Sprawl-free vs. car-free
#52
Sophomoric Member
Why do suburban people get so defensive whenever this topic is brought up? There is nobody trying to tell any body that they have to live in a crowded urban environment. It's a free country and you can live anywhere you can afford to live. That will never change. So get over it!
The question is, how can we get rid of the senseless ugly sprawl, while preserving the spaciousness and tranquility that people hope to find in the suburbs? Or, how can the suburbs be made nicer than they already are?
The question is, how can we get rid of the senseless ugly sprawl, while preserving the spaciousness and tranquility that people hope to find in the suburbs? Or, how can the suburbs be made nicer than they already are?
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#53
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
I think we should keep in mind that suburb and sprawl are not the same thing.
A lot of people like suburbs, but I think it's fair to say that everybody hates sprawl. Suburbs can be beautiful places for carfree people and motorists to live. Sprawl is wasted space, inefficient, ugly, not nice for children and other living things.
Referring back to the OP, what can be done to allow spacious suburbs without having as much sprawl?
A lot of people like suburbs, but I think it's fair to say that everybody hates sprawl. Suburbs can be beautiful places for carfree people and motorists to live. Sprawl is wasted space, inefficient, ugly, not nice for children and other living things.
Referring back to the OP, what can be done to allow spacious suburbs without having as much sprawl?
IMO, some of our LCF comrades have a fondness for sugar coating a return to the good old days of anti-sprawl, high density car free living for the urban masses. Not everybody can live the life of an urban hipster/Yuppie with high income and no family responsibilities.
Sprawl really boils down to density, not population density but density of destinations per mile of road, the width and speed limits of roads, the size of parking areas and other unused land between businesses and other developments, etc. Density doesn't have to look like these pictures or like a modern urban area. In fact, most modern urban areas have gone too far with concrete and building because the value of developed properties are so high in these areas.
An ideal sprawl-free area would allow development in a way that preserves green space and trees. Buildings can be strategically placed in clearings between trees and paths for walking/biking paved between the trees. Parking would be mostly limited to loading/unloading except for maybe centrally-located parking garages, which would be priced to encourage other transit choices when possible. Motor-lanes would be separated by treed islands and medians as much as possible to keep the roads shaded and facilitate moisture retention. Some multi-story builidngs, apartment complexes, condos, could be used but single-family homes could also be built in between trees.
The main issue is minimizing motor-traffic or at least keeping it a small-enough proportion of total traffic that it doesn't become the defining transportation paradigm in planning and development. I hate to put such a negative focus on driving but until motor-traffic is @50% of total traffic or less, I don't think city planning and development will be truly bike- and transit- friendly.
Once @50% or more of total traffic is non-motorized and transit, and sprawl development is a thing of the past, I don't see why cities can't expand indefinitely. After all, 'urban' at that point is essentially replaced with 'forest in-fill development that minimizes motor traffic and eliminates its presence altogether wherever possible.' In such a situation, why would new suburban development add to traffic problems in existing parts of the city? The problem with sprawl is that it snow-balls motor-traffic as it grows.
Last edited by tandempower; 06-19-14 at 08:46 AM.
#54
Custom User Title
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SE MN
Posts: 11,239
Bikes: Fuji Roubaix Pro & Quintana Roo Kilo
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2863 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 31 Times
in
14 Posts
Why do suburban people get so defensive whenever this topic is brought up? There is nobody trying to tell any body that they have to live in a crowded urban environment. It's a free country and you can live anywhere you can afford to live. That will never change. So get over it!
The question is, how can we get rid of the senseless ugly sprawl, while preserving the spaciousness and tranquility that people hope to find in the suburbs? Or, how can the suburbs be made nicer than they already are?
The question is, how can we get rid of the senseless ugly sprawl, while preserving the spaciousness and tranquility that people hope to find in the suburbs? Or, how can the suburbs be made nicer than they already are?
#55
Cat 5 field stuffer
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hammond, La
Posts: 1,426
Bikes: Wabi Lightning RE, Wabi Classic
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
3 Posts
The main issue is minimizing motor-traffic or at least keeping it a small-enough proportion of total traffic that it doesn't become the defining transportation paradigm in planning and development. I hate to put such a negative focus on driving but until motor-traffic is @50% of total traffic or less, I don't think city planning and development will be truly bike- and transit- friendly.
Once @50% or more of total traffic is non-motorized and transit, and sprawl development is a thing of the past, I don't see why cities can't expand indefinitely. After all, 'urban' at that point is essentially replaced with 'forest in-fill development that minimizes motor traffic and eliminates its presence altogether wherever possible.' In such a situation, why would new suburban development add to traffic problems in existing parts of the city? The problem with sprawl is that it snow-balls motor-traffic as it grows.
Once @50% or more of total traffic is non-motorized and transit, and sprawl development is a thing of the past, I don't see why cities can't expand indefinitely. After all, 'urban' at that point is essentially replaced with 'forest in-fill development that minimizes motor traffic and eliminates its presence altogether wherever possible.' In such a situation, why would new suburban development add to traffic problems in existing parts of the city? The problem with sprawl is that it snow-balls motor-traffic as it grows.
How far spread out is too far for bike commuting to work?
#56
Just a person on bike
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,140
Bikes: 2015 Trek 1.1, 2021 Specialized Roubaix, 2022 Tern HSD S+
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked 86 Times
in
56 Posts
So it made economic sense for the both of you to move closer to work (at the time). Cool .
Unfortunately, we have kids and that introduces other variables into the 'where to live' matrix- quality of schools, local crime rate, location/condition of parks, daycare (depending on age of child)... we headed for the outskirts of the city and then on in to a 'burb proper a couple of years after that because it afforded us the best value for space, better schools, and perceived safety.
Unfortunately, we have kids and that introduces other variables into the 'where to live' matrix- quality of schools, local crime rate, location/condition of parks, daycare (depending on age of child)... we headed for the outskirts of the city and then on in to a 'burb proper a couple of years after that because it afforded us the best value for space, better schools, and perceived safety.
It would be nice if you guys could live right in between. That would give each of you 20 km to commute, which IMO is relatively easy cycling distance.
__________________
The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
#57
Banned
The City of Paris is where they push those who cannot afford living in the city out to the 'Burbs .. thats why the immigrant Riots are out there.
#58
Avid Cyclist
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 340
Bikes: Diamondback Century Disc
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think it comes down to urban crime versus the relative safety of outlying areas. That is a reality in many places I have lived in the past. My wife and I talked about moving to St. Augustine because of the no-car district. I like the idea of opening a gallery for my artwork and also like a quiet community where I can relax outside if I wish and work on my latest book or write blog posts.
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nashville TN
Posts: 794
Bikes: Trek 7.3FX, Diamondback Edgewood hybrid, KHS Montana
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
mixed-use zoning.
As long as large areas of land are zoned commercial only, or residential only - then you spread things out.
As long as large areas of land are zoned commercial only, or residential only - then you spread things out.
#60
Sophomoric Member
I'm not getting defensive. I don't understand what your issue is... You show pictures of suburbs but say suburbs aren't the problem. You give a definition of sprawl as a decentralization of urban centers (ie: a move to suburbs), but you say suburbs aren't the problem. You keep saying your not "attacking" suburbs, but at the same time you are asking how do we stop people from moving into and building more suburbs. The problem is people don't want to live in the dense cities anymore now that they don't need to live there in order to survive, and since this is such a land wealthy nation there is no lack of places to build. All the jobs aren't in the cities anymore by the way. The 'burbs boast a ton of production, service, and technical jobs for their local residents to be employed at. It is less expensive to build jobs out in the 'burbs where cramped spaces don't make space come at a premium. Also, since many people don't want to live in the dense cities the 'burbs will bring in more talented employees who are in turn higher paid giving the suburb a larger tax base to build needed infrastructure like bike trails and buses.
This is not a good way to be. The suburbanites themselves are the ones who should be up in arms about it! It's their own time, money, and peace of mind that are being taken away by sprawl.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#61
Custom User Title
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SE MN
Posts: 11,239
Bikes: Fuji Roubaix Pro & Quintana Roo Kilo
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2863 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 31 Times
in
14 Posts
That has not been my experience and if that is someone's experience and they dislike living there they can move. We all get to choose where we live.
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,532
Bikes: Working on replacing my stolen Soma Buena Vista Mixte
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked 95 Times
in
44 Posts
I was a bit unclear.I was trying to say there were parts of USA cities much like the OP wanted-low sprawl-high population density parts of cities where most folks walk or take public transportation(or expensive taxis). MANHATTAN parts of San Francisco.
My point is those areas of the city are impossibly expensive.
Asia has high density cities-don't think they are tree lined-despite the building being relatively low.
Many streets in NOLA are tree lined- huge trees-actual canopy-but they aren't high density-1,2 stories-with a bit of a yard
We used to have excellent public transportation-trolleys-but not any more.We have a few trolleys but mainly stinky diesel buses(that have lost some of their sooty stench lately)
Maybe folks could post pictures of high density streets neighborhoods or cities??
Yeah post pictures-1000 words etc
My point is those areas of the city are impossibly expensive.
Asia has high density cities-don't think they are tree lined-despite the building being relatively low.
Many streets in NOLA are tree lined- huge trees-actual canopy-but they aren't high density-1,2 stories-with a bit of a yard
We used to have excellent public transportation-trolleys-but not any more.We have a few trolleys but mainly stinky diesel buses(that have lost some of their sooty stench lately)
Maybe folks could post pictures of high density streets neighborhoods or cities??
Yeah post pictures-1000 words etc
Walkable doesn't mean super dense. And "urban" can come in many forms.
Here are some sample areas in that radius:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tr...92ea8a76b10702
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cr...da3ca4!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ad...d47a26c93868f0
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Te...a845a40f3848b6
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mo...48d8a0918455d3
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ho...045be8b461594d
#63
Sophomoric Member
You say if people don't like sprawl, they can move. You mean like the farmers who used to live there moved...when their property was seized to build the sprawl in the first place?
Anyway, it's clear that a lot of people are moving away from the sprawl. But in a lot of areas you don't have much choice.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#64
Sophomoric Member
I live in Oakland. Transit is decent. But within let's say 3-4 miles of downtown, there are a range of housing types. Lots of single family home areas with yards (and tree-lined streets). Denser areas that mix multi-story and single family. And denser areas with no single family at all. Just about every one of those neighborhoods is within a 10 minute walk to a "main street" with groceries, restaurants, cafes, pharmacies, dry cleaners, post offices etc. Frequent transit is a little hit or miss within that 10 minute walk but good within a mile.
Walkable doesn't mean super dense. And "urban" can come in many
Walkable doesn't mean super dense. And "urban" can come in many
Thats a a very good point. You can have single homes with yards, but that are not all sprawled out. My own street is like that. Quiet, tree lined, well shaded. In fact, most streets in mid-sized Midwestern cities are like that.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#66
Sophomoric Member
I was thinking of places like Las Vegas, where it seems like almost the entire metro area is sprawled out. It might be hard to find a house in a walkable or bikeable location there. I haven't been there in 30 years, so I'm not sure.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#68
Sophomoric Member
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 273
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I've got two kids and a husband. We've moved a few times, but always in the city, never the suburbs. In our case, no car means being able to afford a house in the city and all the cultural advantages of city living. Any savings on housing would be eaten up by transportation costs in the suburbs and we would likely miss out on the all the downtown fun.
#71
Just a person on bike
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,140
Bikes: 2015 Trek 1.1, 2021 Specialized Roubaix, 2022 Tern HSD S+
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked 86 Times
in
56 Posts
I'm not getting defensive. I don't understand what your issue is... You show pictures of suburbs but say suburbs aren't the problem. You give a definition of sprawl as a decentralization of urban centers (ie: a move to suburbs), but you say suburbs aren't the problem. You keep saying your not "attacking" suburbs, but at the same time you are asking how do we stop people from moving into and building more suburbs. The problem is people don't want to live in the dense cities anymore now that they don't need to live there in order to survive, and since this is such a land wealthy nation there is no lack of places to build.
Suburbs around Tokyo are vastly different. Business and commercial developments are done around the hub train station, and they usually provide local bus services to and from the central area. That enables the suburban resident to take one bus to the shopping area. If they want to go further, the train station is right there.
I agree with @Roody on the issue of suburbs vs sprawls. I don't mind living in the suburb as long as it provides easy access to public transit, has lots of businesses and shopping areas in close and convenient proximity, and enables me to live without driving much. Unfortunately, there's no suburb like that where I live.
__________________
The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
#72
Just a person on bike
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,140
Bikes: 2015 Trek 1.1, 2021 Specialized Roubaix, 2022 Tern HSD S+
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked 86 Times
in
56 Posts
I've got two kids and a husband. We've moved a few times, but always in the city, never the suburbs. In our case, no car means being able to afford a house in the city and all the cultural advantages of city living. Any savings on housing would be eaten up by transportation costs in the suburbs and we would likely miss out on the all the downtown fun.
__________________
The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
#73
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 595 Times
in
329 Posts
Not so much in this terrain. 20 km in this terrain takes me 1.5 to 2 hours to cover by bicycle ... that's a long commute.
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
#74
Just a person on bike
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,140
Bikes: 2015 Trek 1.1, 2021 Specialized Roubaix, 2022 Tern HSD S+
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked 86 Times
in
56 Posts
I see. I was assuming the terrain was relatively flat. Too much stereotype about your country...
__________________
The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
The value of your life doesn't change based on the way you travel. - Dawn Schellenberg (SDOT)
#75
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 595 Times
in
329 Posts
https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car...o-we-live.html
And also see the photos in this collection, especially the Autumn 2014 and Winter 2014 albums:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/machka...7644517168953/
We are considering suburbs anywhere from about 2 km from the city centre (so I could walk, and Rowan would have a shorter drive than what he has right now) to about halfway between the two places (as you suggest).
Unfortunately places in the suburbs close to the CBD are expensive and don't come available very often. And if we end up in a place about halfway in between, my commute would be up and over a bit of a mountain range ... the shoulder of Mt Wellington ... so I would not cycle. We would also have to consider the frequency, time, and cost of the busses before we make a decision to live that far out from the CBD.
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Last edited by Machka; 06-19-14 at 07:44 PM.