4 ms·

> You get something that is an entertainment product—it looks cute, but it’s functionally like a movie set or a theme park. Its design has the aesthetic signif

> You get something that is an entertainment product—it looks cute, but it’s functionally like a movie set or a theme park. Its design has the aesthetic signifiers of a traditional town, but none of the functionality, none of the deep responsiveness to the needs of the people living there. I think he encapsulates things nicely here. Barring some exceptions, town/village life in the US is basically non-existent. There are no central squares/plazas, no pedestrian only downtowns, no local bakeries/butchers/grocers, no transit, etc. Everything is a facade designed around the car.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
All of those are benefits that come from high density living. But while they might say they like those benefits, most people will choose the benefits of low density living, such as more space (quarter acre lots with detached garages and front and back yards and 2,000+ sq ft interiors). Not to mention the benefit of being able to segregate children into different schools by socioeconomic status, by restricting different incomes from living in the same school district via zoning laws requiring large lots and expensive properties, which also leads to unfeasible public transportation.
- danans 7y ago
  > But while they might say they like those benefits, most people will choose the benefits of low density living, This is heavily dependent on one's conditioning. I grew up in a late mid-century low density suburb - nothing like the exurban sprawl you see today, but still very far from walkable. I instinctively moved from that to high density older neighborhoods as an adult. At least at the moment the trend tends to be towards demand for the benefits of increased density, as the culture has shifted to valuing experiences more than large (expensive-to-maintain) spaces. However, with the old and still vibrant urban neighborhoods now priced out of reach for most, people who are seeking the benefits of urban living are attempting to densify first ring suburbs, which is leading to intergenerational conflicts in many suburban city halls. > Not to mention the benefit of being able to segregate children into different schools by socioeconomic status, by restricting different incomes from living in the same school district via zoning laws requiring large lots and expensive properties, which also leads to unfeasible public transportation. I agree that these factors are all present, and are usually enabled by planning and zoning rules, which often function as a replacement for the illegal racial neighborhood covenant system that used to be common in the US. IMO the current system is a shame, but I'm also aware that the system is working for the subset who can afford to exist on it's beneficial side, and those people tend to vote in local elections.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    >At least at the moment the trend tends to be towards demand for the benefits of increased density, as the culture has shifted to valuing experiences more than large (expensive-to-maintain) spaces. In the US, everyone in my circles acts the same way, until they have children. Then the priority becomes quality of school, which really means socioeconomic status of all the children in the school, which leads to the well known rule of thumb to buy the cheapest house in the most expensive most suburban neighborhood you can afford. Or be rich enough to send your kids to private school if you want to continue to stay urban.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      And for that reason, the brief trend of urbanization has already reversed. Once the recession passed and millennials started having kids, they started moving back out to the suburbs: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/29/millennials-are-fleeing-big-cities-for-the-suburbs.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/29/millennials-are-fleeing-big-... I personally think that sucks (for the most part). But there are just a handful of cities where you can simultaneously satisfy the constraints of jobs, kids, decent schools, and reasonably priced housing. My wife and I couldn’t find anything in DC (we weren’t willing to spend $1.8 million on a house) so after years of living downtown, we finally bit the bullet and moved to the suburbs.
      - danans 7y ago
        > And for that reason, the brief trend of urbanization has already reversed The current flight to the suburbs is a matter of unaffordability, which is very different than the forces that drove previous waves of suburbanization. People being priced out of desirable urban areas hasn't necessarily resulted in a reversal of urbanism, but rather an increasing pressure to urbanize the more "affordable" (in price per sqft) suburban areas. You see this in efforts to change suburban planning codes to allow multiple dwellings per lot, or to allow bars and restaurants to be open later. Both of those are examples of initiatives that have faced pretty stiff opposition from longtime suburban residents. Developers have caught on to this too, which is why you see developments like the one described in the article, however shallow the implementations may be. I agree that there is a lot of push and pull, and huge financial and quality of life trade-offs that everyone is forced to make.
atombender 7y ago
There are absolutely tons of towns like that, but they're old towns that grew organically from villages. Cold Spring, NY, Shelbourne Falls, MA and Santa Fe, NM are some examples that come to mind. What this blog is talking about is really new developments and the gradual transformation of old, previously functioning towns.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  I live near Santa Fe, NM and I cannot possibly agree with this characterization. Most modern (i.e. non-tourist) commerce in S.Fe is on Cerrillos Road. While I support this arrangement to a large degree, Cerrillos is a 4 mile long strip mall, in essence. In a car, it's convenient. On foot, it's a nightmare. There is a bus running up and down, but the bus rarely seems to have much ridership. The old core of S.Fe contains almost none of the basic essential retail outlets for day to day life. There are no supermarkets, no hardware stores, for example (Kaunes is about as close it gets). You see very few people walking around other than tourists. It is true that the Rail Yards is a moderately successful (re)development of a downtown area that was previously ... well, rail yards. But it hasn't really done much to change the retail/hang out situation other than adding an REI, a brewery and a movie theater. All good things (for me) but they don't change the fact that living in S.Fe without a car will remind you constantly that you don't have a car. One great thing here are hundreds of speed bumps on residential streets. These do provide a distinct message ("Slow the F*CK down") when driving in those neighorhoods, but they do not change the car-centric nature of the city.
  - atombender 7y ago
    I don't live in Santa Fe, but I think it's got a very walkable core. That said, it's also a very typical example of a town whose residential suburbia has ballooned without support from public transit, to the point that if you don't live near Cerillos Road, you're basically in the suburbs and absolutely you need a car.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
      Well, the problem is that "the core" isn't "the core" :) It's very walkable if you're visiting or enjoying a day in town. It's very unwalkable if you need to get normal day to day or week to week shopping done. The transit/'burbs thing is probably true, but I live so far from the city that I'm not really familiar with the transit situation.
vineyardmike 7y ago
Visit New England, many of the towns there have nice downtown sections which are walkable, and have town squares, etc.
- ghaff 7y ago
  In all fairness, the vast majority of people are driving to those town squares/greens and the shopping options are usually pretty limited--especially for day-to-day rather than artsy/crafty stuff. But, yes, many towns have a nice little center. (And, indeed, many smaller cities do these days even if the rest of the city is mostly sprawly and not so nice generally.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

All of those are benefits that come from high density living. But while they might say they like those benefits, most people will choose the benefits of low density living, such as more space (quarter acre lots with detached garages and front and back yards and 2,000+ sq ft interiors). Not to mention the benefit of being able to segregate children into different schools by socioeconomic status, by restricting different incomes from living in the same school district via zoning laws requiring large lots and expensive properties, which also leads to unfeasible public transportation.

danans 7y ago
> But while they might say they like those benefits, most people will choose the benefits of low density living, This is heavily dependent on one's conditioning. I grew up in a late mid-century low density suburb - nothing like the exurban sprawl you see today, but still very far from walkable. I instinctively moved from that to high density older neighborhoods as an adult. At least at the moment the trend tends to be towards demand for the benefits of increased density, as the culture has shifted to valuing experiences more than large (expensive-to-maintain) spaces. However, with the old and still vibrant urban neighborhoods now priced out of reach for most, people who are seeking the benefits of urban living are attempting to densify first ring suburbs, which is leading to intergenerational conflicts in many suburban city halls. > Not to mention the benefit of being able to segregate children into different schools by socioeconomic status, by restricting different incomes from living in the same school district via zoning laws requiring large lots and expensive properties, which also leads to unfeasible public transportation. I agree that these factors are all present, and are usually enabled by planning and zoning rules, which often function as a replacement for the illegal racial neighborhood covenant system that used to be common in the US. IMO the current system is a shame, but I'm also aware that the system is working for the subset who can afford to exist on it's beneficial side, and those people tend to vote in local elections.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  >At least at the moment the trend tends to be towards demand for the benefits of increased density, as the culture has shifted to valuing experiences more than large (expensive-to-maintain) spaces. In the US, everyone in my circles acts the same way, until they have children. Then the priority becomes quality of school, which really means socioeconomic status of all the children in the school, which leads to the well known rule of thumb to buy the cheapest house in the most expensive most suburban neighborhood you can afford. Or be rich enough to send your kids to private school if you want to continue to stay urban.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    And for that reason, the brief trend of urbanization has already reversed. Once the recession passed and millennials started having kids, they started moving back out to the suburbs: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/29/millennials-are-fleeing-big-cities-for-the-suburbs.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/29/millennials-are-fleeing-big-... I personally think that sucks (for the most part). But there are just a handful of cities where you can simultaneously satisfy the constraints of jobs, kids, decent schools, and reasonably priced housing. My wife and I couldn’t find anything in DC (we weren’t willing to spend $1.8 million on a house) so after years of living downtown, we finally bit the bullet and moved to the suburbs.
    - danans 7y ago
      > And for that reason, the brief trend of urbanization has already reversed The current flight to the suburbs is a matter of unaffordability, which is very different than the forces that drove previous waves of suburbanization. People being priced out of desirable urban areas hasn't necessarily resulted in a reversal of urbanism, but rather an increasing pressure to urbanize the more "affordable" (in price per sqft) suburban areas. You see this in efforts to change suburban planning codes to allow multiple dwellings per lot, or to allow bars and restaurants to be open later. Both of those are examples of initiatives that have faced pretty stiff opposition from longtime suburban residents. Developers have caught on to this too, which is why you see developments like the one described in the article, however shallow the implementations may be. I agree that there is a lot of push and pull, and huge financial and quality of life trade-offs that everyone is forced to make.

atombender 7y ago

There are absolutely tons of towns like that, but they're old towns that grew organically from villages. Cold Spring, NY, Shelbourne Falls, MA and Santa Fe, NM are some examples that come to mind. What this blog is talking about is really new developments and the gradual transformation of old, previously functioning towns.

PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
I live near Santa Fe, NM and I cannot possibly agree with this characterization. Most modern (i.e. non-tourist) commerce in S.Fe is on Cerrillos Road. While I support this arrangement to a large degree, Cerrillos is a 4 mile long strip mall, in essence. In a car, it's convenient. On foot, it's a nightmare. There is a bus running up and down, but the bus rarely seems to have much ridership. The old core of S.Fe contains almost none of the basic essential retail outlets for day to day life. There are no supermarkets, no hardware stores, for example (Kaunes is about as close it gets). You see very few people walking around other than tourists. It is true that the Rail Yards is a moderately successful (re)development of a downtown area that was previously ... well, rail yards. But it hasn't really done much to change the retail/hang out situation other than adding an REI, a brewery and a movie theater. All good things (for me) but they don't change the fact that living in S.Fe without a car will remind you constantly that you don't have a car. One great thing here are hundreds of speed bumps on residential streets. These do provide a distinct message ("Slow the F*CK down") when driving in those neighorhoods, but they do not change the car-centric nature of the city.
- atombender 7y ago
  I don't live in Santa Fe, but I think it's got a very walkable core. That said, it's also a very typical example of a town whose residential suburbia has ballooned without support from public transit, to the point that if you don't live near Cerillos Road, you're basically in the suburbs and absolutely you need a car.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
    Well, the problem is that "the core" isn't "the core" :) It's very walkable if you're visiting or enjoying a day in town. It's very unwalkable if you need to get normal day to day or week to week shopping done. The transit/'burbs thing is probably true, but I live so far from the city that I'm not really familiar with the transit situation.

vineyardmike 7y ago

Visit New England, many of the towns there have nice downtown sections which are walkable, and have town squares, etc.

ghaff 7y ago
In all fairness, the vast majority of people are driving to those town squares/greens and the shopping options are usually pretty limited--especially for day-to-day rather than artsy/crafty stuff. But, yes, many towns have a nice little center. (And, indeed, many smaller cities do these days even if the rest of the city is mostly sprawly and not so nice generally.