My big problem with planning, as I mentioned in the other thread regarding vehicles, is that the modern subdivision is planned completely around the cheap, easy automobile transportation. But as we are learning, auto transport is getting less cheap by the day, and with all of the people running around in these suburbs, it's not exactly easy either (I spend far more time in traffic in suburban areas than I do in the city, outside of downtown).ghostrunner wrote:I'd agree with that. I do admit to my own bit of snobbery when it comes to modern subdivisions. I can't stand to see houses crammed next to each other that are all made from the same building materials and therefore look the same. Even painted the exact same colors.Popeye_Card wrote:I think a few important distinctions need to be made.
"City" doesn't have to mean "downtown". As we've discussed before, cities like St. Louis have incredibly varied options for living that are not concrete jungles downtown.
"Suburbs" are not created equal. There's a huge difference between a suburb like Webster Groves with beautiful old homes, and a suburb full of subdivisions with shodily built, boring housing.
To me, subdivisions show an incredible lack of good urban planning. Yes, it's "suburban", but when more people are living out there than in the urban areas, they really are "urban". They just aren't laid out like it.
On the other hand, I do think there's something to not caring what your house or yard looks like. If you spend most of your time inside, then it doesn't make a lot of difference. Maybe you just need a patio garden and that's enough.
Most of these subdivisions are about kids, I think. The idea is that cars aren't zooming through them ( hence all the cul de sacs) and the kids can play safely outside. It doesn't seem like a fun play environment to me, but then I can't really judge that for other people.
If a lot of these places were designed better and they left more trees up and the yards were bigger, I'd generally have no problem with them. The fact that they're located outside the city doesn't is okay in my book, other than the traffic in and out of those places is usually too frustrating for me. The idea of separate, mixed-use neighborhoods is appealing to me as well. Though the advantages are fewer if you can't work in or near that neighborhood.
Autos even factor into the design of houses. One of the biggest reasons that modern house design turns me off is that there's this huge honkin' garage accessed from the front of the house. It's hard to make that look good.
Maybe for some, having a small outside deck with a big(ger) expanse of grass is important to them. For me, I have my personal lawn area that has enough grass for my dog to run around, and enough space along the sides that I have 5 different varieties of hops, along with a few tomato and pepper plants. I even have a 15x15 deck. If I need more than that, there's a nice big park 1 block away. If I want more garden space, there's a community garden where I can plant.
I don't know. It's all about what takes priority for you. Personally, I don't frequent bars, etc. all that often. I don't go to plays and art galleries and such all the time. I do attend a lot of sporting events. But what I enjoy most about the city is that I can step out of my front door and just walk places. Want some coffee? I can walk a block to the north. Want a beer? I have about 20 bars within a stumble from my house. Want to hang with neighbors? There's a social event at least once a week either at someone's home or in the park. These are activities that I enjoy, along with fixing up an older home (my biggest hobby). They're more important to me as a late-20's bachelor than most things I could do in the suburbs.
