3 ms·

If we define 'suburb' as a 'low density urban place without the jobs' then I suspect we are in agreement. Urbanistically speaking, the top 2 needs of the inhabi

If we define 'suburb' as a 'low density urban place without the jobs' then I suspect we are in agreement. Urbanistically speaking, the top 2 needs of the inhabitants are 'low density urban place' to live and jobs. We happen to have both, alas in geographically different places. Let's shift the locus of the solution from vindictive disfunctional 'the cars are the problem [...] we need to make driving cars worse', to constructive and hopefully workable 'bring the jobs to the suburbs', which will have the byeffect we all seek: reducing the need for cars.

sudosysgen 5y ago
The issue is that this just can't be done. The structure of suburbs is actively hostile to public transport of any kind and to everything that's not a car. If this wasn't the case, we could just plop down a high-speed rail station directly into the middle of the town and then everyone could bike or take the bus there. Try it, take your bike and do a 10km-straight-line-distance trip in an average north American suburb. It's either going to take a horrifying amount of time or be legitimately dangerous. It's not true that we need low density housing. We need a mix of high density and medium density housing. I grew up in medium density housing in a family of 6, literally the only issue is that cars make it unsafe for kids to walk to school and parks alone. I wish that it was possible to just convert suburban neighborhoods into nice small urban communities. They're just not designed for that. For those that can be converted, a train station going 150km/h straight into the city is a perfectly serviceable solution. But the basics is that what you're describing is just making suburbs into cities, and for the suburbs we're talking about that's almost impossible. But beyond that I really don't understand the obsession for very low density housing. A duplex is a perfectly fine place to raise a large family.
- bookofsand 5y ago
  Granted, American suburbs are in poor shape. Question is, what is a viable vision for the future? Hong Kong (17.3k people / sqmile) or s'Hertogenbosch (3.6k people / sqmile)? Packing millions of jobs in a handful of downtown sq miles, and then expecting that all the millions of commuters and their dependents live in a circle with 30 minutes access to downtown by bike cannot be physically satisfied by duplexes. Only a high density setup akin to Hong Kong may work. I know of no one, especially no one with kids, who would rather live in Hong Kong than a low density urban environment like s'Hertogenbosch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Hong_Kong#/media/File:Hong_Kong_Harbour_Night_2019-06-11.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_H...
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Answer : neither. Montréal has a density of 11.7k people per square mile. The vast majority of Montréal is duplexes. It works. Duplexes have a high density. Perhaps now that you know that duplexes are closer in density to Hong Kong than to SFH, you can understand how most people live 30 mins away by bike from downtown. Not all jobs are or have to be downtown either, it's just that a lot are.

sudosysgen 5y ago

The issue is that this just can't be done. The structure of suburbs is actively hostile to public transport of any kind and to everything that's not a car. If this wasn't the case, we could just plop down a high-speed rail station directly into the middle of the town and then everyone could bike or take the bus there. Try it, take your bike and do a 10km-straight-line-distance trip in an average north American suburb. It's either going to take a horrifying amount of time or be legitimately dangerous. It's not true that we need low density housing. We need a mix of high density and medium density housing. I grew up in medium density housing in a family of 6, literally the only issue is that cars make it unsafe for kids to walk to school and parks alone. I wish that it was possible to just convert suburban neighborhoods into nice small urban communities. They're just not designed for that. For those that can be converted, a train station going 150km/h straight into the city is a perfectly serviceable solution. But the basics is that what you're describing is just making suburbs into cities, and for the suburbs we're talking about that's almost impossible. But beyond that I really don't understand the obsession for very low density housing. A duplex is a perfectly fine place to raise a large family.

bookofsand 5y ago
Granted, American suburbs are in poor shape. Question is, what is a viable vision for the future? Hong Kong (17.3k people / sqmile) or s'Hertogenbosch (3.6k people / sqmile)? Packing millions of jobs in a handful of downtown sq miles, and then expecting that all the millions of commuters and their dependents live in a circle with 30 minutes access to downtown by bike cannot be physically satisfied by duplexes. Only a high density setup akin to Hong Kong may work. I know of no one, especially no one with kids, who would rather live in Hong Kong than a low density urban environment like s'Hertogenbosch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Hong_Kong#/media/File:Hong_Kong_Harbour_Night_2019-06-11.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_H...
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Answer : neither. Montréal has a density of 11.7k people per square mile. The vast majority of Montréal is duplexes. It works. Duplexes have a high density. Perhaps now that you know that duplexes are closer in density to Hong Kong than to SFH, you can understand how most people live 30 mins away by bike from downtown. Not all jobs are or have to be downtown either, it's just that a lot are.