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

dayo my apartment(s) have been in both minneapolis and saint paul (so twin cities mn), my suburb is an inner ring suburb of saint paul

noted accurate source of info wikipedia says 7024 per square mile - please note that several sources dispute that due to the hardcore green space movement that has always existed in mpls, also the fact that we have a shit ton of rivers and lakes occupying lots of space in the city limits, and it is hard to live on a lake.

the energy and resources you're using depend on your lifestyle not just on where you live. ... 'suburbs' half hour outside of them can really mean a variety of things.

this is exactly the point I was trying to make

nevertheless, container shipping moves a *lot* of stuff and is far more efficient than flying or trucking. sorry long beach

It all ends up on trucks though anyway right? So the chinese goods you buy in the suburbs of Long Beach have a somewhat lower environmental impact than buying those same items in Texas.

I mean, lots of it moves from the port on trains of course too, but all of it ends up on a truck eventually.

yes, but if you walk to the store in texas vs. driving two hours to the store in la (etc. etc.)

basically what I'm saying is that the most environmentally righteous place to live is next door to a walmart in San Pedro.

yes, but if you walk to the store in texas vs. driving two hours to the store in la (etc. etc.)

ok, if then... what? my point is that I think it's tough to make a clear conclusion about that by looking only at one factor in isolation. For example what if I drive 5 miles to the supermarket once a week and only buy locally sourced produce, vs somebody who walks to the supermarket but buys all imported produce?

It all ends up on trucks though anyway right? So the chinese goods you buy in the suburbs of Long Beach have a somewhat lower environmental impact than buying those same items in Texas.

Haha. Well, mine go to Chicago by train. But from Chicago to Indiana, and then to the eventual customers, yes, it's all by truck.

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/quick-note-on-food-transportation/

I mean you can't BUY them in LB without them first going to a central warehouse/processing location, and then back out to distributors etc. So hypothetically living IN Long Beach would be the MOST wasteful of all scenarios, because the product is 100% doubling its travels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wzz2DynBKI

I'm counting on methane digsters to soften my carnivorous footprint by recouping some of the stored energy from day-to-day manure disposal and from the fat and waste parts of the animal after slaughter.

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/quick-note-on-food-transportation/

interesting, but the conclusion seems to be that you should consider the environmental impact of what you eat over where it came from. which I think again ties into my main point that "it's complicated."

obviously dense development is more environmentally friendly than sprawl and we should all reduce our reliance on cars as much as possible. but to leap from that to "people who live in suburbs are icky" or "conservative" ignores a lot of the nuances.

that graph still blowing my mind. feel like they should string up extension cords to the ships or something.

I mean, as much as you want to isolate one factor, it's pretty hard. for one, you'd have to come up w/ a basket of goods that they'd be buying. also are we talking about just the environmental effects within america, or worldwide?

otoh looking at things from a macro-level is a lot more clearcut - a population in a dense city is going to require less energy than an otherwise comparable population in a suburb. that doesn't mean that everyone in manhattan has a better carbon footprint than everyone on long island - there are incredibly wealth people in manhattan, they take a lot of planes, they consume a lot, etc. etc. but when it comes to comparable measures - 'how much energy do they consume getting to work?' - it's not even a question.

what are the nuances involved in people moving to the suburbs

I mean you can't BUY them in LB without them first going to a central warehouse/processing location, and then back out to distributors etc. So hypothetically living IN Long Beach would be the MOST wasteful of all scenarios, because the product is 100% doubling its travels.

you're shattering my illusion of some kind of waterfront farmer's market where you can browse the melamine dog food and lead-painted toys fresh off the boat while listening to a busking Mike Watt singing sea shanties.

obviously dense development is more environmentally friendly than sprawl and we should all reduce our reliance on cars as much as possible. but to leap from that to "people who live in suburbs are icky" or "conservative" ignores a lot of the nuances.

never said icky, and 'conservative', well, read my original quote. I said that people who, given an everything-else-equal choice (price, schools, commute) would prefer to live in a suburban area than an urban area are likely to overall lean conservative. that's all I said.

but people generally don't get to make that decision because of the way we fund schools and only have a few walkable cities in the entire country

the twin cities seem like a pretty cool place from google maps

seems comparable to philadelphia. what are apartment prices like for places located in downtown st paul or minnesota?

transit not at all comparable to philly

ppl should just buy less stuff

just to give my perspective, the house I grew up in in philadelphia was very cheap! but it was also kind of located in a food desert - we only have bodegas around in a 5 block radius, the nearest supermarkets were located in strip malls that, walking, you would have to cross 4 lane roads to get to. in comparison some people who went to my school lived in center city. their houses cost a million in 1980s dollars - don't know what that would be now. and obviously, where they lived was MUCH MUCH more walkable than where I lived, despite also living in the city.

I mean, as much as you want to isolate one factor

I don't really want to isolate one factor. I think "cities good, suburbs bad" is isolating one factor.

otoh looking at things from a macro-level is a lot more clearcut - a population in a dense city is going to require less energy than an otherwise comparable population in a suburb.

sure, agreed.

that doesn't mean that everyone in manhattan has a better carbon footprint than everyone on long island - there are incredibly wealth people in manhattan, they take a lot of planes, they consume a lot, etc. etc.

right, so it doesn't make any sense to make generalizations about the people who live in cities or suburbs, does it?

but when it comes to comparable measures - 'how much energy do they consume getting to work?' - it's not even a question.

well, it is if the person living in the suburbs works at home, or like justen, the suburb is closer to work, or if the person living in the city lives in a walkable neighborhood but drives anyway.

no sorry that should be $100k in 1980s dollar - I think they were worth a million in the 90s, no idea how much they're worth now.

Last apartment I lived in was a 2 bedroom and was $850 plus utilities

transit not at all comparable to philly

― iatee, Wednesday, September 7, 2011 9:02 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

lol imo philly is pretty deficient - one subway line, one el, a bunch of commuter rail lines to outlying affluent suburbs. septa is okay.

what was its walkscore xp to jjjusten

I know it is...still not comparable to philly...

Transit here sucks but mostly because of lol weather making busses suck, but we are trying to expand the light rail and making some headway - not going to lie though it's very lacking. But it's gotten way way better since 10 years ago

so what do you do if you don't have a car in the winter

and what sort of policies do you think led to public transit sucking in the twin cities

You ride the bus? I lived here with no car for 15 years, it is def possible.

possible yes, but is it ideal

Selling our streetcars in the 1940s and never building any subway system. The infrastructure was dismantled a long long time ago

never said icky, and 'conservative', well, read my original quote. I said that people who, given an everything-else-equal choice (price, schools, commute) would prefer to live in a suburban area than an urban area are likely to overall lean conservative. that's all I said.

yeah, "icky" was just a reference to the thread title. but the rest of your post... I don't know. I really don't get where you're coming from. If price, schools, and commute time were not a factor in where people choose to live then... people in suburbs would be conservative!? You're trying to draw conclusions by eliminating the three major factors that people use when they decide where to live?

the twin cities seem like a pretty cool place

yeah

in the winter you wake up, go turn on your car, take a shower, eat breakfast, then drive to work

so why were streetcars dismantled in the 1940s? what took their place

I mean, not the streetcars themselves. the infrastructure.

buses

generally happened throughout the country. pretty much every mid-to-large city had an extensive streetcar system.

how's the bus system in the twin cities

actually the interstate highway going right through the center of the city iirc

the bus system is probably as good as you could get a bus only system to be, which is to say shitty

what's the average wait time?

well if you go out when it is supposed to be there a few minutes

this is a really exciting conversation by the way

I know it's like waiting for a bus