my M.Arch class at Uof C has a started a project protesting against the problems facing suburbs, such as cost qualities, myths, etc. If anyone is interested in these issues, my prof has launched a website with related articles, interviews etc.check it out or if you'd like to discuss it let me know. http://www.theslowhome.com/blog/outrage/
With all due respect, I want to suggest that the Slow Home project (and others) probably have it backward.
Why is there congestion on the superhighways? Because people have to go to their work places. No one wants to live there, they want to live where they have space.
Planners have lost control of their density. They jam way to many businesses into the central city. It is too expensive to live in the central city, unless you want to live in a slum.
Planners have become greedy. They want their city to be the biggest and have the highest skyscrapers. Regard for quality of living within their "community" inside the city has been placed secondary to density.
If Planners really limited density, businesses would not be able to get into the city center and would locate in the suburb communities. Voila, traffic congestion on superhighways is reduced. Public expenditure on superhighways and lightrail and subways and public transit is also reduced. Disruption of city functions by their inevitable occassional failures is also reduced.
With limitations on density, only those businesses really requiring a central location would be the ones that had a real need to be in the central city, and they would be willing to provide amenities like park space and parking and even desireable housing for their critical and needed employees.
Crowded housing as shown on the video are also symtomatic of the need to get close to the megapolis. All those people would much rather have their business closer to them so they would not have to be so close to the main city. They, too, could spread out and have a yard for their kids to play in - rather than having to devote so much of their assets to buying enough space for a double garage at the street.
Instead of blaming planning failure on "sprawl," planners should look at what is causing the overcrowding conditions of their cities and traffic arteries. "Sprawl" is just a symptom of inner city failure. Planners control your density.
Just some thoughts.
Bah, more misplaced activism. These folk are cut from the same cloth as the ones that wouldn't let the Forest Service brush clear leading to the massive fires in the LA forest a few years ago.
This so called sprawl is a part of human nature. When there were walled cities, a higher percentage still lived outside the walls for food production. A higher percentage of people live in cities now than ever before. The so called poster child of sprawl, Los Angeles, actually has a higher density than almost any city in the US. Our cities were not started in medieval times, constantly tore down and rebuilt because of wars, and we have not been restricted by a lack of land like European cities, so why do these "smart" growthers think they can convince US citizens to change the way we live and grow. Most americans want at least a small yard where the kids and the dog can play at least somewhat protected from strangers, in other words, the American Dream. If we wanted to live in bland, high-rise projects we could move to an ex-communist country.
Lastly, if you build factories, employment centers etc in the suburbs, and it has been done before, people don't want to live near those polluting, high traffic, etc uses, and so they move away. One just has to look at Chicago or Huston and the concentric rings of growth that have occurred.
BTW, its not the "planners" that are creating the problems, it is the politicians. They are the ones that establish policy (often with little or no input from their professional planners and much from their campaign contributors and developer buddies), and planners are tasked with implementing it. So planners do the best they can within the framework they are given or quickly find themselves unemployed.
<End Rant>
Part of the criticism of sprawl stems from the shear ugliness of some of it. Build the same form but plop in fairly similar buildings from the 1920s add in mature trees and people would be heaping praise on it.
Replace the McMansion with this:
and watch much of the criticism dissapear.
Our population is growing and sprawl is inevitable. Naturally we have a choice as to how the sprawl looks and a lot of the criticism stems from the almost exclusive use of the automobile in these areas. Essentially these were designed that people were going to drive everywhere so little consideration was given for pedestrians. Street patterns that permit the crow to have to only travel a 1/3 the distance that a human would, lack of connectivity to outside the subdivision, lack of sidewalks etc. Of course that is not to mention the distances one has to travel, largely the result of large lot sizes.
Plan 9 has some good points. I would add though that it is up to professional planners to point out the problems and their solutions that public officials don't see.
JSK 1983 also has some good points. I just ask though, if planners allowed that same fine looking home to be built on a lot with only a 5 foot side yard and a 10 foot front yard, it would probably be dirisively called a McMansion. And right now planners are advocating small lots and "sprawl-is-bad" theology. Good architecture and humans need space.
Planners protect your density.
If no one wants to live in in central cities, why is it so expensive to live there? Basic economics show that decreasing demand brings decreasing prices, so there must be some demand. In fact, there's so much that it's pricing people out of the market. It is way too expensive to live in the central city.Originally posted by Streck
An increased supply of central city housing for those of us who want an urban lifestyle would enable us to do the same thing and is much less draining on regional resources than stretching our existing infrastructure out at the greater rate associated with sprawl. Allowing and promoting increased densities and numbers therefore is a wise investment of public tax dollars.
Also, using a similar process of assumption but coming to completely different results, large cities tend to attract more arts and culturally stimulating activities that create much greater senses of community than you will find in any suburb. Good, tight-knit communities rarely come from isolation and/or living only amongst your own socio-political-economic peers.
I would be extremely cautious making such blanket statements as to what "all those people" want, or you would be contributing to a similar process as you feel Planners who promote density are forcing on you, only with a different conclusion: forcing all people to live in environments that not all wish to (just like real estate developers have been doing since the 1950's with suburban-style development and sprawl - that is, until just recently).
On a side note, the vast majority of new urban condos being built in central cities across the U.S. have more interior space/unit than most single-family subdivisions.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Either way, they both contribute to the other.
Again, watch some of the blanket assumptions. Humans do need space. The questions planners answer involve how to efficiently distribute that space without undermining the free market and private property rights.
"McMansions" is a brilliant term to describe houses that are designed to look bigger and more substantive than they actually are, usually at the cost of better materials and construction methods. That being said, I doubt the house in the photo would be considered a McMansion.
P.S. - Does New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, etc, etc, have poor architecture because they are in dense settings? Not just the commercial buildings, either. The old brownstones, row houses, Victorians, etc.
By and large, it all boils down to matters of personal preference. And the market should be allowed to provide for all of them it deems feasible.
Last edited by TexanOkie; 17 Dec 2007 at 5:36 PM.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Just as there are many people who want space and would never live in an urban environment, I'd shoot myself if forced to live in an auto-centric suburb. I'm not saying that they shouldn't exist, just saying that I have no desire to live in such a place.By and large, it all boils down to matters of personal preference. And the market should be allowed to provide for all of them it deems feasible.
If I had more time I'd take some photos of substantial single family houses on very small lots. I doubt any one would call them "McMansions". I think the label has more to do with the architectural quality than anything. Essentially they are homes that are more show than anything. I also have some photos of homes that don't exactly look like they fit on their lots although they would look even more absurd if placed on an acre lot. On the other hand I could find some photos of homes that are the same size on similar size lots that fit in quite well in their context. IMHO it all comes down to the quality of the architecture and the materials used, something that is clearly lacking these days in much of what is being built.
The level of market intervention you're advocating here is alarming. Should we also tell people what business they are best suited for and where to live and what companies they may work for?
A couple of things. You've neglected to account for the property tax imperative. As planners within growing communities (and ALL communities are growing, unless they are dying on the vine like Detroit or Buffalo... there's no such thing as stasis within capitalism as we know it) we are tasked with facilitating development of the local economy by attracting businesses to locate within our municipalities. Now, this doesn't mean that a developer should be granted a massive density bonus and permitted to build a high rise on a small parcel that is completely out of scale with the community. It does mean, however, that the pressure is always on to get those businesses in and get them on the tax roll.
This is why regional planning is SO important. Without it, you end up with the Prisoner's Dilemma. If we don't attract X business to locate here, then the municipality next door will, and all of our residents will jam those same highways as they drive to work to get to their jobs. See what I'm saying?
Sprawl is popular with planners; a lot of the existing zoning regulations are essentially designed to encourage it at the expense of higher density development, in fact. Developers like to develop high density rather than low density, so where is all the low density development coming from? The developers get shot down when they try increasing density by residents wielding planning guidelines, so they have to develop out.
I'd rather focus on concentrating building patterns - maybe by requiring developments to plan how transit vehicles will circulate at some future time, and requiring transit+bicycle accessibility in commercial and industrial. I see too much advocacy to stop sprawl that seems too much like dumping water on the floor then complaining that the floor is wet. If you create a rule telling people to do X, it is silly to then complain because they did X.
Thanks for so many well reasoned responses to my posts. Some are very good and provide a balance to my comments for others to read and evaluate. Some require rebuttal, but I don't want to appear to be contentious or argumentative. I will continue to monitor, and may respond eventually. I know the concept of "sprawl" is a problem to many, but so is the over-crowded deterioration of the inner city a problem to even more of us - and we are looking for solutions to the objectional elements of both.
I appreciate city planners' points on both sides of the connected city planning issues.
I really think it depends on the city as to what the best route to go in terms of promoting high vs. low density. In my hometown, Buffalo, there is not an overcrowded deterioration of the city, but a vast population depletion, due to the closing of many of the city's once thriving industrial factories and the growth of second and third ring suburbs and the subsidizing of highway after byway after skyway after thruway after expressway.
Buffalo is a city that planned outward instead of upward, so it is already very much low-density. Add to that thousands upon thousands of vacant properties and rings of suburbs and the problem is plain to see that there is not an overcrowding in the city. There's always plenty of open seats on buses and the lone subway line and living in Buffalo is probably up there as one of the most cost-effective city-living options in the country.
Businesses did follow people to the suburbs as many major operations in the Buffalo-Niagara region are in adjacent municipalities to the city. The problem I see with traffic is that people that live south of the city in outer-lying suburbs will drive to their jobs north of the city in outer-lying suburbs and vice versa. This is what causes traffic jams on the highways that surround the city more so than everyone flooding to the center.
I very much believe that smart growth principles, transit-oriented development, and a renewed sense of regionalism will be what keeps this metro area alive for the foreseeable future. Right now, the suburbs are detrimental to the city, not the other way around.
I guess I take exception, at least on a personal level, to anti-anti-sprawl rhetoric when people here work in one suburb, live in another, shop in another, recreate in another, then call themselves Buffalonians. All the while thinking I'm crazy for selling my car and using public transit.
Not that lower densities wouldn't remedy overcrowding, pollution, and sanitation in other metros, it's just that talking in absolutes is absolutely absurd...most of the time.
Simply put, it is smarter to build dense, and definitely less wise to build out. Not to mention environmentally destructive. (moreso than dense buildings)... Might I also mention the sense of community that is lacking in suburban areas when compared to really urban ones?
Just to play a little devil's advocate: do you think that density necessarily equals community? I've got some friends who moved down to the suburbs of Fort Worth, Texas because they wanted to be able to own their own homes (a virtual impossibility in New England, where we are from). They live in tract subdivisions that are of the kind that Duany rips apart in Suburban Nation. I went down to visit them and found that in spite of my preconceived notions, they and their neighbors know one another, have cookouts together, watch out for each other, and are by no means complete strangers. There is some actual social capital there... and folks were much warmer and friendlier than those in the Northeastern cities with which I'm familiar. Something to think about.
Agreed...assuming "high dwelling unit density" is directly correlated to "more community" is always a false correlation.
I'm sorry. Is my bias showing?
Every day is today. Yesterday is a myth and tomorrow an illusion.
I'm sure there is some density level that is on average most condusive to "best community". Sure homes on 5-acre lots aren't exactly the most condusive to this, but neither are apartment buildings where people constantly move in and out.
I'd say suburbs are much more friendlier and condusive to a sense of community. In one apartment, I knew no one out of 16 units. Another one, no one out of eight units. In another, no one out of sixteen units. In the last one, I knew four families out of sixteen units. I knew other people in the complexes, just not that many (if any) in the building I lived in.
In the 'burbs, I know everyone on my block, and a decent amount of people in the area. My experience in density wasn't all that grand.
I am a graduate student working on my master's thesis on this very topic. It is my opinion that the inner ring suburbs are deteriorating quickly and we continue to build outwards, with bigger homes of lesser quality. My idea is to identify potential neighborhoods for historic preservation built in the post-world war II era. I am using GIS to identify the neighborhoods and socio-economic factors to find the best candidates in a large city in Florida. The justification is that these homes are smaller, more affordable, in established neighborhoods, better built and closer to the central city. The method for preserving ideally would be a neighborhood conservation district or a less strict version of a historic district. Could this be a potential solution to existing suburb neighborhoods?
I think this is a blanket statement. Some inner-ring suburbs may be in a deteriorating state, but plenty of others are either already highly desirable or well on their way. Take Newton and Brookline outside of Boston, for example. Very wealthy, quite dense, with excellent schools and transit access. And what about cities that contain suburbs within their own municipalities? Take eastern Queens or most of Staten Island in NYC, for example. They contain dense "inner ring" suburbs that exist within the consolidated municipality itself. You can't even get a tiny house on a 1/4 acre lot for less than $400,000 in these places. North of NYC in Westchester, the bordering cities of Yonkers and New Rochelle are getting lots of redevelopment dollars poured into their downtowns by Trump and others. Developers are wising up... many are well-versed in sustainable design. The McMansion era is nearing its end.
I agree completly. There are some areas in the suburbs that are deteriorating just like there are inner-city neighborhoods deteriorating and small towns in rural areas that are nearly abandoned. I think it is a flaw in our judjement to assume that because something is "dense" or "suburban" or "inner city" makes it good or bad.
Over the past few decades, the trend in growth was away from the central city and towards the creation of satellite cities. These are urban areas (high density residential with large employment center) that are in the periphery of the central city. Usually, in a "gasp" suburban area. A large majority of new office and retail services are moving out to these areas. Why? Because population patterns have shifted resulting in a newer type of metropolitan wide urbanization. Trend are not stagnant and are always in flux. Thus, in Atlanta, populations (especially younger generations and a segment of retirees) are moving back into the central city. This is moving jobs and retail back into the city again, albeit at a slower rate compared to suburban growth.
That is all great from a theoretical standpoint but now lets move the discussion to market realities. With the new population increase in central cities and sattelite cities, there is a need for more housing product to meet the needs of the market. Thus, there was a housing boom for condominims and townhouses for people who desired the more urban experience. The only problem is that iti s difficult to determine the scope of a trend when you are reacting to market forces. Thus, developers saw a market opportunity and built product to meet the needs of these new "urbanites". At a point in time, because this all happend at real world speed and not planning theory speed, we have market saturation (too much inventory compared to true demand). That is part of the reason why there is a 33 month housing supply of high rise condominiums in Atlanta (the housing slump in the West Coast, Midwest, and Northeast has something to do with this as well, because people have more limited movement because they cannot sell a overvalued house). This all results in a drop in real estate prices in an area that should have a healthy market.
Why did I go through all of this...I am not quite sure (LOL just kidding). Suburban, urban, and rural deterioration are all part of market forces that are firmly based upon people's desire. If there was a desire for more urban styled living, developers would build it. If there was a desire to save that small rural town center that has no shops left because Wal-Mart moved in on the 4-lane, it would happen, but people do not want that. They want the low price guanantees over the need to keep your neighbor Jim in business. Needless to say, developers and business owners are in the business to make money and if they see a market niche, they are going to take advantage of it. Are there regulations that us beaurocrats make that prohibit market forces from acting, you betch ya, but we can be easily overturned by political decisions.
I'm sure you know that many codes strictly prohibit this - or at the very least make it much harder (and thus more expensive) to develop urban-styled living, and especially to redevelop other uses to urban-styled living. As long as these restrictions on the free market exist, of course there will be "less desire".If there was a desire for more urban styled living, developers would build it.
Market desire eventually trumps bureaucracy. There are some community activists, especially in suburban areas, where they continually lobby for "lower density" development. That may be appropriate in some areas, but it is ridiculous in others. A lot os it is location specific. Is the developer trying to provide this product on an old field in a more exurban area with poor access or are they putting it within a mile of an interstate highway? Too many times, developers have the right idea but the wrong location. That puts the citizen activists in a strong position to fight and gives the political decision makers no room to wiggle. It often times alters greatly when these same developments are near regional transportation infrastructure or town centers. Codes can get variances when a good product is proposed that does not fit the "normal" suburban model.
Point well taken, I am doing my thesis on a Southeastern city however, and all of your examples are in high demand areas in the Northeast. In fact, Brookline, Mass has a Neighborhood Conservation District that helps preserves its character. What I have noticed is that in Florida in particular since there is land available, its is inexpensive and there are roads that go into the central city, the growth is going outwards and homes were being built because there were buyers willing to pay. Thank goodness the McMansion era is ending, I think the real estate market bust has helped that along. My main concern is for those 'inner-ring' suburbs that are deteriorating, I think we are missing an opportunity for affordable homes, that aren't too big and already in established neighborhoods with infrastructure. My angle is to use historic preservation as a reason/method to preserve the quality of the neighborhoods that are deteriorating, keeping the homes modestly-sized and the neighborhood intact. I think that what makes a city is the choice of living environments that are within an area, so whether or not someone wants a high rise condo and a quarter acre lot with a SFR, it is up to them. The one with the higher demand will have the higher price. The lure of the inner-rings is that is close to the central city and still provides a single-family neighborhood environment.
Density doesn't automatically equal better community, just as lack of density doesn't automatically equal more safety.
It all depends on the neighborhood and the people. However the more dense neighborhoods always will have more of a community than the less dense neighborhood, if a community exists at all.
Quote
