3 ms·
> Seems a lot of the arguments is based around the fact that suburban developments are poorly designed, not that the idea of suburban life is flawed. Well, yea
by zyxley 10y ago
> Seems a lot of the arguments is based around the fact that suburban developments are poorly designed, not that the idea of suburban life is flawed.
Well, yeah. A well-designed area isn't "suburbia", it's "a small town that happens to be adjacent to a larger city".
- alkonaut 10y agoSo the term is a sort of derogatory used only for badly designed sprawling suburbs without proper access to e.g nature?
- zyxley 10y ago"Suburbia" as a term in the US pretty definitionally includes single-family homes on small plots, single-use zoning, homogenous family incomes and home values, and a strict street hierarchy with culs-de-sac. Add all these up and you tend to get 'bad design' by default. Remove these and you get something resembling an organically developed small town instead of suburbs.
- alkonaut 10y agoI see. Still don't understand why these zones, however badly designed, aren't properly mixed with reasonably sized pockets of undeveloped land such as forests. It would make the value much higher, make the environment better, make people healthier and so on. It should be a no-brainer in terms of city planning. It doesn't have to be organically grown "proper" suburbs. They just have to be planned to get the same appeal.