Living Car Free - NY Times: In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars

This article was on the front section of the NY Times web site today. Interesting concept, but the articles mentions developments in the US too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.html?_r=1&hp

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/05/11/science/12suburb_600.JPG



In German Suburb, Life Goes on Without Cars

VAUBAN, Germany — Residents of this upscale community are suburban pioneers, going where few soccer moms or commuting executives have ever gone before: they have given up their cars.

Cars are forbidden on most of Vauban's streets, and houses cannot have driveways or garages.

Vauban, which was completed in 2006, has 5,500 residents.

Street parking, driveways and home garages are generally forbidden in this experimental new district on the outskirts of Freiburg, near the French and Swiss borders. Vauban’s streets are completely “car-free” — except the main thoroughfare, where the tram to downtown Freiburg runs, and a few streets on one edge of the community. Car ownership is allowed, but there are only two places to park — large garages at the edge of the development, where a car owner buys a space, for $40,000, along with a home.

As a result, 70 percent of Vauban’s families do not own cars, and 57 percent sold a car to move here. “When I had a car I was always tense. I’m much happier this way,” said Heidrun Walter, a media trainer and mother of two, as she walked verdant streets where the swish of bicycles and the chatter of wandering children drown out the occasional distant motor.

Vauban, completed in 2006, is an example of a growing trend in Europe, the United States and elsewhere to separate suburban life from auto use, as a component of a movement called “smart planning.”

Automobiles are the linchpin of suburbs, where middle-class families from Chicago to Shanghai tend to make their homes. And that, experts say, is a huge impediment to current efforts to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from tailpipes, and thus to reduce global warming. Passenger cars are responsible for 12 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe and up to 50 percent in some car-intensive areas in the United States.

While there have been efforts in the past two decades to make cities denser, and better for walking, planners are now taking the concept to the suburbs and focusing specifically on environmental benefits like reducing emissions. Vauban, home to 5,500 residents within a rectangular square mile, may be the most advanced experiment in low-car suburban life. But its basic precepts are being adopted around the world in attempts to make suburbs more compact and more accessible to public transportation, with less space for parking. In this new approach, stores are placed a walk away, on a main street, rather than in malls along some distant highway.

“All of our development since World War II has been centered on the car, and that will have to change,” said David Goldberg, an official of Transportation for America, a fast-growing coalition of hundreds of groups in the United States promoting new communities that are less dependent on cars. Mr. Goldberg added: “How much you drive is as important as whether you have a hybrid.”

Levittown and Scarsdale, New York suburbs with spread-out homes and private garages, were the dream towns of the 1950s and still exert appeal. But some new suburbs may well look more Vauban-like, not only in developed countries but also in the developing world, where emissions from an increasing number of private cars owned by the burgeoning middle class are choking cities.

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is promoting “car reduced” communities. Many experts expect public transport serving suburbs to play a much larger role in a six-year federal transportation bill to be approved this year, Mr. Goldberg said. In previous bills, 80 percent of appropriations have by law gone to highways.

In California, the Hayward Area Planning Association is developing a Vauban-like community called Quarry Village on the outskirts of Oakland, accessible without a car to the Bay Area Rapid Transit system and the California State University’s campus in Hayward.

Sherman Lewis, a professor emeritus at Cal State and a leader of the association, says he “can’t wait to move in” and hopes Quarry Village will allow his family to reduce its car ownership from two to one, or even none. But the current system is still stacked against the project, he said, noting that mortgage lenders worry about resale value of half-million-dollar homes that have no place for cars, and most zoning laws still require two parking spaces per residential unit.

Besides, convincing people to give up their cars is often an uphill run. “People in the U.S. are incredibly suspicious of any idea where people are not going to own cars, or are going to own fewer,” said David Ceaser, a founder of CarFree City USA, who said no car-free suburban project the size of Vauban had succeeded in the United States.

In Europe, some governments are thinking on a national scale. In 2000, Great Britain began a comprehensive effort to reform planning, to discourage car use by requiring that new development be accessible by public transit.

“Development comprising jobs, shopping, leisure and services should not be designed and located on the assumption that the car will represent the only realistic means of access for the vast majority of people,” said PPG 13, the British government’s revolutionary 2001 planning document. Dozens of shopping malls, fast-food restaurants and housing compounds have been refused planning permits based on the new British regulations.

In Germany, a country that is home to Mercedes-Benz and the autobahn, life in a car-reduced place like Vauban has its own unusual gestalt. It is long and relatively narrow, so that the tram into Freiburg is an easy walk from every home. Stores, restaurants, banks and schools are more interspersed among homes than they are in a typical suburb. Most residents, like Ms. Walter, have carts that they haul behind bicycles for shopping trips or children’s play dates.

For trips to stores like Ikea or the ski slopes, families buy cars together or use communal cars rented out by Vauban’s car-sharing club. Ms. Walter had previously lived — with a private car — in Freiburg as well as the United States.

“If you have one, you tend to use it,” she said. “Some people move in here and move out rather quickly — they miss the car next door.”

Vauban, the site of a former Nazi army base, was occupied by the French Army from the end of World War II until the reunification of Germany two decades ago. Because it was planned as a base, the grid was never meant to accommodate private car use: the “roads” were narrow passageways between barracks.

The original buildings have long since been torn down. The stylish row houses that replaced them are buildings of four or five stories, designed to reduce heat loss and maximize energy efficiency, and trimmed with exotic woods and elaborate balconies; free-standing homes are forbidden.

By nature, people who buy homes in Vauban are inclined to be green guinea pigs — indeed, more than half vote for the German Green Party. Still, many say it is the quality of life that keeps them here.

Henk Schulz, a scientist who on one afternoon last month was watching his three young children wander around Vauban, remembers his excitement at buying his first car. Now, he said, he is glad to be raising his children away from cars; he does not worry much about their safety in the street.

Already, Vauban has become a well-known niche community, even if it has spawned few imitators in Germany. But whether the concept will work in California is an open question.

More than 100 would-be owners have signed up to buy in the Bay Area’s “car-reduced” Quarry Village, and Mr. Lewis is still looking for about $2 million in seed financing to get the project off the ground.

But if it doesn’t work, his backup proposal is to build a development on the same plot that permits unfettered car use. It would be called Village d’Italia.

I doubt that very many places in the US would be able to make this concept work. Personally, I'd jump at the chance to live in such a community.

I doubt that very many places in the US would be able to make this concept work. Personally, I'd jump at the chance to live in such a community.

The article didn't mention any suburban places in the U.S. or Germany where this concept is working besides the small suburban enclave (5000 residents) of Vauban.

Note, I am familiar with the area, my daughter went to the University in Freiburg for two years while I lived less than two hours away by train or autobahn. Vauban is only a few kilometers from the city of Freiburg and has good tram line service in place direct to the city, University and Freiburg's excellent train/tram service to anywhere and everything.

Problem to me occurs in the first line:
Residents of this upscale community are That means to me that it will be unaffordable housing and if they attempt to put in any type of commercial district the employees of those establishments will not be able to afford to live near where they work. Just like most of the quasi New Urbanism developments I have seen in the US.

Aaron:)

Problem to me occurs in the first line: That means to me that it will be unaffordable housing and if they attempt to put in any type of commercial district the employees of those establishments will not be able to afford to live near where they work. Just like most of the quasi New Urbanism developments I have seen in the US.

Aaron:)

Not necessarily. I live in an all ( or most) incomes community with many car-free people. Some consider it upscale because of the high prices for single family homes but there are also rental apartment buildings and condos for the
lower income people. I've mentioned before that on my block I have Lawyers, Professors a city council member, and maids and restaurant workers. Within two blocks we have had a congressman make his DC home. I don't know how urban planners can force such a community. From the historic walking tour of my neighborhood I get the idea that the demographics came from the '60s social activism. The anti-war people congregated here and did things like form housing co-ops, and do other social justice things outside the market economy. Urban planners seem so wedded to the real estate interests they probably can't grasp the non-profit housing cooperative concept or the idea that public space can enhance quality of life.

Not necessarily. I live in an all ( or most) incomes community with many car-free people. Some consider it upscale because of the high prices for single family homes but there are also rental apartment buildings and condos for the
lower income people. I've mentioned before that on my block I have Lawyers, Professors a city council member, and maids and restaurant workers. Within two blocks we have had a congressman make his DC home. I don't know how urban planners can force such a community. From the historic walking tour of my neighborhood I get the idea that the demographics came from the '60s social activism. The anti-war people congregated here and did things like form housing co-ops, and do other social justice things outside the market economy. Urban planners seem so wedded to the real estate interests they probably can't grasp the non-profit housing cooperative concept or the idea that public space can enhance quality of life.

The area you live is an exception for the most part. A lot of what is around you was established before the car became king. I am referring to places like Old Village in Mount Pleasant, SC. It is a "new" way to live:rolleyes: but the houses are expensive ($300k and up) and there is little mass transit. The clerks that work in the local stores at the heart of the subdivision damn sure cannot afford to live near where they work. I see it time and time again in the "planned" communities that real estate developers keep building. There are quite a few near my office. There is one little town that would be nice to live in I could probably cycle to the office (when I am there) but the median income and median house price is over double what I make and can afford. Until they are willing to accommodate everyone from minimum wage worker to CEO it won't fly in my book, they either need to figure out a way to provide affordable housing, or better mass transit. It is nothing but the suburbs with a new name on them.

Aaron:)

I am referring to places like Old Village in Mount Pleasant, SC. It is a "new" way to live:rolleyes: but the houses are expensive ($300k and up) and there is little mass transit.
How do the residents get around or leave town if there are restrictions/barriers to car ownership and little mass transit?

Great idea - however it sounds like the homeowners association from hell.

No garages? I mean honestly. That is where I work on my bikes!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.html?em

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

I wonder if this concept will ever catch on in the US. I hope so, but I can't see it even being seriously considered until gas reach the European price (about $7.50/gal).

This article got double posted, so I'll post on this thread too.

I REALLY like the idea and I'm glad to see it works somewhere. However, the infrastructure was already in place and it doesn't sound like it's marketed toward all economic levels.

I would love to see this work in the US, but I don't think it would gain serious consideration until gas went to $7.50/gal.

I saw this in the Times today, as well, and emailed it to several friends. I think the idea could work in the US; I know enough people here in NYC who do not own cars, and we've got a fairly good public transportation system that allows us to do without them, plus a car-sharing company (Zipcar) for those times when you have to get away or haul lots of equipment. My own neighborhood has many shops, restaurants, bars, schools, hospitals, and churches all within a ten-minute walk, and most within a three-minute walk. There's a subway two minutes away (which connects to JFK Airport besides most of the city) and five bus routes within 15 minutes. I haven't owned a car since 1991. It's not unthinkable...

I see it time and time again in the "planned" communities that real estate developers keep building. There are quite a few near my office. There is one little town that would be nice to live in I could probably cycle to the office (when I am there) but the median income and median house price is over double what I make and can afford. Until they are willing to accommodate everyone from minimum wage worker to CEO it won't fly in my book, they either need to figure out a way to provide affordable housing, or better mass transit. It is nothing but the suburbs with a new name on them.

Aaron:)
I know the type of planned community you describe. Funny thing- In my neighborhood there is a block that is walled in with a security guard. I went to
a get together there once. After you get past the guard you're in a parking lot surrounded by what looks exactly like a suburban townhome development. I don't know when it was built. 25 years or so ago the park across the street was a nasty open air heroin market according to the Wash. Post so you can understand the paranoia if it was built back then. Today it just looks weird and out of place. Its especially weird because the parking lot is the only thing like community space, there are no yards even. The guard must be protecting the parked cars and asphalt.

How do the residents get around or leave town if there are restrictions/barriers to car ownership and little mass transit?

They have garages and secured parking lots on the perimeter. The design isn't too bad but the pricing structure sucks.

Aaron:)

I wonder if this concept will ever catch on in the US. .

Great post! If not forced, car-free will be argued about endlessly. San Francisco Chronicle had a small area planned as a pedestrian only or car-free zone today After reading a few comments- indecision is obvious! Sadly this lifestyle probably will not catch on.

Oops -

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/12/BARL17IHQN.DTL

It's a trap!

There are already plenty of communities like this for all practical purposes in the poor sections of US cities....just without the price gouging or class elitism. You can get your groceries delivered by horse drawn cart where I live...if you don't run away in a classist, racist fit.

Face it folks, the heart of the environmental issue of car ownership is conspicuous waste and the elitism it represents.

I visited this neighborhood when I was in Freiburg last summer. There is also a nice carfree zone in the center of the downtown area. The orchestra I was touring with played in a church there, =)

I like the article and thanks for posting.

What makes that whole German Suburb possible is the tram. Without that train, there's is no way you would get people to live there without cars. You can live just like those people by simply moving within blocks of a tram stop.

If I were living near that town, I would move there quick!

I doubt that very many places in the US would be able to make this concept work.

Car-Free in America? (http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/carless-in-america/)

A NY Times blog asked some urban planners and developers for some of their thoughts on that.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

I wonder if this concept will ever catch on in the US. I hope so, but I can't see it even being seriously considered until gas reach the European price (about $7.50/gal).


I actually think it has less to do with the price of gasoline and more to do with congestion and more balanced use of resources. Cheaper gas means more people may feel free to drive but more drivers means more cars clogging streets and parking spaces. Eventually that becomes the issue- not the cost of gas.

Car-Free in America? (http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/carless-in-america/)

A NY Times blog asked some urban planners and developers for some of their thoughts on that.

I've been to the place in the photograph in the blog. My thought on biking up to the store was "Nice try but something doesn't feel right." With the plaza segregated from the the businesses by the loop road, it seems that the plaza was designed to be looked at or counted as "open space" in some formula but not used for anything. I see this in other modern developments, where the plazas seem protected from people by busy roads. Sometimes they put the bike racks in the plaza rather than infront of the stores so bikers are required to dodge cars. I think when I visited I didn't have good bike parking. The main street is to the right of the photo. Perhaps the space would be more welcoming if the Barnes&Nobel were on the road and the plaza out back without a road separating it from the people.

There's an interesting follow-up opinion piece featuring comments from several urban planners and public policy folks (as well as a big photo of an "urban village" in my home city...)...http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/carless-in-america/

I like the article and thanks for posting.

What makes that whole German Suburb possible is the tram. Without that train, there's is no way you would get people to live there without cars. You can live just like those people by simply moving within blocks of a tram stop.



What makes the viability of Vauban possible is the excellent public transportation network in Freiburg that the tram line to Vauban is a part. This includes the reliable and frequent intercity service from the Main Train Station right in the heart of Freiburg 17 minutes away by streetcar. Presumably that tram line was established back when Vauban was a major French Army base, if not before. When I was there some of the French Buildings in Vauban were still being used as dormitories for the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.



http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/en?ld=212.143&seqnr=2&ident=hy.030770143.1242236584&rt=1&application=CONNECTIONS&sortConnections=minDeparture

There's an interesting follow-up opinion piece featuring comments from several urban planners and public policy folks (as well as a big photo of an "urban village" in my home city...)...http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/carless-in-america/

This has some great opinions. Like Witold Rybczynski :



There are only six American downtown districts that are dense enough to support mass transit, which you need if you’re going to be carless: New York City (Midtown and Downtown), Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and San Francisco. That’s it. The breaking-point for density and mass transit feasibility seems to be about 50 persons per acre, which means families living in flats and apartments, rather than single-family houses, even row houses. Not necessarily high-rise apartments, but at least walk-ups.

Since most Americans still prefer living in houses, this is a problem — at least as far as carlessness is concerned. A more realistic goal for most Americans would be a semi-carless community, that is, one that is walkable within the neighborhood for convenience shopping, school-going and errands, and drivable for weekly shopping, consumer purchases and so on. A combination of twins, townhouses and low-rise apartments. Think of it as a halfway house.



or Alex Marshall


It does seem that cars have gone from being instruments of freedom, to being pests, much of the time. I remember an ad that New York University was running for a while. It showed a young woman with words like this above her head: “I’ll never be bored, and I’ll never have to drive a car.”

What a change. Can you imagine that flying in China, where the emerging middle and upper classes are hungering for driving? Here, as the ad shows, cars are something we are escaping from.

What makes the viability of Vauban possible is the excellent public transportation network in Freiburg that the tram line to Vauban is a part. This includes the reliable and frequent intercity service from the Main Train Station right in the heart of Freiburg 17 minutes away by streetcar. Presumably that tram line was established back when Vauban was a major French Army base, if not before. When I was there some of the French Buildings in Vauban were still being used as dormitories for the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.



http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/en?ld=212.143&seqnr=2&ident=hy.030770143.1242236584&rt=1&application=CONNECTIONS&sortConnections=minDeparture

So what's your take on this? Is Vauban just another yuppie dream? Is it something that could be successful.... at least in other European cities?

Germany is the best country in the world.

So what's your take on this? Is Vauban just another yuppie dream? Is it something that could be successful.... at least in other European cities?

Yuppie Dream to build new suburban housing communities for families, without provision for the residents to park vehicles near their home; especially unlikely if there is no existing means for reliable all weather 24/7transportation from the new community to the rest of the world.

People with money will not want to be isolated in a suburban island without convenient access to their private automobiles for vacations, night life, and traveling in comfort and reliability to places other than work and a grocery store. People without money will not be buying new homes in the suburbs.

Yuppie Dream to build new suburban housing communities for families, without provision for the residents to park vehicles near their home; especially unlikely if there is no existing means for reliable all weather 24/7transportation from the new community to the rest of the world.

People with money will not want to be isolated in a suburban island without convenient access to their private automobiles for vacations, night life, and traveling in comfort and reliability to places other than work and a grocery store. People without money will not be buying new homes in the suburbs.

There are no young yuppies and the yuppie dream is dying. The new dream is to live in a community that provides for human needs without the need to aimlessly wander the landscape. Every year more people are figuring out that the old dream is really a nightmare. And even a dream has to be based in reality. The new reality is that the resources to provide personal cars for nine billion people do not exist.

http://www.punkvinyl.com/images/blightcd.jpg
(image from punkvinyl (http://www.punkvinyl.com/tag/cd/))

I'm making my way through the 400+ posts in the article thread. It's great reading about how different people (mostly in the US) have made it work.

I doubt that very many places in the US would be able to make this concept work. Personally, I'd jump at the chance to live in such a community.



..... I live in an all ( or most) incomes community with many car-free people. Some consider it upscale because of the high prices for single family homes but there are also rental apartment buildings and condos for the
lower income people. I've mentioned before that on my block I have Lawyers, Professors a city council member, and maids and restaurant workers. Within two blocks we have had a congressman make his DC home. I don't know how urban planners can force such a community. From the historic walking tour of my neighborhood I get the idea that the demographics came from the '60s social activism. The anti-war people congregated here and did things like form housing co-ops, and do other social justice things outside the market economy. Urban planners seem so wedded to the real estate interests they probably can't grasp the non-profit housing cooperative concept or the idea that public space can enhance quality of life.


The area you live is an exception for the most part. A lot of what is around you was established before the car became king. I am referring to places like Old Village in Mount Pleasant, SC. It is a "new" way to live:rolleyes: but the houses are expensive ($300k and up) and there is little mass transit. The clerks that work in the local stores at the heart of the subdivision damn sure cannot afford to live near where they work. I see it time and time again in the "planned" communities that real estate developers keep building. There are quite a few near my office. There is one little town that would be nice to live in I could probably cycle to the office (when I am there) but the median income and median house price is over double what I make and can afford. Until they are willing to accommodate everyone from minimum wage worker to CEO it won't fly in my book, they either need to figure out a way to provide affordable housing, or better mass transit. It is nothing but the suburbs with a new name on them.

Aaron:)



It's a trap!

There are already plenty of communities like this for all practical purposes in the poor sections of US cities....just without the price gouging or class elitism. You can get your groceries delivered by horse drawn cart where I live...if you don't run away in a classist, racist fit.

Face it folks, the heart of the environmental issue of car ownership is conspicuous waste and the elitism it represents.

For the purposes of this post, I decided to visit a now poor area of old Los Angeles (the original developed "surburban" housing tracts built between the late 1800s and 1929. I chose a house that encompasses a more saner (not being a pack-rat and running to the mall every week for junk) lifestyle and no driveway or garage even for a single car. This house has been remodeled and will probably house a now poor recent immigrant or cheapskate very soon. I was lucky to snap these shots before it is occupied. So as you can see in these photos, a sane non-car detached private non-communal walls simple 1 bedroom (with bonus room) plus a level easy to maintain front and back yards house can be had then and even now. Some of that particular house's information from Zillow.com:

Public Facts:

* Single family
* 1 beds
* 1.0 bath
* 644 sqft
* Lot 1,420 sqft
* Built in 1924

Recently Sold: $106,829

Down payment:
% ($21,366)

Include estimated taxes and insurance
Estimated payment: $478

Monthly Payment: $ 478

More Information On Property:

Estimated Value: $308,500

* Value Range: $225,205 - $354,775
* 30-day change: $10,000
* Estimate updated: 05/27/2009

Sold 07/11/2008:
$106,829 *
2008 Property Tax:
$4,056
(My guess someone walked away from the house)

Walk Score™: 74 – Very Walkable

(Keep In Mind That The House Is Located In The City Of Los Angeles Where Housing Prices For Any Piece Of Junk Is Very, Very High Even Now Even With The Burst Housing Bubble. A 1 Bedroom apartment in the same area goes for 800 dollars or more a month (plus utilities) with absolutely no privacy like even this little house offers.

The point of this visit is to show that people did live near jobs & transportation (trolleys) even here in Los Angeles until the waves of desperate immigrants and the resulting crime-along with their addictions for privately owned cars-pushed them to the farthest reaches of the Basin. Perhaps a more protected communities will spring up as need and demand surfaces again. Just as the rise of the suburbs occurred due to Xenophobia and lusting for huge overrated housing.

There are no young yuppies and the yuppie dream is dying. The new dream is to live in a community that provides for human needs without the need to aimlessly wander the landscape. Every year more people are figuring out that the old dream is really a nightmare. And even a dream has to be based in reality. The new reality is that the resources to provide personal cars for nine billion people do not exist.

http://www.punkvinyl.com/images/blightcd.jpg
(image from punkvinyl (http://www.punkvinyl.com/tag/cd/))

Yuppie=Young Urban Professional: If there aren't any young ones there aren't any at all.

How can one need to wander the landscape aimlessly? Wouldn't the aimless part obviate the need part of that construction?

Beyond that, I rather relish the chances I have to wander the landscape aimlessly; that's a good ride, in my opinion.

Yeah, my life in suburbia is such a nightmare.

F

Public Facts:

* Single family
* 1 beds
* 1.0 bath
* 644 sqft

More Information On Property:

Estimated Value: $308,500


Sold 07/11/2008:
$106,829 *

Two thoughts:
1. What family wants a one bedroom, one bath house?

2. This house tripled in value in less than a year?

Something is not kosher here.

Two thoughts:
1. What family wants a one bedroom, one bath house?

2. This house tripled in value in less than a year?

Something is not kosher here.

I can tell you for sure that this particular house's history is rather spotty. Since it was sold almost a year ago, no one has lived in it. There was a sign posted or taped on the door asking the "occupants" (whatever that means since from the photos you will easily see that there is obviously no one there) to let the real estate office know about them living there. Because of Eminent Domain (United States), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (South Africa and Canada) or land acqusition (India) in common law legal systems, this particular property in question is located just 2 doors down from a school and 2 blocks from a busy intersection with businesses makes a poor choice in purchasing for a long term living-in and/or investment. That simply means it is a matter of time whether someone will exercise this legal option and take the property away. And I would be stuck looking for something similiar which might not be available at that price or a similar house at a nearby ideal commuting centralized location (both freeway & mass transit). That is why I passed on it.

You will be surprised at what people will cram into when they want to. My parents once stuffed themselves, 3 children, a single mother and son, 1 divorced brother & rather sickly sister of their's, and an wide assortment of animals into a similar sized house and yard back in the 1960s! Around that particular considered-to-be-purchased house's area, families have and will continue to stuff themselves into the tiniest places meant for a single person or no more than a couple. This little house has a "Bonus" room directly off the Living Room which can easily cram the kids in. But since I don't have children to worry about, I am not limited by the traditional suburban lifestyle, housing tracts, and neighborhood schools limitations that a traditional family usually goes by. I want a house that is detached single family type yet compact, low on upkeep, mortgage payments, property taxes, and has private accesses for personal security additions when and if I move in.

I selected this example as a lower property taxed, low maintenance, private and cheap for the Los Angeles area. And my bikes can fit very well into the house without a need for a garage or a driveway.

Yuppie=Young Urban Professional: If there aren't any young ones there aren't any at all.

How can one need to wander the landscape aimlessly? Wouldn't the aimless part obviate the need part of that construction?

Beyond that, I rather relish the chances I have to wander the landscape aimlessly; that's a good ride, in my opinion.

Yeah, my life in suburbia is such a nightmare.

Too bad you pick on one poorly worded phrase (wander aimlessly) instead of responding to the clearly intended meaning of a post. I see you also got uptight about somebody's spelling in a post. Boring. :(

Let me try again. Many young professionals today are choosing to live in dense urban areas (or older suburban areas) instead of roomier suburban areas. The main reason they give for tis choice is that they enjoy having locations that are closer together.

I certainly didn't mean to criticize your choice of a living situation. As a matter of fact, I don't even know where or how you live.

As for the word yuppie, I have not heard that word used in several years. I wasn't aware that people were still describing themselves as yuppies. thank you for the correction.

Too bad you pick on one poorly worded phrase (wander aimlessly) instead of responding to the clearly intended meaning of a post. I see you also got uptight about somebody's spelling in a post. Boring. :(

Let me try again. Many young professionals today are choosing to live in dense urban areas (or older suburban areas) instead of roomier suburban areas. The main reason they give for tis choice is that they enjoy having locations that are closer together.

I certainly didn't mean to criticize your choice of a living situation. As a matter of fact, I don't even know where or how you live.

As for the word yuppie, I have not heard that word used in several years. I wasn't aware that people were still describing themselves as yuppies. thank you for the correction.

I was just playing around. That obviously didn't come through in my post; sorry.

Many young professionals today are choosing to live in dense urban areas (or older suburban areas) instead of roomier suburban areas. The main reason they give for tis choice is that they enjoy having locations that are closer together.
I guess it all depends on how you define "many."
Any source for either the number or percentage, or any other metrics for this trend? Or a source for the "main reason" given by these "many young professionals."