Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're right, it's not all that different. Which means that most suburbs have sidewalks, even if you choose not to use them, and public transportation, even if you choose not to take it.
I will repeat again that presence of sidewalks is not going to bring businesses closer (within reasonable walking distance). If you want to walk to a grocery store, ATM machine, video rental store, nearest restaurant are you going to be willing to hike 2 miles? I know walking is good for you, but when you run errands you want to be a little bit closer to places than that. Even walking a mile to a nearest store for necessities is a nuisance for a city-dweller who is used to have everything within a 3 block radius.
I didn't use public transport in suburbs I've lived in because it's simply not usable, not because I chose to not use it. When it takes 2 hours using poorly designed transport to get from point A to point B when driving takes only 45 min then it's a no-brainer choice here. Add to it having to hike for 2 miles to the nearest rail station/bus stop and having to wait for 20 min if you miss a bus and it won't make it all roses either.
1-2 miles distance to places when you drive is nothing, you get into your car and you are there. But walking for 1-2 miles there back is not really something one is willing to do when running errands. Now, recreational walking is a different story. Suburban sidewalks are fine for that, I personally don't prefer it over let's say a city park, but this is where my personal choice is a problem. Biking is not always an option in many places either due primarily to the lack of usable bike-lanes and the simple fact that in rain biking is not as much fun (whereas when you walk you can at least get an umbrella).
Katiana, your opinion is clear, you've voted, you like the suburbs and I see nothing wrong with that. I know many people who love living in the suburbs. But you will never convince me that suburbs offer as much as cities offer in terms of everyday conveniences and density and choices of things to do.
Public transport in most suburbs is horrendous for someone who used to rely on it for everyday needs in the city. go to the San Francisco forums and you'll see people there rant about how bad the bus system is in the city itself. I lived there without a car for years and I think it's somewhat decent and took me where I needed to go, but many will disagree. I seriously seriously doubt Denver has a superior public transport than a city of SF.
I think you are I have to agree to disagree. I think we are coming from two different view points and different experiences. To me, if there is no metro/bus stop within 10-15 min of walking, it's not a good public transport. And if I can't get from point A to point B without having to 'backtrack' to the hub station for 30 min to make a transfer, it's not very usable. If it's easier to get into your car then that's the choices we make. In the city, though, the big difference is that it's actually easier without a car.
My daughter lives in the city (Denver). She does not live within three blocks of a grocery store (maybe a 7-11), a Target, a clothing store or anything other than restaurants, coffee shops and the like. She too, has to drive somewhere for her daily living needs. The same was true when DH and I lived in the city of Denver. If you live in a residential neighborhood, you're not likely to have a full-service shopping area within walking distance.
I keep bringing up this sidewalk business because so many of the anti-suburb people keep saying the 'burbs don't have sidewalks. I know that's true in parts of the country (mainly the eastern US), but it's not true everywhere. Yes, public transportation is a bite, everywhere I think. The situation you described happens in the city, too. It happened to me when we lived in Denver. It took my younger daughter about 45 minutes portal to portal to take the public bus home from school, a distance of 1.6 miles. Some of that was walking time from the bus stop home (about 1/4 mile, not 2 miles). Some of it was waiting time, one of the biggest problems with public transportation.
Good grief you two! My suburb of 20,000 people has community theater, juried art shows, concerts in the parks in the summer, a lot of community celebrations and a sense of community you won't get in the city. We also have shopping (several grocery stores, a Kohl's, other businesses), numerous restaurants including some indy ones, an ice rink in the winter, a wonderful library, and a hospital. Close by, we have community symphony and other arts offerings. What do you guys need to be amused?
The stuff you listed doesn't even come close to what a major city has to offer. But you know the quote, different strokes for different people. I'm not really a suburb person but I can understand the appeal of them.
Well, lets see. Their must be a reason why builders stopped using bricks as a common building material. I wonder why.....
The thing I've observed in the suburbs of DC and even when it comes to the new construction in the city itself is the trend to use 'faux' brick - a sheeting of sorts that can be 'plopped' to the side of the building to make it look like brick. I wonder how long that thing is going to last. If people abandon the suburbs and nature takes over there will be nothing left there other than the granite countertops laying around.
IMO, some of the worst-built suburbs are those that were built shortly after World War II. Those are some of the "rows of houses that are all the same" type places that were popularized in the media at the time. The newer burbs actually incorporate a lot of principles of good city planning with parks and open space, community centers, retail, etc. I am not as computer literate at some on this board, but if you want to see some examples of new burbs that are built well, look at Superior and Erie Colorado on City-Data (though I just checked Superior and they don't have many picutres).
Well, then we are on the same team, but we just have different views on what we are fighting against.
The stuff you listed doesn't even come close to what a major city has to offer. But you know the quote, different strokes for different people. I'm not really a suburb person but I can understand the appeal of them.
You seem to miss the point. I live 25 miles from Denver. I also have access to all the amentities in Denver. The ironic thing is, people say the suburbs don't have arts, don't have shopping, don't have restaurants, don't have this, don't have that, and as soon as someone replies, yes they do, then it gets put down. It's the same with sidewalks, public transportation, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KT13
The thing I've observed in the suburbs of DC and even when it comes to the new construction in the city itself is the trend to use 'faux' brick - a sheeting of sorts that can be 'plopped' to the side of the building to make it look like brick. I wonder how long that thing is going to last. If people abandon the suburbs and nature takes over there will be nothing left there other than the granite countertops laying around.
Well, my brick is real brick. And just where do you think all these people who live in the suburbs are going to live if they abandon the burbs? You have to take into account population growth, which accounts for a goodly number of new residences being built.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistacoolio20
Well, then we are on the same team, but we just have different views on what we are fighting against.
I'm really not fighting anything. Those who want to live in the city are welcome to do so.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 05-12-2008 at 03:40 PM..
Suburbs come in all shapes and sizes. Rich suburbs, poor suburbs, old suburbs, new suburbs, suburbs with great public transit, suburbs with no public transit, suburbs with a lot of diversity, suburbs with no diversity, 1890s era suburbs, 1920s era suburbs, 1950s era suburbs, 1990s era suburbs, pretty suburbs, ugly suburbs, suburbs that are all one-story buildings, and suburbs that include giant office parks and high rise condos. And not everybody who lives in a suburb lives in a single-family house. Many live in "garden style" huge apartment complexes located off major streets. Many of these suburban apartment complexes are more dense than official "new urbanist" developments in the city. The only factor that really matters when distinguishing between urban and suburban is population density. Many self proclaimed urbanists (and new-urbanists) are only kidding themselves about how "urban" they really are. When they say they are pro-urban, they really mean they are pro-high priced, impractical boutique stores and "urban hipster" establishments. And strangely, all these urban hipster, gentrified main-streets start looking all the same after awhile. Once you've seen one tattoo parlor, goth/BDSM clothing supply store, organic dog food bakery, yoga studio, and corner pizza place, you've seen them all. Even weirdness gets repetitive.
You seem to miss the point. I live 25 miles from Denver. I also have access to all the amentities in Denver. The ironic thing is, people say the suburbs don't have arts, don't have shopping, don't have restaurants, don't have this, don't have that, and as soon as someone replies, yes they do, then it gets put down. It's the same with sidewalks, public transportation, etc.
Well, my brick is real brick. And just where do you think all these people who live in the suburbs are going to live if they abandon the burbs? You have to take into account population growth, which accounts for a goodly number of new residences being built.
I'm really not fighting anything. Those who want to live in the city are welcome to do so.
I'm fighting the ugly,badly built, identical suburbs that are taking millions of acres of rural land. Numbers USA (http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/farmland.html - broken link)
I think the 'good' suburbs people talk about are more small towns with a distinct center and some sort of independent sustainability (in terms of local businesses of any kinds, entertainment, parks etc). A town is a town and is developed as such. It must have a place where you can park your car and walk around to visit a restaurant, theater, movie theater, do some shopping, etc all in the same place. Then hop back into the car and drive home for 5 miles or so. This living is extremely desirable for many who want to feel like they are close to places (5-10 min drive) with the ops to walk around. But, this is still not the case with the many suburbs plagued by the strip malls and 'cul-de-sac' type of developments.
Now I don't want to make this thread a discussion whether a small town is a 'best or worst of both worlds', I am sure the results of the poll would be different then
But I feel compelled to point out that while a small town is a very desirable option for those looking for some urbanity while keeping their backyards, it still is not a big city and will never have all the choices a big city has to offer in all aspects of life.
You may have a local theater, but a typical large/medium city will have several, plus a good number of small independent theater groups. Same goes for everything else: restaurants, museums, shops, offices, hospitals, movie theaters, parks, beauty salons, farmers markets, etc. and of course, jobs. A small town will not have as much variety of different jobs as a city, no matter even if it has its distinctive industry.
A typical city will also have several distinct neighborhoods, not just one 'main street' and a couple of 'side streets' characteristic to small towns and new suburban 'town communities'.
As far as sprawl is concerned, building 'synthetic' city centers away from the main city has become a new 'solution' to the problem of the sprawl encouraging suburbanites to spend their weekends and nights locally instead of driving to the city for some excitement. Most of these city centers are not less cookie-cutter than the suburbs they serve, they are pretty much same chain stores and restaurants you find in a standard mall only taken outside with a few trees and sidewalk cafes to make it look 'city-like'.
IMO, synthetic city centers sometimes make the sprawl worse. Yes, let's build a new 'city' out in the boonies, so that the former suburb can now have suburbs of its own while the main city remains a ghost town or the playground for the single, kinda like a 'donut' scenario.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL. I am kidding of course.
