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.
It looks like 42% of Americans desire to live in more walkable communities, which is an increase from the previous year. Yet 75% of the land area in US cities are zoned single family only. And we can see from the high real estate prices in dense areas that there is a significant level of demand to live in that type of housing. Of course, a lot of people want to live in single family homes, but a lot of people would also love to live in a mansion or eat burgers every day. But a lot of those same people would be happy if they could upgrade their life from a terrible apartment building to a town home or row home with good construction.
I also see this argument that the other countries don't have the space of the US and that's why they don't sprawl as much. But that doesn't make sense to me. People aren't moving two and three hours away from where they work. Most people would desire a commute of 30 minutes or less. The reality is that the US has subsidized sprawl in a way that other countries have chosen not to.
You do see countries like Australia, Canada, and those in the Middle East copying the US suburban style. But from the Europeans and Japanese I know, some reasons that they don't desire our building style is because they are as consumerist as we are and the availability of transit makes it unnecessary.
I don't think the US needs to get rid of the suburbs. Clearly people enjoy living that way. And if they are willing to pay the cost to support that lifestyle, have at it. But we're clearly in a housing crisis in one potential solution is to build quality walkable neighborhoods that younger people and less fortunate people can live in. Everything doesn't have to be single family homes and apartments.
In case like the west coast those cities can’t really sprawl any more as the mountain and water in the way and in case like Houston metro area or Dallas and Fort Worth metro area is already very big is it going to double when the population double in the 50 or 100 years from now.
When you look at Europe you get dense suburbs not sprawl suburbs like the US with very narrow streets and houses withe almost no property. And this only if you have a good job and lot of money. There some nice suburbs in Japan
But again only good job and lot of money to live there.
What the US did in the 40s, 50s and 60s built like crazy making suburban life very affordable for most people. No other country did this but Canada and Australia.
With very few exceptions, government does not build the housing in the U.S. So it isn't something "the US" does nor its states nor its local governments. And no, approving developer plans is not building or designing houses nor housing projects.
The US government may not built houses in the US but is more car friendly, highway friendly, suburban friendly than most other countries. The US does not have good rail system like Japan, China, or Europe where many people travel from one city to other city. In the US you drive from one city to other city is more ingrained in the culture. People do not think hay that take a train from Phoenix to Dallas.
In case like Russia and China they seem gone the other way to make sure they did not have US suburban development in their backyard.
Your use of the term "city" is misleading at best and you are only referring to the built form. There are plenty of subdivisions that have single detached houses with yards in cities. The problem in the cities is local government policies which lead to policies families do not agree with, drive up the cost of living in "the city", result in bad schools, and result in higher crime.
People don’t want to live in Los Angeles or San Francisco level of density they want a density like Phoenix or Houston suburbs.
When people think of suburb they think of nice backyard and swimming pool like this
It looks like 42% of Americans desire to live in more walkable communities, which is an increase from the previous year. Yet 75% of the land area in US cities are zoned single family only. And we can see from the high real estate prices in dense areas that there is a significant level of demand to live in that type of housing. Of course, a lot of people want to live in single family homes, but a lot of people would also love to live in a mansion or eat burgers every day. But a lot of those same people would be happy if they could upgrade their life from a terrible apartment building to a town home or row home with good construction.
I also see this argument that the other countries don't have the space of the US and that's why they don't sprawl as much. But that doesn't make sense to me. People aren't moving two and three hours away from where they work. Most people would desire a commute of 30 minutes or less. The reality is that the US has subsidized sprawl in a way that other countries have chosen not to.
You do see countries like Australia, Canada, and those in the Middle East copying the US suburban style. But from the Europeans and Japanese I know, some reasons that they don't desire our building style is because they are as consumerist as we are and the availability of transit makes it unnecessary.
I don't think the US needs to get rid of the suburbs. Clearly people enjoy living that way. And if they are willing to pay the cost to support that lifestyle, have at it. But we're clearly in a housing crisis in one potential solution is to build quality walkable neighborhoods that younger people and less fortunate people can live in. Everything doesn't have to be single family homes and apartments.
I wouldn't say it's so much that sprawl is subsidized, it's that people are maximizing SQFTs at the cheapest possible cost, and neighborhoods aren't dropping $$$ needed to make a more walkable cohesive town experience. Bike / walking paths eat up space and cost $, especially if you have a greenway alongside. You could stick the parking in decks instead of just a surface lot, so there aren't these big walking obstacles, but that costs $. There's a whole load of work to community organization to bring people together for events - someone has to get paid to do that. We've already talked about the cheap construction that makes space the de facto noise insulator.
It costs time and money to build public urban goods, and the cool thing is sentiment is shifting away from maximizing personal amnenties to actually paying for community amenities. Looking at new development in places like Nova, it's a whole better version of development from what we had before.
Okay I thought was some fact the federal government was publishing not some poll by calling some people.
I find it strange the federal government does not know want percentage of people in the city vs country and how much land in the US is farmland.
The federal government knows exactly that information. You've heard of this thing called "the census"?
But a statement that x% of people want to live in "the city" - that's the statement that was a total aerial plucktation. No data, no references, nothing nada zilch zip-ola. Totally unsubstantiated by anything.
I could say "75% of people want to live in the city" and make a pie chart and post it on the same entertainment site and it wouid look just as valid. The week after I could make a pie chart purporting to show that 6% of people want to live in the city, and that one would be equally vaiid, too.
In case like the west coast those cities can’t really sprawl any more as the mountain and water in the way and in case like Houston metro area or Dallas and Fort Worth metro area is already very big is it going to double when the population double in the 50 or 100 years from now.
When you look at Europe you get dense suburbs not sprawl suburbs like the US with very narrow streets and houses withe almost no property. And this only if you have a good job and lot of money. There some nice suburbs in Japan
But again only good job and lot of money to live there.
What the US did in the 40s, 50s and 60s built like crazy making suburban life very affordable for most people. No other country did this but Canada and Australia.
Three big reasons why the US was able to build suburbs while Europe wasn't:
1. After world war II, most of Europe was destroyed because of bombing and warfare and the countries were an extreme debt. After spending so much on the war. They did not have the money or resources or infrastructure to build suburbia. And the citizens did not have the money to buy houses even if they wanted to. There were so many people who were made homeless by the war that European countries did not have the time to build single family homes for each and every person. On the flip side, the war was very profitable for the u.s as many European nations owed the US money off of loans and the lend lease program. So the US had a ton of money after the war to build.
2. The US government incentivized suburban type homes through the GI bill and other subsidies that made buying that type of home possible for the average citizen. Europe's massive debt after the war made this kind of investment extremely difficult.
3. Europeans after the war were poor and could not afford cars. US style suburbia only works if people are able to afford cars. This is also why the rising cost of cars in our current time is a major concern.
I wouldn't say it's so much that sprawl is subsidized, it's that people are maximizing SQFTs at the cheapest possible cost, and neighborhoods aren't dropping $$$ needed to make a more walkable cohesive town experience. Bike / walking paths eat up space and cost $, especially if you have a greenway alongside. You could stick the parking in decks instead of just a surface lot, so there aren't these big walking obstacles, but that costs $. There's a whole load of work to community organization to bring people together for events - someone has to get paid to do that. We've already talked about the cheap construction that makes space the de facto noise insulator.
It costs time and money to build public urban goods, and the cool thing is sentiment is shifting away from maximizing personal amnenties to actually paying for community amenities. Looking at new development in places like Nova, it's a whole better version of development from what we had before.
Sprawl is subsidized in the sense that the taxes currently paid by those living in suburbia generally don't pay for all of the maintenance cost of the suburbs. It cost more to serve a larger area with water, sewage, fire coverage, police coverage etc. And suburbs cover more area with fewer people so more in taxes would be necessary per capita. There's been analysis done that show inner city neighborhoods end up paying more in taxes than suburbia per square foot. Now I will caveat this by saying that the increase in taxes necessary for suburbia to pay for itself is probably affordable for those who live in the suburbs.
Parking garages do cost additional money but depending on the location, a single parking garage could be more profitable to the city than multiple surface parking lots. Instead of multiple surface parking lots, it could be more profitable to have a single parking garage and then replace the other surface parking lots with retail, residential, commercial, or office space that would generate more in taxes for the city revenue.
Generally speaking, bike lanes and walking paths are magnitude cheaper than car lanes because they require much less maintenance over the course of time. The question becomes whether certain roads are over built for cars or the demand for cars is unsatisfied.
Now before somebody jumps down my throat, I'm not saying to delete the suburbs or anything like that. But I do think that more people are starting to want a combination of both a single family home lifestyle and a walkable cohesive community we're much of their daily needs Can be satisfied using different forms of transit, and I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive.
One of the most popular areas in Austin, Texas is called Mueller, which is an area that contains single family homes, townhomes, fourplexes, apartments. This area is also very close to grocery stores, bakeries, barber shops, movie theaters, which means that residents are able to avoid traffic and potentially handle their daily needs by walking or biking. It is so popular that it is one of the most expensive areas in Austin per square foot.
Last edited by orlando-calrissian; 09-15-2023 at 10:47 AM..
Reason: community
With very few exceptions, government does not build the housing in the U.S. So it isn't something "the US" does nor its states nor its local governments. And no, approving developer plans is not building or designing houses nor housing projects.
Your use of the term "city" is misleading at best and you are only referring to the built form. There are plenty of subdivisions that have single detached houses with yards in cities. The problem in the cities is local government policies which lead to policies families do not agree with, drive up the cost of living in "the city", result in bad schools, and result in higher crime.
Your use of the term "urban" is problematic because it does not provide any level of development as a threshold. Shared backyards and apartments are not "family friendly" in the U.S. A lack of private and personal space is not family friendly. Families in the U.S. want their own backyards and private space. A lack of personal/private space and being dependent upon shared space such as parks is not "family friendly" by anyone that has experienced or is aware of the existence of detached single family homes with yards. At best what you offer is "family tolerant".
Where did I equate the USA with the government? I spoke of the USA as a nation not as a government. This also includes private companies, citizens and also the government. Everyone understands what the phrase “The USA did XY” means, except you again. In this respect, it doesn't matter which of the subunits of the USA have not made this kind of development, the fact is that this kind of development does not exist in the USA, which is why the USA has not made this kind of development.
I did not use the term “city” misleadingly, because almost everyone understands the context of my statements that I am talking about the city as a built form.
Your claim that only single-family homes with their own private backyard are family-friendly is your subjective opinion and not an objective fact. I would say that there are many families in the USA who would consider semi-private or public spaces such as parks or apartment backyards to be family-friendly.
Furthermore, you speak of American families as all American families being equal and having the same opinions and the same preferences. In doing so, you are denying American families that they consist of individuals.
Furthermore, your generalization of all cities is also invalid, especially in terms of international comparison. Cities like Monaco or Singapore or Tokyo or Reykjavik can hardly be described as criminal places. But of course you can't know that because you don't have the experience of having lived in these cities if you have ever lived in a city at all because after all you can't make any statements about what it's like to live in such a city and what the crime rate is in such places if you haven't physically lived there.
With very few exceptions, government does not build the housing in the U.S. So it isn't something "the US" does nor its states nor its local governments. And no, approving developer plans is not building or designing houses nor housing projects.
Your use of the term "city" is misleading at best and you are only referring to the built form. There are plenty of subdivisions that have single detached houses with yards in cities. The problem in the cities is local government policies which lead to policies families do not agree with, drive up the cost of living in "the city", result in bad schools, and result in higher crime.
Your use of the term "urban" is problematic because it does not provide any level of development as a threshold. Shared backyards and apartments are not "family friendly" in the U.S. A lack of private and personal space is not family friendly. Families in the U.S. want their own backyards and private space. A lack of personal/private space and being dependent upon shared space such as parks is not "family friendly" by anyone that has experienced or is aware of the existence of detached single family homes with yards. At best what you offer is "family tolerant".
Honestly my guy, I think you should speak for yourself. There are many families that are okay with shared backyards in the US. Is the majority ? Definitely not. But there is a sizable number of families that live in places like Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, New York and other dense locations that would much rather live where they are than in suburbia.
The federal government knows exactly that information. You've heard of this thing called "the census"?
But a statement that x% of people want to live in "the city" - that's the statement that was a total aerial plucktation. No data, no references, nothing nada zilch zip-ola. Totally unsubstantiated by anything.
I could say "75% of people want to live in the city" and make a pie chart and post it on the same entertainment site and it wouid look just as valid. The week after I could make a pie chart purporting to show that 6% of people want to live in the city, and that one would be equally vaiid, too.
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.
