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

is this a thread about the new Arcade Fire record?

a new idea for this thread

xpost

Some of those people at the pool gatherings also attend meetings with their local commissioner every other Tuesday. I know this from my parents' experience. That's the only kind of "robust" community that makes sense.

i mean, one radical solution i'd propose is erasing all urban-suburban legal boundaries and have each metro area as one constituency under one administration. bingo, problem solved.

― goole, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 09:59 (6 minutes ago)

Megalopolis, here we come!

Is this a bad idea? If a city and its suburbs are related

no i think it would be great, it would be like finland

To continue making this personal, to one side of us is a working class African-American family and on the other is a young family from Iran. Across the street is a really charming gay couple in their 50s. Next door to them is a Japanese-American family. Then another gay couple in their 30s. Just sayin', I don't really feel like I live in the boring, vanilla suburbs a lot of people in this thread seem to assume.

In a lot of places, you can't even get adjacent, closely-related suburbs to share emergency services like police, fire and 911 dispatch to save money. Good luck with the "erasing political boundaries plan."

Do you think it would be accurate to say that some of the ease of their suburban community comes from the fact that many/most of the residents are very similar to the others with their priorities and where they are in life? This strikes me as the comforts of similarity, that we feel better w people most like us. It might make it easier to know and/or feel good about knowing your neighbors, but it's not a very...robust community.

― the soul of the avocado escapes as soon as you open it (Laurel), Wedne

I think this is something that was much more true in the past but has become much less the case over time

i don't think anyone seriously thinks that could happen in the u.s. xpost

erasing all urban-suburban legal boundaries and have each metro area as one constituency under one administration.

That's kind of silly and would lead to a lot of governmental neglect. I mean even as it is, East Portland gets something like 2% of Portland's tax dollars even though it contains about 20% of the residents. What's smarter is having a metropolitan government in addition to having more localized governments, which is the case here.

in the example i cited, yes laurel is right, the neighborhood is almost exclusively white, middle to upper middle class

but either way i can't really be snooty when i guess for whatever reasons i didn't take the time to really engage w/my neighbors

(though a lot of it i think was because our house faced out on a busy street in the middle of the block and all the other houses faced away towards the side streets so we never really "ran into" ppl leaving the house and whatnot

jon, jaymc and i grew up 25 miles out of the city and even back then (15-20 yrs ago) there's was a large percentage of non-Caucasians. it just depends on what suburb, just as it depends on what part of the city.

Is this a bad idea? If a city and its suburbs are related

it might solve the problem 'what's a suburb? what's not?" - and there can be some advantages when it comes to infrastructure and taxes - but on the other hand, many of the sprawliest cities in america are places that have done this and it doesn't appear to have done them much good.

What's smarter is having a metropolitan government in addition to having more localized governments, which is the case here.

yes, def - but a metropolitan government w/ actual power

"one administration" doesn't mean one executive, btw. i'm not proposing more centralization, just less artificial legal division, so enough with the north korea joeks already. the suburbs ARE the city -- same economy, same population, so the political decisions about resolving issues regarding the whole ought to go through the same avenue.

xp to Rev well that sounds like a problem of the residents of east portland being really poor, is that it? that's not a problem that form of gov't will address.

xp2 but on the other hand, many of the sprawliest cities in america are places that have done this and it doesn't appear to have done them much good.

really, which cities?

doesn't minneapolis area have the met council?

it might solve the problem 'what's a suburb? what's not?" - and there can be some advantages when it comes to infrastructure and taxes - but on the other hand, many of the sprawliest cities in america are places that have done this and it doesn't appear to have done them much good.

I was (possibly mistakenly!) under impression that certain cities in the south did this (Charlotte? but then thats pretty sprawly?) - need to know more about this

...I think European cities work more this way - was wondering if people thought it was a good or bad idea, and why (or why not?)

doesn't minneapolis area have the met council?

― the dj screwtape letters (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, June 9, 2010 12:18 PM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark

i always kind of figured the met council was BS but with all the crazy lawsuits over the new train, no, it isn't.

but i haven't a clue how it works or what its power is tbh

I know that Raleigh and Durham contain many of their own suburbs...and they are still sprawl monsters. But I think it does help with schools and property taxes and such.

really, which cities?

I believe houston, jaxonville are usually the examples?

xpost to goole: minnesota public radio can tell me how my ass taste wrt light rail, fuckaz

columbus, ohio has annexed many suburbs and it's very sprawly but the sprawl was not caused by the annexation since it already existed

on the other hand, NYC = a very, very successful example of this

iatee: Metro in Portland has quite a bit of power and they do a damned good job of managing regional planning.

xp to Rev well that sounds like a problem of the residents of east portland being really poor, is that it? that's not a problem that form of gov't will address.

Sure it can. Commisioner districts would help for one. My hometown of Everett has a big problem that 4 of the 5 councilmembers are from the old part of town, north of 41st Street, which contains about a fifth of the residents. Not coincidentally, North Everett gets all the revitalization efforts, and South Everett, where most people live, doesn't get shit. Not that anyone will ever succeed in getting them to create council districts, as it would likely mean 3 of them losing their jobs.

jon, jaymc and i grew up 25 miles out of the city and even back then (15-20 yrs ago) there's was a large percentage of non-Caucasians. it just depends on what suburb, just as it depends on what part of the city.

Oh yeah, totally understand this. Didn't mean to imply that I lived in some magical place and time or anything, I was just trying to throw my personal experience into the thread. It seemed a decent way of challenging the notion of what "suburbs" are, basically they can be tightly-packed, walkable areas that aren't dominated by sprawling lawns and twisty drives.

Pancakes, don't you live in clevo hts.? There are more sidewalks there than fish in the sea.

xpost to goole: minnesota public radio can tell me how my ass taste wrt light rail, fuckaz

― the dj screwtape letters (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, June 9, 2010 12:21 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

ha, or the U. ohh our poor sensitive instruments of science!! build us a $200m TUBE STOP!! the whole story is fuckin hilarious imo

iatee: Metro in Portland has quite a bit of power and they do a damned good job of managing regional planning.

I know! portland is fantastic when it comes to this stuff.

Metro: also responsible for the much-beloved MAX

Alright, I gotcha.

East Portland is kind cool, btw, and my friend who lives there and works on the West side of town, rides her bike most of the time.

Pancakes, don't you live in clevo hts.? There are more sidewalks there than fish in the sea.

― Brice Pilaf (brownie), Wednesday, June 9, 2010 1:25 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

Yep, but re: sidewalks I meant between here and downtown. And def. the southern 'burbs could use more. Bike lanes, well, there's Euclid Ave. and, uh . . .

East Portland is kind cool, btw, and my friend who lives there and works on the West side of town, rides her bike most of the time.

― If the US had a dictator we'd call him coach (Michael White), Wednesday, June 9, 2010 Suggest Ban Permalink
10:29 AM Bookmark

That depends on your definition of "East". I live on the Eastside, as do the majority of Portlanders, but usually when people here say "East Portland", they mean east of the 205, which is not very nice at all.

And kind of out of biking range of downtown, unless you are like hardcore bicycle dude.

Relevant to this conversation: Cities Without Suburbs.

I haven't read it in quite a while, but did so when there was a local attempt to create a county-wide tax and administration structure that failed. I think the gist of the argument, that metro areas need some sort of metro-wide (or county-wide if the metro is confined) structure is key to gluing things together. This has become less of an issue lately due to urban revitalization, but really for decades the pattern was that people would work in the city where much of the major property is business-owned and given tax breaks, but would live in the suburbs where all their tax money goes to schools and suburban development. So you get in a loop where property values decline in the city proper, the city has less tax revenue to work on roads and public parks, and eventually the suburbs get enough of a tax revenue surplus that they're able to give large incentives to corporations to build suburban corporate campuses.

To put a face on the entire "live in city, commute to suburbs" thing that's getting discussed (although my home is probably "suburban" by these standards), here's a rough map of my route to work. I live a little ways too far to comfortably bike in the AM, and it definitely wouldn't be practical in the winter. So, feel free to criticize my lifestyle if you like!

Obviously I don't live and work at intersections, but the general areas are right.

And yeah, I spend about 10 minutes on beaver every morning. hehe.

posts quoted out of context

ha

re: Portland

There's allegedly some plans to create a pedestrian bridge connecting the east & west side over the river. Also, I think they're attempting to create a hub of sorts around the base of the tram where all of the modes of transit (streetcar, tram, buses, etc.) would be more interconnected.

To put a face on the entire "live in city, commute to suburbs" thing that's getting discussed (although my home is probably "suburban" by these standards), here's a rough map of my route to work. I live a little ways too far to comfortably bike in the AM, and it definitely wouldn't be practical in the winter. So, feel free to criticize my lifestyle if you like!

yeah I mean you are in the situation you are in and you have a job and a life and not a ton of room to budge. most people are in that situation.

I'm really only criticizing:

(mainly!) - a. the basic political/economic incentive structure itself - which subsidizes suburban life (in ways that we take for granted) and drains money from urban areas.

b. the alfred-types "my parents worked damn hard for their money and deserve a sprawly house and an SUV" - people who believe that this lifestyle is something they deserveeee instead of something that is a luxury and should be priced as one.

Working damn hard = you deserve some luxuries and the suburbs afaik ARE priced as one.

xxp I don't think you get it. It's not the whole Eastside that's neglected, just the far eastern parts past the 205. ("Eastside" = anything east of the river; "East Portland" = past the 205, 5 miles east of the river.) The parts between the river and the 205 (the majority of Portland, really) are fine.

Anyway, the pedestrian bridge thing was just an idea floated around a couple years back that went nowhere. And I'm not sure what you're talking about with this "hub". All the transit is pretty interconnected to begin with. What they are planning on doing is building a transit-only bridge between the Rock Island and Marquam bridges that would carry the next MAX line to Milwaukee, the Eastside streetcar they are currently laying tracks for, and buses. But that won't be for some years.

something they deserveeee instead of something that is a luxury

these are not mutually exclusive

xx-post

No, they're not. A lot of people move to suburbs because they're cheaper overall, at least in many city areas. Land is cheaper, taxes are generally cheaper since they're not paying for as much infrastructure, and you're more likely to have big box discount stores. You don't get $2 slices of pizza or anything, though.

This doesn't count for "prestige" suburbs but those really are the McMansion/Cadillac Escalade/wine stores in strip malls places that we're using as our straw man here.

Working damn hard = you deserve some luxuries and the suburbs afaik ARE priced as one.

― kkvgz, Wednesday, June 9, 2010 12:48 PM Bookmark

In Seattle, it's waaaay cheaper to live in the non-ritzier suburbs than in the city itself. I couldn't afford to live in Seattle, which is why I moved to a cheaper city.

'the city itself' is expensive because there is a paucity of nice urban neighborhoods in the country and many people actually do want to live in them! that problem is not solved by building new suburbs.

b. the alfred-types "my parents worked damn hard for their money and deserve a sprawly house and an SUV" - people who believe that this lifestyle is something they deserveeee instead of something that is a luxury and should be priced as one.

What you deserve is a fistful of stfu.

Apparently you got through college creating dumb binaries and seeing things that aren't there.

iatee, what exactly are you interested in doing about that other than chiding people?