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

oh my god, that display name

You guys are made for each other

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/matthewyglesias/~3/WdpdI_jy7fg/

prob gonna be some good stuff here

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/09/15/the-incredible-shrinking-megastore-retailers-think-outside-the-big-box/

Lewiston is in Idaho.

I've always figured that in fifty years, Wal-Mart will consist of a dozen rusting stores in a few backwater towns in the Midwest.

I basically want everyone to live in amsterdam or paris.

what are the suburbs of amsterdam and paris like?

will respond in a bit

it's nice being in most bikeable city with the most reliable+comprehensive public transport in germany, except when you are cycling home kind of drunk and you go over a tramline and this intersection at too oblique and angle and fall off (lol me last night)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3035/2625870220_2997df9771_z.jpg?zz=1

xp

the term 'banlieue' in french is the closest equivalent to 'suburb', but the connotation of the term is different and often but not always implies 'area outside of city proper with large housing projects with large numbers of poor immigrants'. so just as 'suburb' without any modifiers has a *general* connotation of middle class white people, 'banlieue' has a *general* connotation of poor immigrants in corbusian projects. but the parisian suburbs are more complex than that, especially because the urban region has been growing around an arbitrary border for a long time.

here's a density map, the white ring in the center is paris:
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Paris-Region-Grand-Huit-Density.jpg

it's hard to tell the difference between those reds and the spectrum is huge, but dark red = denser than manhattan, light red = ~brooklyn to twice as dense as brooklyn, orange = ~san francisco/boston. that's the first ring suburbs - for the most part, lots of villages of varying sizes that grew into de facto parts of the city over the 20th century. 'the suburbs' is a combination of historic town centers, large housing projects, large not-housing project apartments, the greater paris central business district (skyscrapers), castles, rural-type regions, american style-suburbs.

here's a picture of single family detached houses in greater paris. this is not what *all* single family detached houses look like, but it's how a lot of the orange and yellow regions can be as dense as they are:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zHb8uFv5m0I/TdAQ22N20LI/AAAAAAAAAHk/aM-48cXEv84/s320/paris_sub.jpg

here are some pictures of suburbs in other countries and a longer explaination:
http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2011/05/setbacks-suburbs-and-american-front.html

here's why we can't legally build neighborhoods like that:
http://lawreview.law.pitt.edu/issues/68/68.4/Hall.pdf

paris invested a ton of money on its commuter rail system in the late 20th century which is why it's better than anything in america and why so many people in the suburbs take the train to work. and even today they continue to invest more money on new trains at a scale that's unthinkable here.

none of this is magic, it's just people with better priorities and a sense for long-term planning.

had a thought and it may be mentioned upthread, but do you think that countries (and particularly cities) with long, rich histories are more inclined to support larger investment in long term projects like infrastucture? I feel like some of the worst planned suburban communities are happening in cities that are relatively young and perhaps don't have a sense of permanence that Paris or new York have (nor a paucity of available space the way Japan does I guess). it's like you would care a lot more about the next 50 years of your city knowing that this place has been around forever and you aree in some way connected to and responsible for its livelihood. not so maybe for the millions of ppl living in Phoenix or Houston or whatever postwar boom towns where sprawl is the worst (IOW there's nothing to ruin because there wasn't anything special that came before you, might as well take advantage of that space to build a certain kind of dream community lol it is actually a nitemare amirite).

suburban development in america is probably connected w/ america's post-wwII king of the mountain I can do anything fuck it I want it all giant mountain of coke on my desk my dick is 15 inches long feeling

nah there was a lot of "open land" and lots of people want to get away from city "problems" and have more space, don't know why people need to attribute unseemly motivations just because their manifestations had unseemly results.

there still is a lot of open land. America is too big for its own good.

granny, I think a lot of existing suburban growth to be a product of economic incentives (land is cheap, urban housing stock is too expensive, Im not moving out here bc of sublimated racism, etc).

but i would def read that Pitt law review article iatee posted. it's longish but it's p compelling. basically the legal precedence set in the early 20th century of single use zoning and minimum lot sizes and so on may appear innocuous on its face but were absolutely intended to be discriminatory (and were quite successful in doing so). the logic of america's suburbs is not entirely price-motivated. basically we have this vestigial urban planning model that continues to exacerbate the problems we've discussed at length in this thread and it was indeed willfully malicious in its creation.

I think what iatee has been arguing for (he's certainly said as much) and what I will cosign is not that suburbs/lawns/cars/big houses/3.5 baths/golf courses are inherently bad and evil and the people who consume these willingly and joyfully are bad and evil (as a lifelong suburb denizen I would not be able to sleep at night if I thought this). it's just that a century of government policy has encouraged a growth pattern that have made these things relatively more affordable and desirable and shaped the culture in such a way that we have generations of Americans who have known nothing else besides low density suburban developments and cannot imagine living in any other environment and are certainly not civiically motivated to make any changes to that system. so we are basically old men yelling at cloud cities because this status quo is alternately unsustainable and yet highly sought after by many if not most americans in spite of its thoroughly shitty nature.

booming post

I think it's so weird and sad that the majority of americans tend towards isolating lifestyles

(know I'm going to find a ton of sympathy for that viewpoint on ILX)

m bison shoots and scores imo

Anyhow I am pretty new to this thead and have not read anywhere near all of it, but I am curious about evidence the suburbs are unsustainable? I'm not a doubter or anything, I just don't really know anything about these things.

fundamentals:
*the inextricably linked suburban home and automobile
-- sprawl necessitates the use of autos as a means of transportation, requires new roadways, sewage and utilities built out to those new communities
-- because the negative externalities of gasoline are not built into the price, it is artificially cheap, undervaluing the true cost of ever expanding development
-- at some point, the market for gasoline will be tighter and the economic logic for families moving out to suburbs begins to erode. the cost of gasaoline powereed auto transportation becomes cost prohibitive, ostensibly stranding some communities from the places that make a neighborhood livable.

*excessive setbacks for suburban homes (distance of home from roadway) and big ass lawns
-- gasoline powered mowers to maintain lawns (see above)
-- use of water-fucker-uppers like pesticides and herbicides
-- use of potable water to make green grass grow in dry infertile climates puts a strain on municipal water systems where one need not exist

there are definitely more reasons, but I'm running out of clever ways to curse

and also typing on iPads means tons of embarrassing typos

but the basic idea is that suburban development assumes an unlimited supply of gas, water, and land to grow out into despite evidence to the contrary that those things can definitely run out at some point.

Yeah I get the theory, but is there evidence that this has happened sincer the birth of the burbs? Again, not a doubter, just don't know if there is evidence of suburb-to-urban flight based on any of the above?

so get rid of subsidies/make people pay for externalities...what are all the consequences of that? more people move back to cities--->urban real estate gets even more expensive; greater amount of people puts an even greater stress on the urban environment/ecosystem---->land outside of the city gets cheaper and cheaper; city becomes overcrowded and a worse place to live---->people want to leave the city for cheaper land and less crime/more space?? or no? w/this current population size (always increasing too) and given human nature/desires, don't suburbs have to exist in some form? so have all car-based suburbs either convert to public trans-based ones or die; get rid of those zoning laws too, and?

well, in this magical world - if at any point price is becoming a limiting factor, they won't flee to the single-family detached home suburbs on the edge of the city, they'll flee to a newly densified area on the outer edge of the city, which will always be cheaper than whatever low density equivalent because new high density housing has economies of scale.

also "less crime" - outside of living completely isolated from society, there's no inherent link between crime and density. tokyo is safer than wherever you live.

and given human nature/desires, don't suburbs have to exist in some form?

what is human nature and what are these desires? cars and front lawns are recent inventions. we managed without these desires being satisfied for centuries. walkable urban areas are thousands of years old, exist across the world, are pretty much responsible for the rise of civilization etc. etc. - seems like there's more of an argument for 'human nature' there than in recent form of development dependent on a surplus of various resources. (I don't think 'human nature' has anything to do w/ any of this, even 'rational economic agent' isn't 'human nature')

had a thought and it may be mentioned upthread, but do you think that countries (and particularly cities) with long, rich histories are more inclined to support larger investment in long term projects like infrastucture? I feel like some of the worst planned suburban communities are happening in cities that are relatively young and perhaps don't have a sense of permanence that Paris or new York have (nor a paucity of available space the way Japan does I guess). it's like you would care a lot more about the next 50 years of your city knowing that this place has been around forever and you aree in some way connected to and responsible for its livelihood. not so maybe for the millions of ppl living in Phoenix or Houston or whatever postwar boom towns where sprawl is the worst (IOW there's nothing to ruin because there wasn't anything special that came before you, might as well take advantage of that space to build a certain kind of dream community lol it is actually a nitemare amirite).

you can't narrow it down to one thing but...it's not this one thing.

most places w/ rich histories pretty much followed the same overall path as the rest of the country. some of them just started out in a better place. there are some exceptions, but I mean, new york is building its first entirely new subway line in *70 years*. (in fact the system is actually less functional than it was back then, cause they tore down the els.)

other than that you are otm and feel free to speak for me while I'm gone

*moves to suburbs, flips "iatee" the bird*

there's no inherent link between crime and density. tokyo is safer than wherever you live.

i live in america, and generally there's more crime in cities. obv density doesn't cause crime, though

what is human nature and what are these desires? cars and front lawns are recent inventions. we managed without these desires being satisfied for centuries. walkable urban areas are thousands of years old, exist across the world, are pretty much responsible for the rise of civilization etc. etc. - seems like there's more of an argument for 'human nature' there than in recent form of development dependent on a surplus of various resources.

huge cities of millions of people are also recent 'inventions'! is it really unfathomable that some people (mr aerosmith being one, myself another) have very negative responses towards some aspects of modern city life yet also don't want to live in Bumblefuck? going 'no no really guys, you don't truly ~want~ lawns and dogs, come back to the city and de-isolate, it'll be super' just isn't going to work.

"we mangaged without it for centuries" can be said about like 80% of things that are now, for all intents and purposes, indispensable.

seems like there's more of an argument for 'human nature' there than in recent form of development dependent on a surplus of various resources.

'human nature' is a multi-faceted thing that can be self-contradictory. humans by nature are social. humans by nature desire privacy.

actually the 'nature' part gets in the way. humans are social. humans desire privacy.

ftr tho i don't think lawns need to be as prevalent as they are. i miss having one but its absence doesn't lower my quality of living all that much. but equating them to city parks just shows a lack of understanding their appeal.

-- gasoline powered mowers to maintain lawns (see above)
-- use of water-fucker-uppers like pesticides and herbicides
-- use of potable water to make green grass grow in dry infertile climates puts a strain on municipal water systems where one need not exist

--solar-powered mowers
--let that shit grow naturally
--let that shit not grow naturally

I saw my neighbor mowing his lawn with a push reel mower. I own two lawn mowers and neither works. I am thinking of not caring what anyone thinks, I need the exercise, they are cheap and won't break all of the time.

if it's good enough for the Amish...
i've only ever even seen one while clearing out my grandparents' shed
still have deathrage for neighbors who'd mow at 9am on a Saturday when i was a late-sleepin teenager.

we just sad "fuck it" and didnt maintain our "lawn" at all this summer, so I'm going to have to bust out my third-hand oil-leaking smoke-belching mower one more time before winter, but I'm definitely asking for a pushmower for christmas or something. so neccessary.

--solar-powered mowers
--let that shit grow naturally
--let that shit not grow naturally

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Sunday, September 18, 2011 3:51 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

looks like granny dainger just solved the suburbs

granny dainger what are the pros of having a lawn

iirc its human nature to want one

so get rid of subsidies/make people pay for externalities...what are all the consequences of that? more people move back to cities--->urban real estate gets even more expensive;

I don't mean to keep weein in your proverbial flange, gran, but I feel like you are missing a piece of the supply and demand puzzle. urban real estate is artificially high due to limitations on how much housing stock can be developed in urban cores from zoning restrictions etc. so increased demand alone does send prices skyward. but with the freedom to develop housing, ESP multi family housing, without the typical requirements that create sprawl means that the supply will in the medium term catch up with demand and prices will come back down to earth.

no offense but i feel like ur missin the key "solar-powered lawn mowers" element of the sprawl puzzle m bison

4 srs tho imma get that mower up to highway speeds and blaze past urban density tomorrow

fyi when we all move to new hampshire, if your human nature requires you to have a lawn, u can be the foreman on one of the farms where all the teenagers are forced to work

my human nature compels me to have acres of elaborately maintained gardens w/ topiary statues of knights and dragons, sorry

two words: solar-powered hedge trimmer

i make the interns use steel clippers to learn abt the value of 'sweat equity'

when u think about it... arent we all "solar-powered"?