Can new urban neighborhoods younger than 25 years have character?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Totally with you Steely, I like living urban but I cant imagine having a dog without an accompanying yard, much less kids. Its not good urban form at all but being able to wander out into the desert from sun up to sun down was a big part of my childhood and I wouldn't want to deprive that kind of freedom and access to nature from my kids.

well, i'm in the middle (surprise, surprise).

raising a family on one of those dark and narrow naples alleys wouldn't be my first choice.

conversely, i sure as hell wouldn't want to raise a family in suburban phoenix either.



i like the creamy middle of "urban-lite" for family living.

urbanish, yet still very green with some breathing room: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9803...7i16384!8i8192

fortunately for me, chicago has absolute assloads of the above.

and much of it is pretty affordable, at least by coastal city standards.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

well, i'm in the middle (surprise, surprise).

raising a family on one of those dark and narrow naples alleys wouldn't be my first choice.

conversely, i sure as hell wouldn't want to raise a family in suburban phoenix either.



i like the creamy middle of "urban-lite" for family living.

urbanish, yet still very green with some breathing room: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9803...7i16384!8i8192

fortunately for me, chicago has absolute assloads of the above.

and much of it is pretty affordable, at least by coastal city standards.

Perfect city streets. An alloy of smoothness and solidity. Of course, nothing like that mix is proposed nowadays.

What bothers me is that we have the trained designers and architects, the urban planners, but everything falls short in the design of streets and housing. Another thing we have is technology which can speed execution but you can have all the copper pans in the world and still serve up limp burgers and straw fries to an audience that isn't more demanding.

Something close to your leafy Chicago example in Montreal;
https://goo.gl/maps/3aawe7cLKGu3eSPx7

[the urban politician]

^ You call those "urbanish"?

My gosh, some of you just haven't spent enough time in suburbia....

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ You call those "urbanish"?

"urbanish" in relation to those old dark and narrow medieval european alleys like those of naples and paris linked to earlier.

but yes, quite urban in relation to schaumburg and 99% of US suburbia.

it's all a continuum. i like my urbanism as i like my politics: in the middle.

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Something close to your leafy Chicago example in Montreal;
https://goo.gl/maps/3aawe7cLKGu3eSPx7

oh hell yes!

that's what i'm talking about.

i could easily tuck my family right into that hood without suffocating.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

"urbanish" in relation to those old dark and narrow medieval european alleys like those of naples and paris linked to earlier.

but yes, quite urban in relation to schaumburg and 99% of US suburbia.






oh hell yes!

that's what i'm talking about.

i could easily tuck my family right into that hood without suffocating.

Yes, it seems like a lot of the stuff being built nowadays is just that; suffocating. All the staggered mock-playful colored panels and glazing on condo buildings are dizzying to look at, and will have to be scrapped in the long run when folks realize how stupid it looks. But I wouldn't bet on it just now. People are too busy on their smartphones to actually care about where they live, even at a premium.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Totally with you Steely, I like living urban but I cant imagine having a dog without an accompanying yard, much less kids. Its not good urban form at all but being able to wander out into the desert from sun up to sun down was a big part of my childhood and I wouldn't want to deprive that kind of freedom and access to nature from my kids.

Do you mean a garden or a yard?

Single family homes in urban neighborhoods (Brooklyn, most of London) often have a small garden, but if you have a “yard” big enough for even a child to run around in, you are probably in suburbia.

I would find a large yard pretty useless and a chore, compared to having a very good large urban park, where I can go for a several mile run or walk the dog, practically on my doorstep as I do now. Both would be fine, but if I had to pick between one and the other I would definitely choose the world class park. That’s something a lot of newer cities are also lacking.

And suburban sprawl actually creates more distance between the city and nature. Someone in central Paris is a lot closer, in time and distance, to the countryside than someone in central Chicago. The person in central Chicago has to get through a lot more sprawl, whereas urban Paris meets rural France very abruptly by American standards.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

oh hell yes!

that's what i'm talking about.

i could easily tuck my family right into that hood without suffocating.

But I hear you. I think more Americans would be into city living if everywhere had vast Victorian neighborhoods full of garden squares. And if I went back to NYC, I would probably go to Brooklyn.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by 10023

Do you mean a garden or a yard?

Single family homes in urban neighborhoods (Brooklyn, most of London) often have a small garden, but if you have a “yard” big enough for even a child to run around in, you are probably in suburbia.

I would find a large yard pretty useless and a chore, compared to having a very good large urban park, where I can go for a several mile run or walk the dog, practically on my doorstep as I do now. Both would be fine, but if I had to pick between one and the other I would definitely choose the world class park. That’s something a lot of newer cities are also lacking.

And suburban sprawl actually creates more distance between the city and nature. Someone in central Paris is a lot closer, in time and distance, to the countryside than someone in central Chicago. The person in central Chicago has to get through a lot more sprawl, whereas urban Paris meets rural France very abruptly by American standards.

No I am talking about endless wilderness, Obviously many of you on here absolutely do not understand. That isnt a knock its simply something many of you haven't experienced.

Id also completely disagree with your concept of distance to nature, even people in NYC are only a short drive from expanses of unspoiled old forest and mountains that you simply cannot find in Europe. Even what you guys consider "preserves" or countryside is largely inhabited and has been for centuries even thousands of years.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Obadno

No I am talking about endless wilderness, Obviously many of you on here absolutely do not understand.

“Endless wilderness” doesn’t exist in most regions where people live and this has nothing to do with whether one lives in an urban neighborhood or not.

I do like the country (or rural areas), but I also have a job, and so that argues for a weekend getaway rather than living in the suburbs. The suburbs are not the country.

As for your comment about Europe generally, my family in Munich who go hiking in the Alps on the weekend would disagree with you. But again that’s a question of geography, not urban form.

[JManc]

Where Obadno lives (Arizona?), most suburban areas are in the wilderness/ desert which is what I think he's referring to. You can walk out the door in a lot of these southwestern exurbs and go on a short hike out in the desert. or at the very least, a quick drive.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by 10023

“Endless wilderness” doesn’t exist in most regions where people live and this has nothing to do with whether one lives in an urban neighborhood or not.

I do like the country (or rural areas), but I also have a job, and so that argues for a weekend getaway rather than living in the suburbs. The suburbs are not the country.

As for your comment about Europe generally, my family in Munich who go hiking in the Alps on the weekend would disagree with you. But again that’s a question of geography, not urban form.

Yes, it is a geographical question. We sold our house in Montreal's downtown neighborhood of Little Burgundy because we wanted more space. We moved from a suburb on the island of Montreal 5yrs ago to fix up this old 1870's house. I think we did a pretty good job but the space issue was problematic in spite of proximity to everything, like a 4 minute walk to the Metro, Atwater Market, and lots of restaurants. I needed space for painting and tools for my job in the movies.

We chose a house in a commuter suburb with nice historic interest, on Chambly basin in front of an old 17th century fort. I am on the waterfront, and winter as well as summer sports are within easy reach, and the city is only a half hour away. I don't need to drive into town as much, and my wife is away 3 days a week and I drive her in on Sundays and back on Tuesdays. I do two sessions of life drawing on those two days which justifies my commute, and we go eat out on the Tuesday. This small city transitions from town to country pretty nicely and it is that much closer to Vermont and New York State for a one day excursion.

[llamaorama]

I think the majority of children growing up nowadays aren't free to roam endlessly in the forest or build a treehouse or whatever the fictional ideal is. Urban living has no impact on that.

Most people in North America live in suburban-style neighborhoods which are going to be surrounded by private property that is not accessible, busy highways, working farms, industry, more neighborhoods, and so on to the horizon and beyond.Phoenix and a few other western US cities are unique in the way they are surrounded by absolutely nothing which is mostly federally owned. Most cities and towns aren't like that.

Certainly in Houston the norm is to build a lot of big houses close together that take up most of the lot and have small, featureless flat yards that start out treeless and barren. There's a few master-planned communities where trees were preserved and have trails but most of the metro isn't like that. Nobody's going outside here, it is too hot anyways.

I strongly believe that for the largest number of people, urban places actually offer more accessible, quality open space and freedom to roam. More conventionally urban cities or even just older pre-1980s suburbs always have more substantial parks with varied features which could reached on foot or by bike. Modern sprawl may have parks, but they are typically far apart and meant to be driven to. The greater the density of a neighborhood the more intensely public the non-private domain becomes and the greater demand for preserved green spaces to act as a contrast.

[lio45]

Wait a minute, you live in Chambly now yet your location says Montreal????

[lio45]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

We chose a house in a commuter suburb with nice historic interest

Too bad your municipal administration doesn't seem to agree (that nonsensical Boileau house business made the news everywhere in the province). OK, I'll stop hijacking the thread now.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by lio45

Too bad your municipal administration doesn't seem to agree (that nonsensical Boileau house business made the news everywhere in the province). OK, I'll stop hijacking the thread now.

The week that we moved there in December 2018, they demolished the house in question. It was a pretty sad affair. The mayor and his administration are under investigation and the city is now under trusteeship by the Quebec Government. That house was on the same street as mine. They will rebuild a replica of it when the dust settles since the Qc Govt had promised to contribute half of the money for a rehab before the mayor flipped (a retired cop) who ordered the demo out of spite for the opposition.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by lio45

Wait a minute, you live in Chambly now yet your location says Montreal????

You're right, I need to change it now.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by 10023

“Endless wilderness” doesn’t exist in most regions where people live and this has nothing to do with whether one lives in an urban neighborhood or not.

I do like the country (or rural areas), but I also have a job, and so that argues for a weekend getaway rather than living in the suburbs. The suburbs are not the country.

As for your comment about Europe generally, my family in Munich who go hiking in the Alps on the weekend would disagree with you. But again that’s a question of geography, not urban form.

Im not going to try and prove to you the reality, feel free to look on google maps, you just dont live in a place with nearly as much open space as accessible as you can get in north america.

Thats just the reality of history and geography. I spent much of my childhood roaming freely, I could stand on a hill behind my house and look south and know that there was literally nothing (besides maybe a road or two) between my position and the south pole besides open land and sea. Its not something you can really understand until youve been there, and its why Id never leave the western US states.

[10023]

Originally Posted by JManc

Where Obadno lives (Arizona?), most suburban areas are in the wilderness/ desert which is what I think he's referring to. You can walk out the door in a lot of these southwestern exurbs and go on a short hike out in the desert. or at the very least, a quick drive.

I know exactly what he’s talking about. I’ve obviously been to many parts of the Western US. You’re not in the wilderness, you’re in the suburbs. In many places in the East or Europe you are a quick walk or drive from a forest as well.

This is not wilderness. It’s not even a short walk from wilderness:
https://goo.gl/maps/gkuChs8veJ4JAC1N7

Suburbs. Are. Not. Wilderness.

You could still build Phoenix as something other than a total suburban hellscape and still have all of that open desert on your doorstep. It could be a real city with a mass transit system which drops you, at the end of the line, right at a trailhead into the desert. He is talking about geography, not urban form.

[MonkeyRonin]

Unless you're in a subdivision right on the urban fringe: https://goo.gl/maps/SyVijFt2W3RqUFd89

...Until the next subdivision is built beyond it, that is.

[eschaton]

The only places I've seen the European setup within the U.S. - where you can walk right from dense to wilderness - are parts of the Coal Region of Eastern PA. For example, look at Manahoy City. Fairly built up (though kinda dead) downtown area. Back streets are rowhouses. Absolutely no suburbs, since development stopped around 1920. Turns straight into undeveloped wilderness only a five minute walk north/south of any point.