Suburbia: Your Thoughts and Ideas

[fieldsofdreams]

Note: This thread has a poll that the original thread didn't have. Also, some of the great replies from the original thread will be shown here as reference.

In line with the poll I made for the ultimate city, I want to ask a related question, this time on suburbia. I understand that with every great city, thousands or millions of people live in suburban areas to break away from a city's noisy environment, as well as to find a cheaper, more decent place to stay. However, suburban development has been of limited success because planners have been creating suburbia as bedroom communities where people drive or commute to and from work, school, or activity in the city, and that planners create vast subdivisions made out of cookie-cutter houses. While some suburban communities offer better schools for their residents, the downsides of suburbia include long commutes and traffic jams, winding roads (sometimes with no sidewalks), and restricted land use for only a few purposes.

So, same rules as my Ultimate City poll, I want to ask: if you want to make a suburban town more attractive, what would you implement first?

-----------------------------

And here are some of the original replies:

Originally Posted by weava

I now live in a suburban area, I like it. I am technically within walking distance of 2 grocery stores and other shopping but drive 99% of the time for convenience. I also like living in an area with trees, nature trails, and less density because its relaxing.

I used to live downtown and it was exciting and fun to be around the action but parking was always a pain, especially when you wanted to have guests over. I could never raise a family in that environment with the higher crime and terrible school districts in that area but this is probably more of an issue with US cities than in other countries.

Originally Posted by Manila-X

I live in the suburbs and have my design studio in the city. Both city centre and suburbs are vibrant here in Metro Manila.

It is according to what part of the suburb you're living at. Of course I would choose all in your post but here is how I look at Metro Manila especially it's suburbs.

Northwestern suburbs (CAMANAVA, Part of Bulacan like Meycauayan, Bocaue, Marilao, Malolos, etc.)

Area

-Predominantly lower to lower middle class
-Has a traditional feel
-Mostly older suburban developments with some new ones around Bulacan
-Mostly local commercial development
-Primarily agricultural and heavy dirty industries

Advantages

- Accessible by highway (NLEX, EDSA)
- Fast travel time once entering the highway

Disadvantages

- Pollution (the area is concentrated with heavy industries)
- No railway access
- Heavy traffic especially in EDSA and Mac Arthur Highway.
- High density population
- Floods especially in Malabon and Navotas

Northeastern suburbs (Parts of Quezon City like Fairview or Novaliches, Upper Caloocan, Parts of Bulacan like San Jose Del Monte)

Area

- Mixed social status though predominantly middle class
- Mostly residential with some light clean industries
- Newer suburban developments

Advantages

- Accessible though Commonwealth Ave.
- Eco parks such as La Mesa
- Higher altitude
- Newer suburban and commercial developments
- Less pollution except in The Payatas Area

Disadvantages

- Lack of rail or rapid transit though MRT-7 is being planned.
- Traffic in Commonwealth Ave.

Eastern suburbs (Marikina, Pasig, Antipolo, etc.)

Area

- Predominantly lower to upper middle class
- Traditional feel
- Mostly residential with light clean industries

Advantages

- less pollution
- accessible by MRT such as line-2
- rising commercial, suburban and industrial developments

Disadvantages

- heavy traffic especially along Marcos Highway
- lower altitude, prone to flooding

Southwestern suburbs (Western parts of Parañaque and Las Piñas, Cavite including Bacoor, Imus or General Trias)

Area

- predominantly lower to middle class
- mostly residential with light clean industries
- traditional feel

Advantages

- accessible through Coastal Highway
- newer suburban developments

Disadvantages

- traffic especially in Coastal and Aguinaldo Highways
- dense especially in parts of Cavite

Southern Suburbs (Eastern part of Parañaque and Las Piñas, Muntinlupa, Cavite especially around Daang Hari, parts of Laguna such as San Pedro, Sta. Rosa)

Area

- mostly middle to upper class
- predominantly residential with light clean industries
- modern feel

Advantages

- accesible to highways (SLEX) and commuter rail (PNR Orange Line)
- high-end residential and commercial developments
- high commercialization
- emerging satellite cities and CBDs
- large international and expat community
- cleaner air

Disadvantages

- traffic especially around Sucat and Alabang Zapote Road.
- rail line only limited to areas near Laguna De Bay

[...]

Mandaluyong is part of Metro Manila's city core. It is not suburban unlike Parañaque or Marikina.

But we are seeing Manhattanization around the metro's urban core as more and more high-rises are being built.

And alot of these developments are happening midtown including Mandaluyong.

[...]

Definitely! But the main reason for Mandaluyong's rapid commercialization is the presence of Ortigas Centre, the 2nd largest CBD in Metro Manila.

In fact, it is the construction of Megamall, Robinson's Galleria and Shangri-La Plaza that made this area more vibrant.

Originally Posted by jbkayaker12

I would not trade living in suburbia for anywhere else and most certainly not for an urban core city living!!

[jbkayaker12]

What top priority would you like to implement in suburbia to make it more livable?

Suburbia is far more livable for me and many others BUT this is a "skyscraper" board site so you won't be hearing much from these people.

More low-income or subsidized housing to house the poor

There is already subsidize housing in suburbia and it is called Section 8. We suburbanites do not want our neighborhood to be bombarded with Section 8 people.

Better in-city transportation (transit, carpooling, car-sharing, biking)

We already have mass transit and what it does is bring in the riff raffs in suburbia. NO thank you! We also have bike lanes on our roadways.

Creating meaningful, fun-filled activities and events in your neighborhood

Suburbia is not just homes, hahahaha. We have community theater, art fairs, galleries, festivals, farmers market.......We have parks and more parks, hahahaha!

Lower taxes (and benefits) for new businesses and industries

As I have said we have more than just homes in suburbia, businesses are thriving in suburbia.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by jbkayaker12

What top priority would you like to implement in suburbia to make it more livable?

Suburbia is far more livable for me and many others BUT this is a "skyscraper" board site so you won't be hearing much from these people.

More low-income or subsidized housing to house the poor

There is already subsidize housing in suburbia and it is called Section 8. We suburbanites do not want our neighborhood to be bombarded with Section 8 people.

Better in-city transportation (transit, carpooling, car-sharing, biking)

We already have mass transit and what it does is bring in the riff raffs in suburbia. NO thank you! We also have bike lanes on our roadways.

Creating meaningful, fun-filled activities and events in your neighborhood

Suburbia is not just homes, hahahaha. We have community theater, art fairs, galleries, festivals, farmers market.......We have parks and more parks, hahahaha!

Lower taxes (and benefits) for new businesses and industries

As I have said we have more than just homes in suburbia, businesses are thriving in suburbia.

Right... you live in Las Vegas, so your entertainment would be casinos on top of the regular farmers' markets, art fairs, and the like. Maybe another option would help for you? Like what would you like to see in suburban Las Vegas that you currently don't have?

I'd imagine the RTC running through your neighborhood, with many lines (including along Sahara Avenue) running 24/7... and businesses are thriving in many suburban areas. But some suburban communities have Walmart instead of a vibrant downtown, if you know what I mean

[jbkayaker12]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

Right... you live in Las Vegas, so your entertainment would be casinos on top of the regular farmers' markets, art fairs, and the like. Maybe another option would help for you? Like what would you like to see in suburban Las Vegas that you currently don't have?

I'd imagine the RTC running through your neighborhood, with many lines (including along Sahara Avenue) running 24/7... and businesses are thriving in many suburban areas. But some suburban communities have Walmart instead of a vibrant downtown, if you know what I mean

.......and what type of entertainment do you think goes on in the billion $ resorts other than gaming. I won't spoil it for you but you will be surprised to find out, the "Entertainment Capital of the World" has more to offer than just gaming!!

I'm happy with the options we have in suburbia and once again there are other businesses thriving in suburbia aside from your big box retailers. You mentioned Walmart as if the retailer is only exclusive to suburbia, better do some research, these big box retailers are penetrating your so called urban scene.

BTW suburbia is suburbia while downtown is downtown. They are not the same and WILL NEVER BE THE SAME. Now I tell you one thing, I do not like the derelicts, druggies, losers hanging around in the San Francisco urban scene and I am glad we do not have those types in suburbia. Oh I just remembered metropolitan San Franciso has the highest if not one of the highest percentage of drug users in the country. It is a shame considering others like to place San Franciso on a pedestal.

[jbkayaker12]

Originally Posted by jbkayaker12

Now I tell you one thing, I do not like the derelicts, druggies, losers hanging around in the San Francisco urban scene and I am glad we do not have those types in suburbia. Oh I just remembered metropolitan San Franciso has the highest if not one of the highest percentage of drug users in the country. It is a shame considering others like to place San Franciso on a pedestal.

Let me edit what I mentioned above, druggies and losers are also present in suburbia but NOT to the extent where they take over areas like they do in San Francisco and while Clark County is the most populous county in NV, I'm glad we do not have the distinction of having a metropolitan area with a high percentage of druggies in the nation.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by jbkayaker12

Let me edit what I mentioned above, druggies and losers are also present in suburbia but NOT to the extent where they take over areas like they do in San Francisco and while Clark County is the most populous county in NV, I'm glad we do not have the distinction of having a metropolitan area with a high percentage of druggies in the nation.

You are assuming that all city centres are like that the world over. They're not. The richest and most wealthy areas in Stockholm are in the centre, whereas the poorest are the suburbs.

[jbkayaker12]

Originally Posted by Svartmetall

You are assuming that all city centres are like that the world over. They're not. The richest and most wealthy areas in Stockholm are in the centre, whereas the poorest are the suburbs.

When did I say ALL city centers in the world are like San Francisco? By the way, in Europe especially in Amsterdam I heard drug use is so common, true? OK its off topic but since you mentioned your city in Europe I thought I'd ask you. Oh and you're in Europe, so you are comparing apples and oranges.

[Rebasepoiss]

I think the biggest downside to the US style suburbia is the increasing separation between different layers of society. Sure, on an individual level the wealthy are probably very happy with not having the poor people ruining their nice life (which jbkayaker12's posts very well describe). How good is that for the progress of the whole nation is a completely different matter.

Then there's the issue of using huge amounts of energy and natural resources. The price of oil will inevitably rise, it's not a question of if, it's question of when. Sure, the rich will probably be able to drive as they do now even when the price of petrol is 3-4 times what it is today but how will that affect the middle or lower classes of society?

And how will this inefficient way of life affect the economic growth in the US? Suburban areas have a very high cost per people for infrastructure and public services.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by jbkayaker12

When did I say ALL city centers in the world are like San Francisco? By the way, in Europe especially in Amsterdam I heard drug use is so common, true? OK its off topic but since you mentioned your city in Europe I thought I'd ask you. Oh and you're in Europe, so you are comparing apples and oranges.

You're making statements such as:

BTW suburbia is suburbia while downtown is downtown. They are not the same and WILL NEVER BE THE SAME. Now I tell you one thing, I do not like the derelicts, druggies, losers hanging around in the San Francisco urban scene and I am glad we do not have those types in suburbia.

This implies when you separate suburbia and "downtown" that they are the same across the world until you mention San Fran, it was a completely blanket statement.

I'm merely stating that "druggies and losers" as you so eloquently term them, are actually more present in suburbia than in the inner city here given that the inner city is the wealthy and far more "wanted" part of the city whereas, in general (with some exceptions), the suburbs are not. In fact, the suburbs are downright cheap compared to the inner city. There is a reason why the waiting list for central Stockholm is 25 years for a first-hand rental contract.

As for Amsterdam, that city is in The Netherlands. I am in Sweden. Not the same country, not the same policies and not the same society. As for drug use being "common" well, actually bored suburban teenagers and tourists are far more likely to be drug users than urbanites as far as The Netherlands goes. The cannabis cafes generally cater to tourists rather than locals.

[Galro]

Drugs use is prevalent in the Nordics, yes. No point in trying step around the point.

[chornedsnorkack]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

I understand that with every great city, thousands or millions of people live in suburban areas to break away from a city's noisy environment, as well as to find a cheaper, more decent place to stay. However, suburban development has been of limited success because planners have been creating suburbia as bedroom communities where people drive or commute to and from work, school, or activity in the city, and that planners create vast subdivisions made out of cookie-cutter houses. While some suburban communities offer better schools for their residents, the downsides of suburbia include long commutes and traffic jams, winding roads (sometimes with no sidewalks), and restricted land use for only a few purposes.

Restricted land use is an artifact of planning/government action.

Note that the mere existence of suburbs requires massive government investment in infrastructure. In a complete countryside where roads are unpaved under 30 km/h ones (and snowed in in winter) and running water is not available, the urban folks may visit for their summerhouses at holidays, but they would be rather reluctant to settle down year-round. A suburb needs a dense network of reasonably fast paved highways, and running water supply.

Now, if government declines to interfere, then along roads outside central city you would not only see blocks of houses. You would also see industrial enterprises, wholesale shops taking advantage of cheap land and accessibility, as well as streets of private houses.

And without government action to enforce restricted land use you should also see apartment blocks interspersed with individual houses - not quite randomly, though. High value buildings like apartment blocks and shops would be concentrated at higher value, more accessible land like along main roads and near public transport stops and intersections - while the side streets would be lined with private houses.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by Galro

Drugs use is prevalent in the Nordics, yes. No point in trying step around the point.

Where did I step around that point? Are you following me around the board and sniping at what I say?

He mentioned Amsterdam, I responded that I am not in Amsterdam and that there is a significant difference in policy towards drugs between Sweden (hard more following the US line) and The Netherlands (one of the more liberal countries in the world regarding drugs). If we were to analyse drug death in Sweden, Sweden had a drug death rate of 1.8 per 100,000 which compares very favourably to The Netherlands which has one of the lowest at 0.68 per 100,000. Compare that to the US (12.6 per 100,000) or the UK (39.8 per 100,000) and I would not say ostensibly that drugs are as large a societal problem given that the "hard" drugs are those that generally lead to drug induced death.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by Galro

Drugs use is prevalent in the Nordics, yes. No point in trying step around the point.

Umm, explain what you mean by that. What is the relationship between drugs and suburbs?

[zaphod]

Honestly, there will always be people with what you could broadly call "issues", and they have to live somewhere. Usually somewhere very cheap and they are typically transient. But again, unless you think that making minimum wage is a crime punishable by life in prison, then poor people are going to need housing somewhere.

For various reasons, in the past they all got concentrated in the city partly because all of the cheap depreciated neighborhoods created by the exodus to the suburbs. Also suburbs tend to be exclusionary, allowing mostly detatched single family homes that tends to either be owner-occupied or have fairly high rent.

Of course nowadays the oldest modern suburbs are pushing 60 years old and the first rings of sprawl are becoming more like the city they drained of life while new growth extends farther out. As city centers become gentrified and expensive, some of those bad urban neighborhoods are emptying out and their dysfunctional inhabitants are going to those older suburbs.

Now I think that the old truism city=bad suburb=safe is becoming less meaningful, and it was always a very harmful idea to begin with.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack

Restricted land use is an artifact of planning/government action.

Note that the mere existence of suburbs requires massive government investment in infrastructure. In a complete countryside where roads are unpaved under 30 km/h ones (and snowed in in winter) and running water is not available, the urban folks may visit for their summerhouses at holidays, but they would be rather reluctant to settle down year-round. A suburb needs a dense network of reasonably fast paved highways, and running water supply.

Now, if government declines to interfere, then along roads outside central city you would not only see blocks of houses. You would also see industrial enterprises, wholesale shops taking advantage of cheap land and accessibility, as well as streets of private houses.

And without government action to enforce restricted land use you should also see apartment blocks interspersed with individual houses - not quite randomly, though. High value buildings like apartment blocks and shops would be concentrated at higher value, more accessible land like along main roads and near public transport stops and intersections - while the side streets would be lined with private houses.

You have great points indeed. Government is involved in too many ways that created suburbia: from Levittown to Livermore, Riverside to Rye (NY), federal and state governments have indeed worked hard to make suburbia happen... Thanks partly to the G.I. Bill, soldiers who came home owned homes at lower costs while enjoying college and work credits. And of course with the Interstate highway system, suburbia indeed boomed. But is suburbia a sustainable pattern for growth? I think otherwise: it isolates people, it lengthens commutes, and it sometimes psychologically drains a person's creativity.

[Galro]

Originally Posted by Svartmetall

Where did I step around that point? Are you following me around the board and sniping at what I say?

Sorry to disappoint you, but this is not a secret forum where I have to spend ages tracking down you to find your post. In fact I noticed the topic on the front page. No stalking necessarily.

Originally Posted by Svartmetall

He mentioned Amsterdam, I responded that I am not in Amsterdam and that there is a significant difference in policy towards drugs between Sweden (hard more following the US line) and The Netherlands (one of the more liberal countries in the world regarding drugs). If we were to analyse drug death in Sweden, Sweden had a drug death rate of 1.8 per 100,000 which compares very favourably to The Netherlands which has one of the lowest at 0.68 per 100,000. Compare that to the US (12.6 per 100,000) or the UK (39.8 per 100,000) and I would not say ostensibly that drugs are as large a societal problem given that the "hard" drugs are those that generally lead to drug induced death.

He mentioned Europe in general while also specifying what I had heard specific about Amsterdam. Sweden is part that Europe which he talked about. And yes, the problem is higher in Amsterdam which the guy you quoted acknowledged when he specifically said the problem was large in Amsterdam, so I'm not completely sure why you feel the need to repeat that.

[Galro]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

Umm, explain what you mean by that. What is the relationship between drugs and suburbs?

I'm not sure there is a relationship. I was just answering the one who mentioned drug use in Europe.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by Galro

He mentioned Europe in general while also specifying what I had heard specific about Amsterdam. Sweden is part that Europe which he talked about. And yes, the problem is higher in Amsterdam which the guy you quoted acknowledged when he specifically said the problem was large in Amsterdam, so I'm not completely sure why you feel the need to repeat that.

Well no, the Netherlands has one of the lowest drug death rates in the developed world, hence my reply there to show that Sweden (as part of the Nordics) also possesses a lower drug death rate too especially compared to the US and UK since you mentioned that it is a "problem" here too. This hints at less "hard" drug use.

He did not acknowledge the problem was large in the Netherlands, he stated that he heard there was a problem possibly due to the association between Amsterdam and cannabis as that is something that most foreigners hear about. Read back through the thread please. He was trying to say drugs are a problem in Europe like in the US. In reality the problem is far worse in the US compared to other European nations in terms of hard drugs as measured by drug death rate (except for the UK which is an outlier).

Anyway, sorry for the off topic, I'll get back to point now.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by Svartmetall

You're making statements such as:

This implies when you separate suburbia and "downtown" that they are the same across the world until you mention San Fran, it was a completely blanket statement.

I'm merely stating that "druggies and losers" as you so eloquently term them, are actually more present in suburbia than in the inner city here given that the inner city is the wealthy and far more "wanted" part of the city whereas, in general (with some exceptions), the suburbs are not. In fact, the suburbs are downright cheap compared to the inner city. There is a reason why the waiting list for central Stockholm is 25 years for a first-hand rental contract.

As for Amsterdam, that city is in The Netherlands. I am in Sweden. Not the same country, not the same policies and not the same society. As for drug use being "common" well, actually bored suburban teenagers and tourists are far more likely to be drug users than urbanites as far as The Netherlands goes. The cannabis cafes generally cater to tourists rather than locals.

Well, suburban development is different for each community and metropolitan region for several reasons:

- land availability. Of course, the greater your available surrounding land area is, the greater the opportunity to grow suburban communities.

- existing infrastructure. When freeways were built from the cities, it prompted rapid growth away from the cities, thus creating suburbia. And it has a side effect: think of Los Angeles and sprawl... lots of congestion, contributing to millions of tons of pollution and carbon emissions.

- geography. If the surrounding area is hilly or mountainous, chances are that suburban growth may be limited due to topography, unless you consider the privileges of having great views of the city from the comfort of your home.

- human development. If the city employs a great working environment, then it entices families to move as close to the city as possible to make their commute short. However, if rent or house prices are too high in the city (like New York or San Fran), then people would move to the suburbs to escape paying higher taxes while sacrificing convenience and wealth of activities. Same goes with schools: institutions will place schools in areas with high human development, and if these are placed disproportionately in the suburbs, chances are the inner city kids may not get the quality of education they deserve because the city naturally provides more opportunities to learn and experience things kids in suburbia may not fully experience. I mean, I have nothing about "why the best schools are located away from cities"; it's more of priorities and choices on where to place these schools... and these do increase land values immensely.

[chornedsnorkack]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

- human development. If the city employs a great working environment, then it entices families to move as close to the city as possible to make their commute short. However, if rent or house prices are too high in the city (like New York or San Fran), then people would move to the suburbs to escape paying higher taxes while sacrificing convenience and wealth of activities.

Paying taxes or paying rents/land price?

These are very different things! When people move to homes in suburbs and keep driving cars to the city to work and services, are they allowed to vote to pay lower taxes and not pay for schools in inner city? Or will the taxes simply follow them where they go whether because the suburbs are annexed to the administrative borders of the city or because the taxes for schools and services are collected by an administrative level spanning the inner city along with suburbs and countryside?