First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply What makes car orientated suburbs more attractive than dense transit orientated suburbs?
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 7/12/15
What do prewar streetcar or railroad suburbs have that post war sprawling ones don't have? In a railroad suburb, for example, one that is built around a commuter rail station, you can get the benefits of living in a suburb while also having walkability and transit access. You can have a peaceful, slow-paced life. You can have more space than in the city. You might not have a yard, but there's probably a local park where your kids can play. GOOD SCHOOLS. Probably a stronger sense of community than most post war suburbs. It seems that the only difference is that you don't have to drive very often. Do people like post war auto-oriented sprawling suburbs because of driving? Would you really want to drive a lot if you don't have to?

It seems like there isn't much demand for density around rail stations. I've seen metra stations in chicago with almost empty surroundings, except a parking lot.
Posted 7/12/15
I live in London.
There's a heck load of opportunities here and everything is easily accessed.
It's always packed and crowded.
A lot of noise.
Jaywalking 24/7.
To travel on public transport is a lot on the wallet.
It's so easy to meet new people.

It's not for me, honestly.
In fact, I go out jogging 3-4am so I can appreciate the empty roads and the silence.

I can't take it for granted though.
The situation I live in is amazing.
But.
When i'm older and more stable, I want to move somewhere a little quieter.

Sogno- 
45684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/12/15


i dont understand. i drive everywhere. the city life is a whole nother world
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

biscuitnote wrote:Would you really want to drive a lot if you don't have to?


Yes.
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 7/12/15 , edited 7/12/15

VZ68 wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:Would you really want to drive a lot if you don't have to?


Yes.


People say the automobile represents freedom. To me being forced into a car just because everything is so spread and the city won't invest in public transit is not freedom its slavery being chained to your car. Dense urban enviroments where you can bike and walk are far more environmentally friendly and I think create better communities than the post war auto dependent suburbs.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

biscuitnote wrote:


VZ68 wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:Would you really want to drive a lot if you don't have to?


Yes.


People say the automobile represents freedom. To me being forced into a car just because everything is so spread and the city won't invest in public transit is not freedom its slavery being chained to your car. Dense urban enviroments where you can bike and walk are far more environmentally friendly and I think create better communities than the post war auto dependent suburbs.


Nope.

If your theory was correct than riots in cities would never happen. When was the last time you hear of a riot in rural America?
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

VZ68 wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:


VZ68 wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:Would you really want to drive a lot if you don't have to?


Yes.


People say the automobile represents freedom. To me being forced into a car just because everything is so spread and the city won't invest in public transit is not freedom its slavery being chained to your car. Dense urban enviroments where you can bike and walk are far more environmentally friendly and I think create better communities than the post war auto dependent suburbs.


Nope.

If your theory was correct than riots in cities would never happen. When was the last time you hear of a riot in rural America?


There are certainly pros and cons to both rural and urban living. Of course on the flip side services in rural areas are hard to come by if you get sick theirs not a clinic down the street. If you don't want to drive your outta luck. Not to mention when you live in a city you have more opportunities to make money and you are helping save the environment due to using less energy.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

biscuitnote wrote:



There are certainly pros and cons to both rural and urban living. Of course on the flip side services in rural areas are hard to come by if you get sick theirs not a clinic down the street. If you don't want to drive your outta luck. Not to mention when you live in a city you have more opportunities to make money and you are helping save the environment due to using less energy.


No, you are just displacing energy use. Counterpoint: Cost of living is higher.









Helping save the environment you say?
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 7/12/15 , edited 7/12/15
Yes if we all lived in little tract homes in suburbs we would be tearing up even more land using more water for lawns using more gas to commute long distances. Also the smog in those pictures is caused by CARS! You are correct cost of living is higher but you have access to more goods and services. Essentially you get what you pay for. I would rather have a nice small apartment in a great city than a mansion in North Dakota.
32290 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / St.Louis - USA
Offline
Posted 7/12/15
I like to drive my car, even in Japan.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

biscuitnote wrote:

Yes if we all lived in little tract homes in suburbs we would be tearing up even more land using more water for lawns using more gas to commute long distances. Also the smog in those pictures is caused by CARS! You are correct cost of living is higher but you have access to more goods and services. Essentially you get what you pay for. I would rather have a nice small apartment in a great city than a mansion in North Dakota.




Each their own eh?
6936 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Portland, OR
Offline
Posted 7/12/15
I assume it's because only poor people use public transit, or at least that's the stigma out there.

Plus, driving is just so much fun.
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/12/15

luckystax wrote:

I assume it's because only poor people use public transit, or at least that's the stigma out there.

Plus, driving is just so much fun.


It depends on the city, but sometimes the cost is a wash. Paying $4.00 and taking two hours to go where I can drive myself in 10 minutes is a waste of time.
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 7/12/15
Efficiency is definitely an issue that's for sure. I wish we had high speed trains in the US like in France and Asia that cut commute times down to the bone. No more gridlocked traffic just an easy ride to your destination on a sleek and modern train.
43982 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 7/12/15
Walking? Biking? WTF, this is America.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.