Suburbia: Your Thoughts and Ideas

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack

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?

Sure, they can vote for lower taxes... but look at it both ways: lower taxes could entice more businesses to the communities, yet it could mean years of coffers suffering from low revenue. Communities have resolved that by hauling in more businesses; however, it does not automatically translate to higher revenue if not a lot of people are interested.

And by the way, taxes usually stay within the county or city level, in which it does not necessarily translate also to better schools. If funding for them would not be enough, then you would need to make sacrifices to enable high-quality schools. You can't have everything at the same time; it will be too expensive. You will need to make tough decisions to make things happen. Here's my idea:

- Policy: lower taxes. Result: more businesses will come to your community.
- Policy: spend tax revenue earned from businesses on education. Result: teachers will be hired and more spending on boosting education quality.
- Policy: ensure families under poverty that the city can provide them subsidies to go to great schools. Result: families can send their children to exclusive schools, provided that the city government has made deals with the schools in question so that their children can get a high-quality education (i.e. charter schools)
- Policy: ensure that quality of education is high by providing vocational courses for those who cannot afford to go to college. Result: more people may get jobs that would translate to income for them.
- Policy: reduce the hand-me-down mentality by giving them work opportunities. Result: companies will think about opening jobs for people. (This may be controversial)

Once you have those policies in place, a suburban community can thrive as much as in the inner city. It is up to policymakers and shareholders to make those things happen.

[jbkayaker12]

Originally Posted by 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.

Are you sure city dwellers are happy with the set up wherein they have to deal with the riff raffs and druggies everyday of their lives? They may TOLERATE it simply because they would rather live in an urban core of which the riff raffs are a very part of the scene and NOT BECAUSE CITY DWELLERS LOVE TO LIVE WITH THEM.

Now, I never said there are no riff raffs in suburbia, nor drug users but it is not as pronounce as it is in the urban core, it is more low key and I said I do not like to be surrounded by it.

Originally Posted by Rebasepoiss

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?

Price of oil will affect us all and NOT just our driving habits so it is important the government need to invest in other forms of renewable energy and not entirely just rely on fossil fuels and OPEC.

In Europe price of petrol is double in the United States but people still use their cars and drive even when their mass transit is one of the best in the world.

Originally Posted by Rebasepoiss

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.

Suburbia is not all about homes, there are businesses thriving and employing people. Commercial investment is not will never be contained just within the urban core. What exactly is expensive public services in suburbia that does not occur in the city core? As far as infrastructure is concerned, city dwellers use the very same infrastructure you are complaining about whether the infrastructure is within the city core or in the suburban area.

[jbkayaker12]

^Edit

"In Europe the price of petrol is double compared to the price we pay in the United States....."

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by jbkayaker12

Are you sure city dwellers are happy with the set up wherein they have to deal with the riff raffs and druggies everyday of their lives? They may TOLERATE it simply because they would rather live in an urban core of which the riff raffs are a very part of the scene and NOT BECAUSE CITY DWELLERS LOVE TO LIVE WITH THEM.

Now, I never said there are no riff raffs in suburbia, nor drug users but it is not as pronounce as it is in the urban core, it is more low key and I said I do not like to be surrounded by it.

As I said, though, in a large amount of the world that I've visited, the city centre is the most affluent area and certainly not full of "riff raff" or druggies.

Originally Posted by jbkayaker12

Price of oil will affect us all and NOT just our driving habits so it is important the government need to invest in other forms of renewable energy and not entirely just rely on fossil fuels and OPEC.

In Europe price of petrol is double in the United States but people still use their cars and drive even when their mass transit is one of the best in the world.

Still use, yes. But there is a difference between using a car and relying on a car to accomplish any tasks. Most people here, for example, use public transport when going around the city, but will occasionally use their car to go out of the city or do special tasks. My friend owns a car in a small town of 100,000 people in Sweden, but hasn't used it since July. He will probably use it somewhat in winter, but other than that, he accomplishes most tasks using his bike. Saved him no end of money.

Originally Posted by jbkayaker12

Suburbia is not all about homes, there are businesses thriving and employing people. Commercial investment is not will never be contained just within the urban core. What exactly is expensive public services in suburbia that does not occur in the city core? As far as infrastructure is concerned, city dwellers use the very same infrastructure you are complaining about whether the infrastructure is within the city core or in the suburban area.

When it comes to infrastructure provision, it stands to reason that the less dense the area, the more it will cost to provide roads, power, sewerage, water pipes etc. When it comes to telecommunications, you need more exchanges to serve the same area due to distance otherwise (with copper wire) people will get terrible internet speed. Rolling out fibre-optic connections to suburban areas is very cost-ineffective too. The list goes on.

Yes, urbanites use the same infrastructure, but the infrastructure is concentrated and therefore costs less.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by Svartmetall

As I said, though, in a large amount of the world that I've visited, the city centre is the most affluent area and certainly not full of "riff raff" or druggies.

Still use, yes. But there is a difference between using a car and relying on a car to accomplish any tasks. Most people here, for example, use public transport when going around the city, but will occasionally use their car to go out of the city or do special tasks. My friend owns a car in a small town of 100,000 people in Sweden, but hasn't used it since July. He will probably use it somewhat in winter, but other than that, he accomplishes most tasks using his bike. Saved him no end of money.

When it comes to infrastructure provision, it stands to reason that the less dense the area, the more it will cost to provide roads, power, sewerage, water pipes etc. When it comes to telecommunications, you need more exchanges to serve the same area due to distance otherwise (with copper wire) people will get terrible internet speed. Rolling out fibre-optic connections to suburban areas is very cost-ineffective too. The list goes on.

Yes, urbanites use the same infrastructure, but the infrastructure is concentrated and therefore costs less.

I will argue a little bit on the city center as being the most affluent. There are pockets in city centers, especially those in the US, where the homeless wander around the streets, adding to the already-unique character of downtown areas. They show to us that despite the wealth and opportunities cities provide, some people struggle a lot to make it to the affluence many people have attained. Worse, some people sleep at anywhere they can find both shelter from the heat or cold, solicit for food or beg for money, or do their best by performing or holding up signs to present their message. In San Fran, there are certainly places in the downtown area where high-end shops are interspersed with liquor shops, where fine eating blends with cheap eats, where luxury residences collide with homeless shelters, and everything in between... Cities teach us that to become a great community, you need to attract all kinds of people through diversified services, features, and amenities that cater to all people, things that suburbia may not provide entirely either because those are built for the middle- and higher-income classes, or the area is mainly rural that attracts only a few residents.

Of course, public transportation is essential to get people around. But, culture dictates what is and is not "cool". Living in California, the state lives around the car: you need a car wherever you want to go when you want it. Freeways reach far and wide, and city freeways are so wide that you could literally count hundreds of cars a minute or more. I understand that the car can be a convenient way to get around, but it can be destructive too to the environment: think of carbon emissions, pollution, and petrol wasted from standing in traffic. I've experimented in SimCity on what it would take for people to take transit, and I discovered that if people live in apartments that are close to commercial areas (e.g. Mixed-use development), more than likely, people will walk, bike, or take transit to get to work instead of driving. Achieving that goal, though, can be difficult: providing adequate number of bus stops, train stations, subway stops, and the like could help in cutting down congestion. But most of all, it takes immense political will to fund public transportation efficiently to make it effective.

And you're right about the effects of making low-density suburbia with increasing prices of providing utilities and communications to all people. It's a very inefficient use of land, and it encourages separation of families in cookie-cutter homes or vast tracts of land without neighbors. It makes the area quite desolate indeed. I would rather concentrate building construction rather than sprawling them out so that I can cut down installation and maintenance costs.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

I will argue a little bit on the city center as being the most affluent. There are pockets in city centers, especially those in the US, where the homeless wander around the streets, adding to the already-unique character of downtown areas. They show to us that despite the wealth and opportunities cities provide, some people struggle a lot to make it to the affluence many people have attained. Worse, some people sleep at anywhere they can find both shelter from the heat or cold, solicit for food or beg for money, or do their best by performing or holding up signs to present their message. In San Fran, there are certainly places in the downtown area where high-end shops are interspersed with liquor shops, where fine eating blends with cheap eats, where luxury residences collide with homeless shelters, and everything in between... Cities teach us that to become a great community, you need to attract all kinds of people through diversified services, features, and amenities that cater to all people, things that suburbia may not provide entirely either because those are built for the middle- and higher-income classes, or the area is mainly rural that attracts only a few residents.

Well, yes, but that happens in the suburbs here more than in the city centre. Like I said, our suburbs are generally and universally poorer than our city centre and this is speaking as someone living in one of the suburbs. Apartments here start at 500,000SEK for a 40sqm+ apartment whereas 2,000,000 SEK in the city will buy you 20sqm or less in the absolute centre and only a 30sqm in the outskirts of the city centre.

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

Of course, public transportation is essential to get people around. But, culture dictates what is and is not "cool". Living in California, the state lives around the car: you need a car wherever you want to go when you want it. Freeways reach far and wide, and city freeways are so wide that you could literally count hundreds of cars a minute or more. I understand that the car can be a convenient way to get around, but it can be destructive too to the environment: think of carbon emissions, pollution, and petrol wasted from standing in traffic. I've experimented in SimCity on what it would take for people to take transit, and I discovered that if people live in apartments that are close to commercial areas (e.g. Mixed-use development), more than likely, people will walk, bike, or take transit to get to work instead of driving. Achieving that goal, though, can be difficult: providing adequate number of bus stops, train stations, subway stops, and the like could help in cutting down congestion. But most of all, it takes immense political will to fund public transportation efficiently to make it effective.

This is certainly not true where I live. People universally want better public transport and we are seeing massive investment to our already extensive system, but then most of our city is built around TOD principles.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, though. Are you lecturing me on transport provision in cities?

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

And you're right about the effects of making low-density suburbia with increasing prices of providing utilities and communications to all people. It's a very inefficient use of land, and it encourages separation of families in cookie-cutter homes or vast tracts of land without neighbors. It makes the area quite desolate indeed. I would rather concentrate building construction rather than sprawling them out so that I can cut down installation and maintenance costs.

Agreed.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by Svartmetall

This is certainly not true where I live. People universally want better public transport and we are seeing massive investment to our already extensive system, but then most of our city is built around TOD principles.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, though. Are you lecturing me on transport provision in cities?

Well, I can argue that in the US, it's a completely different story. It's more car-centric here, and suburbia boomed after WW2, particularly in the 1950s when cities cannot handle ever more people... And the soldiers coming home added to the strain. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a relatively new concept here in the US (with a possible exception of New York) wherein planners today focus on lowering carbon emissions from driving while bringing the spirit of community back where it should be... Circled around a transit hub where people can commute together to and from work. San Fran has already made strides in creating more TOD communities, but I believe that it isn't enough because the region is a very popular place to live in that house prices have risen a lot until the 2008 economic crash. I would ultimately encourage more TOD projects to be built in newer suburbs, with a clear intention of people depending less on the automobile and promote alternative ways to get to and from work. I would also encourage mixed-use development in the TODs too to encourage people to work locally as well.

[poshbakerloo]

I think suburbia is very liveable for people already, its well designed for family life. The only problem I have which is a pretty 'modern issue' is with transportation. Pollution is increasing, a fuel is getting more expensive. I've always said the best way to deal with it is for rail transport. All railway stations should be build with large car parks to attract people, and then provide a fast service into the city. I don't see buses at working, many people simply don't and will never like them.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by poshbakerloo

I think suburbia is very liveable for people already, its well designed for family life. The only problem I have which is a pretty 'modern issue' is with transportation. Pollution is increasing, a fuel is getting more expensive. I've always said the best way to deal with it is for rail transport. All railway stations should be build with large car parks to attract people, and then provide a fast service into the city. I don't see buses at working, many people simply don't and will never like them.

Here's a factor that you might consider: suburbia was originally meant to be built with the highway and freeway in mind, in which families will own their own cars and zip up and down the highways to get to and from the big city. It seemed to be cool in the 1950s since it prompted more families to become more outgoing and active by driving around the country using the newly-built interstate highways; these same interstates, however, became the victim of their own success, as more and more people move into suburbia... Think of urban sprawl to start. Had if, at the time, railways were planned in conjunction with the growing suburbia, metropolitan governments would have had an easier time dealing with neighboring cities and counties on how to plan, build, and eventually operate them full-time. That way, people would have had been given more choices as to how to travel between suburbia and the big city. Poor planning came to play when governments thought of suburbia as places where large roadways with no medians nor sidewalks were the norm, and that winding roads were popular over grid networks.

[Manila-X]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

Here's a factor that you might consider: suburbia was originally meant to be built with the highway and freeway in mind, in which families will own their own cars and zip up and down the highways to get to and from the big city. It seemed to be cool in the 1950s since it prompted more families to become more outgoing and active by driving around the country using the newly-built interstate highways; these same interstates, however, became the victim of their own success, as more and more people move into suburbia... Think of urban sprawl to start. Had if, at the time, railways were planned in conjunction with the growing suburbia, metropolitan governments would have had an easier time dealing with neighboring cities and counties on how to plan, build, and eventually operate them full-time. That way, people would have had been given more choices as to how to travel between suburbia and the big city. Poor planning came to play when governments thought of suburbia as places where large roadways with no medians nor sidewalks were the norm, and that winding roads were popular over grid networks.

True though the railway is also a factor especially in East Coast cities in The US.

The fact those living in the suburbs say Greater New York do own a car but would prefer driving it to the train station and would take the train to work especially those working in Manhattan.

But there are good reasons for this due to lack of parking space plus expensive parking fees.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by Manila-X

True though the railway is also a factor especially in East Coast cities in The US.

The fact those living in the suburbs say Greater New York do own a car but would prefer driving it to the train station and would take the train to work especially those working in Manhattan.

But there are good reasons for this due to lack of parking space plus expensive parking fees.

New York metropolitan area (also known as the Tri-State Region) is definitely a hybrid of transit and automotive commuting, with communities closer to the city preferring transit, while those living in far-flung communities, such as Connecticut, northern NJ and NY, and the Jersey Shore preferring a hybrid of transit and driving. Manhattan, in itself, was built with the big city in mind: limited parking, buses zipping up and down parallel streets, encourages walking... An ideal city to start with. Blend it along with suburbia depending on both transit and auto, and you've got a winning formula.

[poshbakerloo]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

Here's a factor that you might consider: suburbia was originally meant to be built with the highway and freeway in mind, in which families will own their own cars and zip up and down the highways to get to and from the big city. It seemed to be cool in the 1950s since it prompted more families to become more outgoing and active by driving around the country using the newly-built interstate highways; these same interstates, however, became the victim of their own success, as more and more people move into suburbia... Think of urban sprawl to start. Had if, at the time, railways were planned in conjunction with the growing suburbia, metropolitan governments would have had an easier time dealing with neighboring cities and counties on how to plan, build, and eventually operate them full-time. That way, people would have had been given more choices as to how to travel between suburbia and the big city. Poor planning came to play when governments thought of suburbia as places where large roadways with no medians nor sidewalks were the norm, and that winding roads were popular over grid networks.

It is true that in the US during the 50s suburbs were built with highways as part of the design, but in the UK its a different story. Whilst in the 50s-70s a lot of motorways were built, the sprawling suburbs were built in a different format.

There many detached, and semi detached homes with front and back gardens, facing onto winding avenues and drives, but with no motorway access. In London, Manchester and other cities these suburbs all have very good rail access from the existing network laid out in the 1840s-70s.

The new towns that were set out separate from the cities is a different story.

[Taller, Better]

Interesting thread, fieldsofdreams!

[El_Greco]

The suburb is the worst thing ever to happen to urbanity. Its a terribly wasteful and polluting not to mention ugly way to live. City is supposed to be tall, dense and compact.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

The suburb is the worst thing ever to happen to urbanity. Its a terribly wasteful and polluting not to mention ugly way to live. City is supposed to be tall, dense and compact.

Well, the worst or not, do you think you can suggest something, if you were to maintain a suburban community, to make it better and thrive just like the bigger cities? I mean, suburbia has its pros and cons, of course, like even though it's a quieter place to live, you will need to trek miles or kilometers to get to work; or while it may have high-end shops, you won't find the same vibrancy and energy in suburbia as in the city (think of nightclubs and pubs). I mean, the energy of suburbia wants you to have peace and quiet, but do you think living in suburbia for many years could mean you're missing out on a lot of action too?

[jbkayaker12]

Originally Posted by El_Greco

The suburb is the worst thing ever to happen to urbanity. Its a terribly wasteful and polluting not to mention ugly way to live. City is supposed to be tall, dense and compact.

What do you consider tall and compact because Europe failed in this regard. The only cities that comes to mind with tall residential units I can think of are Hong Kong and NY and even then, it is not enough, these cities pushed outwards to continue growth. Europe's 5 story apt buildings are not considered tall that is why Europe has spread out over the centuries. Europe did not grow upwards but outwards. It is called urban SPRAWL.

To me the ugly way to live is looking out the window of my home and looking at concrete with hardly any landscaping or trees. Europe is notoriously treeless considering the continent has been around for so long. If anything, trees in Europe should have been skyscraper high but such is not the case.

Polluting? What polluting are you talking about, if anything the trees in suburbia help clean the air you breathe. Cities are notoriously dirty compared to suburbia, no doubt about that.

[jbkayaker12]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

Well, the worst or not, do you think you can suggest something, if you were to maintain a suburban community, to make it better and thrive just like the bigger cities? I mean, suburbia has its pros and cons, of course, like even though it's a quieter place to live, you will need to trek miles or kilometers to get to work; or while it may have high-end shops, you won't find the same vibrancy and energy in suburbia as in the city (think of nightclubs and pubs). I mean, the energy of suburbia wants you to have peace and quiet, but do you think living in suburbia for many years could mean you're missing out on a lot of action too?

Do you honestly think people in cities do not travel far and wide to get to work? Cities grow out and expand, with it opportunities, so if you think people living in cities only stay within a short walking distance from their doorstep then that is a wrong assumption. Whether people use public transit or their pvt vehicle, people in cities just like their counterpart in suburbia, also travel far to work.

Suburbia is not all piece and quiet. Developments in suburbia has gone beyond just building homes. If you think people in suburbia are missing out, then it's another wrong assumption on your part.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by jbkayaker12

What do you consider tall and compact because Europe failed in this regard. The only cities that comes to mind with tall residential units I can think of are Hong Kong and NY and even then, it is not enough, these cities pushed outwards to continue growth. Europe's 5 story apt buildings are not considered tall that is why Europe has spread out over the centuries. Europe did not grow upwards but outwards. It is called urban SPRAWL.

Mid-rise can be just as dense as highrise - take a look at central Paris. Very little highrise yet very high sustained densities. Efficient land use can occur without having to go too tall.

Originally Posted by jbkayaker12

To me the ugly way to live is looking out the window of my home and looking at concrete with hardly any landscaping or trees. Europe is notoriously treeless considering the continent has been around for so long. If anything, trees in Europe should have been skyscraper high but such is not the case.

What piffle. Some species of tree simply don't grow endlessly high, there is a point at which trees reach a plateau you know. Not to mention the nonsense about Europe being "notoriously treeless" - Germany has 33% forest coverage. This is more forest coverage than New Zealand (23% native and 7% planted forest) despite the difference in population density. Then you have incredibly forested countries like Sweden in Europe (67% forest cover and 7.9% other woodland). Depending on the country, tree-lined and green boulevards are very common indeed so it is a little bit of a bizarre statement to make that Europe has no tree cover...

Originally Posted by jbkayaker12

Polluting? What polluting are you talking about, if anything the trees in suburbia help clean the air you breathe. Cities are notoriously dirty compared to suburbia, no doubt about that.

Pollution may be more dispersed across suburbia, but its overall contribution to pollution is greater due to the greater energy consumption, the greater need for burning fossil fuels and all other deleterious factors associated with sprawl.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by jbkayaker12

Do you honestly think people in cities do not travel far and wide to get to work? Cities grow out and expand, with it opportunities, so if you think people living in cities only stay within a short walking distance from their doorstep then that is a wrong assumption. Whether people use public transit or their pvt vehicle, people in cities just like their counterpart in suburbia, also travel far to work.

Suburbia is not all piece and quiet. Developments in suburbia has gone beyond just building homes. If you think people in suburbia are missing out, then it's another wrong assumption on your part.

Well, they do... If you consider counter-commuting to start with, then that's a good argument. But I think that counter-commuting here is quite limited because there are actually three large cities in the Bay Area: San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose, with the latter being the largest city in the region. The presumption here is that commuters head toward San Francisco or San Jose in the AM and the reverse in the PM. Oakland is, on its own, a mixed-development city with a sizable (and tall) downtown area and lots of housing all over, interspersed with industrial zones here and there. If you believe that people in cities travel far to work, then tell me which professions would be more than likely to travel far from the city to get to work.

Also, in my part of suburbia, I'm like 5 miles from Downtown Novato, and my closest commercial center hosts only of a few restaurants, two banks, a pet store, a grocery store, a McDonald's and a hotel (not to mention a library, a sports facility, and a pool). And in here, cars rule the road; buses only come by here hourly, everyday, from 6:40am to 7:40pm weekdays (does not include the commuter buses, every half hour during peak times, between here and San Francisco), and from 7:30am to 8:30pm weekends and holidays. The caveat: once you miss the bus, you will need to wait a full hour before getting another one, which sometimes discourages me.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by jbkayaker12

Polluting? What polluting are you talking about, if anything the trees in suburbia help clean the air you breathe. Cities are notoriously dirty compared to suburbia, no doubt about that.

Polluting comes mostly from cars running and stopping along highways, and it does increase when traffic jams occur because the amount of carbon emissions emitted from them becomes concentrated that all the foul air from stopped cars rises into the atmosphere. Classic example: Los Angeles along Interstate 405: it is jammed nearly every single day, nearly all-day. Too many cars use the freeway to begin with (although I give them immense credit for plopping up more mass transportation projects for the entire county), and that the car-centric culture of the United States still exists because it is a very profitable and lucrative industry. If there are more factories that make innovative buses -- and with immense spending on advertising and broadcasting in the local and national media -- then I could see a trend shift towards people using public transit... However, this impact could be limited to the big cities because those can afford more.