THE BELGIAN DREAM

[niterider]

Originally Posted by Dahlis

I dont think any young people dream of that anymore.

why wouldn't they?

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by Dahlis

I dont think any young people dream of that anymore.

Wait until they get a salary, a wife and kids... Most baby boomers didn't think of that when they young, wild and free in the 60's-70's.

[tvdxer]

Originally Posted by Dahlis

I dont think any young people dream of that anymore.

The reason "urban living" has become popular in the U.S. with young people in the last decade is because city cores have actually become livable again. Before the mid-late 1990's, most major American cities lost hundreds of thousands of whites and middle-class blacks and Hispanics. Only recently has that trend been reversed. The end of the crack cocaine epidemic (which plagued most American cities during the 1980's and was partly responsible for the unbelievably high murder rates in them) and the "tough on crime" mentality of city mayors (most notably Rudy Giuliani) are among the two largest factors in the revitalization of the American city.

However, most young people will go on to have children. Not everybody is gay or the half of a selfish DINK (double income, no kids) couple. Unless crime rates decrease to virtually nothing and pedophiles and child abductors disappear off the streets (the worst fear of most parents, due to overhyped, sensationalistic media coverage), the desire for a yard and single-family house will continue. Also, I have noticed that the majority of people I went to high school with live in a suburb or rural area. Still though, that urban living is much more popular than it was just one generation ago is certain.

[Dahlis]

Originally Posted by niterider

why wouldn't they?

Because young people want to live in the inner city, and not just young people but people of all ages. Thats where you find culture, entertainment, restaurants, etc. Its also obvious when you look at housing costs in the suburbs compared to the inner city.

[Dahlis]

Originally Posted by tvdxer

The reason "urban living" has become popular in the U.S. with young people in the last decade is because city cores have actually become livable again. Before the mid-late 1990's, most major American cities lost hundreds of thousands of whites and middle-class blacks and Hispanics. Only recently has that trend been reversed. The end of the crack cocaine epidemic (which plagued most American cities during the 1980's and was partly responsible for the unbelievably high murder rates in them) and the "tough on crime" mentality of city mayors (most notably Rudy Giuliani) are among the two largest factors in the revitalization of the American city.

However, most young people will go on to have children. Not everybody is gay or the half of a selfish DINK (double income, no kids) couple. Unless crime rates decrease to virtually nothing and pedophiles and child abductors disappear off the streets (the worst fear of most parents, due to overhyped, sensationalistic media coverage), the desire for a yard and single-family house will continue. Also, I have noticed that the majority of people I went to high school with live in a suburb or rural area. Still though, that urban living is much more popular than it was just one generation ago is certain.

Of course the cities need to be safe, thats basic. We have never had such problems here in Sweden and the inner city is rich.

[joshsam]

As more middle class people in the USA will move to the city centers again, a slow gentrification process will occure and it will force the poor people to move somewhere else.

Just the opposit gentrification process happened in USA during the 70-80ties.

[niterider]

Originally Posted by Dahlis

Because young people want to live in the inner city, and not just young people but people of all ages. Thats where you find culture, entertainment, restaurants, etc. Its also obvious when you look at housing costs in the suburbs compared to the inner city.

Perhaps in the USA. It's not a simple case of featureless suburbs or culture-filled central areas of the city. I can't speak for elsewhere but in much of Europe the opposite is the case - central areas are more expensive. Personally I know London and to even afford a 1 bedroom apartment with a bedroom barely able to fit a bed inside! you're looking at needing a mortgage beyond the means of most young people. It's a big problem here.

Anyway to get back to the post, most young people I know enjoy the city for fun, yes, but many wouldn't actually want to live there for reasons even the best cities cannot avoid - noise, restrictions on space, having a car, exhorbitant land value, dislike of crowded spaces etc. London has a core but also many areas which are cities in their own right, and even outer suburbs are often more 'livable' being only a short train ride away from the centre but retiaing their own identity, cafes, restaurants etc. They also allow people a realistic prospect of affording their own apartment, and later a house if required, being able to have a car (but not necessarily meaning they dependon one) and a bit of space to breathe.

Point is - the both work symbiotically.

[LtBk]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Wait until they get a salary, a wife and kids... Most baby boomers didn't think of that when they young, wild and free in the 60's-70's.

People can still live in a city with all of that. Besides, most baby boomers grew up in the suburbs.

[Dahlis]

Originally Posted by niterider

Perhaps in the USA. It's not a simple case of featureless suburbs or culture-filled central areas of the city. I can't speak for elsewhere but in much of Europe the opposite is the case - central areas are more expensive. Personally I know London and to even afford a 1 bedroom apartment with a bedroom barely able to fit a bed inside! you're looking at needing a mortgage beyond the means of most young people. It's a big problem here.

Anyway to get back to the post, most young people I know enjoy the city for fun, yes, but many wouldn't actually want to live there for reasons even the best cities cannot avoid - noise, restrictions on space, having a car, exhorbitant land value, dislike of crowded spaces etc. London has a core but also many areas which are cities in their own right, and even outer suburbs are often more 'livable' being only a short train ride away from the centre but retiaing their own identity, cafes, restaurants etc. They also allow people a realistic prospect of affording their own apartment, and later a house if required, being able to have a car (but not necessarily meaning they dependon one) and a bit of space to breathe.

Point is - the both work symbiotically.

London is a very special city as in that it has a very large inner city. What is considered suburbs in London are old areas where classic town planning was used, terraced houses, local pubs etc. Not 1950s big box suburbia.

[Alexpilsen]

Of cors 26% donnot live in Favelas. 26% of Brazilians live in areas that according to the UN, do not have the necessary infrastructure for housing. This is different.

Mary T also seems ridiculous to me wanting to show a rich Brazil. 19% of Brazil belong to the upper classes, that's enough people. But we still have 24% of our population living as poor and miserable. So we dont have no social morality to say that our suburbs could be compared with those of Belgium.

Of course in Brazil we have more than 35 million people who live a way better than most of the Belgians. But we have 30 million who live worse than most Chineses and 12 million who live worse than much african peoples. Mean, forget about Brazil in this thread.

[Suburbanist]

I think neither approach is constructive. Most emergent countries will have nice areas and bad areas. It is up to the viewer to choose. The existence of poverty doesn't preclude the existence of extreme wealth in Brazil, which fosters nice houses that can be compared to Belgians and slums and shantytowns that are nowhere to be seen in Belgium.

[hfocacci]

Originally Posted by joshsam

Well, France, Benelux, N-Germany and the UK...

Also Denmark, Spain, the Baltic countries use to build with bricks...

[pesto]

Originally Posted by hfocacci

Also Denmark, Spain, the Baltic countries use to build with bricks...

Helps in case the Big Bad Wolf is around.

[hfocacci]

I think they seem nice...

[Slartibartfas]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Wait until they get a salary, a wife and kids... Most baby boomers didn't think of that when they young, wild and free in the 60's-70's.

It is true that among couples with children many move to the suburbs, there is however a growing trend of new urban neighborhoods with high shares of young families. Families which don't want to settle down in car dependent spread out suburbs just because they have a young child or more of them.

While many urban areas ares still not the best place to raise children its a myth not based in reality anymore that urban areas can't be good places to raise children. Nowadays there are again plenty of examples proving that outdated view wrong.

[LtBk]

The idea that kids have to raised in auto centric post WWII suburbia is rather stupid IMO

[guineas]

Belgium looks very similar to New England (Mass, Rhode Island, New Hampshire).

Very dense, but mostly single detached homes with yards and the "suburbs" still have their own town centers from way back in the 1700s. A very organic development pattern. Massachusetts for instance is one of the densest states in the US, but it sure doesn't feel that way compared to say other metro areas like Chicago.

image hosted on flickr

Marblehead, Massachusetts, US, 15 miles from downtown Boston. Typical middle, upper-middle class housing here.

Most houses in New England are wood, but I really like the brick construction in the Belgium houses posted by others in this thread. Very tasteful houses. I also like the shingles, which has a touch of Teutonic influence. What also really struck me is how clean things are in Belgium. This is one European country I wouldn't mind living. Like the Belgians here, I also don't understand the appeal of concrete high rises; in the US we generally associate them with the projects and slums or bankers with too much money to spend wisely. Apparently, in Brazil and Asia it's considered a middle class status symbol. I wonder what the Brazillians will think 50 years from now as the cheaply-built concrete highrises decay and the repair bill comes due after years of skipping maintenance.

[Slartibartfas]

The same way as today probaby because by then much nicer middle class towers will have been built and the old ones either renovated already one time (I'd guess that should happen every 30-40 years once at least) or torn down and replaced for entirely new ones.

[Wapper]

This may be a general phenomenon in Europe, but Belgium really is the worst example. It is true that most people want to live in a suburban area. They want to have the feeling that they live in the quiet countryside (although they are not), but they still want to enjoy the benefits of urban life. I wish more people would go live in the cities and there would be more open space outside the cities. Unfortunately, it is probably too late. Until 1950 or so, flanders was still very rural and had a nice countryside. Off course, this changed because of population growth and the transition from a rural and indutrial economy to an economy based on services.
Unlike other European countries like the Netherlands, however, the belgians did a lousy job to cope with these changes. In fact, the Belgians did nothing at all. Until somewhere in the 1960s, there was no urban planning at all. People could more or less build anything they want, whereever they wanted it. Nobody cared about the planning of residental, urban, industrial and agricultural zones. At some point, the government did make some rules, but for a long time, they were not strictly obeyed.
The consequences are dramatic. The landscape in many areas is completely ruined and we lost almost all open space (mostly in flanders). Furthermore, many problems like traffic jams, pollution, erosion of the soil, river floods etc. are due to these developments.

[Suburbanist]

I disagree with these assessments. Belgian has much non-built space. It is only that almost all main roads have been built and transformed in narrow alleys of housing, but you still have plenty of farmland and houses behind those houses. In that sense, Belgians get a glimpse of quiet life much more than the Dutch. Then, the Belgians have, to a much larger extent than the Dutch, single-detached houses instead of row houses or townhouses. You know, a house that doesn't share a common wall with no other building.

Belgian also has plenty of forest and huge tree park on the Ardennes. I guess you are also exaggerating the suggestions that urbanization of light type along roads cause floods.

It is interesting that in Belgium you don't have an artificial boundary of urban or rural space. You have fluid areas, urban, semi-urban, quasi-rural, and some "wild" areas. But there is usually no rigid definition of a point where a city ends, which is an interesting development model that should be exported to Netherlands ASAP./