya-Najio by fiorafireninja, on Flickr

Nishinomiya Najio Station by jpellgen, on Flickr
Nishinomiya Najio Newtown（西宮名塩ニュータウン） by MRSY, on Flickr

名塩ニュータウン　ナシオン-104 by mugen380, on Flickr

名塩ニュータウン　ナシオン-68 by mugen380, on Flickr































































http://sonynavi.c.blog.so-net.ne.jp/_images/blog/_dbc/sonynavi/DSC_1763-169d5.JPG?c=a3









http://www.all-mansion.com/db/1-1000/M0361305.jpg


----------



## castermaild55 (Sep 8, 2005)

Fro7en said:


> Tokyo is way too dense


*here?*

Working as an assistant of Manga
*http://www.jamieism.com/*

actually, it is something like that from *inside view*

tokyo countryside aka tokyo suburb








http://www.jamieism.com/img/201206/tokyoneighborhood000.jpg









http://www.jamieism.com/img/201206/tokyoneighborhood01.jpg









http://www.jamieism.com/img/201206/tokyoneighborhood41.jpg









http://www.jamieism.com/img/201206/tokyoneighborhood64.jpg









http://www.jamieism.com/img/201205/walk35.jpg









http://www.jamieism.com/img/201205/walk11.jpg

Working as an assistant of Manga
*http://www.jamieism.com/*


----------



## castermaild55 (Sep 8, 2005)

I think this is typical tokyo and Kanagawa suburb

Yokohama suburb


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

poshbakerloo said:


> Woodford Garden Village:
> A render of the style of homes. I actually really like them!


Who is responsible for urban planning in the UK?


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Fro7en said:


> Tokyo is way too dense


Sure thing, but remember that the Tokyo we know would be concentrated in the 23 Special Wards. Did you know that Tokyo also includes several islands in the Pacific Ocean too? 








Source

And the Tokyo Metropolis also includes nearby prefectures, including Saitama, Chiba, and Kanagawa Prefectures, among others.








Source


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

LtBk said:


> Who is responsible for urban planning in the UK?


The local authorities mainly. They submit 'Local Plans' which feature where they want to build, and what type of houses etc. Also if there is greenbelt land...which land will be used. Although central government can get involved with high profile cases (Like Woodford Garden Village)


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Svartmetall said:


> I... Don't. Hideous garage featuring far too prominently. No pavement for pedestrians. Cookie-cutter architecture. Bland colours. Yuck.


I agree with your comments about the garages. I would convert them to an extra room! As for the pavements, well for this type of suburbia it won't cause a problem as traffic will be running slow as the roads are narrow and don't really go anywhere.


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

Yes I think Japan in general is dense.. Too dense.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Fro7en said:


> Yes I think Japan in general is dense.. Too dense.


You live in Paris and think Tokyo is too dense? True, the suburbs of Paris are very sprawly, but the centre of Paris has a sustained density that even manages to put Tokyo to shame. 

Rather than looking at these photos of Tokyo, I recommend either looking at my two threads (see my signature) and/or this thread by Ukiyo, someone who used to live in Tokyo. She covers a lot of quiet and cosy neighbourhoods as well as the city and more busy portions. 

I never felt that I could not "escape" from density and/or people in Tokyo. There were plenty of quiet areas in the city, even right in the centre.


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

I never said Paris itself isn't dense. This thread is about suburbs isn't it?... City centres should always be dense.


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

In general to me, China, SK and Japan in general are very dense with suburbs, although I haven't been to Japan.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Fro7en said:


> In general to me, China, SK and Japan in general are very dense with suburbs, although I haven't been to Japan.


All of those nations have very different forms of suburbs though, and even within the country there are vast differences. 

Around Shanghai one can find American-styled sprawl quite easily, in fact more sprawl that one would find in either of the two other countries named - like this:

https://www.google.se/maps/place/Sh...27040b1f53c33:0x295129423c364a1!6m1!1e1?hl=en

South Korea mostly has commieblock suburbs, somewhat similar to China, but perhaps more dense. The thing about both South Korea and China is that the wide roads and big spaces between buildings in the suburbs makes it feel more spacious and massive than in Japan, where things are more human scaled and cosy. China never felt as crowded as Japan actually, despite its urban form. Japan was simply more convenient and close, whereas China, to me, was more traffic-clogged and massive in scale. 

I think you should travel to these countries to judge though as you don't always get a correct impression from maps and pictures. I have been to Japan and China.


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

I've been to China and South Korea as stated previously..


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

Most Chinese live in apartments. These housing suburbs aren't common.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Here are some videos of mine from China (outskirts of Shanghai).

























I also have videos outside Beijing entering and exiting the city.


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

When I was in China I was in Beijing and then went around Shandong and I stayed in a smallish city called Shouguang. I saw no houses actually lol


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

And for the vids, even on motorways, everything is made to look nice, but drive on a small road... I saw some poor towns in Shandong that were very dirty, badly paved roads too.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Fro7en said:


> Most Chinese live in apartments. These housing suburbs aren't common.


And my family live in Beijing and I've lived with them. Though I know that's hardly a ringing endorsement of my impression, but still, it's definitely more spread out than you might believe. 

Beijing seemed, to me at least, to be quite spacious, as did Shanghai in the outskirts. Lots of space between buildings overall, and a fairly low density. Many European cities felt more cosy and human-sized than Beijing and actually, I felt Stockholm was quite similar to Beijing in a number of ways with the "hus-i-parken" style used in the suburbs further out. I stayed near the third ring road on the outskirts as well as in an apartment on the edge of Beijing near the airport (5th ring road). Living in apartments doesn't necessarily mean that it is dense - the hutong of Beijing are houses... Did you not go into any?


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Here is a video of the area my in-laws live in and the hutong attached. You'll see lots of lowrise structures here too in Beijing. The lowrise areas actually were higher density than the apartment areas! :lol:


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

I stayed on an outskirt of Beijing too at some university (Beijing royal school I believe). Seemed quite industrial and poor in this area though.


----------



## Fro7en (May 23, 2015)

Looks quite dense to me for a suburb lol. I need to go back to China and see Shangai. Looks a lot different than Than provinces that are too the North.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

But this is what I mean by spaciousness. The roads and distances between buildings made it feel spread out (as you can see I travelled a lot and took a lot of videos). 

Yes, you're right, Shanghai is very different to Beijing. China is like a lot of different countries put together to make one. Travel to a different part of it and it can be almost like not being in the same country at all!


----------

