[Keith_McClary]

When the population of an area becomes too dominated by poor folks and minorities they tend to elect govt. office holders based on the candidates racial similarity to the population as the main criteria. This allows corruption to flourish as the mayors, city council people, etc. really don't have to worry about how bad they are- they are guaranteed a re-election due to their race and a thug campaign staff (if you don't believe this accusation see the film "Street Fight" about the ugly Newark campaign- both candidates were black but one wasn't "black enough".).

In the Good Old Days it was Irish, WASP, Italian, ...

[C8]

When the population of an area becomes too dominated by poor folks and minorities they tend to elect govt. office holders based on the candidates racial similarity to the population as the main criteria. This allows corruption to flourish as the mayors, city council people, etc. really don't have to worry about how bad they are- they are guaranteed a re-election due to their race and a thug campaign staff (if you don't believe this accusation see the film "Street Fight" about the ugly Newark campaign- both candidates were black but one wasn't "black enough".).

In the Good Old Days it was Irish, WASP, Italian, ...

This is very true! I teach history so I am well aware of the political machine that dominated and exploited cities for decades (Tammany, etc.) Tweed seemed invincible for a long time as other bosses seemed. But reform did develop in the 1920's progressive movement and much of the worst excesses were weeded out by the 1960's. Believe it or not, cities were very functional for a long while (1940's-90's) and, for the most part, checks and balances increased greatly. I live near Dayton which was the birthplace of much reform for civic governance so I appreciate the hard work the progressives put in.

But it is a mistake to equate today's situation as the same as past city problems or dynamics. The problem now is the sheer size of the level of poverty in proportion to the rest of the inhabitants in the city. In the older days, there was a large middle class and even wealthy class that shared the city and provided a balancing element- maintaining a viable tax base from which to launch effective city services such as law enforcement, sanitation and parks.

That balance is lost in today's cities as money left for the burbs- Detroit is the most nightmarish example of a city left to fend for itself. There is a self-reinforcing dynamic- as the cities get worse, more folks flee who would have been the civic pillars- which in turn makes the cities worse. The suburbs are cutting off the income flow. City schools are undergoing massive staff cuts almost everywhere as the larger metro civic body abandons support (Google Philly's current school crisis for a perfect example), police and fire are being cut, property values are still declining, streets aren't repaired for years, people are robbed at bus stops.

I think it is a mistake to see the city winning out over the burbs in the future- I think the burbs will only grow in popularity as budget cuts lead to even more violence in cities. More and more businesses are moving to the burbs anyway so the whole commute thing isn't as strong an issue as it once was- in fact, it is people in the city who often have to commute to the burbs for jobs. More and more workers are renters who just move closer to their job when they get a new one in a new burb. The whole city/suburb set of assumptions is being upended. I see many cities reverting to third world status someday.

[Plantagenet]

When the suburbs die ...

I just don't see a universal pattern of suburbs dying. The situation is different from place to place.

For instance, some big cities are dying.....Detroit comes to mind. Some cities are surviving but whole districts in the city are dying due to crime and poverty.....Philly comes to mind, and murder central in South Chicago. But other cities are doing great.

Yes, some suburbs aren't doing so great but other suburbs are booming. For instance, the whole region around Washington DC has turned into a continuous wealthy belt of booming suburbs, which is continuing to grow and spread into Virginia.

I'm a big advocate for small cities....I like college towns with downtowns and bikepaths and nice restaurants, but without the crime and hassle of big cities. And a lot of them are doing very well, thank you very much.

------------

It seems to me its more about poverty. A wealthy city like DC has wealthy healthy suburbs, just like wealthy San Francisco has wealthy healthy Marin Country and the wealthy healthy Peninsula.

Meanwhile poor cities and poor, minority areas in cities and poor suburbs are all doing crappy. So what else is new.


The wealthy suburbs around DC are doing great

[Oneaboveall]

... When the population of an area becomes too dominated by poor folks and minorities they tend to elect govt. office holders based on the candidates racial similarity to the population as the main criteria. This allows corruption to flourish as the mayors, city council people, etc. really don't have to worry about how bad they are- they are guaranteed a re-election due to their race and a thug campaign staff (if you don't believe this accusation see the film "Street Fight" about the ugly Newark campaign- both candidates were black but one wasn't "black enough".). Quite simply, cities are often settling into more of a 3rd world status with poor services, high crime, abandoned neighborhoods, and high poverty. Kunstler was totally wrong (again) about viewing the suburbs as having no future- its the cities that have a scary future.

I don't have to see the movie; I lived it. I remember that campaign very well. It's getting late, but I'll post some of the things I remember happening. It's a real eye opener.

[pasttense]

I think we are basically stuck with the existing housing stock--that the country is going to get a lot poorer and that almost no one will be able to afford to build a new house either in the suburb, the city or the rural area. That population growth will be dealt with by more people living in a house (most commonly the extended family as is common in the third world).

[vtsnowedin]

When the suburbs die ...

I just don't see a universal pattern of suburbs dying. The situation is different from place to place.

No not a universal die off, but those without rail service etc. will have a very hard time of it when gas gets to $10.00 and up. Those with the longest commutes and the least local business will go first.

.....
.......
I'm a big advocate for small cities....I like college towns with downtowns and bikepaths and nice restaurants, but without the crime and hassle of big cities. And a lot of them are doing very well, thank you very much.

Yes but the number of college students is declining and the student loan system is not sustainable so many of these college towns may lose their reason for being.

------------
quote]

[Pops]

You need a metric to decide what is a suburb, a city, or none of the above before you can discuss any of this.

Obviously for this site the criteria could be travel distance. In fact an area where sleep, work, school, shop, recreate, etc are within walking/biking/busing distance could be anywhere; a neighborhood within a city of 10 million or a city of 10 thousand out in the middle of nowhere.

On the other end of the scale is anywhere you cannot walk/bike/bus to your daily chores, which pretty well includes everywhere save a few old city centers. This obviously includes every curvy, cul de sac-y, sidewalk-less, double car subdivision and asphalt-moated strip mall ever built.

Size doesn't really matter as long as some kind of semi self-sustaining level of commerce is reached. Density matters more but the most important criteria for an Un-Sub is variety. Again exactly the opposite of our current system of "zoning" which demands variety be outlawed. The problem with the subdivision/strip mall/office complex model is simply that is is designed to accomidate cars to the exclusion of everything else, including people.

As I think about it, it dawns on me we've done exactly the same thing to our living space as we have to our food space. We have killed off the diversity where we live in favor of "mono-cropping" our living spaces. Just like it is most efficient concentrating all our food crops in specific regions then shipping then via cheap transport; we've concentrated all our living into specific Zones and ship ourselve between them. Recreation in one area, sleeping in another; shopping another, working somewhere else entirely; because that's most efficient with cheap transport.

The problem with subdivisions then is zoning and low density, which is the very thing that made them attractive - the illusion of a quiet country home. Think about it, have you ever heard of a subdivision with a name like Hussle Bussle City?

LOL, Levittown was probably the only development that ever had "town" in the name.

.

[Ibon]

As I think about it, it dawns on me we've done exactly the same thing to our living space as we have to our food space. We have killed off the diversity where we live in favor of "mono-cropping" our living spaces. Just like it is most efficient concentrating all our food crops in specific regions then shipping then via cheap transport
.

Exactly. There are so many aspects of modern life that come into focus when you understand how this "mono-cropping" has spread into so many areas; think of the attempts at standardized testing and the resultant failure in our education system, walmart box stores, how a modern tomato tastes, suburbia (or modern chinese cities), call centers, a feed lot of beef cattle, and yes, my favorite one, digital devices and the internet.

The last one is the most insidious for as we are all funneling our activities into the digital conduit in a mass cyber mono-cropping collective we believe that this is a tool of increased information and diversity. Exactly like a shopper can choose from 30 brands of cereal or toothpaste or deodorant at a local box store and yes, believe he is expressing his freedom of choice having lost all contact with his grandfather who almost never bought anything in a processed box.

The antidote to all of this is to re familiarize oneself with the complexity and diversity found in intact ecosystems. To spend time in such places.... places that are increasingly out of reach and not accessible, both physically and psychologically, to the vast majority of modern Kudzu Apes......

[AgentR11]

On the other end of the scale is anywhere you cannot walk/bike/bus to your daily chores, which pretty well includes everywhere save a few old city centers. This obviously includes every curvy, cul de sac-y, sidewalk-less, double car subdivision and asphalt-moated strip mall ever built.

This is where I diverge strongly from your thinking, you're including walk&bus in the same lump as bike; and they are *very* different. A bike changes the comfortable, easy distance of travel from a mile to about 5 miles for most, and the curves and sidewalk-less, over-sized lanes that are irritating and annoying to walk, are really quite comfortable to bike. A commute ride is different as well; given that your typical maligned version of an automobile commute is an hour+; with that, you're in the 12-15 miles by bike range, and that is a LOT of range.

It is a common presumption, especially amongst those that don't travel by bicycle any significant distance, that walking and biking share characteristics that they really don't.

re: "cannot"... People believe they can't do this, because they've been told by planners that they can't. In reality, other than the disabled, they most surely can. The number of suburbs that don't have reasonable services within 5 miles, or jobs within 15 miles, is very small compared to the total. If they biked these trips, they'd be healthier, stronger, live longer, and could permit themselves the 1000kcal lunch without guilt or worry too.

Funny thing about biking.. 1 mile is too close. My favorite grocery is one mile away for instance. And while I do like that I can get there in about 5 minutes by bicycle, it always feels like a disappointing ride...

The problem with subdivisions then is zoning and low density, which is the very thing that made them attractive - the illusion of a quiet country home.

A lefty criticizing zoning. I'm so happy, I don't know what to do with myself.

[Subjectivist]

I think suburbs will change, but I expect them to become more like they were in 1913, when trolley service was the secret of there success. Heck before most people could own a car the Detroit Urban Railroad connected Toledo and Detroit and made all the small towns along the track effectively satalite suburbs of the two anchor cities. I can remember the track running through down town Monroe when I was a kid before the city put black top over the brick streets and tracks. The DUR shut down in the 1950's but there is nothing to prevent something like it using the I-75 coridore between Detroit and Toledo in the future.

[Pops]

On the other end of the scale is anywhere you cannot walk/bike/bus to your daily chores, which pretty well includes everywhere save a few old city centers. This obviously includes every curvy, cul de sac-y, sidewalk-less, double car subdivision and asphalt-moated strip mall ever built.

This is where I diverge strongly from your thinking, you're including walk&bus in the same lump as bike; and they are *very* different.

AR, I was pointing out the difficulty of "anything other than single passenger car" travel to accomplish everyday tasks in the subdivision because subdivisions are designed to restrict car traffic and in doing restrict walking, biking and mass transit as well.

Prior to cars, roads and towns were laid out on a basic grid, some roads would naturally have more traffic so they were made wider, that was about it. The car changed that because cars required either calming or separation from pedestrians. A hierarchical system replaced grids with the meandering, dead end roads, "L" and "T" intersections, and huge masonry walls of subdivisions that were designed to "calm" traffic, slowing down cars to keep them from running over the non-drivers – kids playing and walking to school mostly.

Up from the cul de sac in the hierarchy are the feeders and arterials all the way up to the highways, and all along the hierarchy non-vehicle travel is restricted more and more until the controlled access highway allows no peds or bikes at all.

Restricting traffic flow was a primary consideration in laying out subdivisions. OTOH, Super Block zoning moved retail onto the main arteries away from subdivisions because those activities create traffic. The idea was just the opposite of the residential: keep traffic flowing as fast as possible.

The upshot is travel distance in a subdivision, regardless of mode or destination is longer. And, since traffic is the name of the game, retail has grown progressively larger and larger, pulling from farther and farther and consequently spacing between locations is also larger and larger. So everything is farther away from the house and once away from the relative safety of the subdivision you are in the world of the car.

Can you ride a bike in the 'burbs? Sure. That doesn't change the fact that 'burbs are made for cars and so is the WalMart parking lot and the 5-lane out front.

--
Which takes nothing away from bikes. I have my old, '80-something Schwinn by the back door because it's 400' +/- to my shop and I can haul most anything I want in the old milk crate on the back. When I was younger and had a real job I rode it maybe 15-20 miles round trip to work for a couple of years fairly regularly. But I was younger, it was in Central CA which has a mild climate (hot in the summer but dry most of the year) the traffic then was light on my route and importantly, the roads flat. But everywhere ain't CA, there are hills and snow and ice and bike death traps, lol.

Davis, CA has been Bike City for 50 years thanks to the liberals that pushed for bike lanes etc (which you no doubt would have complained about before you bikepiphany, lol). Still less than 20% usually bike to work. But in my old stomping grounds of Turlock CA just down the valley, only 12% bike to work even once a week. Turlock is essentially a clone of Davis, same size, same climate and terrain, even has a UC campus. But people in Turlock just don't like to bike, you might say they'll do anything to not bike. For now anyway.
http://www.uctc.net/access/39/access39_davis.shtml

[AgentR11]

Trying not to pull this to far into a bike only comment...

I don't disagree that the design is for cars, because really, that's the majority of transportation miles. So its appropriate. What I'm disagreeing with is the notion that some planners (who obviously bike maybe 100-200 miles a year at most) have, that walking and biking share features. walking and public transportation share features. cars and bikes share features. But I can't think of any infrastructure requirements that I share with pedestrians.

The difference really sticks out in what you describe about the spiral/culdesac vs grid layouts. When walking, the grid layout is vastly superior; but I'll be honest, I'll do almost anything to avoid a grid section on a bike; especially a grid section with frequent stop signs, and worst of all layouts, a grid section with stop signs at the bottoms of hills. There really is absolutely nothing worse. That long weaving spiral is perfectly fine, it adds almost no energy cost to my body, no acceleration/deceleration load, the lanes are generally very wide and pavement in good condition. And when you measure it, it adds maybe a mile to any particular destination. Get to the arterial and you're set.

And that wide parking lot you reference? I cross it in about 15 seconds, and park 10-20 ft in front of the door. Always. The real peakoil'ish problem isn't getting to and from the big box store; its that on bike, you go more frequently, but never buy more than about 40 lbs of material. That volume, if done by a majority will wreck the check-out time/$$ ratios.

nb...
1) I despise bike paths and never use them even when they are present. I've yet to find one that I find safe at 20mph... Some are downright terrifying at 10...
2) limited access freeways around here *always* have unrestricted pavement near them making the same route.