27 ms·

Suburbs as anything other than streetcar suburbs are basically only a thing due to the subsidization of the automobile infrastructure.

burntsushi 13y ago
Then you're just arguing for one way of life over another. I like living in the suburbs. I don't want to feel like a sardine packed into a can. You (or whoever is arguing for it) would rather not live in a world that has tainted nature with roads and automobiles. Why does it have to be one way or another? In the present, there are plenty of places to go and see nature that hasn't been tainted by cars and roads. Many of the people in this thread write as if cars are manifestly obviously bad, and that we should go to great lengths to remove or drastically reduce them from society. I guess I didn't get the memo.
- wtallis 13y ago
  Living in the suburbs doesn't mean you avoid the sardines feeling: https://maps.google.com/?ll=35.833819,-78.909173&spn=0.026373,0.033603&t=h&z=15 https://maps.google.com/?ll=35.833819,-78.909173&spn=0.02637... Cars aren't manifestly bad, but that kind of neighborhood is.
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    > Living in the suburbs doesn't mean you avoid the sardines feeling You're not wrong, but I'm not sure it's really relevant to what I'm saying. So what, some suburbs aren't ideal to my particular way of life? Yeah? So? > Cars aren't manifestly bad, but that kind of neighborhood is. sigh...
    - wtallis 13y ago
      Do you care to elaborate on the "sigh" with any actual discussion? It seems you're trying to portray any detractors of suburbs as radical tree-huggers, whilst ignoring the fact that the kind of suburban sprawl happening today has a ton of other downsides, and fails to even meet your own standards for a nice neighborhood. Edit: To give you some context, I live on the opposite side of town from the neighborhood I linked to. My neighborhood is much lower-density than that one, but while still unquestionably suburban, has schools and a large variety of shops within walking distance and safely accessible by foot and greenways and bike routes leading toward the city centers. My neighborhood was built in the 1970s. There are similar neighborhoods in the area covering a broad range of density and property values. We don't even have a mass-transit system worth mentioning, but it's still a much better place for getting around without a car. Yes, suburbs can be done well. But at least in my area, the new residential development is mostly comically tragic, and it's affecting what people mean by suburban sprawl.
      - burntsushi 13y ago
        The "sigh" was because it seems my point was missed. The particulars of what I happen to enjoy as a living arrangement are borderline irrelevant. The point I was making is that a bunch of people are pushing their way of life on to others (through sin taxes and policy changes and the like) based on the premise that their way of life is obviously superior. I'm saying the dual of "my way of life is better." Someone else brought up that there are subsidies supporting my way of life though. I'm fine with removing those. But I personally haven't seen that position advocated in this thread. So I didn't account for it. > radical tree-huggers Radical tree huggers? Come now. No need for the flamebait. I love nature. I frequent it whenever I get the chance. But I don't feel entitled to it wherever I happen to be. > whilst ignoring the fact that the kind of suburban sprawl happening today has a ton of other downsides, and fails to even meet your own standards for a nice neighborhood. I didn't ignore anything. I never said suburbs were always the best. I didn't even say that I prefer every suburb to any city. I didn't speak with exact precision because the details of "my way of life" weren't crucial to my point. I didn't say any of this because I never argued that suburbs were, in any way, shape or form better than cities. I merely stated that I prefer them. And that's enough.
        wtallis 13y ago
        You're making a false dichotomy, between the urban no-car life you don't want, and the suburbs that make it impossible to get anywhere without a car. A happy middle ground is possible and exists in many places, and can be done without much extra effort, but it requires some. Zoning regulations and the like have proven to be insufficient for preventing developers from throwing down several square miles of cookie-cutter homes at a time embedded in a fractal maze of cul-de-sacs with no room for commercial development, meaning those neighborhoods end up car-mandatory and impossible to service with mass transit even when they're very dense. There are plenty of sound public policy reasons for wanting alternative forms of transportation to be viable, so even if it feels like someone shoving their way of life down your throat, it'll still probably save you tax money in the long run even if it has to be achieved through blunt means like "sin taxes". Edit: Many of the subsidies the car-only lifestyle gets are really negative externalities the burden of which is shared by everyone: the public health nightmare of obesity, pollution in the form of smog and runoff, political downsides of dependence on oil. How could those be dealt with in a way that doesn't feel to you like an unjust sin tax or someone forcing their way of life on you?
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  You're welcome to live in whatever kind of place you want. I think what people object to is the massive subsidies slathered on the suburban lifestyle under american policies.
  - burntsushi 13y ago
    I'm fine with getting rid of subsidies. Look at this thread. Most of what I see are people advocating "sin taxes" and the like. Or, increasing subsidies to shape a world more fitting of what they want.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      You really need some reading lessons, then. There have been like... 3 people advocating sin taxes.
      - burntsushi 13y ago
        > You really need some reading lessons, then. Thanks for the insult saraid216! Is there anything else about me that you'd care to attack? (If not, feel free to take a look at my comment history. I'm sure you can find something. If it'll make you feel better, I'm all ears.)
_delirium 13y ago
If you channel them to be somewhat more linear, commuter rail can work okay for suburbs. Copenhagen took that approach, with a goal that even quite far out suburbs should be in reasonable biking or bus distance to an S-train station: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_Plan

burntsushi 13y ago

Then you're just arguing for one way of life over another. I like living in the suburbs. I don't want to feel like a sardine packed into a can. You (or whoever is arguing for it) would rather not live in a world that has tainted nature with roads and automobiles. Why does it have to be one way or another? In the present, there are plenty of places to go and see nature that hasn't been tainted by cars and roads. Many of the people in this thread write as if cars are manifestly obviously bad, and that we should go to great lengths to remove or drastically reduce them from society. I guess I didn't get the memo.

wtallis 13y ago
Living in the suburbs doesn't mean you avoid the sardines feeling: https://maps.google.com/?ll=35.833819,-78.909173&spn=0.026373,0.033603&t=h&z=15 https://maps.google.com/?ll=35.833819,-78.909173&spn=0.02637... Cars aren't manifestly bad, but that kind of neighborhood is.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  > Living in the suburbs doesn't mean you avoid the sardines feeling You're not wrong, but I'm not sure it's really relevant to what I'm saying. So what, some suburbs aren't ideal to my particular way of life? Yeah? So? > Cars aren't manifestly bad, but that kind of neighborhood is. sigh...
  - wtallis 13y ago
    Do you care to elaborate on the "sigh" with any actual discussion? It seems you're trying to portray any detractors of suburbs as radical tree-huggers, whilst ignoring the fact that the kind of suburban sprawl happening today has a ton of other downsides, and fails to even meet your own standards for a nice neighborhood. Edit: To give you some context, I live on the opposite side of town from the neighborhood I linked to. My neighborhood is much lower-density than that one, but while still unquestionably suburban, has schools and a large variety of shops within walking distance and safely accessible by foot and greenways and bike routes leading toward the city centers. My neighborhood was built in the 1970s. There are similar neighborhoods in the area covering a broad range of density and property values. We don't even have a mass-transit system worth mentioning, but it's still a much better place for getting around without a car. Yes, suburbs can be done well. But at least in my area, the new residential development is mostly comically tragic, and it's affecting what people mean by suburban sprawl.
    - burntsushi 13y ago
      The "sigh" was because it seems my point was missed. The particulars of what I happen to enjoy as a living arrangement are borderline irrelevant. The point I was making is that a bunch of people are pushing their way of life on to others (through sin taxes and policy changes and the like) based on the premise that their way of life is obviously superior. I'm saying the dual of "my way of life is better." Someone else brought up that there are subsidies supporting my way of life though. I'm fine with removing those. But I personally haven't seen that position advocated in this thread. So I didn't account for it. > radical tree-huggers Radical tree huggers? Come now. No need for the flamebait. I love nature. I frequent it whenever I get the chance. But I don't feel entitled to it wherever I happen to be. > whilst ignoring the fact that the kind of suburban sprawl happening today has a ton of other downsides, and fails to even meet your own standards for a nice neighborhood. I didn't ignore anything. I never said suburbs were always the best. I didn't even say that I prefer every suburb to any city. I didn't speak with exact precision because the details of "my way of life" weren't crucial to my point. I didn't say any of this because I never argued that suburbs were, in any way, shape or form better than cities. I merely stated that I prefer them. And that's enough.
      - wtallis 13y ago
        You're making a false dichotomy, between the urban no-car life you don't want, and the suburbs that make it impossible to get anywhere without a car. A happy middle ground is possible and exists in many places, and can be done without much extra effort, but it requires some. Zoning regulations and the like have proven to be insufficient for preventing developers from throwing down several square miles of cookie-cutter homes at a time embedded in a fractal maze of cul-de-sacs with no room for commercial development, meaning those neighborhoods end up car-mandatory and impossible to service with mass transit even when they're very dense. There are plenty of sound public policy reasons for wanting alternative forms of transportation to be viable, so even if it feels like someone shoving their way of life down your throat, it'll still probably save you tax money in the long run even if it has to be achieved through blunt means like "sin taxes". Edit: Many of the subsidies the car-only lifestyle gets are really negative externalities the burden of which is shared by everyone: the public health nightmare of obesity, pollution in the form of smog and runoff, political downsides of dependence on oil. How could those be dealt with in a way that doesn't feel to you like an unjust sin tax or someone forcing their way of life on you?
thrownaway2424 13y ago
You're welcome to live in whatever kind of place you want. I think what people object to is the massive subsidies slathered on the suburban lifestyle under american policies.
- burntsushi 13y ago
  I'm fine with getting rid of subsidies. Look at this thread. Most of what I see are people advocating "sin taxes" and the like. Or, increasing subsidies to shape a world more fitting of what they want.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    You really need some reading lessons, then. There have been like... 3 people advocating sin taxes.
    - burntsushi 13y ago
      > You really need some reading lessons, then. Thanks for the insult saraid216! Is there anything else about me that you'd care to attack? (If not, feel free to take a look at my comment history. I'm sure you can find something. If it'll make you feel better, I'm all ears.)

_delirium 13y ago

If you channel them to be somewhat more linear, commuter rail can work okay for suburbs. Copenhagen took that approach, with a goal that even quite far out suburbs should be in reasonable biking or bus distance to an S-train station: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_Plan