# Which country has the friendliest suburb architecture?



## Copperknickers (May 15, 2011)

As the title says: which country has the most liveable, friendly, desirable architecture outside the medieval villages and grand city centres? Which country is the best place to live for the ordinary small town dweller or city suburb dweller, in terms of the aesthetics of their environment? 

With particular emphasis on the public housing and apartment blocks, where most low-earning urbanites live.


My top 5:

5. France

4. Denmark

3. Finland

2. Canada

1. Switzerland


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

I don't know about France. I think they have some problems in the suburbs, and ethnic enclaves etc.


----------



## z0nnebril (May 2, 2010)

Netherlands for sure! Just take a look at this thread 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=560898


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

My favourites are the UK and Belgium. RE France, there good suburbs and bad suburbs, there's no rule, but I have yet to visit a French city where I would live in the suburbs instead of living centrally. There simply is no comparison, the centres are just unbeatable. If I were to get tired of urban life I would rather move in a town rather than moving to the same city's suburbs.


----------



## 540_804 (Jan 21, 2008)

z0nnebril said:


> Netherlands for sure! Just take a look at this thread
> 
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=560898


I completely agree.
This is my favorite: Brandevoort, Helmond


----------



## Karaborsa (Dec 8, 2007)

where you park your car?


----------



## z0nnebril (May 2, 2010)

Karaborsa said:


> where you park your car?


There are parking garages


----------



## Jon5738 (Oct 26, 2013)

540_804 said:


> I completely agree.
> This is my favorite: Brandevoort, Helmond


Are you ironic or what? If not, what exactly is so appealing? I can think of at least three major design flaws here.


----------



## Kopacz (Mar 16, 2011)

^^
Good density, ground-level shops, limited car traffic and some nice architecture. Seems ok for me.


----------



## Jon5738 (Oct 26, 2013)

Kopacz said:


> ^^
> Good density, ground-level shops, limited car traffic and some nice architecture. Seems ok for me.


Major flaws in no particular order:

1. The building heights protrude on eachother, making sunlight scarce in first and second story, particularly during winter months. This has a negative influence on the population, particularly way up north.

2. There are trees but they are not given ample of room for roots. They could have structural cells on this particular design even though I doubt it as they have not bothered to protect the trees from cars and traffic. In low-income neighborhoods designers often remove trees in order to reduce maintenance costs. There is also a prevailing attitude among designers to remove trees because they think that trees cause an addition in crime levels (because for example you can hide behind a tree and mug someone).

In reality, trees and vegetation has a negative impact on overall crime level (trees in a neigborhood reduce crime) and has an overall positive impact on the psychology of the population in the area. This is particularly important in a low wage neigborhood. This design does not really allow wider or taller trees than on this particular image even if you would fit it with structural cells.

3. The limited size of roads might reduce traffic but is not the proper way to reduce traffic as maintenance, movers and transports probably will use the narrow road anyway, thereby endangering both the trees and other installations such as the light posts. A more logical way to reduce speed or traffic is speedbumps and timed-, or limited access gates.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

^^

Thats all bullshit.

Forget all those modernist dogmas, this is proper classic town planning.


----------



## Jon5738 (Oct 26, 2013)

Dahlis said:


> ^^
> 
> Thats all bullshit.
> 
> Forget all those modernist dogmas, this is proper classic town planning.


Yeah, when you have lived in a poor neighborhood in northern Europe, have been mugged a few times and getting depressed by the seasonal shifts of light I will refer to your quote the time you complain.

Architects should be forced into living in the buildings they design.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Jon5738 said:


> Yeah, when you have lived in a poor neighborhood in northern Europe, have been mugged a few times and getting depressed by the seasonal shifts of light I will refer to your quote the time you complain.
> 
> Architects should be forced into living in the buildings they design.


I do live in northern europe and the poor areas are the modernist ones not suited for people just for an idea.


----------



## Jon5738 (Oct 26, 2013)

Dahlis said:


> I do live in northern europe and the poor areas are the modernist ones not suited for people just for an idea.


So your point is what, that light is not important in the wintertime, that trees are unnecessary or that the people that lives in the buildings should pay for the mistakes that the architects make (hence paying for new trees that gets roughed by traffic)?


----------



## Santi.M (Nov 15, 2010)

Spain has the most walkable neighborhoods due to mixed-used zones and density. There are stores, coffes and restaurants in any street. Spanish way of life is a street way of life


----------



## CarltonHill (Dec 11, 2011)

Belgium, Netherlands & Denmark.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Jon5738 said:


> So your point is what, that light is not important in the wintertime, that trees are unnecessary or that the people that lives in the buildings should pay for the mistakes that the architects make (hence paying for new trees that gets roughed by traffic)?


Light is not the most important thing no. If you want light you go out maybe to a park where there also is plenty of trees.

Lining uo houses to face the sun like the modernist ideal advocates does not create a better enviroment for people, just a broken city structure with larger distances for people to walk. Thats an especially big problem in the cold north.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Jon5738 said:


> So your point is what, that light is not important in the wintertime,


There is no light during the winter in Northern Europe regardless of how you plan the neigbourhood.


----------



## Jon5738 (Oct 26, 2013)

Dahlis said:


> Light is not the most important thing no. If you want light you go out maybe to a park where there also is plenty of trees.
> 
> Lining uo houses to face the sun like the modernist ideal advocates does not create a better enviroment for people, just a broken city structure with larger distances for people to walk. Thats an especially big problem in the cold north.


Adding a few meters does not break city structure (usually the reason why you are not allowed to build tall buildings too close to your estate limit) and yes, it does provide with more light. If you do not believe me, go to Sweden in December and measure it for yourself. Neither does it constitutate a problem to walk a few extra meters, that has to be the most absurd argument I have ever heard.

To the contrary to your argument: one of the most common argument for not building taller buildings in Stockholm is that the heights protrude on the other buildings and reduce light to the lower stories. It is also by coincidence the lower stories that tend to be occupied by lower income residents. The only way to circumvent this type of situation is to extend the distance between the buildings and thereby reducing the density.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Jon5738 said:


> Adding a few meters does not break city structure (usually the reason why you are not allowed to build tall buildings too close to your estate limit) and yes, it does provide with more light. If you do not believe me, go to Sweden in December and measure it for yourself. Neither does it constitutate a problem to walk a few extra meters, that has to be the most absurd argument I have ever heard.


Dahlis already lives in Stockholm, Sweden. 


Jon5738 said:


> To the contrary to your argument: one of the most common argument for not building taller buildings in Stockholm is that the heights protrude on the other buildings and reduce light to the lower stories. It is also by coincidence the lower stories that tend to be occupied by lower income residents.


That probably has more do with noise from the road and noise from commercial space that is often at street level. 


Jon5738 said:


> The only way to circumvent this type of situation is to extend the distance between the buildings and thereby reducing the density.


Yet the areas where we those ideas have been adopted suffers from social problems are generally perceived to be less desirable in comparison with districts that are built with traditional closed blocks, which is why all Scandinavian countries are trying to go back to closed blocks when building new and modern districts.


----------



## 10011 (Jan 19, 2008)

I'm currently living in a suburb to Stockholm, it's too depressing to put in words. All that light bullshit you see going on in this thread, that has made the buildings in many of our suburbs so sparse it's ridiculous. Things like how close it is to your kids school, your job, your supermarket, accessibility - actually having an environment people like to be in. That hasn't even been considered, the holy light can't be disturbed. But it's great, because this means we get room for all the parking spaces we need cause of this type of planning.

The most enjoyable suburb I've lived in was in the Netherlands. By far. And it wasn't even one of the better ones.



Jon5738 said:


> So your point is what, that light is not important in the wintertime


It's nowhere near as important as the drawbacks you automatically get with the more modernist approach. 



Jon5738 said:


> Adding a few meters does not break city structure (usually the reason why you are not allowed to build tall buildings too close to your estate limit) and yes, it does provide with more light. If you do not believe me, go to Sweden in December and measure it for yourself. Neither does it constitutate a problem to walk a few extra meters, that has to be the most absurd argument I have ever heard.


Yes. Yes, it does. It can be countered (somewhat) by having a wall, a fance, a bush - something lining the estate limit. But these semi private areas truly disturb the structure.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

The term "suburbs" is very, very broad so there may be a temptation to compare apples to oranges. There are wonderful old tree-lined suburbs for the well heeled, newly constructed suburbs that don't even have shrubs yet, and run down economically depressed suburbs with war-zone commie blocks. 

Somehow I suspect people may pick and choose examples from different categories to make comparisons...


----------



## Jon5738 (Oct 26, 2013)

10011 said:


> I'm currently living in a suburb to Stockholm, it's too depressing to put in words. All that light bullshit you see going on in this thread, that has made the buildings in many of our suburbs so sparse it's ridiculous. Things like how close it is to your kids school, your job, your supermarket, accessibility - actually having an environment people like to be in. That hasn't even been considered, the holy light can't be disturbed. But it's great, because this means we get room for all the parking spaces we need cause of this type of planning.


Yet, the argument that is most commonly used by the "ehtical council" or whatever they call it is the protrution over older buildings. And you cannot eat the cake and still have it which seems to be the argument here. Either reduce density or screw urban renewal altogether. Why build taller buildings unless you also add more traffic space, parking garages and green areas?



> The most enjoyable suburb I've lived in was in the Netherlands. By far. And it wasn't even one of the better ones.


My point being the architecture should be made for the location, not make the location fit the architecture. Having taller buildings than the spaces in between offers functionality in central Europe but is not optimal in northern Europe.



> It's nowhere near as important as the drawbacks you automatically get with the more modernist approach.


It is not modernistic in essence, it is pragmatism. Why even bother plant a tree for hundreds of dollars if it will die within a few years and the replacement will cost thousands? And WHY does not the architect carry the liabilities when the architect design planting sites that does not correspond to the ISA guidelines? And what exactly is your argument for it? That it is too dificult to assign a proper space for a plant in the design process? Is it difficult to place concrete blocks around the tree so it actually might survive a passing car?



> Yes. Yes, it does. It can be countered (somewhat) by having a wall, a fance, a bush - something lining the estate limit. But these semi private areas truly disturb the structure.


Let me get this straight, you think it is an argument to walk 10 meters? If so, I guess you are in a wheelchair? If so, isn't it better for the buildings to be taller so the the roads can be wider? Or you the only person with disability that I have met that thinks otherwise?

A typical day in Stockholm you walk AT LEAST 1 km, quite often way more than that. You say there is a notable difference walking 1010 - 1100 meters over 1000 meters and that is a sufficient argument for reducing the available light in the first and second stories of the building? Seriously?


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Jon5738 said:


> My point being the architecture should be made for the location, not make the location fit the architecture. Having taller buildings than the spaces in between offers functionality in central Europe but is not optimal in northern Europe.


Yet many of the areas that are considered to most desirable to live in have equal or higher density with traditional closed blocks.


----------

