4 ms·

My wife and I currently live in Providence, RI (by way of NYC). We highly value walkability, but feel like we've aged out of tolerating some other big-city "ann

My wife and I currently live in Providence, RI (by way of NYC). We highly value walkability, but feel like we've aged out of tolerating some other big-city "annoyances." When Americans think of "suburbs" they think of culs-de-sac and arterials, but it doesn't have to be that way. New England is dotted with "small towns" that are basically just suburbs of Providence and/or Boston that are laid out on a grid -- with a main street, walkable amenities, and access to commuter rail. In St. Louis, where I'm from, there are half-a-dozen inner ring suburbs that meet this description (minus the commuter rail), so I assume it's the same in most cities. There's a kind of exurban suburb that was built in the 1990s that has an outsized influence on our conception of suburban living. But there are lots of older "suburbs" that are actually quite pleasant.

brewdad 5y ago
I'm willing to bet most, if not all, of those wonderful suburbs were built before WW2 and really before the car itself. Aside from a literal handful of experiments, we haven't built places like that in a long time here in the US.
- jjav 5y ago
  My current neighborhood (in greater silicon valley area) was built in 1997-98 and I can walk to pretty much anything I need. That seems mostly the norm in my experience. These HN threads always talk about suburbs where you need to drive 10 minutes on a highway to get to the nearest store but to be honest I don't know where those are, I don't think I've seen areas like that.
mcv 5y ago
Even arterials and cul-de-sacs can be great if you build them that way. Many Dutch post-war neighbourhoods are built around arterials and cul-de-sacs, but they all have sidewalks, independent bicycle paths, and each neighbourhood gets a shopping center and 3 primary schools (protestant, catholic and public, because that's how that works here) within walking distance. These neighbourhoods are denser than American suburbs of course; houses come in rows, and you get a front and back yard, but not an entire plot of land around your home. But that also means plenty of kids to play with. In the street, because often cars are required to drive at walking pace and playing kids have right of way. I grew up in a street like that. I hated it, and preferred a real city, but it's pretty comfortable living.
kelnos 5y ago
I'm not sure how universal this is, though. A friend of mine lives in Holliston, MA (a small town that's about a 45 minute drive from Boston), but still drives most places locally, even just to go to downtown, park, and walk from there. The problem isn't the distance, it's that the roads were not designed with pedestrians in mind. The route from their house to downtown has mostly no sidewalks, and roads with enough traffic on them that walking along the shoulder doesn't feel safe. In the winter it's impossible to walk, with plowed snow piled up along the only places you could potentially walk.
- dionidium 5y ago
  There's a lot of that in New England, too.

brewdad 5y ago

I'm willing to bet most, if not all, of those wonderful suburbs were built before WW2 and really before the car itself. Aside from a literal handful of experiments, we haven't built places like that in a long time here in the US.

jjav 5y ago
My current neighborhood (in greater silicon valley area) was built in 1997-98 and I can walk to pretty much anything I need. That seems mostly the norm in my experience. These HN threads always talk about suburbs where you need to drive 10 minutes on a highway to get to the nearest store but to be honest I don't know where those are, I don't think I've seen areas like that.

mcv 5y ago

Even arterials and cul-de-sacs can be great if you build them that way. Many Dutch post-war neighbourhoods are built around arterials and cul-de-sacs, but they all have sidewalks, independent bicycle paths, and each neighbourhood gets a shopping center and 3 primary schools (protestant, catholic and public, because that's how that works here) within walking distance. These neighbourhoods are denser than American suburbs of course; houses come in rows, and you get a front and back yard, but not an entire plot of land around your home. But that also means plenty of kids to play with. In the street, because often cars are required to drive at walking pace and playing kids have right of way. I grew up in a street like that. I hated it, and preferred a real city, but it's pretty comfortable living.

kelnos 5y ago

I'm not sure how universal this is, though. A friend of mine lives in Holliston, MA (a small town that's about a 45 minute drive from Boston), but still drives most places locally, even just to go to downtown, park, and walk from there. The problem isn't the distance, it's that the roads were not designed with pedestrians in mind. The route from their house to downtown has mostly no sidewalks, and roads with enough traffic on them that walking along the shoulder doesn't feel safe. In the winter it's impossible to walk, with plowed snow piled up along the only places you could potentially walk.

dionidium 5y ago
There's a lot of that in New England, too.