Economics

[GowerND11]

I am grateful for the neighborhood I grew up in, but let's shift back to the original topic... economics.

My home MSA is struggling. Because there are no major cities nearby (part of the reason why communal structure is so strong), there are also no major corporations and limited jobs. A high school grad with no plans to attend college can carve out a reasonably comfortable niche within some type of trade job or working for a small community business. But I'm well-educated, have substantial college loans, and have a higher expectations and goals for myself. So I can't go home to work... the only paths to wealth there are entrepreneurship, becoming a doctor, and (in some cases) pursuing law.

So I think the overarching question is how do we balance well-designed, ideally structured communities with businesses that can sustain consistent, significant job growth and increased populations? Not sure there is a solution... are there any major cities doing it right?

What town(well there is only one in PA )/city did you grow up in? Being from Schuylkill County I know exactly what you mean and how you feel. Hard to get a job here once educated.

In my amatuer opinion, it seems like Pittsburgh is doing a great job right now both in fostering communities, and emerging from the Rust Belt on the right side. Anyone agree or disagree?

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Fair and good point.

I should rephrase it to read the willingness of all to develop that feeling.

I wonder how much this is the product of necessity?

A lot of what people are talking about sound like immigrant communities.

 

[tussin]

What town(well there is only one in PA )/city did you grow up in? Being from Schuylkill County I know exactly what you mean and how you feel. Hard to get a job here once educated.

In my amatuer opinion, it seems like Pittsburgh is doing a great job right now both in fostering communities, and emerging from the Rust Belt on the right side. Anyone agree or disagree?

I grew up in West Pittston which is a small town of about 5,000 between Wilkes-Barre and Scranton (the two "major" cities of the Wyoming Valley).

 

[Emcee77]

I am grateful for the neighborhood I grew up in, but let's shift back to the original topic... economics.

My home MSA is struggling. Because there are no major cities nearby (part of the reason why communal structure is so strong), there are also no major corporations and limited jobs. A high school grad with no plans to attend college can carve out a reasonably comfortable niche within some type of trade job or working for a small community business. But I'm well-educated, have substantial college loans, and have a higher expectations and goals for myself. So I can't go home to work... the only paths to wealth there are entrepreneurship, becoming a doctor, and (in some cases) pursuing law.

So I think the overarching question is how do we balance well-designed, ideally structured communities with businesses that can sustain consistent, significant job growth and increased populations? Not sure there is a solution... are there any major cities doing it right?

Well, I have presented my community as a model, and I live within the city of Chicago. My neighborhood was once a standalone town, with its own light-rail train station heading into Chicago, but the town was eventually annexed by the city, like so many near suburbs. So it may be sort of a historical anomaly ... it started as its own town, and developed the community culture to match, and then the Chicagoland area grew around it.

But anyway, I don't see any reason, at least in theory, metro areas can't develop new spaces or redevelop old ones into clusters of small, adjacent communities. As has already been pointed out in this thread, much of the Northeast is already like that.

The problems are practical. It's pretty tough to reverse 60 years of thinking that the goal should be to get the nicest house and biggest yard possible, regardless of how long it takes to drive there from other points of interest, or that it's better to drive 20 miles to a destination shopping mall than walk or bike or take a short drive (if you'll be buying more than you can carry) to a local shopping district a half-mile away, etc. This is the attitude that leads to the Sprawl development phenomenon. It will take a perceived shift in people's preferences to get any political and financial momentum behind New Urbanism. Based on what I have read about demographic changes in many communities, that shift is starting, but this thread is evidence of how hard it will be for development of new communities to respond to it. A lot of people just don't buy into the value of New Urbanism.

 

[tussin]

Well, I have presented my community as a model, and I live within the city of Chicago. My neighborhood was once a standalone town, with its own light-rail train station heading into Chicago, but the town was eventually annexed by the city, like so many near suburbs. So it may be sort of a historical anomaly ... it started as its own town, and developed the community culture to match, and then the Chicagoland area grew around it.

But anyway, I don't see any reason, at least in theory, metro areas can't develop new spaces or redevelop old ones into clusters of small, adjacent communities. As has already been pointed out in this thread, much of the Northeast is already like that.

The problems are practical. It's pretty tough to reverse 60 years of thinking that the goal should be to get the nicest house and biggest yard possible, regardless of how long it takes to drive there from other points of interest, or that it's better to drive 20 miles to a destination shopping mall than walk or bike or take a short drive (if you'll be buying more than you can carry) to a local shopping district a half-mile away, etc. This is the attitude that leads to the Sprawl development phenomenon. It will take a perceived shift in people's preferences to get any political and financial momentum behind New Urbanism. Based on what I have read about demographic changes in many communities, that shift is starting, but this thread is evidence of how hard it will be for development of new communities to respond to it. A lot of people just don't buy into the value of New Urbanism.

Yeah agreed, I think a lot of people no longer even have the choice to take the bike ride you describe. In many areas, the shift may be to modern suburbia may be too mature to feasibly reverse.

 

[GowerND11]

I grew up in West Pittston which is a small town of about 5,000 between Wilkes-Barre and Scranton (the two "major" cities of the Wyoming Valley).

Oh I know of West Pittston. Do you go to Pittston High School then, or is it another district like WVW?

 

[NDinTEXAS]

Bring back the Bull Moose Party!!! No seriously bring it back.

 

[tussin]

Oh I know of West Pittston. Do you go to Pittston High School then, or is it another district like WVW?

The school district is Wyoming Area, but my parents taught at WVW and I went to a private school named Wyoming Seminary a few towns over in Kingston.

However, given the communal dynamics I described before, most of my best friends then and now were local Wyoming Area kids in my neighborhood.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It's not false in many areas across the country.

It's false in that those two options are presented as the only possibilities available.

Chicago's residents have limited options right now. We have limited space to develop and insane local governments that make it nearly impossible to re-build/re-develop. Sure, there are a few areas that resemble new urban living but the housing is very limited and comes with a huge price tag most residents simply cannot afford (among other issues).

Which is why New Urbanism is needed. As Emcee noted above, right now it's mostly about raising awareness about the negative consequences of shitty planning. Once a critical mass of people start demanding change, then you'll start seeing zoning restrictions relax and developers responding to popular demand for walkable neighborhoods.

You're right, it doesn't have to be this way. I would prefer new urban living (though I see why others would reject it) but I understand why, in Chicago, it's not an option. The only realistic option is to re-develop blighted areas in and around the south and west sides of the city. You, me and Buster could spend a fortune over the next decade greasing politicians, community leaders and priests to re-develop these areas and maybe we get something built. And therein lies the issue - risk, time and money. Make no mistake, there is a demand for suburban living. So, investors are left with a choice - keep developing the burbs without the red tape, assume minimal risk and get a nice return on their investment or dick around with local governments, assume great risk and pray for profit. The answer is obvious and it's why our options are limited here in the people's republic of Chicago.

It's not gonna happen overnight, but at least Chicago has the density to make walkable neighborhoods a realistic goal; Arizona is so spread out, and most city zoning regulations so inflexible, that it's going to take a small revolution here to see serious progress.

Fortunately, local politics tend to be easily influenced; those who show up and speak up get stuff done. And AFAIK, there's no monied special interest out there with a major incentive to oppose this stuff. It pretty much sells itself; honestly, who doesn't want to live in a tight-knit community of parks, local businesses, and churches? The obstacle that must be overcome here is simply the momentum of the post-WWII planning model.

 

[wizards8507]

And AFAIK, there's no monied special interest out there with a major incentive to oppose this stuff. It pretty much sells itself; honestly, who doesn't want to live in a tight-knit community of parks, local businesses, and churches? The obstacle that must be overcome here is simply the momentum of the post-WWII planning model.

Though not especially "monied," what about the suburban mom? As much as I love living in a small, tight-knit town, I could do without the noise; a product of a community hospital right in the neighborhood, dense housing areas, and the jackass people across the street with their dirt bikes and go carts at all hours. I joked to my wife the other night that I love my $200,000 home but I wish we had $400,000 neighbors. I hate how elitist that sounds, because my family had very little money growing up, but I think part of the allure of "getting out of town" is living among civilized people who can behave themselves. I'm not sure what you call them, but a lot of my neighbors are the northeast equivalent of stereotypical rednecks.

 

[Wild Bill]

Well, I have presented my community as a model, and I live within the city of Chicago. My neighborhood was once a standalone town, with its own light-rail train station heading into Chicago, but the town was eventually annexed by the city, like so many near suburbs. So it may be sort of a historical anomaly ... it started as its own town, and developed the community culture to match, and then the Chicagoland area grew around it.

But anyway, I don't see any reason, at least in theory, metro areas can't develop new spaces or redevelop old ones into clusters of small, adjacent communities. As has already been pointed out in this thread, much of the Northeast is already like that.

The problems are practical. It's pretty tough to reverse 60 years of thinking that the goal should be to get the nicest house and biggest yard possible, regardless of how long it takes to drive there from other points of interest, or that it's better to drive 20 miles to a destination shopping mall than walk or bike or take a short drive (if you'll be buying more than you can carry) to a local shopping district a half-mile away, etc. This is the attitude that leads to the Sprawl development phenomenon. It will take a perceived shift in people's preferences to get any political and financial momentum behind New Urbanism. Based on what I have read about demographic changes in many communities, that shift is starting, but this thread is evidence of how hard it will be for development of new communities to respond to it. A lot of people just don't buy into the value of New Urbanism.

I don't see it that way. I think it's valued and there is a growing demand, especially among young professionals. Now don't get me wrong, I think there is a demand for suburban life for reasons you stated and others. Supply is the issue in Chicago. How do you create the space and then deliver affordable "new urban" housing to the residents? I don't know the answer but I know where I'd start - dragging local politicians out of office, tarring and feathering them in front of the Daley Center.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Though not especially "monied," what about the suburban mom? As much as I love living in a small, tight-knit town, I could do without the noise; a product of a community hospital right in the neighborhood, dense housing areas, and the jackass people across the street with their dirt bikes and go carts at all hours.

Density and diversity are the two buzz words for new urbanism, and diversity applies to people/incomes as well. FWIW, I have $400k neighbors who own lots of noisy toys (jet skis, dirt bikes, etc.) and are frequently using them when I'm trying to get my young kids to sleep. Some of that is just the unavoidable messiness of neighbors.

I joked to my wife the other night that I love my $200,000 home but I wish we had $400,000 neighbors. I hate how elitist that sounds, because my family had very little money growing up, but I think part of the allure of "getting out of town" is living among civilized people who can behave themselves. I'm not sure what you call them, but a lot of my neighbors are the northeast equivalent of stereotypical rednecks.

Gentrification sounds nice in theory, but I spent a lot of time in those neighborhoods growing up, and there's generally not much in the way of genuine community in such neighborhoods (at least not in Arizona). So you'd be in a nicer house, on a larger lot, your neighbors would likely be a bit more "respectable", and you'd rarely be bothered with anything... but you'd be just as isolated as most of your countrymen. Ain't worth it.

 

[NDohio]

Density and diversity are the two buzz words for new urbanism, and diversity applies to people/incomes as well. FWIW, I have $400k neighbors who own lots of noisy toys (jet skis, dirt bikes, etc.) and are frequently using them when I'm trying to get my young kids to sleep. Some of that is just the unavoidable messiness of neighbors.



Gentrification sounds nice in theory, but I spent a lot of time in those neighborhoods growing up, and there's generally not much in the way of genuine community in such neighborhoods (at least not in Arizona). So you'd be in a nicer house, on a larger lot, your neighbors would likely be a bit more "respectable", and you'd rarely be bothered with anything... but you'd be just as isolated as most of your countrymen. Ain't worth it.

Yes!

 

[wizards8507]

How does this "new urbanism" view rural folks, specifically the American farmer. I know this is over simplifying things but it seems to me that their argument is generally walkable community = traditional = good, while isolation = newfangled post-WWII = bad.

 

[Wild Bill]

It's false in that those two options are presented as the only possibilities available.

In Chicago, I disagree. Respectfully, of course.

Which is why New Urbanism is needed. As Emcee noted above, right now it's mostly about raising awareness about the negative consequences of shitty planning. Once a critical mass of people start demanding change, then you'll start seeing zoning restrictions relax and developers responding to popular demand for walkable neighborhoods.

It's not NEEDED. Some want it and others do not. Chicago's suburbs are some of the best places to live in the entire nation. They're safe, convenient and offer terrific public schools. I do not see an inherent problem with the burbs. I know some consider sprawl to be unsustainable but they seem to sustain better than the city itself. I can assure you the north siders in Chicago aren't desperate for new urban developments in the city. They are more than happy to live in their burbs. It's not for me, and probably not for you, but it's pretty damn nice.

It's not gonna happen overnight, but at least Chicago has the density to make walkable neighborhoods a realistic goal; Arizona is so spread out, and most city zoning regulations so inflexible, that it's going to take a small revolution here to see serious progress.

Fortunately, local politics tend to be easily influenced; those who show up and speak up get stuff done. And AFAIK, there's no monied special interest out there with a major incentive to oppose this stuff. It pretty much sells itself; honestly, who doesn't want to live in a tight-knit community of parks, local businesses, and churches? The obstacle that must be overcome here is simply the momentum of the post-WWII planning model.

People who prefer the burbs, crotchety old fucks like my old man and wealthy people who want to do it big, just to name a few.

I'd love the option and I think there is already an existing demand here. I'm far less optimistic it'll get done.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

How does this "new urbanism" view rural folks, specifically the American farmer. I know this is over simplifying things but it seems to me that their argument is generally walkable community = traditional = good, while isolation = newfangled post-WWII = bad.

The small independent farmer is all but extinct in this country now; regardless, new urbanism-- as an urban planning philsophy-- likely doesn't have much relevance for rural America. Density simply isn't an option in such places.

 

[Emcee77]

It's not NEEDED. Some want it and others do not. Chicago's suburbs are some of the best places to live in the entire nation. They're safe, convenient and offer terrific public schools. I do not see an inherent problem with the burbs. I know some consider sprawl to be unsustainable but they seem to sustain better than the city itself. I can assure you the north siders in Chicago aren't desperate for new urban developments in the city. They are more than happy to live in their burbs. It's not for me, and probably not for you, but it's pretty damn nice.

People who prefer the burbs, crotchety old fucks like my old man and wealthy people who want to do it big, just to name a few.

I'd love the option and I think there is already an existing demand here. I'm far less optimistic it'll get done.

The thing is, many Chicago suburbs are not that far from the kind of communities we are talking about.

Contrast a network of densely clustered towns with Sprawl. Sprawl is a succession of cheap, crappy, identical subdivisions, one right after another, broken up by shopping centers and connected only by a network of 8 lane highways lined with Wal-Marts and Home Depots (but that used to be two lane roads with general stores). It sucks. Like Buster said earlier in the thread, it is soul-crushing Sameness.

But I have a buddy who lives in Arlington Heights ... it's great. I take the train out there at least once a year so we can get bombed at his house and walk to the race track. It's a nice little town. I'm not saying that's a model New Urbanist community or anything, but I agree with you that many Chicago suburbs have some of the virtues New Urbanists are looking for. The suburban neighborhood I grew up in didn't. It was a shiny, gleaming, crude, vulgar expanse of subdivision after subdivision and shopping center after shopping center, with virtually nothing for a community to cohere around.

 

[Wild Bill]

Contrast a network of densely clustered towns with Sprawl. Sprawl is a succession of cheap, crappy, identical subdivisions, one right after another, broken up by shopping centers and connected only by a network of 8 lane highways lined with Wal-Marts and Home Depots (but that used to be two lane roads with general stores). It sucks. Like Buster said earlier in the thread, it is soul-crushing Sameness.

I can contrast them and the only difference is money. Arlington Heights is no less sprawl than Bolingbrook simply b/c their residents can afford nicer homes. We need affordable homes whether it's accomplished through sprawl or urban planning. Like I said, I'm not optimistic.

The thing is, many Chicago suburbs are not that far from the kind of communities we are talking about.

But I have a buddy who lives in Arlington Heights ... it's great. I take the train out there at least once a year so we can get bombed at his house and walk to the race track. It's a nice little town. I'm not saying that's a model New Urbanist community or anything, but I agree with you that many Chicago suburbs have some of the virtues New Urbanists are looking for. The suburban neighborhood I grew up in didn't. It was a shiny, gleaming, crude, vulgar expanse of subdivision after subdivision and shopping center after shopping center, with virtually nothing for a community to cohere around.

You're right, they have a different feel. But is it a realistic option for the average family? You have to live somewhere and the decision usually comes down to affordability - vinyl siding, box stores and highways sounds good at the right price.

 

[phgreek]

What town(well there is only one in PA )/city did you grow up in? Being from Schuylkill County I know exactly what you mean and how you feel. Hard to get a job here once educated.

In my amatuer opinion, it seems like Pittsburgh is doing a great job right now both in fostering communities, and emerging from the Rust Belt on the right side. Anyone agree or disagree?

...its how I ended up in Utah...

PA sure does generate a ton of engineers...who end up elsewhere.

I suppose a few more can stay these days with Fracking etc. But when I graduated you could fight your tail off for a Penndot gig, or bail...you can guess my choice...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

In Chicago, I disagree. Respectfully, of course.

I'm not sure we actually disagree on this. Do you really think that skyscrapers v. sprawling suburbs is the only possibility that could ever exist in Chicago? Those are two extremes, and there's a huge gray area in between them that new urbanists would argue is more conducive to building and sustaining community.

It's not NEEDED. Some want it and others do not.

I'm of the opinion that community is crucial to human flourishing, so I would say it's a necessity; put another way, that city governments have a moral duty to at least design in a such a way that encourages community. But people obviously have the freedom to vote otherwise with their ballots and wallets.

Chicago's suburbs are some of the best places to live in the entire nation. They're safe, convenient and offer terrific public schools. I do not see an inherent problem with the burbs.

As Emcee mentioned above, it sounds like many of Chicago's suburbs are already doing a great job at fostering community. I never argued that there's an inherent problem with the suburbs. New urbanism can be applied in urban and suburban areas alike.

I know some consider sprawl to be unsustainable but they seem to sustain better than the city itself.

Sprawl, by definition, is unsustainable because it has to continue "sprawling". That's one of the main differences between new urban philosophies and largely unplanned suburban sprawl-- the former is sustainable, and can sustain a thriving community indefinitely, while the latter is guaranteed to decline within a few decades.

I can assure you the north siders in Chicago aren't desperate for new urban developments in the city. They are more than happy to live in their burbs. It's not for me, and probably not for you, but it's pretty damn nice.

If they've already got a nice suburban community in place, then new urbanists aren't going suggest blowing that up. I don't know much about the north side, but I assume it's pretty gentrified. In that case, new urbanists could probably recommend some improvements that many in the area would take to-- smaller lots, less segregation between local commercial and residential zones, etc.

People who prefer the burbs, crotchety old fucks like my old man and wealthy people who want to do it big, just to name a few.

I greatly prefer the suburbs to city life, but I'm still a fan of new urbanism. I think you may be conflating the suburbs with sprawl. They're not the same thing.

I can contrast them and the only difference is money. Arlington Heights is no less sprawl than Bolingbrook simply b/c their residents can afford nicer homes. We need affordable homes whether it's accomplished through sprawl or urban planning. Like I said, I'm not optimistic.

Part of the problem here is that Chicago (and the surrounding area) is a very popular place to live, so high demand drives up prices. Depending on the your job and the size your family, living near a major metropolis might simply not be affordable. And there are hundreds of better ways to create affordable housing than sprawl.

 

[Emcee77]

I can contrast them and the only difference is money. Arlington Heights is no less sprawl than Bolingbrook simply b/c their residents can afford nicer homes. We need affordable homes whether it's accomplished through sprawl or urban planning. Like I said, I'm not optimistic.



You're right, they have a different feel. But is it a realistic option for the average family? You have to live somewhere and the decision usually comes down to affordability - vinyl siding, box stores and highways sounds good at the right price.

I guess the point I was trying to make wasn't clear. The difference between what I call Sprawl and Arlington Heights is NOT money. I have never been to Bolingbrook so I don't know what it's like. But the houses in Arlington Heights are mostly pretty old and unimpressive, although neat and well-kept. There may be money there, I don't know, but money is not what impresses me about it. My buddy who lives there is certainly not an affluent guy. Solid middle-class family.

No, the point was that Arlington Heights is a TOWN with at least some minimal walkability and a "downtown" to organize the community around, i.e. a place for members of the community to interact. Sprawl is unincorporated unorganized consumption by construction. There is no plan, no community design. What we are talking about is some local planning underlying the development of the real estate in a community. It really has nothing to do with money.

The bolded portions below illustrate what I'm trying to say better than I am doing.

I'm not sure we actually disagree on this. Do you really think that skyscrapers v. sprawling suburbs is the only possibility that could ever exist in Chicago? Those are two extremes, and there's a huge gray area in between them that new urbanists would argue is more conducive to building and sustaining community.



I'm of the opinion that community is crucial to human flourishing, so I would say it's a necessity; put another way, that city governments have a moral duty to at least design in a such a way that encourages community. But people obviously have the freedom to vote otherwise with their ballots and wallets.



As Emcee mentioned above, it sounds like many of Chicago's suburbs are already doing a great job at fostering community. I never argued that there's an inherent problem with the suburbs. New urbanism can be applied in urban and suburban areas alike.



Sprawl, by definition, is unsustainable because it has to continue "sprawling". That's one of the main differences between new urban philosophies and largely unplanned suburban sprawl-- the former is sustainable, and can sustain a thriving community indefinitely, while the latter is guaranteed to decline within a few decades.



If they've already got a nice suburban community in place, then new urbanists aren't going suggest blowing that up. I don't know much about the north side, but I assume it's pretty gentrified. In that case, new urbanists could probably recommend some improvements that many in the area would take to-- smaller lots, less segregation between local commercial and residential zones, etc.



I greatly prefer the suburbs to city life, but I'm still a fan of new urbanism. I think you may be conflating the suburbs with sprawl. They're not the same thing.

 

[Wild Bill]

I'm not sure we actually disagree on this. Do you really think that skyscrapers v. sprawling suburbs is the only possibility that could ever exist in Chicago? Those are two extremes, and there's a huge gray area in between them that new urbanists would argue is more conducive to building and sustaining community.

No, not at all. Residents are limited present day. In theory, I think it's possible to re-develop neighborhoods. I'm just pessimistic about the local politics. It would be extremely difficult.

As Emcee mentioned above, it sounds like many of Chicago's suburbs are already doing a great job at fostering community. I never argued that there's an inherent problem with the suburbs. New urbanism can be applied in urban and suburban areas alike.

Which is why I do not believe new urbanism is needed. It's a welcomed movement, just not needed. These communities were developed without the influence of new urbanism. They're not walkable, they're not diverse in population or housing and they're not built around a community center yet they are flourishing.

Sprawl, by definition, is unsustainable because it has to continue "sprawling". That's one of the main differences between new urban philosophies and largely unplanned suburban sprawl-- the former is sustainable, and can sustain a thriving community indefinitely, while the latter is guaranteed to decline within a few decades.

How do we know it's sustainable? My mom grew up in a beautiful urban environment. Beautiful brick homes, grocery stores, restaurants, bars, churches all within walking distance and jobs were plentiful. You may have heard of the place - it's called Gary, IN.

I greatly prefer the suburbs to city life, but I'm still a fan of new urbanism. I think you may be conflating the suburbs with sprawl. They're not the same thing.

Seems like it has more to do with money than anything else. Naperville, 35 miles away from Chicago, is a suburb b/c the homes are nice and we assume it will be sustained. Bolingbrook, 25 miles away from Chicago, is sprawl b/c they have cheap housing and we assume it cannot be sustained. It's difficult to see the distinction.

I'm not suggesting Bolingbrook is a dump. Naperville is just nicer.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Which is why I do not believe new urbanism is needed. It's a welcomed movement, just not needed. These communities were developed without the influence of new urbanism. They're not walkable, they're not diverse in population or housing and they're not built around a community center yet they are flourishing.

See Bluto's post above. "New urbanism" isn't really new; it's mostly just a revival of traditional urban design principles that have been around for hundreds of years. It's the post-WWII development model that's unprecedented; thus "new" urbanism because it's challenging a 70-year old convention.

How do we know it's sustainable? My mom grew up in a beautiful urban environment. Beautiful brick homes, grocery stores, restaurants, bars, churches all within walking distance and jobs were plentiful. You may have heard of the place - it's called Gary, IN.

There are mountains of data out there about how and why sprawl is unsustainable.

Gary was founded 108 years ago-- well before the post-war development model took hold and urban sprawl became a thing. Of all the reasons for its decline, I'm pretty confident its initial design wasn't one of them. Though poorly managed growth over the last 5-6 decades made have been a contributing factor. I don't know nearly as much about the region as you do.

Seems like it has more to do with money than anything else. Naperville, 35 miles away from Chicago, is a suburb b/c the homes are nice and we assume it will be sustained. Bolingbrook, 25 miles away from Chicago, is sprawl b/c they have cheap housing and we assume it cannot be sustained. It's difficult to see the distinction.

It really comes down to how those two cities were designed and how growth is being managed in both places. Many gentrified suburbs are less sustainable and community-oriented than poorer but better planned areas, though the property values may give the impression they're "nicer".

 

[Wild Bill]

See Bluto's post above. "New urbanism" isn't really new; it's mostly just a revival of traditional urban design principles that have been around for hundreds of years. It's the post-WWII development model that's unprecedented; thus "new" urbanism because it's challenging a 70-year old convention.

Whether it's new or old isn't relevant, these communities are exact opposite of urban. They're not walkable, diverse, etc. My point is that they are doing a great job of fostering community in the absence of urban planning. Could it be better? Sure.

There are mountains of data out there about how and why sprawl is unsustainable.

Gary was founded 108years ago-- well before the post-war development model took hold and urban sprawl became a thing. Of all the reasons for its decline, I'm pretty confident its initial design wasn't one of them. Though poorly managed growth over the last 5-6 decades made have been a contributing factor. I don't know nearly as much about the region as you do.

Gary used to fit the description of the new urban design and it failed miserably. The "sprawl" that resulted has enjoyed quite a bit of success. I'm not suggesting one is better than the other. I'm just not convinced it's needed to foster communities.

It really comes down to how those two cities were designed and how growth is being managed in both places. Many gentrified suburbs are less sustainable and community-oriented than poorer but better planned areas, though the property values may give the impression they're "nicer".

Growth can be managed much easier with a larger tax base. Here's my question - two suburbs are being developed. What, other than distance from the urban area potential and anticipated tax base, should we analyze to determine whether it's sprawl or sustainable?

 

[RDU Irish]

Our "community" revolves around our children's activities. We have an active school community and the town provides rec leagues for sports that create another community. It is pretty ridiculous to think a town of 150,000 can bring people together by placing buildings in the "right" order and magnitude. We associate with people of like interests.

Our town has dumped huge sums of money trying to build a downtown area. This is a previous bump in the road, couple thousand resident town that exploded in population in the last 40 years. Rather than focus on infrastructure needed to move people around efficiently, they are spending millions to build a damn park around a walkable downtown area (with crappy parking and $100,000 homes surrounding it). For example, city buys an old run down house and spends $1 million renovating it into a coffee house. Another $1 million plus renovating an old theatre (after an independent old theatre nearby went belly up two years ago). Then pay 5-6x market value for some old houses on the same block they want to turn into a park (i.e. mowed open field).

Meanwhile, sidewalks are not built connecting neighborhoods and amenities and higher density housing is pushed hard while roads are backed up due to lack of infrastructure. However, there are great programs, parks, trails, amphitheater run by the town that provide great opportunities for community. They just are not centralized and set up as the town grows with land more readily available.

Point being, trying to force something gets pretty expensive and the people benefiting are less expansive. I got no money to build out better office space in a better location for a lower price than the yahoos forcing the issue in the new "downtown" area. If there was demand for this "new urban" type of area the town wouldn't have to pretty much build the whole thing on taxpayer's backs.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The things you seem to desire exist, you just have to go find them.

Isn't the "best of both worlds" when you can live in an old mill (first picture), go to church in a 90 year-old building (150 year-old parish, second picture), and still pop in a Target when you need a pack of toilet paper and a new bike pump at the same time?

I was referring to the square, and how the architecture defines a space, not in the architecture of the building specifically. The architecture of the building is super important, but it's basically just a prerequisite. It's making it (the building/place) work on a human scale. I was referring to the center of European communities often being public open spaces, usually accompanied by the church/Cathedral:

Such a space is practically foreign to an American. They exist, but you "just have to go find them." Great public spaces should be commonplace. My point on that matter was that our interactions are likely to be in a parking lot.

Are dense, walkable neighborhoods desirable?

There are a myriad of surveys saying they are, even from people who live smack in the middle of suburbia.

Census Reveals Hoosiers Increasingly Desire Walkable Neighborhoods | Urban Indy

Americans showing greater desire for walkability, amenities in the areas they call home

Millennials and Boomers Show Preference for Walkable, Transit-Friendly Communities | Partnership for Strong Communities

And people are putting their money where their mouth is, gentrification and growth in major downtowns and first-ring neighborhoods is booming.

We all want it all. I want a nice home, I want the convenience of my car, I want the ability to walk if I choose, I want elite schools, I want low taxes and so on. Unfortunately, most of us our held back by a G.D. budget. I hate mine but I can't shake it.

Proper planning is not expensive. Maybe I'm not understanding your point here.

We do want it all, but we aren't being given it. The scale tipped too far in one direction, so far that a car is basically required. Modern planning, having learned from the mistakes of the post-WW2 development model, seeks to build walkable communities which of course allow for the convenience of your car.

But what's the advantage of a local grocer over a grocery chain? I've never said "dang, I really wish I could get product XYZ but they just don't sell it at Publix/Stop and Shop/Price Chopper."

I don't have a problem with a chain. Is local better? I think so, if it meets your needs.

Creating (walkable) neighborhoods, defining spaces, and building on a human scale is a game of feet (whereas building on a car scale is a game of miles). The most common problem is that the parking is in front of the building, when it should be the other way around.

If a corporate grocer (or any store) can work with a community to build a unique building that works within the neighborhood, then I'm all for it. It's attention to detail. None of those cookie-cutter buildings that are ubiquitous in Suburbia.

I have three examples of grocery store planning for you.

1) The first one is one of the worst planning failures in recent Columbus history (Located at 39* 56' N 83* 00' W). A three-phase office park was planned and the first phase was completed (two office buildings and a greenspace, built up to the sidewalk) when Kroger notified the developers that they wanted to build a Kroger in place of their second phase. This was HUGE news. It was the first grocery store to build in Columbus' downtown/first-ring neighborhoods since White Flight (because of all the gentrification going on...people desiring walkable communities). So they said "yes! yes! please! go right ahead!"

And what happened? Kroger plopped their cookie-cutter store right behind the first phase and completely destroyed the space. The Kroger is 400' off the sidewalk--more than a football field away from pedestrians. The put their parking lot in between the store and the first phase. Take a look on Google Earth, it's appalling and obvious they took about two seconds of thought on how it'd be built.

Yes, they have their grocery store, and it's packed, but the walkability opportunities weren't taken advantage of neighborhood isn't maximizing its potential.

2/3) Same location, two Krogers.

Back in the 1970s Kroger put their parking-in-the-front shithole on High Street and, of course, destroyed the walkability of the area. Study after study show that a 300' parking lot built on a street destroy it. Game over.

In ~2011 they tore down the building and instead of keeping the parking in front they moved it to the side and place the building's side on the sidewalk and overnight the neighborhood changed.

Something as simple as a layout of a grocery store is vital. A proper downtown is simple: buildings, more than one story tall, built to the sidewalk edge. Off-street parking in the rear. Throw some trees in and call it a day. Suburbia is single-story buildings with (way too much) off-street parking in the front, and it's a disaster for neighborhoods.

I will have to expand on this later but i worked 70 hours in five days so I'm going to the bar haha

 

[tussin]

I am grateful for the neighborhood I grew up in, but let's shift back to the original topic... economics.

My home MSA is struggling. Because there are no major cities nearby (part of the reason why communal structure is so strong), there are also no major corporations and limited jobs. A high school grad with no plans to attend college can carve out a reasonably comfortable niche within some type of trade job or working for a small community business. But I'm well-educated, have substantial college loans, and have a higher expectations and goals for myself. So I can't go home to work... the only paths to wealth there are entrepreneurship, becoming a doctor, and (in some cases) pursuing law.

So I think the overarching question is how do we balance well-designed, ideally structured communities with businesses that can sustain consistent, significant job growth and increased populations? Not sure there is a solution... are there any major cities doing it right?

Buster, interested to hear your thoughts on the above.

 

[Wild Bill]

Proper planning is not expensive. Maybe I'm not understanding your point here.

We do want it all, but we aren't being given it. The scale tipped too far in one direction, so far that a car is basically required. Modern planning, having learned from the mistakes of the post-WW2 development model, seeks to build walkable communities which of course allow for the convenience of your car.

Sorry, it is a bit confusing without context. I'm not suggesting the planning or concept isn't affordable. I was talking about the current options for Chicago's residents - you're not living in a "walkable" neighborhood unless you make a good amount of money. It's simply not affordable for most families, which is why they choose the burbs (even if they prefer an urban lifestyle).

I believe there is a growing demand for walkable neighborhoods in Chicago. Is it desirable? I don't know. Given the option, I think most people would choose big homes, land, space and SUVs. I could be wrong, though.

 

[NDinTEXAS]

A little bit off topic but has anyone read "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" by Thomas Piketty? I loved it and reading the comments here I think others will too.

 

[Cackalacky]

All I can say is I am on board with what Buster is selling. Downtown Charleston and even the metro area are all going to to live/work communities, bike paths are being constructed on the abandoned rail rights of way, communities are becoming more tight and centralized. It is awesome to see. Also did I mention I only have to fill up gas about once a month.