Almost Half of America’s Biggest Cities Are Basically Built Like Giant Suburbs

[Tulune]

Cities and suburbs suck imho. I'll stick with small towns in the boonies.

[Endus]

Lack of services? My small town has police, fire, public works, and a library. Im 10 minutes from a mall. You dont have to live in a big city to have everything you need close at hand.

That isn't what I meant by "services". I was referring to things like sewage treatment, power generation/distribution, water mains, etc. Small towns get by with their smaller-scale installations, but they're also generally more dense overall than suburbs, in total. It's looking at new suburb developments where the services become a concern, because the property taxes generally won't cover the services required, because property taxes aren't set differently by the block. In a smaller town, your property taxes will end up covering the services you need, in a big city, while the overall taxes cover services, suburbs don't pay for themselves.

Here in near Brisbane, Australia we end up with four choices.

1. Urban (high density)
2. Suburban (medium density) <-- optimal for most people
3. Edge Rural (low density)
4. Rural (farming areas).

Suburbia is, pretty much by definition, low density. Any kind of single detached housing is low-density residential. Medium density involves low-rise apartments and townhouses and the like.

[schwarzkopf]

Suburbia is, pretty much by definition, low density.

Not here... it is very high up in the 'density' levels for Australia, but remember - Australia doesn't have the sardine cans like NY to measure against.

Compare:

New YorkArea : 1214 km² , Pop: 8.4 million, Density: 10756/km²
Brisbane Area : 15826 km² , Pop: 2.3 million, Density: 379.4/km²
My average suburb in Brisbane Area : 4.6km², Pop: 10,500, Density : 2290/km²

[Reeve]

I sometimes think the solution should be to just not widen the freeways. If people want to spend 2-3 hours each way commuting from a suburb, let them. Otherwise, live closer to town in higher density and get used to using mass transit. It's better for small businesses anyway.

[Endus]

Not here... it is very high up in the 'density' levels for Australia, but remember - Australia doesn't have the sardine cans like NY to measure against.

Compare:

New YorkArea : 1214 km² , Pop: 8.4 million, Density: 10756/km²
Brisbane Area : 15826 km² , Pop: 2.3 million, Density: 379.4/km²
My average suburb in Brisbane Area : 4.6km², Pop: 10,500, Density : 2290/km²

The term has nothing to do with the average density in an area. It's a specific term for a type of urban layout. Single detached residences is low density development.

[schwarzkopf]

If people want to spend 2-3 hours each way commuting from a suburb, let them.

It isn't about 'choice' in many cases. That's the problem. Closer you get, the more expensive the property is.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a specific term for a type of urban layout. Single detached residences is low density development.

Yes - I live in a suburban area, 99% detached residences, with lawns and yards etc... but not low density compared to every where else.

The problem here is that low/high etc are relative terms, and as you said 'suburban' is a specific term related to layout.

Suburban areas are frequently pretty high up in the relative population density here.

[Reeve]

It isn't about 'choice' in many cases. That's the problem. Closer you get, the more expensive the property is.

So take the train. It works in tons of countries, even where the cost of living is relatively high, like Singapore.

[schwarzkopf]

So take the train. It works in tons of countries, even where the cost of living is relatively high, like Singapore.

Yes, but the combined cost in time and dollars of driving to a train station, and catching the train and walking etc - still mean it isn't always a choice. One tends towards the cheapest options.

[Auxora]

Is this OP by someone who doesn't live in and has never been to the US? The US is a very "everyone has their own vehicle" culture. This doesn't just apply to large cities. Property is spread out, and for almost everyone both work and general errands like getting groceries requires a vehicle. There aren't small mop and pop grocery stores anymore (for the most part). Only in the very largest cities like Chicago/NY/LA is the mass transit system robust enough and/or there are enough local small businesses within walking distance for residents to not have a car. NY is the lowest % car per household in the country, and even it is at 50%. So it's not just a big city thing, people like their cars in the US and it's across the entire country. Having traveled outside the US and seen the difference from countries that take a different view, I would love to see more mass transit and more light vehicles like mopeds/small (like 350cc and less) motorcycles. Mopeds have a negative nerdy stigma in the US from when they started to get popular back in the 70s and 80s, and it's been tough to overcome that.

Really it's something that is a larger part of society today. That goes for everything from $7 coffees at Starbucks to everyone driving their own car.

[schwarzkopf]

Really it's something that is a larger part of society today. That goes for everything from $7 coffees at Starbucks to everyone driving their own car.

A lot of the misconception about that comes from Seinfeld, Friends and Big Bang Theory etc, all set in the middle of NYC where it makes no sense to have your own car.

If you look up vehicle ownership - the USA is one of the highest in the world, it has to be - the country is pretty damned big with lots of places to go.

[cuafpr]

i couldn't imagine not having a car... driving is the highlight of my work day....

[Starscream101]

Ill take country side and having my next door neighbor being a mile away from me any day of the week.
Screw City living where you can hear your next door neighbor threw the wall. People living on top of people in little boxes making noise all hours of the night.

Ill take my truck go fishing play music as loud as I want and have what I want on my land and all big City's are is wall to wall assholes. Worst and Rudest people ever I've seen are from NY, L.A , San Francisco, and Chicago.

[Kellhound]

That isn't what I meant by "services". I was referring to things like sewage treatment, power generation/distribution, water mains, etc. Small towns get by with their smaller-scale installations, but they're also generally more dense overall than suburbs, in total. It's looking at new suburb developments where the services become a concern, because the property taxes generally won't cover the services required, because property taxes aren't set differently by the block. In a smaller town, your property taxes will end up covering the services you need, in a big city, while the overall taxes cover services, suburbs don't pay for themselves.



Suburbia is, pretty much by definition, low density. Any kind of single detached housing is low-density residential. Medium density involves low-rise apartments and townhouses and the like.

My town is less dense than most suburbs, but it has its own water treatment and sewage, power is from the grid, our water mains are in far better shape than the closest major city's.... Then again the city was smart and attracted a higher than its share of industrial companies.

Single detached homes are the only way to live, apartments are horrid.

[Spectral]

Lack of services? My small town has police, fire, public works, and a library. Im 10 minutes from a mall. You dont have to live in a big city to have everything you need close at hand.

For some definitions of "close at hand". If I have to drive to something, I don't generally think of it as "close". About the farther something can be and still have me say, "yeah, that's close" is a 15 minute bike ride.

- - - Updated - - -

I sometimes think the solution should be to just not widen the freeways. If people want to spend 2-3 hours each way commuting from a suburb, let them. Otherwise, live closer to town in higher density and get used to using mass transit. It's better for small businesses anyway.

More than freeways, I think having nominally local roads that are basically arterials is responsible for the hideous sprawl that overtakes certain areas. If you're familiar with the DC area at all, a great example of this would be Wisconsin Avenue turning into Rockville Pike, running from Northwest DC up through Rockville and farther - it's wide, encourages, semi-fast driving (~50 MPH is pretty normal there), but is nominally a local road. This encourages, too fast of traffic, discourages cycling and pedestrianism, and is generally bad for local businesses and quality of living. Nonetheless, it acts as an arterial for McMansionish suburbs because low-level bureaucrats can't countenance the idea that they don't exactly need 4500 square feet.

[nextormento]

The term has nothing to do with the average density in an area. It's a specific term for a type of urban layout. Single detached residences is low density development.

It really isn't specific at all, other than being distinct from the inner city. High density satellites are often regarded as suburban.
The only thing specific is the typology: residential (or mixed).
In fact, you can have low density in different layouts: grid, culdesac

Yes - I live in a suburban area, 99% detached residences, with lawns and yards etc... but not low density compared to every where else.

That's because density is a dysfunctional stat.
See LA. It's incredibly dense, but has every characteristic of a sprawling metro: high commute times, low walkability. It's a city that has grown equally dense throughout. That's bad; very bad.
What matters is how that density is distributed. It needs to be unequal, to support large parks, plazas, tree and shade, etc. In exclusively residential areas, you can achieve unequal distribution mixing high apartment blocks with small condos.

Don't get me wrong: it's an incredibly useful stat. But one needs to know how to use it. A very useful accompanying metric is weighted density. Cumulative frequency curves are not all that uncommon either.

[Deleted]

I hate cars, and the drivers too, because they always act elitist to walkers.

[nextormento]

More than freeways, I think having nominally local roads that are basically arterials is responsible for the hideous sprawl that overtakes certain areas.

A caveat:
Urban sprawl is a consequence of urban growth. The idea is not to limit growth, but to do so in sustainable fashion.
Development of urban economy (and job opportunities) depends on transportation facilities. While desirably, people should live close to their working place (lower spatial mismatch), this is not easily achievable in newly developed areas, as the metro expands.
As such, wide arteries are a necessity. Because the expectation is that the city around them will become more compact eventually, by way of high-rise buildings. Planning too narrow arteries limits severely the future height of the area, forcing global development to sprawl. In other words: wasted vertical space, which leads to eventual horizontal development elsewhere.
When you plan an artery, you do, mainly, two things:
-set up policies to avoid linear branching: like zoning which forcibly require mixed use, straight development of utilities (campus, museum, auditoriums...), incentives to compact the proximity of the artery, a generous green belt to force development to be in satellites, urban growth boundaries, incentive parking, etc.
-design a good street profile: provision for light rail, bike lane, wide walkable spaces, tree&shade, etc.

[Acidbaron]

Isn't most of the world build around this structure? since public transport has only become being a thing outside of main cities the last decade? And while it perhaps has advanced more in Europe than the US i can't say that i really find it well managed outside of bigger cities and still prefer my own wheels.

[Reeve]

Is this OP by someone who doesn't live in and has never been to the US? The US is a very "everyone has their own vehicle" culture. This doesn't just apply to large cities. Property is spread out, and for almost everyone both work and general errands like getting groceries requires a vehicle. There aren't small mop and pop grocery stores anymore (for the most part). Only in the very largest cities like Chicago/NY/LA is the mass transit system robust enough and/or there are enough local small businesses within walking distance for residents to not have a car. NY is the lowest % car per household in the country, and even it is at 50%. So it's not just a big city thing, people like their cars in the US and it's across the entire country. Having traveled outside the US and seen the difference from countries that take a different view, I would love to see more mass transit and more light vehicles like mopeds/small (like 350cc and less) motorcycles. Mopeds have a negative nerdy stigma in the US from when they started to get popular back in the 70s and 80s, and it's been tough to overcome that.

Really it's something that is a larger part of society today. That goes for everything from $7 coffees at Starbucks to everyone driving their own car.

I think you have it backwards. You're suggesting that because the culture is on of everyone needing cars, because stores and services aren't in walking distance, high density doesn't work in the U.S.

We're saying that if you encourage higher density develpment, the infrastructure will grow around it, the walking distance small stores will spring up, and people will find that they can get along just fine without a car of their own.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but the combined cost in time and dollars of driving to a train station, and catching the train and walking etc - still mean it isn't always a choice. One tends towards the cheapest options.

Ride your bike to the station. Ride it to your destination from there. Don't waste money on a car if you're poor. And I don't know about Brisbane, but in Houston, many of the cheapest neighborhoods are in walking distance of downtown.

[Endus]

I think you have it backwards. You're suggesting that because the culture is on of everyone needing cars, because stores and services aren't in walking distance, high density doesn't work in the U.S.

We're saying that if you encourage higher density develpment, the infrastructure will grow around it, the walking distance small stores will spring up, and people will find that they can get along just fine without a car of their own.

Not only are we "saying" that, it's been the standard pattern of desired development for over a decade now. New Urbanism isn't a brand-new concept. It's been around for over 30 years, and the success of those communities that implemented those principles has led to widespread adoption.