War against suburbia

[JMac]

http://american.com/archive/2010/january/the-war-against-suburbia

The lesson here is that political movements ignore suburbanites at their peril. For the better part of a century, Americans have been voting with their feet, moving inexorably away from the central cities and towards the suburban periphery. Today a solid majority of Americans live in suburbs and exurbs, more than countryside residents and urbanites combined.

[BridgeTroll]

Interesting article...

[BridgeTroll]

Its interesting if you don't know what truly drives suburban sprawl, Ill grant you BT

I am sure it is a combination of factors... many of which are mentioned in the article.  I believe even you recently shifted your opinion regarding the auto and its influence on sprawl.

What has always bothered me is that it need not be a "war" on suburbia... simply a change in mindset regarding the desireability in living in an urban core.  Both have advantages and disadvantages.  One area should not be preferred or neglected at the expense of the other.

[BridgeTroll]

More from the article...

What Do the Suburbanites Want?

In their assessments, few density advocates bother to consider whether most suburbanites would like to give up their leafy backyards for dense apartment blocks. Many urban boosters simply could not believe that, once given an urban option, anyone would choose to live in suburbia.

Jane Jacobs, for example, believed that “suburbs must be a difficult place to raise children.” Yet had Jacobs paid as much attention to suburbs as she did to her beloved Greenwich Village, she would have discovered that they possess their own considerable appeal, most particularly for people with children. “If suburban life is undesirable,” noted Gans in 1969, “the suburbanites themselves seem blissfully unaware of it.”

Ownership of a single-family home would become increasingly the province only of the highly affluent.Contrary to much of the current media hype, most Americans continue to prefer suburban living. Indeed for four decades, according to numerous surveys, the portion of the population that prefers to live in a big city has consistently been in the 10 to 20 percent range, while roughly 50 percent or more opt for suburbs or exurbs. The reasons? The simple desire for privacy, quiet, safety, good schools, and closer-knit communities. The single-family house, detested by many urbanists, also exercises a considerable pull. Surveys by the National Association of Realtors and the National Association of Home Builders find that some 83 percent of potential buyers prefer this kind of dwelling over a townhouse or apartment.

In other words, suburbs have expanded because people like them. A 2008 Pew study revealed that suburbanites displayed the highest degree of satisfaction with where they lived compared to those who lived in cities, small towns, and the countryside. This contradicts another of the great urban legends of the 20th centuryâ€"espoused by urbanists, planning professors, and pundits and portrayed in Hollywood moviesâ€"that suburbanites are alienated, autonomous individuals, while city dwellers have a deep sense of belonging and connection to their neighborhoods.

Indeed on virtually every measurementâ€"from jobs and environment to familiesâ€"suburban residents express a stronger sense of identity and civic involvement with their communities than those living in cities. One recent University of California at Irvine study found that density does not, as is often assumed, increase social contact between neighbors or raise overall social involvement. For every 10 percent reduction in density, the chances of people talking to their neighbors increases by 10 percent, and their likelihood of belonging to a local club by 15 percent.

These preferences have helped make suburbanization the predominant trend in virtually every region of the country. Even in Portland, Oregon, a city renowned for its urban-oriented policy, barely 10 percent of all population growth this decade has occurred within the city limits, while more than 90 percent has taken place in the suburbs over the past decade. Ironically, one contributing factor has been the demands of urbanites themselves, who want to preserve historic structures and maintain relatively modest densities in their neighborhoods.

[BridgeTroll]

I do not deny the self serving source... but that is the point of the article.

Are you saying that the lack of housing opportunities in the cores of cities causes prices to be too high to afford?  If so I would agree...

[BridgeTroll]

I assume you cannot... legally.  But even if you could legally build in, for example, La Villa... Would you advocate that sort of use for that plot of land?  I am guessing you would not favor suburban style "McMansions" being built there.

[tufsu1]

and here's another one

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-bauer/american-suburbia-vs-the_b_426989.html

[BridgeTroll]

Even if I did want a McMansion (for the record I think downtown villas and mansions are an awesome thing.)  I don't legally have that choice.

In most cities you would not have a choice... legal or not.  Usually there is not enough space available.  As you are well aware... Springfield and Riverside were once "suburbs".  People moved there for the same reason people continue to move outward.  The independence of automobile travel aided and abetted that movement.

[tufsu1]

duanys solution is wrong incidentally

I'm sure he'd love to talk to you about it...and since I know both of you, I think it would b quite entertatining :-)

[cline]

People are legally forced to move to the burbs.

Its really more of a lifestyle choice.  If you want to live on a 1 acre lot in a 3000 sq. ft. ranch-style home, then you're going to have to move to the suburbs.  If you prefer a more dense environment (condos, townhome etc.) then you can chose the core.  People living in suburbia legally can't decide they want to live in a 50 story highrise and stay in the suburbs.  

[BridgeTroll]

And people are not moving to the suburbs for the same reason they moved to Springfield.

So... why did they move to Springfield and Riverside etc?

[Overstreet]

People are legally forced to move to the burbs.

Its really more of a lifestyle choice.  If you want to live on a 1 acre lot in a 3000 sq. ft. ranch-style home, then you're going to have to move to the suburbs.  If you prefer a more dense environment (condos, townhome etc.) then you can chose the core.  People living in suburbia legally can't decide they want to live in a 50 story highrise and stay in the suburbs.  

Not quite true. You can have a condo/apartment downtown and a  place in the suburbs. There's no law against that.

[cline]

Not quite true. You can have a condo/apartment downtown and a  place in the suburbs. There's no law against that.

This is true also.

[BridgeTroll]

I'll bring the beer...

[cline]

But you cannot raise a family in a single home in Downtown.

So you're saying you couldn't raise a family in Berkman Plaza?  Or what about City Place, I know I've seen kids in there before.  There's also the old firestation that would certainly be large enough to raise a family.  Also, there is the Parks at the Cathedral.  I know for a fact there are families there.