4 ms·

The transition to suburban living happened within only a few decades, so it’s not unreasonable to think we could undo a lot of the mistakes within our own lifet

The transition to suburban living happened within only a few decades, so it’s not unreasonable to think we could undo a lot of the mistakes within our own lifetimes.

Night_Thastus 3y ago
That happened when there was plenty of available space to build such suburban housing. They did not bulldoze vast swaths of urban to make room. If you wanted to do the reverse, that's what you'd need to do - unless you're making a new city from scratch.
- Kerrick 3y ago
  > They did not bulldoze vast swaths of urban to make room They certainly did, depending on your definition of vast. "According to estimates from the U.S. Department of Transportation, more than 475,000 households and more than a million people were displaced nationwide because of the federal roadway construction." https://www.history.com/news/interstate-highway-system-infrastructure-construction-segregation https://www.history.com/news/interstate-highway-system-infra...
- epistasis 3y ago
  The difference is that it won't take much space to replace the suburbs with low-car or no-car living. Doing infill housing in metropolises is many many times more efficient in terms of land use, infrastructure demands, etc. We don't need to make new cities from scratch at all, we simply need to allow gradual redevelopment of the urban cores.
  - Muromec 3y ago
    Why replace suburbs if you can put a tram line or urban train and upzone parts of it close to the stations.
    - epistasis 3y ago
      Exactly! Merely allowing a tiny fraction of already developed land to be redeveloped at what were natural rates 120 years ago would mean that the suburbs would be almost completely untouched while those who want something different can also get what they want out of life.
- akamaka 3y ago
  It’s also possible to simply abandon undesirable neighbourhoods and leave for someplace better. In the most extreme example, in the second half of the 20th century, half of Detroit’s population rapidly left the city, as quickly as they had arrived in the first half of the century. It’s quite possible that some suburban areas will experience the same boom and bust, now that dense cities are no longer polluted industrial hell-holes.
- LightHugger 3y ago
  We actually did destroy our cities to make room for parking lots. It happened. Could just as easily go the other way.
  - Night_Thastus 3y ago
    With modern zoning, NIMBYism, the reliance of housing as a form of retirement and investment, greater regulation, etc - no chance. Housing in general is screwed in the US because of the investment angle. Both companies and regular citizens alike will fight fiercely against anything that could decrease the value of their homes - no matter how much it is in the interest of the long-term health, happiness and finances of their city.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  There's lots of available space in urban areas. It's called parking, both on and off road.
rtkwe 3y ago
It's waaaay easier for people to move into new land than it is to get them to move back and also change existing areas.
- epistasis 3y ago
  I would argue the opposite: it's far easier for people to move where they have a job, access to food, and a community. Starting a new city is really hard, and not many people have the excess savings to do that or the will to be so isolated for so long.
  - rtkwe 3y ago
    I'm not talking about building a new city tabula rasa style, the suburbs weren't starting a new city merely expanding it so the jobs, food access, and to a lesser extent community were provided by the city they were moving away from initially then shops moved into the area for the newly minted customers. The increased distance didn't matter so much because of the exploding prevalence of cars shrinking distances.

The transition to suburban living happened within only a few decades, so it’s not unreasonable to think we could undo a lot of the mistakes within our own lifetimes.

Night_Thastus 3y ago

That happened when there was plenty of available space to build such suburban housing. They did not bulldoze vast swaths of urban to make room. If you wanted to do the reverse, that's what you'd need to do - unless you're making a new city from scratch.

Kerrick 3y ago
> They did not bulldoze vast swaths of urban to make room They certainly did, depending on your definition of vast. "According to estimates from the U.S. Department of Transportation, more than 475,000 households and more than a million people were displaced nationwide because of the federal roadway construction." https://www.history.com/news/interstate-highway-system-infrastructure-construction-segregation https://www.history.com/news/interstate-highway-system-infra...
epistasis 3y ago
The difference is that it won't take much space to replace the suburbs with low-car or no-car living. Doing infill housing in metropolises is many many times more efficient in terms of land use, infrastructure demands, etc. We don't need to make new cities from scratch at all, we simply need to allow gradual redevelopment of the urban cores.
- Muromec 3y ago
  Why replace suburbs if you can put a tram line or urban train and upzone parts of it close to the stations.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    Exactly! Merely allowing a tiny fraction of already developed land to be redeveloped at what were natural rates 120 years ago would mean that the suburbs would be almost completely untouched while those who want something different can also get what they want out of life.
akamaka 3y ago
It’s also possible to simply abandon undesirable neighbourhoods and leave for someplace better. In the most extreme example, in the second half of the 20th century, half of Detroit’s population rapidly left the city, as quickly as they had arrived in the first half of the century. It’s quite possible that some suburban areas will experience the same boom and bust, now that dense cities are no longer polluted industrial hell-holes.
LightHugger 3y ago
We actually did destroy our cities to make room for parking lots. It happened. Could just as easily go the other way.
- Night_Thastus 3y ago
  With modern zoning, NIMBYism, the reliance of housing as a form of retirement and investment, greater regulation, etc - no chance. Housing in general is screwed in the US because of the investment angle. Both companies and regular citizens alike will fight fiercely against anything that could decrease the value of their homes - no matter how much it is in the interest of the long-term health, happiness and finances of their city.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
There's lots of available space in urban areas. It's called parking, both on and off road.

rtkwe 3y ago

It's waaaay easier for people to move into new land than it is to get them to move back and also change existing areas.

epistasis 3y ago
I would argue the opposite: it's far easier for people to move where they have a job, access to food, and a community. Starting a new city is really hard, and not many people have the excess savings to do that or the will to be so isolated for so long.
- rtkwe 3y ago
  I'm not talking about building a new city tabula rasa style, the suburbs weren't starting a new city merely expanding it so the jobs, food access, and to a lesser extent community were provided by the city they were moving away from initially then shops moved into the area for the newly minted customers. The increased distance didn't matter so much because of the exploding prevalence of cars shrinking distances.