Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, people complain about how the newer suburbs are chewing up too much land, but they also complain about how houses in the newer suburbs are placed too close together. Well, which way do they want it? Do we want the houses to be placed farther apart, resulting in even more land being developed or do we want the houses closer together, resulting in higher density?
I want fairly high density in suburban areas with houses spaced fairly close together. That way, more land can be saved from development or used as open space and forest preserves. Chicago has an amazing number of forest preserves in the suburban areas.
Pretty much nothing in existence now is sustainable. Accept it and look for solutions other than pushing your city lifestyle on everyone. You're not cutting-edge.
This reminds me of a fight that happened in my parents' neighborhood. A developer wanted to put a row of townhouses one block long behind my parents' subdivision. The current residents whined and moaned and complained that this one single block of townhomes would fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood -- all of them apparently oblivious to the fact that their neighborhood was an open field just 20 years ago.
"My God, what's happening to our pristine little suburb, we gotta stop this!" folks are hilarious. People have poured into suburbia by the dozens of millions for decades with no compunction about completely changing the landscape probably faster than has ever happened anywhere in human history, and changing the social fabric that existed out in what used to be small farming communities before they got engulfed. And after they completely changed the physical and social landscape to their liking, now they want to close the door behind and keep other people from making changes to their own liking? Yeah. Good luck with that.
You wanna know what happened? Nothing. Nothing different anyway. Humanity has been adapting its environment to our own needs since we first figured out how a few thousand years ago. And that process isn't going to stop just because you like things in your little corner of the earth the way they are right now. Sorry if you want your town to freeze in time like an historic re-enactment, but people need places to live and we need to build housing for them.
Regarding the last post (from Drover). Many studies have shown that putting new multi family housing right next to a single family neighborhood lowers the property value of the homes. I can see why the neighborhood was angry. Good zoning always puts a buffer between single family homes and townhouses and apartments to maintain property values.
These were rather high-end townhouses starting in the mid-300s, and a total of maybe 10 units. These weren't "starter-home" townhouses drawing struggling families into the neighborhood and it wasn't a "sea of townhouses" like you see in other new townhouse developments. Nobody's property values went down, trust me; and that was not one of the articulated reasons for the neighbors' objections. It centered mostly around increased traffic and density, as if 10 more units in a 150-house subdivision was really going to be the last straw...
One thing to keep in mind is that the population of the US has doubled in 50 years and is now over 300 million. Additionally, rural farming areas continue to depopulate in favor of urban areas since that's where the jobs are. Increased housing density in urban areas is a natural result and will continue into the future.
What you're talking about is urbanization . Suburbs are less dense. I think more people are favoring density because a. it is cost effective: more people to pay for infrastructure , and less driving to get where you need to go. b. denser areas are usually associated with a proximity to jobs. c. less yard to take care of = more time to work and/or play. The good news is that there re now more options for living situations than ever.
Is that you best excuse for unsustainable planning and development?
Certainly not. It's my way of saying that high-density is not a simple solution to all this. There are much bigger changes that need to be made to everyone's lifestyle. Singling-out the suburbs and applying a band-aid is not going to solve much.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
