Urban Vs. Suburban

[flintysooner]

Coincidentally I am reading Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design by Charles Montgomery and just read this passage and immediately thought of this thread:

We are torn between competing needs. None are more contradictory than the push-pull between proximity and isolation. In some ways our needs are at war with each other.

We need the nourishing, helping warmth of other people, but we also need the healing touch of nature. We need to connect, but we also need to retreat. We benefit from the conveniences of proximity, but these conveniences can come with the price of overstimulation and crowding. We will not solve the conundrum of sustainable city living unless we understand these contradictory forces and resolve the tension between them. How much space, privacy, and distance from other people do we need?

[Bill Robertson]

Do you think the City leaders in 1993 picked a downtown location totally by accident? Whether you knew it or not, you were voting for higher density and walkability way back in 1993. MAPS I had 9 projects:

Downtown Baseball Stadium
Downtown Arena
Downtown Canal
Downtown Library
Downtown Transit Link
Downtown River
Downtown Convention Center Rehab
Downtown Civic Center Rehab
Fairground Improvement

Did you ever wonder why 8 of 9 these were centered around downtown?

Being a suburbanite that did vote for this I don't see it the way you do. And you haven't convinced my that the city leaders had density or walkability in mind either. All but the library and transit link are destinations for us suburbanites to drive to. And my guess would be that the vast majority of the users of these amenities do exactly that.

To the original question. I would never, by choice, live anywhere but in the burbs. I love having a yard with birds, squirrels and an occasional wild bunny and even a possum once. And Home Depot, Walmart, etc. are 2 or 3 minutes away. I also like having an area like DT with the ball park, arena and Bricktown to go to for an afternoon or evening. If the amenities DT also breed residential and retail those are fine too.

[Dubya61]

To the original question. I would never, by choice, live anywhere but in the burbs. I love having a yard with birds, squirrels and an occasional wild bunny and even a possum once. And Home Depot, Walmart, etc. are 2 or 3 minutes away. I also like having an area like DT with the ball park, arena and Bricktown to go to for an afternoon or evening. If the amenities DT also breed residential and retail those are fine too.

Softail, this is not directed at you. I'm just replying to this post as a springboard for my comment.
Friends, You do not need to defend your choice to live in the 'burbs. The argument that stems out of this is often one that starts from ignorance or inconsideration combined with selective reading / hearing and oversensitive feelings. In the best possible city (and OKC is making huge strides towards that, IMO) the 'burbs are just as essential as the downtown residences (and all the urban transects). Its more than a yin / yang or order / chaos thing. Its synergy and the best possible metropolitan situation recognizes and encourages both in moderation.
There, now group hug.

[shawnw]

Even Paris has suburbs...

[shawnw]

Sid, maybe start a "Good Suburban" thread with some examples?

[CaptDave]

Excellent point Sid - too often this discussion devolves into an all or nothing debate about which is better. The real solution is balance and understanding the costs associated with urban and suburban development and living. I don't think anyone would deny OKC shifted almost exclusively toward a suburban development pattern for decades and now, rightfully, the focus is on balancing that with good urban development. The lingering problem is that it is common in OKC for suburban development to be "forced" into urban areas; that is often the source of strong objections from people who want to restore the balance that was lost over several decades.

[Just the facts]

Let me just add that suburban spawl (which is what OKC has in spades) and new urbanism suburbs are NOT the same thing. Suburbia in new urbanism is still based on the 5 minute pedestrian shed, where every house is still within a 5 minute walk to most everyday needs and a transit stop.

Even people who have adopted the highest density options of new urbanism (Deep Deuce, Midtown, etc) are still clinging to single-use development ideas. For example, the desire for a downtown grocery store. Instead of single 'buy everything in one place' people should be asking for speciality sidewalk shops.

[OKVision4U]

It's far more enjoyable. Small shop owners, you get to know them & they know you.

[Just the facts]

... and profits and wages are kept in the community. Not to go political but income disperity is becoming a hot topic and this is a big reason why.

[Just the facts]

Here are just a few of the differences between a New Urbanism suburb and a Euclidian suburb.

New Urbanism Suburb
A) Connected street network
B) Five minute pedestrian shed
C) Mass transit accessible
D) Open space consist of public square
E) Parks and water are accessible and inviting
F) Homes have uniform setback and front porches with living space at the front of the house to keep eyes on the street
G) Garages located at read of home via an alley
H) Sidewalks on both sides of street
I) Narrow streets, on-street parking, tree colonnades and other traffic calming techniques
J) Residential out structures (garage apartments/granny flats/etc)

Euclidian Suburb
A) Dendritic street network with cul-de-sacs
B) Not walkable to anywhere
C) Not transit accessible
D) Open space is useless buffers between compatible land uses
E) Private ownership of park and water frontage
F) Homes don't have front porches and living space is set at the back of the house away from the street
G) Garages are dominant feature facing the street
H) Usually no sidewalks but sometimes on one side street
I) No traffic calming (in fact, most streets are engineered for 45 mph and higher speeds)
J) Residential out structures not allowed

[Plutonic Panda]

Let me just add that suburban spawl (which is what OKC has in spades) and new urbanism suburbs are NOT the same thing. Suburbia in new urbanism is still based on the 5 minute pedestrian shed, where every house is still within a 5 minute walk to most everyday needs and a transit stop.

Even people who have adopted the highest density options of new urbanism (Deep Deuce, Midtown, etc) are still clinging to single-use development ideas. For example, the desire for a downtown grocery store. Instead of single 'buy everything in one place' people should be asking for speciality sidewalk shops.

That is not a suburb bro, this is

[Plutonic Panda]

Here are just a few of the differences between a New Urbanism suburb and a Euclidian suburb.

New Urbanism Suburb

A) Connected street network

Every street is pretty much connected; please explain further what you mean by this

B) Five minute pedestrian shed

Not something I care about, but an option and district for that is needed for people that do

C) Mass transit accessible

Which is great! Mass transit should be available is all great cities. Don't move to a suburb though, expecting walkability and transit similar to downtown Manhattan

D) Open space consist of public square

There is open space and public squares in suburbs.

E) Parks and water are accessible and inviting

If I want to go to a park, I'm going to a park. The Myriad Gardens are no more inviting than Mitch Park in north Edmond.

F) Homes have uniform setback and front porches with living space at the front of the house to keep eyes on the street

It boils down to choice. Keeping eyes on the street is not a good point as my house as well as others have windows and front porches that face streets, so that is not a valid issue

G) Garages located at read of home via an alley

Plano, Frisco, Richardson--in fact most suburbs in Dallas--all have alleyways for garages

H) Sidewalks on both sides of street

This is where we agree. Nearly every street should have a sidewalk with very few exceptions. All new development in Edmond is required to have sidewalks placed.

I) Narrow streets, on-street parking, tree colonnades and other traffic calming techniques

This is nice. Something I would expect in a pedestrian centric urban environment. Keeps people safe when crossing and adds to personal taste.

J) Residential out structures (garage apartments/granny flats/etc)

Please explain more on this. You say suburban out structures are not allowed, but if they are what I think they are, they exist in numbers around Edmond.

Euclidian Suburb

A) Dendritic street network with cul-de-sacs

I see nothing wrong cul-de-sacs and like them in fact.

B) Not walkable to anywhere

I walk/bike/jog/run etc. all around Edmond. Did the same thing when I lived in Richardson(Dallas suburb).

C) Not transit accessible

We have some mass transit here and Edmond plans on expanding it; but like I said, don't move to a suburb expecting world class mass transit

D) Open space is useless buffers between compatible land uses

It is most certainly not useless and provides another plus for people wanting to live in an open environment.

E) Private ownership of park and water frontage

First off, that is just because residences are not stacked on top of each other. Secondly, there is plenty of private park and water frontage in urban areas. Third, Arcadia lake in Edmond is deemed as a public lake and has a public bike/hiking trail surrounding the entire lake, so what the hell are you talking about? For city parks, some front streets, some are in neighborhoods, some sit right next to schools etc. Just because they are right next to 3+story apartment/condo mid/high-rise, doesn't mean they are less inviting and are private. What an absorb argument.

F) Homes don't have front porches and living space is set at the back of the house away from the street

BECAUSE WE WANT ARE DAMN PRIVACY MAN!!!!! It is so nice being able to go in the back yard have all of my tropical plants, banana trees, coy pond, deck, hot tub etc. and being able to relax. It is nice getting in the hot tub naked with a girl during cold weather. It is nice going to my coy/bamboo garden and meditating with no concrete blocks hanging over me.

G) Garages are dominant feature facing the street

They take up like 15-20% of the street facing side of the house, hardly dominant.

H) Usually no sidewalks but sometimes on one side street

This is a negative(for me) living in suburbs, the lack of sidewalks. This slowly being changed however as I stated earlier on.

I) No traffic calming (in fact, most streets are engineered for 45 mph and higher speeds)

Doesn't need to be. 45MPH is a perfect speed and 50MPH is just fine as well for some roads. In an auto centric area you are going to have auto centric benefits such as being able to travel at higher speeds than urban areas.

J) Residential out structures not allowed

Again..... ?????

[Just the facts]

Plutonic Panda - I think if you ever spent time in a New Urbanism style suburb you might be surprised how much more you like it. If you ever make your way down to Jacksonville I'll be happy to give you a personal tour of some suburban places you would never want to leave. That offer goes to everyone else as well.

[bchris02]

The Harbortown New Urbanist development in Memphis incorporates the best of urban and suburban design. Lots of single family homes, with plenty of privacy, but its also a planned, walkable community with a "town center" with retail, restaurants, bars, etc.

[Plutonic Panda]

Plutonic Panda - I think if you ever spent time in a New Urbanism style suburb you might be surprised how much more you like it. If you ever make your way down to Jacksonville I'll be happy to give you a personal tour of some suburban places you would never want to leave. That offer goes to everyone else as well.

I might have to take you up on that offer this summer. I'll likely be stopping by Jacksonville for a few days and then off to Port Charlotte to see my aunt.

[Plutonic Panda]

Suburbia is coming back

Signs of a Suburban Comeback
More Americans Returning to the Land of Lawns and Malls, Census Data Show

The long tug of war between big cities and suburbs is tilting ever so slightly back to the land of lawns and malls. After two years of solid urban growth, more Americans are moving again to suburbs and beyond.

Fourteen of the nation's 20 biggest cities saw their growth slow or their populations fall outright in 2012-2013 compared with 2011-2012, led by cities such as Detroit and Philadelphia, according to data released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

In some cases, fast-growing cities are slowing down: Austin's growth rate decreased from 3.1% to 2.4%. In other instances, slower-growing cities grew at an even more diminished pace: New York's rate decreased to 0.7% from 0.9%.

A year earlier, 17 of the nation's 20 largest cities showed faster population growth than the previous year. Suburbs and areas beyond suburbs within the same metro known as exurbs, meanwhile, are seeing an uptick in growth after expanding more slowly during the recession and its aftermath.

All told, just 18 of America's 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1 million people had cities growing faster than their suburbs last year, down from 25 in 2012, according to an analysis of census data by William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution.

"City growth may be bottoming out, as well as the downsizing of the outer suburbs," Mr. Frey said. He said it remains unclear "whether the city slowdown signals a return to renewed suburban growth."



- Signs of a Suburban Comeback - WSJ

[Plutonic Panda]

An interesting article from New Geography that lead to the article above:

According to the Wall Street Journal, there are "Signs of a Suburban Comeback." This is a turnaround from the typical media coverage of US population estimates in recent years, which have more often than not heralded a "return to the cities" generally more rooted in anecdote than data.

There were always at least two problems with the "return to the city" thesis. First of all, most people who live in the suburbs came from areas outside metropolitan areas and they couldn't return to where they had never lived (see Cities and Suburbs: The Unexpected Truth). More importantly, in every year for which there is data, the net inward migration to suburbs has been far greater than to the core counties, which have nearly always had net outward migration (see Special Report: 2013 Metropolitan Area Population Estimates. Under these conditions, there could not have been net migration from the suburbs to the core municipalities.

Historical Core Municipalities: The Differences

I have classified historical core municipalities based on their extent of automobile oriented suburbanization (Figure 1). The break point is World War II, after which the great automobile suburbanization occurred in the United States. There had been automobile oriented suburbanization before 1940. During the 1920s, annual rates of suburban growth exceeded five percent in the 14 metropolitan areas with more than 500,000 population. The decade of the Great Depression (1930 to 1940) saw annual growth rates drop three quarters (Note). By the end of World War II, transit had seen its motorized urban travel market share restored to 35 percent, equal to early 1920s levels, a figure that has since fallen to under two percent.

Core Municipality Growth

Most of the 2010 to 2013 core growth occurred in municipalities with a larger suburban component. The core municipalities that have little suburban development ("Pre-War & Non-Suburban") had 43 percent of the core population in 2010. Yet they attracted only 27 percent of the growth (Figure 3). The two other categories, which include large areas of functional suburbanization (low density and strong automobile orientation) attracted 73 percent of the core population (Figure 3). These include suburbanized pre-War core municipalities, such as Los Angeles, Seattle, and Atlanta. They also include cores that are nearly all suburban, with nearly all of their population growth having occurred during the great automobile suburbanization (such as Austin, Sacramento, Phoenix, and San Jose).

------------------

Suburban Areas: Top Gainers

The largest suburban gains were in Dallas-Fort Worth (325,000), Houston (296,000), Washington (269,000), Miami (245,000) and Los Angeles (211,000). Atlanta, which had virtually set the world standard for suburbanization before the Great Financial Crisis, managed to re-emerge with the sixth fastest largest suburban increase (208,000).

Measured on a percentage basis, Texas dominated the suburban gains. The suburbs of Houston added 7.8 percent to their population between 2010 and 2013. Austin added 7.7 percent, San Antonio added 6.6 percent, and Dallas-Fort Worth 6.2 percent. The only non-Texas entry in the top five was Raleigh, which, like Austin, posted a 7.7 percent increase.

The metropolitan area and historical core municipality data is summarized in the Table.

- read more here: From Anecdotes to Data: Core & Suburban Growth Trends 2010-2013 | Newgeography.com

[Plutonic Panda]

Also, this is pretty interesting seeing as car is nearly the main form of transport for every major economy.



China's Ascent in World Transport | Newgeography.com

[AP]

I think the more interesting thing is that China has 3 times as many people and significantly less car travel.

[Just the facts]

That chart is also in billion passenger kilometers - kilometers being the operative measurement there. One person driving 40 kilometers to work off-sets 20 train riders going 2 kilometers each. Since we know that people who drive do so because of the distance and that mass transit is mostly in high density areas, it would make sense that any measurement which includes 'distance' would be dominated by the automobile.

I also wonder what the chart would look like if car AND bus were not in the same category. You know whomever made that chart combined those two modes of transportation into the same category on purpose, because the raw data would have been collected separately. Wonder why they combined them.

[adaniel]

Suburbia is coming back

Interesting how USAToday took the same information and ran it under the headline "Decade of the City."

Of course the truth is always somewhere in between. I do find the title of the WSJ article highly deceptive. They buried these little nuggets in their story.

Overall, cities are still growing slightly faster than the suburbs—a historical anomaly after decades of American migration to the burbs. Some of the growth has been fueled by younger Americans and retirees preferring city life, either for life-style reasons or to downsize their living arrangements.

Anything resembling the post-World War II trend of Americans streaming to the suburbs appears unlikely given the difficulties many debt-strapped young Americans face in buying a home. Still, the Census numbers show a cooling off in the growth rate of urban dwellers.


Cities in metro areas greater than 1 million people grew at a 1.02% annual rate in 2012-2013, down from 1.13% in 2011-12, according to Mr. Frey's analysis. Suburban areas, by contrast, grew at a rate of 0.96%, roughly on par with the 0.95% the prior year, Mr. Frey's analysis shows.

[bchris02]

Millennials who want to live in vibrant, walkable neighborhoods in their twenties will likely be looking at suburbia once they get married and have children. I expect to see a significant suburban housing boom as todays twentysomethings get into their thirties. Why? Regardless of how much this generation would enjoy to live without a car, good schools will come first.

[Just the facts]

Millennials who want to live in vibrant, walkable neighborhoods in their twenties will likely be looking at suburbia once they get married and have children. I expect to see a significant suburban housing boom as todays twentysomethings get into their thirties. Why? Regardless of how much this generation would enjoy to live without a car, good schools will come first.

I wouldn't bet on it because the data trends aren't showing that.

[DoctorTaco]

The Millenials in the Plaza district don't, for the most part, even have kids (yet), but they are already being deeply involved in both Gatewood Elementary and Eugene Fields Elementary. These darn kids aren't going to take "bad schools" for an answer!

[bchris02]

I wouldn't bet on it because the data trends aren't showing that.

Do we even have reliable data that shows us that? Given that the oldest millennials are just now approaching 30, and the fact most data we have was likely compiled on the coasts and big cities where people marry and have children later, I don't think we can say for sure yet that their affection for urban living will continue into their child-rearing years.