3 ms·

As others have pointed out, you can still obtain the benefits of the suburbs while not having to live in a suburban desert. If you wanted to fix the suburbs, yo

by muninn_ 10y ago

As others have pointed out, you can still obtain the benefits of the suburbs while not having to live in a suburban desert. If you wanted to fix the suburbs, you'd have to change zoning laws and make those areas much more walkable. That would mean allowing businesses to be sprinkled in with the homes. The most successful communities (which are now being or have been gentrified) are walkable, mixed-use development neighborhoods. They have parks sprinkled throughout in addition to businesses, shops, restaurants, schools, and streets that are not through streets, have two lanes, cars parked on either side, and a bike lane between the parking spaces and the sidewalk.

dpark 10y ago
I don't see how you can have those benefits in the suburbs. Restaurants fail at a very high rate. How can you afford to run a restaurant in the middle of the suburbs where the population density is so low? Other business face a similar dilemma. Can you afford to build a shop in the middle of a sparse neighborhood? Will the residents shop there or just drive to the big box just past the edge of the development? And on the off chance you manage to build a successful urban-esque neighborhood in the middle of the suburbs, how do you prevent the massive influx of traffic that would undoubtedly come from the nearby suburbs? And how will you justify preventing that traffic when it impacts the livelihoods of the shop owners who took the risk to open there? I don't believe that you can build a mixed-use, walkable neighborhood in the suburbs where lots are a third of an acre each. Density is what makes mixed-use possible.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  In regard to traffic, I think you just let it happen, and provide metered parking on the streets. If the traffic gets bad enough then people will use the bike lanes between the cars and sidewalk, or the sidewalks. One mistake I think we make is this idea that we have to prevent vehicle traffic at all costs. Not only does it absolutely never work, it costs money and generally causes the areas where you're attempting to improve traffic to transform into drive through areas. Then we wind up with fast food chains everywhere... . I also should have been more clear in my original post. I was trying to be subtle and make enough suggestions about improving a suburb that we actually turn it into a neighborhood :)
  - dpark 10y ago
    The lack of traffic is the entire reason people want to live on cul de sacs. If you fill a suburban street with traffic, the very people who want to live in the suburbs will not want to live on that street. Which is why people who live in the suburbs vote against multi-use zoning.
    - muninn_ 10y ago
      Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to live in a desirable area you have to deal with people going to that area for various reasons. And mostly you wouldn't have traffic problems anyway because people who did happen to be driving to the downtown area for shopping/food would primarily use the main avenue and wouldn't have a reason for going down side streets, so long as you design it such that those streets don't take you to outside highway arteries.
      - dpark 10y ago
        > Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You were the one proposing that you could: "you can still obtain the benefits of the suburbs while not having to live in a suburban desert" If you "fix" the suburbs, they won't be the suburbs that people want to lie in anymore. > And mostly you wouldn't have traffic problems anyway because people who did happen to be driving to the downtown area for shopping/food would primarily use the main avenue and wouldn't have a reason for going down side streets, so long as you design it such that those streets don't take you to outside highway arteries. Your vision of the "fixed" suburbs must involve either tons of parking garages or mass parking lots. Otherwise everyone driving in will absolutely be driving down side streets because they need to park. I think what you're envisioning is not the suburbs at all but neighborhoods that you'll find in any city. Seattle is full of neighborhoods where there's mixed-use buildings and other shops and restaurants along "main" streets and single-family homes surrounding this. These aren't the suburbs, though. These are urban neighborhoods.
        muninn_ 10y ago
        Well the benefits of the suburbs are that they usually don't have a lot of through traffic, and you can have a large house or lot. And no my vision for these fixed suburbs would involve the removal of most parking garages and lots, so there won't be anywhere to drive to. There wouldn't be a reason to drive down any street really. Ideally what you'd want to do is make it very expensive to park at meters and the maybe one garage you have, and then have parking on side streets for residents only. Then we would only have autonomous vehicles which don't need to park, uber/taxi, and walking/biking.

by muninn_ 10y ago

dpark 10y ago

I don't see how you can have those benefits in the suburbs. Restaurants fail at a very high rate. How can you afford to run a restaurant in the middle of the suburbs where the population density is so low? Other business face a similar dilemma. Can you afford to build a shop in the middle of a sparse neighborhood? Will the residents shop there or just drive to the big box just past the edge of the development? And on the off chance you manage to build a successful urban-esque neighborhood in the middle of the suburbs, how do you prevent the massive influx of traffic that would undoubtedly come from the nearby suburbs? And how will you justify preventing that traffic when it impacts the livelihoods of the shop owners who took the risk to open there? I don't believe that you can build a mixed-use, walkable neighborhood in the suburbs where lots are a third of an acre each. Density is what makes mixed-use possible.

muninn_ 10y ago
In regard to traffic, I think you just let it happen, and provide metered parking on the streets. If the traffic gets bad enough then people will use the bike lanes between the cars and sidewalk, or the sidewalks. One mistake I think we make is this idea that we have to prevent vehicle traffic at all costs. Not only does it absolutely never work, it costs money and generally causes the areas where you're attempting to improve traffic to transform into drive through areas. Then we wind up with fast food chains everywhere... . I also should have been more clear in my original post. I was trying to be subtle and make enough suggestions about improving a suburb that we actually turn it into a neighborhood :)
- dpark 10y ago
  The lack of traffic is the entire reason people want to live on cul de sacs. If you fill a suburban street with traffic, the very people who want to live in the suburbs will not want to live on that street. Which is why people who live in the suburbs vote against multi-use zoning.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to live in a desirable area you have to deal with people going to that area for various reasons. And mostly you wouldn't have traffic problems anyway because people who did happen to be driving to the downtown area for shopping/food would primarily use the main avenue and wouldn't have a reason for going down side streets, so long as you design it such that those streets don't take you to outside highway arteries.
    - dpark 10y ago
      > Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You were the one proposing that you could: "you can still obtain the benefits of the suburbs while not having to live in a suburban desert" If you "fix" the suburbs, they won't be the suburbs that people want to lie in anymore. > And mostly you wouldn't have traffic problems anyway because people who did happen to be driving to the downtown area for shopping/food would primarily use the main avenue and wouldn't have a reason for going down side streets, so long as you design it such that those streets don't take you to outside highway arteries. Your vision of the "fixed" suburbs must involve either tons of parking garages or mass parking lots. Otherwise everyone driving in will absolutely be driving down side streets because they need to park. I think what you're envisioning is not the suburbs at all but neighborhoods that you'll find in any city. Seattle is full of neighborhoods where there's mixed-use buildings and other shops and restaurants along "main" streets and single-family homes surrounding this. These aren't the suburbs, though. These are urban neighborhoods.
      - muninn_ 10y ago
        Well the benefits of the suburbs are that they usually don't have a lot of through traffic, and you can have a large house or lot. And no my vision for these fixed suburbs would involve the removal of most parking garages and lots, so there won't be anywhere to drive to. There wouldn't be a reason to drive down any street really. Ideally what you'd want to do is make it very expensive to park at meters and the maybe one garage you have, and then have parking on side streets for residents only. Then we would only have autonomous vehicles which don't need to park, uber/taxi, and walking/biking.