http://american.com/archive/2010/january/the-war-against-suburbia (http://american.com/archive/2010/january/the-war-against-suburbia)
QuoteThe 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.
Interesting article...
QuoteIts 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.
More from the article...
QuoteWhat 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.â€
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.
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...
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.
and here's another one
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-bauer/american-suburbia-vs-the_b_426989.html
QuoteEven 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.
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2010, 03:24:51 PM
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 :-)
QuotePeople 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.
QuoteAnd 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?
Quote from: cline on January 21, 2010, 03:41:29 PM
QuotePeople 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.
QuoteNot 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.
I'll bring the beer... :)
QuoteBut 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.
There appears to be not much demand by families with children to live downtown. We have a choice here. If you live in NYC there are plenty of places to raise a familiy in the middle of the city. The burbs are pretty big there tho also...
My family loves living downtown. So does my daughter. It's the best playground in town!
Quote from: cline on January 21, 2010, 03:58:23 PM
QuoteBut 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.
correct cline...Parks has a community pool, its own internal pocket park to throw the ball around, and kids ride their bikes/skateboards on the internal driveway.
And of course there are multiple parks for kids in the area, like Metro Parks' Kids Kampus
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2010, 02:37:44 PM
...............Its just not really legal/permitted for them to raise small children in urban areas.
They are driven like cattle into the suburbs. Its hard to say that someone would choose that lifestyle.
If you consider the inconveniences of the suburbs (remoteness, expense, the average two hours spent per day in commutes, the lack of entertainment options, the lack of cultural institutions and opportunity) there has to be a very powerful trope that would make that hellish existence preferable to urban life.................
I'll guess your use of sarcasm was well intentioned. Either way you are making broad assumptions that may not hold true.
Not everybody’s commute is two hours a day. Not all jobs are downtown. Entertainment, restaurants, grocery stores and services follow the people.
What does downtown have?
Instead of fighting the burbs y’all would be better served making urban dwelling sound better to attract people that want to live there. SPAR arguments do not make it attractive. Bars and night clubs (the entertainment district) does not make it attractive to families. Complaining about the only grocery store does not make it sound attractive. High densities and rundown apartment buildings costing the city tax money do not sound attractive.
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2010, 03:53:45 PM
But you cannot raise a family in a single home in Downtown.
And its really hard to find a place to legally raise a family down here.
Raise a family in a single home or a single family house?
What about the Cathedral townhomes at Chruch and Market?
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2010, 04:27:29 PM..............Im glad that this discussion has expanded. Because I don't think people realize that most people are not really 'choosing' suburbia. They are having it chosen for them by a legal trope whose influence is so subtle but profound that they dont realize what is driving the choice itself.....
Not at all. I know people that moved to 210 from Mandarin because they wanted a bigger house and to get to St Johns county schools. I know people in Port Saint Joe, a town of 2,000, that sold out and moved to Wewa because it was getting too crowded. People are not staying away from downtown living cause of codes and zoning.
Personally zoning has nothing to do with my choice to live in burbs. I don't like all the concrete downtown. I don't like my neighbors sharing a wall of my house. I have had four vehicles and one driver. I could do that down town I just couldn't afford it.
I used to visit my Aunt who lived on the loop in Chicago. Didn't like it there either. Oh and that thing about connecting to your neighbors in higher densities, BS. You can ignore your neighbor next door in an apartment building just as easy as in the suburbs.
We used to have a row house in South St Louis. Porches in line and close to the street. Neighbor was a sidewalk away from the side wall of the house, both sides. The bells from the church tower were nice, but the noise from the neighbor shouting for her dog, kids, husband, etc I could do without. The drunks across the street were entertaining but not at 2am. There wasn't room for the cars in the garage. Everybody fought for the prime spots on the street. The locals would steal the downspouts off the garage in the alley. The gang down the street cornered a guy on our back step and were about to beat him down. We don't not live there because the zoning laws forced us out to the burbs.
QuoteMy family loves living downtown. So does my daughter. It's the best playground in town!
I think that is great! It is a choice you have made and you are happy with it. Same decision is made by those in the burbs...
MY point in this particular discussion is that there should not be an US against Them attitude by either the urbanists or the folks who choose otherwise.
Suppose for example... all the folks living in the burbs suddenly "saw the light" and decided to move to the core. What would happen to those cool lofts? What would happen to your quality of life? Do you really think 100,000 more folks in the core would be BETTER? For Who?
QuoteZoning controls where you live overstreet. By definition.
Disagree... Demand, cost and choice determine where people live.
Quote from: stephendare on January 21, 2010, 04:50:48 PM
But you really don't have a choice to live downtown even if you didnt like a particular kind of urban experience, right?
Take a look at our historic downtown. The hotels and giant business buildings were right next door to mansions and rooming houses. In particular pay attention to the lovely Homes on Duval Street and surrounding Hemming Park.
You don't have that choice now.
It would not be permitted.
But you can have that out in the suburbs to a certain extent.
The point is that you don't know what you would choose if it were legal and there were a few generations of like minded people who had already altered the landscape.
Zoning controls where you live overstreet. By definition................
It is a rhetorical statement.
QuoteAnd 'Choice" you do not have a true choice.
Of course I do. My wife and I are talking about our choices right now. I am intrigued by the possibility of living in the core of some city to be determined. I am also tossing about the idea of living in the Mountains of Carolina/Georgia/Tennessee. I have lived by the ocean... on both coasts... I have lived in the fly over states. The choices are endless...
I can live where I can afford, where I might enjoy life. I am only steered by my own limitations...
Why would I do that?
Especially in Springfield??? ;) :D
I don't understand why it's "not legal" to raise a family downtown....there are playgrounds at Kids Kampus and nearby in Springfield and Riverside...there are daycare centers downtown...and the area is zoned for schools.
To my knowledge, a few of the Cathedral buildings are 55+ where kids are not allowed...but those communities exist in the suburbs too....I'm not aware of any restrictions on children in other downtown complexes.
What am I missing?
We really don't have an equal choice here because many of the qualities that make urban living attractive don't exist in Jax. The schools tend to suck, mass transit is horrible and there are limited walkable mixed-use neighborhoods due to urban renewal and auto-oriented zoning regulations. Imo, Jax's urban challenge is to establish and build an urban core that offers the quality-of-life aspects associated with urban living. Imo, this is also bigger than just isolating DT by itself. Places like Durkeeville, LaVilla, Brooklyn, New Springfield and the Eastside are just as important as DT, Riverside, Springfield and San Marco to the success or failure of the urban living in Jacksonville.
Provide dependable mass transit, demand pedestrian oriented development throughout the entire urban core, upgrade the decaying infrastructure, parks and schools and I promise you, many forced to live in our burbs right know will consider the urban option.
Like others have stated, I believe everyone should have the choice to choose the type of environment they want to reside in but we do need to level the playing field. Right now its heavily stacked towards the automobile instead of the pedestrian.
I agree Lake but...
QuoteThe schools tend to suck, mass transit is horrible and there are limited walkable mixed-use neighborhoods due to urban renewal and auto-oriented zoning regulations.
This statement could and does apply to the burbs as well.
You are not alone.
However, it is expected that the burbs would not have good mass transit and poor walkability. These are a few factors that make urban living different from suburban living. Right now Jacksonville does not really give people options. With "few" exceptions, those in urban areas have to drive just as much as those in the burbs to get to anything in this city. This is where things need to change locally. We need to provide the basic elements essential to the urban lifestyle if we really want to give people a fair choice.
Jacksonville is sort of an exception regarding the issues you cite. I have lived in and been to many other cities in this country where those options do exist. My argument is against the "war on suburbia". Not that jacksonville does not need a vibrant, livable downtown. The two should be able to co exist.
They say 1/3 of the general population prefers to live urban, 1/3 suburban/rural and the remaining 1/3 doesn't care either way. I agree, the suburbia and a vibrant livable urban city should be able to co-exist.
QuoteIt wasnt a natural choice. It was one we created, and all this chatter about suburbia having 'voted with their feet' is nonsense.
The fact of the matter is they have a choice now. The thousands of people that live in St. Johns County and Nocatee and those areas are not clamoring to move back into the urban core even though there are housing options available for them there. They are choosing to stay in suburbia. Evidently, some people like it there, just like other like living in the core or neighborhoods surrounding the core. That's why its important to have options. Just like lake said, some people like the burbs, some like urban envionments.
QuoteWhere in the downtown would you move 30 thousand single family residents? There is plenty of open land, my friend. But there isnt enough land where the use is permitted.
I'm pretty sure that if 30k people were beating down the door to build single family residences in downtown, they could rally and get a zoning or land use change pushed through so that they could do it over in LaVilla or Brooklyn.
Families left downtown long before they were "zoned out". They were not outlawed or chased out. They left for a variety of reasons many of which were valid then. Many cities have plenty of single family homes. Stephen you have lived in more than a few of these cities. Jacksonville seems to not be one of those places. One of the main focuses of this site is to help re create that livability/vibrancy. I believe in it, I endorse it, and I promote it in my way. As you know I currently live in the suburbs... but I enjoy the urban landscape. I frequent the businesses downtown and would like nothing more than to see it succeed.
Quote from: stephendare on January 22, 2010, 09:49:19 AM
In the meantime the crushing taxation of the urban cores (plus the negative pressures put on customers and businesses) and the bizarre nit picky public policies governing daily life provided an extra push to people to move out to the cheaper land and less taxed lifestyle of the burbs.
Moving to the unincorporated areas means that you don't have to pay the higher taxes of the city, despite being able to take advantage of its infrastructure. The house that you build for 250k today is then subject to low or no property tax in comparison to the smaller house that you buy in San Marco for 250k (land being more valuable in the core)
But 20 years later, you have paid the price of another home in taxes if you bought in San Marco. In the unincorporated suburb, you have paid a fraction of it.
Is this type of taxation not in line with the concept of progressive taxation?
Your following posts make for a compelling arguement, however.
I agree with most of what you say Stephen. MY POINT... is there need not be a "war" on suburbia. Suburbia does not need to be denigrated or frowned upon to make the urban core a better place for everyone. To make downtown a livable destination the goal shold be to convince suburbanites that a healthy core is good for them also... NOT that they are someone to be fought against.
Cool... :) Have a great weekend! I intend to enjoy some watering holes downtown tonight! ;D