# An aerial tour of the hellhole suburbs



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

What I found amusing about this thread is the response of the first 3 or 4 posters who actually thought it was Tosspot who had the problem and was unbalanced....before sanity returned to the thread.


----------



## edubejar (Mar 16, 2003)

I wouldn't call this a hellhole...a bit extreme...it actually looks clean and cozy. HOWEVER, this kind of development is LAME, LAME, LAME...SO BORING...SO STERILE, and absent of conviviality, seduction and the opportunity for the occasional interesting discovery...a new hair style, a hot pass-byer, a new bistro around the corner, two lovers giggling--NO PASSION===LAME...i guess some people prefer the known and prefabricated isolation.


----------



## tykho (Oct 18, 2004)

I've seen worse.. in general all suburbs are boring,well most of them, it doesnt matter if it is in North America, Europe or Asia.


----------



## GM (Feb 29, 2004)

Nick in Atlanta said:


> Almost any detached house in Europe (England, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland or Italy) are very, very expensive. But, they are beautiful.



Hmm, no.
A detached house in Europe is not inevitably "very, very expensive". Where have you read that ?

There are indeed some very expensive houses, but there are ones which are a lot cheaper. There are houses for all the tastes, and for all the prices.


Some examples, near Nantes (France) :

If you are a millionnaire you can afford houses like that :









*570,000 euros.*









*1,160,000 euros.*









[B]885,000 euros.[/B] (with view on the ocean)



But there are also houses more affordable :

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/Aguirre44/DSC02495.jpg
*355,000 euros.*









*234,000 euros.*









*330,000 euros.*



The typical low-cost suburban homes which colonize the French country near the big cities :









*164,000 euros.*









*163,000 euros.*



And, if you have a very little budget :









This ruin will be for you for only *109,000 euros * (I know, it 's rather expensive for a ruin, but the houses prices are getting more and more crazy here).

source : http://www.loireatlantique-immo.com/default.asp


So, you see, there all sorts of detached houses (and prices) in Europe. Actually a great proportion, if not most of the Europeans live in a detached house.


BTW, great thread Tosspot ! kay: 
I love seeing american suburbia from the air.


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

Rural France, especially near the northern industrial cities, may not be as expensive as the rest of Europe. I've heard that a lot of Britons that live near London have a second house in Northwest France because it is a lot cheaper than Southeast England, and it is easy to get to with the Chunnel and the ferries. But, I have a tough time seeing how northern Italy can be affordable.


----------



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

Newer suburbs are the worst they arent a hellhole but are bland, boring, etc. Everything looks the same and if you have a car its ok because you can drive where ever but without a car you are stuck remember in most of america the buses suck so not much to do there. Anyway regaurding the pics the patterns the newer suburbs make look cool from the air and you guys have big houses over there most of what i see is big two story homes you have to be rich here to own homes like that. And some of those european houses look really nice i like the fact in europe they use tile roofs on many houses over here in florida on an average house they cheap out and put shingles on newer homes even if they match the style to have tile, etc most wealthy houses have tile roofs though.


----------



## Pilliod Njaim (Feb 23, 2006)

What's so depressing about these pics is that you could go to any metro in America and find an exact clone of this.


----------



## i.q.ninja (Jul 21, 2005)

i just don't think suburbanites should complain about their long commute times and or the energy prices they have to pay.


----------



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

i.q.ninja said:


> i just don't think suburbanites should complain about their long commute times and or the energy prices they have to pay.


Why? If your going to say they choose to just to have a huge house well in some cases its true but in many cities houses are expensive as well as taxes so they move to the suburbs for an affordable house not always a big mcmansion but a house big enough for their family.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Because they create their own situations. I love it when they cry about energy costs.


----------



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

mhays said:


> Because they create their own situations. I love it when they cry about energy costs.


Well not everyone can afford to live in the city even in these aerials you saw average looking 1 story suburban homes that werent even new those are the ones that middle class people couldnt afford in the city i know this is Kansas City homes are cheap there. Take examples like in florida people here move to the suburbs because they cant afford the average home in the city.


----------



## Skyland (Jul 3, 2005)

*PARKING LOTS RULE AMERICAN CITIES!*
I would not mind those suburbs if they would not destroy the urban atmosphere downtown. Recently (I live in the older part of the city), I talked to my neighbour, an old lady, who told me that in the 1950ies Tucson used to have a vibrant downtown with plenty of people shopping and dining. I can picture Congress-street with shops, restaurants and bars. Now Tucson's downtown is dead (it is a parking lot) and the city has virtually done nothing to revive its core - despite spending millions of dollars on the RioNuevo project. Tucson is growing very fast (the metro will reach 1 million soon), but downtown looks as if it has not been touched since the 1970ies! For me (orginally from Europe) this is simply uncivilized and shows how addicted the majority of the American society has become to television and cars (of course, there are many exceptions particularly on the coasts). I would call it the "convenience" society: overweight, uninformed and in need of 100% security at lowest cost. The majority of Americans has no need for culture or esthetics - Applebee's and Walgreens is just right to satisfy them. 

In European cities investors have built modern shopping malls in the center of the cities and hide the cars in underground parking lots. Modern urban transport systems reduce traffic and increase the number of people being able to enjoy urbanity. This had positve effects on the cities and in fact almost no downtown died in Europe despite people moving to the suburbs. Today even the city centers in Eastern Europe e.g. Wroclaw or Kosice (not even mentioning those in Western Europe) look more modern and wealthy than the average American downtown - despite that the American GDP per capita is one of the highest in the world.

In Tucson, despite that I-10 runs nearby downtown (easy access for people using cars) nobody has even brought up the idea to build a shopping mall in the heart of the city. They still think that a stadium or an acquarium will revitalize the city. They should only drive down to Mexico to understand what urbanity is (and what it is not) - but they don't - and that's the problem: They believe a life defined by 6-lane highways stuffed with SUV's and no contact whatsoever with other human beings apart from work and BBQ is the normal way of life in the world.

Considering the climate and its many historic buildings Tucson could easily be a Guadalajara of Arizona or a Salamanca of the USA, but it is a Kaliningrad of the desert, because of the incability of our municipality and the dumbness of many of Tucson's voters. One does not even have to travel too far to find urbanity: Little Flagstaff in Northern Arizona with only 50.000 inhabitants has a beautiful and vibrant downtown even at night - a rare exception in the West. Tucson would only have to copy their concept, but...???

Many American cities (PARTICULARLY Tucson) could be beautiful. It would not even cost much - if at least restaurants and bars started moving their tables on the sidewalks (for FREE). But as long as the American society considers PARKING SPACE the most important aspect of a city, urbanity is to remain dead (at least here in the West) and cities with great potential such as Tucson will never develop an urban atmosphere.


----------



## Skyland (Jul 3, 2005)

*That's what Tucsonians call urbanity - the "Tucson Mall" - I d' call it a nightmare*


----------



## Skyland (Jul 3, 2005)

Here are some examples how Tucson (or other dead American cities) could become more "sensitive" towards its heritage and more urban. Tucson has about 550.000 inhabitants (Metro ~1M) - the following cities are same size or smaller than Tucson - and still urbanity works. You won't see any parking lot - because it is usually underground or attached - and the shopping malls are integrated into a vibrant downtown night and days - so easy. Just spend some money on hiding the parking spaces. 

Downtown shopping mall - Wroclaw, Poland (640.000 inh.)









Downtown shopping mall - Leipzig, Germany (500.000 inh.)









Downtown shopping mall - Pecs, Hungary (200.000 inh.)









Downtown shopping mall - Wuppertal, Germany (300.000 inh.)









Downtown shopping mall - Poznan, Poland (550.000 inh.)









Shopping mall (U/C) Klagenfurt, Austria (100-200.000 inh.)


----------



## seattlehawk (Nov 18, 2005)

People forget a few things when comparing Europe and the US. 

First, consider the history of Europe. The majority of European cities were built before the advent of car. It only made economic sense to build compact cities. Note that even in the US, older cities have much higher density than newer ones because, again, compactness was the necessity in those times.

Second, consider the population density. European cities simply cannot afford to build American-style suburbs and large homes because the land is a scarce resource. 

Third, consider the crime pattern. One of the main reasons many people choose to live in the suburbs is that they believe suburbs would provide them the safety that they cannot enjoy in city centers. If I am not mistaken, inner cities of Europe are comparatively a lot safer than their American counterparts.

Finally, consider the lifestyle. Whether you like it or not, there are always going to be some folks who would prefer living in big houses with backyards over cramped quarters. In the US, abundant availability of land and freeway system allow them to easily afford that lifestyle and they are happy to avail that opportunity.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

French modest detached house:










My modest cabin near Thompson MB: (around 60,000 euro, or 100,000 Canadian dollars)

(Garage and the backyard did not shown in this pic)










Actually, for those who prefer rustic living... living in such houses are 10 times better than living in a commieblock. Those living in commieblocks are unlucky while we thought we are much comfortable than them. (Not the case for those living in developing countries, where those detached houses are actually better-looking in exterior with terrible water supply, electricity...)


----------



## Khanabadosh (Nov 16, 2004)

Absolutely beautiful. I really like it.


----------



## George W. Bush (Mar 18, 2005)

GM said:


> And, if you have a very little budget :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are they serious??? :shocked: 

I would rather shoot myself than sink more than 100k EUR into this decrepit thing ...


----------



## Castle_Bravo (Jan 6, 2006)

Great pictures :bow:. I hate the american style of Suburbs. Big shoping malls, colosal parkings, and highways








I also didn't like it that a car is the only way to ride from house to a shop or to work.


----------



## doogerz (May 6, 2003)

Here is an aerial shot of a typical suburban area outside of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. This is north Whitby, about 20 minutes outside Toronto.


----------



## nath05 (Mar 19, 2006)

> "with all the problems the suburbs has brought, do americans think more about living in apartments near more dense urban areas!? The real state development on apartments has growed lately!?"


The short answer: yes. 

Take a look at any number of development threads for any American city. Most of the new development is actually concentrated towards providing residential condos in downtown areas. There are growing numbers of people that are dissatisfied with suburban living and want to give living in real urban environments a shot.

With that being said, that development is more oriented towards the higher end of the residential market....middle class people and families are still leaving the city or choosing to live in the suburbs at an astonishing rate....enough that most growth in metro areas is still concentrated in the suburbs. 

Which is a shame. I have nothing against rich people, but real urban environments have a mixture of incomes, families, young professionals, and retired people all cohabitating. Although it is good that American cities are beginning to focus their development inward, that development needs to start happening at all income levels. They need to be considered attractive places to live for everyone.



> Anyone want to say anything positive about suburbs?


The people that live there like them. It really doesn't matter what we think about them.....many, many people consider a house with a big lawn in a new development to be the American dream. Wasteful? Yes. Devoid of all character? Yes. Hard to get around if you don't have a car? Yes. 

But I can't think of any way to MAKE people want to live in the city. That's why I think there will have to be a catalyst - such as high oil prices - that will drive people towards an inward migration. The government can do some things, such as offer tax breaks to people that live in the city, or to fund mass transit on a much higher level in comparison to new road construction, but it can't put a gun to people's head and say 'you will live in a dense urban environment'.


----------



## premutos (Mar 17, 2006)

yeah I dont like American cities

in latin america or Europe you have so much life around the neighborhoods, stores, movies, people all over, parks, in American cities is all so wide spread and open, you have to drive to go to the shopping center, you have to drive to go to the movies, you have to drive to go virtually anywhere

It's boring


----------



## JoseRodolfo (Jul 9, 2003)

Thanks again Nath05!! kay:


----------



## Christoforo (Mar 26, 2006)

It's pretty presumptuous and pretentious to assume that everyone should live in the city and that people who DON'T want to live in the dense city are strange. It comes off as ignorant. Just because one thing appeals to you, does NOT mean that it's everyone's thing.


----------



## blink55184 (Nov 30, 2005)

edsg25 said:


> blink, you are right about "part of life". Nobody consciously chose sprawl.
> 
> perhaps the most important question we can ask is this:
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree with the latter half of this. Urban cores originally started to expand with street cars and trolleys, which slowly connected, and in some cases went quite far. For example, Hartford CT made a connection to Manchester, which extended thru Tolland, into Stafford, and at the birth of the automobile, was within a few miles of connecting all the way to the city of Worcester Mass. However, the birth of the automobile, and more importantly *THE AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES* pushed us to suburbs for business. In the 1930's, General Motors, one of the first corporations in America, bought trolley systems in many major cities, including NYC and LA, with "good intentions." A few years later, they closed them, ripped up the tracks, sold off the trolley cars, and encouraged everyone to buy automobiles. A few years later, the tops hot shots in the company were exposed for these plots and paid a small fine to the US Government.(This info is all available in the book _FAST FOOD NATION_, and the movie for the book is coming out mid summer.


In my opinion, humans can only deal with so much reality. No one wants to abandon this lifestyle and admit "we are running out of oil!" None of the suburban landscape can exist without cheap oil. And OIL IS STILL DIRT CHEAP. It has been for a very long time...do the math...a pint of oil is 70 something cents. What other commodity can you get that cheap.
Skyscrapers?! will also be a thing of the past. Can't build those without cheap oil. This is also why all the oil companies OVERESTIMATE how much oil they have left. Its not logical in the business sense to tell your shareholders "umm...we are almost out." The first company to do that folds, and the others cash out. 

The part that really worries me is that all our current "alternative energy sources in progress..i.e. hydrogen fuel" cannot operate or be executed without a cheap oil based economy under it. Half these systems cant be built or run without oil machines. Solar panels involve TONS of maintenance and technology based on oil. Huge windfarms cant even be built without machinery running on oil. This is what makes me believe all these suburbs/exurbs will contract back into urban cores. We wont be motoring everywhere we go..the suburban family averages 11 car trips per day. Everything will be localized again. Local farmwork/trade work. We will make our own food, not have most of it airplaned in from other continents. 

I could ramble about this for another hour, I'll leave it at this and let someone respond to something!!!


----------



## snot (May 12, 2004)

Great thread and a lot of good posts.
The suburban 'problem' also exists in Europe and the difference between Europe and the states is not that big. Like in the states Europe has less and more car-orientated cities.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

You can't assume that because 80% of people in a metro live outside the city limits, 80% WANT to live outside the city limits. 

Cost has something to do with it. 

If you offered 1,000 Puget Sound area households 1,500 sf houses in nice Seattle neighborhoods vs 1,500 sf houses in nice Kent neighborhoods for the same price, I bet the Seattle houses would be much more popular. And the market provides good evidence: in real life, Seattle houses are much more expensive per square foot.


----------



## Scba (Nov 20, 2004)

At least those suburbs actually have trees and lawns, as opposed to most places in Maryland now.


----------



## MikeVegas (Sep 12, 2002)

mhays said:


> You can't assume that because 80% of people in a metro live outside the city limits, 80% WANT to live outside the city limits.
> 
> Cost has something to do with it.
> 
> If you offered 1,000 Puget Sound area households 1,500 sf houses in nice Seattle neighborhoods vs 1,500 sf houses in nice Kent neighborhoods for the same price, I bet the Seattle houses would be much more popular. And the market provides good evidence: in real life, Seattle houses are much more expensive per square foot.


And YOU can't assume that they don't want to live outside the city limits. Your views are a continuation of biased totalitarism that you hold on to from other threads. Thank God we live in America and have the right to choose where we wish to and aren't subject to someones distorted views on what is right for everyone just because that is what someones views are.

I have a phrase for someone who wishes that everyone lives in the city and walks and bikes and is a total ecological freak, how about ideological elitist.


----------



## Smelser (May 13, 2006)

Paddington said:


> ...Plenty of bars and nightclubs too, although those are things that the average person does not go to everyday and is quite content with visiting them occastionally in the city if that's where they are.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what my cousin from London always says when he visits, and I tell him I don't know anyone without a car.



It's a bit of problem when people want to go bar hopping. Who's the lucky designated driver, or do we add in $100 in cab fares?


----------



## Smelser (May 13, 2006)

Hogtown said:


> the idea of the suburb, and the lifestyle associated with it (the american dream) is a unique construct of the Anglo-American world, ...
> 
> 
> There were 2 major ideas that lead to the creation of the suburbs, both of which are associated with extreme post-puritanical beliefs which would seem largely absurd to most suburbanites today. The first is that the city is intrinsicaly EVIL, and is beyond redemption.


This is really kind of funny! With a higher level of average income, many families wanted detached houses and yards, that is, lower densities. Hence suburbs, where the average person could have the detached house that was too expensive closer in.


----------



## scraperboy (May 15, 2006)

mhays said:


> You can't assume that because 80% of people in a metro live outside the city limits, 80% WANT to live outside the city limits.
> 
> Cost has something to do with it.
> 
> If you offered 1,000 Puget Sound area households 1,500 sf houses in nice Seattle neighborhoods vs 1,500 sf houses in nice Kent neighborhoods for the same price, I bet the Seattle houses would be much more popular. And the market provides good evidence: in real life, Seattle houses are much more expensive per square foot.



Oh yeah? So EVERY house in Seattle is pricey? I think you are thinking only of good neighborhhods. What about ghetto or inner city neighborhoods? People can buy nice houses in the inner city for cheaper than the suburbs....why dont they? Racial issues? Most likely. Crime fears? Certainly.


----------



## Pish-REZ-pash (Oct 20, 2005)

Gilgamesh said:


> That's not bad at all actually.


good point infact if I were to ompare this to suburbs on any GCC country this would be quite organized (with the exception of the huge stadium parking)


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

we have those in toronto but they are really expensive and they aren't to many. The new suburbs are getting very dense and have only 3-5 feet separating 2500-3000 sq feet houses!

Here my street in outside of Toronto. Majority south asian live here. The suburbs here have lots of minorities. 
We have a movie theater and big malls but however to get some real fun and shopping we head downtown to Toronto.


----------



## thryve (Mar 5, 2005)

LMAO!

Great thread, and I LOVE the comments! 

-thryve


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

plus thier is public trasit ever 30 mins at the end of the street (3rd pic) all the time. 

I get to school from there. A 15 min bus ride and a 10 min drive.

Also a lot of people live downtown here and are moving there. The old small victorian 100 year homes are as much as new suburian houses at 3000 sq feet.


----------



## ranny fash (Apr 24, 2005)

LordMandeep said:


> we have those in toronto but they are really expensive and they aren't to many. The new suburbs are getting very dense and have only 3-5 feet separating 2500-3000 sq feet houses!
> 
> Here my street in outside of Toronto. Majority south asian live here. The suburbs here have lots of minorities.
> We have a movie theater and big malls but however to get some real fun and shopping we head downtown to Toronto.


these look almost exactly the same as most new british suburbs, only the houses in Toronto are bigger and the streets are wider.


----------



## titeness (Jul 3, 2004)

:bash: You two have no idea what your talkin about, first; these houses have the lowest density of any planned communities in the history of human civilization, you cannot look at any planned community (town, city, suburb) anywhere in the world at any point in time and find ones that have a lower number of houses per land area, keep in mind villas, farm houses, and stand-alone type mansions do not count because they are typically built in low numbers. 

Secondly; in addition to this ultra-low density, the street pattern discourages and even in some cases eliminates the possibililty of walking, biking, roller blading, etc...; just take a look at some of the pics in this thread, even though the actual distance between points is moderate, physical barriers such as highways without pedestrian crossings and walkways, drainage canals, and fences make modes of transport other than driving impossible.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

I like the pics. Looks very beautiful. Lots of green and lots of space.


----------



## IdleIdol (Aug 12, 2005)

I love the names of suburba....ever really think about them?

Places like Oakwood, Beaver County (!!), Deer Forest Valley, etc etc

They are often named after the things they destroy. You can be sure not to find any beavers in Beaver County (the animal kind) or deers in Deer Forest Valley.

I used to love surburbia. The space of the countryside and the closeness to other people. People washing the car on their lawn on Sundays. The only real hassle was, you had to take the car everywhere. It had the good points of country living and city life.

Nowadays I live in the inner city. I just walk everywhere. To the pub, the supermarket, to work, to the park, to training. Don't really need a car (it's just utter luxury for me nowadays).

I don't really think about the environment, and deep down I know the oil is going to run out and everything, but overall living in the city is just more convenient. I spend more time out with friends then in traffic, looking for parking spots or doing the lawn.


----------



## KJBrissy (Jan 9, 2006)

Tosspot said:


> This is the idiotic way Kansas City has structured its own sports stadia:





Yuval said:


> I hate suburbia just as much as you do, Tosspot, but I think we would all be enriched if you chose to replace your expressions of revulsion with actual comments. For example, you find the stadium parking lots "idiotic". How so? What would you have done differently.


The stadium is idiotic because it rely's on people driving to get there. In my home city of Brisbane in Australia, our 2 biggest stadiums house 50,000 and 55,000 people. There is not a single carpark for the stadiums and the surrounding area has 15minute maximum parking time during events. This is how stadiums need to be built.

Suburban freeways are ugly, as are massive amounts of carparking surrounding shopping malls. Here in Brisbane once again, we build the mall over the top of the carparking, as well as some multstorey parks nearby. Also we have large transport interchanges at every single one of our large shopping areas.

Building cities to RELY on the car is very shortsighted. I can't believe anyone would drive 30 miles to work. The furtherest I have ever lived from work is 15 miles and Brisbane is not that small.

Anyway...I'm going to shut up now!!!


----------



## northern italian (Sep 12, 2002)

Tosee lot of (canadian) suburbs, look at this

http://www.globalairphotos.com/

Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver ... there are literally tousand of aerials of suburbs


----------



## KJBrissy (Jan 9, 2006)

To back up my comments before here are 2 pictures of our stadiums first, and the our 4 biggest shopping malls. We try and keep fairley high density in these areas. When there is not a game on all of these places have some form of public transport at minimum intervals of 15 minutes until midnight. In peak times there is a minimum 5 minute wait for a bus or train. During game times the stadiums get some form of transport at least every 20 seconds at the begining and end.
Lang Park, notice the train stations on the bottom left and very right:








The Gabba - now wraps around completely. Notice the loop just to the left of the stadium; this is at the end of a bus station:








Indooroopilly Shopping Centre - 3 levels of shopping and 4 levels of carpark. The bus station us underneath the overbridge at the bottom left of the shopping mall, the train station is at the bottom right of picture:








Garden City - 2 levels of Shopping and from 1 - 4 levels of Carpark. Notice the bus station between the Shopping Mall and the Freeway:








Chermside - 3 levels of Shopping and 4 levels of carpark. The bus station is at the bottom left hand corner of the Shopping mall where the oval white road is:








Carindale - 2 or 3 levels of shopping and 3 levels of carpark. The bus station is not visable in this shot as it is covered by the shopping centre:


----------



## northern italian (Sep 12, 2002)

In Italy we have usually a good mixture of downtown/suburb shopping malls and of "open air" and underfloor carparkings.
And often there are bus stops by the mall district.




















Look this nice video of a new shopping mall by Imola

http://www.centroleonardo.it/video/videoLeo.wmv


----------



## Sahil12345 (Apr 2, 2006)

Who the **** cares? If I don't want to live in a cramped apartment then its my choice!


----------



## KJBrissy (Jan 9, 2006)

^^Who said you had to live in an apartment and who said apartments were cramped??


----------



## Sahil12345 (Apr 2, 2006)

Did I say apartments are cramped? The poster is saying the only "true" way to live is high density. I don't mean to offend any apartment dwellers, However I do not like his blatant bashing of one way Americans choose to live.


----------



## KJBrissy (Jan 9, 2006)

^^High density does not necessarily mean high density. The aerials I posted before shows detached housing (with some apartments but very few) at a much higher density than those posted from the USA


----------



## Tosspot (Feb 10, 2005)

There is a difference between high density and overcrowding. Hong Kong is pretty much the most dense city in the world, but with little overcrowding. And conversely, there can be low density inner ring suburbs where immigrants move in to that have overcrowded dwelling units.


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

true, some of the new suburbs i have seen are quite dense but the houses are still large.


----------



## Paddington (Mar 30, 2006)

> Take a look at any number of development threads for any American city. Most of the new development is actually concentrated towards providing residential condos in downtown areas. There are growing numbers of people that are dissatisfied with suburban living and want to give living in real urban environments a shot.


No shit Sherlock. That's because those threads only look at developments in cities.... And most cities aren't doing that great, except for a few yuppie condos being built downtown.

There's probably 10 times as much growth in suburban areas as there are in urban areas. All the census numbers back this up. Which urban areas in America, if any, are exploding in populations right now? On the other hand, even low growth metros like Toledo have suburbs that are growing in the double digits each year.

Go to any grocery store, and pick up a "New Homes Guide" that they have for free. I guarantee you that 90% of the new construction will be on the edges of the new suburban areas. 5%, if that, is construction of new yuppie condos downtown - which get so much hype here on these forums - that few people want or can afford. And maybe another 5% is redevelopment of old parts of main line suburbs or places elsewhere in the city.


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

thats true however here in Toronto condos are starting to make 40-50% of new home sales. New suburbs are being built but there are also lots of new buildings. A lot of Condo development is happening in the downtown core, but there is alot of it in the other suburban areas.

However new homes are being built at a fast rate even still.


----------



## nath05 (Mar 19, 2006)

> Quote:
> "with all the problems the suburbs has brought, do americans think more about living in apartments near more dense urban areas!? The real state development on apartments has growed lately!?"
> 
> 
> ...


For the record, that's my entire post that Paddington quoted. Way to read selectively there, bud. Do they teach that in High School :bash:


----------



## desirous (Jun 10, 2006)

nath05 said:



> For the record, that's my entire post that Paddington quoted. Way to read selectively there, bud. Do they teach that in High School :bash:


I think they do.

Suburbia isn't bad if it gets the job done, but it can produce some terribly sheltered children. How are they supposed to represent America against all the talented overseas competition if they try to hail buses like taxis?


----------



## Pommes-T (Dec 7, 2005)

I think sprawl isn't such a big problem if there is a good system of public transport. I agree that these clean prefabricated house areas look boring, but they are really nice places to live in if the inner cities are easy to reach. Espcecially the children aren't so dependent from their parents then and it's good for employees who have to go to the city every day and of course for the environment.

And I can well understand the people who move there. In 2005 I made a journey with my parents from the Eastcoast to the Westcoast and I must say that the most cities weren't places I'd like to live in (the houses there are either not existing[only appartment blocks, ore extremly ugly or way too expensive). Plus, someone else mentioned it, especially after dusk I didn't feel safe in many cities. Once for example we went for dinner in Pittsburgh and wanted to go back to our hotel (which wasn't far away, the Ramada). The city was full of beggars, poor homeless people.
So of course the people who can move to the suburbs and who stays in the city are the poor.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

This is really horrifying. The worst surbia pics I ever saw. I hope I NEVER will end up in somthing like this  Suburbia is the end of the classical city, the biggest waste in space and a graveyard for the living! Maybe the worst thing in ecological and social terms - hope gazoline will become so expensive that no one can afford a car anymore and finally start thinking about density, functional mixture and public transportation


----------



## thryve (Mar 5, 2005)

Canada's suburbs are quite interesting because unlike their American counterparts, the populations are extremely diverse.

Even in small towns that have been suburbanized into large sprawltowns in random Ontario locations, there are very diverse populations.

Even Ontario's 'white towns' of very Canadian descent are becoming quite diverse.

-thryve


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

I realy love the suburbs.
I used to live in the inner city of Frankfurt and realy hate that urban lifestyle now. Just too many people, too diffficult to find parking space and not enough private green.

Now I life in the suburbs and its just perfect. Very quiete, no people who piss me off. When I feel like I just go out in the garden and pick up some tomatoes from the trees. I can read there while watching interesting wildlife like butterflies, birds, reptiles. I feel so much more healthy now.
And the best thing is, that the car is directly in front of my door. Never ever having the problem to find parking space!


----------



## SoulvisionQ1 (Jan 14, 2006)

That's really disgusting and troubling!! I'm so glad Australian suburbs are designed better! 
Suburbia is bad! for the environment and the economy...
this...








or this...


----------



## NewUrban (Mar 16, 2006)

> I'm so glad Australian suburbs are designed better!


I am not sure many Australian suburbs are designed all that better than America's, as we took our idea from them. However, thankfully where I am from (Brisbane), things are starting to change with more mixed-use development and a new, positive way of thinking about the City. Once again I think New Urbanism is the answer, not only is it sustainable, it caters to a diverse population. There are still houses, they're just in mixed use areas where a car is not needed (and it doesn't sprawl), from the houses it leads up to the urban core in zones via urban villages  

http://www.newurbanism.org/


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

I love suburbia and the drive home after work. I like to go the city to work and play and then come home. Well in the case of Las Vegas, suburbia is not far from the city center. Oh and we have great looking suburbs in Vegas.


----------



## Tosspot (Feb 10, 2005)

Joop20 said:


> Wtf, that Kansas stadium looks scary! I guess havig a good time in the city and drinking a beer in the pub before/after a game is something people in Kansas don't appreciate :nuts:


All the photos in the beginning of this thread are from Missouri, not Kansas, numbnuts.


----------



## oliver999 (Aug 4, 2006)

really nice pics. love to live there.


----------



## irving1903 (Nov 25, 2006)

Daniel_Portugal said:


> i ask my self... what the f*ck do the people does in these suburbs.. not a bar, a cinema, a nightclub, a shopping in a area of kilometers...
> 
> if you dont have a car, you're f*cked (kids don't have car, so, kids go outside only with papa's and mommy :|)
> 
> ...



omg you got that right. 

Living in a suburb is ok if its close to the immediate urban core. Let me tell you being an unemployed carless teen in a suburb sucks butt ! Unless its football season then its not so bad :] 

sure where i live is nothing like the 'burbs of KC but it still sucks to be carless in the burbs. Irving is right next to Dallas but unless you take the train to downtown on the weekends, or get mom & dad to take you some where, theres no way to get out with out your own car.

But thats where friends with cars comes in,
you waste their gas ol :] 

not all american suburbs are like those perfect cookie cutter in KC 

im pretty content with mine for the moment :]


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

LordMandeep said:


> we have those in toronto but they are really expensive and they aren't to many. The new suburbs are getting very dense and have only 3-5 feet separating 2500-3000 sq feet houses!
> 
> Here my street in outside of Toronto. Majority south asian live here. The suburbs here have lots of minorities.
> We have a movie theater and big malls but however to get some real fun and shopping we head downtown to Toronto.


Oh thats a lot in comparison with mexican homes that have no separation or some 10 cm one from other and the lots where homes are constructed are very little normally of 120m2 - 250m2 and you allways have to put a wall in front of your house (i don't know why) even medium rich class home follow these rules as we don't have suburbs (just nice zones with big lots)

medium class street:


----------



## annman (Aug 9, 2007)

*Foreign View on American Suburbia*

I must say, I was not a very big fan of suburbia when I lived in Orlando, FL for two years. It was like living in a sterile test tube of humanity. The endless strip malls, with no aesthetic value, the countless fast food joints and franchise restaurants after another, all surrounded by massive parking lots! The main streets that are littered with telephone and electric polls, an entrance every 50 feet to another franchise. Then there are the suburbs themselves, the repetition of the same style home after another, no variation, no architectural interest, just residential developers wanting to make a fast buck. Then, lets not mention the hassle of traffic caused by this uncontrolled sprawl! It really is a sad sight, and a city like Orlando has no urban framework, so developers unscrupulously develop virgin land miles and miles from downtown, further entrenching traffic problems, sprawl and the acute lack of bulk infrastructure. Then, there's no reliable public transport in sight. But how could it ever be effective? When there are only 1.9million people spread across 30miles east to west and 70miles north to south!

Suburbia is not a sustainable urbanism option and the urban fabric eventually starts to crumble.


----------



## jetmty1 (Dec 30, 2005)

MONTERREY MEXICO / SUBURB..

pic by Leon guizar 

As gabriel mention above, there is no space between houses, except for the 1 m in one side. they are all 100% concrete made different from many parts of the world were wooden housing prevails.


----------



## -KwK345- (May 23, 2007)

KJBrissy said:


> To back up my comments before here are 2 pictures of our stadiums first, and the our 4 biggest shopping malls. We try and keep fairley high density in these areas. When there is not a game on all of these places have some form of public transport at minimum intervals of 15 minutes until midnight. In peak times there is a minimum 5 minute wait for a bus or train. During game times the stadiums get some form of transport at least every 20 seconds at the begining and end.
> Lang Park, notice the train stations on the bottom left and very right:
> 
> 
> ...


Grrr!! I can't see the pics! 


SoulvisionQ1 said:


> Aus - Suncorp Stadium has NO public carpark...


So where do people park if they get there by car?!


Omega said:


> 4- Since all houses look alike and are the same, the artistic skills of craftsmen are quickly disappearing since they are not needed anymore.


That is not true.


Omega said:


> 5- Houses are built in wood so they need to be renovated every 20 years.


Are you talking about the exterior or the framing. Cause, if you're talking about the exterior, that's not always true either. A lot of houses here are mostly made of brick. And since when is there no wood in urban area houses?!


FastWhiteTA said:


> Please...it's not that bad. Isn't profitable to open shops?? Sururbs have TONS of shopping sure a lot of it is big box but not all of it. You just have to take your car there. There's pollution in dense cities btw...


Exactly!


Sukkiri said:


> Living in suburban American urban areas must be a real burden on people who prefer walking to places (eg schools, workplaces, shopping)


It's not far if you live close to your school, work, and/or shopping area. Plus, I see kids walking to and from school here. Most of the kids I see live close to the school, though.


----------



## MELBOURNE SEPERATIST (Feb 26, 2008)

im from australia and i reckon american suburbs are pretty cool


----------

