People Who Live In Suburbs: Classy, Icky, or Dudes?

wtf so what? I believe we need to structure our world so that people pay for their externalities. that would make living in the suburbs more much expensive and cities relatively cheaper. right now we live in a world where we subsidize and thus prioritize suburban life

Apparently you live in a world that "prioritizes" urban life. Cities are loud, dirty, and frantic (especially if you've ever visited a city that isn't in the US or Europe).

Although I don't believe people get better, I really thought we'd progressed to the point where indefensible dichotomies like cities = grate suburbs = boring, pre-fab no longer existed.

I will say, looking at the tin houses again, I HATE when the garage itself is the front face or front identity of any house, and now that I look at those, I see that they all have parking front and center on the ground floors -- sorry, Sanpaku. Didn't see that at first.

I don't hate the idea of a garage-style door being the main entrance of a building as long as it doesn't ACTUALLY lead to the garage. I don't want my car's storage area to define my living space because I don't want to live on a scale that's customized for cars alone (and not for people).

xp Cities are loud, dirty, and frantic (especially if you've ever visited a city that isn't in the US or Europe).

Either someone didn't read the thread, or we may as well call Granny Dainger back to thread to cite this occasion of anti-urban snobbery. Also, I called this one yesterday.

I don't espouse this view! I'm throwing back his dichotomies.

re:fakery,

not in a suburb but I laughed a little at the railings on these infill recreated townhouses in Bristol, England, protecting passers by from falling into non-existent basement yards

http://tinyurl.com/34cakvk

What do you think should be done, iatee? " structure our world so that people pay for their externalities" is some vague, abstract shit. I don't disagree with you, but imo you're looking at this from the wrong perspective.

While the popular image of modern suburbia is one of endless subdivision, are there more attempts now at walkable suburbs, of attempting to build suburbs that ape functionality of small towns. I'm not really so clear on changes in recent suburbia in regard to this

At least 2 examples of these are described in that book I reference above, Geography of Nowhere. (Been about 10 yrs since I read it). One of them is in *gasp* FLORIDA. This gets back to iatee, cause it seems like you're arguing that people should be coerced into leaving the suburbs for the city, mainly via being priced out. Which uh would make suburbs even more gentrified and upper-middle class than they already are. It's not feasible or even desirable for huge swaths of land to be abandoned. They should be restructured to be more efficient and more human-scaled. Neither of which necessarily means they should morph into a heavily urbanized landscape.

I really thought we'd progressed to the point where indefensible dichotomies like cities = grate suburbs = boring, pre-fab no longer existed.

well I for one am cheered by the hopeful perspective you'd had until this thread brought an unwelcome dose of reality to your table!

I kinda like it's this way: Both my parents were raised in my hometown. My mom was born there, my dad brought there as an infant. Both went to school there, have lived and worked there their entire lives, and made a life for themselves there. If you think they should be forced to live somewhere else because of their "externalities", you can eff right off.

xp cherry blossom: best thing about that google map by a mile is the existence of a bar called "Ye Shakespeare"

jj:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

That's funny, jj, because those pretend condos look like they were transplanted from huge parts of the outer boroughs here. They probably just developed them for another area and didn't bother to tailor the aesthetic?

One of them is in *gasp* FLORIDA.

thats Seaside isn't it?

http://www.theseasideinstitute.org/

is that a suburb though or a separate small town?

Maybe iatee's vision of what the Democratic party should do includes subsidies for the study of urban/suburban "externalities."

GD: They should be restructured to be more efficient and more human-scaled.

How, seriously, would that be done? It seems like in order to bring necessary goods and services to a human-traversible distance from people in spread-out suburban communities (and a lot of small towns, too), you'd have to duplicate the outlets offering those services x 8945678903 to achieve the same coverage per capita. Is that sensible? Obv it's "sort of sensible" up to a point of spread, after which the idea doesn't scale up anymore. What are some major directions for "humanizing" suburban/bedroom town-type residential areas?

have you guys never run into the term externality before?

I have but only sort of recently in reading a book about reducing waste.

This thread needs more JBR.

Apparently you live in a world that "prioritizes" urban life. Cities are loud, dirty, and frantic (especially if you've ever visited a city that isn't in the US or Europe).

Although I don't believe people get better, I really thought we'd progressed to the point where indefensible dichotomies like cities = grate suburbs = boring, pre-fab no longer existed.

right, except I don't dislike suburbs for being boring or pre-fab or for not having enough bars or brown people or whatever. read what I wrote, this is basically 100% about transportation.

iatee, i asked you this upthread yesterday, but please define what you mean by externalities

when someone drives to work, they create large amounts of pollution, depend on a highly subsidized street and road system and they take up a large % of the urban environment w/ a single of metal. these are all (among the) externalities they create. there are environmental, urban and social 'costs' of this lifestyle, and this person isn't actually expected to pay them. in fact, driving might be cheaper than taking public transportation, when the environmental/urban/social 'costs' of public transportation are significantly lower. there is no logical reason for this to case.

no no, i get what externalities are, i just feel like the vagaries about what the "costs" of these imaginary suburbs iatee keeps talking about are make it impossible to do anything other than shrug in response xxpost

what is the best kind of community

living in a van moving around the country solving mysteries. #2 probably minimum security prisons

What are some major directions for "humanizing" suburban/bedroom town-type residential areas?

Not really sure about the more sprawly type of existing suburbs - other than improving bus services possibly

As for newer suburbs what does everyone think about retrofitting of existing satellite towns (I'm kinda thinking about Pittsburgh here - as a city I guess its still losing population but as an urbanized area?)

pollution, congestion, space, government $. what's vague about these costs?

xp

but dude, like rev and i have both said repeatedly, your idea that suburbs are 100% city commuters is not borne out by reality xxxpost

in fact the majority of my city dwelling friends commute out TO the fucking suburbs which is where all the office parks etc are.

please give example of where I said something contrary to that? a large % of suburbans commute to other suburbs.

What are some major directions for "humanizing" suburban/bedroom town-type residential areas?

Adding sidewalks to areas that have none, bike lanes, creating mass transit, increasing density in areas with access to nearby amenities, I'm sure other stuff I'm not thinking of.

or the same suburb even! it doesn't matter. what matters is that they take a car and for a large % of people their only viable option is a car.

i might be wrong here but i am kind of thinking that you live in one of the gargantua cities in the us and are taking that experience and extrapolating it to the rest of the country, which is just not accurate. xpost

DUDE, I just said that URBAN residents I know predominately commute TO the suburbs. are you even reading anything I write?

yes and I wasn't disagreeing with that either?

A lot of people in cities drive cars, too.

yes and I am even more so opposed to those people!

In other words according to your model in my circle of peeps, people in the city should be penalized for the externalities of commuting to the suburbs because they could choose to live there thus cutting their transportation costs.

yes

why not

i mean if you want to fix this obv dealing with ways to increase the cost of car ownership is the answer, not some bizarre suburb sin tax.

In other words according to your model in my circle of peeps, people in the city should be penalized for the externalities of commuting to the suburbs because they could choose to live there thus cutting their transportation costs.

Suggest Ban Permalink
― Adolf Hipster (jjjusten), Wednesday, June 9, 2010 9:33 AM Bookmark

...but people who do live in suburbs should be penalized for their externalities whether they work near where they live or not.

anyone i've known who lived in the suburbs but worked in the city took the train to work. you'd be insane to drive. (haha as a kid I basically never saw my dad during the week, cause he chose to drive his 25ish mile commute to the city, but couldn't handle rush hours so worked the 3pm-11pm shift. crazy!)

DUDE, I just said that URBAN residents I know predominately commute TO the suburbs.

well, this still falls under the "problem with suburbs" tbh. living in one, working in the other, driving one way or the other doesn't really matter

people who live near where they work create fewer externalities...what is complicated about this idea?

increasing density in areas with access to nearby amenities

This is interesting because...it seems like another way of saying, "Make areas with access to Stuff be more like cities." Which is fine, it's great! but you're basically admitting that the high-pop-den urban model is more desirable on a human scale.

Also, a lot a lot-lot-lot of residential areas have ZERO access to amenities. You'd have to CREATE the amenities where they didn't exist before. Do you...use govt money, tax concessions, whatever, to promote developing these businesses?

^

people who live near where they work create fewer externalities...what is complicated about this idea?

― iatee, Wednesday, June 9, 2010 9:36 AM Bookmark

Nothing at all. You only seem to grasp it though when it applies to city dwellers.

Adding sidewalks to areas that have none, bike lanes, creating mass transit, increasing density in areas with access to nearby amenities, I'm sure other stuff I'm not thinking of.

^yes. Plus, mixed-use areas rather than ginormous tract of houses, then ginormous office park, then ginormous shopping complex.

And jj, although your house and your nabe and your life sound perfectly charming and I pretty much want them all, you are taking the perfection of YOUR suburban-by-some-definition life and using it to defend things just as generalized as any of the champions of cities may be doing on this thread.

Nothing at all. You only seem to grasp it though when it applies to city dwellers.

no, it's just much more likely to be the case with them because they live in an environment suited for it, or near public transit.

ok so at this point i think iatee is arguing that people who commute to their suburban job out of the city are in fact living in a one person suburb that orbits around them.

waht

as much as i apreesh the "hey ppl in suburbs aren't JUST commuting to cities" sentiment the fact that fucktons of people do just this remains.

have there been any studies/proposals/etc. for creating environmentally sustainable models of living in outer-ring suburbs as they are understood in the u.s.? because i would like to read those.

This is interesting because...it seems like another way of saying, "Make areas with access to Stuff be more like cities." Which is fine, it's great! but you're basically admitting that the high-pop-den urban model is more desirable on a human scale.

Did I ever say otherwise?

Also, a lot a lot-lot-lot of residential areas have ZERO access to amenities. You'd have to CREATE the amenities where they didn't exist before. Do you...use govt money, tax concessions, whatever, to promote developing these businesses?

― the soul of the avocado escapes as soon as you open it (Laurel), Wednesday, June 9, 2010 Suggest Ban Permalink
9:37 AM Bookmark

It wouldn't be perfect, but a lot of this could be handled with simple zoning changes. One of the problems with suburban planning is the hard seperation of land use into seperate commercial and residential areas. Allowing some commercial or (preferably) mixed-use development into areas where only residential use exists could incrementally make those spaces more livable.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/48/107880025_1a2b75d75a.jpg

reposting this because i think its an impt piece of data, it's generalizble to say that suburban space is more energy-inefficient and i think that's all iatee has been getting at

Or what Granny said.

xp yeah exactly--is there any model that refutes or mitigates this?