Poll
The Washington Post has many articles on young couples agonizing whether to stay in the city once they have children. The better public schools in some of the suburbs, for couples not wealthy enough to send their kids to private schools, is a large part of this, and help our already-ridiculously-affluent suburbs thrive.
All of those towns have a train to NYC, that is the only reason why. The people there own cars to get everywhere else. The suburbs aren't going anywhere as long as cities remain expensive to live in. Heck all those towns were originally built as "railroad suburbs" that were cheaper to live in than the city.
I know many people who just use zipcars for this stuff rather than own one.
Personally, and I definitely get the appeal if you more or less want to stay in the city, but a big part of the appeal of living in a city to me is the ability to get out of the city- Zipcars get expensive fast when you start taking 200-2,000 mile drives on the weekend, so I think I'd rather always own my own car.
Birmingham is basically the Detroit of the South. The two cities have had very similar struggles.
None of that appeals to me. I haven't been to a concert or a ballgame in ages, and have no desire to go. I'm a NASCAR fan but I would not want to go see a race live, because I'd have to deal with crowds of people and the traffic jams getting to and from the track. I'm not a bar-goer and never really was, even in my single days. Again, too crowded, too loud and too many people (not to mention too smoky; at least now in many cities if I chose to go to a bar it would be smoke-free).
We have a street festival in my little county seat town and I avoid it like the plague.
That is one reason I could never enjoy living in a city. I prefer to be isolated from people vs. having them around me all the time.
Yeah, it's not for everyone. Small towns are a completely different animal. I can't really compare them to urban areas, regardless of the density. Suburb vs. city is a much more equivocal comparison.
It blows my mind that middle class society chose inferior housing, streets, urban design, and ultimately an inferior way of life due to personal insecurities over living with people different than themselves (due to race) in the early to mid 1960's. I look at the majority brick houses in cities and compare them to the majority wood and siding houses in the suburbs and shake my head. I think about how there are a plethora of ways to arrive at a destination in a city yet only one way in the suburbs. The major benefit to the suburbs is having a yard, but in turn public neighborhood spaces are sacrificed.
My personal ideal is a mixture of both worlds: I would like to live in an older suburb (no newer than 1965). I like the idea of having a detached house and a small yard so that I can garden and have a few chickens, yet being close enough to walk and bike to essentials like public transit and a grocery store. Depending on the city, this is either inside the city limits or just outside (or both).
I've been seeing both trends at once: people moving into the cities to be "where the action is" and others moving out to the suburbs to raise a family. Yet, I know people with kids who are staying in the city and either sending them to charter schools or homeschooling them.
iPhone
How much of it was due to self-segregation, and how much of it was due to the atrocious nature of schools in the cities? Or forced busing which took kids out of their neighborhood schools and made them ride across town to be enrolled in schools that may not have been as good as the ones closer to their homes?
My dad's siblings all lived in Shepherdsville, Ky., in Bullitt County when I was growing up (three of them still do). It's 20 miles south of Louisville on I-65. When I was very young, it was a sleepy little town despite the interstate and the proximity to the city. It wasn't the bedroom community for Louisville that it is now. The property behind the home of my aunt where we always stayed when we spent the night was a field. There was little commercial development at the town's exit off the Kentucky Turnpike. The three high schools in the county (Shepherdsville, Lebanon Junction and Mt. Washington) had consolidated into Bullitt Central.
In the early 1970s, a court ordered desegregation of schools in Jefferson County by forced busing. People moved to Bullitt County (and Oldham County, and to a lesser extent, Shelby County and Spencer County) in droves. Shepherdsville grew like crazy. The field behind my aunt's house became a subdivision. KY 44 between Shepherdsville and Mt. Washington, and KY 1319 through Bullitt and Spencer counties, which we used as a shortcut to KY 55 and I-64 at Shelbyville, went from a country road to lined with houses. Bullitt County had to build new high schools not long after consolidating. US 31E/150 between Mt. Washington and Louisville was four-laned to deal with the commuter traffic.
Some of it may have been "white flight" spurred on by racism, but very little of it was. Instead, people were moving to a place where their children could attend schools close to home.
The growth of these counties was inevitable, because there's been growth in practically all the towns along the interstates surrounding other nearby cities (such as Lexington and its satellites), but forced busing probably accelerated that growth by about 10-15 years.
I think "inferior way of life" is a totally subjective statement. There is nothing at all appealing to me about urban living. I know I'm an old fart, but even as a 20-something, I was never attracted to the city.
Brick houses have their downsides, after having lived in one for five years. They get cold in the winter and bake in the summer (don't get one without air conditioning). Wood frame tends to breathe better and has more chances for proper insulation. Even houses you think are brick actually have a wood frame underneath.
Not everyone who moved did so because of race. After World War Two, there was a housing shortage in the US. Levitown and other such places filled a need for new housing stock (which had been retarded due to the war and the Great Depression - few new houses were built between 1929 and 1945). Some of these actually took over pre-subdivided grids that were prepared prior to 1929 (Skokie, Illinois is a prime example). A lot of GIs took advantage of college and housing discounts after the war and moved into places like this from their parents' homes in the city.
What's also forgotten is that the idea of suburbs is not new, and certainly not confined to solely the post-WWII era. One of the earliest suburbs, designed to be a bedroom community was Riverside, Illinois. Riverside, designed mostly by Frederick Law Olmsted, was started in 1869. It was meant to be a suburb connected to Chicago by rail for commuting. It was designed for mostly upper middle class people, and still is fairly middle to upper middle class to this day.
Not everyone "wants to be where the action is" as a single either. Some of us prefer living in satellite cities (not to be confused with suburbs) that have their own downtown and life by themselves (I do, for example). The satellite cities tend to provide the best of both worlds as they are small to medium sized cities on their own, but they do provide the closeness of the mothership (i.e. Aurora, Elgin, and Joliet in relation to Chicago).
As for older suburbs, most Chicago suburbs are older than 1965, and have merely added housing and businesses since 1965. Even a place like Bolingbrook was founded in the 1830s (not more than a corner store for decades), started to be built up in the 1950s, and incorporated in 1965. It still fits the older than 1965 bill. Or do I talk about Romeoville? Founded in the 1840s with the Illinois & Michigan Canal. Incorporated in 1895, but remained small for decades. Built up in the 1950s with the Hampton Park subdivision, and continues to grow currently. Even Naperville started in the 1830s and incorporated in 1857 before growing rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s. It has a downtown and a nightlife all its own with a college nearby.
Metro Atlanta practically spans from Alabama to Athens east & west, and from Chattanooga to Macon north & south. I wouldn't be surprised if it butts against the borders of North Carolina and South Carolina.
Remind me never to live in your town.
I alienated 98% of AARoads with those bullet points.
EDIT: Read this (http://www.thehour.com/contributed_opinion/narrow-lanes-equal-safer-streets/article_df59293c-e945-51ee-b276-3ee4759ddf9a.html) if you are interested in my "thin roads" concept.
Do you believe or not believe what he wrote? I thought it was bullshit until I visited England.
EDIT: That link was the very first link I saw in Google. I'm sure I could fine a more "credible" source if I tried just a smidge harder.
When I visited England, I used a GPS. I would have been hopelessly lost without it. Likewise, visitors to our country would too be hopelessly lost without a GPS. Just because a city has a grid layout doesn't make it easy to traverse. Take Top Gear (UK's) example when they attempted to get from Brooklyn to near Columbus Circle. There was of course some film trickery, but they were blown away by the concept of naming roads with numbers. I don't think too many other countries do this (even if roads are laid out as grids).
I would agree...it's very stubborn. Grids are incredibly good at what they do. Forgoing the use of grids would be a monumental mistake.
However, consider this: What if every city was a grid layout? Seeing Kansas City would be like seeing Saint Louis or Milwaukee or Austin. For a website so focused on roads, I would expect that you lot would be interested in a good drive...we would never have that if all cities were grids (IMO).
I too would re-connect the grid. I think they're a tad boring, but I won't argue against their effectiveness. In this case, not reconnecting the grid would cause flow issues. Which would you rather see?
Regarding perceived danger; the approach seems ass-backwards, I understand that. No one here will ever agree with me that thinner roads are safer. I don't expect you all to. I'll have to wait until a study is done on it. For now, I just want roads that make people want to pay attention. How would you go about doing that?
Thank you for the support Si.
iPhone
But, as mentioned above, many of the U.S.'s most iconic cities are indeed grid layouts. What makes a city unlike another city is the architecture, the culture, the history, the citizens themselves, the climate, the topography, the industry, etc. In fact, one could argue that the most likely candidates for "sameness" (i.e., seeing city A is just like seeing city B) would be the suburbs, which often eschew grid layouts, unlike central cities.
Ah yes, and when I want argument worth reading, nothing is better than a criticism of a proponent's qualifications rather than the content of their argument.
I think you're both missing the most important factor in the growth of suburbs. They were much cheaper. In many suburbs you could buy a 1/4 acre lot with a 2000 sq. foot house for less than you'd pay for a lot and house half the size in the nearby city.
Some additional factors:
Until the 1960s civil rights era, the FHA would not underwrite mortgages in racially mixed areas, or in dominantly African-American areas, so that meant suburbs in most cases.
Lots of the older housing stock in the cities was in poor shape, due to neglect during the depression and WW II.
There just wasn't enough housing in the cities for all the new households springing up. Huge numbers of young men were living with mom & dad before WW II because they were teens or couldn't get a job because of the depression. Then they were in the armed forces during WW II. Then within a few years in the late 1940s they all came home, in their mid to late 20s, and weren't crazy about living with mom & dad again.
If by "safer" you mean "fewer fatalities", I'll agree. If you mean "fewer accidents", I'm skeptical and would like to see research.
I agree with everything you've said. Downtown Seattle is not like downtown San Francisco which is not like Downtown Vancouver which is not like Downtown Calgary. Each city has their own flavor and style, which its residents and visitors like.
What I'm saying is, you can have a city that succeeds culturally without a grid layout. Boston is a great example of this.
I've used "narrow" to describe permanent fixtures (e.g. the narrow canyon) but used "thin" to describe less-than-permanent objects (e.g. the thin leaf). You could argue that roads are a permanent fixture, but they are also sometimes temporary. As one website that I read put it, "it's best just to decide idiomatically".
I only used thin because of recent proposals in my area to build more "thin streets". But I do like "narrow streets". Not sure if I prefer one to the other just yet.
I was this close to saying exactly that, down to the freakin' italics.
In Europe we didn't have a near-blank slate, and had to deal with an evolved street pattern (and later, existing buildings), rather than one intelligently designed around grids...
In Europe, there are loads of grids in rebuilt city centres, in post-Industrial revolution estates to serve the new industrial workers, etc. Though the suburbs, while car-centric, never really wanted fast driving outside houses, so residential roads aren't going to be more than, say, a mile in a straight line, come the 20s and 30s, they won't be designed as effective rat runs, etc. Then come the 90s (and a bit before), the vogue was for lots of cul-de-sacs, corners, etc, so that once you are in the housing estate, you won't physically be able to drive at 20mph.
Compare: 80s Residential suburbia in a new town (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/index.php?view=52.02054,-0.73782&map=OSMMap&zoom=15&layer=0), 90s Residential suburbia in same new town (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/index.php?view=52.01074,-0.77876&map=OSMMap&zoom=15&layer=0)
Ah, a quote from a youngin'!
Believe it or not, GPS units has only been in wide-spread use for a number of years, maybe a decade at best. Before 2005,no one traveled anywhere people traveled all over the world, and were able to guide themselves using directions on the internet, paper maps, the North Star, etc. If someone is hopelessly lost without a GPS, chances are they are probably barely finding their way with a GPS.
Numerous stories have been written of people blaming their GPS units getting them stuck on railroad tricks, in mud, in rivers, etc. Many will try to use a GPS to get them around traffic congestion, but what wants up happening is the GPS keeps recalculating to get the motorist back to the congested highway. If someone has a least a little knowledge of the roads in the area, a GPS can be a helpful tool. For too many people, a GPS is as essential as a beating heart.
The biggest mistake in this is the viewpoint that is being utilized. When driving, my line-of-sight is about 4 feet off the ground, not 5,000 feet in the air. When I take walks around my neighborhood, we have some straight stretches of road, and some curved roads. What's boring is seeing the same sights over and over again. I vary my walks to different streets, different neighborhoods.
What's interesting is while the anti-road crowd shows an aerial view of a 'boring' road, an aerial view of an 'exciting' layout isn't used. Yet, we are told these layouts exist. Why not use a view of a method that supposedly works? Because overall, any aerial view is boring. And when on the ground, a spider-type layout is confusing.
If the goal is to try to reduce travel, you have to have the right population and like-minded people. I can't tell you how many road meetings I've been to where numerous people come out to try to derail or eliminate a road project. They whine people need to walk, bike, carpool and take mass-transit. Then after the meeting, watch as all those people get into their own vehicles and drive away, even though they all live nearby in the same area.
To add to that...almost no one likes people speeding by their house. But if everyone thought about that on the roads, they wouldn't speed by other people's houses either. To add to that, when surveys are done direct with motorists, some people will claim they never or rarely speed, and those that do tend to minimize their speeding. But automated surveys using sensors in the ground or hidden radar will almost always reveal more motorists are speeding, and at speeds higher than what they claim they are driving.
Because it was purely opinion without facts. Take the following:
"Wider lanes at 12 feet width and greater are only safer on high-speed roads and interstates"
"Beach Road is clearly dangerous by design, as many of Norwalk's roads are"
Where are the stats to back that up? There are none. Maybe in the report he referenced there are stats and reasonings as to specific circumstances, but anytime words such as "Only" and "clearly dangerous" are used, then one has to consider how much fact is contained in the writer's view, and how much of it is opinion.
The letter writer felt that it was important enough to have the landscape architect byline attached to his letter. Why? It almost screams out "We need to calm traffic, and when you do that, I think some planters and brickwork will look nice to help reduce traffic speeds, and I'm the perfect person to design and build that for you!"
I knew that was Milton Keynes before I zoomed out...no where in England are there A) that many roundabouts, or B) that much grid (surrounding the housing estates, at least).
add moron tourists and you've got San Francisco. an excellent city; but pure hell to drive in.
Agreed...very hellish. But it's fun especially if you like crowds (which I do). If being a PE fails me, taxi driver is my second choice.
You are undermining your own argument here.
You can have a culturally interesting and unique city with or without a grid. If that's the case, why not go with a grid to make it easier to get to the culture spots and back home again?
If people are not paying attention to the road, that is not the DOT/planning authority's remit. Correcting that behavior is the duty of law enforcement.
Some of my younger co-workers that currently live in the city (Philadelphia) have already stated that they will likely move to the suburbs once they start having kids.
Not every city experienced this influx of baby boomers -- Tacoma has only in the last 5 to 10 years become a nice city. Back in the 80s, the only reason you lived here was because you were a drug-lord.
Yeah, but it doesn't negate the original point. Gen Y is moving to cities where amenities are, just as the Boomers did. When Gen Y has kids and settles down, they'll move to the suburbs just as the Boomers did. The names of cities and locales may have changed, but the trend remains the same.
It's more likely that my generation is fanning out to a wider variety of cities. Whereas a Boomer may have gone to Seattle, their off-spring is now going to Tacoma or whereas a Boomer may have gone to Boston, their off-spring is now going to Providence. What we need to watch for is suburban growth around current youth hotspots. I guarantee that it'll start booming in 10-15 years.
I have some friends that now have kids that are pondering such a move. Though they still would prefer to live in the city over suburban living, it's really all about just 1 thing: school districts. Of note, the ones with kids old enough to now be in school actually are happy with the elementary schools here in Pittsburgh, but are trying to figure out what to do in a few years when it comes time for middle/high school.
It makes sense that people move to suburbs . . . usually, living in a city is more expensive. I would imagine most people desire city living, though.
Agreed
Therein lies the absurdity of the whole "SUBURBS ARE DYING" argument. People can desire a lot of things, but reality forces you to make a different decision. How many boomers wish they could still be living in their downtown apartment living a carefree life?
Suburban migration is caused by cost, better schools and even logistics. None of this is going to change any time soon.
Question: Suburbs or Cities?
Option 1: Suburbs
votes: 19
Option 2: Cities
votes: 9
Option 3: Neither
votes: 9
Title: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Zeffy on June 11, 2014, 12:48:58 PM
Post by: Zeffy on June 11, 2014, 12:48:58 PM
Seen from http://news.msn.com/videos/?ap=True&videoid=ae0d48d8-0c12-7c7c-1275-ca0702dfe89a .
As 15-year suburbia living resident, let me tell you this: I'm sick of it. There is no such thing as walk-ability in my town. This town is great for living because there's virtually no crime here. That's great and all, but the cost of living here isn't cheap either. Plus, the only way to get what you need is with a car - unless you live near the supermarket which doesn't even have everything in the first place, you're SOL. I know that New Jersey has always been called "a suburb of New York", but that's not entirely true, as we do have urban centers of our own.
In an article semi-recently published by NJ.com, towns like Morristown, Somerville, South Orange, etc. are gaining popularity because while they are not as urban as some of the cities in NJ, they do offer conveniences that are within walking distance. Add the public transportation availability and you get a recipe for success. Many years ago, owning a house in suburbia was considered the American dream - and it was, because gas wasn't so damn expensive. Now that gas is much more expensive than 40 years ago, living in the suburbs only adds to the frustration of commuting to work and not being able to easily get the goods you need.
The cities in NJ are great because they are the truly urban centers of the state, but they all seem to have problems. The big one, aka Newark, is definitely thriving, but there also is a huge crime issue. Jersey City seems to have it's ups and downs, but it, like Newark, is definitely thriving. Paterson seems to have the same problem. The smaller cities, like Trenton and Camden were both great at one point, but now violent crime is too much of a risk to live in these cities. (On a positive note, Trenton, while at 15 homicides already, does have a new mayor elected, so maybe we can start to see improvement in a few years, same with Newark) New Brunswick looks great but outside of the college dorms crime seems to be getting worse as years pass by. Hoboken seems to be gaining popularity rapidly as a great place for young people to live, which is leading to gentrification.
So, how about you guys? Are you fed up with living in the suburbs, or do you hate living in the city?
As 15-year suburbia living resident, let me tell you this: I'm sick of it. There is no such thing as walk-ability in my town. This town is great for living because there's virtually no crime here. That's great and all, but the cost of living here isn't cheap either. Plus, the only way to get what you need is with a car - unless you live near the supermarket which doesn't even have everything in the first place, you're SOL. I know that New Jersey has always been called "a suburb of New York", but that's not entirely true, as we do have urban centers of our own.
In an article semi-recently published by NJ.com, towns like Morristown, Somerville, South Orange, etc. are gaining popularity because while they are not as urban as some of the cities in NJ, they do offer conveniences that are within walking distance. Add the public transportation availability and you get a recipe for success. Many years ago, owning a house in suburbia was considered the American dream - and it was, because gas wasn't so damn expensive. Now that gas is much more expensive than 40 years ago, living in the suburbs only adds to the frustration of commuting to work and not being able to easily get the goods you need.
The cities in NJ are great because they are the truly urban centers of the state, but they all seem to have problems. The big one, aka Newark, is definitely thriving, but there also is a huge crime issue. Jersey City seems to have it's ups and downs, but it, like Newark, is definitely thriving. Paterson seems to have the same problem. The smaller cities, like Trenton and Camden were both great at one point, but now violent crime is too much of a risk to live in these cities. (On a positive note, Trenton, while at 15 homicides already, does have a new mayor elected, so maybe we can start to see improvement in a few years, same with Newark) New Brunswick looks great but outside of the college dorms crime seems to be getting worse as years pass by. Hoboken seems to be gaining popularity rapidly as a great place for young people to live, which is leading to gentrification.
So, how about you guys? Are you fed up with living in the suburbs, or do you hate living in the city?
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Desert Man on June 11, 2014, 01:01:33 PM
Post by: Desert Man on June 11, 2014, 01:01:33 PM
Zeffy, suburban life in Southern CA is no picnic. I don't drive, but I take local transit bus and ride my bike to (and back from) work. You really need to drive around here, if you can afford the cost of the car, gas prices per gallon and auto insurance. And driving around here is the ever increase in traffic, esp. peaks in the winter months by seasonal residents using local roads in the Palm Springs area.
The cost of living is relatively high in southern CA and crime is another issue, but where I live in Palm Desert doesn't have the crime problems to compare with cities like San Bernardino and Riverside, each the closest major cities 60 miles away. Suburban sprawl has heightened in the Inland Empire region, so there's a need for more freeways and mass transit services to connect with LA and the OC or San Diego. Housing prices may be lower than on the coasts, but they're rising rapidly and soon as you know it, not as many residents can afford to live in the Inland Empire.
I'm concerned on the "exurbs" are poorly equipped in amenities you find in more developed portions of metro areas and with increased population growth, they need to adjust their community in urban planning. I prefer suburbs instead of major cities as higher population density means traffic, low privacy and stress, but it's just my thing to live in smaller towns as they have a sense of rural environments appealing to many people like myself seek a quieter place to live.
The cost of living is relatively high in southern CA and crime is another issue, but where I live in Palm Desert doesn't have the crime problems to compare with cities like San Bernardino and Riverside, each the closest major cities 60 miles away. Suburban sprawl has heightened in the Inland Empire region, so there's a need for more freeways and mass transit services to connect with LA and the OC or San Diego. Housing prices may be lower than on the coasts, but they're rising rapidly and soon as you know it, not as many residents can afford to live in the Inland Empire.
I'm concerned on the "exurbs" are poorly equipped in amenities you find in more developed portions of metro areas and with increased population growth, they need to adjust their community in urban planning. I prefer suburbs instead of major cities as higher population density means traffic, low privacy and stress, but it's just my thing to live in smaller towns as they have a sense of rural environments appealing to many people like myself seek a quieter place to live.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: oscar on June 11, 2014, 01:12:58 PM
Post by: oscar on June 11, 2014, 01:12:58 PM
I definitely prefer suburbs, which tend to be a lot more car-friendly than cities. (Whaddya expect, posting this on a roads forum?) Especially ones, like my own close-in suburb, which has OK public transit for me to get around when one of my cars is in the shop, or for medical or weather reasons I can't drive, so I'm not completely SOL if I can't drive.
One problem with walkable communities is diminished choice. You're not likely to have multiple supermarkets of any significant size within walking distance, while I have several different chains (Giant, Safeway, Shoppers Food Warehouse, Harris Teeter) within a short drive from home, which I switch among depending on what I need at the moment and what they have on sale that week. And good luck finding a walkable neighborhood with a Wal-Mart, Target, or hardware/lumber superstore like Home Depot or Lowe's, within walking distance. (Alas, no Wal-Marts in Virginia within I-495, but at least there are Targets and some other big-box stores near the county line.)
One problem with walkable communities is diminished choice. You're not likely to have multiple supermarkets of any significant size within walking distance, while I have several different chains (Giant, Safeway, Shoppers Food Warehouse, Harris Teeter) within a short drive from home, which I switch among depending on what I need at the moment and what they have on sale that week. And good luck finding a walkable neighborhood with a Wal-Mart, Target, or hardware/lumber superstore like Home Depot or Lowe's, within walking distance. (Alas, no Wal-Marts in Virginia within I-495, but at least there are Targets and some other big-box stores near the county line.)
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: roadman65 on June 11, 2014, 01:17:12 PM
Post by: roadman65 on June 11, 2014, 01:17:12 PM
Where I live the suburbs are become the city. Orange Blossom Trail was once a four lane rural highway with mostly cattle land along its side that is now a six lane urban street with businesses ever few feet.
However, I see what you mean. Here we need a car to get from A to B, and the jobs are scattered throughout the area. Orlando Downtown is not the chief area for jobs. We are held hostage by the high price of gas no matter where we live. Living in Downtown is not a help at all unless you are actually working there. I do not see people buying homes along the new SunRail route anytime soon either because its corridor is so narrow an area using the CSX line as its line.
However, I see what you mean. Here we need a car to get from A to B, and the jobs are scattered throughout the area. Orlando Downtown is not the chief area for jobs. We are held hostage by the high price of gas no matter where we live. Living in Downtown is not a help at all unless you are actually working there. I do not see people buying homes along the new SunRail route anytime soon either because its corridor is so narrow an area using the CSX line as its line.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 11, 2014, 01:22:51 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 11, 2014, 01:22:51 PM
I've seen these reports as well, which really generalize the wanting to go back into the city. There's a lot of singles & young couples, especially those without children, that have a desire to live in a more urban environment where activites are an easy walk, rail, or cab ride away.
Don't confuse it though with "Suburban living dying off". A certain segment appears to be wanting to stay in the urban areas. But once they have children, they seem to decide to move into the suburbs.
This also seems to agree to some studies that say traffic is down. Maybe it's not rising as much as it has in the past, but if my rush hour commutes are any sign, I'm sitting in more and more traffic every day.
Don't confuse it though with "Suburban living dying off". A certain segment appears to be wanting to stay in the urban areas. But once they have children, they seem to decide to move into the suburbs.
This also seems to agree to some studies that say traffic is down. Maybe it's not rising as much as it has in the past, but if my rush hour commutes are any sign, I'm sitting in more and more traffic every day.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: ET21 on June 11, 2014, 01:28:17 PM
Post by: ET21 on June 11, 2014, 01:28:17 PM
Many suburbs and towns that were isolated even 10-20 years ago are starting to be enveloped by the sprawls. Examples I can think of is Sandwich and Plano Illinois along US-34. I drove that last week and it's almost a continuous business street from Sandwich all the way to Chicago.
Personally I would want to live in the city, but that won't happen for awhile.
Personally I would want to live in the city, but that won't happen for awhile.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: oscar on June 11, 2014, 01:42:14 PM
Post by: oscar on June 11, 2014, 01:42:14 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 11, 2014, 01:22:51 PM
Don't confuse it though with "Suburban living dying off". A certain segment appears to be wanting to stay in the urban areas. But once they have children, they seem to decide to move into the suburbs.
The Washington Post has many articles on young couples agonizing whether to stay in the city once they have children. The better public schools in some of the suburbs, for couples not wealthy enough to send their kids to private schools, is a large part of this, and help our already-ridiculously-affluent suburbs thrive.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: roadman65 on June 11, 2014, 02:00:16 PM
Post by: roadman65 on June 11, 2014, 02:00:16 PM
I wish that some of the developers would include rail lines within their development as well as including office and retail places along the line accessible from all neighborhoods in the development. That would be an incentive to buy homes for people as adding a rail line after the fact is not. People love their cars and the independence it gives them, so offering later on a rail line will not get them to give up their freedom. If the rail or bus line exists prior to you buying a home near your home going to places you frequent, then it will entice them to want to use the system. That is why SunRail to me will be a flop and why Florida Governor Dick Scott will not support the I-4 high speed rail.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Doctor Whom on June 11, 2014, 02:38:53 PM
Post by: Doctor Whom on June 11, 2014, 02:38:53 PM
Quote from: oscar on June 11, 2014, 01:42:14 PMThe Washington Post has many articles on young couples agonizing whether to stay in the city once they have children. The better public schools in some of the suburbs, for couples not wealthy enough to send their kids to private schools, is a large part of this, and help our already-ridiculously-affluent suburbs thrive.It's true that the population of DC is growing rapidly and that parts of the city that in the nineties looked like Dresden after the war are now full of expensive condos. But if suburban living in the DC area is dying off, residents of two suburban counties with over a million people each (and growing) haven't gotten the memo.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: corco on June 11, 2014, 02:41:19 PM
Post by: corco on June 11, 2014, 02:41:19 PM
I live in the middle of nowhere right now, but I always figured that if/when I do move to a populated area, my preference would actually be to live towards the urban core just because it's easier to meet people. Once I'm established, have a solid base, maybe a wife, then I'd rather raise kids out in the suburbs. It really depends on the city too- if I were to move back to, say, Boise, it would be a no brainer to live in the North End even with kids- it's still fairly affordable and it's within walking distance of downtown and I can easily keep a car. If I lived in, say, Seattle- I'd probably shoot for one of the secondary urban cores, maybe live near downtown Tacoma or Everett, moving out to Puyallup or Marysville once I'm ready to establish a family.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on June 11, 2014, 03:50:08 PM
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on June 11, 2014, 03:50:08 PM
I live in a suburb (like the past few generations of my family; they settled here before it was part of suburbia) and I like it here. I'm right downtown, so walkability is okay, and if I have to go a little further out and it's the summer, I take my bike (locals think I'm weird for that, especially since I have a car).
I'm actually moving closer to the city (still in a suburb, but just across the bridge), but that's because of a combination of the parking at my workplace being $20 a day, and poor access to transit in my town (despite our efforts; they deem it unprofitable, as if trasit has ever been profitable).
I don't know. I don't like it in the city. There's too much noise, stress, pollution, hobos; not enough trees, space, etc. Everything is more expensive: apartments, water, parking (when you find some), gas... heck, even restaurants. I never grew up in that, and it just feels overly stressful after a few days.
I'm actually moving closer to the city (still in a suburb, but just across the bridge), but that's because of a combination of the parking at my workplace being $20 a day, and poor access to transit in my town (despite our efforts; they deem it unprofitable, as if trasit has ever been profitable).
I don't know. I don't like it in the city. There's too much noise, stress, pollution, hobos; not enough trees, space, etc. Everything is more expensive: apartments, water, parking (when you find some), gas... heck, even restaurants. I never grew up in that, and it just feels overly stressful after a few days.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: hbelkins on June 11, 2014, 04:26:00 PM
Post by: hbelkins on June 11, 2014, 04:26:00 PM
Crowds, pavement and concrete, the fact that it's unfriendly to vehicles -- no way I would ever want to live in a city. Never did. Give me a yard and trees and a modicum of privacy and a variety of retail establishments nearby, instead of being with stuck with whatever I can walk to and trying to juggle six bags of groceries and a case of pop on the walk back home. I like being able to drive right up to my front door and knowing I'll always have a place to park. Whether that's a suburb or a small town or in a rural setting -- all are preferable to city living.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Bruce on June 11, 2014, 05:35:29 PM
Post by: Bruce on June 11, 2014, 05:35:29 PM
I'd love to live in a city where I didn't have to walk 15 minutes over a terrible freeway overpass to catch the first of three buses to go anywhere interesting.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: freebrickproductions on June 11, 2014, 05:53:02 PM
Post by: freebrickproductions on June 11, 2014, 05:53:02 PM
In Alabama, people are still moving out to the suburbs. Birmingham's been loosing population.
Title: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 11, 2014, 05:58:00 PM
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 11, 2014, 05:58:00 PM
The biggest problem with a lot of the decent (not ritzy) city neighborhoods here is that they're unaffordable by anyone under upper-middle class. Rents are exorbitant, and purchase prices insulting. I am eagerly looking forward to the real estate crash that necessarily follows a market this overinflated.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 11, 2014, 07:16:32 PM
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 11, 2014, 07:16:32 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 11, 2014, 12:48:58 PM.
In an article semi-recently published by NJ.com, towns like Morristown, Somerville, South Orange, etc. are gaining popularity because while they are not as urban as some of the cities in NJ, they do offer conveniences that are within walking distance. Add the public transportation availability and you get a recipe for success.
All of those towns have a train to NYC, that is the only reason why. The people there own cars to get everywhere else. The suburbs aren't going anywhere as long as cities remain expensive to live in. Heck all those towns were originally built as "railroad suburbs" that were cheaper to live in than the city.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: corco on June 11, 2014, 07:22:57 PM
Post by: corco on June 11, 2014, 07:22:57 PM
I actually don't mind not needing a car, as long as I have access to it. I live in a small town now and basically ride my bike everywhere here, unless I'm buying groceries or going out of town. No reason to waste the gas and drive the car cold and it's good exercise. As long as I live somewhere where I have somewhere I can park a car for a minimal rate/built into the cost of rent, and I'm within a 15 minute drive of a grocery store I can park outside of, I'm good to go.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 11, 2014, 07:34:34 PM
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 11, 2014, 07:34:34 PM
Quote from: corco on June 11, 2014, 07:22:57 PM
I actually don't mind not needing a car, as long as I have access to it. I live in a small town now and basically ride my bike everywhere here, unless I'm buying groceries or going out of town. No reason to waste the gas and drive the car cold and it's good exercise. As long as I live somewhere where I have somewhere I can park a car for a minimal rate/built into the cost of rent, and I'm within a 15 minute drive of a grocery store I can park outside of, I'm good to go.
I know many people who just use zipcars for this stuff rather than own one.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: corco on June 11, 2014, 08:00:25 PM
Post by: corco on June 11, 2014, 08:00:25 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 11, 2014, 07:34:34 PMQuote from: corco on June 11, 2014, 07:22:57 PM
I actually don't mind not needing a car, as long as I have access to it. I live in a small town now and basically ride my bike everywhere here, unless I'm buying groceries or going out of town. No reason to waste the gas and drive the car cold and it's good exercise. As long as I live somewhere where I have somewhere I can park a car for a minimal rate/built into the cost of rent, and I'm within a 15 minute drive of a grocery store I can park outside of, I'm good to go.
I know many people who just use zipcars for this stuff rather than own one.
Personally, and I definitely get the appeal if you more or less want to stay in the city, but a big part of the appeal of living in a city to me is the ability to get out of the city- Zipcars get expensive fast when you start taking 200-2,000 mile drives on the weekend, so I think I'd rather always own my own car.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Doctor Whom on June 11, 2014, 08:35:28 PM
Post by: Doctor Whom on June 11, 2014, 08:35:28 PM
It's not just the cost of real estate that keeps people from moving into cities. It certainly isn't what keeps people from moving into Baltimore or Detroit.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 11, 2014, 08:36:16 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 11, 2014, 08:36:16 PM
for a while I rented a car every weekend. later I realized that as I was making more and more trips for business, owning a beater and taking the 55 1/2 cent per mile deduction was the way to go. or, as I like to call it: "Uncle Sam pays for all my cars."
if I had no idea where to park the car most of the time, I would have to reconsider that balance. that said, when I lived in Boston, I didn't have too much trouble with parking.
if I had no idea where to park the car most of the time, I would have to reconsider that balance. that said, when I lived in Boston, I didn't have too much trouble with parking.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: nexus73 on June 11, 2014, 08:50:13 PM
Post by: nexus73 on June 11, 2014, 08:50:13 PM
Oregon has had urban growth boundaries since 1970. Here your universes are PDX/suburbs, downstate and eastern Oregon. If you live in the PDX area you can do well with both the city and the burbs. Downstate is medium sized cities and larger towns, where your alternative is living in the countryside. In this setting you can get to any place you want in 15 minutes max when you're in the urban area while the countryside is for those who want the wide open spaces as well as the farmers and ranchers. Eastern Oregon is going to be larger and smaller towns with the countryside largely empty except for ranchers so you'll be in an urban area most likely.
It's not so much about "bad things" as it is the "good things" which lead people to make their choices of living locations here. My maternal grandmother came to the Oregon Coast as WWII was winding down due to the relatively temperate climate. Some people choose a location based on their job while others look for amenities, either natural or man-made. Retirees love Southern Oregon due to the low property taxes while young people thrive on the scene in PDX. Keep Portland Weird and all that you know...LOL!
Since there is something good and something less desireable about each choice in Oregon I can't vote either way. It's a YMMV kind of deal and so long as you're happy it's all good. When it isn't you move. The gigantic masses of traffic that plague Seattle, the SF Bay Area and SoCal aren't part of our life. On the other hands plenty of desireable franchises are severly underrepresented or completely absent from both Oregon and Washington. It's like the PNW doesn't exist to those folks in skyscrapers back East. Screw 'em. What we have in their place is often damned good on it's own and no one else has what we have!
Rick
It's not so much about "bad things" as it is the "good things" which lead people to make their choices of living locations here. My maternal grandmother came to the Oregon Coast as WWII was winding down due to the relatively temperate climate. Some people choose a location based on their job while others look for amenities, either natural or man-made. Retirees love Southern Oregon due to the low property taxes while young people thrive on the scene in PDX. Keep Portland Weird and all that you know...LOL!
Since there is something good and something less desireable about each choice in Oregon I can't vote either way. It's a YMMV kind of deal and so long as you're happy it's all good. When it isn't you move. The gigantic masses of traffic that plague Seattle, the SF Bay Area and SoCal aren't part of our life. On the other hands plenty of desireable franchises are severly underrepresented or completely absent from both Oregon and Washington. It's like the PNW doesn't exist to those folks in skyscrapers back East. Screw 'em. What we have in their place is often damned good on it's own and no one else has what we have!
Rick
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Revive 755 on June 11, 2014, 09:07:06 PM
Post by: Revive 755 on June 11, 2014, 09:07:06 PM
I'd prefer to live in a suburban area with decent sidewalks; a network of bike paths or lower volume streets for bicycling; and still have a decent arterial system for other trips or trips out of the area. Contrary to what seems to be commonly pushed in planning circles these days, these options don't have to be mutually exclusive. I can think of a couple places that are/were close to meeting both criteria.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: bing101 on June 11, 2014, 10:15:41 PM
Post by: bing101 on June 11, 2014, 10:15:41 PM
"Suburban living dying off" This has to be more of areas that faced the highest foreclosure rates in 2008 though.
But Wait I live in Solano county which happens to be a rural area/ Suburban area for both Sacramento and the Bay Area.
I live here because I commute to Sacramento but my family commutes to Oakland and San Francisco for Jobs. I like to be halfway from both places.
But Wait I live in Solano county which happens to be a rural area/ Suburban area for both Sacramento and the Bay Area.
I live here because I commute to Sacramento but my family commutes to Oakland and San Francisco for Jobs. I like to be halfway from both places.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on June 12, 2014, 04:37:30 AM
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on June 12, 2014, 04:37:30 AM
I will never prefer urban living over suburban living. I like to drive, and I strongly dislike sharing walls/floor/ceiling with other people. Having to be quiet all the time sucks - sometimes you just want to wind up some Pink Floyd, for instance. Plus, I need a place to tinker with my cars.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on June 12, 2014, 04:43:46 AM
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on June 12, 2014, 04:43:46 AM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on June 11, 2014, 05:53:02 PM
In Alabama, people are still moving out to the suburbs. Birmingham's been loosing population.
Birmingham is basically the Detroit of the South. The two cities have had very similar struggles.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Tom958 on June 12, 2014, 06:13:28 AM
Post by: Tom958 on June 12, 2014, 06:13:28 AM
According to this article (http://www.citylab.com/housing/2014/06/the-us-cities-that-sprawled-the-most-and-least-between-2000-and-2010/372105/), Atlanta has somehow managed to become even sprawlier over the last fourteen years, which is hard for me to imagine. I thought we were already at the outer limit. :-D
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: bing101 on June 12, 2014, 03:20:31 PM
Post by: bing101 on June 12, 2014, 03:20:31 PM
Wait if I lived in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose I would have to depend on Public Transit more.
But Wait what if Bart, AC Transit or Muni Decided to have a shutdown for Political reasons you can walk, use your bike, skateboard if you plan to stay in the city. But if you need to leave the city you have to either hitchhike to get out or vanpool in case of a transit strike.
I would rather have more options. Solano county is good for housing. Options to use Public transit and of course Employer buses in Vallejo can use the Soltrans Downtown bus terminal without facing protests.
But Wait what if Bart, AC Transit or Muni Decided to have a shutdown for Political reasons you can walk, use your bike, skateboard if you plan to stay in the city. But if you need to leave the city you have to either hitchhike to get out or vanpool in case of a transit strike.
I would rather have more options. Solano county is good for housing. Options to use Public transit and of course Employer buses in Vallejo can use the Soltrans Downtown bus terminal without facing protests.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Stephane Dumas on June 12, 2014, 05:30:23 PM
Post by: Stephane Dumas on June 12, 2014, 05:30:23 PM
Interesting to compare it with a thread I spotted on Skyscraperpage titled "the suburbs are back"
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=211439
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=211439
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Scott5114 on June 12, 2014, 07:46:40 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 12, 2014, 07:46:40 PM
I can't live in a dense urban environment–my border collie needs a yard. Even aside from that, I think I'd prefer a happy medium with something like a Walgreens within walking distance, and safe biking facilities, but otherwise set up for cars.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Duke87 on June 13, 2014, 12:26:25 AM
Post by: Duke87 on June 13, 2014, 12:26:25 AM
I like living in the city although the aforementioned parking issue does grate on me. As does the fact that this city seems to be heading in a direction where they want to make it less friendly to cars.
But I've been back and forth between the city and the suburbs a few times and I will probably move back to the suburbs at some point in the not too distant future.
To me it's a balancing act between:
1) Stores and restaurants being close enough to walk to
2) Keeping a car and using it when I want to for pleasure being easy, inexpensive, and hassle-free
3) Commute being as short and hassle free as possible
Ideally I want all three. My current situation does exceptionally well at (1) and decently well at (3) but quite poorly at (2).
Of course, there are other considerations. I would never live anywhere that is geographically isolated and a pain in the ass to leave by car (Long Island, I'm glaring at you). And I would never live anywhere that's within a hurricane evacuation zone or within the floodplain of a river.
But I've been back and forth between the city and the suburbs a few times and I will probably move back to the suburbs at some point in the not too distant future.
To me it's a balancing act between:
1) Stores and restaurants being close enough to walk to
2) Keeping a car and using it when I want to for pleasure being easy, inexpensive, and hassle-free
3) Commute being as short and hassle free as possible
Ideally I want all three. My current situation does exceptionally well at (1) and decently well at (3) but quite poorly at (2).
Of course, there are other considerations. I would never live anywhere that is geographically isolated and a pain in the ass to leave by car (Long Island, I'm glaring at you). And I would never live anywhere that's within a hurricane evacuation zone or within the floodplain of a river.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on June 13, 2014, 08:47:54 AM
Post by: JakeFromNewEngland on June 13, 2014, 08:47:54 AM
All my life I have spent living in suburbia and I'm starting to get sick of it. It does have benefits though. For example, in Southwestern Connecticut, most major cities such as NYC and New Haven are within an hour from most towns in the region making commuting easier via the roads or Metro North.
I could never see myself living in a city. Although I enjoy visiting cities and seeing the sights, it's just not something I would be able to put up with everyday.
As you can see I'm a very picky person when it comes to city vs suburb. :happy: My ideal place to be is somewhere between rural and suburban. :biggrin:
I could never see myself living in a city. Although I enjoy visiting cities and seeing the sights, it's just not something I would be able to put up with everyday.
As you can see I'm a very picky person when it comes to city vs suburb. :happy: My ideal place to be is somewhere between rural and suburban. :biggrin:
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 14, 2014, 03:09:06 PM
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 14, 2014, 03:09:06 PM
After growing up in a small, rural community, I wound up living in the heart of Milwaukee for 7 years. It was quite the transition, but as I got used to all of the amenities and access to a wide variety of nightlife and opportunities to mingle with other people, I grew to love it. Street festivals, ethnic festivals, live music, sports, every kind of bar there is; I could go on. I was fortunate enough to live within walking distance of my place of work for much of that time so I didn't have any of the commuting or parking woes that are tops on people's complaints. The place had character the people were varied and interesting. I formed a bond with a city that previously was just a place I visited occasionally. I would move back there in a second.
I compare my experience to when I visit relatives out in suburbia. The houses all look the same. The grocery stores all look the same. The people all look the same. The roads are a twisted maze of dead ends, left turn arrows and bland, non-specific names involving ridges and birds and flowers. Now that I travel for work, I see that every suburb looks like every other suburb no matter where you are. Cheaply constructed, overpriced houses taking up lots of land so insecure people can hide from broader problems of society. Suburbs are designed to create the illusion of wealth, but really they are the physical manifestation of fiscally, demographically and environmentally unsustainable activities.
Now understand, I don't want to bag on people for acting in their own interest. Everyone does it. And I don't want to tell people how to live. I also don't want to motivate certain unsustainable trends. The current system rewards sprawl and promotes the isolation of people into self-segregated groups that don't have to be around each other if they don't want to. Density forces people to interact with others; people they agree with, people they don't, people with different life experiences from your own. It enhances one's ability to empathize with someone not part of their own "in group". I am worried that life in suburbia means people can be dismissive of their fellow citizens because they are in some "other" group "over there". Multiple generations raised in suburban 'isolation' have enhanced this natural tendency we have as a species and I don't think most people realize it.
I compare my experience to when I visit relatives out in suburbia. The houses all look the same. The grocery stores all look the same. The people all look the same. The roads are a twisted maze of dead ends, left turn arrows and bland, non-specific names involving ridges and birds and flowers. Now that I travel for work, I see that every suburb looks like every other suburb no matter where you are. Cheaply constructed, overpriced houses taking up lots of land so insecure people can hide from broader problems of society. Suburbs are designed to create the illusion of wealth, but really they are the physical manifestation of fiscally, demographically and environmentally unsustainable activities.
Now understand, I don't want to bag on people for acting in their own interest. Everyone does it. And I don't want to tell people how to live. I also don't want to motivate certain unsustainable trends. The current system rewards sprawl and promotes the isolation of people into self-segregated groups that don't have to be around each other if they don't want to. Density forces people to interact with others; people they agree with, people they don't, people with different life experiences from your own. It enhances one's ability to empathize with someone not part of their own "in group". I am worried that life in suburbia means people can be dismissive of their fellow citizens because they are in some "other" group "over there". Multiple generations raised in suburban 'isolation' have enhanced this natural tendency we have as a species and I don't think most people realize it.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: hbelkins on June 14, 2014, 07:16:21 PM
Post by: hbelkins on June 14, 2014, 07:16:21 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 14, 2014, 03:09:06 PMStreet festivals, ethnic festivals, live music, sports, every kind of bar there is; I could go on.
None of that appeals to me. I haven't been to a concert or a ballgame in ages, and have no desire to go. I'm a NASCAR fan but I would not want to go see a race live, because I'd have to deal with crowds of people and the traffic jams getting to and from the track. I'm not a bar-goer and never really was, even in my single days. Again, too crowded, too loud and too many people (not to mention too smoky; at least now in many cities if I chose to go to a bar it would be smoke-free).
We have a street festival in my little county seat town and I avoid it like the plague.
That is one reason I could never enjoy living in a city. I prefer to be isolated from people vs. having them around me all the time.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: oscar on June 14, 2014, 10:03:19 PM
Post by: oscar on June 14, 2014, 10:03:19 PM
When I moved into my county in 1982, the saying was that just raising your voice was a misdemeanor. Now parts of Arlington are thoroughly city-fied (especially the high-rise districts on Metro's Orange Line), but still getting used to stuff like organized pub crawls.
Fortunately, I live a mile away from those parts.
Fortunately, I live a mile away from those parts.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 14, 2014, 10:45:02 PM
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 14, 2014, 10:45:02 PM
Isn't calling Arlington a "city" considered a misdemeanor?
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 17, 2014, 02:27:27 PM
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 17, 2014, 02:27:27 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 14, 2014, 07:16:21 PMQuote from: triplemultiplex on June 14, 2014, 03:09:06 PMStreet festivals, ethnic festivals, live music, sports, every kind of bar there is; I could go on.
None of that appeals to me. I haven't been to a concert or a ballgame in ages, and have no desire to go. I'm a NASCAR fan but I would not want to go see a race live, because I'd have to deal with crowds of people and the traffic jams getting to and from the track. I'm not a bar-goer and never really was, even in my single days. Again, too crowded, too loud and too many people (not to mention too smoky; at least now in many cities if I chose to go to a bar it would be smoke-free).
We have a street festival in my little county seat town and I avoid it like the plague.
That is one reason I could never enjoy living in a city. I prefer to be isolated from people vs. having them around me all the time.
Yeah, it's not for everyone. Small towns are a completely different animal. I can't really compare them to urban areas, regardless of the density. Suburb vs. city is a much more equivocal comparison.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 17, 2014, 02:51:58 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 17, 2014, 02:51:58 PM
Someone emailed me this link today: http://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-end-of-sprawl.html
My response:
I stopped reading when I looked at the first picture. The captain: "A virtually empty parking lot" . The picture? The top deck of a parking garage. Probably a rarely used area of the garage anyway. Is it an office building's parking garage? Was the picture taken on a Sunday morning, when the office is closed? I almost want to question an article when such a potentially deceiving picture and captain is used to illustrate their point.
My response:
I stopped reading when I looked at the first picture. The captain: "A virtually empty parking lot" . The picture? The top deck of a parking garage. Probably a rarely used area of the garage anyway. Is it an office building's parking garage? Was the picture taken on a Sunday morning, when the office is closed? I almost want to question an article when such a potentially deceiving picture and captain is used to illustrate their point.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Laura on June 18, 2014, 12:20:04 AM
Post by: Laura on June 18, 2014, 12:20:04 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on June 14, 2014, 03:09:06 PM
I compare my experience to when I visit relatives out in suburbia. The houses all look the same. The grocery stores all look the same. The people all look the same. The roads are a twisted maze of dead ends, left turn arrows and bland, non-specific names involving ridges and birds and flowers. Now that I travel for work, I see that every suburb looks like every other suburb no matter where you are. Cheaply constructed, overpriced houses taking up lots of land so insecure people can hide from broader problems of society. Suburbs are designed to create the illusion of wealth, but really they are the physical manifestation of fiscally, demographically and environmentally unsustainable activities.
It blows my mind that middle class society chose inferior housing, streets, urban design, and ultimately an inferior way of life due to personal insecurities over living with people different than themselves (due to race) in the early to mid 1960's. I look at the majority brick houses in cities and compare them to the majority wood and siding houses in the suburbs and shake my head. I think about how there are a plethora of ways to arrive at a destination in a city yet only one way in the suburbs. The major benefit to the suburbs is having a yard, but in turn public neighborhood spaces are sacrificed.
My personal ideal is a mixture of both worlds: I would like to live in an older suburb (no newer than 1965). I like the idea of having a detached house and a small yard so that I can garden and have a few chickens, yet being close enough to walk and bike to essentials like public transit and a grocery store. Depending on the city, this is either inside the city limits or just outside (or both).
I've been seeing both trends at once: people moving into the cities to be "where the action is" and others moving out to the suburbs to raise a family. Yet, I know people with kids who are staying in the city and either sending them to charter schools or homeschooling them.
iPhone
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: bing101 on June 18, 2014, 10:30:56 AM
Post by: bing101 on June 18, 2014, 10:30:56 AM
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/18/323166109/as-exasperation-mounts-french-rail-strike-turns-violent
Well Public transit is not the solution to everything. I know cities depend on this more than suburbs. But both cars and rail transit have their pros and cons.
in some cities you have to worry about rail strikes more.
Well Public transit is not the solution to everything. I know cities depend on this more than suburbs. But both cars and rail transit have their pros and cons.
in some cities you have to worry about rail strikes more.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: hbelkins on June 18, 2014, 12:34:34 PM
Post by: hbelkins on June 18, 2014, 12:34:34 PM
Quote from: Laura on June 18, 2014, 12:20:04 AM
It blows my mind that middle class society chose inferior housing, streets, urban design, and ultimately an inferior way of life due to personal insecurities over living with people different than themselves (due to race) in the early to mid 1960's.
How much of it was due to self-segregation, and how much of it was due to the atrocious nature of schools in the cities? Or forced busing which took kids out of their neighborhood schools and made them ride across town to be enrolled in schools that may not have been as good as the ones closer to their homes?
My dad's siblings all lived in Shepherdsville, Ky., in Bullitt County when I was growing up (three of them still do). It's 20 miles south of Louisville on I-65. When I was very young, it was a sleepy little town despite the interstate and the proximity to the city. It wasn't the bedroom community for Louisville that it is now. The property behind the home of my aunt where we always stayed when we spent the night was a field. There was little commercial development at the town's exit off the Kentucky Turnpike. The three high schools in the county (Shepherdsville, Lebanon Junction and Mt. Washington) had consolidated into Bullitt Central.
In the early 1970s, a court ordered desegregation of schools in Jefferson County by forced busing. People moved to Bullitt County (and Oldham County, and to a lesser extent, Shelby County and Spencer County) in droves. Shepherdsville grew like crazy. The field behind my aunt's house became a subdivision. KY 44 between Shepherdsville and Mt. Washington, and KY 1319 through Bullitt and Spencer counties, which we used as a shortcut to KY 55 and I-64 at Shelbyville, went from a country road to lined with houses. Bullitt County had to build new high schools not long after consolidating. US 31E/150 between Mt. Washington and Louisville was four-laned to deal with the commuter traffic.
Some of it may have been "white flight" spurred on by racism, but very little of it was. Instead, people were moving to a place where their children could attend schools close to home.
The growth of these counties was inevitable, because there's been growth in practically all the towns along the interstates surrounding other nearby cities (such as Lexington and its satellites), but forced busing probably accelerated that growth by about 10-15 years.
I think "inferior way of life" is a totally subjective statement. There is nothing at all appealing to me about urban living. I know I'm an old fart, but even as a 20-something, I was never attracted to the city.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Brandon on June 18, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
Post by: Brandon on June 18, 2014, 03:39:24 PM
Quote from: Laura on June 18, 2014, 12:20:04 AMQuote from: triplemultiplex on June 14, 2014, 03:09:06 PM
I compare my experience to when I visit relatives out in suburbia. The houses all look the same. The grocery stores all look the same. The people all look the same. The roads are a twisted maze of dead ends, left turn arrows and bland, non-specific names involving ridges and birds and flowers. Now that I travel for work, I see that every suburb looks like every other suburb no matter where you are. Cheaply constructed, overpriced houses taking up lots of land so insecure people can hide from broader problems of society. Suburbs are designed to create the illusion of wealth, but really they are the physical manifestation of fiscally, demographically and environmentally unsustainable activities.
It blows my mind that middle class society chose inferior housing, streets, urban design, and ultimately an inferior way of life due to personal insecurities over living with people different than themselves (due to race) in the early to mid 1960's. I look at the majority brick houses in cities and compare them to the majority wood and siding houses in the suburbs and shake my head. I think about how there are a plethora of ways to arrive at a destination in a city yet only one way in the suburbs. The major benefit to the suburbs is having a yard, but in turn public neighborhood spaces are sacrificed.
My personal ideal is a mixture of both worlds: I would like to live in an older suburb (no newer than 1965). I like the idea of having a detached house and a small yard so that I can garden and have a few chickens, yet being close enough to walk and bike to essentials like public transit and a grocery store. Depending on the city, this is either inside the city limits or just outside (or both).
I've been seeing both trends at once: people moving into the cities to be "where the action is" and others moving out to the suburbs to raise a family. Yet, I know people with kids who are staying in the city and either sending them to charter schools or homeschooling them.
Brick houses have their downsides, after having lived in one for five years. They get cold in the winter and bake in the summer (don't get one without air conditioning). Wood frame tends to breathe better and has more chances for proper insulation. Even houses you think are brick actually have a wood frame underneath.
Not everyone who moved did so because of race. After World War Two, there was a housing shortage in the US. Levitown and other such places filled a need for new housing stock (which had been retarded due to the war and the Great Depression - few new houses were built between 1929 and 1945). Some of these actually took over pre-subdivided grids that were prepared prior to 1929 (Skokie, Illinois is a prime example). A lot of GIs took advantage of college and housing discounts after the war and moved into places like this from their parents' homes in the city.
What's also forgotten is that the idea of suburbs is not new, and certainly not confined to solely the post-WWII era. One of the earliest suburbs, designed to be a bedroom community was Riverside, Illinois. Riverside, designed mostly by Frederick Law Olmsted, was started in 1869. It was meant to be a suburb connected to Chicago by rail for commuting. It was designed for mostly upper middle class people, and still is fairly middle to upper middle class to this day.
Not everyone "wants to be where the action is" as a single either. Some of us prefer living in satellite cities (not to be confused with suburbs) that have their own downtown and life by themselves (I do, for example). The satellite cities tend to provide the best of both worlds as they are small to medium sized cities on their own, but they do provide the closeness of the mothership (i.e. Aurora, Elgin, and Joliet in relation to Chicago).
As for older suburbs, most Chicago suburbs are older than 1965, and have merely added housing and businesses since 1965. Even a place like Bolingbrook was founded in the 1830s (not more than a corner store for decades), started to be built up in the 1950s, and incorporated in 1965. It still fits the older than 1965 bill. Or do I talk about Romeoville? Founded in the 1840s with the Illinois & Michigan Canal. Incorporated in 1895, but remained small for decades. Built up in the 1950s with the Hampton Park subdivision, and continues to grow currently. Even Naperville started in the 1830s and incorporated in 1857 before growing rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s. It has a downtown and a nightlife all its own with a college nearby.
Title: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Laura on June 18, 2014, 11:12:08 PM
Post by: Laura on June 18, 2014, 11:12:08 PM
In full disclosure... I wrote my previous post in a semi conscious state (and on tapatalk, no less!) so I probably could have worded some things better.
Like the "inferior way of life thing". I'm looking at it purely from an urban design standpoint. We chose a new standard that required all transportation to be by automobile, which makes it difficult for kids and the elderly to get around. I love my car, but I also love options. If I'm going to be far from things, then I need to be in the country proper. I don't want neighbors and I want to be surrounded by farms. The 1965 year specification was a guesstimate. Basically, I'm cool with suburbs as long as they were first built before that time. (Obviously there will be infill.)
I always forget about the busing element because that wasn't needed here. The white schools and the "colored" schools were almost always close to each other, so once schools were integrated, distance wasn't an issue. I don't have the statistics handy but white flight due to school integration in Baltimore was very real. There was only one school year where schools were actually integrated (1962-63) before all the whites left.
Of course suburbanization has been occurring since the streetcar was invented and grew after WWII due to housing loans being readily available for new suburban homes and not for older city homes. The "white flight" is just one example.
I mentioned my love of older burbs, but I do love small towns equally as much, if not more.
iPhone
Like the "inferior way of life thing". I'm looking at it purely from an urban design standpoint. We chose a new standard that required all transportation to be by automobile, which makes it difficult for kids and the elderly to get around. I love my car, but I also love options. If I'm going to be far from things, then I need to be in the country proper. I don't want neighbors and I want to be surrounded by farms. The 1965 year specification was a guesstimate. Basically, I'm cool with suburbs as long as they were first built before that time. (Obviously there will be infill.)
I always forget about the busing element because that wasn't needed here. The white schools and the "colored" schools were almost always close to each other, so once schools were integrated, distance wasn't an issue. I don't have the statistics handy but white flight due to school integration in Baltimore was very real. There was only one school year where schools were actually integrated (1962-63) before all the whites left.
Of course suburbanization has been occurring since the streetcar was invented and grew after WWII due to housing loans being readily available for new suburban homes and not for older city homes. The "white flight" is just one example.
I mentioned my love of older burbs, but I do love small towns equally as much, if not more.
iPhone
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on June 19, 2014, 10:26:58 AM
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on June 19, 2014, 10:26:58 AM
I still work part time at the library in the small town I grew up in, and in the past ten years, I have seen new neighbourhoods and houses pop up every year, and most of the new clientele at the library has been upper-middle-class young adults with young children. Even the older houses seem to get filled up by young families from the city. While I don't consider that town to be a suburb, a significant proportion of its population does commute to Montreal.
My current location, Beauharnois, is more of a suburb, but only a half-suburb. I'd say that half of the population commutes to Montreal, and the other half works locally. We're part of the Greater Montreal metro area as far as census and taxes are concerned. It used to be its own city in the past, with its own industries and commercial activities, but nearly every plant closed one after the other, mostly because of outsourcing. Only the power plant remains, because you can't really move that to another country. With the completion of A-30, our mayor would really love to turn us into a true suburb, with a target population of nearly double of what we are now by 2020.
I'm moving to Longueuil in July, a true and much older suburb just next to the city. Just enough space to park my car and much cheaper than the city, and excellent transit. As I said in my other post, cost and parking issues are among the main reasons why I refuse to move to the city.
I think that the whole "young families moving to cities vs suburbs vs country" thing is hard to gauge here.
My current location, Beauharnois, is more of a suburb, but only a half-suburb. I'd say that half of the population commutes to Montreal, and the other half works locally. We're part of the Greater Montreal metro area as far as census and taxes are concerned. It used to be its own city in the past, with its own industries and commercial activities, but nearly every plant closed one after the other, mostly because of outsourcing. Only the power plant remains, because you can't really move that to another country. With the completion of A-30, our mayor would really love to turn us into a true suburb, with a target population of nearly double of what we are now by 2020.
I'm moving to Longueuil in July, a true and much older suburb just next to the city. Just enough space to park my car and much cheaper than the city, and excellent transit. As I said in my other post, cost and parking issues are among the main reasons why I refuse to move to the city.
I think that the whole "young families moving to cities vs suburbs vs country" thing is hard to gauge here.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: golden eagle on June 23, 2014, 09:36:38 PM
Post by: golden eagle on June 23, 2014, 09:36:38 PM
Quote from: Tom958 on June 12, 2014, 06:13:28 AM
According to this article (http://www.citylab.com/housing/2014/06/the-us-cities-that-sprawled-the-most-and-least-between-2000-and-2010/372105/), Atlanta has somehow managed to become even sprawlier over the last fourteen years, which is hard for me to imagine. I thought we were already at the outer limit. :-D
Metro Atlanta practically spans from Alabama to Athens east & west, and from Chattanooga to Macon north & south. I wouldn't be surprised if it butts against the borders of North Carolina and South Carolina.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: tidecat on June 28, 2014, 12:45:46 AM
Post by: tidecat on June 28, 2014, 12:45:46 AM
Two counties in Alabama and two counties in North Carolina are in the Atlanta DMA.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jakeroot on June 29, 2014, 03:44:56 AM
Post by: jakeroot on June 29, 2014, 03:44:56 AM
If I was laying out a town, it would look something like this:
- thin roads to discourage high-speeds, thus encouraging walk-ability
- roundabouts to slow traffic (in tandem with above)
- shops along main avenues even in seemingly residential areas
- large shopping centres built as close to the city centre as possible, and in-keeping with the neighbourhood aesthetics
- mid-to-high density residential (closely spaced 2-3 floor homes)
- no freeways (bypass roads are fine).
- large open green areas with fountains/flowers and the obligatory horticultural club to keeps things tidy
- widespread bus service
- bike paths separate from the roads (if on the roads, bike boxes)
- bike/motorcycle filtering legal -- promotes scooter/bicycle use
- no right turn on red -- not very friendly for pedestrians
- signalized pedestrian crossings
- slip lanes signalized only if pedestrian hits the button -- otherwise, yield
I'd like to think these things would promote urban living. Suburbs would inevitably exist (they always do), but a safe, walkable, reachable, attractive, and efficient city centre would help increase desirability within the city centre and should prevent too much urban growth.
Abram V, a city planner from Texas, conceptualized a city centre that I adore:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fr77G3.png&hash=b3c9fc4a1950617d902deeefbfab63ea8eaa522a)
- thin roads to discourage high-speeds, thus encouraging walk-ability
- roundabouts to slow traffic (in tandem with above)
- shops along main avenues even in seemingly residential areas
- large shopping centres built as close to the city centre as possible, and in-keeping with the neighbourhood aesthetics
- mid-to-high density residential (closely spaced 2-3 floor homes)
- no freeways (bypass roads are fine).
- large open green areas with fountains/flowers and the obligatory horticultural club to keeps things tidy
- widespread bus service
- bike paths separate from the roads (if on the roads, bike boxes)
- bike/motorcycle filtering legal -- promotes scooter/bicycle use
- no right turn on red -- not very friendly for pedestrians
- signalized pedestrian crossings
- slip lanes signalized only if pedestrian hits the button -- otherwise, yield
I'd like to think these things would promote urban living. Suburbs would inevitably exist (they always do), but a safe, walkable, reachable, attractive, and efficient city centre would help increase desirability within the city centre and should prevent too much urban growth.
Abram V, a city planner from Texas, conceptualized a city centre that I adore:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fr77G3.png&hash=b3c9fc4a1950617d902deeefbfab63ea8eaa522a)
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: hbelkins on June 29, 2014, 11:04:08 AM
Post by: hbelkins on June 29, 2014, 11:04:08 AM
Quote from: jake on June 29, 2014, 03:44:56 AM
If I was laying out a town, it would look something like this:
- thin roads to discourage high-speeds, thus encouraging walk-ability
- roundabouts to slow traffic (in tandem with above)
- mid-to-high density residential (closely spaced 2-3 floor homes)
- no freeways (bypass roads are fine).
- no right turn on red -- not very friendly for pedestrians
Remind me never to live in your town.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jakeroot on June 29, 2014, 03:05:03 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 29, 2014, 03:05:03 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 29, 2014, 11:04:08 AMQuote from: jake on June 29, 2014, 03:44:56 AM
If I was laying out a town, it would look something like this:
- thin roads to discourage high-speeds, thus encouraging walk-ability
- roundabouts to slow traffic (in tandem with above)
- mid-to-high density residential (closely spaced 2-3 floor homes)
- no freeways (bypass roads are fine).
- no right turn on red -- not very friendly for pedestrians
Remind me never to live in your town.
I alienated 98% of AARoads with those bullet points.
EDIT: Read this (http://www.thehour.com/contributed_opinion/narrow-lanes-equal-safer-streets/article_df59293c-e945-51ee-b276-3ee4759ddf9a.html) if you are interested in my "thin roads" concept.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 29, 2014, 04:39:41 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 29, 2014, 04:39:41 PM
Ah yes, when I want absolute proof of something road related, nothing is better than an editorial written by a licensed landscape architect.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jakeroot on June 29, 2014, 05:54:35 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 29, 2014, 05:54:35 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 29, 2014, 04:39:41 PM
Ah yes, when I want absolute proof of something road related, nothing is better than an editorial written by a licensed landscape architect.
Do you believe or not believe what he wrote? I thought it was bullshit until I visited England.
EDIT: That link was the very first link I saw in Google. I'm sure I could fine a more "credible" source if I tried just a smidge harder.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Brandon on June 29, 2014, 07:09:06 PM
Post by: Brandon on June 29, 2014, 07:09:06 PM
Jake, IMHO, it's a terrible design. I believe a grid with some radial boulevards is a better answer. Grids can be followed by anyone, pedestrian or vehicle (including motorcycles & bicycles) better than that mess. it's why I choose not to live in a blobbly suburb.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: vdeane on June 29, 2014, 08:16:42 PM
Post by: vdeane on June 29, 2014, 08:16:42 PM
Some of us don't like the "slow down traffic" fad. And my morning commute becomes much more enjoyable once I get on the Northway. Evening too, just not as much due to a couple of merges (and on Thurs/Fri in the summer, Raceway traffic heading to Saratoga).
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jakeroot on June 29, 2014, 09:00:58 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 29, 2014, 09:00:58 PM
Here's how he defends the design (this is a direct copy/paste from his website...if you are interested in reading the original article, click here (http://abramv.com/how-to-use-a-grid/)):
I love to speed...on the freeway. High-speed traffic is not meant for a residential/commercial/generally busy area.
If you build a town where the roads are thin, people will not want to go fast. If you give people too much assurance that nothing can go wrong, something will inevitably go wrong. This theory is true when traffic signals are observed. People will often take the green for granted and pay little attention to the cross street...this is why roundabouts work so well.
If we don't want people to use their phone, make them want to pay attention to the road. A thin little road where the perceived danger is high would more than likely produce less accidents than a wider road.
Quote from: Abram V
The grid-diss crew does have one point. Too much can get boring. Like this:
This is boring.
The problem with a setup like this is that it's fractal; *everything* is a grid, and it's the same grid. The local street grid looks like the collector/arterial grid at a smaller scale, which looks like the major arterial grid at a smaller scale, which looks like the state highway network at smaller scale.
What the grid *is* perfect for, however, is slicing up tracts of land that have already been cut by through-streets, or by land boundaries that will *become* through-streets (like it was done back in the day).
For example:
Here's a through street network. Predominant commuter traffic flows are northeast morning inbound, southwest afternoon outbound. Radial streets dump into a "mixing bowl" , a big oval with a park in the center. Big one-way circles can end up with high speeds and aren't always ped-friendly, so this one's laid out with a bi-directional roadway and smaller roundabouts at each intersection. (Brits call this a "magic roundabout".)
The east-west street that skirts the park is laid out as your basic solid storefront commercial strip; wide sidewalks, parallel parking, Frequent Bus connecting into other parts of the area.
What's left over are a bunch of irregular, moderately-sized parcels. As a developer, how are you going to divvy this up? Loops and lollipops, with ample reverse frontage, gives you something like this:
Meh. Even with a few ped cut-through sidewalks the connectivity isn't all that great. And it's *really* hard to look at this street pattern and envision any kind of retail on that east-west street other than gas stations, fast food, etcetera. 60-foot square buildings on 150-foot square lots.
But what if you cut it up with a grid?
Not boring at all! Local streets are parallel to adjacent through streets, but the grids don't really line up. There's no clear route for through traffic. Vistas are defined. Stand on any local street and you've got the same intimate feel as a loopy neighborhood. Except... it's porous. You can walk off in any direction and generally keep going, even if you have to zig a little. It's easy to look at that same east-west street and envision a nice retail district, cars parked on the street, bikes locked to racks, people randomly walking about, maybe some guy handing out LaRouche pamphlets. In other words, Urbanity.
A neighborhood like this, you can lay it out with single-family homes and sidewalk-fronting strip centers. Then later after it's filled in, landowners can replace one-story commerce with mixed-use blocks, or mid-rise office. They can demo smaller houses and put in a couple townhomes or maybe a few condos on the lot. It's not an architectural vision, to be forever preserved through rigid design codes. Rather, it's designed for future redevelopment. You can make a *city* out of grids like this.
And indeed, we have.
There are a whole lotta really nice neighborhoods where irregular grids were matched to streets at different angles. They're in Houston. Dallas. Denver. San Diego and San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles, Seattle, Miami, Atlanta, D.C., Chicagoland.
These places have staying power. They've been able to support redevelopment at higher densities than they were originally built out at. (Most suburban "loops and lollipops" networks would break down if you increased the density much beyond the original plan.) What's more, most of these places have come back after suffering some of the inner city decline that characterized the 60′s and 70′s.
This is *the* way to build cities. And it's not just an urbanist thing. This pattern is developer-friendly. You get some odd-shaped lots, but you get a lot of frontage, much better than cul-de-sacs or the inside of corners. That means you get the same backyard depth in a shallower lot, you can pack more houses into a given area. If you've got front-loading garages, frontage translates to curb appeal, since more of the front facade is house instead of garage door. 300′ sewer runs under arrow-straight streets require a lot fewer manholes than trying to maintain standard offsets around constant S-curves. I've done utilities PS&E for both setups, the grid almost always wins on cost.
But hey, some guys in the 30′s thought residential streets should be all curvy. They wrote it into fed mortgage standards. Those standards got incorporated into model zoning ordinances nationwide, and eventually became the received wisdom of developers and consultant civils. Now you lay out a grid with a bunch of different angles and it's an event, everyone wants to front like it's some sort of architectural masterstroke and it has all the usual hype attached to it that you get with big-name architects.
Except it's not. It's really simple. It's something everybody used to do, and I don't think it'd be too hard to teach them again. We just have to legalize it.
Quote from: vdeane on June 29, 2014, 08:16:42 PM
Some of us don't like the "slow down traffic" fad. And my morning commute becomes much more enjoyable once I get on the Northway. Evening too, just not as much due to a couple of merges (and on Thurs/Fri in the summer, Raceway traffic heading to Saratoga).
I love to speed...on the freeway. High-speed traffic is not meant for a residential/commercial/generally busy area.
If you build a town where the roads are thin, people will not want to go fast. If you give people too much assurance that nothing can go wrong, something will inevitably go wrong. This theory is true when traffic signals are observed. People will often take the green for granted and pay little attention to the cross street...this is why roundabouts work so well.
If we don't want people to use their phone, make them want to pay attention to the road. A thin little road where the perceived danger is high would more than likely produce less accidents than a wider road.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2014, 04:24:35 AM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2014, 04:24:35 AM
The problem is when you live in the middle of that tangled morass of jumbled roads and you're trying to get to the freeway. That looks like a pain in the ass to have to traverse.
Ruling out a grid just because it's "boring" is sheer pigheadedness. Most of America's most urban cities–Manhattan, Washington, Chicago–use a grid. Grids work well for navigational purposes, ensuring efficient land use, and for moving traffic, and work well for pedestrians.* You can have an "interesting" city within a grid–there's nothing saying you can't lay out restaurants, office buildings, apartments, shopping centers, or kitchen sinks in a grid layout. Nobody has ever said that Manhattan is boring.
Trying to make a driver perceive danger–are you out of your mind? When I perceive danger as I'm driving, my adrenaline spikes and I drive worse, not better. I have been involved in two car accidents since I've been driving, and both were in the same work zone with a dangerous merge, where the danger of traffic from behind me distracted me from what traffic was doing ahead of me, and I rear-ended someone. After the second accident I just avoided the area as much as possible, which is what I would do if I felt threatened by deliberate road geometry. And if all the roads in town were like that, I would probably avoid the place as much as possible.
* Fun fact about grids...in Oklahoma City, the walkable/transit/urbanization folk are actually pushing a plan to restore the street grid where it was disrupted by the now-demolished old I-40 Crosstown. Seems they feel it's a better, more walkable/urban/whatever option than ODOT's preferred alternative, which is a boulevard that follows the old ROW.
Ruling out a grid just because it's "boring" is sheer pigheadedness. Most of America's most urban cities–Manhattan, Washington, Chicago–use a grid. Grids work well for navigational purposes, ensuring efficient land use, and for moving traffic, and work well for pedestrians.* You can have an "interesting" city within a grid–there's nothing saying you can't lay out restaurants, office buildings, apartments, shopping centers, or kitchen sinks in a grid layout. Nobody has ever said that Manhattan is boring.
Trying to make a driver perceive danger–are you out of your mind? When I perceive danger as I'm driving, my adrenaline spikes and I drive worse, not better. I have been involved in two car accidents since I've been driving, and both were in the same work zone with a dangerous merge, where the danger of traffic from behind me distracted me from what traffic was doing ahead of me, and I rear-ended someone. After the second accident I just avoided the area as much as possible, which is what I would do if I felt threatened by deliberate road geometry. And if all the roads in town were like that, I would probably avoid the place as much as possible.
* Fun fact about grids...in Oklahoma City, the walkable/transit/urbanization folk are actually pushing a plan to restore the street grid where it was disrupted by the now-demolished old I-40 Crosstown. Seems they feel it's a better, more walkable/urban/whatever option than ODOT's preferred alternative, which is a boulevard that follows the old ROW.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2014, 05:19:10 AM
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2014, 05:19:10 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2014, 04:24:35 AM
The problem is when you live in the middle of that tangled morass of jumbled roads and you're trying to get to the freeway. That looks like a pain in the ass to have to traverse.
When I visited England, I used a GPS. I would have been hopelessly lost without it. Likewise, visitors to our country would too be hopelessly lost without a GPS. Just because a city has a grid layout doesn't make it easy to traverse. Take Top Gear (UK's) example when they attempted to get from Brooklyn to near Columbus Circle. There was of course some film trickery, but they were blown away by the concept of naming roads with numbers. I don't think too many other countries do this (even if roads are laid out as grids).
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2014, 04:24:35 AM
Ruling out a grid just because it's "boring" is sheer pigheadedness. Most of America's most urban cities–Manhattan, Washington, Chicago–use a grid. Grids work well for navigational purposes, ensuring efficient land use, and for moving traffic, and work well for pedestrians.* You can have an "interesting" city within a grid–there's nothing saying you can't lay out restaurants, office buildings, apartments, shopping centers, or kitchen sinks in a grid layout. Nobody has ever said that Manhattan is boring.
I would agree...it's very stubborn. Grids are incredibly good at what they do. Forgoing the use of grids would be a monumental mistake.
However, consider this: What if every city was a grid layout? Seeing Kansas City would be like seeing Saint Louis or Milwaukee or Austin. For a website so focused on roads, I would expect that you lot would be interested in a good drive...we would never have that if all cities were grids (IMO).
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2014, 04:24:35 AM
Trying to make a driver perceive danger–are you out of your mind? When I perceive danger as I'm driving, my adrenaline spikes and I drive worse, not better. I have been involved in two car accidents since I've been driving, and both were in the same work zone with a dangerous merge, where the danger of traffic from behind me distracted me from what traffic was doing ahead of me, and I rear-ended someone. After the second accident I just avoided the area as much as possible, which is what I would do if I felt threatened by deliberate road geometry. And if all the roads in town were like that, I would probably avoid the place as much as possible.
* Fun fact about grids...in Oklahoma City, the walkable/transit/urbanization folk are actually pushing a plan to restore the street grid where it was disrupted by the now-demolished old I-40 Crosstown. Seems they feel it's a better, more walkable/urban/whatever option than ODOT's preferred alternative, which is a boulevard that follows the old ROW.
I too would re-connect the grid. I think they're a tad boring, but I won't argue against their effectiveness. In this case, not reconnecting the grid would cause flow issues. Which would you rather see?
Regarding perceived danger; the approach seems ass-backwards, I understand that. No one here will ever agree with me that thinner roads are safer. I don't expect you all to. I'll have to wait until a study is done on it. For now, I just want roads that make people want to pay attention. How would you go about doing that?
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: english si on June 30, 2014, 05:28:04 AM
Post by: english si on June 30, 2014, 05:28:04 AM
Quote from: jake on June 30, 2014, 05:19:10 AMNo one here will ever agree with me that thinner roads are safer.I will
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2014, 05:29:56 AM
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2014, 05:29:56 AM
Quote from: english si on June 30, 2014, 05:28:04 AMQuote from: jake on June 30, 2014, 05:19:10 AMNo one here will ever agree with me that thinner roads are safer.I will
Thank you for the support Si.
iPhone
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: hbelkins on June 30, 2014, 11:50:03 AM
Post by: hbelkins on June 30, 2014, 11:50:03 AM
Replace "thin" or "thinner" with a more accurate description, "narrow" or "narrower," and see how much agreement you get.
I never tell anyone, "that road is really thin." I say, "that road is really narrow."
I never tell anyone, "that road is really thin." I say, "that road is really narrow."
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: DTComposer on June 30, 2014, 01:18:12 PM
Post by: DTComposer on June 30, 2014, 01:18:12 PM
Quote from: jake on June 30, 2014, 05:19:10 AM
However, consider this: What if every city was a grid layout? Seeing Kansas City would be like seeing Saint Louis or Milwaukee or Austin.
But, as mentioned above, many of the U.S.'s most iconic cities are indeed grid layouts. What makes a city unlike another city is the architecture, the culture, the history, the citizens themselves, the climate, the topography, the industry, etc. In fact, one could argue that the most likely candidates for "sameness" (i.e., seeing city A is just like seeing city B) would be the suburbs, which often eschew grid layouts, unlike central cities.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Zeffy on June 30, 2014, 01:37:56 PM
Post by: Zeffy on June 30, 2014, 01:37:56 PM
Grid planned cities are the best cities IMO. I have an extreme dislike for how European cities are planned in a "web" as they call it compared to the grids over here. Unfortunately for me, the "grid" concept is completely foreign to Hillsborough as well as a large amount of "Townships" in New Jersey, and I can imagine in many other places as well.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: maplestar on June 30, 2014, 01:52:41 PM
Post by: maplestar on June 30, 2014, 01:52:41 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 29, 2014, 04:39:41 PM
Ah yes, when I want absolute proof of something road related, nothing is better than an editorial written by a licensed landscape architect.
Ah yes, and when I want argument worth reading, nothing is better than a criticism of a proponent's qualifications rather than the content of their argument.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: kkt on June 30, 2014, 02:02:42 PM
Post by: kkt on June 30, 2014, 02:02:42 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 18, 2014, 12:34:34 PMQuote from: Laura on June 18, 2014, 12:20:04 AM
It blows my mind that middle class society chose inferior housing, streets, urban design, and ultimately an inferior way of life due to personal insecurities over living with people different than themselves (due to race) in the early to mid 1960's.
How much of it was due to self-segregation, and how much of it was due to the atrocious nature of schools in the cities? Or forced busing which took kids out of their neighborhood schools and made them ride across town to be enrolled in schools that may not have been as good as the ones closer to their homes?
I think you're both missing the most important factor in the growth of suburbs. They were much cheaper. In many suburbs you could buy a 1/4 acre lot with a 2000 sq. foot house for less than you'd pay for a lot and house half the size in the nearby city.
Some additional factors:
Until the 1960s civil rights era, the FHA would not underwrite mortgages in racially mixed areas, or in dominantly African-American areas, so that meant suburbs in most cases.
Lots of the older housing stock in the cities was in poor shape, due to neglect during the depression and WW II.
There just wasn't enough housing in the cities for all the new households springing up. Huge numbers of young men were living with mom & dad before WW II because they were teens or couldn't get a job because of the depression. Then they were in the armed forces during WW II. Then within a few years in the late 1940s they all came home, in their mid to late 20s, and weren't crazy about living with mom & dad again.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: kkt on June 30, 2014, 02:06:16 PM
Post by: kkt on June 30, 2014, 02:06:16 PM
Quote from: english si on June 30, 2014, 05:28:04 AMQuote from: jake on June 30, 2014, 05:19:10 AMNo one here will ever agree with me that thinner roads are safer.I will
If by "safer" you mean "fewer fatalities", I'll agree. If you mean "fewer accidents", I'm skeptical and would like to see research.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2014, 02:11:09 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2014, 02:11:09 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 30, 2014, 01:18:12 PMQuote from: jake on June 30, 2014, 05:19:10 AM
However, consider this: What if every city was a grid layout? Seeing Kansas City would be like seeing Saint Louis or Milwaukee or Austin.
But, as mentioned above, many of the U.S.'s most iconic cities are indeed grid layouts. What makes a city unlike another city is the architecture, the culture, the history, the citizens themselves, the climate, the topography, the industry, etc. In fact, one could argue that the most likely candidates for "sameness" (i.e., seeing city A is just like seeing city B) would be the suburbs, which often eschew grid layouts, unlike central cities.
I agree with everything you've said. Downtown Seattle is not like downtown San Francisco which is not like Downtown Vancouver which is not like Downtown Calgary. Each city has their own flavor and style, which its residents and visitors like.
What I'm saying is, you can have a city that succeeds culturally without a grid layout. Boston is a great example of this.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 30, 2014, 11:50:03 AM
Replace "thin" or "thinner" with a more accurate description, "narrow" or "narrower," and see how much agreement you get.
I never tell anyone, "that road is really thin." I say, "that road is really narrow."
I've used "narrow" to describe permanent fixtures (e.g. the narrow canyon) but used "thin" to describe less-than-permanent objects (e.g. the thin leaf). You could argue that roads are a permanent fixture, but they are also sometimes temporary. As one website that I read put it, "it's best just to decide idiomatically".
I only used thin because of recent proposals in my area to build more "thin streets". But I do like "narrow streets". Not sure if I prefer one to the other just yet.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: PHLBOS on June 30, 2014, 02:19:07 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on June 30, 2014, 02:19:07 PM
Quote from: jake on June 30, 2014, 02:11:09 PMWhat I'm saying is, you can have a city that succeeds culturally without a grid layout. Boston (excluding the Back Bay section) is a great example of this.FTFY.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2014, 02:22:22 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2014, 02:22:22 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 30, 2014, 02:19:07 PMQuote from: jake on June 30, 2014, 02:11:09 PMWhat I'm saying is, you can have a city that succeeds culturally without a grid layout. Boston (excluding the Back Bay section) is a great example of this.FTFY.
I was this close to saying exactly that, down to the freakin' italics.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: english si on June 30, 2014, 02:27:30 PM
Post by: english si on June 30, 2014, 02:27:30 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on June 30, 2014, 01:37:56 PMI have an extreme dislike for how European cities are "planned" in a "web" as they call it compared to the grids over here.FIFY...
In Europe we didn't have a near-blank slate, and had to deal with an evolved street pattern (and later, existing buildings), rather than one intelligently designed around grids...
In Europe, there are loads of grids in rebuilt city centres, in post-Industrial revolution estates to serve the new industrial workers, etc. Though the suburbs, while car-centric, never really wanted fast driving outside houses, so residential roads aren't going to be more than, say, a mile in a straight line, come the 20s and 30s, they won't be designed as effective rat runs, etc. Then come the 90s (and a bit before), the vogue was for lots of cul-de-sacs, corners, etc, so that once you are in the housing estate, you won't physically be able to drive at 20mph.
Compare: 80s Residential suburbia in a new town (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/index.php?view=52.02054,-0.73782&map=OSMMap&zoom=15&layer=0), 90s Residential suburbia in same new town (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/index.php?view=52.01074,-0.77876&map=OSMMap&zoom=15&layer=0)
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 30, 2014, 02:29:12 PM
Post by: jeffandnicole on June 30, 2014, 02:29:12 PM
Quote from: jake on June 30, 2014, 05:19:10 AMQuote from: Scott5114 on June 30, 2014, 04:24:35 AM
The problem is when you live in the middle of that tangled morass of jumbled roads and you're trying to get to the freeway. That looks like a pain in the ass to have to traverse.
When I visited England, I used a GPS. I would have been hopelessly lost without it. Likewise, visitors to our country would too be hopelessly lost without a GPS. Just because a city has a grid layout doesn't make it easy to traverse.
Ah, a quote from a youngin'!
Believe it or not, GPS units has only been in wide-spread use for a number of years, maybe a decade at best. Before 2005,
Numerous stories have been written of people blaming their GPS units getting them stuck on railroad tricks, in mud, in rivers, etc. Many will try to use a GPS to get them around traffic congestion, but what wants up happening is the GPS keeps recalculating to get the motorist back to the congested highway. If someone has a least a little knowledge of the roads in the area, a GPS can be a helpful tool. For too many people, a GPS is as essential as a beating heart.
Quote
The grid-diss crew does have one point. Too much can get boring. Like this:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwPchQ.png&hash=6a196515bc6edcb273dbb28fb8bdaff6e8d12c4f)
This is boring.
The biggest mistake in this is the viewpoint that is being utilized. When driving, my line-of-sight is about 4 feet off the ground, not 5,000 feet in the air. When I take walks around my neighborhood, we have some straight stretches of road, and some curved roads. What's boring is seeing the same sights over and over again. I vary my walks to different streets, different neighborhoods.
What's interesting is while the anti-road crowd shows an aerial view of a 'boring' road, an aerial view of an 'exciting' layout isn't used. Yet, we are told these layouts exist. Why not use a view of a method that supposedly works? Because overall, any aerial view is boring. And when on the ground, a spider-type layout is confusing.
If the goal is to try to reduce travel, you have to have the right population and like-minded people. I can't tell you how many road meetings I've been to where numerous people come out to try to derail or eliminate a road project. They whine people need to walk, bike, carpool and take mass-transit. Then after the meeting, watch as all those people get into their own vehicles and drive away, even though they all live nearby in the same area.
To add to that...almost no one likes people speeding by their house. But if everyone thought about that on the roads, they wouldn't speed by other people's houses either. To add to that, when surveys are done direct with motorists, some people will claim they never or rarely speed, and those that do tend to minimize their speeding. But automated surveys using sensors in the ground or hidden radar will almost always reveal more motorists are speeding, and at speeds higher than what they claim they are driving.
Quote from: maplestar on June 30, 2014, 01:52:41 PMQuote from: jeffandnicole on June 29, 2014, 04:39:41 PM
Ah yes, when I want absolute proof of something road related, nothing is better than an editorial written by a licensed landscape architect.
Ah yes, and when I want argument worth reading, nothing is better than a criticism of a proponent's qualifications rather than the content of their argument.
Because it was purely opinion without facts. Take the following:
"Wider lanes at 12 feet width and greater are only safer on high-speed roads and interstates"
"Beach Road is clearly dangerous by design, as many of Norwalk's roads are"
Where are the stats to back that up? There are none. Maybe in the report he referenced there are stats and reasonings as to specific circumstances, but anytime words such as "Only" and "clearly dangerous" are used, then one has to consider how much fact is contained in the writer's view, and how much of it is opinion.
The letter writer felt that it was important enough to have the landscape architect byline attached to his letter. Why? It almost screams out "We need to calm traffic, and when you do that, I think some planters and brickwork will look nice to help reduce traffic speeds, and I'm the perfect person to design and build that for you!"
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2014, 02:38:49 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2014, 02:38:49 PM
Quote from: english si on June 30, 2014, 02:27:30 PM
Compare: 80s Residential suburbia in a new town (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/index.php?view=52.02054,-0.73782&map=OSMMap&zoom=15&layer=0), 90s Residential suburbia in same new town (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/maps/index.php?view=52.01074,-0.77876&map=OSMMap&zoom=15&layer=0)
I knew that was Milton Keynes before I zoomed out...no where in England are there A) that many roundabouts, or B) that much grid (surrounding the housing estates, at least).
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 30, 2014, 02:43:16 PM
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 30, 2014, 02:43:16 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 29, 2014, 11:04:08 AMQuote from: jake on June 29, 2014, 03:44:56 AM
If I was laying out a town, it would look something like this:
- thin roads to discourage high-speeds, thus encouraging walk-ability
- roundabouts to slow traffic (in tandem with above)
- mid-to-high density residential (closely spaced 2-3 floor homes)
- no freeways (bypass roads are fine).
- no right turn on red -- not very friendly for pedestrians
Remind me never to live in your town.
add moron tourists and you've got San Francisco. an excellent city; but pure hell to drive in.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2014, 02:53:26 PM
Post by: jakeroot on June 30, 2014, 02:53:26 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 30, 2014, 02:43:16 PMQuote from: hbelkins on June 29, 2014, 11:04:08 AMQuote from: jake on June 29, 2014, 03:44:56 AM
If I was laying out a town, it would look something like this:
- thin roads to discourage high-speeds, thus encouraging walk-ability
- roundabouts to slow traffic (in tandem with above)
- mid-to-high density residential (closely spaced 2-3 floor homes)
- no freeways (bypass roads are fine).
- no right turn on red -- not very friendly for pedestrians
Remind me never to live in your town.
add moron tourists and you've got San Francisco. an excellent city; but pure hell to drive in.
Agreed...very hellish. But it's fun especially if you like crowds (which I do). If being a PE fails me, taxi driver is my second choice.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2014, 04:48:15 PM
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2014, 04:48:15 PM
Quote from: jake on June 30, 2014, 02:11:09 PMQuote from: DTComposer on June 30, 2014, 01:18:12 PMQuote from: jake on June 30, 2014, 05:19:10 AM
However, consider this: What if every city was a grid layout? Seeing Kansas City would be like seeing Saint Louis or Milwaukee or Austin.
But, as mentioned above, many of the U.S.'s most iconic cities are indeed grid layouts. What makes a city unlike another city is the architecture, the culture, the history, the citizens themselves, the climate, the topography, the industry, etc. In fact, one could argue that the most likely candidates for "sameness" (i.e., seeing city A is just like seeing city B) would be the suburbs, which often eschew grid layouts, unlike central cities.
I agree with everything you've said. Downtown Seattle is not like downtown San Francisco which is not like Downtown Vancouver which is not like Downtown Calgary. Each city has their own flavor and style, which its residents and visitors like.
What I'm saying is, you can have a city that succeeds culturally without a grid layout. Boston is a great example of this.
You are undermining your own argument here.
You can have a culturally interesting and unique city with or without a grid. If that's the case, why not go with a grid to make it easier to get to the culture spots and back home again?
If people are not paying attention to the road, that is not the DOT/planning authority's remit. Correcting that behavior is the duty of law enforcement.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 10:43:08 AM
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 10:43:08 AM
This is just a random observation (somewhat related to the original topic but not related to the current line of conversation):
Didn't the Baby Boomers (particularly the younger ones) also move to urban areas when they were younger and single? You certainly didn't see a lot of single people living in suburbia in the 1980s. But of course people grew up, had kids and moved to the suburbs. It just seems like the current generation is repeating what the Boomers did and everyone is reacting quickly to call it some kind of new trend. Give it 20 years and my generation will be in suburbia too.
Didn't the Baby Boomers (particularly the younger ones) also move to urban areas when they were younger and single? You certainly didn't see a lot of single people living in suburbia in the 1980s. But of course people grew up, had kids and moved to the suburbs. It just seems like the current generation is repeating what the Boomers did and everyone is reacting quickly to call it some kind of new trend. Give it 20 years and my generation will be in suburbia too.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: PHLBOS on July 17, 2014, 01:19:43 PM
Post by: PHLBOS on July 17, 2014, 01:19:43 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 10:43:08 AMDidn't the Baby Boomers (particularly the younger ones) also move to urban areas when they were younger and single? You certainly didn't see a lot of single people living in suburbia in the 1980s. But of course people grew up, had kids and moved to the suburbs. It just seems like the current generation is repeating what the Boomers did and everyone is reacting quickly to call it some kind of new trend. Give it 20 years and my generation will be in suburbia too.Bingo! Somebody finally brings up this point!
Some of my younger co-workers that currently live in the city (Philadelphia) have already stated that they will likely move to the suburbs once they start having kids.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jakeroot on July 17, 2014, 01:26:56 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 17, 2014, 01:26:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2014, 01:19:43 PMQuote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 10:43:08 AMDidn't the Baby Boomers (particularly the younger ones) also move to urban areas when they were younger and single? You certainly didn't see a lot of single people living in suburbia in the 1980s. But of course people grew up, had kids and moved to the suburbs. It just seems like the current generation is repeating what the Boomers did and everyone is reacting quickly to call it some kind of new trend. Give it 20 years and my generation will be in suburbia too.Bingo! Somebody finally brings up this point!
Some of my younger co-workers that currently live in the city (Philadelphia) have already stated that they will likely move to the suburbs once they start having kids.
Not every city experienced this influx of baby boomers -- Tacoma has only in the last 5 to 10 years become a nice city. Back in the 80s, the only reason you lived here was because you were a drug-lord.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 02:37:15 PM
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 02:37:15 PM
Quote from: jake on July 17, 2014, 01:26:56 PMQuote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2014, 01:19:43 PMQuote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 10:43:08 AMDidn't the Baby Boomers (particularly the younger ones) also move to urban areas when they were younger and single? You certainly didn't see a lot of single people living in suburbia in the 1980s. But of course people grew up, had kids and moved to the suburbs. It just seems like the current generation is repeating what the Boomers did and everyone is reacting quickly to call it some kind of new trend. Give it 20 years and my generation will be in suburbia too.Bingo! Somebody finally brings up this point!
Some of my younger co-workers that currently live in the city (Philadelphia) have already stated that they will likely move to the suburbs once they start having kids.
Not every city experienced this influx of baby boomers -- Tacoma has only in the last 5 to 10 years become a nice city. Back in the 80s, the only reason you lived here was because you were a drug-lord.
Yeah, but it doesn't negate the original point. Gen Y is moving to cities where amenities are, just as the Boomers did. When Gen Y has kids and settles down, they'll move to the suburbs just as the Boomers did. The names of cities and locales may have changed, but the trend remains the same.
It's more likely that my generation is fanning out to a wider variety of cities. Whereas a Boomer may have gone to Seattle, their off-spring is now going to Tacoma or whereas a Boomer may have gone to Boston, their off-spring is now going to Providence. What we need to watch for is suburban growth around current youth hotspots. I guarantee that it'll start booming in 10-15 years.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: Mr_Northside on July 17, 2014, 03:22:33 PM
Post by: Mr_Northside on July 17, 2014, 03:22:33 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2014, 01:19:43 PMQuote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 10:43:08 AMDidn't the Baby Boomers (particularly the younger ones) also move to urban areas when they were younger and single? You certainly didn't see a lot of single people living in suburbia in the 1980s. But of course people grew up, had kids and moved to the suburbs. It just seems like the current generation is repeating what the Boomers did and everyone is reacting quickly to call it some kind of new trend. Give it 20 years and my generation will be in suburbia too.Bingo! Somebody finally brings up this point!
Some of my younger co-workers that currently live in the city (Philadelphia) have already stated that they will likely move to the suburbs once they start having kids.
I have some friends that now have kids that are pondering such a move. Though they still would prefer to live in the city over suburban living, it's really all about just 1 thing: school districts. Of note, the ones with kids old enough to now be in school actually are happy with the elementary schools here in Pittsburgh, but are trying to figure out what to do in a few years when it comes time for middle/high school.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: jakeroot on July 17, 2014, 06:51:24 PM
Post by: jakeroot on July 17, 2014, 06:51:24 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 02:37:15 PMQuote from: jake on July 17, 2014, 01:26:56 PMQuote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2014, 01:19:43 PMQuote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 10:43:08 AMDidn't the Baby Boomers (particularly the younger ones) also move to urban areas when they were younger and single? You certainly didn't see a lot of single people living in suburbia in the 1980s. But of course people grew up, had kids and moved to the suburbs. It just seems like the current generation is repeating what the Boomers did and everyone is reacting quickly to call it some kind of new trend. Give it 20 years and my generation will be in suburbia too.Bingo! Somebody finally brings up this point!
Some of my younger co-workers that currently live in the city (Philadelphia) have already stated that they will likely move to the suburbs once they start having kids.
Not every city experienced this influx of baby boomers -- Tacoma has only in the last 5 to 10 years become a nice city. Back in the 80s, the only reason you lived here was because you were a drug-lord.
Yeah, but it doesn't negate the original point. Gen Y is moving to cities where amenities are, just as the Boomers did. When Gen Y has kids and settles down, they'll move to the suburbs just as the Boomers did. The names of cities and locales may have changed, but the trend remains the same.
It's more likely that my generation is fanning out to a wider variety of cities. Whereas a Boomer may have gone to Seattle, their off-spring is now going to Tacoma or whereas a Boomer may have gone to Boston, their off-spring is now going to Providence. What we need to watch for is suburban growth around current youth hotspots. I guarantee that it'll start booming in 10-15 years.
It makes sense that people move to suburbs . . . usually, living in a city is more expensive. I would imagine most people desire city living, though.
Title: Re: Suburban living dying off as people migrate to the cities again
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 08:28:04 PM
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 08:28:04 PM
Quote from: jake on July 17, 2014, 06:51:24 PMQuote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 02:37:15 PMQuote from: jake on July 17, 2014, 01:26:56 PMQuote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2014, 01:19:43 PMQuote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 10:43:08 AMDidn't the Baby Boomers (particularly the younger ones) also move to urban areas when they were younger and single? You certainly didn't see a lot of single people living in suburbia in the 1980s. But of course people grew up, had kids and moved to the suburbs. It just seems like the current generation is repeating what the Boomers did and everyone is reacting quickly to call it some kind of new trend. Give it 20 years and my generation will be in suburbia too.Bingo! Somebody finally brings up this point!
Some of my younger co-workers that currently live in the city (Philadelphia) have already stated that they will likely move to the suburbs once they start having kids.
Not every city experienced this influx of baby boomers -- Tacoma has only in the last 5 to 10 years become a nice city. Back in the 80s, the only reason you lived here was because you were a drug-lord.
Yeah, but it doesn't negate the original point. Gen Y is moving to cities where amenities are, just as the Boomers did. When Gen Y has kids and settles down, they'll move to the suburbs just as the Boomers did. The names of cities and locales may have changed, but the trend remains the same.
It's more likely that my generation is fanning out to a wider variety of cities. Whereas a Boomer may have gone to Seattle, their off-spring is now going to Tacoma or whereas a Boomer may have gone to Boston, their off-spring is now going to Providence. What we need to watch for is suburban growth around current youth hotspots. I guarantee that it'll start booming in 10-15 years.
It makes sense that people move to suburbs . . . usually, living in a city is more expensive. I would imagine most people desire city living, though.
Agreed
Therein lies the absurdity of the whole "SUBURBS ARE DYING" argument. People can desire a lot of things, but reality forces you to make a different decision. How many boomers wish they could still be living in their downtown apartment living a carefree life?
Suburban migration is caused by cost, better schools and even logistics. None of this is going to change any time soon.