# Google Suburbia



## Tony P (Sep 11, 2002)

Google Earth has really let the cat out of the bag when it comes to showing suburbia at its worst. Here's a collection of Google Earth pics that show suburbia in the USA and Australia. Feel free to post the worst examples of suburbia you can find.

*
Sydney*









*
Melbourne*









*
Perth*









*
Los Angeles*









*
Los Angeles*









*
Los Angeles*









*
Los Angeles*









*
Miami*









*
Miami*









*
Atlanta*









*
Atlanta*









*
Las Vegas*









*
Las Vegas*









*
Las Vegas*










Eeuuugghh! I need a shower, now...


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

Zoom out:









I think it's an obvious choice that people would want to live there. :bash: 

Ooo, the MALL! What an enchanting place.









Kind of unreleated but cool to look at from space, the Bahá'í temple:


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

Atlanta is the absolute worst, I was looking at it on Google satellite, friggin insane.

Anyway this is northern Toronto...this is particularly spread out for a newer TO suburb, in most the homes are packed in so developers can maximize the amount of money they can get out of a parcel of land.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

LA can only be appreciated with 3D terrain on.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Stupid OT question but how do you save images from Google Maps?


----------



## Tony P (Sep 11, 2002)

Hit the "print scrn" key, open up photoshop (or similar program), open a new image and hit "control v" to paste it in.


----------



## TheKansan (Jun 22, 2004)

Think Atlanta is bad? Kansas City suffers from the worst leap frog development I have ever seen. 

Kansas City, Kansas









This image is the exact same scale, but located in an older part of town


----------



## Archiconnoisseur (Nov 4, 2004)

Tony P said:


> *
> Los Angeles*


This pic reminds me of leaf miner damage.


----------



## scguy (Sep 11, 2002)

He is right about Kansas city. I read an article not too long ago that said it has the largest residential lots of any US. city.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

TheKansan said:


> Think Atlanta is bad? Kansas City suffers from the worst leap frog development I have ever seen.
> 
> Kansas City, Kansas
> 
> ...


What's the point of living in a dense suburban neighborhood? You know, the ones where the developer subdivides the lot sizes as much as possible, to get a better return? As a resident, you get the worst of both worlds. Cookie-cutter houses, a postage stamp size back yard, but also zero urbanity. 

If I want to live in a dense place, I'll move to a city. If I want to live in the suburbs, I want a decent sized plot of land. Or else what's the point???


----------



## doady (May 23, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> What's the point of living in a dense suburban neighborhood?


Much better public transit?


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

doady said:


> Much better public transit?


I'm not talking about the old street-car suburbs. In America at least, and especially in the Western half of the country, many developers have massively reduced lot sizes. There's still no public transport, architectural diversity or any other benefit of urban life. Just small lots.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Yet most Americans perfer to live in them despite the many disadvantages. Our populations needs to be educated on shit like this.


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

I find something peculiarly fascinating about all those suburban patterns.


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

OK, I think I've nailed down what I find so fascinating about some of this stuff . . .

It almost looks like the surface of a microchip!



















Or maybe part of a motherboard.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

LtBk said:


> Yet most Americans perfer to live in them despite the many disadvantages. Our populations needs to be educated on shit like this.


Yes, they need to be educated into having enough money to live in urban condos.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

Justadude said:


> Yes, they need to be educated into having enough money to live in urban condos.


Not always.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

Show me London!!!


----------



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

Whats wrong with the suburbs we cant all just live in the sim city4 like cities which is nothing but hi-rise condos/apartments there needs to be a mix of the two like an urban core then suburbs simple as that.


----------



## Skopie (Jan 17, 2005)

Suburbs in theory are great, however in practise, America doesn't pull them off to well. We need suburbs, but these mega sprawling, mall dependant, no sidewalk hellholes of America are disgusting.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Skopie said:


> Suburbs in theory are great, however in practise, America doesn't pull them off to well. We need suburbs, but these mega sprawling, mall dependant, no sidewalk hellholes of America are disgusting.


I prefer American suburbs to any others I've seen in the world. European suburbs are half-assed; neither here nor there. If I want to live in a city, I'll live in a city. If I want to live in a suburb, I want a decent amount of land. Why on earth would I want to live in a house that hardly has any land, but also doesn't offer a real urban experience?


----------



## Talbot (Jul 13, 2004)

Good observations BJB, it does look a lot like a part of the motherboard.


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> I prefer American suburbs to any others I've seen in the world. European suburbs are half-assed; neither here nor there. If I want to live in a city, I'll live in a city. If I want to live in a suburb, I want a decent amount of land. Why on earth would I want to live in a house that hardly has any land, but also doesn't offer a real urban experience?


The whole problem is the perceived "advantage" of living in a suburb, when in actuality there is no advantage to living in a suburb, you could say better schools, better shopping etc, but in reality well maintained cities actually have more of and better of both than suburbs. (how many suburbs have historic, top level private schools for example, better yet, how many suburbs have unique stores that arent found anywhere else?) Any perceived advantage of the suburbs is due to A. less perceived traffic and B. More land to do absolutley nothing with, C. less crime and better schools, both A and C are a result of declining urban schools and more urban traffic because of the negative effects of the suburbs.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

titeness said:


> The whole problem is the perceived "advantage" of living in a suburb, when in actuality there is no advantage to living in a suburb, you could say better schools, better shopping etc, but in reality well maintained cities actually have more of and better of both than suburbs. (how many suburbs have historic, top level private schools for example, better yet, how many suburbs have unique stores that arent found anywhere else?) Any perceived advantage of the suburbs is due to A. less perceived traffic and B. More land to do absolutley nothing with, C. less crime and better schools, both A and C are a result of declining urban schools and more urban traffic because of the negative effects of the suburbs.


My parents have a swimming pool and forest in their backyard. Not to mention fresh air, quiet, and a general feeling of space. Can they get this in Manhattan or Paris? No. In fact, they'd be lucky to get a one or possibly two bedroom apartment with a roach problem in Manhattan, where I now live. So there are real advantages to suburbs.


----------



## Compaq (Mar 5, 2005)

yep, most asians totaly fall in love with australia when they visit, seeing that most of the people have their own spacious house, with a backyard where sunshine, nature, peace and quiet, private space can be enjoyed. Suburbs are awsome, most having their own shopping centre's (or malls), medical centres etc, so its not like you'r far away from the basic everyday desitantions. The only bad thing with suburbs that some may experience is the transport factor, most are very car dependant, but hey, the advantiges outweigh the disadvantiges. 
"HA-HA!" at those small tiny countries that have a reasonable population, for they cannot have suburbs. USA-CANADA-AUSTRALIA- HELL YEA!


----------



## mad_nick (May 13, 2004)

Some NY suburbs.

Long Island






New Jersey


----------



## r2 (Jun 27, 2004)

Compaq said:


> yep, most asians totaly fall in love with australia when they visit, seeing that most of the people have their own spacious house, with a backyard where sunshine, nature, peace and quiet, private space can be enjoyed. Suburbs are awsome, most having their own shopping centre's (or malls), medical centres etc, so its not like you'r far away from the basic everyday desitantions. The only bad thing with suburbs that some may experience is the transport factor, most are very car dependant, but hey, the advantiges outweigh the disadvantiges.
> "HA-HA!" at those small tiny countries that have a reasonable population, for they cannot have suburbs. USA-CANADA-AUSTRALIA- HELL YEA!


i have to say that i agree with you


----------



## Skopie (Jan 17, 2005)

brooklynprospect said:


> I prefer American suburbs to any others I've seen in the world. European suburbs are half-assed; neither here nor there. If I want to live in a city, I'll live in a city. If I want to live in a suburb, I want a decent amount of land. Why on earth would I want to live in a house that hardly has any land, but also doesn't offer a real urban experience?


Unfortunately it wouldn't be physically possible for every house to have a 2 acre lot in Europe, we don't have the room.

Why anybody needs there own couple of acres of useless land or their own miniture forest is beyond me. What do people in American suburbs do with all that land, except spend eternity mowing a lawn? it just sits empty, worthless and unused. 

I'm in one of those neither here nor there places you describe, which seem to be a mix of american pre war suburbs and American inner city areas, and i would much rather live here than a typical America suburb. The houses may be small (Although nobody here finds it out the ordinary as it's we've grown up with small houses) and the land may be small (not that we need acres of land, i know friends with 16 sq m gardens that get on just fine) The advantages are that I can walk everywhere, I'm only a short bus ride or an hour walk into the centre of the city, aswell as being only 9 miles from Leeds city cente. Plus my suburb has it's own town centre full of independat stores, bars, resteraunts and markets. Not some lifeless mall with an endless carpak that i have to drive half an hour to get to. If I want space I go to one of the parks nearby, or into the countryside, which is in walking distance, which if it wasn't for our apparently tiny hosues and gardens would just be another vast housing estate. I have a shop, a hairdressers, a pub, 2 takeaways and a cafe all within 5 minutes walk, and can go months at a time without needing a car.

Plus who realy needs a 4000 sq ft house?


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Skopie said:


> Unfortunately it wouldn't be physically possible for every house to have a 2 acre lot in Europe, we don't have the room.
> 
> Why anybody needs there own couple of acres of useless land or their own miniture forest is beyond me. What do people in American suburbs do with all that land, except spend eternity mowing a lawn? it just sits empty, worthless and unused.
> 
> ...


No one needs a 4000 sq ft house, 2 acres of land, or an SUV. Then again, no one needs a TV, DVD or music collection, brand-name clothing, foreign vacations, or for that matter, indoor plumbing. These are all luxuries, to one extent or another. However, I'd be lying to you if I said I didn't enjoy my parents peace and quiet, pool, and forest in the backyard. In my book (and based on demographic patters, in the books of most Americans), I'll take climate controlled malls selling everything I need and easy access to everywhere in a nice roomy SUV, over pokey old suburbs and public transport, any day. 

Yes, every mall looks more or less the same, but so do most suburban UK high streets. Auto traffic is annoying, but so is public transit overcrowding and missed schedules. At least in my car I can be annoyed in cushy leather seats, listening to a Bose sound system, and without a crazy homeless guy talking to himself across from me.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

titeness said:


> Any perceived advantage of the suburbs is due to A. less perceived traffic and B. More land to do absolutley nothing with, C. less crime and better schools, both A and C are a result of declining urban schools and more urban traffic because of the negative effects of the suburbs.


Spoken like someone who's never had to pay bills in a city. The bottom line, at least in America, is that for 90% of the population the suburbs offer more for your money. You get more acreage in your lawn, more square-footage in your house, less crime, less pollution (trash, noise, light), less crowding, less annoyance from being separated from your neighbors by a thin piece of sheetrock, better schools, usually better standards of housing, and better access to the countryside. 

This is not a matter of preference. I _prefer_ to live in the city. But unless I add another zero to my income sometime soon, I will not be able to afford a million-dollar condo and elite private school tuition. That leaves me the choice of moving my growing family into a two-bedroom apartment, sending my kids to crime-ridden urban schools, worrying about crack dealers hanging out on the corner, listening to sirens all night, taking my clothes to a laundromat, giving my dog away, and getting used to the smell of carbon monoxide; or... moving my family to a 4-bedroom suburban home, sending my kids to an above-average suburban school, worrying about local teenagers driving too fast, listening to crickets at night, putting my clothes in the wash so I can go out to watch a movie, buying a new puppy, and getting used to the smell of freshly-cut grass... and still having enough money left over to go to the mall a few times a month. 

As much as I love the city, I'm in that middle 90% who is living in neither poverty nor a penthouse. That means I have to make an important decision about what level of safety, health and education I want my family to live in. I've compromised a bit by moving from the outer-suburbs to the inner-suburbs. But even that move has meant less money and a lower standard of living. This is the reality of life in American cities, and it's why our inner-city neighborhoods have emptied out. People don't need to be lectured about their "perceptions" when the facts are there in black and white.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Justadude said:


> Spoken like someone who's never had to pay bills in a city. The bottom line, at least in America, is that for 90% of the population the suburbs offer more for your money. You get more acreage in your lawn, more square-footage in your house, less crime, less pollution (trash, noise, light), less crowding, less annoyance from being separated from your neighbors by a thin piece of sheetrock, better schools, usually better standards of housing, and better access to the countryside.
> 
> This is not a matter of preference. I _prefer_ to live in the city. But unless I add another zero to my income sometime soon, I will not be able to afford a million-dollar condo and elite private school tuition. That leaves me the choice of moving my growing family into a two-bedroom apartment, sending my kids to crime-ridden urban schools, worrying about crack dealers hanging out on the corner, listening to sirens all night, taking my clothes to a laundromat, giving my dog away, and getting used to the smell of carbon monoxide; or... moving my family to a 4-bedroom suburban home, sending my kids to an above-average suburban school, worrying about local teenagers driving too fast, listening to crickets at night, putting my clothes in the wash so I can go out to watch a movie, buying a new puppy, and getting used to the smell of freshly-cut grass... and still having enough money left over to go to the mall a few times a month.
> 
> As much as I love the city, I'm in that middle 90% who is living in neither poverty nor a penthouse. That means I have to make an important decision about what level of safety, health and education I want my family to live in. I've compromised a bit by moving from the outer-suburbs to the inner-suburbs. But even that move has meant less money and a lower standard of living. This is the reality of life in American cities, and it's why our inner-city neighborhoods have emptied out. People don't need to be lectured about their "perceptions" when the facts are there in black and white.


I don't have any children, but my impression is that the single greatest factor holding American urban areas back is their shitty public school systems. Private schools cost what, at least $10k per child per year? If you make $150k, sending 2 kids to private school is a very big drain on after-tax income. If you make say $50k, it's just impossible.


----------



## streetscapeer (Apr 30, 2004)

^that's what they taught me in my Urban Studies class


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

I was never fan of the suburbs. The towns have hardly any infastructure to get around them. Also, in some suburbs there are sprawling communties, which were built by taking away what was once a natural beauty. As a Earth Science major, places like these are actually bad for the evnironment, b/c it makes the animals that once lived there homeless.


----------



## Aquarius (Aug 3, 2003)

The roads in this suburb in Madrid are curious...

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=madrid&ll=40.618279,-3.610168&spn=0.009805,0.014269&t=k&hl=en


----------



## FastWhiteTA (Jul 24, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> ........Auto traffic is annoying, but so is public transit overcrowding and missed schedules. At least in my car I can be annoyed in cushy leather seats, listening to a Bose sound system, and without a crazy homeless guy talking to himself across from me.


HAHA that is well said.


----------



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

Europe does have plenty of room they just choose not to sprawl they have a big city crammed in and suddenly its farmland and a village or two every once in a while.

The reason for suburbs is u can afford a decent place and get more for less $$$ as i might have to learn soon whenever my house is sold and we go back to florida instead of moving to the city i might have to go to surrounding suburbs because of the houses that my family can afford there is little of in the city and until the real estate market crashes this will be an issue in cities with dramatic value increases.

Plus ive only lived in the suburbs for a year but yet i have stores all around me within walkin distance and yes suburbs have side walks, but most houses are ugly but thats because i hate brick and here in texas its the prodiment style of houses. Suburbs arent as bad as most of you believe but then again im talking to people on a skyscraper site in which many urbanists who want only hi-rises and condos so who am i to try to convince.


----------



## NothingBetterToDo (Sep 11, 2002)

I cant speak for the rest of Europe, but in the Uk we have plenty of suburbs, its just our suburbs tend not to sprawl as much as the american one. In many cases the houses are terraced or semi detached, but they still have a fair sized garden. Uk suburbs also tend to be built around town centres or high streets which have all the amenities you need. the suburbs are also connected very well with public transport and to the town centre/high street and also to the city centre. Even away from the high streets there are small "parades" of shops that provide people with the daily basics (newspaper, milk e.t.c) - and these are within easy walking distance of most people. 

Personally i wouldnt like to live in a sprawling american style suburb, i can understand the reasons why people would want to, but i think its a difference in culture - in this respect the UK is more like its European neighbours.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

^ That's a suburb design that people are trying to get to catch on in the USA. It's far more efficient and sensible. The problem is that the older style of suburb has surrounded most cities, making transit links difficult in new development. So in order to do something like you describe, they'd have to demolish ("renew", perhaps) entire subdivisions and replace them with denser development... which is what I believe will happen some time down the line.


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> My parents have a swimming pool and forest in their backyard. Not to mention fresh air, quiet, and a general feeling of space. Can they get this in Manhattan or Paris? No. In fact, they'd be lucky to get a one or possibly two bedroom apartment with a roach problem in Manhattan, where I now live. So there are real advantages to suburbs.


 :rant: 


:speech: :speech: :speech: 
No, but I bet there is a House with those exact amenities in the city closest to where your parents house is. Manhattan and Paris are extreme examples, both places where land is at a huge premium and adresses have huge social and economic importance, most american citites however, (entire Midwest, Southern Cities, etc..) are not that densly packed in to begin with, and allready provide amenities and "feeling of space" that is unrivalled in 99% of the world-and thus- Most American suburbs are largely pointless and IMHO only created so developers can raise the price of homes which in turn lower the price (and thus tax base and thus amenities) of city homes, only themselves to in-turn be devalued as new developments arrise; It's a vicious cycle that spurs development and profit but in turn has a huge Environmental and Social Costs. (obesity, time wasted in traffic, crime in the de-valued areas)


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

Aquarius said:


> The roads in this suburb in Madrid are curious...
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=madrid&ll=40.618279,-3.610168&spn=0.009805,0.014269&t=k&hl=en


THOSE FRIGGIN FORK - IN - THE - ROAD STREETS ARE DEADLY FOR AUTO TRAFFIC!!!


----------



## FastWhiteTA (Jul 24, 2004)

titeness said:


> :rant:
> 
> 
> :speech: :speech: :speech:
> No, but I bet there is a House with those exact amenities in the city closest to where your parents house is. Manhattan and Paris are extreme examples, both places where land is at a huge premium and adresses have huge social and economic importance, most american citites however, (entire Midwest, Southern Cities, etc..) are not that densly packed in to begin with, and allready provide amenities and "feeling of space" that is unrivalled in 99% of the world-and thus- Most American suburbs are largely pointless and IMHO only created so developers can raise the price of homes which in turn lower the price (and thus tax base and thus amenities) of city homes, only themselves to in-turn be devalued as new developments arrise; It's a vicious cycle that spurs development and profit but in turn has a huge Environmental and Social Costs. (obesity, time wasted in traffic, crime in the de-valued areas)


I'm not sure you know what you're talking about...suburb homes are typically less expensive than homes in the city, esp ones that are closer to downtown, and esp if they're nice homes, and ESP in downtown areas.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

It's been a long time since I've seen a post that had so many factual inaccuracies. I'll repeat Fast's sentiment: I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Point by point...



titeness said:


> No, but I bet there is a House with those exact amenities in the city closest to where your parents house is.


Unlikely. A forest, fresh air and quiet are not things one would normally find in a city. And if you were lucky enough to find a house with some space and a pool, it would almost certainly cost _at least_ 50% more than the suburban home. If it is in a central district, it could easily be five or six times as much ($250,000 vs. over a million), depending on where you are.



> most american citites however, (entire Midwest, Southern Cities, etc..) are not that densly packed in to begin with,


I take it you have never been to the Midwest. Chicago, Milwaukee, and Detroit do not strike me as having sparse city areas. Of course, neither do Miami, New Orleans, or Atlanta for that matter. Finding a large home with significant property would be extremely difficult in any of those cities, and only affordable for a narrow segment of the population. Don't let stereotypes about American suburbs give the impression that the cities themselves are not dense. 



> Most American suburbs are largely pointless and IMHO only created so developers can raise the price of homes which in turn lower the price (and thus tax base and thus amenities) of city homes, only themselves to in-turn be devalued as new developments arrise


So what you're saying is that without suburbs, city homes would probably be even MORE expensive than they already are. Well, it's possible that you're right about that at least. But I think your "vicious cycle" theory is really missing the point. People go to suburbs because they *can't afford the same quality of housing* in the city. Thus they are not "pointless" at all, they are a way of avoiding rat-trap housing blocks.


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

FastWhiteTA said:


> I'm not sure you know what you're talking about...suburb homes are typically less expensive than homes in the city, esp ones that are closer to downtown, and esp if they're nice homes, and ESP in downtown areas.



Theres loads of affordable housing in most every american city, housing that is cheaper than its suburban counterparts, Its just that most white people are too xenophobic to buy these houses as they are in Minority heavy areas.

Im not saying that the housing, commerce, and industrial areas the suburbs provides are useless to America, im just saying America would be alot better if the original city plans and city block layout pattern had been kept and expanded to accomodate the growing population, instead of random, spur of the moment, mega-sprawl.


----------



## bs_lover_boy (Apr 16, 2004)

Can Somebody please post Suburban Pics of Hong Kong???


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

brooklynprospect said:


> What's the point of living in a dense suburban neighborhood? You know, the ones where the developer subdivides the lot sizes as much as possible, to get a better return? As a resident, you get the worst of both worlds. Cookie-cutter houses, a postage stamp size back yard, but also zero urbanity.
> 
> If I want to live in a dense place, I'll move to a city. If I want to live in the suburbs, I want a decent sized plot of land. Or else what's the point???


My oh my, that's the difference between how different cities think. Come to one of Toronto's suburbs you can see rows on rows of highrises.


----------



## Siopao (Jun 22, 2005)

Im not sure if this is an updated pic but here you go! 

Hong Kong Suburbia


----------



## Vanman (May 19, 2004)

I think the key to good and healthy suburban living is mixed-use.Rowhouses next to detached houses with small yards next to high rises next to lo rises and all close to a commercial core .


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

titeness said:


> Theres loads of affordable housing in most every american city, housing that is cheaper than its suburban counterparts, Its just that most white people are too xenophobic to buy these houses as they are in Minority heavy areas.


But that housing is not comparable in quality or amenities. I challenge you to find even one American city where, square-foot for square-foot, you can find a home inside the city that is of equal quality and still cheaper than those in the suburbs. Of course, you can't cheat... these houses also have to be in locations of comparable quality: decent schools, low crime, no nearby industrial development, access to shopping, etc.

Go for it. Prove me wrong.


----------



## scguy (Sep 11, 2002)

Vanman said:


> I think the key to good and healthy suburban living is mixed-use.Rowhouses next to detached houses with small yards next to high rises next to lo rises and all close to a commercial core .


I found this typical to the suburbs of Brussels. There are rows of midrises alongside SF Homes with lush yards and then rowhouses. It was very easy to catch a bus to the closest subway station to get to the middle of town. The suburbs are also much more pedestrian friendly than US ones too.


----------



## AcesHigh (Feb 20, 2003)

Compaq said:


> yep, most asians totaly fall in love with australia when they visit, seeing that most of the people have their own spacious house, with a backyard where sunshine, nature, peace and quiet, private space can be enjoyed. Suburbs are awsome, most having their own shopping centre's (or malls), medical centres etc, so its not like you'r far away from the basic everyday desitantions. The only bad thing with suburbs that some may experience is the transport factor, most are very car dependant, but hey, the advantiges outweigh the disadvantiges.
> "HA-HA!" at those small tiny countries that have a reasonable population, for they cannot have suburbs. USA-CANADA-AUSTRALIA- HELL YEA!


This just means suburbs are bad for nature! What would you think if Brazilians started building sprawling suburbs like USA, Canada and Australia? The forests would disappear even faster (although there is hardly population living in the amazon area to destory it, but the Atlantic Rainforest would be gone in no second, and the agriculture and cattle areas in the populated states would all definitly move to the forested parts of the country!

Notice... Brasil has only 180 million people... and a territory the size of continental USA. USA has 100 million more people and MUCH more sprawling suburbs, so that just means USA occupies vast areas of nature with urban sprawling!! The everglades in Florida are at a risk for example! Canada and Australia are imho the only countries that really can afford to have such vast suburbs, due to the small populations and vast territories. But USA I dont think so!


----------



## partybits (Apr 29, 2005)

Justadude said:


> Spoken like someone who's never had to pay bills in a city. The bottom line, at least in America, is that for 90% of the population the suburbs offer more for your money. You get more acreage in your lawn, more square-footage in your house, less crime, less pollution (trash, noise, light), less crowding, less annoyance from being separated from your neighbors by a thin piece of sheetrock, better schools, usually better standards of housing, and better access to the countryside.
> 
> This is not a matter of preference. I _prefer_ to live in the city. But unless I add another zero to my income sometime soon, I will not be able to afford a million-dollar condo and elite private school tuition. That leaves me the choice of moving my growing family into a two-bedroom apartment, sending my kids to crime-ridden urban schools, worrying about crack dealers hanging out on the corner, listening to sirens all night, taking my clothes to a laundromat, giving my dog away, and getting used to the smell of carbon monoxide; or... moving my family to a 4-bedroom suburban home, sending my kids to an above-average suburban school, worrying about local teenagers driving too fast, listening to crickets at night, putting my clothes in the wash so I can go out to watch a movie, buying a new puppy, and getting used to the smell of freshly-cut grass... and still having enough money left over to go to the mall a few times a month.
> 
> As much as I love the city, I'm in that middle 90% who is living in neither poverty nor a penthouse. That means I have to make an important decision about what level of safety, health and education I want my family to live in. I've compromised a bit by moving from the outer-suburbs to the inner-suburbs. But even that move has meant less money and a lower standard of living. This is the reality of life in American cities, and it's why our inner-city neighborhoods have emptied out. People don't need to be lectured about their "perceptions" when the facts are there in black and white.




Very well said I must say. Many people don't choose to live in the burbs as much as it is the only viable option. In Toronto however, at least we don't have the issue of decaying urban schools. Suburban and urban schools are at about the same level, so that does help.

My main issue is not with who chooses to live in suburbs as opposed to urban areas, as it is the stupidity of the planning process in the burbs. Suburbs were created mainly in the 50's and inspired to be the "best of both worlds". The fresh air and space of the country with all the convenience of the city. But in some ways it has become the worst of both worlds. The pollution and gridlock of the city with the lack of amenities of the country. Kind of ironic is'nt it?

If we could start all over again with the suburban dream, I would've simply kept to the basic suburban ideal before greedy developers and city politicians got involved. Keep a grid system in place in the burb's instead of the wasteful curved roads. Keep commercial high density on the main streets (and low density on the side streets) to support real retail/commercial strips with life to it. This will also support transit corriders instead of endless automobile gridlock. Be more reasonable about home designs so they don't waste so much space. Have a single home, but squeeze the spaces in between homes which are never used anyways. Lower the space of front gardens as they are rarely used anyways.
Other more urban concepts include back side parking, row housing divided by brick instead of drywall (quietness of single home with the density of townhomes).
I can go on forever. But the point is that it's not suburbanites who are wasting the space as much as it was past (and unfortantatly still present) mistakes.


----------



## Compaq (Mar 5, 2005)

AcesHigh said:


> This just means suburbs are bad for nature! What would you think if Brazilians started building sprawling suburbs like USA, Canada and Australia? The forests would disappear even faster (although there is hardly population living in the amazon area to destory it, but the Atlantic Rainforest would be gone in no second, and the agriculture and cattle areas in the populated states would all definitly move to the forested parts of the country!
> 
> Notice... Brasil has only 180 million people... and a territory the size of continental USA. USA has 100 million more people and MUCH more sprawling suburbs, so that just means USA occupies vast areas of nature with urban sprawling!! The everglades in Florida are at a risk for example! Canada and Australia are imho the only countries that really can afford to have such vast suburbs, due to the small populations and vast territories. But USA I dont think so!


For australia and the us, especialy the west side (of uS) there reallty aren't any forrests to destroy, its like Las Vegas, its preety much deset like terrain already, similar thing with australia, its not exactly desert, but new suburbs are created every year, in already clear areas, or areas where its only bushes, not real big forests. USA can afford suburbia, the area it has is just sooooo big, seriously it has more than enough room, even china could do suburbia if it wanted! in china most of the population is on the east half, they're dense cos they choose to, they havent used up all the land at all. Anyway yes i think brazil can have suburbia too, if it coukld afford it and all, im just saying it has the space. Australia (&canada) can keep growing till population's are that of usa and still keep building cities the way they are now, with suburbia. Thats the advantige of having a big country


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

Compaq said:


> For australia and the us, especialy the west side (of uS) there reallty aren't any forrests to destroy, its like Las Vegas, its preety much deset like terrain already, similar thing with australia, its not exactly desert, but new suburbs are created every year, in already clear areas, or areas where its only bushes, not real big forests. USA can afford suburbia, the area it has is just sooooo big, seriously it has more than enough room, even china could do suburbia if it wanted! in china most of the population is on the east half, they're dense cos they choose to, they havent used up all the land at all. Anyway yes i think brazil can have suburbia too, if it coukld afford it and all, im just saying it has the space. Australia (&canada) can keep growing till population's are that of usa and still keep building cities the way they are now, with suburbia. Thats the advantige of having a big country


Building suburbs in previously uninhabited desert puts tremendous strain on water systems, think about all those lawns people have to water in an environment that has little or no actual rainfall.


----------



## Justadude (Jul 15, 2004)

partybits said:


> My main issue is not with who chooses to live in suburbs as opposed to urban areas, as it is the stupidity of the planning process in the burbs.


Absolutely. Instead of condescending to the massive number of people who have little reasonable choice but to live in the suburbs, we ought to be badgering developers and city officials to build suburbs more sensibly. The sheer ignorance of suburb design can be appalling at times. We have had half a century to learn from our mistakes; at this point there is no excuse for building developments that are obviously dysfunctional.




> Suburbs were created mainly in the 50's and inspired to be the "best of both worlds". The fresh air and space of the country with all the convenience of the city. But in some ways it has become the worst of both worlds. The pollution and gridlock of the city with the lack of amenities of the country. Kind of ironic is'nt it?


Jane Jacobs was writing brilliantly on precisely this point back in 1961. "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" has several chapters dedicated to exposing the commonsense failures of suburb design, and suggesting ways to vitalize life on the fringes of the city. It's re-freaking-diculous that most of her critiques apply to "neighborhoods" (she wouldn't dignify them with that term) that are being built today. That really says something about the backgrounds of the people who call the shots in developing our cities.


----------



## 12231989 (Jun 29, 2005)

The whole city of Phoneix is on a grid system even in the suburbs there is only one suburb that does not have the standard grid roads and thats Sun City but other than that the whole metro area has a main road every mile the main numbered streets go north and south and are every mile and the main named streets go east and west and are spaced out 1 mile apart


----------



## Compaq (Mar 5, 2005)

titeness said:


> Building suburbs in previously uninhabited desert puts tremendous strain on water systems, think about all those lawns people have to water in an environment that has little or no actual rainfall.


hmm no, for a developed country water can me managed, disalination plants, pipes from elsewhere ..

look at this plan, that was proposed at our last state election, to bring water down to perth from top of the state, it's hasnt gone ahead cos the guy lost the election, and the guy now is gone ahead with the diselination plant instead.

it's a canal btw.










and to see how big the state is;










and here to compare aus size to US


----------



## goldfish (Jul 24, 2005)

I live in an inner ring suburb of Chicago, where I really feel I have the best of both worlds. There's a lot more open space and free parking than in the city. On the other hand, it's a developed community with sidewalks, street lights, etc. There are shops and restaurants within walking distance. Housing has gotten to be very expensive though. If I want to move up to a better quality condo or townhome, I may have to relocate to a cornfield 50 miles outside the city. And I am not absolutely opposed to suburban sprawl. Even in some of the more distant suburbs, I've seen where it is reasonably well done. There are walking paths and shuttle bus service. On the other hand, there are too many places where you have to take your car everywhere. There are no other options to even go pick up a newspaper or a gallon of milk. That's what I would like to avoid, but it's getting to be very difficult to find affordable housing in Chicagoland outside of those types of areas.


----------



## Cee_em_bee (May 12, 2004)

Nothing wrong with suburbs, but I don't like how they get built and designed these days.
Suburbs used to be built like a proper town was, Around a Cbd containing lots of plazas and all of the essential things like Office buildings, Post offices, Police stations Education establishments, and even Public Transport hubs if the place needed them etc.. 

I've heard alot of people say how they live in a place with a forest and a pool in their backyard, that's nice and all but is definately not what most new suburbs are like, especially where I'm from. Most suburbs have small blocks of land with huge houses and tiny backyards, The only place you can shop at are malls, The schools are no better then the ones in the innercity and the lack of trees leave alot of people out of the shade if they want to outisde(this is especially important in Western Sydney where there can be weeks without a drop of rain and the temeperature averages in the mid to late 30's in summer) and Public transport is bad on average.

Suburbs are too well designed these days, the developers are so intent on saving money it has drastically reduced the quality of life in residents lives, but people still keep moving out there.


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

:wtf: USA and AUS are so similar in history, size and friggin three digit international description its friggin scary.


----------

