# Suburbia: Your Thoughts and Ideas



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

_Note:_ This thread has a poll that the original thread didn't have. Also, some of the great replies from the original thread will be shown here as reference.

In line with the poll I made for the ultimate city, I want to ask a related question, this time on suburbia. I understand that with every great city, thousands or millions of people live in suburban areas to break away from a city's noisy environment, as well as to find a cheaper, more decent place to stay. However, suburban development has been of limited success because planners have been creating suburbia as bedroom communities where people drive or commute to and from work, school, or activity in the city, and that planners create vast subdivisions made out of cookie-cutter houses. While some suburban communities offer better schools for their residents, the downsides of suburbia include long commutes and traffic jams, winding roads (sometimes with no sidewalks), and restricted land use for only a few purposes.

So, same rules as my Ultimate City poll, I want to ask: if you want to make a suburban town more attractive, what would you implement first?

-----------------------------​
And here are some of the original replies:



weava said:


> I now live in a suburban area, I like it. I am technically within walking distance of 2 grocery stores and other shopping but drive 99% of the time for convenience. I also like living in an area with trees, nature trails, and less density because its relaxing.
> 
> I used to live downtown and it was exciting and fun to be around the action but parking was always a pain, especially when you wanted to have guests over. I could never raise a family in that environment with the higher crime and terrible school districts in that area but this is probably more of an issue with US cities than in other countries.





Manila-X said:


> I live in the suburbs and have my design studio in the city. Both city centre and suburbs are vibrant here in Metro Manila.
> 
> It is according to what part of the suburb you're living at. Of course I would choose all in your post but here is how I look at Metro Manila especially it's suburbs.
> 
> ...





jbkayaker12 said:


> I would not trade living in suburbia for anywhere else and most certainly not for an urban core city living!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

*What top priority would you like to implement in suburbia to make it more livable?*

Suburbia is far more livable for me and many others BUT this is a "skyscraper" board site so you won't be hearing much from these people. 

*More low-income or subsidized housing to house the poor*

There is already subsidize housing in suburbia and it is called Section 8. We suburbanites do not want our neighborhood to be bombarded with Section 8 people. 

*Better in-city transportation (transit, carpooling, car-sharing, biking)*

We already have mass transit and what it does is bring in the riff raffs in suburbia. NO thank you! We also have bike lanes on our roadways.

*Creating meaningful, fun-filled activities and events in your neighborhood*

Suburbia is not just homes, hahahaha. We have community theater, art fairs, galleries, festivals, farmers market.......We have parks and more parks, hahahaha!

*Lower taxes (and benefits) for new businesses and industries*

As I have said we have more than just homes in suburbia, businesses are thriving in suburbia.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

jbkayaker12 said:


> *What top priority would you like to implement in suburbia to make it more livable?*
> 
> Suburbia is far more livable for me and many others BUT this is a "skyscraper" board site so you won't be hearing much from these people.
> 
> ...


Right... you live in Las Vegas, so your entertainment would be casinos on top of the regular farmers' markets, art fairs, and the like. Maybe another option would help for you? Like what would you like to see in suburban Las Vegas that you currently don't have?

I'd imagine the RTC running through your neighborhood, with many lines (including along Sahara Avenue) running 24/7... and businesses are thriving in many suburban areas. But some suburban communities have Walmart instead of a vibrant downtown, if you know what I mean


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Right... you live in Las Vegas, so your entertainment would be casinos on top of the regular farmers' markets, art fairs, and the like. Maybe another option would help for you? Like what would you like to see in suburban Las Vegas that you currently don't have?
> 
> I'd imagine the RTC running through your neighborhood, with many lines (including along Sahara Avenue) running 24/7... and businesses are thriving in many suburban areas. But some suburban communities have Walmart instead of a vibrant downtown, if you know what I mean


.......and what type of entertainment do you think goes on in the billion $ resorts other than gaming. I won't spoil it for you but you will be surprised to find out, the "Entertainment Capital of the World" has more to offer than just gaming!!:cheers: 

I'm happy with the options we have in suburbia and once again there are other businesses thriving in suburbia aside from your big box retailers. You mentioned Walmart as if the retailer is only exclusive to suburbia, better do some research, these big box retailers are penetrating your so called urban scene.

BTW suburbia is suburbia while downtown is downtown. They are not the same and WILL NEVER BE THE SAME. Now I tell you one thing, I do not like the derelicts, druggies, losers hanging around in the San Francisco urban scene and I am glad we do not have those types in suburbia. Oh I just remembered metropolitan San Franciso has the highest if not one of the highest percentage of drug users in the country. It is a shame considering others like to place San Franciso on a pedestal.:cheers:


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

jbkayaker12 said:


> Now I tell you one thing, I do not like the derelicts, druggies, losers hanging around in the San Francisco urban scene and I am glad we do not have those types in suburbia. Oh I just remembered metropolitan San Franciso has the highest if not one of the highest percentage of drug users in the country. It is a shame considering others like to place San Franciso on a pedestal.:cheers:


Let me edit what I mentioned above, druggies and losers are also present in suburbia but NOT to the extent where they take over areas like they do in San Francisco and while Clark County is the most populous county in NV, I'm glad we do not have the distinction of having a metropolitan area with a high percentage of druggies in the nation.:lol:


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

jbkayaker12 said:


> Let me edit what I mentioned above, druggies and losers are also present in suburbia but NOT to the extent where they take over areas like they do in San Francisco and while Clark County is the most populous county in NV, I'm glad we do not have the distinction of having a metropolitan area with a high percentage of druggies in the nation.:lol:


You are assuming that all city centres are like that the world over. They're not. The richest and most wealthy areas in Stockholm are in the centre, whereas the poorest are the suburbs.


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

Svartmetall said:


> You are assuming that all city centres are like that the world over. They're not. The richest and most wealthy areas in Stockholm are in the centre, whereas the poorest are the suburbs.


When did I say ALL city centers in the world are like San Francisco? By the way, in Europe especially in Amsterdam I heard drug use is so common, true? OK its off topic but since you mentioned your city in Europe I thought I'd ask you. Oh and you're in Europe, so you are comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

I think the biggest downside to the US style suburbia is the increasing separation between different layers of society. Sure, on an individual level the wealthy are probably very happy with not having the poor people ruining their nice life (which jbkayaker12's posts very well describe). How good is that for the progress of the whole nation is a completely different matter.

Then there's the issue of using huge amounts of energy and natural resources. The price of oil will inevitably rise, it's not a question of if, it's question of when. Sure, the rich will probably be able to drive as they do now even when the price of petrol is 3-4 times what it is today but how will that affect the middle or lower classes of society? 

And how will this inefficient way of life affect the economic growth in the US? Suburban areas have a very high cost per people for infrastructure and public services.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

jbkayaker12 said:


> When did I say ALL city centers in the world are like San Francisco? By the way, in Europe especially in Amsterdam I heard drug use is so common, true? OK its off topic but since you mentioned your city in Europe I thought I'd ask you. Oh and you're in Europe, so you are comparing apples and oranges.


You're making statements such as:



> BTW suburbia is suburbia while downtown is downtown. They are not the same and WILL NEVER BE THE SAME. Now I tell you one thing, I do not like the derelicts, druggies, losers hanging around in the San Francisco urban scene and I am glad we do not have those types in suburbia.


This implies when you separate suburbia and "downtown" that they are the same across the world until you mention San Fran, it was a completely blanket statement.

I'm merely stating that "druggies and losers" as you so eloquently term them, are actually more present in suburbia than in the inner city here given that the inner city is the wealthy and far more "wanted" part of the city whereas, in general (with some exceptions), the suburbs are not. In fact, the suburbs are downright cheap compared to the inner city. There is a reason why the waiting list for central Stockholm is 25 years for a first-hand rental contract. 

As for Amsterdam, that city is in The Netherlands. I am in Sweden. Not the same country, not the same policies and not the same society. As for drug use being "common" well, actually bored suburban teenagers and tourists are far more likely to be drug users than urbanites as far as The Netherlands goes. The cannabis cafes generally cater to tourists rather than locals.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Drugs use is prevalent in the Nordics, yes. No point in trying step around the point.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

fieldsofdreams said:


> I understand that with every great city, thousands or millions of people live in suburban areas to break away from a city's noisy environment, as well as to find a cheaper, more decent place to stay. However, suburban development has been of limited success because planners have been creating suburbia as bedroom communities where people drive or commute to and from work, school, or activity in the city, and that planners create vast subdivisions made out of cookie-cutter houses. While some suburban communities offer better schools for their residents, the downsides of suburbia include long commutes and traffic jams, winding roads (sometimes with no sidewalks), and restricted land use for only a few purposes.


Restricted land use is an artifact of planning/government action.

Note that the mere existence of suburbs requires massive government investment in infrastructure. In a complete countryside where roads are unpaved under 30 km/h ones (and snowed in in winter) and running water is not available, the urban folks may visit for their summerhouses at holidays, but they would be rather reluctant to settle down year-round. A suburb needs a dense network of reasonably fast paved highways, and running water supply.

Now, if government declines to interfere, then along roads outside central city you would not only see blocks of houses. You would also see industrial enterprises, wholesale shops taking advantage of cheap land and accessibility, as well as streets of private houses.

And without government action to enforce restricted land use you should also see apartment blocks interspersed with individual houses - not quite randomly, though. High value buildings like apartment blocks and shops would be concentrated at higher value, more accessible land like along main roads and near public transport stops and intersections - while the side streets would be lined with private houses.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Galro said:


> Drugs use is prevalent in the Nordics, yes. No point in trying step around the point.


Where did I step around that point? Are you following me around the board and sniping at what I say?

He mentioned Amsterdam, I responded that I am not in Amsterdam and that there is a significant difference in policy towards drugs between Sweden (hard more following the US line) and The Netherlands (one of the more liberal countries in the world regarding drugs). If we were to analyse drug death in Sweden, Sweden had a drug death rate of *1.8 per 100,000* which compares very favourably to The Netherlands which has one of the lowest at *0.68 per 100,000*. Compare that to the *US (12.6 per 100,000) *or the *UK (39.8 per 100,000)* and I would not say ostensibly that drugs are as large a societal problem given that the "hard" drugs are those that generally lead to drug induced death.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Galro said:


> Drugs use is prevalent in the Nordics, yes. No point in trying step around the point.


Umm, explain what you mean by that. What is the relationship between drugs and suburbs?


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

Honestly, there will always be people with what you could broadly call "issues", and they have to live somewhere. Usually somewhere very cheap and they are typically transient. But again, unless you think that making minimum wage is a crime punishable by life in prison, then poor people are going to need housing somewhere.

For various reasons, in the past they all got concentrated in the city partly because all of the cheap depreciated neighborhoods created by the exodus to the suburbs. Also suburbs tend to be exclusionary, allowing mostly detatched single family homes that tends to either be owner-occupied or have fairly high rent.

Of course nowadays the oldest modern suburbs are pushing 60 years old and the first rings of sprawl are becoming more like the city they drained of life while new growth extends farther out. As city centers become gentrified and expensive, some of those bad urban neighborhoods are emptying out and their dysfunctional inhabitants are going to those older suburbs.

Now I think that the old truism city=bad suburb=safe is becoming less meaningful, and it was always a very harmful idea to begin with.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

chornedsnorkack said:


> Restricted land use is an artifact of planning/government action.
> 
> Note that the mere existence of suburbs requires massive government investment in infrastructure. In a complete countryside where roads are unpaved under 30 km/h ones (and snowed in in winter) and running water is not available, the urban folks may visit for their summerhouses at holidays, but they would be rather reluctant to settle down year-round. A suburb needs a dense network of reasonably fast paved highways, and running water supply.
> 
> ...


You have great points indeed. Government is involved in too many ways that created suburbia: from Levittown to Livermore, Riverside to Rye (NY), federal and state governments have indeed worked hard to make suburbia happen... Thanks partly to the G.I. Bill, soldiers who came home owned homes at lower costs while enjoying college and work credits. And of course with the Interstate highway system, suburbia indeed boomed. But is suburbia a sustainable pattern for growth? I think otherwise: it isolates people, it lengthens commutes, and it sometimes psychologically drains a person's creativity.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> Where did I step around that point? Are you following me around the board and sniping at what I say?


Sorry to disappoint you, but this is not a secret forum where I have to spend ages tracking down you to find your post. In fact I noticed the topic on the front page. No stalking necessarily. 


Svartmetall said:


> He mentioned Amsterdam, I responded that I am not in Amsterdam and that there is a significant difference in policy towards drugs between Sweden (hard more following the US line) and The Netherlands (one of the more liberal countries in the world regarding drugs). If we were to analyse drug death in Sweden, Sweden had a drug death rate of *1.8 per 100,000* which compares very favourably to The Netherlands which has one of the lowest at *0.68 per 100,000*. Compare that to the *US (12.6 per 100,000) *or the *UK (39.8 per 100,000)* and I would not say ostensibly that drugs are as large a societal problem given that the "hard" drugs are those that generally lead to drug induced death.


He mentioned Europe in general while also specifying what I had heard specific about Amsterdam. Sweden is part that Europe which he talked about. And yes, the problem is higher in Amsterdam which the guy you quoted acknowledged when he specifically said the problem was large in Amsterdam, so I'm not completely sure why you feel the need to repeat that.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Umm, explain what you mean by that. What is the relationship between drugs and suburbs?


I'm not sure there is a relationship. I was just answering the one who mentioned drug use in Europe.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Galro said:


> He mentioned Europe in general while also specifying what I had heard specific about Amsterdam. Sweden is part that Europe which he talked about. And yes, the problem is higher in Amsterdam which the guy you quoted acknowledged when he specifically said the problem was large in Amsterdam, so I'm not completely sure why you feel the need to repeat that.


Well no, the Netherlands has one of the lowest drug death rates in the developed world, hence my reply there to show that Sweden (as part of the Nordics) also possesses a lower drug death rate too especially compared to the US and UK since you mentioned that it is a "problem" here too. This hints at less "hard" drug use. 

He did not acknowledge the problem was large in the Netherlands, he stated that he heard there was a problem possibly due to the association between Amsterdam and cannabis as that is something that most foreigners hear about. Read back through the thread please. He was trying to say drugs are a problem in Europe like in the US. In reality the problem is far worse in the US compared to other European nations in terms of hard drugs as measured by drug death rate (except for the UK which is an outlier).

Anyway, sorry for the off topic, I'll get back to point now.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Svartmetall said:


> You're making statements such as:
> 
> This implies when you separate suburbia and "downtown" that they are the same across the world until you mention San Fran, it was a completely blanket statement.
> 
> ...


Well, suburban development is different for each community and metropolitan region for several reasons:

- land availability. Of course, the greater your available surrounding land area is, the greater the opportunity to grow suburban communities.

- existing infrastructure. When freeways were built from the cities, it prompted rapid growth away from the cities, thus creating suburbia. And it has a side effect: think of Los Angeles and sprawl... lots of congestion, contributing to millions of tons of pollution and carbon emissions.

- geography. If the surrounding area is hilly or mountainous, chances are that suburban growth may be limited due to topography, unless you consider the privileges of having great views of the city from the comfort of your home.

- human development. If the city employs a great working environment, then it entices families to move as close to the city as possible to make their commute short. However, if rent or house prices are too high in the city (like New York or San Fran), then people would move to the suburbs to escape paying higher taxes while sacrificing convenience and wealth of activities. Same goes with schools: institutions will place schools in areas with high human development, and if these are placed disproportionately in the suburbs, chances are the inner city kids may not get the quality of education they deserve because the city naturally provides more opportunities to learn and experience things kids in suburbia may not fully experience. I mean, I have nothing about "why the best schools are located away from cities"; it's more of priorities and choices on where to place these schools... and these do increase land values immensely.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

fieldsofdreams said:


> - human development. If the city employs a great working environment, then it entices families to move as close to the city as possible to make their commute short. However, if rent or house prices are too high in the city (like New York or San Fran), then people would move to the suburbs to escape paying higher taxes while sacrificing convenience and wealth of activities.


Paying taxes or paying rents/land price?

These are very different things! When people move to homes in suburbs and keep driving cars to the city to work and services, are they allowed to vote to pay lower taxes and not pay for schools in inner city? Or will the taxes simply follow them where they go whether because the suburbs are annexed to the administrative borders of the city or because the taxes for schools and services are collected by an administrative level spanning the inner city along with suburbs and countryside?


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Well, remember this: taxation is crucial to fund public projects that are meant for the good of the people. If the collection rates are high, then more than likely, the taxes collected would fund important endeavors, from infrastructure to healthcare. I mean, I wonder how much is the US Federal Tax nowadays for average-income families? And help me out too on which tax in NV is set to 0 because the casinos actually pay for them?


State tax = 0, we do not pay for it. The State gets a gaming tax revenue from the resorts.

Yes taxation for the common good of people, I get that but when it is excessive just like Germany then it becomes a burden to people as my German friend keep telling me.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Right. Back to topic then.
> 
> So, I am thinking about suburbia as something like Tokyo's suburbs, where rail lines converge at several stations in the city, and that the rail station acts as the calling card for the city or community. I then wonder, which cities in the United States can be considered as "close" to Tokyo's standards?


Tokyo is a joy to get around and, indeed, in Tokyo a vast majority of services are clustered around railways. I'm sure Ukiyo or Quashlo will be able to answer this better than me, but from my limited understanding, the railway forms the centre of the community in Tokyo suburbs. 



fieldsofdreams said:


> From what I understand in Tokyo, the closer a place is to a railway station, the higher the price. You basically pay for the convenience of walking to and from the station, as well as giving you an opportunity to go car-free. Is that the same story in Stockholm too? (By the way, as an aside: one of my aunts actually lives right now in Stockholm too)


Absolutely it is the same. The thing is, the vast majority of Stockholm has been built (since the 1950's) around railway stations as much as possible and so there are, by international standards, very few parts of the city not covered by railway transport. The thing you pay more of a premium for here, though, (much as in Tokyo) is proximity to the centre of the city. The closer you get to the centre, the higher your price. I know this is mirrored across a number of other European cities too. Britain is the exception in fact. There, one often finds that cities with rejuvenated city centres have expensive properties in the centre followed by a ring of deprivation and then a ring of expensive outer suburbs.



jbkayaker12 said:


> State tax = 0, we do not pay for it. The State gets a gaming tax revenue from the resorts.
> 
> Yes taxation for the common good of people, I get that but when it is excessive just like Germany then it becomes a burden to people as my German friend keep telling me.


Your one German friend tells you that taxation is bad and therefore all 82 million Germans feel the same way. You have to realise that there are plenty of Germans that also support this higher taxation, much in the same way that many Swedes support our current levels of taxation due to the benefits it affords society here. But this is another issue. If you want to debate taxation then open a thread about it and I'm sure you'll get lots of responses. This discussion is limited to suburbia.


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

......just want to add for the common good of people, including illegals. Hahahahaha! Here comes Pancho!!


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

Svartmetall said:


> Um... You're talking to a scientist here and I am fully aware of what constitutes "air pollution" in layman's speech. What I am attempting to convey to you is that a smell does not equal more pollution and often it is insidious, odourless pollutants that can cause just as much damage as those that you can detect with your nose. Your nose and perception is an incredibly poor method for judging whether something is polluted or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Strict tests do not equal absence of pollutants, what it means is minimisation. However, if someone uses a less polluting car 4 times more than a more polluting car, one will still probably end up with more pollution from using the less polluting car simply because you use it more. Hence when you look at the causes of air pollution in cities you'll find that a vast proportion of that air pollution is caused by vehicle emissions.


Mr. Scientist, car emission whether diesel, leaded, unleaded is a pollutant. It does not matter whether it is more obvious like diesel or less obvious like unleaded.

Mandated smog test and unregistered cars while NOT full proof can help keep cars from being driven on the roadways, the issue is trying to MINIMIZE the effects of car emissions in the atmosphere. Driving will always contribute to air pollution but will it stop us from driving? NO. Will mass transit stop people from driving? NO. 

The biggest pollutant in the world is mankind. Shall we just start killing each other off because mankind has done damage to Earth?


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

jbkayaker12 said:


> Mr. Scientist, car emission whether diesel, leaded, unleaded is a pollutant. It does not matter whether it is more obvious like diesel or less obvious like unleaded.


That was precisely my point with my reply. I stated that you cannot judge pollution simply by sniffing the air and saying "this smells worse than back home". What I did go on to say is that diesel burns cleaner (other than particulate matter) and diesel engines are more efficient than petrol and therefore, despite the smell, is actually less polluting overall. 



jbkayaker12 said:


> Mandated smog test and unregistered cars while NOT full proof can help keep cars from being driven on the roadways, the issue is trying to MINIMIZE the effects of car emissions in the atmosphere. Driving will always contribute to air pollution but will it stop us from driving? NO. Will mass transit stop people from driving? NO.


Again, read what I said. I said that whilst your minimisation of pollutants due to strict testing is one thing, vehicle km driven in the US is greater than most other countries and so despite the strict tests, compared to countries that drive less km per year per capita, one will see a greater level of pollution simply due to overuse of cars, ergo, one cannot say that US cities have lower levels of pollution simply due to stricter emissions standards than some other countries. You have to actually go by empirical evidence such as sulphur monoxide/dioxide levels, carbon dioxide emissions, nitrogen oxide levels and particulate matter in the air. These are measures that will tell you whether air is polluted or not, not vehicle standards.



jbkayaker12 said:


> The biggest pollutant in the world is mankind. Shall we just start killing each other off because mankind has done damage to Earth?


I think this statement pretty much sums up your arguments here. Most are rather spurious.


----------



## particlez (May 5, 2008)

Several Points:

The traditional definition of urbanism required three prerequisites: density, public transportation, and building typology. Yet the definition of urbanism itself has been usurped and diluted to imply some vague hipster-cool aesthetic of fashionable retro architecture and sidewalks. 

The 70s had the "Planned Unit Development" craze which entailed carefully selecting the choicest subplots for schools, parks, light industry, residential, utilized cul de sacs, AND had the provision for sidewalks on at least one side of the road. It was supposed to cure the ills of previous dysfunctional autocentric suburban planning. It was touted by the real estate industry and it didn't work. Now we've got New Urbanism--also touted by the real estate industry. It features sidewalks on BOTH sides of the road.

Diesel is more efficient than gasoline and emits less CO2, but also produces more particulates. Thus if diesels are going to be driven, ideally the planning would entail more street level open spaces to allow said particulates to dissipate. It may sound unfashionable, but it's not rational to spew particulates in constricted areas.

Taxation is a fact of life. But one needs to consider the type of taxation necessary. Most of the time, any discussion of tax alludes to the taxes on labor and consumption. Labor results in income taxes and various pension/disability/medical withholdings and consumption taxes are self explanatory. Both of these taxes are regressive and result in justifiable resentment. Taxes on UNEARNED income however, make sense. Unearned income is from capital gains on stocks and (more importantly) real estate, interest, rent, dividends, windfall profits on natural resource extraction, etc. These sources of income should be taxed. But then modern economics departments often avoid this discussion *hint hint, they've often been hijacked by the FIRE industries*.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

particlez said:


> The traditional definition of urbanism required three prerequisites: density, public transportation, and building typology. Yet the definition of urbanism itself has been usurped and diluted to imply some vague hipster-cool aesthetic of fashionable retro architecture and sidewalks.
> 
> The 70s had the "Planned Unit Development" craze which entailed carefully selecting the choicest subplots for schools, parks, light industry, residential, utilized cul de sacs, AND had the provision for sidewalks on at least one side of the road. It was supposed to cure the ills of previous dysfunctional autocentric suburban planning. It was touted by the real estate industry and it didn't work. Now we've got New Urbanism--also touted by the real estate industry. It features sidewalks on BOTH sides of the road.
> 
> ...


Oh my goodness... urbanism is something that I am truly interested about because I am a student in the City and Regional Planning program (a.k.a. Urban Studies and Planning) right here in the Bay Area. I'm pretty disappointed though that it has been watered down to what it is today, though... probably because the focus has been geared towards suburbia to start with.

New Urbanism? Well, cities have been built with sidewalks on both sides of the roadway, and now, many suburban places (like mine) have sidewalks on both sides of the street, which is nice to begin with. I have nothing about diesel emissions, but I can think that other fuel sources can be used in combination of diesel -- is ultra-low sulfur diesel an alternative? If not, what is?

Taxation is indeed part of government. What truly matters after taxing people and businesses is how the taxpayer money is spent: if it just goes to the pockets of a few officials, then it makes no sense. I advocate for transparency and effective use of taxes, and no matter how many projects a government has, if taxes are used properly, then so many people can benefit from it.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

As a European, I can completely avoid the issue of suburbs. Whenever I get tired of city centre life (if ever, because I love it right now) and start needing a lifestyle that is more calm, silent, green etc, I will move to a medium-sized provincial city instead of a metropolis' suburb. That way I'll be able to live in a house with a garden, surrounded by similar residences, near forest/park/river etc, yet still be, say, 30 minutes walking distance (or 10 minutes by bus/tram) from a city centre that is lively and has all sorts of institutions of regional importance to keep me occupied.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

particlez said:


> Several Points:
> 
> The traditional definition of urbanism required three prerequisites: density, public transportation, and building typology. Yet the definition of urbanism itself has been usurped and diluted to imply some vague hipster-cool aesthetic of fashionable retro architecture and sidewalks.
> 
> The 70s had the "Planned Unit Development" craze which entailed carefully selecting the choicest subplots for schools, parks, light industry, residential, utilized cul de sacs, AND had the provision for sidewalks on at least one side of the road. It was supposed to cure the ills of previous dysfunctional autocentric suburban planning. It was touted by the real estate industry and it didn't work. Now we've got New Urbanism--also touted by the real estate industry. It features sidewalks on BOTH sides of the road.


It is not only about sidewalks, it is about walkable and well connected (by PT) urban mixed use neighbourhoods. The aesthetics do not have to be retro in any way for that, even though I like some neo-art deco architecture personally. It is about how well the neighbourhoods work and who pleasent they are to live in. "car friendliness", high quality of life and urban densities are very hard to bring together. The 60's concept was to simply sacrifice the "quality of life" part of the equation, or the "urban" nature of an area.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

When it comes to town planning you can't just look at what is efficient but what people like. Say what you want about suburbs, but they are always the location of choice by families. Who wants to raise a family in a small apartment on the 17th floor?


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

^^ I don't see a problem with raising a child in an apartment, be it on the 17th floor or not. I even think it's better in some ways than suburbia. First of all, a suburban home requires a lot more maintenance (and therefore time and money) than an apartment. Some people have different priorities and don't want to spend a small fortune trying to heat the house (or cool it), repair it or spend their weekend mowing the lawn. Secondly, at least in Estonia, suburban neighbourhoods have way less to offer to children in regards to the choice of schools, sporting activities etc and because the public transport is also very infrequent and slow, one of the parents ends up being a taxi driver for the children which not only takes up time and money but also takes away a lot in regards to the children learning to be independent. In the US, you have lots of children who are driven to the school, football practice, friends' houses or wherever else it might be by their parents until they're 16. I went to school on my own since I was 8 years old.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Slartibartfas said:


> It is not only about sidewalks, it is about walkable and well connected (by PT) urban mixed use neighbourhoods. The aesthetics do not have to be retro in any way for that, even though I like some neo-art deco architecture personally. It is about how well the neighbourhoods work and who pleasent they are to live in. "car friendliness", high quality of life and urban densities are very hard to bring together. The 60's concept was to simply sacrifice the "quality of life" part of the equation, or the "urban" nature of an area.


Sound arguments to me. You brought up an important point about car friendliness versus urban densities that are very hard to mix: indeed, suburb planning went downhill that planners developed subdivision after subdivision with little regard to how people can congregate together and enjoy their community without going too far by car.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

poshbakerloo said:


> When it comes to town planning you can't just look at what is efficient but what people like. Say what you want about suburbs, but they are always the location of choice by families. Who wants to raise a family in a small apartment on the 17th floor?


Here's an issue: the newly-developed subdivisions of today do not necessarily consider what potential residents would like; rather, they consider what existing residents would like to see in their city. Thus I find that as a dilemma: a home may look attractive at an attractive place to live, but once you come to the actual home, it may look startlingly or completely different that the potential buyer may or may not be interested in buying it. Plus also consider what the new residential block's or subdivision's facilities would have: would it have a common garden, swimming pool, community center, shopping mall, schools... Those are important to planners, city officials, and stakeholders.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Rebasepoiss said:


> ^^ I don't see a problem with raising a child in an apartment, be it on the 17th floor or not. I even think it's better in some ways than suburbia. First of all, a suburban home requires a lot more maintenance (and therefore time and money) than an apartment. Some people have different priorities and don't want to spend a small fortune trying to heat the house (or cool it), repair it or spend their weekend mowing the lawn. Secondly, at least in Estonia, suburban neighbourhoods have way less to offer to children in regards to the choice of schools, sporting activities etc and because the public transport is also very infrequent and slow, one of the parents ends up being a taxi driver for the children which not only takes up time and money but also takes away a lot in regards to the children learning to be independent. In the US, you have lots of children who are driven to the school, football practice, friends' houses or wherever else it might be by their parents until they're 16. I went to school on my own since I was 8 years old.


You brought up an important point also: home maintenance. If you live in suburbia, more than likely, you will live in a home with space of over say, 200 sq m. That entire space could be hard to clean, especially if you have more than one floor, have a specific type of flooring, number of rooms, and the like. What can make it more expensive to maintain would be the number of cleansers needed to upkeep the home: in my place, we have things like wood cleanser, stainless steel cleanser, tile wipes, carpet stain remover, glass cleaner, and rust remover... Too many chemicals packed in plastic canisters! I'll tell you: while I like the size of my home, I need to sacrifice the distance I need to bear to get to and from school: 80km round trip (50 miles)... Longer if something bad happens on the road.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

I have a good Idea, Demolish the entire fake, cultureless, anti social, ugly mess, and expand the inner city to replace it.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

CNB30 said:


> I have a good Idea, Demolish the entire fake, cultureless, anti social, ugly mess, and expand the inner city to replace it.


Which "mess" are you referring to?


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Which "mess" are you referring to?


The American one


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

CNB30 said:


> The American one


Oh. So how will you expand the inner city if the cities right now are created separately and far from each other... and your best way to get to and from it will be the freeway?


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Oh. So how will you expand the inner city if the cities right now are created separately and far from each other... and your best way to get to and from it will be the freeway?


Nope, light rail. actually this is already what is happening with the new urban and urban infill movement anyway. Old developments, strip malls, and so fourth are being torn down and replaced with more architecturally pleasing and urban structures.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ (May 10, 2010)

Rebasepoiss said:


> ^^ I don't see a problem with raising a child in an apartment, be it on the 17th floor or not. I even think it's better in some ways than suburbia. First of all, a suburban home requires a lot more maintenance (and therefore time and money) than an apartment. Some people have different priorities and don't want to spend a small fortune trying to heat the house (or cool it), repair it or spend their weekend mowing the lawn. Secondly, at least in Estonia, suburban neighbourhoods have way less to offer to children in regards to the choice of schools, sporting activities etc and because the public transport is also very infrequent and slow, one of the parents ends up being a taxi driver for the children which not only takes up time and money but also takes away a lot in regards to the children learning to be independent. In the US, you have lots of children who are driven to the school, football practice, friends' houses or wherever else it might be by their parents until they're 16. I went to school on my own since I was 8 years old.


+1 I grew up in an apartment on 11th floor, I turned out ok :dunno: And I enjoyed my childhood very much.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

CNB30 said:


> Nope, light rail. actually this is already what is happening with the new urban and urban infill movement anyway. Old developments, strip malls, and so fourth are being torn down and replaced with more architecturally pleasing and urban structures.


I really like the light rail idea. Can that be complemented with both buses and shuttle vans too? I like multiple options for transit myself.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

fieldsofdreams said:


> I really like the light rail idea. Can that be complemented with both buses and shuttle vans too? I like multiple options for transit myself.


sure, but the whole point is more rail and non gasoline ways to travel.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

CNB30 said:


> sure, but the whole point is more rail and non gasoline ways to travel.


Well, buses that are coming out on the market right now come with both conventional diesel and hybrid models... with my favorite being the hydrogen-powered bus.


----------



## Xpressway (Dec 2, 2006)

fieldsofdreams said:


> I think otherwise: it isolates people, it lengthens commutes, and it sometimes psychologically drains a person's creativity.


Commute in crowded cities can take very long and be extremely unconfortable.

About the creativity, many high-tech companies are located in sprawling campuses in suburbs and these places are clusters of creativity.

About the isolation of people, why would a person in the suburbs become isolated? They can drive to see friends, they attend parties, go to parent meetings, work place meetings, play in parks...


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Xpressway said:


> Commute in crowded cities can take very long and be extremely unconfortable.
> 
> About the creativity, many high-tech companies are located in sprawling campuses in suburbs and these places are clusters of creativity.
> 
> About the isolation of people, why would a person in the suburbs become isolated? They can drive to see friends, they attend parties, go to parent meetings, work place meetings, play in parks...


I think isolated would mean for someone who depends on transit to get to and from work, school, and the like. As for creativity, those sprawling campuses are mainly for those who would've gone to college or university, not for those who have only gone as far as high school. And commuting in crowded cities may indeed be uncomfortable sometimes; that's why multiple options are available.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Rebasepoiss said:


> ^^ I don't see a problem with raising a child in an apartment, be it on the 17th floor or not. I even think it's better in some ways than suburbia. First of all, a suburban home requires a lot more maintenance (and therefore time and money) than an apartment. Some people have different priorities and don't want to spend a small fortune trying to heat the house (or cool it), repair it or spend their weekend mowing the lawn. Secondly, at least in Estonia, suburban neighbourhoods have way less to offer to children in regards to the choice of schools, sporting activities etc and because the public transport is also very infrequent and slow, one of the parents ends up being a taxi driver for the children which not only takes up time and money but also takes away a lot in regards to the children learning to be independent. In the US, you have lots of children who are driven to the school, football practice, friends' houses or wherever else it might be by their parents until they're 16. I went to school on my own since I was 8 years old.


That seems more of an issue to do with income. Most families with 2 working parents who are in there 40s can easily afford a 3-4 bedroom semi/detached home. The ones that can't and are forced to live in a much cheaper apartment mostly aspire to live in the suburbs. (I'm speaking as an English person, as I don't know what the case is in every other country).

UK suburbs are interesting, as they have the sprawling design and layout, but without the motorways, and instead mostly have a high quality and dense railway network. I can get from my large detached home on my tree lines road, into Manchester city centre in 25mins on the train, only costing £4.80 return.

I work in Manchester but live way out in the suburban area in Cheshire. A lot of people who work where I work arn't very rich and live in a small terrace house or apartment, but they all talk about how 'lucky' I am to live in a large detached house, and wish they could do the same.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone talk about how they would much rather live in a small inner city apartment, other than maybe a few younger people who want it, just for the night life etc.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Xpressway said:


> Commute in crowded cities can take very long and be extremely unconfortable.
> 
> About the creativity, many high-tech companies are located in sprawling campuses in suburbs and these places are clusters of creativity.
> 
> About the isolation of people, why would a person in the suburbs become isolated? They can drive to see friends, they attend parties, go to parent meetings, work place meetings, play in parks...


The funny thing is that there is trend for tech companies to have offices in central cities like San Francisco. Tech companies were first located in suburbs because more college educated people lived in burbs than in central cities for decades, at least in the US.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

LtBk said:


> The funny thing is that there is trend for tech companies to have offices in central cities like San Francisco. Tech companies were first located in suburbs because more college educated people lived in burbs than in central cities for decades, at least in the US.


Thankfully those days of bad urban planning and social layouts have passed and many wealthy working professionals live and work downtown.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Well, buses that are coming out on the market right now come with both conventional diesel and hybrid models... with my favorite being the hydrogen-powered bus.


One of the points is for transportation to be anti automobile and anti freeway.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ (May 10, 2010)

Xpressway said:


> Commute in crowded cities can take very long and be extremely unconfortable.
> 
> About the creativity, many high-tech companies are located in sprawling campuses in suburbs and these places are clusters of creativity.
> 
> About the isolation of people, why would a person in the suburbs become isolated? They can drive to see friends, they attend parties, go to parent meetings, work place meetings, play in parks...


I think travelling on public transit triggers creativity somehow. You get to observe people's behaviors, how they are dressed, trying to get what they are thinking, what kind of a day they are having, what they are listening on earphones etc. 

Okay, that sounded kinda spooky, but it's so much fun actually!


----------



## The Cake On BBQ (May 10, 2010)

poshbakerloo said:


> That seems more of an issue to do with income. Most families with 2 working parents who are in there 40s can easily afford a 3-4 bedroom semi/detached home. The ones that can't and are forced to live in a much cheaper apartment mostly aspire to live in the suburbs. (I'm speaking as an English person, as I don't know what the case is in every other country).
> 
> UK suburbs are interesting, as they have the sprawling design and layout, but without the motorways, and instead mostly have a high quality and dense railway network. I can get from my large detached home on my tree lines road, into Manchester city centre in 25mins on the train, only costing £4.80 return.
> 
> ...


Not all apartments are small, you know. There are some pretty big apartments, and reason they are so unaffordable is because people prefer to live in detached houses in suburbia. More people move to the cities the bigger and more affordable they will become.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

LtBk said:


> The funny thing is that there is trend for tech companies to have offices in central cities like San Francisco. Tech companies were first located in suburbs because more college educated people lived in burbs than in central cities for decades, at least in the US.


Excellent point. Thus it was good practice to have tech offices in the big city too instead of concentrating them in the suburbs so that more deserving people, who may not drive or commute all the way to the sprawling suburban complexes, can accomplish their jobs in the City -- and still get full or decent pay. I believe that the bad planning in suburbia, in terms of tech sites, are dwindling down that companies realize the value of office real estate in the City where many tech companies, particularly start-up ones, are based, and I think through integration and cooperation, such companies as Twitter, Wikipedia, and Yelp can develop their networks even further and reach out to even more small companies. (As an aside, all three of those companies are based in San Francisco)


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

The Cake On BBQ said:


> Not all apartments are small, you know. There are some pretty big apartments, and reason they are so unaffordable is because people prefer to live in detached houses in suburbia. More people move to the cities the bigger and more affordable they will become.


Hm, I'd say the converse is true here. Apartments make up the majority of housing here and it is all about location as far as pricing goes. There are very large, affordable apartments out in the suburbs which are, very nice in fact, but as you get closer to the city the prices increase dramatically. 

Some examples: 

Tullinge, 21km away from Centralstation. 3 bedroom apartment 87sqm 1.395 million SEK.

Fruängen, 11,4km away from Centralstation. 3 bedroom apartment 88sqm 1.95 million SEK. 

Gröndal, 6.8km away from Centralstation. 3 bedroom apartment 93sqm 3.05 million SEK - this one is not located as close to rail transport as the others.

Kungsholmen, 2.7km away from Centralstation. 3 bedroom apartment 91sqm 4.9 million SEK.

That was the best property matching I could do on a short look through properties for sale at the moment. There are, of course, larger properties, but 3 bedrooms with bathroom, kitchen, separate living area and a dining area were the requirements for all of these properties. So in other words, standard family apartments.


----------



## Xpressway (Dec 2, 2006)

fieldsofdreams said:


> I think isolated would mean for someone who depends on transit to get to and from work, school, and the like.





The Cake On BBQ said:


> I think travelling on public transit triggers creativity somehow. You get to observe people's behaviors, how they are dressed, trying to get what they are thinking, what kind of a day they are having, what they are listening on earphones etc.
> 
> Okay, that sounded kinda spooky, but it's so much fun actually!


Most people in the public transport just mind their own business just like car drivers.



> As for creativity, those sprawling campuses are mainly for those who would've gone to college or university, not for those who have only gone as far as high school.


This is more dependant on the individual rather than the type of city/town. There's creativity in rural areas, in cities, in suburbs, everywhere.



> And commuting in crowded cities may indeed be uncomfortable sometimes; that's why multiple options are available.


Some cities grow so large and congested that commuting can take hours. My city's subway and bus lines run extremely saturated at rush hour, the last thing you mind is socializing in the public transport or thinking how many tons of CO2 you spared.



LtBk said:


> The funny thing is that there is trend for tech companies to have offices in central cities like San Francisco. Tech companies were first located in suburbs because more college educated people lived in burbs than in central cities for decades, at least in the US.


I wouldn't call the Silicon Valley "urban"... It feels more like a huge suburb with sprawling company campuses with wide avenues and not much (if any) people walking in the street.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

I never said Silicon Valley was "urban".


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Xpressway said:


> Most people in the public transport just mind their own business just like car drivers.
> 
> This is more dependant on the individual rather than the type of city/town. There's creativity in rural areas, in cities, in suburbs, everywhere.
> 
> ...


On driving versus transit: True, but you get to talk to people you might know on board the bus or train to keep you company.

On creativity: sure, that's a good proposition. Yet again, it takes time for a person to be creative on the fly, especially when you need to focus on something important. 

On transit congestion: which city do you live in, and how crowded are your bus and metro lines? And yes, congestion in public transit can be extreme that when a vehicle breaks down, other commuters and drivers might suffer from overloaded buses and trains, especially during the rush hour.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

poshbakerloo said:


> When it comes to town planning you can't just look at what is efficient but what people like. Say what you want about suburbs, but they are always the location of choice by families. Who wants to raise a family in a small apartment on the 17th floor?


You witnessed the not so recent invention of lifts, did you? In any case, your view looks a bit outdated. It was maybe true 10-20 years ago. When I look at those brand new neighbourhoods in Vienna which are built in urban densities with local infrastructure, good PT access, good walkability and in central locations I see lots of young families, young middle class families. Maybe even those who grew up themselves in suburbs and simply don't want to go back there and don't want to have their child there either. I don't think the nightlife is their prime motivation.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

In my opinion, Silicon Valley is a "region" where suburban and urban communities collide with large tech campuses in Santa Clara County. In particular, I would say that a lot of the communities in this region have mixed-use commercial and residential downtown areas, with San Jose being a still-evolving city of its own.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

*What top priority would you like to implement in suburbia to make it more livable?*

I dispute the general concept of "livability" as currently understood by the mainstream "planning community". Majority of people don't care have a mostly functional relationship with the urban (or suburban for that matter) resources they use such as infrastructure, shopping etc. The average planner overemphasizes things like "placemaking" or "fostering a sense of community", things that are irrelevant in regard of urban forms. 

*More low-income or subsidized housing to house the poor*
I think it is better, via market forces, to have poverty (say, the lower-15% income percentile) concentrated in central areas so that they can have more specific government services they need delivered more easily

*Better in-city transportation (transit, carpooling, car-sharing, biking)*
I think automated vehicles will revolutionize urban transportation, to the point where the whole fleet is automated (e.g., drives by computer, not by driver mechanical input) and thus new very light personal transit vehicles can operate (since they won't crash, or if they crash they will do so several orders of magnitude less often than normal cars of today).

*Creating meaningful, fun-filled activities and events in your neighborhood*
This is a serious misconception. Many people have "meaningful, fun-filled" activities in their lives, even if they live on a very quiet neighborhood. It can be for church involvement to a sports' club or being a hardcore fan of some musical group.

There is no need to tie entertainment with the immediate vicinity of where you live, nor to assume your neighbors must be part of your light-hearted side of your life.

*Lower taxes (and benefits) for new businesses and industries*
At least in US, the majority of employment today is already NOT on inner-city areas.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> You witnessed the not so recent invention of lifts, did you? In any case, your view looks a bit outdated. It was maybe true 10-20 years ago. When I look at those brand new neighbourhoods in Vienna which are built in urban densities with local infrastructure, good PT access, good walkability and in central locations I see lots of young families, young middle class families. Maybe even those who grew up themselves in suburbs and simply don't want to go back there and don't want to have their child there either. I don't think the nightlife is their prime motivation.



Always the problem with generalizations... there had been and there is a mixed market whose share of preferences vary according to country-specific conditions etc. Trends shift, but that doesn't mean "everybody was moving to suburbs" 20 years ago, but also doesn't imply "suburbs are dying " either.

We can't generalize... I for myself would probably postpone the idea of having a child if the only option I had was to raise a kid in a small apartment in a downtown or CBD, since I want to both provide space for the kid (a decent-sized house with private yard) but also live in place reasonably isolated so I can keep an eye later on until he/she is independent. So ideally I'd like to have a lot of money to live on a gated community, or in a ranch-style subdivision like 50-70km from a metro area. But I can't generalize that.


----------



## intensivecarebear (Feb 2, 2006)

fieldsofdreams said:


> That is so true... Many public parks nowadays are haven for the homeless and druggies, especially at night, because those areas are usually unsupervised by the police, and if those are, may have limited powers to arrest or cite them. It may sound bad to see someone carrying rubbish bags in a park looking for scrap food and drink, but sadly, that's reality.


There are a number of nice urban parks and playgrounds that I've seen cropping up in San Francisco. Almost pocket parks. Of course some urban parks are definitely seedy (Tenderloin anyone?), which I suppose is why they are often closed and locked at night. 

Washington Square park in NYC is a good example of a park that, in spite of having some drug dealing and sketchy people, is actually quite safe for parents with children because the area is always busy and lively. 

Not sure if there's a one-size-fits-all formula for safe parks, but it appears that a number of urban parks in SF and NYC in my experience are doing something right


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

intensivecarebear said:


> There are a number of nice urban parks and playgrounds that I've seen cropping up in San Francisco. Almost pocket parks. Of course some urban parks are definitely seedy (Tenderloin anyone?), which I suppose is why they are often closed and locked at night.
> 
> Washington Square park in NYC is a good example of a park that, in spite of having some drug dealing and sketchy people, is actually quite safe for parents with children because the area is always busy and lively.
> 
> Not sure if there's a one-size-fits-all formula for safe parks, but it appears that a number of urban parks in SF and NYC in my experience are doing something right


I know about the pocket parks in SF, especially in the 'Loin where such parks are fenced off. It's like, where are the limits for making parks in inner cities to begin with?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Svartmetall said:


> Many public parks? That's a bit of a broad statement and it is certainly not true the world over. Remember, your experience in one part of America is not the same as across America and certainly not across the world.


It is q broad, and true statement. The only parks I know that don't suffer these problems are one that close before dark. Like the royal parks in London


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

El_Greco said:


> Why build it in the middle of nowhere? Zoning has long been proven to be a failure. A city is supposed to be a dense and urban area where people live, work and play, it should not be treated as an office building - ie a place where people work only and which they abandon once the clock hits 5.


If not for zoning, coal-fired power plants, logistic center full of trucks/trains/boats, landfills, stadia, convention centers, slaughterhouses, incinerator plants would all be mixed with housing.

The idea of zoning was exactly to get rid of industry and other workplaces not directly oriented to serving people from the proximity of houses, to make residential areas cleaner, quieter and healthier.



intensivecarebear said:


> Yes, you wouldn't want to run into the rif-raff oh noble prince!


It could have been our department chief, my lawyer etc. It has nothing to do with social status of the other person, but the fact I like a compartimentalized life where work, play, church, entertainment, fitness all don't mix with each other.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

poshbakerloo said:


> It is q broad, and true statement. The only parks I know that don't suffer these problems are one that close before dark. Like the royal parks in London


I would say heavy footfall is important, as long as there are plenty of regular people in public parks they are fine, as soon as they become the sole domain of bored teenagers they will be prone to vandalism, anti-social behaviour etc.

I would say that the most succesful park in that respect in my town is the large, central one as lots of adults are walking and cycling along the river there well into the evenings and in summer after nightfall too for various events.

Small neighborhood parks though are often used mostly by teenagers once evening comes to just hang about in with just the occassional dog-walker to prevent them trashing the place.

But yes, i've seen examples of vandalism, graffiti, drunks, drug-dealers etc in parks in pretty much every country i've visited.

Parks are great, I use our local ones regularly, but for me they complement and add to, rather than replace, the benefits of private garden space.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> It is q broad, and true statement. The only parks I know that don't suffer these problems are one that close before dark. Like the royal parks in London


Disagree. I didn't see that in Japan, Hong Kong or here with parks. In the suburbs. I also rarely saw that (bar a select few parks) in New Zealand too. I would agree with you that Britain has a particular problem with teenagers and teenage gangs and the parks near where I lived in Northampton often felt unpleasant at night.



Jonesy55 said:


> I would say heavy footfall is important, as long as there are plenty of regular people in public parks they are fine, as soon as they become the sole domain of bored teenagers they will be prone to vandalism, anti-social behaviour etc.
> 
> I would say that the most succesful park in that respect in my town is the large, central one as lots of adults are walking and cycling along the river there well into the evenings and in summer after nightfall too for various events.


I'd definitely agree that heavy footfall and central parks are better. They are far more pleasant. 



Jonesy55 said:


> Small neighborhood parks though are often used mostly by teenagers once evening comes to just hang about in with just the occassional dog-walker to prevent them trashing the place.


Perhaps, but I don't see the same vandalised parks here that we got in England. Generally the childrens play areas are respected - IE we don't have broken swings or anything like that which is quite refreshing. 



Jonesy55 said:


> But yes, i've seen examples of vandalism, graffiti, drunks, drug-dealers etc in parks in pretty much every country i've visited.


Really? I find that hard to believe. Which countries are these?


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Svartmetall said:


> Really? I find that hard to believe. Which countries are these?


Ireland, France, Spain, Benelux, Italy, Croatia, Australia, Germany, Denmark.

None have been perfect, I've seen examples of broken bottles and other dangerous litter, graffiti, vandalised equipment or drunks hanging around etc in all those countries, though obviously not in every park in the country...


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Jonesy55 said:


> Ireland, France, Spain, Benelux, Italy, Croatia, Australia, Germany, Denmark.
> 
> None have been perfect, I've seen examples of broken bottles and other dangerous litter, graffiti, vandalised equipment or drunks hanging around etc in all those countries, though obviously not in every park in the country...


I've yet to see broken bottles or anything like that in parks here in a number of different cities or vandalised equipment and I live in one of the poorest areas. Seriously, the playgrounds here for kids are generally respected. Probably part of the ethos around caring for kids and being very kid centric here. Yes, I occasionally see people drinking in the parks here in the centre, and perhaps you'll get a few drunk people occasionally, but they're a minority. You might also get some litter in summer (which I have observed) but the authorities clean things quite quickly so it doesn't affect the overall impression of the park.

Like I said, I've encountered a lot of that kind of thing in Britain, but not as much elsewhere. Like I also said, the park near us (in fact behind our house) in the UK was a nightmare in terms of teenagers and the fact that in the 4 years we lived there the swings were never replaced. Generally the UK is awful when it comes to public spaces bar some parks in London that were generally fantastic. 

NZ was one other country where parks were kept nicely except for a few exceptions. Japan certainly didn't have vandalism or dangerous litter (or litter at all) and nor did Hong Kong or Singapore (I forgot Singapore).


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

I'm sure you're right. But Sweden, Japan, NZ, Singapore, that's pretty much the list you'll get if you ask people to name what they think are the 'world's cleanest/safest places', the vast majority of the world is not quite like that!

The parks here are generally very well maintained, money is regularly invested and damage is quickly repaired in general, the main park in particular is fantastic. The local council seems quite good compared to some others but even so there are incidents of vandalism and anti-social behaviour. 

I'm sure councils in inner city and other problematic areas also invest money but if the people the funds are aimed at just keep trashing the facilities then they can't just replace them time after time after time infinitely.

I don't think that even with the best parks in the world i'd consider private gardens obsolete.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> The majority of adult people I know (past age 20-22) would be willing to do almost any sacrifice to cater to their children. I certainly would. Moreover, if you are a taxi driver for your children, you as a parent has another enormous tool: passive control of where they are going and, to an extent, whom they are seeing. Not a total control (which would be negative), but more control than someone who is 8 and is growing in Manhattan or Canary Wharf.


The point is you don't have to "sacrifice" your time for that as they are getting their on their own perfectly fine. And unlike raising some spoilt brats with deficiences in self reliance you can teach your children some basic things from pretty early on. Like how to find your way on your own, without mum or dad, how to get home on time, on your own, without someone tearing you home... these are skills for life. It also is good for the kid's self consciousness as they don't start feeling like in a golden cage.

Of course, for those parents who don't like that and prefer the golden cage, a very isolated suburb might be a better option. 

PS: I don't think there are a lot of children being raised in Canary Warf. There however a lot of children being raised within Vienna proper, parts of it are even with detached houses etc but barely nowhere is a place there where children would have to rely on Taxi Mama instead of simply taking public transportation. 



> My parents certainly did use their ability to shuttle me around to keep an eye on me, and I certainly plan on doing the same, though I'm more and more convinced the scenario that appeals me most is to live in a disused farm not far from a medium-sized (200-500K) city, so that isolation from neighbors, their noises, their lives and their own children is almost complete in a 1km radius.


Could it be that you are slightly misanthropic? You think its nice for your children to be isolated totally from any other children unless you give them a shuttle?


----------



## CF221 (Mar 17, 2009)

I think that, in order to make suburbia more livable we first have to:

-Outlaw the current sprawl typology of the suburban landscape, instituting a simple, comprehensible urban form, such as the case of the simple grid plan or a slight derivation from it. 

-establish guidelines for creating denser neighborhoods that can still provide low rents.

-establish street hierarchies (part of the plan to re-set the urban form)

-establish marked civic spaces with main avenues connecting major urban locations. 

-provide plentiful public transportation.

-establish laws protecting natural landscapes, as well as establishing incentives to protect farmland.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

CF221 said:


> I think that, in order to make suburbia more livable we first have to:
> 
> -Outlaw the current sprawl typology of the suburban landscape, instituting a simple, comprehensible urban form, such as the case of the simple grid plan or a slight derivation from it.
> 
> ...


I actually like your ideas, especially having a simpler grid plan or a slight modification from it, because it provides a sense of hierarchy or order in a community. Plus, creating a grid layout provides shorter walking distances between two places, and that it allows a more even distribution of spaces between properties and a more uniform layout for parks, malls, and office buildings. An issue though with the grid layout is that it creates a sense of being "packed" wherein your neighbors may only be a few feet away from you, and that the shared space could mean angry neighbors if you do something wrong, like playing your music too loud or a smelly room because of cigarette smoke. Plus, with a grid system, many people seem to believe that it looks "boring" because communities composed of square or rectangular blocks mean that the city is making them feel trapped in a tight environment over suburbia's winding streets and roads that evoke a sense of freedom.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

fieldsofdreams said:


> I actually like your ideas, especially having a simpler grid plan or a slight modification from it, because it provides a sense of hierarchy or order in a community. Plus, creating a grid layout provides shorter walking distances between two places, and that it allows a more even distribution of spaces between properties and a more uniform layout for parks, malls, and office buildings.


Even distribution and uniform layout, however, are not desirable.
Sense of hierarchy AND walkability in all directions are.


fieldsofdreams said:


> An issue though with the grid layout is that it creates a sense of being "packed" wherein your neighbors may only be a few feet away from you, and that the shared space could mean angry neighbors if you do something wrong, like playing your music too loud or a smelly room because of cigarette smoke.


But these are issues with density - not organization. The same problems would happen with non-grid dense housing, and they would be avoided by a low density grid.


fieldsofdreams said:


> Plus, with a grid system, many people seem to believe that it looks "boring" because communities composed of square or rectangular blocks mean that the city is making them feel trapped in a tight environment over suburbia's winding streets and roads that evoke a sense of freedom.


IMO, streets should not be winding for the sake of being winding. The modifications of grid should be there to fit something - in nature or human environment.

However, pure grid should be avoided - if there is any reason available to modify it, it should be taken.

E. g. fan - a sense of order, but blocks are not rectangular, but trapezoidal.


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

Slartibartfas said:


> The point is you don't have to "sacrifice" your time for that as they are getting their on their own perfectly fine. And unlike raising some spoilt brats with deficiences in self reliance you can teach your children some basic things from pretty early on. Like how to find your way on your own, without mum or dad, how to get home on time, on your own, without someone tearing you home... these are skills for life. It also is good for the kid's self consciousness as they don't start feeling like in a golden cage.
> 
> Of course, for those parents who don't like that and prefer the golden cage, a very isolated suburb might be a better option.
> 
> ...


Oh please!!!!!! Why stop at teaching your children to independently know their way in and out of school, in and out of the house? Why not ask your children to start working for a living now so you don't have to worry about their educational expenses now through college?hno: 

You are short changing your child if you think you are setting a great example by not driving them to school!!! YES ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF SARCASM!!!:nuts::lol:


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

Suburbanist said:


> If not for zoning, coal-fired power plants, logistic center full of trucks/trains/boats, landfills, stadia, convention centers, slaughterhouses, incinerator plants would all be mixed with housing.
> 
> The idea of zoning was exactly to get rid of industry and other workplaces not directly oriented to serving people from the proximity of houses, to make residential areas cleaner, quieter and healthier.
> 
> ...


You forgot a couple of establishments, the red light district clubs and the xrated movie houses. Why can't we suburbanites have xrated movie houses full of pedophiles in every street corner in suburbia, so that our children can fully be street smart in just a short time.

Damn zoning!!!!hno::lol:


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

jbkayaker12 said:


> You forgot a couple of establishments, the red light district clubs and the xrated movie houses. Why can't we suburbanites have xrated movie houses full of pedophiles in every street corner in suburbia, so that our children can fully be street smart in just a short time.
> 
> Damn zoning!!!!hno::lol:


Because having adult entertainment attracts paedophiles. Talk about a leap (and a fall) in logic on that one. Porn does not equal pedophile...


----------



## photolitherland (Apr 8, 2009)

Can we just tear them all down, that would be a much better alternative.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

photolitherland said:


> Can we just tear them all down, that would be a much better alternative.


Why would you destroy suburbia when developers and residents believe it is working? And what would you replace it with?


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

It'll be interesting to see what happens to suburbia in 50-100 years, whether peak fuel will hit, the vast underinvestment in public transport, the lack of amenities etc...

There's really nothing wrong with well organised, orderly suburbs with decent sized terrace housing and/or apartments. Open green areas are always essential too. 

I imagine that just as inner cities were ghettos in the past, the outer suburbs are the ghettos of the future (as is already happening in Australia).


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

Svartmetall said:


> Because having adult entertainment attracts paedophiles. Talk about a leap (and a fall) in logic on that one. Porn does not equal pedophile...


Ok too much generalization I guess sex deviant would be appropriate.:lol:


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> Yes big office complexes without appropriate public transportation access within the city limits should be forbidden. And don't tell me that zoning laws are something groundbreaking new or scandalous. I mean the Dutch are masters of that discipline. No you are not allowed to build everything everywhere.


These 2 colleagues worked on an engineer-related field, in office positions. Netherlands has a lot of industrial parks on the edge of cities that are neatly planned and maintained. Since land is very cheap on these industrial parks, many mainly-office enterprises locate there because it is pretty much the only places in the country companies can build corporate buildings as they seem fit without going through gazillion approval and licensing and planning meetings). 

They do have, almost all of them, some for of public transportation, but it is usually erratic, limited, a circuitous bus route that takes ages to get there and stops running early in the evening. Being very large in area, you just can't service them well with public transportation without bankrupting the local systems.

Three Google MAps examples if you might want to click are here (1 2 3)

France follows a similar model as well.

So my colleagues were the typical uninformed expats: got a nice job offer, heard about the Netherlands being a country "where you don't feel a 2nd class citizen without a car", but then faced reality that many of their "gigs" their contractor assigned them to were in office parks in industrial areas where it was hard to get by public transportation, even if a service with average intervals not greater than one hour were still available. 


*Do you think industrial facilities or corporate offices that don't provide any direct service to walk-in costumers be placed in the middle of residential areas?* Of course I support zoning that separates residence from other activities that are harmful to the tranquility and cleanliness of residential areas. Or does anyone like to live near an aluminium smelter or right next an incinerator or atop a slaughterhouse?


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> *Do you think industrial facilities or corporate offices that don't provide any direct service to walk-in costumers be placed in the middle of residential areas?* Of course I support zoning that separates residence from other activities that are harmful to the tranquility and cleanliness of residential areas. Or does anyone like to live near an aluminium smelter or right next an incinerator or atop a slaughterhouse?


There should be no such thing as "residential areas", there should be towns and cities where things are mixed.

Heavy industries are one thing but workshops, offices etc. can be built in the cities.


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

I think the interesting thing with this discussion is how it's the polar opposite problem in the USA. I mean, here the suburbs are some of the most livable places on Earth. I live in Boston, and I would be hard pressed to find a better place to live anywhere on Earth than say Marblehead, Brookline, Cambridge, etc. 
I think our issue in the US is with making the inner-city a more attractive place to live, which is the hard part. This doesn't apply to Boston, as Boston is an older city that started densely populated, and has maintained itself as such.
But cities such as Detroit, Cleveland, Oklahoma City, Houston, Los Angeles, etc. need to really work on making the core an attractive place to live. Especially since some of the best cities I can imagine lie in the suburbs of these gigantic metropolises.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

fieldsofdreams said:


> I really hope that such policies will be implemented in more cities, especially in the United States, so that car dependency can decrease and that carbon emissions can be reduced. I believe that appropriate public transit access should be mandated when new cities and communities are built so that people can choose to either drive, bike, or take transit to and from their homes.


Even in Vienna which is fairly well connected by PT, there are some examples where filthy politics lead to terribly located highrise clusters, one, the Wienerberg, is a cluster of residential and office highrises with an entertainment center and connected only by bus lines. But I guess I am complaining because I am spoiled as this is the exception here not the rule and various bus lines connect to it which run at 10 min headways.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Netherlands has a lot of industrial parks on the edge of cities that are neatly planned and maintained.
> 
> They do have, almost all of them, some for of public transportation, but it is usually erratic, limited, a circuitous bus route that takes ages to get there and stops running early in the evening. Being very large in area, you just can't service them well with public transportation without bankrupting the local systems.


On the contrary, it sounds like the very opposite. I have to revise my impression of the Netherlands being well planned. If they undermine their own rules by fostering terribly connected working place clusters where non-intented uses are commonly found (offices instead of real industry complexes).

It is very well possible to have well or at least decently connected but affordable office space as standard in a city. Of course, real industry usual is found in the periphery for good reasons but also there one can do something for real and efficient PT. It is not rocket science. If the Netherlands or France totally fail at that even in bigger cities with extensive PT services, one has to say that their urban planning has some big deficiencies. 



> *Do you think industrial facilities or corporate offices that don't provide any direct service to walk-in costumers be placed in the middle of residential areas?* Of course I support zoning that separates residence from other activities that are harmful to the tranquility and cleanliness of residential areas. Or does anyone like to live near an aluminium smelter or right next an incinerator or atop a slaughterhouse?


So you support zoning for reasons that please you, but zoning for reasons that make sense for the well functioning of efficient (also in terms of resources and space consumption) transportation is a crime against the human freedoms? That argumentation is arbitrary.

PS: I am in favour of keeping dirty industries from the centre by means of zoning laws.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

What you both are ignoring is that many industrial companies, these days, have a sizable chunk of its workers doing "office" work right by its factory.

Many industries might not be "dirty" in the sense of exhaling toxic fumes or producing a lot of noise, light or other pollution, but they still attract a lot of truck traffic 24/7, have a constant flow of people and so on. 

So even when you have a career in, say, accounting or HR management, and you don't work for a big international corporation, chances are that you might end working in some nice office in an industrial park if you work for an industrial company. Regardless of the fact you never need to wear an EIP and go walk among the machines themselves!

A typical case, at least here in the Netherlands, is that of a commerce-logistics company. There are hundreds of these mid-sized imp-exp companies that take advantage of both easy transportation and tax favorable treatment. They only shuffle containers, or assemble/disassemble their content for distribution/selling all over Northern Europe. No fumes, not air emissions. But they wouldn't ever be allowed to be located within a residential area!

I don't understand this obsession against residential-, industrial-, entertainment-only area. Transportation is just one of the factors to be considered.

Let me give another example: very harsh noise laws are only possible if an area is residential only. Then, you can demand things like noise walls or tunneling of railways and highways, and other measures that provide reasonable quietness for inhabitants. If you have, say, clubs, theaters and bars in the area, then you can't have a 55dB max noise ordinance unless you want to effectively ban the bars, clubs and theaters, or have wide spacing so that you can build very expensive " noise-bunker"-style buildings. 

So if you have an entertainment/retail district with no offices or residents whatsoever, that area can have much more lax noise ordinances. Likewise, if you have an office-only (no residents) area, you can relax rules on light pollution or other ordinances because nobody will be bothered if a building is fully and brightly lit 24/7.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> What you both are ignoring is that many industrial companies, these days, have a sizable chunk of its workers doing "office" work right by its factory.
> 
> Many industries might not be "dirty" in the sense of exhaling toxic fumes or producing a lot of noise, light or other pollution, but they still attract a lot of truck traffic 24/7, have a constant flow of people and so on.


If office work has some real benefit to be close to production that makes totally sense. It really depends on the company and the details, you made it sound like that these industrial areas are abusing loopholes to evade to play by the regular rules even though they would better fit to classical offices. What you are saying now, is something totally different, its industry and I never said I consider only dirty industry as industry. It totally depends on how much traffic they cause and how much of a disturbance they are and how much space they need if they are compatible with less peripheral locations. 

Btw, labs and research can be anywhere in a city, even though preferably in some vicinity of public or private tertiary education. 

Most office work in Vienna is not located in distant industrial parks. 



> So even when you have a career in, say, accounting or HR management, and you don't work for a big international corporation, chances are that you might end working in some nice office in an industrial park if you work for an industrial company. Regardless of the fact you never need to wear an EIP and go walk among the machines themselves!


You seem to have some funny concept of work. An accountant working for a machine producer for example is of course working in the industry and as such its no surprise that he works on-site of the factory. 



> A typical case, at least here in the Netherlands, is that of a commerce-logistics company. There are hundreds of these mid-sized imp-exp companies that take advantage of both easy transportation and tax favorable treatment. They only shuffle containers, or assemble/disassemble their content for distribution/selling all over Northern Europe. No fumes, not air emissions. But they wouldn't ever be allowed to be located within a residential area!


Uhm, so what? Logistics belong to traffic hubs, not to central neighbourhoods. They should be efficiently served by PT however, especially for commuters.



> I don't understand this obsession against residential-, industrial-, entertainment-only area. Transportation is just one of the factors to be considered.
> 
> Let me give another example: very harsh noise laws are only possible if an area is residential only. Then, you can demand things like noise walls or tunneling of railways and highways, and other measures that provide reasonable quietness for inhabitants. If you have, say, clubs, theaters and bars in the area, then you can't have a 55dB max noise ordinance unless you want to effectively ban the bars, clubs and theaters, or have wide spacing so that you can build very expensive " noise-bunker"-style buildings.


Those who need absolute silence can move to the middle of nowhere if they like. Actually I know both worlds, urban and rural settings. I think living merely in the vicinity of a larger road in the suburbs is often worse than living in an urban environment. 

Oh, and we have a lively bar scene at one of the most frequented road arteries, in an urban setting. The noise is no problem at all, as traffic is as loud anyway also late at night. Just an example how you can mix intelligently. And yes, even in your utopia, highways make noise, unless you build entire tunnels, or leave a km of forrest on both sides. 



> So if you have an entertainment/retail district with no offices or residents whatsoever, that area can have much more lax noise ordinances. Likewise, if you have an office-only (no residents) area, you can relax rules on light pollution or other ordinances because nobody will be bothered if a building is fully and brightly lit 24/7.


Yes it can, and it would have the charm of a shopping centre. Bars with many apartments around work perfectly fine here.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ It then enters a third layer of problems: that a family can never be sure a not-family-friendly will not open in their very close vicinity. With residential-only areas, one can be sure when buying residential estate that no other activities will be ever present in their close proximity. 

After all, the travel and holiday store that now operates on the ground floor of a building might become an alcohol-selling facility tomorrow, and you might not want your children to stumble upon the occasional drunk in the sight lines of your apartment.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ You never can be sure of anything in the long term. The most suburbian places can turn into terrible places within some decades for all sorts of reasons. The same is true for urban places. 

I have not occasionally drinkers but alcoholics in the neighbourhood. People rather keep some distance, but they are so incredibly harmless that you should be more worried about being hit by a car on a quiet road than them. That goes for grown ups as for children. People which are danger to your children usually don't look like that and are not restricted to the centre but are also in the suburbs. 

Actually there is nothing better than your children seeing from young on, what alcohol can do to you. I am not saying you should be happy about the drunks, but if kids never see the terrible sides of this drug, they are more prone to end up like that themselves.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ You never can be sure of anything in the long term. The most suburbian places can turn into terrible places within some decades for all sorts of reasons. The same is true for urban places.
> 
> I have not occasionally drinkers but alcoholics in the neighbourhood. People rather keep some distance, but they are so incredibly harmless that you should be more worried about being hit by a car on a quiet road than them. That goes for grown ups as for children. People which are danger to your children usually don't look like that and are not restricted to the centre but are also in the suburbs.
> 
> Actually there is nothing better than your children seeing from young on, what alcohol can do to you. I am not saying you should be happy about the drunks, but if kids never see the terrible sides of this drug, they are more prone to end up like that themselves.


^^ You are right about this. Alcoholism is a serious, but sometimes unnoticed issue, in suburban places. And thanks to your segue, I would like to s
open up that issue briefly here. 

Alcoholics and drunkards may not be as prevalent in suburbia as those are in cities. However, if one lives in a well-off suburban town, like I do, there are teens and young adults who may be partying and drinking a lot, especially during the weekends wherein booze and alcohol are served freely to them, inducing them into party behavior and slowly forgetting about their studies. It is partly a result of peer pressure that adolescents drink a lot of alcohol as a way to relax from their "heavy" studying at school (same story goes for university students), but introducing them to being drunk at a younger age could lead the, to becoming alcohol-dependent once they become adults, posing greater risks of liver problems, heart problems, and even muscular dystrophy due to the toxic effects of too much alcohol in the body. I think it's great to have alcohol and party out once in a while, but once it becomes a habit, I think it's right to question one's self and think about what can possibly happen in the future.

In suburbia, there may be less opportunities to find help since such services as alcohol recovery and rehabilitation centers may be limited. But with proper advice from your family or a medical professional, one can find his or her happy medium so that he or she can enjoy his or her life to the fullest. I usually skip the bars and instead head to a restaurant to have a good time. I don't drink nor smoke, and I am pretty happy with my life so far. And I live in suburbia.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ True, you can live perfectly well without alcohol in both, suburbia and urban areas. After all it is also a lot about cultural aspects, like with all drugs. I merely wanted to point out that alcoholics in urban areas might not look nice but are not a threat, not more than sober ones usually. Its not the alcoholics but pub goers after having enough that might turn violent, but that's also largely a cultural thing. I know it is a big problem in Britain but less so in Austria.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ It then enters a third layer of problems: that a family can never be sure a not-family-friendly will not open in their very close vicinity. With residential-only areas, one can be sure when buying residential estate that no other activities will be ever present in their close proximity.
> 
> After all, the travel and holiday store that now operates on the ground floor of a building might become an alcohol-selling facility tomorrow, and you might not want your children to stumble upon the occasional drunk in the sight lines of your apartment.


Your neighbour getting drunk at a bar at the next door pub or alcohol shop is not a big danger to your children. Your neighbour driving his car to a distant bar or alcohol shop and returning through your street as a drunk driver is the bigger danger.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ That is indeed true. I think that a hidden danger of suburbia is that sometimes, you would never know what kind a driver you encounter ahead or behind you, and especially at night, it can become difficult to determine who's a safe and sober driver. Probably a reason why sobriety checkpoints are becoming common right here in my region... :|


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

I agree with Slartibartfas that being forced to drive to industrial and office is bad urban planning.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

LtBk said:


> I agree with Slartibartfas that being forced to drive to industrial and office is bad urban planning.


People are not "forced to drive". They can just take another job elsewhere if not driving, ever, is so central to their lifestyle.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

LtBk said:


> I agree with Slartibartfas that being forced to drive to industrial and office is bad urban planning.


I agree with you on this one because the curvature and development of suburbia (curved roads instead of grids with very restricted zoning) forces people to drive, even for just a mile, to do whatever they want to do. If, however, people don't drive, they face long walks to get to walk, which may be unbearable when the cold winter season comes.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

An office park or industrial park which is not adequately served by public transport is a source of nuisance of the employees driving their cars to go to work and return. And that is a nuisance which, unlike noise, smoke or explosion fragments, is not blocked by buffer forests because these employees will be driving their car all the way to home.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> People are not "forced to drive". They can just take another job elsewhere if not driving, ever, is so central to their lifestyle.


:nuts::bash:

Great, you are not forced to drive, after all you can be unemployed, so why is anyone complaining if the city is planned badly and a large amount of jobs is not sufficiently connected to PT?


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

chornedsnorkack said:


> An office park or industrial park which is not adequately served by public transport is a source of nuisance of the employees driving their cars to go to work and return. And that is a nuisance which, unlike noise, smoke or explosion fragments, is not blocked by buffer forests because these employees will be driving their car all the way to home.


That is so true, and that is also a reason why transit agencies offer commuter incentives for workers and residents in business and industrial parks so that they can leave their cars at home and commute by bus, train, or light rail.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> :nuts::bash:
> 
> Great, you are not forced to drive, after all you can be unemployed, so why is anyone complaining if the city is planned badly and a large amount of jobs is not sufficiently connected to PT?


It is not like ALL jobs are in those places. Just some.


----------



## Erthel (Apr 23, 2012)

I think the "thing" we have against suburbia is not really that we want to destroy them. For me, they just don't feel like a city, so they're like pretending to be "urban" while feeling more like rural.

I don't think we really want to destroy suburbias. We just don't like suburbial cities, no urban feel, so nothing to praise about them.

There are practical considerations about public transport, street life and such things that make urban life. Those just don't happen in suburbias.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ So how will you address the growing sprawl problem that is evident in suburban areas?


----------



## Erthel (Apr 23, 2012)

Well, people likes to live there, so I don't really see anything to address. It's just that I don't like it, neither how it looks.

I guess it will change when owning a car becomes expensive enough, but who knows.


----------



## Aaronj09 (Jan 7, 2009)

'Suburbia' here is completely different to the US or Canada.. suburbs here _are_ part of the city, but in the US and Canada, they are often large towns or smaller cities outside the city boundaries. Better transport links anyway - many metros in the world are probably useless because they do not cover the entire city like the London underground does.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Yes, that is true, and it is definitely needed. And by the way, thank you for adding another definition of suburbia in the European context. Would you mind sharing some European suburbs so that we can have a comparison to the American suburbs, please?


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

In the US, a 'suburb' is a separate town or city, outside the city limits of the main city. Eg: "Alpharetta is a suburb of Atlanta".

In the UK, a 'suburb' is a neighbourhood within a city, but not in the inner-city. Eg: "Ealing is a suburb of London".


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Bramhall is an English suburb of Manchester...


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

^ Damn, it's grim up north. 

This is a typical suburban residential road around London (Orpington):


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Ouch, they look similar to a US suburb, but those are still in the cities of Manchester and London, respectively? Dang... Looks like Boris Johnson has quite a huge city to manage indeed.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ Ouch, they look similar to a US suburb, but those are still in the cities of Manchester and London, respectively? Dang... Looks like Boris Johnson has quite a huge city to manage indeed.


I wouldn't say ouch, the work very well. And they were built for a reason, people like to live in places like that. Bramhall is within Greater Manchester

This is the photography from Google Maps of that area, you can see all the family homes and golf courses, the only thing it lacks is the big roads and expressways...But you can see the rail line that runs through the middle.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ All right, for those who really want to "destroy" suburbia, let me ask you two simple questions:
> 
> *What is with suburbia that you are against?
> 
> And if you are against suburbia, how will you improve it, if not radically transform it?*


We hate how things are fake looking, the lack of arts and culture, the loss of community, and (Being obsessed with architecture) the hideous buildings. Also, suburbs tend to be more corporate controlled rather than locally friendly, like most true urban neighborhoods. Last, with the corporate presence, and the lack of culture, and hideous 1 notch above tent city plastic houses and strip-malls, suburbia lacks a soul.

If I could change anything. I would demolish all of the mc-developments, even rip out the infrastructure, and establish a grid, on that grid, I would include, beautiful urban structures. The final result would look something like this


----------



## Pennypacker (Mar 23, 2010)

SE9 said:


> ^ Damn, it's grim up north.


How so? It looks pretty nice, the pavement doesn't look in great shape but apart from that it's fine.



SE9 said:


> This is a typical suburban residential road around London (Orpington):


Selective photo showing a street which has been recently repaved. Apart from that it looks similar to the Manchester photo, and you can find several areas all around London which look much worse.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

Pennypacker said:


> How so? It looks pretty nice, the pavement doesn't look in great shape but apart from that it's fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Selective photo showing a street which has been recently repaved. Apart from that it looks similar to the Manchester photo, and you can find several areas all around London which look much worse.


Not selective, representative. The suburbs of London are mostly affluent areas.

I could have chosen much more affluent and 'pretty' areas than Orpington too.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ Ouch, they look similar to a US suburb, but those are still in the cities of Manchester and London, respectively? Dang... Looks like Boris Johnson has quite a huge city to manage indeed.


That photo is taken approx 14 miles from the centre of London.

Don't be fooled by the photos though, they are just typical representations of what comes to mind in the UK when you think of 'suburbia'. Those areas are very different from US suburbs, they're not gated, they're probably a 1 minute walk from the nearest bus stop and near to a train station. 

Those streets are also just quiet residential ones. This is also suburban London, to demonstrate the variation:


Leaving Sandilands by Peter G Trimming, on Flickr




















Suburban London Houses by mark.hogan, on Flickr


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

SE9 said:


>



Where is this?


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

Mr Bricks said:


> Where is this?


Kingston


----------



## Erthel (Apr 23, 2012)

Usually, those kind of suburbs (detached houses) in Europe are for the affluent. Middle clases live mostly in flats in urban areas, and a lot of people just lives without a car because you can get anywhere by walk/pt


----------



## Pennypacker (Mar 23, 2010)

SE9 said:


> Not selective, representative. The suburbs of London are mostly affluent areas.
> 
> I could have chosen much more affluent and 'pretty' areas than Orpington too.


My point was that London is full of areas that look like the Manchester photo, which you described as 'grim' (perhaps tongue in cheek?)


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

Pennypacker said:


> My point was that London is full of areas that look like the Manchester photo, which you described as 'grim' (perhaps tongue in cheek?)


Yeah tongue in cheek


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

I can say after seeing some pics I am a fan of older suburban UK. Seems like the best of both worlds.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ SE9: those are the structures that I would really like to see in US suburbia indeed. Those are much more diverse and dense than a typical suburb here that I am interested in creating them in even more cities. Fortunately, such designs are typical near railway stations in my region... Moving away from them though is a different story.


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

Well hopefully population increases there will force planners to adopt such measures in the suburbs.


----------



## Aaronj09 (Jan 7, 2009)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ Yes, that is true, and it is definitely needed. And by the way, thank you for adding another definition of suburbia in the European context. Would you mind sharing some European suburbs so that we can have a comparison to the American suburbs, please?


High-density suburbia in my city











Low-density suburbia 











'Average'


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Aaronj09 said:


> High-density suburbia in my city
> 
> Low-density suburbia
> 
> 'Average'


I'd always aim for the high-density suburbia in my SimCity creations as much as possible, and it seems like those work to the best advantage since residents can walk to anywhere they want to get to go, especially to work if shops and offices are located close to residential areas. I'd go for apartments and condominiums... just that I'll need to balance those out with ample open spaces. I'll show my own samples of suburbia when I get a chance.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS (Jul 10, 2010)

Is it still suburbia if it's high density? 

Where goes the line between "the city" and "the suburbs"


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Erthel said:


> Usually, those kind of suburbs (detached houses) in Europe are for the affluent. Middle clases live mostly in flats in urban areas, and a lot of people just lives without a car because you can get anywhere by walk/pt


It depends where in Europe you are talking about, different countries in Europe have very different patterns and traditions of housing.

But yes, I agree with Aaron09, I sometimes think we are talking about very different things when discussing 'suburbs' on threads like this. Most places that people consider to be suburbs here are not the very low density, completely autocentric communities very far and in different tax jurisdictions from central districts that North Americans seem to associate with the term.

They do exist of course but here 'suburb' tends to mean any neighbourhood that is primarily residential in nature rather than with a high proportion of mixed use, office, retail, civic etc buildings, and as those pics show that can also include pretty high density which can often have nearby bus and train connections, walkable local retail etc plus decent levels of greenery, parks and with houses also having small private gardens. 

Not in all cases of course, in the worst cases you can get the worst of both worlds, relatively small housing with little or no outdoor greenery, poor transport links and few local walkable facilities, it ready depends on the specific dynamics of the neighbourhood.


----------



## The Cake On BBQ (May 10, 2010)

here's a cool graphic from DLM:


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> Is it still suburbia if it's high density?
> 
> Where goes the line between "the city" and "the suburbs"


You've brought up a very good question indeed. :applause:

I would say the line between suburbia and the city depends with city and regional governments. Even city and town planners have their own definitions too at where the line lies between the city and suburbs.

In my opinion, a city does not necessarily end with the downtown core; rather, it would be extended as far as the urbanized area of the city in question. Governance-wise, though, may be treated differently: a city that calls itself a suburb may have a lot of commercial areas, but usually, those would be concentrated around a downtown area with low-rise structures or a large shopping center with shops and grocery stores concentrated in a huge anchor store. In other instances, a suburb may not necessarily consist of rows upon rows of houses; rather, small apartments rule the streets and main roads around town. It depends on how a planner and government officials classify them.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Before the new urban movement, you could say the city ended where the city's edge was before the great depression, and anything further out was suburbs, now though, its not that simple.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I think a lot of people here are thinking of American style suburbs, which I do actually think work anyway as its a different culture there and the roads can handle the traffic. But in the UK pretty much all cities are spawling. Even London. All of north London is suburban. But its different to the US as rather then motorway (Except North Circular Road) it has rail transport. People leave there 4 bed room detached family home, and get to the city centre on a train. Same suburbs, but with different transport and it work differently, but just as well. 

Rail transport has only just become more desirable due to decent developments in climate change/environment and high fuel prices. If it wasn't that then the private car would still be the best.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

fieldsofdreams said:


> What is with suburbia that you are against?


This -



poshbakerloo said:


>


In other words sprawl. Its ugly and its polluting. If you hate living in a city move to a village instead of trying to turn city into one. High-density mid-rises and high-rises is the answer.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

That wouldn't be possible as there aren't enough homes in villages for all those suburb dwellers to move to.....


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

El_Greco said:


> This -
> 
> 
> 
> In other words sprawl. Its ugly and its polluting. If you hate living in a city move to a village instead of trying to turn city into one. High-density mid-rises and high-rises is the answer.


All those houses are occupied, clearly they are not going to ever want to move to a high density tower block city. And its really not ugly, the houses are all nicely designed homes on tree lined streets, what there not to like? And its all served by a dense suburban rail network, whats the problem?


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Jonesy55 said:


> That wouldn't be possible as there aren't enough homes in villages for all those suburb dwellers to move to.....


Then people need to make peace with urban living.



poshbakerloo said:


> whats the problem?


The waste of space, the sprawl, the pollution that comes with it, the inefficient planning, the ugly identi-kit houses?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

El_Greco said:


> Then people need to make peace with urban living.
> 
> 
> 
> The waste of space, the sprawl, the pollution that comes with it, the inefficient planning, the ugly identi-kit houses?


Its not a waste whilst ever people are living there happily, a cities pollution is always higher in the centre than the leafy suburbs and the houses ugly? Thats just personal taste, there are plenty of nice detached homes.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Of course it is a waste. A dense mid/high-rise neighbourhood can house far more people than a suburbia of the same size. And if you are not aware the population of the World is increasing and ever more people are living in cities. More suburbs is not an option.


----------



## Erthel (Apr 23, 2012)

poshbakerloo said:


> Its not a waste whilst ever people are living there happily, a cities pollution is always higher in the centre than the leafy suburbs and the houses ugly? Thats just personal taste, there are plenty of nice detached homes.


I doubt city pollution _per capita_ is worse at city center than suburbs. I agree that living in one place or another is a matter of taste.

But, again, what I love of cities are the mixed use, populated streets with always something going on here and there. 

I think the boundaries between "suburb" and "urban" lay on the end of mixed use, and when sprawls of mostly sleeping daylight-inactive houses start.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

Jonesy55 said:


> That wouldn't be possible as there aren't enough homes in villages for all those suburb dwellers to move to.....


Its called new urbanism


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I'm all for high density development, in inner city areas, but it works best if the density gradually reduces as you leave the city, like a natural end to the city, rather then big tower blocks then suddenly grassy fields. low density suburbs are the middle stage, and work well as that.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

El_Greco said:


> Of course it is a waste. A dense mid/high-rise neighbourhood can house far more people than a suburbia of the same size. And if you are not aware the population of the World is increasing and ever more people are living in cities. More suburbs is not an option.


True, but there's a trade off to that: how will you bring in the hundreds, if not thousands, of residents to and from the city center or to job sites? You would also need to consider the road geometry and natural characteristics surrounding the area and see what options are available to you to bring the workers between the apartment complexes and the city (or in this case, job centers).

What I could suggest for your "waste" problem is this:

- Redevelop suburbia areas that look like sprawl to become more high-density neighborhoods by creating a layout that incorporates both apartment blocks and open spaces

- Encourage planners to create town centers around the apartment blocks by inviting in local and national business owners to invest in such communities. Also a good idea: develop mixed-use buildings near the apartment towers so that people can choose to live on top of shops (and essentially closer to town) or in apartment blocks that are a short distance from the center.

- Car-sharing, biking, walking: put them all in the picture. Widen sidewalks and allow bike lanes on existing roads. Create initiatives for people to use alternate modes of transport so that they can use them more often.

- Create a good set of schools located close to the apartment blocks, with a balance of private and public-run institutions, so that families can have choices on how to educate themselves and their children. If possible, send in great teachers to motivate students.

The list can go on, but those are my ideas for a start.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

El_Greco said:


> Of course it is a waste. A dense mid/high-rise neighbourhood can house far more people than a suburbia of the same size. And if you are not aware the population of the World is increasing and ever more people are living in cities. More suburbs is not an option.


Pretty much everything we do is a waste, ie not strictly necessary for our existence, we chose to pollute by flying away on holiday when we could just stay at home, we choose to eat foods that have come from all corners of the earth when we could grow our own, we choose to buy all sorts of consumer products when we could choose not to.

I don't think that a dogmatic approach saying that everybody MUST live in one certain type of housing our be banished from civilisation is either realistic or desirable. There is room for a variety of different patterns of housing within urban areas.

The aesthetic argument that 'suburban houses are ugly' is just subjective preference, I agree that many are, some are not, and there are many ugly apartment buildings too.

The worst excesses of suburban sprawl can be mitigated by ensuring that plot sizes are not huge, that there is a mix of housing types, that rail and bus links are built in to suburban developments, that employment and local retail are also included and that neighbourhoods are designed with walking/cycling facilitated.

If those things are done there is no need to dictate that everybody must live in mid-high rise apartments even if they don't want to or else get out of the city to live in the mountains.


----------



## Erthel (Apr 23, 2012)

fieldsofdreams said:


> True, but there's a trade off to that: how will you bring in the hundreds, if not thousands, of residents to and from the city center or to job sites? You would also need to consider the road geometry and natural characteristics surrounding the area and see what options are available to you to bring the workers between the apartment complexes and the city (or in this case, job centers).
> 
> What I could suggest for your "waste" problem is this:
> 
> ...


Sounds like you are still on the comercial/industrial/residential mentality. In mixed urban areas, the most like in Europe, people doesnt need to move a lot, as people resides and works in the same areas. Actually, there was a study around (should check it) stating that most moves in cities are inside a 2km radius, pretty walkable. For the rest we have public transport.

In fact, most moves come from city center towards industrial areas, wich usually lay outside of towns, and not the opposite.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Jonesy55 said:


> Pretty much everything we do is a waste, ie not strictly necessary for our existence, we chose to pollute by flying away on holiday when we could just stay at home, we choose to eat foods that have come from all corners of the earth when we could grow our own, we choose to buy all sorts of consumer products when we could choose not to.


But we are looking for more efficient and cleaner ways of doing the things you mention, whilst suburbs just keep growing. More and more sprawl. With ever increasing population, more unstable weather and projected jump in food prices suburb is simply no longer a good idea. People need to make peace with high-rise living. Look at that satellite photo Bakerloo posted - that is a terrible waste of precious land which could be utilised far better. Better transport links wouldnt solve much, for instance - sprawl requires equally sprawly infrastructure and that means more money for maintaining it.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ I am totally for mixed-use development and planning. However, the problem is that city governments, particularly in the United States, are not yet fully into the mixed-use development world that it needs a lot of convincing from city planners like me to make it happen. Plus, there will always be neighbors who will oppose mixed-use development because of noise and light pollution that come with shops, restaurants, and entertainment facilities located on top of apartments.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I personally think the idea of having some high class apartment on the 70th floor of the Trump World Tower pretty cool! But the thought of living in some 'middle class tenement' seems like hell. I would much rather have my own home, detached from next door so I can throw wild parties and not disturb them and have my own garden that I can look after and make look nice, and take nice walks around the tree lined streets.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

There's plenty of tree-lined streets in Paris, Barcelona and other dense cities. And if your neighbours in suburbia throw a party you can still hear them. :dunno:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I just think that suburbia offers more freedom and privacy than living on a shared corridor.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

To simplify my opinion on suburbia, I take one look at it, and think KILL IT BEFORE IT LAYS EGGS!!!


----------



## endymar (Sep 19, 2010)

poshbakerloo said:


> I just think that suburbia offers more freedom and privacy than living on a shared corridor.


I have never considered the dominance of chain stores/restaurants and lack of good looking models to hit on to be freedom.


----------



## CNB30 (Jun 4, 2012)

endymar said:


> I have never considered the dominance of chain stores/restaurants and lack of good looking models to hit on to be freedom.


Well said, there is much more freedom in cities in general.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

poshbakerloo said:


> I just think that suburbia offers more freedom and privacy than living on a shared corridor.


More freedom on what?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

poshbakerloo said:


> I just think that suburbia offers more freedom and privacy than living on a shared corridor.


Does it? I only know rural and urban life styles, and the latter offers certainly more privacy. But possibly suburbia combines the disadvantages of country side and urbanity. Lack of calm nature _and_ little closeby infrastructure. No social network of rural areas _and_ offering none of the bustling life of urban areas.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> Does it? I only know rural and urban life styles, and the latter offers certainly more privacy. But possibly suburbia combines the disadvantages of country side and urbanity. Lack of calm nature _and_ little closeby infrastructure. No social network of rural areas _and_ offering none of the bustling life of urban areas.


Suburbia really is not that cut off. I live in the outer suburbs of a city (Manchester). I commute for 20mins on the train each day, into the city centre, and it works out fine. I have 4 super markets within 10mins drive of my house and a smaller convenience store just 5mins walk.

My high school was a bit further but we used the school bus. 

Suburbia worked out fine for me, and now I'm looking for my own home. In the suburbs. I looked at inner Manchester city apartments but they are all expensive for the small space you get. I have a friend in the city, he has a 'kitchen, diner, lounge' all in one room! His entire apartment is 4 rooms!


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

endymar said:


> I have never considered the dominance of chain stores/restaurants and lack of good looking models to hit on to be freedom.


Well, things to consider on how a suburb can improve include:

- how far a community is from a major commercial center or a main highway
- current city or town policies on development
- current tax rates imposed when running a business
- overall infrastructure

*The portion below applies only to US communities. Your case may be similar or different, depending on various circumstances.*

If a town is to consider building a Walmart, then it risks losing tons of locally-owned businesses in its downtown core because wage rates go down (note: Walmart is anti-union). If a town is to consider building a similar big-box chain like Home Depot, Target, Lowe's, or K-Mart, then the results could depend on a variety of factors, including current competition, site location, accessibility, and others. If a town is to build a mall, then it could run into issues of losing business downtown (but not as severe as Walmart) because more people would appreciate the "one-stop-shop" feel a mall provides; for it to be effective, though, would not only require tons of parking, but massive investments in making it more attractive to shoppers, shop owners, and other stakeholders.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

LtBk said:


> More freedom on what?


Suburbs offer more freedom in terms of space, natural beauty, and privacy. The costs, though, include long and tedious commutes (I commute 25 miles (40km) one way to get to university), less-than-attractive downtown areas (in many cases), and "all the silence can get a bit too silent for me sometimes".


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

poshbakerloo said:


> I have a friend in the city, he has a 'kitchen, diner, lounge' all in one room! His entire apartment is 4 rooms!


Lounge and kitchen in the same room isnt something unique and theres nothing wrong with that. Still. Tell me what will you do exactly with all that extra space? Hoard stuff?



fieldsofdreams said:


> Suburbs offer more freedom in terms of space, natural beauty, and privacy.


Privacy? The whole area can see you if you come out into your garden, nobody can see you in your apartment. And you will bump into neighbours no matter where you live.

And space? Honestly what is this obsession with space? As long as you can move about easily you dont need shitloads of space. Its like saying you need an SUV when you can get about just fine in a Mini.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

I never understood why people seem to be so obsessed with having enormous homes.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Different people have different circumstances, different preferences and different interests. That's life, trying to force them all into one uniform housing pattern whether they want that or not isn't going to make them happier imo, there's room for diversity.


----------



## endymar (Sep 19, 2010)

Mr Bricks said:


> I never understood why people seem to be so obsessed with having enormous homes.


Depends what people.

Aristocrats had big homes for display as work of art and were decorated with other pieces of art.

In today's peasant minded democratic societies the peasants have become bourgeoisie and imagine they will be like the aristocrats. So they need some sort of fortress, a holy tower to hide their mediocrity and anti-social mindset. Of course take away the "art" and what you got is a big pile of shit, very necessary to protect their extremely special privacy.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

poshbakerloo said:


> Suburbia really is not that cut off. I live in the outer suburbs of a city (Manchester). I commute for 20mins on the train each day, into the city centre, and it works out fine. I have 4 super markets within 10mins *drive* of my house and a smaller convenience store just 5mins walk.


The emphasis I added to your quote pretty much says it all. You got me wrong if you think was saying that there is absolutely nothing in suburbs. Its not, its just that its not accessible without your car. On the other side, especially in America, while lack the infrastructure of an urban area, you also lack the direct access to calm nature, one of the main advantages of rural areas. 

Of course suburbia works out for people, somehow. I merely say that from my perspective, suburbia just combines the disadvantages from both worlds (rural and urban) in a unique way. As long as I can help myself, I'd stay clear from living there. That's just a personal opinion. I'd rather move back to some rural area (not that I would plan to do so)

People from the suburbs often show shockingly little appreciation for location. Square meters seem to be the all determining factor. But in the city, you do not only pay for square meter, you pay for a whole wealth of easily accessible infrastructure. And even if some can't imagine that but there are a lot of people who love to pay for a better location instead of 30 square meter more that they don't need. Of course, others prefer the other way round, they might feel at home in suburbs indeed.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Salford has suburban homes in the centre haha, not very nice ones but they are there.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

LtBk said:


> I live near a city that has a lot of single-family detached homes in "newer" portions of the city.


You mean "newer" as the resurrected areas of the city where industrial areas once stood, or is it something else? It seems like gentrification should come to suburbia soon...


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

I'm referring to portions of the city that used to be part of what we consider to be suburbia before Baltimore annexed them in late 1800's-early 1900's.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

poshbakerloo said:


> Salford has suburban homes in the centre haha, not very nice ones but they are there.


But Salford centre is really just an inner city residential area a couple of kms from Manchester city centre. I know it's officially a city in it's own right but in reality the urban form isn't much different to heading out of Manchester city centre for a couple of kms in the other direction.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Since this thread has been inactive for some time, I will post a new question:

*What do you think will be the future of suburbia? And if you were to redo them again, how would you build it?*


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

I think it's just suburbs maturing to the point where they are just another part of the greater metropolis. Up until recently, suburbs were uniformly new and all the things that go along with that. Now there are post-war suburbs that are decades old, and they are only going to get older. Naturally there will now be divergence where some will either become rundown while others will be gentrified.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Hmmm interesting. I wanna ask if Levittown is one of those older suburbs that might be gentrified soon because it's pretty close to Philadelphia and New York City...


----------



## BruinsFan (Apr 18, 2012)

I live in suburbia so I can tell you what suburbia should really do too improve itself.

*What top priority would you like to implement in suburbia to make it more livable?*
I feel that suburbia is more livable than cities in many ways. The suburbs do not have anywhere near the crime problem that urban areas have, and the public schools are miles ahead of city public schools. Suburban areas are far better to raise a family than in cities. The dropout rate in cities is of course much higher than suburban public schools. The suburbs also are home to beautiful nature; with biking trails, and wooded areas protected and prevelant. In small towns, you can safely roam the streets at night without having to look behind your back. You also know everyone as well. The suburbs deffinetly have a drug issue (Mostly prescription pills, and marijuana), but it's not as close to an issue as in the inner cities (inner cities have more hardcore drugs there). Public safety is easily accesible since they have less people to look over, so you can expect fast response times in an emergency. If there is a problem area, the police can easily focus on that area and fix the issue fast since they really don't have any problems on a typical day. But, suburban areas do have their fair share of issues. Proprety taxes are much higher in the suburbs than in urban areas, residents in the suburbs have a "NIMBY" attitude, and the public transportation; in lack of a better term; sucks. To fix the, in my opinion, small issues (except for public transportation, that's not a small issue) I believe we need to teach the residents of Suburbia that development is not a bad thing! Of course, we can't just go around demolishing woods after woods to build 3 homes (thats typical in the suburbs), but instead focus on more commercial development. Many suburbs have been growing very fast, as professionals that work in the city usually live in the suburbs. Too keep up with that growth, I believe that suburbia should be looking into building more apartments, and condos instead of just a few houses. I'm not really knowledgable on types of architecture, but when building apartments, suburbs should stay away from the current look in cities (stay away from this look: http://media.mlspin.com/photo.aspx?mls=71091687) and instead focus on more suburban terms of architecture. Adding more apartments and condos can help raise the tax base in the suburbs and therefore could mean lower taxes for residents. Removing the NIMBY attitude in the city would help stop the insane amounts of disapprovals of projects that could deffinetly help the economy and well being of their town and it's residents. Trying to build downtowns in suburbs (which some suburbs have done) where their are many mom and pop stores and restaurants would also do wonders.


*
More low-income or subsidized housing to house the poor*

We do have subsidized housing in the suburbs. I actually enjoy how the subsidized housing in towns focus more on the elderly and disabled than the "poor". Many projects are hotbeds for crime, and can lead to "urban decay", and can bring the school system to shambles. No thanks to Section 8 housing unless it houses the disabled, and elderly. Besides, cities are better for section 8 housing than towns because they have the infastructure to support those people.


*Better in-city transportation (transit, carpooling, car-sharing, biking)*
This is the main problem in the suburbs in my opinion. As I mentioned I live in suburbia, and I love riding my bicycle. Even though many streets in my town and neighboring towns have bike lanes, or bike paths, many streets are dangerous to ride bicycles on. The local shopping mall doesn't even have a bike rack. When building new roads, suburbia needs to focus on more transportation options that may be using the road, other than just the automobile. Encouraging people to jog, walk, run, or bike to places by building safer roads, or more bicycle paths would do wonders in that. Setting up more "park and rides" in the suburbs would help encourage car pooling. Again, getting rid of the NIMBY attitude would mean that we could bring in better transit options into the suburbs.



*Creating meaningful, fun-filled activities and events in your neighborhood*
Suburbs are home to many movie theaters, stores, and homes to make every family gathering fun.

Lower taxes (and benefits) for new businesses and industries
See above


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

BruinsFan said:


> suburbs do not have anywhere near the crime problem that urban areas have


Maybe in America, but in the rest of the World and especially Europe this isn't the case. That's because Europe did not experience suburbanisation on the same scale that America has and because European city centres are often mixed-income places.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Hmmm... Perhaps you can describe the dangers of European suburbia and we will examine them together as we come into the first hours of 2013 (well, 2012 still in my case).


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Well read up on places like Peckham or Dagenham, suburbs of Paris and Naples.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Is Croydon included too in the reading set?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

If anyone is interested in seeing suburban sprawl, that works...Look up Metro-Land London.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Hmmm... I hear some strange stories from Croydon as I get to listen from both BBC Radio 2 and 4, as well as LBC 97.3... With knife crimes being a norm. I thought the light rail service somehow makes the place safe to visit... Perhaps not. hno:

@BruinsFan: I hear you on all accounts. I would really put those on the table for a good discussion later on for American suburbs.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ Hmmm... I hear some strange stories from Croydon as I get to listen from both BBC Radio 2 and 4, as well as LBC 97.3... With knife crimes being a norm. I thought the light rail service somehow makes the place safe to visit... Perhaps not. hno:
> 
> @BruinsFan: I hear you on all accounts. I would really put those on the table for a good discussion later on for American suburbs.


Well Croydon is considered a suburb, but it is also its own centre with big apartment blocks and council estates. Metro Land in the north west was always for the middle classes and has been very successful.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Very interesting.

So I want to ask: what suburbs in London are safe to live (similar to the US), and which are risky to be in? Plus, if there are unsafe areas like Dagenham, how would you address their issues if you were a planner for the area?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ Is Croydon included too in the reading set?


As everyone can see, suburbs can be everything from hyper safe places to life threatening gang hell holes, even without any commie blocks present, although they help getting the latter, with a healthy dose of neglect from municipal authorities. 

The same is true for inner cities, they can feature also the whole range, depending on who is living there, how run down or dead they are (or not). 

I think Americans are mistaking their prevelant scheme "suburbs: rich and safe, downtowns: office ghetto or poor and unsafe" for a rule. While things can be totally different and it does not really depend all that much on the question of urban style but on the question how many poor people you have and how much you concentrate them in one area. Both factors are multiplying misery and (sub-)urban decay.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Slartibartfas said:


> but on the question how many poor people you have and how much you concentrate them in one area.


Absolutely. Mixed income communities have proved to be safe and pleasant places to live.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

El_Greco said:


> Absolutely. Mixed income communities have proved to be safe and pleasant places to live.


I haven't heard of that concept before. What methods can be done to achieve mixed-income communities, if it involves more than just government policies?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

El_Greco said:


> Absolutely. Mixed income communities have proved to be safe and pleasant places to live.


Living in an area with people with lower income than yours is not necessarily better or worse than living in an area with people with similar income of yours.

I do not oppose mixed-income neighborhoods for being mixed, but I despise the policies usually enacted to achieve that (such as rent control, cross-subsidization on new developments etc).


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Suburbanist said:


> Living in an area with people with lower income than yours is not necessarily better or worse than living in an area with people with similar income of yours.
> 
> I do not oppose mixed-income neighborhoods for being mixed, but I despise the policies usually enacted to achieve that (such as rent control, cross-subsidization on new developments etc).


Hmmm... rent control seems to be a big issue, especially when dealing with families living below the poverty line. I think a more sliding-scale in rent prices would work better than rent control: that way, families can pay more if they have more money to pay, while the poor can pay whatever they can afford to prioritize on food. Watch out, though, for abuse in that system.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

fieldsofdreams said:


> I haven't heard of that concept before. What methods can be done to achieve mixed-income communities, if it involves more than just government policies?


In Helsinki all new development have to be socially mixed. This prevents ghettoization and makes the city more successful on multiple levels. Usually this is achieved by building owner-occupied apartment buildings, rental apartments, semi owner-occupied apartments and student housing in the same place. Some apartments owned by the city are sold below market prices to low-income individuals. Rent control was abolished during the 1990s, however, some groups (e.g. students) are often not paying market prices.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> Living in an area with people with lower income than yours is not necessarily better or worse than living in an area with people with similar income of yours.


True. But mixed income communities are better for wider society than ghettoes.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

fieldsofdreams said:


> I haven't heard of that concept before. What methods can be done to achieve mixed-income communities, if it involves more than just government policies?


This is actually one of the biggest aims of city planning in Vienna. I think it is largely achieved by building code regulations and subsidizing affordable apartments in newly developed areas. It is not the government that is building, but if a developer adds a certain percentage of affordable homes to his project and meets certain cost efficiency criteria (while building sufficiently energy efficient homes) he gets certain subsidies for that. 

As the quality of flats even within one building vary this is attractive for developers as well. Penthouses for example are usually the most expensive and will attract better earning people, while roadside or shadowy flats are less attractive and might be built as subsidized affordable flats. 

The city is not interested in building poor ghettos, so it will adapt its subsidy policies on the target of getting mixed neighbourhoods. The whole concept does not work perfectly but well enough. And the money spent for subsidizing affordable living space is less than what would be needed for building commie block ghettos. The savings in the long run by preventing urban decay and crime are making this an good approach as well.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ That is a very interesting development. Never heard of that before. So, what do you think are the estimated prices for such homes in apartment buildings (like penthouse, roadside rooms, etc.)? And do those come with ample amounts of open space too, either at the rear or the top of the building?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Hmmm... rent control seems to be a big issue, especially when dealing with families living below the poverty line. I think a more sliding-scale in rent prices would work better than rent control: that way, families can pay more if they have more money to pay, while the poor can pay whatever they can afford to prioritize on food. Watch out, though, for abuse in that system.


Rent controls don't work.

People who want permanency in their places of residence should buy their properties, simple as that. I don't think long-term renting should be a major concern of housing policy, except renting social housing for the poor in building-specific (low income only) buildings. 

Renting might be a strategic option for a person for a variety of reasons (it is mine at the moment, for instance), but not a public policy to achieve certain demographic balance.

If a low income area gets the service it needs, over time the process will "weed out" those who can, given appropriate resources (education etc) lift themselves out of poverty and those who are hopelessly stuck in debt/substances/problematic life/mental illness.

Here, notice, I'm not talking of working class people. I'm talking of the context of very low income people living on develop countries, where there is huge overrepresentation of addicts, junkies, people with mental issues etc., which in turn make them unstable on jobs, education or even getting social services available to them. 

Most (though not all) social problems on the very low income segment are not created by economic causes (lack of income, unemployment), but actually by other factors that pushed them down in economic terms (which are then more symptoms than causes).

I think it is not fair to consider these people some sort of "shared burden" to others _as per government policy_, in the sense of having every neighborhood get a bit of people who will be perennially problematic instead of concentrating them just in one big housing project (from where people who have low incomes but no other issues will work themselves hard to get out ASAP).

Notice: I'm all for _helping_ them, giving their kids education (if the parents are beyond any hope) so they don't follow the same path, providing routes of escape of poverty for those willing to better themselves off, offering rehab programs, mental health services etc. I am not advocating abandoning them to their own fate. I just don't think it makes sense to oblige neighbors to be effective caretakers of them, which is what happens when you have them scattered by means of public policy among neighborhoods they could otherwise not afford to live in.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Here you go with your ghetto ideas, when reality has shown time and time again, that ghettoization is a multiplicator of existing problems and as such about the worst one could do.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ That is a very interesting development. Never heard of that before. So, what do you think are the estimated prices for such homes in apartment buildings (like penthouse, roadside rooms, etc.)? And do those come with ample amounts of open space too, either at the rear or the top of the building?


Depends on a lot of factors I guess. I don't have numbers on one specific object. You also have to consider that there are different forms of subsidies. Mixing might also be vertically or with different projects next to each other. 

Of course rents also depend also a lot on the location. For one of the projects at teh new Hauptbahnhof area I found numbers from 7 to 8 € per square meter for the same flats, depending on the income of the person.

What do you mean with open space?


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Slartibartfas said:


> Depends on a lot of factors I guess. I don't have numbers on one specific object. You also have to consider that there are different forms of subsidies. Mixing might also be vertically or with different projects next to each other.
> 
> Of course rents also depend also a lot on the location. For one of the projects at teh new Hauptbahnhof area I found numbers from 7 to 8 € per square meter for the same flats, depending on the income of the person.
> 
> What do you mean with open space?


Open space being like a backyard or garden or simply a space where children can play and families can have a barbecue or just chill on a warm day.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Open space being like a backyard or garden or simply a space where children can play and families can have a barbecue or just chill on a warm day.


Gardens or backyards are usually only available in more suburban developments. I actually don't like it when in more central locations they start to put fences around lots of tiny pieces of green, making a courtyard look like Alcatraz, like it is done in some cases.

The central city developments are currently underway on the Hauptbahnhof area and former Nordbahnhof area. In both cases a considerable part of the area has been dedicated for a central neighbourhood park. One of those exists already and IMHO the quality is very high, serving not only to families with children but also elderly, young adults, skaters etc. Additionally courtyards are commonly designed to offer greenery and playgrounds as well. Infill developments across the central districts it depends on the possibilities, but if possible the same applies there.

While many flats do not private gardens, most have some sort of balcony nowadays.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ I understand what you mean. But, don't you think that balconies may not be sufficient enough as open space when dealing with a lot of people, especially when visitors come in, or when there are so many residents in an apartment to begin with? I mean, balconies are a fine addition, but not all residents would use it to their fullest advantage...


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ I understand what you mean. But, don't you think that balconies may not be sufficient enough as open space when dealing with a lot of people, especially when visitors come in, or when there are so many residents in an apartment to begin with? I mean, balconies are a fine addition, but not all residents would use it to their fullest advantage...


I have been to apartments that have some pretty large roof terrace style balconies, but they are the really high end expensive apartments. And they are still basically a tiled floor with some pot plants and a hot tub, so not really suitable for children to play out, and there is always the risk of children climbing on the balcony edges and falling, which was always my mum's worry when we lived in Moscow.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Oh really? Hmmm... Very interesting. It must be pretty difficult to find a decent home in Moscow's suburbs because the home doesn't seem to make your children safe. And were there any open spaces close by (like a park) for the children to play instead of the tiled balcony?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ Oh really? Hmmm... Very interesting. It must be pretty difficult to find a decent home in Moscow's suburbs because the home doesn't seem to make your children safe. And were there any open spaces close by (like a park) for the children to play instead of the tiled balcony?


There are parks, but if you have young children you can't let them go alone, where ever you are. A trip to the park means a parent has to stop what they are doing and go out with them.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ I understand what you mean. But, don't you think that balconies may not be sufficient enough as open space when dealing with a lot of people, especially when visitors come in, or when there are so many residents in an apartment to begin with? I mean, balconies are a fine addition, but not all residents would use it to their fullest advantage...


Balconies or terraces (private ones that is) are nowadays standard in newly built Viennese flats and in my experience they are also used by people. If you have visitors, new blocks feature nice community rooms, usually with a small kitchen attached that one can use for these occasions where you could organize even large get togethers (not short of what you could host in your McMansion in suburbia). If you want to hang out with a larger group in the green, simply head to a nearby park or if it fits you better in the courtyard. Many courtyards have park like qualities anyway.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

poshbakerloo said:


> There are parks, but if you have young children you can't let them go alone, where ever you are. A trip to the park means a parent has to stop what they are doing and go out with them.


You are not alone. Young parents use to connect with each other nowadays and everyone meets each other at the local playground anyway, at least that is the impression I've got in my hood. I doubt that it is unheard of that they might help each other with oversight.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> Balconies or terraces (private ones that is) are nowadays standard in newly built Viennese flats and in my experience they are also used by people. If you have visitors, new blocks feature nice community rooms, usually with a small kitchen attached that one can use for these occasions where you could organize even large get togethers (not short of what you could host in your McMansion in suburbia). If you want to hang out with a larger group in the green, simply head to a nearby park or if it fits you better in the courtyard. Many courtyards have park like qualities anyway.


Why do you assume the option to a flat in a medium-rise is necessarily a "McMansion"?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Why do you assume the option to a flat in a medium-rise is necessarily a "McMansion"?


I think you misunderstood me.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Suburbanist said:


> Why do you assume the option to a flat in a medium-rise is necessarily a "McMansion"?


Perhaps it's because the cost of maintaining the place -- from upkeep to cleaning -- may be prohibitively expensive that it can be compared to maintaining a "McMansion". In the Bay Area, we have quite a bit of McMansions with superb views of the San Francisco Bay -- and those are really, really expensive (think of anything over $10,000,000 for a small mansion, if not more). In addition, maintaining a flat in a medium-rise could also mean paying a lot of taxes every year, in which in some cases, many people cannot afford to do so. And that does not also account for utilities, transportation, parking, and the like.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

I think you all misunderstood me. Maybe I should not have used the term "McMansion". All I wanted to say above was, that in new apartment blocks you have community rooms that are at the disposal of anyone living in the block and can be used very nicely for big parties. So even if you only have a modest sized flat there you could still throw big parties, like if you owned a big house in the suburbs.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

fieldsofdreams said:


> Since this has been inactive for some time, let me ask another question:
> 
> *In regard to the social life of suburbia, what kinds of additions or improvements would you want to implement so that more people can get out of their homes and explore their neighborhood?*
> 
> What I mean about this is, since many suburban communities have little to no open space (or if there's open space, it is sparsely used), what would you build in such communities full of housing units so that people can become more encouraged to go out and explore their surroundings — and eventually meet their neighbors.


I don't see any barriers to people getting out and exploring the suburbs in their current state. I see people out jogging or walking their dog every day. We have walking/bike trails in the area that a lot of people use. We have parks and rec centers where people go out and play in rec leagues to socialize. From my personal experience, suburban neighbors seem to know each other a lot better than urban neighbors. When I was an urban renter I pretty much just stayed in my apartment as I had no yard and no reason to hang out outside as I wasn't one of the smokers in my apartment building. In the suburbs you are more likely to be out in your driveway playing basketball, mowing your yard, planting flowers, etc so you are more likely to see your neighbors and know what they actually look like.

So if your suburban area has no trails, softball fields, rec centers, etc then that is something you need. Good for exercise and socializing with your team if you join a league.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

weava said:


> I don't see any barriers to people getting out and exploring the suburbs in their current state. I see people out jogging or walking their dog every day. We have walking/bike trails in the area that a lot of people use. We have parks and rec centers where people go out and play in rec leagues to socialize. From my personal experience, suburban neighbors seem to know each other a lot better than urban neighbors. When I was an urban renter I pretty much just stayed in my apartment as I had no yard and no reason to hang out outside as I wasn't one of the smokers in my apartment building. In the suburbs you are more likely to be out in your driveway playing basketball, mowing your yard, planting flowers, etc so you are more likely to see your neighbors and know what they actually look like.


Very interesting. Here in the Bay Area, particularly in my patch, I think the opposite is happening. I'm like in a subdivision, with some people walking and jogging, and all I get is a little "hello" or "hi" — that's about it. I only know a few neighbors, and the closest park in my case would be either a nearby hill or the skatepark where youths hangout. Another place would be a nearby Marketpace, but even there, I don't feel like talking to other people... There may be a community center, but events that bond a neighborhood — like a Block Party — only happens once a year, if not rarely.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ I think you are mixing demographics with housing typology.

Once families have children, their lives become more insulated. Family life start being child-centered. 

Now if you have a place full of single youths of college age, you (which defines yourself as part of that demographic group) are probably going to talk to them. But that is not because of the place they live.

Most people don't start random conversations with strangers, I guess that is the nature of modern life, since it is too easy to connect with people online, by phone etc. Maybe 50 years ago, without such means, people would flock to a park just to hangout and get to know people. Today, many are absorbed in their gadgets, and at least myself don't like being disturbed when I'm texting or updating my facebook status.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ I think you are mixing demographics with housing typology.
> 
> Once families have children, their lives become more insulated. Family life start being child-centered.
> 
> ...


It might be an alien concept to you but neighborhoods or blocks in urban areas can also form informal communities. You don't have to but if you want to, it is often fairly easy to get to know your neighbors on various occasions. And if you've just created a young family, you don't have to turn into an eremite. There are other young families around and life is easier when you are not isolating yourself, also as young parent. There is of course conflict potential between young families and students for example but nothing that can't be overcome. I know examples that work pretty fine.

Some people prefer having a real life instead of a facebook life. In fact, you can use facebook also for your local communities as black board, works pretty well. And if you are bored by that virtual stuff, you can just walk around the corner and knock at the door ...


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Slartibartfas said:


> There are other young families around


Its funny how this is often ignored. If one goes to Souther Europe (although the same often applies to Northern Europe too), he/she will find that central areas are real living, breathing places with families, old and young people all living together. 

Suburb is not better. At the time when the World population is increasing and resources dwindling we need to start living more efficiently and stop wasting stuff. Going back to the city is a good place to start.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ I agree to that one. The thing, though, is that not all cities have large enough land areas to accommodate the growing number of urbanites wanting to live in the city center. With that huge demand, prices will go up significantly to a point that families with limited budgets who still want to live in the city will need to either rent or live in its fringes, quite far from downtown. Remember: premium land can be so scarce that people would fight for a space to have a home close to downtown.


----------



## CanadianDemon (May 28, 2010)

Depends how you define Suburb. Are you guys talking about stretches and stretches of housing along kilometers of roadways and grid patterns. 

What about conglomerate of small towns, cities and villages conjoined to a much bigger core? Because, in a way, you could consider Lively, Copper Cliff, New Sudbury (Well, it is), Capreol, Valley East/Val Caron etc.... all suburbs.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Living in suburbia doesn't assure knowing you neighbors a lot better than in urban cities. I been living in suburbia for 20 years, and yet to know 90%+ of my neighbors.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ I agree to that one. The thing, though, is that not all cities have large enough land areas to accommodate the growing number of urbanites wanting to live in the city center. With that huge demand, prices will go up significantly to a point that families with limited budgets who still want to live in the city will need to either rent or live in its fringes, quite far from downtown. Remember: premium land can be so scarce that people would fight for a space to have a home close to downtown.


You speak in riddles. The prices for urban areas are also that high, because they are so limited. In the US that is because many cities hardly have any of it at all. Things are changing but the offer is still almost a niche compared to suburbia. 

In Spain, you can complain about a lot, among others the huge real estate bubble. But in Spain most people are living in at least mid density areas. Just have a look how small Spanish cities are compared to American cities of the same population. 

I think the main error to make is to think of only one "downtown". If a city is getting too big so that not everyone from the fringes has a good access to the center anymore, one needs more subcenters or even a city with several equal centers. 

To get back to Vienna once more, there are plenty of opportunities to get affordable living space in urban locations, well connected by PT.


----------



## Ocean Railroader (Jun 18, 2011)

In terms of Suburbia there where several places and towns that I have been to that to me would make a great suburban model to build off of one of these places is the old suburban core Carlisle Pennsylvania and Genoa Illinois. The reason why is that in Carlisle Pennsylvania is that the town had a good grid of streets but it also had sidewalks on both sides of the streets and I remember once going five miles in one day on the sidewalk system. Also this place is good in that the sidewalks don't dead end in the middle of nowhere like modern suburbs instead you could walk to stores and attractions on on them. Also the grid streets had car traffic on them but it was very low and it had no four lane highways running though the center of town. As for Genoa Illinois it to had this set up of being able to stay in a house near town and be able to walk everywhere that you wanted to that was useful. Such as you could walk or ride a bike to your favorite restaurant and not have to drive. Oddly most of these sidewalks where built in the 1950's and are in great shape in fact you can even see the dates stamped on to the sidewalks telling you how old the system is.

The pro berms though facing these areas are that the newer sprawl is not really building new sidewalks to expand the old 1950's sidewalk system. As a planner I would think of a way to make things right would be to fund sidewalk explanation and ask builders to have new sidewalks.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

CanadianDemon said:


> Depends how you define Suburb. Are you guys talking about stretches and stretches of housing along kilometers of roadways and grid patterns.
> 
> What about conglomerate of small towns, cities and villages conjoined to a much bigger core? Because, in a way, you could consider Lively, Copper Cliff, New Sudbury (Well, it is), Capreol, Valley East/Val Caron etc.... all suburbs.


Those are included as well. I'm very happy to listen how you define a suburb because one's definition of suburb may be completely different from another. Feel free to explain what your definition is, and share your thoughts here too.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Slartibartfas said:


> You speak in riddles. The prices for urban areas are also that high, because they are so limited. In the US that is because many cities hardly have any of it at all. Things are changing but the offer is still almost a niche compared to suburbia.
> 
> In Spain, you can complain about a lot, among others the huge real estate bubble. But in Spain most people are living in at least mid density areas. Just have a look how small Spanish cities are compared to American cities of the same population.
> 
> ...


Yes, I may speak in riddles, but, unfortunately, suburbia in the US is the one I ran into. Suburbia in Asia is much different than here, such that suburbs, particularly in my former home, Manila, are slowly fading away with large malls, plentiful transportation options, lots of businesses and industries, and mixtures of low, medium, and high-density residential areas, all of which seem to integrate very nicely to a bigger metropolitan area. It is like a tapestry or weaving that seem to blend very beautifully with the rest of the piece, but in a much larger scale. Before, I can tell where the metro area and the rural communities begin; now, it seems like it's difficult to tell since urban areas continue to spread further away from the metropolitan proper and into the provinces, some of which reaching as far as 50 to 75 kilometers away from the heart of Manila.


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

I think suburbanist is right about housing typologies vs people. Hong Kong has functionally suburban neighborhoods made of tower blocks while functionally urban cities in North America and the UK are low density.

It's more a question of transience and if you and your neighbors have anything in common. The only thing that concerns me is how not everyone has the luxury of being a homeowner and living in the same place for 25 years and being friends with all their neighbors. When we try to make that happen for everyone, the result is a sub-prime mortgage bubble or the unintended consquences of rent control schemes, NIMBYism, or having to overpay public employees so they can live the in expensive cities they work for.

People can praise the cul-de-sac life where everyone knows each other and the kids are all popular and cool and are involved in after school activites with one another. But I worry about the other side where a lot of people are stuck renting and have to move all the time and live with this anomy which takes a toll on individual's well being and ability to be a good, effective, normal person. 

Social engineering and trying to transplant people from one community to another is problematic, as the failure of putting the residents of now closed troubled public housing projects into suburban apartment complexes shows. When this was done in Chicago and Memphis, it separated the innocent poor folk from both the informal support network they had as well as away from social service facilities and also dumped them in areas lacking public transit so it made it harder for them to go to work and lead normal lives. Meanwhile the criminals just terrorized the new neighborhoods they were moved into. Now all the areas that got section 8 people are ruined, and a lot of the transplants wish they could move back to the city.

Thus I'd argue for having a diversity of places where people in different circumstances can form communities that fit their needs.

I think this is why suburban planning is often seen on the conservative end of the spectrum while cities and urbanism are on the liberal side. Conservatives care about the conditions for people who conform well and don't care what the consequences are for those who don't. Liberals want things to be good enough for everyone and shouldn't concern themselves with perfection. My opinion of course is that the US has an individualist culture(and that is a good thing!), but it means that the conservative(in broader terms, not American conservatism) way is incompatible with having a healthy society because what happens when you leave people to fend for themselves with no guidance and constant temptation is disaster. So broadly speaking, we need a liberal culture that prods people to be self-responsible but is free in the sense that it allows people to demonstrate how their individual choices can also responsible. Enable positive things don't just punish failure.

I don't know what the solution, but I think it's beyond simple planning policy. The reality is that suburban sprawl is wasteful and the fact that you can have a functionally suburban place in Singapore at higher population densities than what goes for a dense urban city in the US or Australia, or vice versa, should be taken into consideration. I don't think the middle class will destroyed if people can't have huge backyards or drive cars, while I don't necessarily think cities need to be nothing but huge skyscrapers and concrete, either.

I don't want to add any more shit to this wall of text, but earlier in this thread we talked about English suburbia. Nice balance between having pleasant quiet neighborhoods but also town centers, high streets, train stations, etc.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ I highly praise your thoughts and concerns about suburbia from various aspects. I mean, suburbia in itself holds different definitions for different people, and one's view of suburbia may not necessarily hold true for others. I would rather have suburbia where people may live in tall apartment blocks but are within a few minutes away from a train station (like in Hong Kong, there are estates; in Singapore, those would be called HDBs) than low-density housing that are car- and highway-centric and can contribute to greater pollution. 

I am on the liberal side of things, but it is interesting when you pointed out that...



> I think this is why suburban planning is often seen on the conservative end of the spectrum while cities and urbanism are on the liberal side. Conservatives care about the conditions for people who conform well and don't care what the consequences are for those who don't. Liberals want things to be good enough for everyone and shouldn't concern themselves with perfection. My opinion of course is that the US has an individualist culture(and that is a good thing!), but it means that the conservative(in broader terms, not American conservatism) way is incompatible with having a healthy society because what happens when you leave people to fend for themselves with no guidance and constant temptation is disaster. So broadly speaking, we need a liberal culture that prods people to be self-responsible but is free in the sense that it allows people to demonstrate how their individual choices can also responsible. Enable positive things don't just punish failure.


That statement alone forced me to rethink suburbia and consider the various positive aspects of it (from Asia) that can be cultivated here in the US. It will need to take enormous cultural renewal to understand that high-density suburbia can be a great thing if it is provided with reliable transportation options... But stepping down to English suburban standards would be an acceptable, watered-down substitute if density would cause social backlash. Perhaps it is time then to reinvest in public transportation (in which funding for it has been severely cut for years) and make them even more modern and reliable to make living in suburbia a more attractive option in the long-run.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

@ fieldsofdreams.

Have a look at live.maps.com bird views of Madrid and Barcelona. You will find many monuments of the real estate bubble but you will find fairly little low density suburbia. And I mean it, just have a look. There are quite a few Spanish cities were traditional mid size blocks group together, on a rather small total area and at the outside there is a sharp line, where you could almost put a sign "end of town". I mention that because something like that must be almost unimaginable for Americans.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

All right, I saw two similar communities when you told me to check out Madrid and Barcelona:

• Vaciamadrid, located southeast of the city of Madrid (near the M-50), seems like an American suburb to me, but it looks like there are much, much more apartments than single homes. Plus, it seems like it has much more amenities than a typical housing suburb here in the US, including a future train station (Rivas), lots of businesses, and shared open spaces.
• Cerdanyola del Valles, located northwest of Barcelona (near the C-58 motorway), also seems like a typical US suburb (similar to what Daly City is here in the Bay Area), but what I find remarkable about the place is that not only it is a planned community with lots of roundabouts, but two train stations serve the area as well that provide intercity transportation to Central Barcelona. I mean, wow, it looks like they've done their homework.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

fieldsofdreams said:


> All right, I saw two similar communities when you told me to check out Madrid and Barcelona:
> 
> • Vaciamadrid, located southeast of the city of Madrid (near the M-50), seems like an American suburb to me, but it looks like there are much, much more apartments than single homes. Plus, it seems like it has much more amenities than a typical housing suburb here in the US, including a future train station (Rivas), lots of businesses, and shared open spaces.


Rivas Futura is an existing Metro station, one out of three in the municipality. The suburb has 70.000 inhabitants and if its empty building lots were filled one day with what is aimed to be the heart of it, there were would 100.000 inhabitants. Just imagine how much space an American style suburb would need for that population. And Vaciamadrid is a suburb, a new town which is certainly not the most urban place in Spain. But still as you listed even that place is so much more urban than a typical US suburb.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ I think you are mixing demographics with housing typology.
> 
> Once families have children, their lives become more insulated. Family life start being child-centered.


My experience suggests the opposite. Since having children I know far more people in the local neighbourhood as friendships and acquaintances are made through shared child-based activities, school etc which then sometimes become friendships/acquaintances outside the kidosphere.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ That could make sense.

On my ideal scenario, though, I'd have a child (and just one) and raise him/her in disused farm, close enough to a city so that the kid can be taken in and out, but isolated enough at least until his/her early teens me and wife have full control of his/her schedule and who he/she is meeting by not having neighbors within 3000m or so. But it is unlikely I could/will afford that.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Slartibartfas said:


> Rivas Futura is an existing Metro station, one out of three in the municipality. The suburb has 70.000 inhabitants and if its empty building lots were filled one day with what is aimed to be the heart of it, there were would 100.000 inhabitants. Just imagine how much space an American style suburb would need for that population. And Vaciamadrid is a suburb, a new town which is certainly not the most urban place in Spain. But still as you listed even that place is so much more urban than a typical US suburb.


Exactly. For a small space like that, it's pretty interesting that it can carry around 100,000 people, and that's what I already call as a more urban place than suburb due to its potential to carry even more people, which in turn can become much more commercialized easily than many suburbs here in the US. I would definitely invest in a place like that myself, and I will be more than happy to make it even more urban than suburban myself. :yes:


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Tuition? K-13 is free of charge unless you go for a private school in USA.


Yeah. Well, at least for public colleges, definitely for private ones. Most private schools charge hefty tuition rates... Even in the Philippines, many public schools charge fees too!


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

In my city, the best public schools are precisely in central city.

One of the reasons is accessibility by public transport. Many parents choose to compete at entrance tests to put their child into a good school in central city rather than to the nearest but mediocre school.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Usually, in US there is a part of school funding that is paid by state on a per-pupil base or something like that. But local real estate property taxes (which are much higher than in Europe by the way) pay for much of local district funding.


Which is a terribly flawed system at least as far as it comes to education. The US would do good to change it as soon as possible, or it will become the country known for the American dream to be just that, a dream. 



> Then, even if the difference on total money available per student is not that large (like a mere 20% or so), it is enough to recruit better teachers, and to provide a better infrastructure. Then, typical suburban districts have a far less share of "problematic" kids (without 2 parents, with parents on drugs/substance abuse, with siblings/relatives involved on crime and/or in prison), which makes the resources go further and create a much better learning environment.


20% (if that number is correct) are 20% that would be needed a lot I guess. And by getthoizing schools you multiply problems. Its not a simple addition but a multiplication of problems. 



> Actually, on planning blogs covering US, the issues of (lack of) good schools is pointed as the most daunting barrier to keep youth couples that started making careers while living in the "core" from moving out when they get kids. Some argue that is a barrier almost as relevant as desire for space for kids.


Good schools in central locations are not impossible, otherwise they would not exist in many cities. But they do.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Reviving this thread of mine, I'll continue on the subject of education:

*If the role of suburbia is to provide high-quality of education for its kids, what will it take to bring the same level of commitment to high-quality education in the inner cities or poorer suburbs where access to it may be limited due to mitigating factors (e.g. Poverty, lack of infrastructure, lack of communication, etc)?*


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

In my city, there are concerns about possible closure of a high school leaving a major, amd well-off, suburb completely without a high school. The high school has a poor reputation - with the result that most children who can get in better high schools already commute there.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ Ouch, seriously? Tell me more about it... And what reasons do the school district have to justify a high school closure?


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ Ouch, seriously? Tell me more about it... And what reasons do the school district have to justify a high school closure?


Several problems:

The general educational policy, highly controversial and not accepted, let alone given a specific due date, is to decrease the mumber of high schools. The grounds being that small high schools cannot offer a sufficient number and choice of teachers and teaching equipment, and for that reason give inferior secondary education. Accordingly, the goal is to turn the smaller high schools to end at junior high, and send the high school students to study at bigger, better high schools.

Why Pirita Majandusgümnaasium, of all schools?

Most children of Pirita already commute anyway.

The population of school-age children in Pirita has tripled in last 15 years. The schools are built over 30 years ago - no new schools have been built nor existing schools expanded. Just the Majandusgümnaasium plus one other, primary-only school. Out of all school-age children beginning from age 7, 57% already commute - the 43% are anyway 30% more than the number of children the schools are designed for. Pirita Majandusgümnaasium has to operate in two shifts to accommodate the children.

The existing schools are Estonian language - which means that all minority children have to commute to existing minority schools anyway, from age 7 on.

Regarding the high schools... for some reason, the children prefer to get into central city schools. How or why it started, not sure - but the result is that in 5 years, the number of children who attend the high school at Majandusgümnaasium has halved, and is now only 23 % of total high school children in the suburb. Also, the remaining high school students tend to be the ones rejected by better schools due to marginal success at exams.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

^^ That is very interesting. How close is Pirita from Tallinn, by the way?


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

fieldsofdreams said:


> ^^ That is very interesting. How close is Pirita from Tallinn, by the way?


Buses are scheduled to get from Pirita centrum to central Tallinn in 11-12 minutes, with 7 intermediate stops - and from far ends of Pirita to Pirita centrum in 7 to 19 minutes from different ends. Private cars can be similar - or be gridlocked, which is common at rush hour commutes.

Incidentally, beginning from the beginning of the year, public transport is free of charge for registered residents. The loads increased appreciably, but not overwhelmingly.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

chornedsnorkack said:


> Buses are scheduled to get from Pirita centrum to central Tallinn in 11-12 minutes, with 7 intermediate stops - and from far ends of Pirita to Pirita centrum in 7 to 19 minutes from different ends. Private cars can be similar - or be gridlocked, which is common at rush hour commutes.
> 
> Incidentally, beginning from the beginning of the year, public transport is free of charge for registered residents. The loads increased appreciably, but not overwhelmingly.


Hmmm, so Pirita is close to Central Tallinn? And I wonder what made the City Government make public transportation free for registered residents in Pirita... What is the rationale (reasoning) behind it?


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

fieldsofdreams said:


> And I wonder what made the City Government make public transportation free for registered residents in Pirita... What is the rationale (reasoning) behind it?


Public transport of Tallinn is free for all registered residents of Tallinn, including Pirita. (It also is free for schoolchildren under 19 and seniors over 65, even if not registered residents)

The official reasons for free public transportation:
To encourage people to use public transportation and discourage use of private cars.
To encourage people to register as taxpaying residents of Tallinn City - there are believed to be a number of people who in fact work and reside in city but who remain registered in the municipalities they came from, so giving benefits for registered residents draws people to register.

An unofficial contributing reason:
Local elections are approaching in October 2013.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

chornedsnorkack said:


> Public transport of Tallinn is free for all registered residents of Tallinn, including Pirita. (It also is free for schoolchildren under 19 and seniors over 65, even if not registered residents)
> 
> The official reasons for free public transportation:
> To encourage people to use public transportation and discourage use of private cars.
> ...


So tell me: without the free public transportation program, how much is it to ride a bus or light rail? And what does the free public transportation program cover? Plus, is it available on a daily basis, and does it cover all routes?

I sense that the official reasons truly make sense... And indeed, it does help boost ridership in the transit network. I wonder how much protests will I get if I advocate a free public transportation program for San Francisco or Los Angeles or even New York City. Yet I sense that the political reason also plays a good role in making it happen.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

fieldsofdreams said:


> So tell me: without the free public transportation program, how much is it to ride a bus or light rail?


Single trip ticket (for adult not eligible to discounts) bought from driver € 1.60. Discounts for other means of payment that do not bother driver: payment by cellphome € 1.20, payment by money preloaded on card € 1.10.
Various 1 hour and 1, 3 and 5 day passes I am skipping here. 1 month pass - € 23.



fieldsofdreams said:


> And what does the free public transportation program cover? Plus, is it available on a daily basis, and does it cover all routes?


It excludes heavy commuter rail, and a very few commercial bus lines... such as an airport shuttle (but a city bus line also serves the airport).

But yes, all routes. 61 bus routes, 7 trolleybus routes, 4 tram routes. Out of the 61, 17 are weekdays only and 6 run on Saturdays but not Sundays, so it leaves 38 lines running each day.


fieldsofdreams said:


> I sense that the official reasons truly make sense... And indeed, it does help boost ridership in the transit network. I wonder how much protests will I get if I advocate a free public transportation program for San Francisco or Los Angeles


You already have free public transport in San Francisco. Namely Stanford and Emeryville. You also have free public transport in Los Angeles, namely Commerce.


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Let me revive this thread with a brand new question:

*Should you have a suburban city, would you rather build parklets on your downtown streets than allocating a whole side of a street for parking?*

Alternatively...

*If you see an abandoned building in your suburban community, would you suggest to your city or town officials to consider an infill development for the abandoned structure?*


----------



## fieldsofdreams (Sep 21, 2012)

Reviving this thread once again, let me ask a question I've raised on one of my threads:

*What's your take on infill development in suburban communities? Do you think it will help boost a city's livability, or would it cause crowding issues, among others?*


----------



## Mornnb (Dec 26, 2010)

fieldsofdreams said:


> *Should you have a suburban city, would you rather build parklets on your downtown streets than allocating a whole side of a street for parking?*


No, if you make parking easier you just encourage car use. 




> *If you see an abandoned building in your suburban community, would you suggest to your city or town officials to consider an infill development for the abandoned structure?*


It depends on the quality and heritage value of the building in question. 



> *What's your take on infill development in suburban communities? Do you think it will help boost a city's livability, or would it cause crowding issues, among others?*


Of course it will boost a cities liveability. Suburbs are not very liveable unless you're of the hermit disposition and like to spend most of your time at home away from people.
And what are crowding issues? You would think providing more housing would increase supply and reduce real estate price, reducing the need to crowd multiple families in a house.


----------



## Ocean Railroader (Jun 18, 2011)

A suburb that doesn't fall asleep at the wheel and let their place turn into a decaying crime infested dump over time. Along with a place that controls the runaway urban sprawl where they put a stoplight in at every intersection for every small shopping center.


----------

