3 ms·

Because people doing that is why this will never change. Every time someone leaves the suburbs for the city, a vote in town elections goes with them. Every time

Because people doing that is why this will never change. Every time someone leaves the suburbs for the city, a vote in town elections goes with them. Every time, it becomes less likely that zoning or other local laws affecting land/property use will change. The only way to make the suburbs better, to turn all of these urban-design principles we all know so well into reality, is for more people to stay and fight. "Move to the city" (or any other already-walkable place) is part of the problem, not the solution. For one thing, people won't do it en masse. Even if they did, those too-few places would become even less affordable, plus their power/water/waste infrastructure would get strained beyond breaking. It's a very privileged and selfish position to take. Instead, we need to make more such places, reconfiguring and repurposing buildings and other infrastructure where they are and where the people are. And that takes voting power. Don't tell people to throw that away.

marssaxman 3y ago
Here in Seattle, over two-thirds of the land inside city limits is locked up in suburban-style low-density, single-family-only residential zoning. We would not need the suburbs if we could stop forcing people out of the city by prohibiting natural urban development. Seattle needs more people living in the city who want city life, so we can get these policies changed and build out proper urban amenities: mixed-use zoning, rapid transit, bike infrastructure, walkable neighborhoods. Infrastructure gets upgraded when the tax base arrives to justify it. Yes, you are right, "we need to make more such places", and the low-density neighborhoods closest to the city center are the most efficient places to do that. It is a genuine tragedy that so much sprawl has been built over the last 60-70 years. Much of that construction can never afford its own maintenance without subsidy from the city centers. To make this sustainable, we must densify and contract.
- notacoward 3y ago
  The low-density areas within city limits are functionally suburbs. You basically said as much yourself. Whether they have their own name and mayor or town council is a historical accident, not significant in this context. For example, Detroit is one of the geographically largest cities in the US. I lived there, and I lived in an adjoining suburb. There was no difference with respect to density or development type. The stroad near our house in Detroit was actually worse than the stroad near our house in Hazel Park. Whatever you can do within the "suburban style" parts of Seattle you can do in a politically separate suburb, as long as there are votes. Cities absorbing their near suburbs (as Detroit did long ago except for Hamtramck and Highland Park) and using weight of numbers to force change would possibly allow for greater density and more walkable areas in those places, but nowadays no current suburb would allow that to happen (because of property values, school funding, etc.) so it's a pipe dream. Transit would not be affected, since that's usually regional anyway. Again, the only way to affect how suburbs are built is to vote there. Running away helps the individual, but doesn't help society, and I'm sorry that people would rather not hear that about themselves but it's the truth here in reality.
  - marssaxman 3y ago
    > Whatever you can do within the "suburban style" parts of Seattle you can do in a politically separate suburb I can't speak to Detroit, but here in Seattle, I just don't believe that's true. For example, look at Greenwood - close to the dense part of the city, it has a classic grid layout and there's already a good commercial core. Great bones, ready to pop, it just needs a zoning change and some transit investment: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Greenwood,+Seattle,+WA/@47.6945832,-122.3639625,3289m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x5490141fe0a394f9:0x9103e85c90d74880!8m2!3d47.6907107!4d-122.3553345!16zL20vMDNrZnA0?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/Greenwood,+Seattle,+WA/@47... Madison Valley, where I used to live, is currently going through that transition, and may in another 10-20 years become properly urban: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Madison+Valley,+Seattle,+WA/@47.6232455,-122.2996457,1647m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x54906b2b9d8d2fbf:0x4e321f8bb5da3f09!8m2!3d47.6233254!4d-122.2963918!16zL20vMDlxZmcw?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/Madison+Valley,+Seattle,+W... Compare this to a neighborhood in the suburbs, built in the sprawl era - for example East Hill, in Kent. What can be done with a place like this, full of wide roads, big box stores with vast parking lots, and meandery low-density cul-de-sac blocks which don't connect to each other? https://www.google.com/maps/place/East+Hill,+Kent,+WA+98031/@47.3862104,-122.2106976,3308m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x54905ea3b89e29d1:0xbb93c7e979d00439!8m2!3d47.3862114!4d-122.2003979!16s%2Fm%2F04c4ldg?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/East+Hill,+Kent,+WA+98031/... Move to a place like that and vote all you like, the whole structure of the place has been built around cars in a way which will be very difficult to fix. Lest you accuse me of cherry-picking a particularly obnoxious example, here's Totem Lake, equally hopeless: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Totem+Lake,+Kirkland,+WA/@47.7089469,-122.1900798,3586m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x54900d8043decd27:0xde65dccabcd1a0aa!8m2!3d47.7081862!4d-122.1805125!16s%2Fg%2F1vl9r5ll?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/Totem+Lake,+Kirkland,+WA/@... If Seattle relaxed its zoning and let urban development happen throughout, we could fit an enormous share of the region's population growth into the city limits. This would create a virtuous cycle where investment grows, rapid transit development becomes increasingly economical, the economy diversifies, and services improve. That can't be done in a remote suburb, because urban value is a function of proximity to resources. > Again, the only way to affect how suburbs are built is to vote there. Why do any more suburbs need to be built at all? Fix the cities and there will be plenty of space.

marssaxman 3y ago

Here in Seattle, over two-thirds of the land inside city limits is locked up in suburban-style low-density, single-family-only residential zoning. We would not need the suburbs if we could stop forcing people out of the city by prohibiting natural urban development. Seattle needs more people living in the city who want city life, so we can get these policies changed and build out proper urban amenities: mixed-use zoning, rapid transit, bike infrastructure, walkable neighborhoods. Infrastructure gets upgraded when the tax base arrives to justify it. Yes, you are right, "we need to make more such places", and the low-density neighborhoods closest to the city center are the most efficient places to do that. It is a genuine tragedy that so much sprawl has been built over the last 60-70 years. Much of that construction can never afford its own maintenance without subsidy from the city centers. To make this sustainable, we must densify and contract.

notacoward 3y ago
The low-density areas within city limits are functionally suburbs. You basically said as much yourself. Whether they have their own name and mayor or town council is a historical accident, not significant in this context. For example, Detroit is one of the geographically largest cities in the US. I lived there, and I lived in an adjoining suburb. There was no difference with respect to density or development type. The stroad near our house in Detroit was actually worse than the stroad near our house in Hazel Park. Whatever you can do within the "suburban style" parts of Seattle you can do in a politically separate suburb, as long as there are votes. Cities absorbing their near suburbs (as Detroit did long ago except for Hamtramck and Highland Park) and using weight of numbers to force change would possibly allow for greater density and more walkable areas in those places, but nowadays no current suburb would allow that to happen (because of property values, school funding, etc.) so it's a pipe dream. Transit would not be affected, since that's usually regional anyway. Again, the only way to affect how suburbs are built is to vote there. Running away helps the individual, but doesn't help society, and I'm sorry that people would rather not hear that about themselves but it's the truth here in reality.
- marssaxman 3y ago
  > Whatever you can do within the "suburban style" parts of Seattle you can do in a politically separate suburb I can't speak to Detroit, but here in Seattle, I just don't believe that's true. For example, look at Greenwood - close to the dense part of the city, it has a classic grid layout and there's already a good commercial core. Great bones, ready to pop, it just needs a zoning change and some transit investment: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Greenwood,+Seattle,+WA/@47.6945832,-122.3639625,3289m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x5490141fe0a394f9:0x9103e85c90d74880!8m2!3d47.6907107!4d-122.3553345!16zL20vMDNrZnA0?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/Greenwood,+Seattle,+WA/@47... Madison Valley, where I used to live, is currently going through that transition, and may in another 10-20 years become properly urban: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Madison+Valley,+Seattle,+WA/@47.6232455,-122.2996457,1647m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x54906b2b9d8d2fbf:0x4e321f8bb5da3f09!8m2!3d47.6233254!4d-122.2963918!16zL20vMDlxZmcw?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/Madison+Valley,+Seattle,+W... Compare this to a neighborhood in the suburbs, built in the sprawl era - for example East Hill, in Kent. What can be done with a place like this, full of wide roads, big box stores with vast parking lots, and meandery low-density cul-de-sac blocks which don't connect to each other? https://www.google.com/maps/place/East+Hill,+Kent,+WA+98031/@47.3862104,-122.2106976,3308m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x54905ea3b89e29d1:0xbb93c7e979d00439!8m2!3d47.3862114!4d-122.2003979!16s%2Fm%2F04c4ldg?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/East+Hill,+Kent,+WA+98031/... Move to a place like that and vote all you like, the whole structure of the place has been built around cars in a way which will be very difficult to fix. Lest you accuse me of cherry-picking a particularly obnoxious example, here's Totem Lake, equally hopeless: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Totem+Lake,+Kirkland,+WA/@47.7089469,-122.1900798,3586m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x54900d8043decd27:0xde65dccabcd1a0aa!8m2!3d47.7081862!4d-122.1805125!16s%2Fg%2F1vl9r5ll?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/Totem+Lake,+Kirkland,+WA/@... If Seattle relaxed its zoning and let urban development happen throughout, we could fit an enormous share of the region's population growth into the city limits. This would create a virtuous cycle where investment grows, rapid transit development becomes increasingly economical, the economy diversifies, and services improve. That can't be done in a remote suburb, because urban value is a function of proximity to resources. > Again, the only way to affect how suburbs are built is to vote there. Why do any more suburbs need to be built at all? Fix the cities and there will be plenty of space.