If We Want Everything To Be A 15-Minute Walk From Home, State Needs To Get Involved

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by mhays

Farms are pretty important too. Some for the food supply, some so many types of food can be local.

That too requires state action to do comprehensively...basically like the entire West Coast is trying to do to varying degrees.

And as cities, we want farmland to be compact as well.

Brazilian grain production jumped from 80 million tons in 2000 to 250 million tons in 2020 (for context, the US produces 450 million tons). Meanwhile, the area dedicated to farming grew at 20% only.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think that's automatically true, and there might be a little misunderstanding of the dynamics of Detroit here (or American suburbs in general). Detroit's suburbs are relatively dense for American suburbia. Apples to apples, they are as dense or denser than suburbia just about anywhere in the U.S. that's not NY Metro or California. But that reality has had almost no effect on how close people live to downtown Detroit.

In other words, the lot sizes in exurban Detroit aren't the problem. The problem is the continuous development of suburbia in a region that has not added population in decades.

Yeah, even by look at Google Earth we can easily notice Detroit suburbia is denser than Boston's. But it could be much denser. Look Toronto, for example: its footprint is half the size of Detroit's.

And if Detroit urban footprint was smaller, it goes without saying that all this developed land would be farmland or even better, reversed to nature.

[Crawford]

There's too much farmland in the U.S., not too little. "Preserving farmland" is a thing in rich rural second-home communities, so they don't have neighbors (and usually in such cases "farmland" means vineyards or boutique agriculture). But overall there's far too much farmland.

And sprawl should obviously be stopped, but existing sprawl generally shouldn't be densified. That's a worst of both worlds scenario.

This:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4534...7i16384!8i8192

Is much better than this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4921...7i16384!8i8192

Two suburban Detroit sprawl development typologies. But the latter is obviously much higher density. Both are 100% autocentric and wasteful.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's too much farmland in the U.S., not too little. "Preserving farmland" is a thing in rich rural second-home communities, so they don't have neighbors (and usually in such cases "farmland" means vineyards or boutique agriculture). But overall there's far too much farmland.

So it's even better: the ultra low-sprawl could go straight to nature. As I said, farmland, as cities should be more compact.

Originally Posted by Crawford

And sprawl should obviously be stopped, but existing sprawl generally shouldn't be densified. That's a worst of both worlds scenario.

Why not? Why a 10-acre plot couldn't be turn into 2 of 5 acres? Density would be twice as high and we'd potentially have twice more people on the same space.

The article is precisely about that: remove legal obstacles that are preventing communities to densify.

Originally Posted by Crawford

This:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4534...7i16384!8i8192

Is much better than this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4921...7i16384!8i8192

Two suburban Detroit sprawl development typologies. But the latter is obviously much higher density. Both are 100% autocentric and wasteful.

I disagree. The first is "more beautiful" than the second, not "better". Better for whom? Ideally, we could have 2 million people living in Detroit city proper, in a pre-war urban tissue. But as it's impossible, it's much better to have more people in a smaller space. Urban footprints should be smaller, not larger. At least for people worried about environment.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Yeah, even by look at Google Earth we can easily notice Detroit suburbia is denser than Boston's. But it could be much denser. Look Toronto, for example: its footprint is half the size of Detroit's.

And if Detroit urban footprint was smaller, it goes without saying that all this developed land would be farmland or even better, reversed to nature.

Yeah, but urban footprint isn't the same thing as lot size. Detroit's urban footprint is large because of too much sprawl, not lot size. Boston has much less sprawl than Detroit, even if its suburbs are less dense. I have a feeling that the large lot sizes that exist in suburban Boston are just old farm plots that were converted to housing since they aren't large enough for modern farms.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I disagree. The first is "more beautiful" than the second, not "better". Better for whom? Ideally, we could have 2 million people living in Detroit city proper, in a pre-war urban tissue. But as it's impossible, it's much better to have more people in a smaller space. Urban footprints should be smaller, not larger. At least for people worried about environment.

The most environmentally sound thing to do is that everyone kill themselves and their families.

But, in the real world, we already have U.S. sprawl. The worst thing you can do is densify existing autocentric sprawl. There's zero benefit. The problem in Boston isn't leafy homes in the woods, and turning them into Phoenix-style subdivisions would be a nightmare.

Those homes in the woods are on septic/well, they're generally older and preserve the surroundings. Just building newer junk housing close together, requiring urban utilities like city water, sewerage, etc. isn't more environmentally sound or efficient. It's terrible for drinking water and drainage and focusing resources away from existing built form. It would also destroy tax base and natural beauty.

[JManc]

Boston grew outward more organically; i.e. very few masterplanned suburbs platted from massive tracks of undeveloped land like in other metros. My neighborhood here did not exist before 1970 and today it has roughly 80,000 people. Up there, suburbs grew as people built their own houses on pieces of land they bought usually on old farm land broken up.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, but urban footprint isn't the same thing as lot size. Detroit's urban footprint is large because of too much sprawl, not lot size. Boston has much less sprawl than Detroit, even if its suburbs are less dense. I have a feeling that the large lot sizes that exist in suburban Boston are just old farm plots that were converted to housing since they aren't large enough for modern farms.

Yes, many of them are probably old farms. However, if Boston population keeps growing fast, eventually we'll have to see some densification there, otherwise it will keep sprawling into western MA or northern CT.

Originally Posted by Crawford

The most environmentally sound thing to do is that everyone kill themselves and their families.

But, in the real world, we already have U.S. sprawl. The worst thing you can do is densify existing autocentric sprawl. There's zero benefit. The problem in Boston isn't leafy homes in the woods, and turning them into Phoenix-style subdivisions would be a nightmare.

Those homes in the woods are on septic/well, they're generally older and preserve the surroundings. Just building newer junk housing close together, requiring urban utilities like city water, sewerage, etc. isn't more environmentally sound or efficient. It's terrible for drinking water and drainage and focusing resources away from existing built form. It would also destroy tax base and natural beauty.

Between "everybody die" and having everybody living in a 10 acre property because "we're Americans and we deserve it" I guess it's possible to find a middle ground, right?

But changing the subject a little, it's crazy how we cannot say anything remotely negative about Boston. Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, New York are all up to scrutiny here, but somehow Boston is just perfect. Why's that?

Originally Posted by JManc

Boston grew outward more organically; i.e. very few masterplanned suburbs platted from massive tracks of undeveloped land like in other metros. My neighborhood here did not exist before 1970 and today it has roughly 80,000 people. Up there, suburbs grew as people built their own houses on pieces of land they bought usually on old farm land broken up.

As we having Boston booming lately, it's easy to forget, but Boston has one of the slowest growth rate in the US in the past 100 years. That definitely helped them not having to develop new areas.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Yes, many of them are probably old farms. However, if Boston population keeps growing fast, eventually we'll have to see some densification there, otherwise it will keep sprawling into western MA or northern CT.

There is still a lot of empty space in and around the Boston metro. There's a LOT of green spaces between Boston and Providence/Worcester/Nashua. That's roughly an hour to and hour and a half drive.

[Crawford]

Most of these exurban sprawl communities in the Northeast are declining in population. So the odds of further sprawl are very slim.

These are NIMBY communities, lots of seniors, few children, and they have strict rules around minimum acreage. They also oppose expanding water/sewer, which is necessary for new growth. Many of the homes are now second homes for urbanites. They want nothing built, anywhere. So this is very different than say, Detroit or Chicago sprawl, and basically the polar opposite of Nashville or Dallas sprawl.

If you look at growth patterns in the NY area, 100% of growth is in older urban counties. I suspect Boston is pretty similar.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

But changing the subject a little, it's crazy how we cannot say anything remotely negative about Boston. Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, New York are all up to scrutiny here, but somehow Boston is just perfect. Why's that?

Boston is far from perfect. I don't even think its suburban areas are as attractive as those of Philly. The Main Line is much nicer than Boston equivalents.

The only point is that you can't blindly look at population density over a geography and come to any major conclusions. Boston area is low density, but population is fairly densely distributed for U.S. standards. And those dense corridors are generally urban, walkable and transit oriented.

[Shawn]

The entire state of Massachusetts was incorporated into municipalities and carved up into small-acreage farms more than 200 years ago. There is a reason why nearly every suburban lot in the state built in the last 100 years is 1/2 an acre: this was the optimal size the typical family farm being sold to a developer could be broken up for SFH properties with legally-required leach fields.

You will find no large master planned suburbs in Massachusetts - they don't exist, and never really could have, given the state's land ownership history.

Instead, you will find a tight web of formally-independent mill cities (Lowell, Lawrence, Worcester, Brockton, Nashua, Manchester, etc.) circling Boston whose own suburbs have bled into Boston's edges incrementally over the last 100 years or so. No doubt suburban white flight accelerated this process in the 60s, and by the time I was born in the early 80s, you had Commuter Rail to almost all these cities (not the NH side, as they don't want to pay for it, but Providence was connected at this point).

Remember, essentially all of Boston's suburbs are about as old as Boston itself. We all like to shit on Foxboro - and I spent 18 years living there, so I am more qualified than anyone here to do so - but that town was founded in 1704, and actually has a charming New England town common with an active, healthy commercial/residential down town. It grew by 19% between the 2010-2020 census, and a substantial amount of that growth was multi-family housing. Lots of townhouses. Especially near the Mansfield border, next to the Commuter Rail stop. This is one of those benefits metro Boston has built-in: by American standards, fantastic commuter train coverage thanks to a density of legacy lines and tracks, and because Massachusetts is blue through and through, funding rail in ways peer cities like Philly don't get (because PA is PA).

Crawford, the Main Line is no doubt one of the best suburban stretches in the country. But I challenge you to find a better suburb anywhere than Brookline. That's a hill I'll die on. The whole inner Metro West might be the best group of burbs out there: Brookline, Newton, Watertown, Waltham, Wellesley, Arlington, Belmont . . . for me, these are the ideal burbs.

[Doady]

I'm guessing that "single-family residence" in East Boston has a different meaning compared to "single-family residence" in Framingham. Is East Boston really not walkable? And it's because of single-family houses?

It is good to have a mix of housing types throughout each neighbhourhood - detached, semi, townhouse, apartments - to have heterogeneity instead of homogeneity. But I've never agreed with the emphasis on high-rise vs. low-rise, or single-family vs multi-family, when it comes to increasing density to walkability, transit ridership, housing affordability. There will come a point when US and Canadian cities can do nothing more with low-rises and single-family, but that is still far away.

[llamaorama]

To me those New England suburbs are also a product of a different time. It's not the 1970s anymore. You can't walk down to the creek, that's trespassing. You can't ride your bike to the middle of town, you'd get run off the road. You aren't going to know your neighbors. Who are probably going to cut down a lot of trees and ugly up their lot with a giant McMansion with LED lights that glare at night.

So all you really get from living in that rural or village setting is isolation and inconvenience.

Apparently there is a duplicate of this thread. Anyways what I posted earlier:

To be honest I really dislike the 15-minute city concept. Lots and lots of things that people need or which enrich their lives can't really be supported by such a small area or population(unless there is lots of money). I think cities thrive on connectedness and scale and the ability to trade niche goods and services. Especially in the present day and going into the future where most jobs are in the service industry and the internet and remote work is a factor.

[mhays]

The 15-minute concept doesn't have to be totally pure. Maybe your job and hand surgeon aren't right there. And not everyone will be within 15-minute range.

But a lot more people can be. And your corner store, coffee shop, neighborhood bar, haircuts, and dentist might be part of that.

This is how much of the world has been growing all along. Much of the US has returned to variations of this pattern also.