# Goodbye, Suburbs



## irongland (Feb 20, 2004)

I think that suburbs shouldn't be created like those what exist now (big only residential area with small family houses). There shoulb be built something like new towns/villages with small squares,parks,shops and places where people can spend their free time 

I hope everybody undestand me  (my english isn't perfect )


----------



## seattlehawk (Nov 18, 2005)

irongland said:


> I think that suburbs shouldn't be created like those what exist now (big only residential area with small family houses). There shoulb be built something like new towns/villages with small squares,parks,shops and places where people can spend their free time
> 
> I hope everybody undestand me  (my english isn't perfect )


Actually, some suburbs have been built that way. I visited several master-planned communities in Houston area that are essentially self-contained cities. For instance, Woodlands and Sugarland have their own mini-downtown with shopping mall, town square, entertainment facilities, parks, golf-courses, sports complexes etc. Those public places are really crowded and popular, especially on weekends.


----------



## I-275westcoastfl (Feb 15, 2005)

New suburbs are the worse thats why the suburbs in my city arent bad cause they were built at a better time St.Pete suburbs are cooler though anyway the suburbs in Dallas sucked it when i lived there for a year was boring everything was far, etc but here in florida its a bit different and alot better though i need a car to get most places i dont mind driving and once i get my license and car it wont matter and im in the suburbs just a lil bit better planned then todays suburbs i love older neighborhoods in St.Pete cause they are so unique and all id say suburbs in america after the 70's went down hill i still prefer a house over a condo anyday though.


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

Yeah, a lot of suburbs in New England and throughout the Northeast are actually older and previously larger than their core cities. A lot of Boston suburbs date back to the 1600's and have colonial downtowns with cobblestown streets and colonial buildings. In Rochester, all of the suburban towns were founded before the city itelf. The village of Pittsford, Rochester's most "chic" suburb, has a beautiful downtown, and also a strip of mid 19th century buildings that have been converted into nice lttle restaurants and shops along a promenade on the Erie Canal....

Pittsford, NY










Downtown





































The Erie Canal Promenade


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

ROCguy said:


> And how do you know that? Have you ever even been to Long Island? Do you even know what the lifestyle is like? I doubt it.


It's my personal, I don't like to live in Long Island, it looks bored.


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

Vannstrap, you are just slow. I'm sorry, LA lover, Vannstrap, whoever you are. You just make no sense in your reasoning and come up with the stupidest crap I've ever heard. How old are you?


----------



## scando (Jun 19, 2004)

Justadude said:


> I agree with ROCguy, to a large extent it's a problem of vibrance, not density. There is nothing preventing a suburban area from being interesting and vibrant, so long as it's designed intelligently. The problem is that American suburbs tend to be designed to maximize acreage and square-footage at the cost of all other things. No mixing of businesses with homes, few sidewalks (most of them leading to nowhere), no true community centers or parks, etc. Basically, no opportunities to interact with other people. That in turn leads to issues of segregation (of many different kinds), community character, public safety, and over-corporatization.
> 
> Like a city, a suburb has to be designed well if it wants to thrive in the long run. Density isn't nearly as much a factor as human connections.


I agree with you on this but what I don't understand is why so many Americans (probably MOST of them) don't understand it. Personally I am a city person, but there are some suburbs that are nice. Most of them, however, seem to me like very nice ways to erase human uniqueness. Manufactured houses, auto-centric areas, distances, and the dismal lack of appeal of the nearby strip of fast food, Walmart and Target stores make me really wonder, why don't they expect better? How can these people pay so much money for big Mc Mansions that have NO appeal except the conspicuous display of how much you paid? Do these people really WANT to live somewhere where they look just like the neighbors they never see and drive everywhere? Look at the faces of people jockeying for a spot in the big parking lot and TELL me that they really like this. There is some critical missing piece of thought there that there could be a better way of designing communities that don't even have to cost more. I don't get it.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

^ A lot of factors drive people to the suburbs. Typically, the most influential are economics, education, safety and racial tension. 

There are a LOT of books out there that document the details of the exodus from urban to suburban areas. What it boils down to is that cities are very difficult places to build up as attractive areas. As soon as a school starts to struggle under population pressure, or you start seeing vagrants on the streets, or an immigrant/minority group starts to "take over" a neighborhood, people bolt for the edge of the city. 

Unfortunately, the past 50 years in America have show that lifelong urbanites are a small minority. The majority of people WANT a large home, a homogeneous neighborhood, a suburban school, and an SUV to drive. The downsides (driving distances, lack of diversity, mind-numbing boredom) aren't enough to change the trend.


----------



## miamicanes (Oct 31, 2002)

The article's noted suburban obsession with gardening and yardwork indirectly highlights something important... it's one of the very, very few ways that suburbanites can semi-casually and informally interact with each other by giving them an excuse to be in a private, but semi-public space (front yard) adjacent to others. It's something people who live in dense cities take for granted... frequently running into friends, talking for a few moments, and moving on -- as opposed to turning every encounter into a formal, planned, extended event like a visit. Or, for people who live alone, just occasionally running into casual "eating pals" while walking to some nearby place to eat lunch or dinner and having company (of everything I missed about life on campus after graduating, I'd say this one probably topped the list... being able to just spontaneously decide when I felt like eating, and nevertheless running into a half-dozen friends on the way there who happened to have had the same idea at the same time).

IMHO, probably the best compromise is illustrated by areas like the one north of the Loop in Chicago (Lincoln Park, etc), where you have long blocks of townhomes perpendicular to short blocks of fast food restaurants, drugstores, and for that matter, even BIG stores, with multifamily buildings tending to occupy the first block away from the commercial block. You can still have the double-garage (off the alley), a fenced-in yard for the dog to casually do his business in off the front, and roof deck pseudo-yard bigger than most new suburban backyards built in places like LA, Miami, etc.) without giving up the opportunities for casual, unplanned social interaction.


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

miamicanes said:


> The article's noted suburban obsession with gardening and yardwork indirectly highlights something important... it's one of the very, very few ways that suburbanites can semi-casually and informally interact with each other by giving them an excuse to be in a private, but semi-public space (front yard) adjacent to others. It's something people who live in dense cities take for granted... frequently running into friends, talking for a few moments, and moving on -- as opposed to turning every encounter into a formal, planned, extended event like a visit. Or, for people who live alone, just occasionally running into casual "eating pals" while walking to some nearby place to eat lunch or dinner and having company (of everything I missed about life on campus after graduating, I'd say this one probably topped the list... being able to just spontaneously decide when I felt like eating, and nevertheless running into a half-dozen friends on the way there who happened to have had the same idea at the same time).
> 
> IMHO, probably the best compromise is illustrated by areas like the one north of the Loop in Chicago (Lincoln Park, etc), where you have long blocks of townhomes perpendicular to short blocks of fast food restaurants, drugstores, and for that matter, even BIG stores, with multifamily buildings tending to occupy the first block away from the commercial block. You can still have the double-garage (off the alley), a fenced-in yard for the dog to casually do his business in off the front, and roof deck pseudo-yard bigger than most new suburban backyards built in places like LA, Miami, etc.) without giving up the opportunities for casual, unplanned social interaction.


So wait, you don't think suburbanites have "unplanned social interraction"? What, do you get your information from Desperate Housewives? Believe it or not, suburbanites do have social interaction, and it's not limited to tupperware parties and yard sales. Most suburbanites work and spend a lot of their time in the city, usually downtown. They basically have their houses in the suburbs so they have a safer place for their kids to play, go to school and to sleep (hence the term "bedroom communities")


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

ROCguy said:


> Vannstrap, you are just slow. I'm sorry, LA lover, Vannstrap, whoever you are. You just make no sense in your reasoning and come up with the stupidest crap I've ever heard. How old are you?


Look at my profile, I'm 18 years old. Don't insult to me. :sleepy:

I had few families that from Levittown, just around 30 min away from NYC. I like to live or visit NYC, Long Island is just suburb, bored, less tourist destination and remind me like in Ventura County. For my personal, LA suburb including Beverly Hills, Long Beach, Malibu, Big Bear Lake, WeHo, Van Nuys, Woodland Hills (that where Warner Center located) and other more have better lifestyle than Long Island, honestly, that's my opinion. Real Estate in Long Island and LA suburb are just almost same, expensive. We got reasonable cost for rent in LA suburb, much clean and cheap than Long Island. Crime isn't bad but little higher than NYC but I don't including Compton to list for better lifestyle, NYC has South Bronx and somewhere in Brooklyn are bad. You keep insult me and attack with my opinion.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

ROCguy, one more to said, I'm apologize for make discomfort and give u a hard time. I don't tried to make negative about Long Island, depends on opinion.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Most people don't even use their yards for anything so what's the point of large tracts of grass?


----------



## scando (Jun 19, 2004)

LtBk said:


> Most people don't even use their yards for anything so what's the point of large tracts of grass?


Exactly...lawn grass is the most expensive, chemical and labor intensive crop on this planet. You can't eat it or make anything out of it. It's chemicals run off into bodies of water and it is bad at soil retention. Now on top of that, aside from a little area for the grill and and maybe some swings for the kids, most of that grass, especially in the front yard does absolutely nothing. It's hard to not think that something is awry in a culture where this is the norm. The fact that we now have about 60 years of culture where this has become norm doesn't mean that it isn't dysfunctional.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

scando said:


> Exactly...lawn grass is the most expensive, chemical and labor intensive crop on this planet. You can't eat it or make anything out of it. It's chemicals run off into bodies of water and it is bad at soil retention. Now on top of that, aside from a little area for the grill and and maybe some swings for the kids, most of that grass, especially in the front yard does absolutely nothing. It's hard to not think that something is awry in a culture where this is the norm. The fact that we now have about 60 years of culture where this has become norm doesn't mean that it isn't dysfunctional.


That just shows how materialstic and trendy our population is.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

LtBk said:


> Most people don't even use their yards for anything so what's the point of large tracts of grass?


1) Most people would agree that, all other things equal, a house looks better with a lawn. Though this forum might agree otherwise, the majority of the population isn't thrilled with the thought of pavement in every direction.

2) People with pets and children (which are pretty much the norm in any suburban household) generally find life easier with a yard. While public parks might be a reasonable substitute (depending on what kind of neighborhood you live in), for the most part people like being able to let their kids/pets run around freely outside. 

3) They provide potential for playsets, pools, large trees, storage buildings, trampolines, doghouses, and other things that would typically be impossible to own in an urban environment.

I'm not an advocate of suburbia, but there's nothing wrong with wanting a yard. Until cities are revitalized to the point of being able to provide a safe environment for children and pets, and to the point at which a city park isn't a haven for sketchy characters, people aren't going to find reasonable alternatives to yards within an urbanized area.


----------

