People Who Live In Suburbs: Classy, Icky, or Dudes?

It gave mine an 86 and I live in one of the most walkable neighborhoods I've ever lived in. I spend by far more time walking than I do on the bus/train or in my car.

I seemingly live exactly 12 blocks from everything useful. I kinda live on the mostly residential outskirts of my neighborhood, away from the commercial/public center of it tho. It's a 12 minute walk/5 minute ride to that area.

I think the site works better on the neighborhood-level

I got an 86 but it listed an auto upholstery business as a restaurant, and an audio/video store as a theater.

I eat auto upholstery all the time.

goes great with a nice Avanti

It's called Sardo's, and apparently there's a Sardo's bar and grill about 15 miles away, so that must be the reason.

lol my parent's house has a 20/100. my old house in philly has a 89/100. ;_;

my hometown city's average is 70 which is pretty good actually (on par w/ dc) but my childhood home (in a suburban part) is 38.

current place is 94.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/newhomes/ct-home-0709-mixed-use-developments-20100707,0,6426551.story

note that the places mentioned are all privately developed and financed, and not very affordable

also unrepresentative of most of the development going on elsewhere

Sorry, that photo looks nothing like Andersonville.

elsewhere being?

What?

elsewhere being everywhere? I mean there's lots of these little new suburbia experiments and they're cool, but unless they put things in that context you get something like a nyt-trend piece.

"Density (often credited as a factor in urban flight) is now acceptable in the suburbs," says Patzelt.

er 'that context' referred to a sentence that got deleted: 'but the large majority of new developments in america aren't these kinda things'

Also lol @ the fact that half the businesses mentioned in that article are chains.

yeah imagine that

I mean there's lots of these little new suburbia experiments and they're cool

This is all the article is saying though? Your criticism is that 100% of suburban developments aren't like this and so the article is bad journalism?

David Patzelt says suburban development is taking a urban-inspired, mixed-use approach with condominiums and apartments built above commercial space. Patzelt is president of Shodeen Residential in Geneva, which developed Dodson Place.

"Density (often credited as a factor in urban flight) is now acceptable in the suburbs," says Patzelt. "Intermixing commercial and residential is the way of the future."

delete those two paragraphs and it's fine

Oh man, we have crap like that now, but they're developments right near large roads. So you end up with these "mixed use" places with first-floor businesses, either below ground or ramp parking, and nearby restaurants.... right in the middle of a shopping district. There are some "condos" on the west side that have balconies that overlook a Target parking lot.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/in-this-family-we-maintain-the-ways-of-the-old-sub,17844/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/business/economy/15view.html?_r=3&sr

It's interesting as a theoretical exercise and a prod to make us build differently in future (and tbh I've never thought about parking spaces, so good on the article) but his point doesn't and CAN'T apply to MOST OF THE COUNTRY who have no choice not to drive places. There's no other way to get ANYwhere. This is not a choice!

blow it all up and start again

"this is not a choice" - I mean yeah, I grew up in socal and am aware of how shitty the transit status quo is

but my earlier points in this thread were:

1. the current 'this is not a choice' = the end result of many choices! such as zoning + aforementioned mandatory parking + meager public transit funding etc.

2. the car-or-gtfo american status quo is not just some market equilibrium that came about because everyone loves driving and is wililng to pay for it - it's actually quite uneconomic and requires subsidies, in this case on the business/developer level. if parking were more expensive everywhere, alternatives would seem much more appealing (both on the personal and the political level) and 'this is not a choice' could actually become a choice.

noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

lol yes fire this fuckin thread up lets GO

at least I keep it to one thread

high-density trolling

man u h8 cars

i was kind of serious, the free parking issue is a big deal

fat suburban cokeheads

a hummer, parking on a human face, forever, with some blow in the trunk, and the air on, and chillwave playing

I grew up in socal and am aware of how shitty the transit status quo is

You know damn well that Laurel was not talking about how bad the bus routes are in Southern California.

we know a place where no hipsters go.

1. the current 'this is not a choice' = the end result of many choices!

all choices are not the same. choices made by society/govts as a whole over the course of time doesn't equate to individuals now having a "choice". Maybe you're not saying it does equate to that, but if not, don't know wtf your point is.

When is the market going to perfect nuclear fusion so we can go back to being parochial, individualistic suburbanites living an air conditioned nightmare without worrying about fucking up the planet?

~2015

come on, biofuels! cars without internal combustion engines just aren't the same.

all choices are not the same. choices made by society/govts as a whole over the course of time doesn't equate to individuals now having a "choice". Maybe you're not saying it does equate to that, but if not, don't know wtf your point is.

uh my point is that we're in the situation we're in because of quite specific policy decisions that were made, many of which can be reversed when the political willpower is there. this basically happened in LA, which reached the logical endpoint of suburban planning before anyone else did, looked around and said 'oh shit'.

on an individual level, that makes it as much of a personal 'choice' as, idk, going to war in iraq. I am not blaming laurel, individually, for suburbia, btw.

You know damn well that Laurel was not talking about how bad the bus routes are in Southern California.

I think my suburbian ca experience - somewhere w/ a barebones transit system is probably closer to the american mean than, idk, someone in a gigantic rural area w/ absolutely no alt transit options. the vast majority of americans live in suburban+urban regions.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/84-million-new-yorkers-suddenly-realize-new-york-c,18003/

that was a good article but the whole "this is how we do it in NYC" angle was pretty lol

I live in a city where parking spaces cost more than renting an equivalent sized apartment, and where there's a 100% tax on cars above a certain strata, but the streets are still clogged with cars

idk if there's still traffic, the taxes aren't high enough

I am not blaming laurel, individually, for suburbia, btw.

this is very nice of you

hahahahahahaha ok since i know where dayo lives u r uber hilarious to me at the moment

No, I totes understand what historically led up to suburbs and our spread-out-ness, and I do not approve, by and large. But I only know about non-suburban, properly rural areas from personal experience, and I get annoyed at ideas that posit people there are driving places in their luxury SUVs because they can't be bothered. They have expenses just like everyone else and would prefer NOT to spend $$$ on gasoline etc but...!

Also I am trying, with my partner, to move to somewhere less urban than currently, and facing the possible reality of needing cars. Would MUCH rather go to a small urban area but we have to go where JOBS ARE, and that may mean driving. It sux but we can't live without work.

idaho iirc? xp