Check out our sponsor Brilliant for a fun and easy way to interactively learn new things with a 30-day free trial and 20% off an annual premium membership: brilliant.org/Streetcraft/
*YOU TALK ABOUT SUBURBS LIKE THEY ARE BAD, BUT NEVER POINT OUT THE CAUSE OF SUBURBS BEING BUILT, MAYBE JUST MAYBE FOCUS ON THE IMMIGRATION NUMBERS AND PEOPLE FLEEING OTHER AREAS TO OTHER CERTAIN AREAS, THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN YOUR NOTION SUBURBS ARE BAD UNTIL THEN, YOU ARE JUST WRONG.*
This video is a great example of how suburban-style development doesn't have to suck. The sad thing about the US is that it equates suburbs with sprawl and anti-human car-centric design: This doesn't have to be the case! I actually like the suburbs (I just bought a home in one). But whenever I ask for more pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, so many Americans look at me like I want every city to be NYC with 20-story high-rises. Now I can show them this video to explain what I want, so thank you for making it.
@@Cyrus992The woman highlighted that local policies have a direct impact on people's lives, but many people tend to overlook this fact. This should not be viewed as a partisan issue.
I do live in NYC. And I so wish I could move to a walkable / cyclable suburb with public transit. There’s parts of Westchester, which is effectively an extension of NYC, but has a cost of entry over $1M for a home (plus ~$3,000/mo in taxes). There aren’t really any suburban areas that fit that bill without also being ludicrously expensive. I don’t want to own a car.
I really hope he can edit that section down into a youtube short! I did my best with RUclips's "clips" feature, but it's pretty limited. Hope this helps someone! ruclips.net/user/clipUgkxuW8DvKSX803beOhais0-nUneLeczEtMI
I’ve probably left a comment before, but this is basically the ideal argument for zoning reform. It won’t force you to change your lifestyle, but it’ll open up new lifestyle opportunities for those looking for something different. This is something that I think is much more practical in America without going full Netherlands bike and train network
true, sure you can have what you want, but don't expect everybody else to follow what you want. the part of the video showing a suburb with diverse zoning option in one space and with amenities at a walking distance represents this sentiment best!
@@Cyrus992 Yes. When the conservatives literally interprets efforts to improve walkability and mixed use zoning as imposing lockdowns on people in 15 minute zones, how can you take them seriously? If they had libertarian principles and live in the same reality where we should let people build businesses and homes where it makes sense rather than in a Euclidiean manner, we could find common ground.
You didn't even mention public transit in this: traditional suburbs have basically no place to put a bus, but in the new layout presented, that town square would be a perfect place to have a bus stop. And if you have multiple neighborhoods like this right next to each other, you could eventually connect them with a tram quite easily as well; allowing people to visit places other than just their own little community, which makes room for even more diversity.
@@LAAM619 Using a bus isn't a matter of wealth; they'd use the bus if it was more convenient than driving. And in order to get to that point, you need to actually have buses all over the place. If you put a tram in here, ideally you'd ALSO want buses going to and from the tram stops as well, that people can use for more local transit.
@@Marconius6 nope. Rich people wont catch a bus. A tram that takes you from neighborhood center to neighborhood center is a cool idea though, People would def catch those.
I live in the suburbs. I can't go for long walks because there are very few sidewalks and there are too many bicycle -haters . Riding bicycle is scary in the suburbs because suburbanites thinks bicycles and cyclists are stupid. I plan on moving closer to city limits .
I know it’s not the exact same but Perkins Rowe in Baton Rouge tried to build a block with apartments on top of stores. You had food, movie theater, book stores, cafes, etc right by your apartment but for some reason they never rented out the apartments. The stores are there but the apartments are empty. It’s worth a visit for anyone in the area. If only Baton Rouge copied this design for mid-high density.
@@milanlatona7363these videos are literally the reason why im reconsidering going to college to study meteorology and go to college to study engineering or whatever they get a degree in so i can go to a town like sarasota and do this exact plan
@@Janet_Quillen_DE07 the many public parks this place encourage, not to count the wildlife park that this development saves from the traditional car-centric surburb
@@Janet_Quillen_DE07Plus if that's a priority for you, the whole point of the video is there's still single family homes with yards to choose from. But at least there are choices. And everyone's within walking distance of the parks, grocery store, and other amenities.
@@asmodon There are a lot of rich people in urban areas too but they send their kids to private school because the inner city public schools are beyond terrible.
Another absolute banger from Streetcraft, this will be my new intro video to "orange-pill" my friends on why suburban development is so unsustainable. Your motion graphic design in the videos makes it SO CLEAR on alternative solutions to the land-use issues we face. Thank you for your work! Keep up the great content! PS - the "walkable & bikeable & liveable" sticker on your Etsy shop is straight 🔥
7:00 "just because you might want to live in a single family suburban home, doesn't mean that building other housing types is gonna take away your single family suburban home. Instead it opens up more options for more people." Ugh, so obvious. So perfectly said.
IKR! I’m all about options for people. It’s ridiculous that it’s so hard for people to avoid black and white thinking and instead realize people want options on how to live
@@CodyMoore74Or it could push the prices of them up as the supply drops. These houses don’t go unsold so there is demand for them. Do some people really what something smaller? Probably. As many of the urbanists think? Doubtful. If there was that much demand for that, developers would be rushing to build it to make a profit. But they don’t. So, demand for full size single family homes drops a little but perhaps - probabaly? - less than the supply drops. Voila…more housing price increases or people have to settle for density and undersized home they don’t really want. Rather than have activists try to tell us what we want, let’s let the people tell us what they want via the free market.
@@FoCoBuzz Good point but the free market isn’t much “free” anymore in the US. Due to racism/classism/similar issues in the middle and late 1900’s local communities of baby boomers lobbied under general NIMBYism to make zoning for missing middle illegal. We don’t even let the free market decide because as the video explains, the only options are available are the two extremes-single family large detached homes and cramped apartments. That in itself you may argue is government overreach that goes against the majority in favor of only the rich. Asserting that the demand isn’t there for the missing middle is a bit on the nose when it literally cannot exist, or where it does it is always expensive (because it is in such high demand). I believe Californians would love a cheaper option that allows communities to be tighter-knit yet also diverse and walkable. Most of my friends and family have been in traumatic car crashes and hate driving. Most of my friends and family wish they could see each other more often even though they live in the same place. Most of them feel isolated. Most of them cripple under a housing market that forces them to buy too much. ALL of them have car payments. No one wants this lifestyle anymore, but there are no other options. We want options. Making the options legal will actually let the free market decide.
@@CodyMoore74 I don’t think there any rational reason to think “racism” impacts the development decisions of a developer in 2024. It’s time to retire the group identity mindsets of 1964. As a strong support of property rights, I take a dim view of most zoning. But most people aren’t motivated by racism.
I can't get over how good your graphics are for explaining concepts. The two versions of a new development on empty land were fantastic. I also appreciated how you went to a real place in person and heard from people there. That goes a long way to making these concepts land.
streetcraft has to be my favorite urbanism channel right now. Channels like not just bikes seems to just complain, but this channel actually talks about real solutions. Good work guys!
NJB does show solutions - but those are more applicable to places, where the basics already exist. Just saw a video by @CityNerd about streetcar-suburbs in Portland, OR. Those are places, where Dutch road design ideas are relevant. A car dependent suburb however is like 50 steps (and sadly years of changes) away from this.
That cute little mixed-used neighborhood with multiple housing densities seems like an impossible dream gazing out on seemingly endless seas of tract homes :(
I've seen so many suburban homes that are run down and poorly maintained by the overworked people who bought them. Most of us don't need that space, and in fact cannot take care of a big yard and an expensive car. Why should we all have to live like that?
I think it is cheaper to buy a house than an apartment or townhome in the long run. With a single family house (assuming no HOA) you do not have to pay apartment or community fees. Those really add up over the years.
I love these videos. As a civil engineer I have some influence on how the neighborhoods are designed, but not enough to completely make these pedestrian friendly. It takes more people, especially voters to know what they’re missing out on. In America, car is the only way they know how to get around, so it’s viewed as a symbol of freedom. What they don’t know is that they have a lack of freedom because they are restricted to cars, so when you mentioned public transportation It’s viewed as an attack on freedom. When I fully explain why alternatives are needed, they finally realize what they’re missing out on.
"People like living in the suburbs" Well no, not exactly. People like living in their own home. Now where that home is or what form that home takes that varies a lot, yeah a good chunk of people like living in detached homes with yards, but not all of them. If there were also a lot of duplex, triplex, rowhomes, 2, 3 and 4 story multifamily homes and apartments built, then the people that don't feel like they NEED to live in a detached home with it's own separate yard, would choose to live in those homes instead, especially since those homes are cheaper. There isn't anything inherently wrong with single family homes, the issue arises when it essentially is the only choice for someone that wants a home.
@@MAL1GNANT it's ingrained in the American psyche though that people do need it. The ideal 1950s suburban lifestyle is still considered the quintessential American lifestyle. There were signs this perception was changing prior to the pandemic, but the past four years have seen a significant regression on this issue. It's going to take generational change and a generation that demands something different for this to ever change.
The preference is somewhat cultural. We'd be able to measure a less biased preference if America hadn't absolutely destroyed its cities for the sake of the car. People here simply don't know what living in a proper city is like, and after decades of suburbs being heavily glorified it's only natural that such a preference exists. I personally never questioned car centrism before I found out about urbanism and naturally assumed that the typical consumerist suburban lifestyle was the best life one could have. I suffered the effects of car centrism but I never thought of it as anything more than the struggle before becoming a driver. Now imagine if I'd been the all too common arrogant, selfish, and closed minded American. The negative response urbanism receives here is largely an emotional gut reaction in defence of a culturally engrained worldview.
@@bchristian85 I live in a small terrace (row) house in inner-Melbourne, Australia and we have a child and often people ask whether we feel like we need a bigger house & a yard because we have a child and a dog. But I look at their houses & lifestyles. Ok, they have a bigger yard, but it's still not big enough to kick a football, or big enough for a large playground, big enough to let the dog have a good run, as most suburban backyards aren't. However, because they have a big house that isn't walking distance from a whole lot, they don't leave it much. Whereas we may not have a proper yard, but literally a 30 second walk away we have a park with a big playground. Another 5 minutes walk away is a big off-leash dog park, with an even bigger playground and a sports field. We actually have 8 great parks, and the beach, and an amusement park, within a 15 minute walk of our house. Who needs a backyard when you have that? So I agree it is in the psyche even for a lot of Australians where the dream was the "quarter-acre suburban home", and without really thinking about it properly just have an automatic association that family/kids/pets = you need to move to the 'burbs and have a backyard. I completely disagree with that.
That's a bit of a myth. I live in rural Canada, and so nothing is close. BUT, I've been everywhere in the US. Just spent time in Dallas and I could walk to several locations to get milk, food, booze you name it. AND I was in what would be a considered a suburb.
Thank you for being one of the only urbanists on RUclips you doesn’t ignore rural people. I know for some of our community, there is no sympathy for the latter because of politics or living style, but urbanism doesn’t just require thinking *about* cities. Rural and suburban areas are also affected and there is a huge untapped market of ideas about how those areas are also affected. If we do not think about those in those areas in urbanism, they will only come to loathe the ideology (and rightfully so if it doesn’t consider them). There are positives to thoughtful urbanism for rural lives, but we need to acknowledge them and advocate for them as well.
You've earned a sub, these are some of the best videos I've ever seen exploring this topic. I get tired of the snarky, self-righeous tone of a lot of the RUclips urbanists, so your very balanced, sensible, easy to understand explanation of these things is a real breath of fresh air. The animations and presentations are really helpful to, you've done a great job making urban planning and zoning reform understandable, and I love how your whole vibe is wanting to suggest solutions to make improvements to our towns and cities instead of just criticizing how they've been built or the lifestyles of people living in them. Keep up the great work!
This is an incredible video. The balance you strike between educational infographics, storytelling, and actionable advice is fantastic. Keep doing what you’re doing, Streetcraft. If you’re a viewer like me, write to your local governments about these issues, it’s better for everyone!
I don't think I've ever seen a video that so perfectly articulates what I want in a neighborhood. I like driving and want to own a car, but driving everywhere is expensive. I'd love to be able to live in a neighborhood that has small stores and restaurants nearby, while still preserving the ability to drive further when I want to. Great job, man.
I really appreciate your takes on how surburbs can be done right. I really dislike how many other of these kinds of channels seem to not understand why people decide to live in either rural or suburban areas, but your focus on fixing suburbs instead, trying to keep the positives that should exist in that system is great. The way you lay out examples really helps.
It’s also worth noting that many Americans have been propagandized to hate apartments. So the desire for single family housing may be somewhat artificial
Having lived in an apartment before moving into the suburbs, it’s not a great place to live. Loud neighbors, had crackheads living downstairs throwing garbage everywhere and broken stuff all the damn time that the owners wouldn’t fix.
@justaguy5384 I hated living in apartments too. You're spending thousands every month to a landlord, have to deal with drugged neighbors, thieves, thr smell of weed, noise, no private driveway, etc. Thank God I bought my single family home back in 2012 when they were cheap. I never looked back.
Almost NO ONE wants an apartment. Its whereyou end up, due to costs, proximity, or lack of other options. Lets just be honest, many people dont wantto live all on top of each other...and given the chance, almost always choose to move to lower density areas. Now smarter suburbs Im all for, as demonstrated, but mindless urbanity is just as bad.
I don't own and can't afford a car. I currently live in Manhattan in NYC because I'm disabled and I need to have things like groceries and doctors nearby and walkable. I would never move to a stereotypical suburb, but I'd love to move to a suburb that has the type of things you need at a reasonable and safe walking distance.
I find between major cities and suburbs there are in-between towns a lot of places where part of the town is dipping into the urban landscape and the other part is still leafy suburbs.
Videos like this are the reason why I subscribed to him when he had less than 1k subscribers. A lot of channels just love to assume that everyone will live in an apartment and cars are the worst thing ever invented. This channel takes into account how real people wanna live and knows that people don't wanna just give up their cars for nothing.
@@BBGOnYT Tell me about it. It seems that the GOP side seem to admire the traditionalism and deregulation while the Dems come at an environmental and affordability/transit angle.
@@Cyrus992 So I just watched the video and got to that part, and this is a huge misrepresentation of what she actually said She wasn't saying "Republican bad", she was basically just saying that voters tend to make assumptions about policy based purely on party, and those assumptions are wrong sometimes
I live in a new urbanist neighborhood that is very similar to the reimagining you beautifully demonstrated with your great graphics. It's mostly single family homes but they don't have a front yard and a front facing garage. Instead the homes have garages in the back facing alleys which cut through the blocks. There are also town homes, cottage courts, apartments, mixed use development, a school, a church, and some public parks. The neighborhood also has a much more walkable street layout with better connectivity and no cul-des-acs and it even has direct access to lovely open space with walking and biking trails that can take you pretty far. In a not so large piece of land they've managed to fit so much more and create an overall way more pleasant place to live and walk around. Unfortunately it all ends abruptly once you leave the neighborhood and it devolves into the typical suburban nonsense we're all too familiar with. It's a shame that my neighborhood isn't the standard because despite the design differences it still has the suburban feel that many people like while also being free of many of the typical flaws in standard American suburban development. If all neighborhoods were designed more like that, we abandoned the strip mall for a more main street style of commercial development, and if we had way better transit everywhere American surburbs wouldn't be so bad, in fact they would be pretty great places to live.
How many residents are able to work in the subdivision (not WFH or coworkers)? This is a fundamental flaw in new urbanist subdivisions that were less common in pre-war neighborhoods where many residents were also the neighborhood service providers & could afford the nice homes while their workers could afford the rentals in duplexes, small SFH & small multiplexes.
And it’s all the more frustrating that NIMBYs often use the environment as an excuse. They’ll say shit like “oh but look at how much green there is around our house!” and how there’s still deer that come to munch on their rosebushes. In reality that greenbelt “forest” is a shrinking island 100m deep, and the only reason they can see deer is there’s nothing else to eat and nowhere left to hide. People look townhouses, 5+1s, and streets without hedgerows and think it’s bad for nature just because there’s less green in their immediate field of vision; in reality every sq foot worth of concrete stacked up on a building is a floor worth of nature left untouched, and worth far more to the wildlife than that same square foot isolated in a greenbelt or fenced into a backyard A real environmentalist should know that increasing density is the only real way to reduce humanity’s footprint, and supporting mass transit is a far more efficient way to reduce emissions than attempting a 1:1 replacement with EVs. Anything else is purely performative, and I daresay, deeply hypocritical.
There are already countless urbanist channels that pretty much preach the same thing (Allan Fisher, City Nerd, Not Just Bikes, etc.). However, this is the only channel that is not entirely condescending towards the concept of suburban living. The fact of the matter is that suburban living (regrettably) is the most practical and financially attainable mode of decent living for the American middle class whether we like it or not. This channel seems genuine in its attempt to educate its viewers that we can at least make suburban living more enriching through design, but all the while not alienating the people (suburban dwellers) that probably need to hear it the most. Thank you Streetcraft for making these videos. Can't wait for the next one!
Not Just Bikes has stated that his entire mission is not motivated by making cities better, but by encouraging people to flee North America to places that already have good development. He has no interest in improving the situation, only advertising an out to the wealthy. Ladder-pulling scab.
Suburban places are only the cheapest options because there is so much demand for urban places because citities only allow suburban devolopment. Japan has no traditional single family zoning and it is way cheaper.
@@JanMiddeke-uu4or I don’t think having a reason behind urban development being expensive gives anyone license to bully lower earners for making a more financially attainable choice. All that does is ostracize people who might otherwise agree with you.
The only thing I wonder as a non-American when I see those video: why are people who call themselves "conservatives" in America sometimes against this kind of development? Having strong, walkable and human-sized communities ist the most traditional kind of development structure I could think of. People have built like this for hundreds of years, being for this kind of structure is the most conservative/traditionalist I could think of. Why are some American conservatives against this? 😅
I’m not sure, it’s very weird. I myself am a very conservative American and would LOVE nothing more than the solutions from this video to be implemented. You’re absolutely right on traditional and strong communities. There’s no feeling of community in this country because of the soulless cookie cutter suburbs constantly built. Nobody knows or cares for eachother and small business struggle to take off because everyone has to drive to them. It’s probably because of boomer propaganda thinking that changing zoning and how suburbia is built means socialism, which couldn’t be further from the truth. The same people scared of government overreach fail to realize how much more efficient governance could be in better built suburbs.
They have likely never heard of this. This is the first time I'm hearing about this type of development, with mostly single-family residential but also commercial spaces around and good biking connectivity.
I'm a conservative. It's because most of us live in rural areas, and our communities are getting taken over by overdevelopment like this. The land and areas are being destroyed. The development is causing deforestation, environmental pollution, air pollution, and noise pollution. It's also causing more people, more traffick/pedestrians, and bikers. The cost of living increases, our wililfe is dying, their homes are being destroyed, theres increased crime most of the time and overall the quality of life and community is getting destroyed. Speaking on community. No community is as good as the ones you'll find in rural America. It's believed that the more people there are, the better sense of community there will be. It's wrong, though. When you have a lot more people, you tend to just walk by more and feel indifferent. In smaller communities, when you see someone, you're more willing to talk and connect with them. They have a mindset of helping each other out and always coming together in times of need (such as if your car breaks down, usually the first car you see will come and help). It's the difference between coastal areas, suburban areas, and New York City. Nothing is like rural America, and we see how this will end up. With this being said, I dont see my point of view as being right or wrong. But this is the lens that conservatives see it through.
Also, I understand there's a need for more housing, but I don't think like this. There's hundreds and hundreds of sitting houses in my area with no one to buy them cuz the prices are too high. Coorperations own them and there not going to drop the price.
A lot of us are really getting screwed by housing restrictions. There's a little building outside the baseball diamond at the school across the street. It used to just have a couple washrooms, a counter where they served hotdogs, and a little storage area, I would assume. It's probably like 12ft wide by 20ft long. a couple years ago, they added an upper level to it. I look at that little building and think "I could live in something like that". I'm just one guy. All I need is a kitchen, washroom, and an open space upstairs. I'm a musician, I make noise, so being detached from others is important. I don't need a backyard, I don't need a front yard, just gimme the little house and a place to park my car (that I may not need if the neighborhood is diverse enough), and I'd be happy. small homes like that aren't in the cards around here though.
It's because of political corruption. There's not as much money to be made in efficient, pleasant affordable housing. We have to fight to change this. It's going to be a struggle though because the big money owns our political process at every level that's the problem. They want to make big money, and you only get that from forcing people into expensive unsustainable lifestyles, and chief among these is buying a big house that puts you in debt for decades. Now I'm not against home ownership and beautiful homes, but one the cost is increasingly out of control and two that's just not what everyone wants. We need a diversity of housing because the human population is diverse in their needs and means.
As a Brit, it's baffling to me how a country has become so fixated on the idea that suburbs = large single family homes ... we have plenty of suburbs in the UK, but the most common type of property in them is semi-detached (duplex), and pretty much everyone will have a local grocery store and a school and a few other facilities within 15 minutes walk (and often much less!). The model of development that you sketched out with a mix of low-rise apartments, town houses, small detached homes and large detached homes, a few shops, a school and a park is basically the standard pattern for any large development. Even smaller developments that aren't big enough to warrant shops and a school will have a mix of housing types. It makes life so much more convenient!
@@bedandbreakfast4033Space is overrated. Big houses tend to be full of junk they never use and yards are rarely taken care of properly. Instead of a nice garden they put useless grass. Grass that is awful to the ecosystem and costs more money in the long run.
I'm a housing designer, and the common thing that really drives the entire design of new developments is car storage. People don't necessarily want long driveways and sprawling parking, but for a family of 4-5, that typically entails at least 1 car, often 2, which really screws up the lot for livable space at grade, unless you begin making these homes even larger to accommodate more vehicles. A 1600 sq. ft home built in the 1960s was considered palatial, but now, homes on average range between 2200-2600 sq. ft for a single family dwelling. And purchasers don't seem to be willing to give that up, even as the average household size has been decreasing over the decades. I am a big proponent of the architectural movement for selective urban infill, where a single family dwelling in an urban or suburban setting gets remodeled into a semi-detached or duplex, or larger lots add a secondary dwelling unit to them or even a standalone private business. Imagine living in the 'burbs, and you want to get a haircut, or you need to pick up a loaf of bread for breakfast. Normally you get in your car and drive at least 10 minutes away to the nearest grocery store or strip mall to get the goods and services you need. But imagine instead that there's a house on the corner that just converted their ground floor into a bakery, and 2 blocks away, someone opened a barber shop in their basement to cater to the neighborhood. Instead of moving an elderly person out of their home and away from familiar settings, they can downsize to a flat on the same property where they can live comfortably and still be close to family and friends. The entirety of North America is designed around car movements and placement, designing whole cities around roads, highways and parking lots. Instead of forcing people to rely on purchasing a vehicle, our cities and suburbs should be designed around the movement of people, and the facilitation of healthy living habits and comfortable environs that encourage people to engage with nature, not build over top of it. We vastly waste the land we already have in use, and it has not only exacerbated inequality and economic instability, it has damaged our ecosystems and natural resources too. It's also reinforced antiquated notions of "districts" that not only divide up cities according to building occupancy, but by age, income, and race as well. I love the concepts of intentional urban planning, designing spaces and interiors that support people where they live and work and play, because it fosters connection between community members, and contributes to better psychological health. There's a better balance to be struck between urban development and humane design, and I'm glad to see more places and forums discussing what that could look like for their communities.
Wow you're so on top of it. you totally need to get involved in your local community. Your attitude is the right one and the one all planners should have.
Since the 1920s, both oil and gas and the automaking industry have owned our politicians in seemingly every zip code, with predictable disastrous results. 100 years of this bullshit and look at where we are. The shit that's been pulverized and destroyed and paved over for the goddamn vehicle astounds me. Parking minimums are a peculiar form of torture only Satan could love inflicting upon us. I hate waste too, waste of potential, waste of space, waste of resources, waste of everything. It's unacceptable. I want to stop it in my home state and county and repair what can be repaired but I'll need a lot more clout for that. I'm just a random nobody right now.
Something that absolutely shocked me watching the section on your hypothetical suburb for 1,000 people was just how much parking you were able to include. One of the things that I hear from so many people who are against this type of development is that it will force people to walk, bike, and use transit because it will be impossible to use a car... and yet, you just demonstrated a community where walking, biking, and presumably if it were scaled, transit are all completely viable options while still providing ample room for people who want to drive. If anything, I can predict a lot of urbanists being outraged at just how much parking you included.
Eliminating people's option to own a car eliminates tons of people from the conversation entirely. Meeting people in the middle can sometimes be much more impactful than an all-or-nothing approach.
Central parking garages are an excellent option for this as well. Residents of the community get a reserved spot(s), while the remainder are available for people coming to work or shop. We have a severe shortage of street parking here, but it is complimented largely by numerous garages.
Unfortunately, anyone proposing these new urbanism suburb subdivisions haven’t solved the affordability problem for the people who work in the shops that are allowed to exist (no six-figure salaries are moving in without office buildings with parking lots-exceptions apply). Even the apartments are built for people who typically get paid at least twice what the shop workers do!
1. Where do the people live who work at the big shops? Also: a small shop can be worked be the owner - with their home being around the corner or even upstairs. 2. Start with small changes. Allow a drug store and one small apartment building both near the edge of a suburb. How bad can it be?
@@SvenRenas yes, if allowed. It typically isn’t on the minds of the policy makers though. To only allow a few people in each subdivision will get us nowhere. Look at the streetcar suburbs to see how many corners or blocks had small commercial and/or live-work areas to see how far we have to go! It won’t be identical but the gap is YUGE!
Maaaaaaannnn I absolutely LOVE your content & your editing!! I relate to your content as a Mexican who migrated to the US and continues to be annoyed and shocked by how anti-pedestrian the infrastructure and culture is here :( I've followed you on Instagram for a while and only just clicked on your RUclips channel for the first time! Gold mine. Hope you continue to grow and create awesome things!
building a lot of THIS would solve that problem too - because you basically need only one third (!) of the space (including the reduced need for commercial, road and parking space), while still having mostly single-family homes.
There is a reason for such a demand. People like convenience. Not needing to drive for everything when you can just send the kid on a fetch quest is convenient
"Gentle" density for infill within existing single family home neighborhoods may be fine, but new development and infill that's not fully within a single family neighborhood needs to be much denser. It's not about whether or not something is or isn't suburban. It's more about how car dependent a place is. We have to reduce our dependency on cars. It's unrealistic for most places to completely toss the car, but we can do a lot to enable more people to be less dependent on them for literally everything.
The place described would not be car-dependent. Within the community it supports walking and biking, and connection to outside centers can be maintained by a bus route or maybe even a train station, justified by an increase in density.
In retirement we moved from a house to a condo. We can walk to a large grocery store, 2 banks, a hardware store, an Amtrak station, a Chicago commuter train station, a pizza place, a Subway, a ice cream place, a hair salon, an accountant, a pet hospital, a bowling alley, a Dollar General, and some other business. We moved 2 miles from our original house where we could walk to a lot less stores. Our house was in a town, but there are miles of subdivisions south of this town with much fewer businesses in the mix.
We need zoning that allows shops and houses on the same street yet leaves skyscrapers, factories, and large supermarkets away. Thank you for showing us examples of what’s good rather than what’s wrong
Spot on. Zoning as a principle clearly has a place. Don't put houses next to polluting factories, keep truck routes separate, etc. The issue isn't the existence of zoning but the restrictive overreach of US "single family home" zoning specifically. It's unfathomable to me even as an Australian - a similarly sprawling, low density country - that it could be illegal to have local businesses scattered among houses because that's the norm here. Nobody would complain about a cafe, florist or fish & chip shop on their corner, everyone wants that!
Japanese zoning in a nutshell. Skyscrapers and such are classed as "light industry", and therefore, are prohibited from being built in the by our standards, loosely defined "residential". Stuff like konbini and 5-over-1s are classed as "residential".
I honestly don’t mind living in the suburbs, but I live in DC where the suburbs are easily connected to the city via transit if you don’t want to drive. I currently live in a more urban area, but I wouldn’t mind living further out if I could get a single family home with some land. The suburban areas should be a bit more diverse so everyone could live how they like. Every suburb doesn’t need to be densely built/populated, but some should be.
Such a good channel. Love how all the logic in this video is presented, the way the visuals flow makes it so much easier to understand to the untrained eye. I've been looking at quite a bit of similar content for the past few months; the portion about tax revenue wasn't even something I heard or considered when thinking about the downsides of current suburban design, along with the partial solution of cottage developments. Currently a civil engineer undergrad, but this is definitely convincing me to go for the urban design minor I've been thinking about recently. Will definitely be sharing this with friends in order to get them hooked on city planning like I am (in a healthy way of course)!
Another thing, housing prices in the suburbs make it impossible for lower-income residents to buy a house, even residents who have lived in a community like Old Miakka for generations. They end up being squeezed out by more affluent newcomers who, because they are more affluent, are catered to by local governments. This is happening where I live in Michigan. Recently voters in my town were asked to approve a bond issue for the school as well as a millage increase for the library. I went to one public meeting over the bond issue and all I heard was homeowners, homeowners, homeowners. I stood up and said, Not all of us are homeowners, we have a sizable rental population here in town, what about us? Do we not exist? You want us to vote YES on YOUR projects that will primarily benefit homeowners in the new subdivisions because even though they pay property taxes, the reason we need all these new things and a larger school is because all these new families are moving in with their children, so yes, you are catering to them in a very real sense and encouraging them to move here. That is where most of the new students are coming from. Meanwhile, if you are not a homeowner, if you do not have children in school, if you are a senior, this community increasingly is not for you. The sad thing is that many corporate investors like Blackrock are well aware of this situation. There are websites that advise if you want to get into owning a mobile home park as an "easy" source of passive income, look for a community like mine where average house prices run way beyond what many lower-income folks are able to pay, and which has very little actual low-income housing available. As long as what you charge for lot rent is less than the going rate for apartments of similar size and certainly far less than a mortgage payment, you are guaranteed a more or less "trapped" population who cannot move anywhere else at least not very easily. Now throw in a natural disaster or two, like a hurricane or tornado, and there are going to be a lot of folks in a world of hurt whose only crime is they weren't lucky enough to afford one of those nice suburban houses. But nobody cares what happens to them.
This is how suburbs tend to be built in the uk. Tbh, they still sprawl. I think were're at a point where we need to focus on increasing density in already urbanised areas. There's lots of places where density could increase but the same detatched or semi-detached houses keep being built. I'm a big fan of row homes as you can fit alot more houses into the same space. Developers don't like building them though as they can't charge as much for them
My question is just, why do people WANT this? They wouldn't build it if there were no demand, but to me living somewhere so heavily controlled and isolated from everything, where you are shut out from both human life and nature if your car breaks down, is unthinkable. I love the idea of suburban towns and villages like your demo (I'm situated near Pinecraft now, which has been pretty nice), but not single-family wastelands. ...Though, I question your choice of putting your notional family houses' backyards right in alligator territory. The gators might thank you, but little Billy's parents and Mr. Fluffins' owner definitely will not :P
Part xenophobia, part ignorance. North America is so insular that a lot of Americans genuenely seem to think it's either North American style suburbs or living in a condo tower in the city, with no other possibilities inbetween. At least things are changing even in North America wrt car-centric planning and single-family home deserts.
Because many Americans only know two types of housing: Highrises and detached single-family homes and only know "commercial" as big-box stores with giant parking lots and more traffic than a freeway. So they think "change zoning" means a skyscraper on one side and a Walmart on the other.
@@kailahmann1823 Around here, probably half the commercial usage is small shopping strips with small lots. Most of 17th Street, all of Gulf Gate, a large stretch of Cattlemen Rd., all of Pinecraft, half of Bee Ridge Rd. west of the highway, and so on and so forth. These types of installations would be entirely inoffensive up against a housing block. But yet the insane SFH developments, with tiny or no mixed/commercial zones, continue to march on up those very roads once you get further from town. I doubt it's just a basic failure to understand what commercial zoning is.
They do not build for demand. The devolopers are following the zoning code of the cities that sets these laws for lower density ,minimium size, parking requirements, minemum lawn size etc. Devolopers would like to put as much housing on the least amount of space to cut cost. Basically japan which why it is so cheap. Most people want to live in the suburban because it is the cheapest. Why is it cheaper because there is so much demand for urban housing but only suburban devolopment is allowed which means they is no supply other than single family housing.
In the rest of the world we build wall-to-wall houses with a patio and 5 people families live perfectly fine. You could use the English high density house layouts.
korean apartment complex is so convenient. shops, gym, even school is in the complex so we dont need to drive out. also there are many bus stops and metro nearby.
I literally grew up in Myakka and moved to the Netherlands for a walkable suburban life because it’s just available in America. The suburban sprawl in manatee county and Florida is just the worst.
Believe it or not, not everyone needs to own their own vehicle for transport. This is a very recent development in human timeline and its obviously a very flawed and wrong system.
@@CapitalismDeathSpiral in almost every city/metro area outside the US and Canada you can also take rapid trasit (either a bus, tram, metro, commuter or regional rail) to your workplace in the same 30-40 minutes. Cars are necessary in less dense rural areas, but in big cities they're a bit of a waste of space.
@@pizzaipinya2442 no thanks, public transit is extremely dirty, unsafe, crime is increasing, transit times keep getting messed up or canceled, and perfect place for terrorist attack. I avoid American public transit. Not worth it as I value my life too much.
@@pizzaipinya2442 We have transit in the cities and between the cities. But in America transit does not and will never take you everywhere you need to go. Every foreigner on this video is speaking from their ignorance of America and their naivete.
I once had a discussion that was telling: "How do you buy groceries without a car? People just need cars." Meanwhile I am thinking: "Why on earth would you want to live in a situation where you cannot get groceries without a car ride?". The point is to think about options, not about the options left after many impactful decisions have already been made (e.g. fixed city design). The misunderstanding was that the other person thought I was advocating for living in a US suburb without a car and probably thought I was stupid. You can easily guess on which continent I live and on which the other person lives.
I love living in older, walkable urban neighborhoods (even if it's in a small town of less than 10,000 people), where I can walk or bike to restaurants, parks, churches, stores, car repair shops, or the post office. I love being able to get outside and enjoy being outdoors while doing my daily tasks, without having to drive everywhere. But the downside is that my yard is pretty small, and I'm closer to neighbors than I would prefer. And maybe I feel a little bit closed in and away from nature, or maybe the neighborhood has some run-down houses that are an eyesore. Crime would also be a problem in some places. I also love living in a rural area, where I have at least one or two acres of my own land and good separation from my neighbors, and I feel like I'm living out in the natural world. But the downside is that I have to drive to go pretty much anywhere. I feel like the suburbs are the worst of both worlds. You don't get a lot of land or good separation from your neighbors. You don't feel like you're living amongst nature. But you also have to drive everywhere. There's nothing to walk to other than more houses. And that's basically why I've never lived in the suburbs. I've always chosen to live in a walkable urban neighborhood or in a rural area, and my parents chose the same (so those were the only two options I knew growing up).
Great video! The part on local elections is especially important. The media will cover the presidential election 24/7, but for most of us, the races that have the greatest impact on our day-to-day lives are our local and county races
The disconnectedness of it all is what's most frustrating. Everyone is forced to use the big roads no matter how they get there, car, bike, or walking. Especially when you live in a neighborhood that borders a shopping center that is a few hundred feet from your house but because there are walls around the property, you have to walk over a mile to get there. Just building a system of sidewalks that run behind and connect neighborhoods and shopping centers to each other would be so beneficial. But it doesn't happen because it's hard to adapt an existing neighborhood to have these connections, and most of what I hear from opposition is some thinly veiled concerns about "crime."
Reaching out to rural communities affected by urban sprawl is a great idea. The U.S. gives rural areas a political advantage. It *could* be something rural folk, urbanists, and environmentalists agree on. Rising property taxes and increased traffic because of new suburban developments can be very painful and environmentally costly for rural folk.
I love the idea of denser houses. The main problem I have is bad neighbors. When I lived in apartments, all of my neighbors were psycho, loud, or rude. No one followed the community rules and I got cussed out more than once simply asking them to stop partying past 2am or to keep their dogs from barking for 8 hours straight while they were gone. That said, I want what this video proposes to be reality in the US!
There’s a development in Utah called Daybreak that attempted this kind of development and failed dramatically. They basically just managed to cram more people into a smaller space. No extra places to shop or work really. So it’s not too walkable either. They got the “put more houses in” part right, but completely flopped on the “make it easy for residents” part by not putting businesses or offices in. As a result, everyone needed multiple cara and the skinny roadways could not handle that kind of street parking.
What I love about this channel is that the solutions shown are attainable. The graphics are also great and the interview at the beginning adds a nice personal touch!
New York City is a terrible place to raise children. There are lot of gangs, drugs, and violence on the streets. It is not a safe place even for adults.
The biggest problem seems to be that any time something forward thinking and well designed like this comes up, it’s too prohibitively expensive to live in and ends up failing due to no one wanting to pay the prices
Actually most of the time it's build they become expensive because the demand is so high because they are relatively rare. If we simply built more their costs wouldn't sky rocket.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 i like that line of thought, and in theory it makes sense, but under the current economic system I feel like it would only bump up the cost of living across the board rather than lower the cost of this specific style
Some of this is starting to change. Most developments around Houston now require schools to be built by the developers, parks and retention-pond usage areas are becoming more popular, and in larger developments sets of apartment buildings, duplexes, townhomes, and occasionally cottages are appearing. They're still very bad at including commercial and mixed-use spaces, and most middle-scale or small-scale developments don't do any of this. (An example is the massive, ridiculously-sized development south of I-10 between the Katy Love's and eastward. There's probably still too many single-family homes, but other kinds of development are sprinkled throughout.) Personally, I want to live in the countryside and for it to remain rural for the rest of my time there, but the current urban sprawl is removing those spaces. Hopefully, developers see that this way of building a whole community, instead of just houses, will pay off for them in the long run. If they do, they'll start emphasizing this kind of development, and our rural areas can remain rural. I really don't want what's left of the piney-woods and prairies of Texas to disappear. It's beautiful as is, and something entirely different when "developed" into cookie-cutter homes.
Here’s an observation I noticed today, but have thought about before: The construction on I-75 over the Manatee River. The government is performing construction to combat traffic that builds in the area, but instead of fixing the issue itself, they are just moving it to the other side of the river! The same thing happened on the Apollo Beach exit just north of that. They were having traffic build up onto Big Bend Road, so instead of addressing the issue and redirecting or lowering traffic, they just made the on-ramp literally more than a half-mile long.
This video completely fails to mention transit connectivity as well, especially at 4:39. Sure, having a walkable suburban neighborhood is nice and you can get amenities that are close together in a walkable suburban neighborhood, but what if someone wants to go to another part of the city/metropolitan area? In the example at 10:01 there is no transit connection at all, the example assumes that if you want to go to another part of a city/metropolitan area, you have to drive there. I like the idea of this but walkable suburban neighborhoods absolutely NEED reliable transit such as bus rapid transit, light rail, and regional rail.
Transit is definitely a huge opportunity that could come with this as well, but this video was trying to focus more on how to achieve a level of density that it makes sense for people to even begin to think about implementing a transit system. This discussion was left out of this video for the sake of staying on topic, but it's definitely something that could have a whole video in itself on.
The first rule of rhetoric is to know what you want to talk about. Once you know that, stick to your topic and don't deviate. Transit discussion would be 100% mission creep.
@@Streetcraft i also noticed that you don't usually mention public transit, but yeah it totally makes sense that you're taking one step at a time. it would be a lot for the audience to process
The suburban layout that is infecting the US is so damn sad. I’ve always hated the suburbs coming from NYC and moving to CA suburbs. I love the suburbs now but hate the cookie cutter developments and that you have to walk everywhere. There’s barely any sidewalks. if there are, they just end out of nowhere. American suburbs suck!
People don't want "low density" though. They just want the illusion of it, the calm of not having cars everywhere making noise, the option of having a private space where you won't be brothered by anyone... But that's also possible in a denser environment if it's designed to meet those requirements. You don't need a driveway, garage and 2 way street if the only time you take your car is to go out of town for the weekend or for some vacation so people us their car less often and thus reduce noise. You don't need a 2 acres lawn to have privacy (not that it even works) you can do with a terrace, a balcony or a small-ish garden with trees and plants to cut sight lines. You can provide more amenities for cheaper if not everyone has to walk/drive for kilometers on end to do anything outside of their home. The example shown at the end is a huge improvement in regards to what was shown before it, but it's still far from ideal and there's lots of ways to improve it : - reserving space for a few bus stops so people don't have to walk for 15minutes to get on the bus - making the center town square pedestrian only (with acces for deliveries) because there's no use for cars to go there - having more commercial spaces (offices mostly) along the road to cut off the sound of fast moving cars ...
I love walkable suburbs, but I also don't want to deal with amazon packages and car tires being stolen. Not an easy balance. I really love seeing the modern neighborhoods that have farm land mixed into them too. Adds a fun flair.
That was a brilliant animation and clear description when you reworked the single zoning suburb into a more dense, mixed use neighbourhood. That needs to be made into a short to be shared! I think that would reach a very wide audience!
As a resident of Pasco County, Florida, I am appalled at the paving over of this county; countless bland housing developments that look exactly alike, the widening of streets and roads, and the utter destruction of forests and wildlife habitat. It's not the bucolic place that I moved to 13 years ago. When will it end?
Looking at it from a European perspective, it continues to fascinate me how things like this in the US seem so complicated to change. The examples shown in this video clearly show what it should look like and there are so many benefits to it. Many of these examples are the standard here in many European countries. But I need to admit that suburbia is also becoming more common here. I hope we don't continue this path.
I'd like to challenge your assertion that interurbans wouldn't exist if people didn't want to live there. We don't really know where people want to live because for many decades in North America we've almost completely limited ourselves to building only either low-density, single-detached, car-dependent suburbs or hothead tower blocks. (There's a reason why it's called the "missing" middle.) Surveys ask people "what type of housing do you plan to buy", and if their only options are single-detached or condo towers they aren't going to say a 1,000sqft two-bedroom unit in a 4 storey walk-up. That type of survey only tells us which of two current options is more popular and gives us a false picture of what people supposedly want.
I'm personally a massive car enjoyer, and I generally hate it when people scream that we need to get rid of car centric suburbs, especially since I don't think public transport will ever be even close to as safe in the US, as it is in Europe and Asia. But this shit looks awesome, a perfect mix of car, bicycle and walking infrastructure, with many nearby amenities that could benefit us all, and not just solely focus on a singular group of people, because different people have different wants and needs.
@@zekeperson9892 Thanks for the question. I think Mass Transit would work in the United States, it would just be a lot more dangerous than automated private transport because of criminal activity in certain areas of cities being particularly bad when compared to European and Asian standards. This is compounded by our gargantuan drug problems and gang issues, although gangs tend to leave current Mass Transit alone for the most part. Unless of course, you belong to another gang. In order to have safe and effective Mass Transit, we would need to drastically increase the budgets of our underfunded police departments, and add stipulations onto that added funding that it cannot go towards equipment, but towards higher salaries, better training, and most importantly, more police officers in general. I think police should have to go to a federally funded/subsidized Advanced Individual Training similar to what the Military has, and the training standards should be standardized across the nation. Upon completion of training, they should then go back to their respective Law Enforcement Offices (Police Departments, Sheriff's Offices and State Troopers) to be further trained on local laws, then afterwards, act under their (Local Department's) jurisdiction. I am NOT for a Federal police force because I don't want the Central Government to have direct and widespread enforcement capabilities on the general populace of State citizens. Most laws are drawn up, voted on, and passed or dismissed on a local level after all. They should be enforced on a local level too. But I digress. If massive quality, funding and presence changes occur to Law Enforcement, then I think Mass Transit will finally become a safe and viable option in American cities and suburbs. As of right now however, Mass Transit is awful in the United States. People are gross and tend to mistreat the facilities, the vehicles used are often old and costly to maintain, in addition to being overcrowded and dangerous due to criminal activity. Often times women are discouraged from using Mass Transit because perverts like to intimidate and assault them. It is almost impossible to understate how much more preferable literally *any* *other* *form* of transportation is, when compared to American Mass Transit.
@@NickCorruption i respectfully disagree. the first reason public transit in the US sucks right now (besides poor planning) is simply the underfunding of infrastructure in general. The US is the richest nation in the world, and it’s definitely possible to get more money into public goods like trains. this could increase the safety, cleanliness, frequency, and coverage of transit. secondly, the main part of your argument that i disagree with is the idea that getting a TON of more highly trained police officers will somehow solve crime. i’m not an expert in crime statistics in the us vs europe, but i know that crime is motivated by poverty. people steal firstly because they feel the need to, and it goes downhill from there. by addressing poverty with housing and job reform, crime rates will drop. obviously it’s not as simple as that, but systemic reform is needed to address crime, and police reform alone is nowhere near enough to solve the wealth gap
In what sense is mass transit not safe? If you build transit in a way that not just poor people use it it will get safer. And car, bikes arent really that safe either 😂
@@zekeperson9892 You are correct. I feel mostly the same way that you do on all of these topics, however I felt like it was outside the scope of the conversation on Mass Transit to discuss my entire political philosophy on how society should be run. You are correct in that it seems like the highest motivator for crime is poverty, however that only addresses normal crime, not crime related to pervertry and gang related activity, those will still persist even if poverty wasn't as big of an issue as it is now. Which is why I feel like a larger and better trained police force would also be necessary. But you are right, the root cause of the problem is that Mass Transit is underfunded, however I am saying that you won't get many people to use it unless they feel like it is safe. I was trying to limit the conversation to Mass Transit alone without addressing the fundamental problems that the United States has, because they are so nebulous and interconnected that it kinda seems pointless when seemingly nearly every conversation about some problem in the United States always loops back to the nebulous issues that seem impossible to address effectively in a bipartisan way. Because unless you can find a bipartisan solution that both sides can agree to, you will never change anything in the United States on a nationwide macro scale.
In London, we forced this sort of development with the Green Belt, basically a place with really strict development laws, and it means that all new developments need to be space efficient. We also got lucky that all of our detached houses were built by the train companies back in the 30s, "metroland," which drove compact suburban developments. It meant that even places like Wembley Stadium and Brent Cross, which both have at least a million parking spaces, are relatively compact for their purpose. Ultimately, because we did this early, we never really built the massive urban motorways seen in America, and even where it has been done, it was always much more sensetive to the surrounding area (except for Westway, but you can't have it all)
The problem isn't suburbs, it's the lack of public transport. In our great grandparents' time there were streetcars in the middle of the road that linked suburban neighborhoods with the city center. And train stations in every small town so people could easily commute to work
Just stumbled upon your videos and decided to sub here. I think you’re one of the few channels that gives a fair and balanced view while actually giving realistic solutions
I think the U.S. could emulate pre-war suburbs - maintain suburban comforts while restoring financial sustainability and the community & health benefits of walkability & density. Could look something like suburbs around the UK or other Northwestern European countries.
Being slowly turned into exurbia in large parts of the country, especially the majority of the eastern third of the US, -often far beyond official metropolitan area bounderies. Most of these areas are predominately working to lower middle class and full of people from urban/suburban as well as rural backgrounds.
Thank you for another really good video. The whole Sarasota-Bradenton developments are completely destroying all the agricultural land. Also traffic around the whole Lakewood Ranch is way worse despite being like 80 lanes wide.
I have always loved rail trails, until it dawned on me that these were actually once railroads to everywhere, and now everyone needs a car instead. What a huge lack of foresight when the railroads were decommissioned :(
Trains are a thing of the past. The cost of running a railroad became too high and ticket prices could not cover expenses so they went out of business. They went bankrupt.
@@eggballo4490 There were dozens of profitable railroads 100 years ago. Before air travel and the highway system they could charge whatever they wanted and get away with it. But as soon as competition from cars and jets came about the railroads went bankrupt. It is still possible to run a profitable passenger rail system such as Brightline but that serves a very niche market. Overall trains are a thing of the past that will never be able to bring in the kind of money they used to.
Check out our sponsor Brilliant for a fun and easy way to interactively learn new things with a 30-day free trial and 20% off an annual premium membership:
brilliant.org/Streetcraft/
It was Pretty once
Soviet mikrodistric vs USA suburbia
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa tell me about it.
*YOU TALK ABOUT SUBURBS LIKE THEY ARE BAD, BUT NEVER POINT OUT THE CAUSE OF SUBURBS BEING BUILT, MAYBE JUST MAYBE FOCUS ON THE IMMIGRATION NUMBERS AND PEOPLE FLEEING OTHER AREAS TO OTHER CERTAIN AREAS, THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN YOUR NOTION SUBURBS ARE BAD UNTIL THEN, YOU ARE JUST WRONG.*
Look into state road 60 in Tampa,Florida area
This video is a great example of how suburban-style development doesn't have to suck. The sad thing about the US is that it equates suburbs with sprawl and anti-human car-centric design: This doesn't have to be the case!
I actually like the suburbs (I just bought a home in one). But whenever I ask for more pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, so many Americans look at me like I want every city to be NYC with 20-story high-rises. Now I can show them this video to explain what I want, so thank you for making it.
ok
This channel lost me at interviewing the woman who made this issue so partisan. It shouldn’t be. Are Dems are better?
@@Cyrus992The woman highlighted that local policies have a direct impact on people's lives, but many people tend to overlook this fact. This should not be viewed as a partisan issue.
@@Cyrus992 suburbs exist to avoid the consequences of the civil rights act, so it is partisan just not in the way they will talk about.
I do live in NYC.
And I so wish I could move to a walkable / cyclable suburb with public transit. There’s parts of Westchester, which is effectively an extension of NYC, but has a cost of entry over $1M for a home (plus ~$3,000/mo in taxes).
There aren’t really any suburban areas that fit that bill without also being ludicrously expensive. I don’t want to own a car.
I _need_ the "reimagining" chapter as a RUclips short, I always try to explain what it would look like to friends
Yep. Just throwing that as a short into any conversation about a new development.
please please make this happen
I hope he does this; it would be such a great and concise rebuttal to the knee-jerk "what abbout muh freedom" reactions
I really hope he can edit that section down into a youtube short! I did my best with RUclips's "clips" feature, but it's pretty limited. Hope this helps someone!
ruclips.net/user/clipUgkxuW8DvKSX803beOhais0-nUneLeczEtMI
@@tshirtphilosophers"You're not free. You're dependent on your car."
I’ve probably left a comment before, but this is basically the ideal argument for zoning reform. It won’t force you to change your lifestyle, but it’ll open up new lifestyle opportunities for those looking for something different. This is something that I think is much more practical in America without going full Netherlands bike and train network
I’d like the option of full Netherlands bike & train in North America!
true, sure you can have what you want, but don't expect everybody else to follow what you want. the part of the video showing a suburb with diverse zoning option in one space and with amenities at a walking distance represents this sentiment best!
This channel lost me at interviewing the woman who made this issue so partisan. It shouldn’t be. Are Dems are better?
@@Cyrus992 Yes. When the conservatives literally interprets efforts to improve walkability and mixed use zoning as imposing lockdowns on people in 15 minute zones, how can you take them seriously? If they had libertarian principles and live in the same reality where we should let people build businesses and homes where it makes sense rather than in a Euclidiean manner, we could find common ground.
@@Cyrus992 Why are you spamming that comment in every single thread here?
You didn't even mention public transit in this: traditional suburbs have basically no place to put a bus, but in the new layout presented, that town square would be a perfect place to have a bus stop. And if you have multiple neighborhoods like this right next to each other, you could eventually connect them with a tram quite easily as well; allowing people to visit places other than just their own little community, which makes room for even more diversity.
ppl who can afford to live here dont need/wont use a bus. A tram within these type of communities would be cool though.
@@LAAM619 Using a bus isn't a matter of wealth; they'd use the bus if it was more convenient than driving. And in order to get to that point, you need to actually have buses all over the place.
If you put a tram in here, ideally you'd ALSO want buses going to and from the tram stops as well, that people can use for more local transit.
@@Marconius6 nope. Rich people wont catch a bus. A tram that takes you from neighborhood center to neighborhood center is a cool idea though, People would def catch those.
@@LAAM619they do where i live sooo
Traditional suburbs DO "have a place to put a bus."
The bus stop is on the corner as you exit the suburb onto the main street.
I live in the suburbs. I can't go for long walks because there are very few sidewalks and there are too many bicycle -haters . Riding bicycle is scary in the suburbs because suburbanites thinks bicycles and cyclists are stupid. I plan on moving closer to city limits .
same !!! there are many of us and we hate it here !!!!!!
Welcome!
@@zekeperson9892 You are free to move and make yourself happy.
@@TexMarque that’s the plan lmao I’m still in high school
@@zekeperson9892 Good for you. Just don't expect the grass to be greener; often it is not, but opportunity abounds.
9:31 Ngl, this neighborhood looks like an absolute dream, although mindbogglingly rare (and as a result, expensive) in the US.
I know it’s not the exact same but Perkins Rowe in Baton Rouge tried to build a block with apartments on top of stores. You had food, movie theater, book stores, cafes, etc right by your apartment but for some reason they never rented out the apartments. The stores are there but the apartments are empty. It’s worth a visit for anyone in the area.
If only Baton Rouge copied this design for mid-high density.
@@milanlatona7363these videos are literally the reason why im reconsidering going to college to study meteorology and go to college to study engineering or whatever they get a degree in so i can go to a town like sarasota and do this exact plan
It looks like a prison. Where are your kids and dogs gonna play.
@@Janet_Quillen_DE07 the many public parks this place encourage, not to count the wildlife park that this development saves from the traditional car-centric surburb
@@Janet_Quillen_DE07Plus if that's a priority for you, the whole point of the video is there's still single family homes with yards to choose from. But at least there are choices. And everyone's within walking distance of the parks, grocery store, and other amenities.
The real problem with car dependent suburbs is that they have the disadvantages of both urban and rural areas and the advantages of neither.
Suburbs generally have the best schools. Better than urban or rural.
@@NovusodThat’s because rich people are living there. It has nothing to do with rural of urban.
@@asmodon There are a lot of rich people in urban areas too but they send their kids to private school because the inner city public schools are beyond terrible.
@@Novusod private schools would still exist without suburbs.
@@asmodon The point is suburbs have good public schools and kids living there don't have to pay extra for private school to get a good education.
Another absolute banger from Streetcraft, this will be my new intro video to "orange-pill" my friends on why suburban development is so unsustainable. Your motion graphic design in the videos makes it SO CLEAR on alternative solutions to the land-use issues we face.
Thank you for your work! Keep up the great content!
PS - the "walkable & bikeable & liveable" sticker on your Etsy shop is straight 🔥
@@Cyrus992 You got nothing better to do than spamming this same reply on every comment?
ok democrat
do not stop building suburbs,stop building car centric suburbs
Well said
And throw the single-family residential-only zone away, and pave the way for mixed zone.
Nah. All suburbs need to go.
@@MAL1GNANTand replace it with what
@@MAL1GNANThell no
7:00 "just because you might want to live in a single family suburban home, doesn't mean that building other housing types is gonna take away your single family suburban home. Instead it opens up more options for more people."
Ugh, so obvious. So perfectly said.
And makes single family suburban homes cheaper in the process…
IKR! I’m all about options for people. It’s ridiculous that it’s so hard for people to avoid black and white thinking and instead realize people want options on how to live
@@CodyMoore74Or it could push the prices of them up as the supply drops. These houses don’t go unsold so there is demand for them. Do some people really what something smaller? Probably. As many of the urbanists think? Doubtful. If there was that much demand for that, developers would be rushing to build it to make a profit. But they don’t. So, demand for full size single family homes drops a little but perhaps - probabaly? - less than the supply drops. Voila…more housing price increases or people have to settle for density and undersized home they don’t really want. Rather than have activists try to tell us what we want, let’s let the people tell us what they want via the free market.
@@FoCoBuzz Good point but the free market isn’t much “free” anymore in the US. Due to racism/classism/similar issues in the middle and late 1900’s local communities of baby boomers lobbied under general NIMBYism to make zoning for missing middle illegal. We don’t even let the free market decide because as the video explains, the only options are available are the two extremes-single family large detached homes and cramped apartments. That in itself you may argue is government overreach that goes against the majority in favor of only the rich. Asserting that the demand isn’t there for the missing middle is a bit on the nose when it literally cannot exist, or where it does it is always expensive (because it is in such high demand). I believe Californians would love a cheaper option that allows communities to be tighter-knit yet also diverse and walkable. Most of my friends and family have been in traumatic car crashes and hate driving. Most of my friends and family wish they could see each other more often even though they live in the same place. Most of them feel isolated. Most of them cripple under a housing market that forces them to buy too much. ALL of them have car payments. No one wants this lifestyle anymore, but there are no other options. We want options. Making the options legal will actually let the free market decide.
@@CodyMoore74 I don’t think there any rational reason to think “racism” impacts the development decisions of a developer in 2024. It’s time to retire the group identity mindsets of 1964. As a strong support of property rights, I take a dim view of most zoning. But most people aren’t motivated by racism.
I can't get over how good your graphics are for explaining concepts. The two versions of a new development on empty land were fantastic. I also appreciated how you went to a real place in person and heard from people there. That goes a long way to making these concepts land.
streetcraft has to be my favorite urbanism channel right now. Channels like not just bikes seems to just complain, but this channel actually talks about real solutions. Good work guys!
Exactly. That complaining tone can turn a lot of people off.
NJB does show solutions - but those are more applicable to places, where the basics already exist. Just saw a video by @CityNerd about streetcar-suburbs in Portland, OR. Those are places, where Dutch road design ideas are relevant. A car dependent suburb however is like 50 steps (and sadly years of changes) away from this.
NJB should rename to Just Complaints!
💯
That cute little mixed-used neighborhood with multiple housing densities seems like an impossible dream gazing out on seemingly endless seas of tract homes :(
I've seen so many suburban homes that are run down and poorly maintained by the overworked people who bought them. Most of us don't need that space, and in fact cannot take care of a big yard and an expensive car. Why should we all have to live like that?
So many single homes hardly have any garden, just driveway: Seems like the worst of both, somehow.
@@la-go-xy I want a garage and a driveway, I don't want a lawn!
@@mikeydude750 So, a terraced house or a semi detached might be a good option? What about a midrise with an underground garage??
@@la-go-xy I want a place I can wash my car and keep it looking nice. Every apartment complex has rules against that.
I think it is cheaper to buy a house than an apartment or townhome in the long run. With a single family house (assuming no HOA) you do not have to pay apartment or community fees. Those really add up over the years.
I love these videos. As a civil engineer I have some influence on how the neighborhoods are designed, but not enough to completely make these pedestrian friendly. It takes more people, especially voters to know what they’re missing out on. In America, car is the only way they know how to get around, so it’s viewed as a symbol of freedom. What they don’t know is that they have a lack of freedom because they are restricted to cars, so when you mentioned public transportation It’s viewed as an attack on freedom. When I fully explain why alternatives are needed, they finally realize what they’re missing out on.
It doesn't help that alot kf the advocates for pedestrians and public transport treat cars as evil.
"People like living in the suburbs"
Well no, not exactly. People like living in their own home. Now where that home is or what form that home takes that varies a lot, yeah a good chunk of people like living in detached homes with yards, but not all of them. If there were also a lot of duplex, triplex, rowhomes, 2, 3 and 4 story multifamily homes and apartments built, then the people that don't feel like they NEED to live in a detached home with it's own separate yard, would choose to live in those homes instead, especially since those homes are cheaper.
There isn't anything inherently wrong with single family homes, the issue arises when it essentially is the only choice for someone that wants a home.
There actually is something inherently wrong with single family houses. They're a waste of space. NOBODY needs that much.
Some people just want a new house for their new car & can’t afford the $million infill McMansion.
@@MAL1GNANT it's ingrained in the American psyche though that people do need it. The ideal 1950s suburban lifestyle is still considered the quintessential American lifestyle. There were signs this perception was changing prior to the pandemic, but the past four years have seen a significant regression on this issue. It's going to take generational change and a generation that demands something different for this to ever change.
The preference is somewhat cultural. We'd be able to measure a less biased preference if America hadn't absolutely destroyed its cities for the sake of the car. People here simply don't know what living in a proper city is like, and after decades of suburbs being heavily glorified it's only natural that such a preference exists.
I personally never questioned car centrism before I found out about urbanism and naturally assumed that the typical consumerist suburban lifestyle was the best life one could have. I suffered the effects of car centrism but I never thought of it as anything more than the struggle before becoming a driver. Now imagine if I'd been the all too common arrogant, selfish, and closed minded American. The negative response urbanism receives here is largely an emotional gut reaction in defence of a culturally engrained worldview.
@@bchristian85 I live in a small terrace (row) house in inner-Melbourne, Australia and we have a child and often people ask whether we feel like we need a bigger house & a yard because we have a child and a dog. But I look at their houses & lifestyles. Ok, they have a bigger yard, but it's still not big enough to kick a football, or big enough for a large playground, big enough to let the dog have a good run, as most suburban backyards aren't. However, because they have a big house that isn't walking distance from a whole lot, they don't leave it much. Whereas we may not have a proper yard, but literally a 30 second walk away we have a park with a big playground. Another 5 minutes walk away is a big off-leash dog park, with an even bigger playground and a sports field. We actually have 8 great parks, and the beach, and an amusement park, within a 15 minute walk of our house. Who needs a backyard when you have that?
So I agree it is in the psyche even for a lot of Australians where the dream was the "quarter-acre suburban home", and without really thinking about it properly just have an automatic association that family/kids/pets = you need to move to the 'burbs and have a backyard. I completely disagree with that.
This is normal in 🇬🇧. I find it weird here in 🇺🇸 i cant walk to a corner shop to go buy milk eggs etc. Instead i have to get in a car n drive 10 mins.
That's a bit of a myth. I live in rural Canada, and so nothing is close. BUT, I've been everywhere in the US. Just spent time in Dallas and I could walk to several locations to get milk, food, booze you name it. AND I was in what would be a considered a suburb.
@@larryroyovitz7829 “everywhere in the US”. Clearly not.
@@Optimus-Prime-Rib That's the point you'll hang your argument on? Okay...
@@larryroyovitz7829 Where in Dallas was this? Not trying to be confrontational but Texas barley has any sidewalks.
@@_cls90 Rowlett, so a suburb, I suppose, of Dallas?
Thank you for being one of the only urbanists on RUclips you doesn’t ignore rural people. I know for some of our community, there is no sympathy for the latter because of politics or living style, but urbanism doesn’t just require thinking *about* cities. Rural and suburban areas are also affected and there is a huge untapped market of ideas about how those areas are also affected. If we do not think about those in those areas in urbanism, they will only come to loathe the ideology (and rightfully so if it doesn’t consider them). There are positives to thoughtful urbanism for rural lives, but we need to acknowledge them and advocate for them as well.
You've earned a sub, these are some of the best videos I've ever seen exploring this topic. I get tired of the snarky, self-righeous tone of a lot of the RUclips urbanists, so your very balanced, sensible, easy to understand explanation of these things is a real breath of fresh air. The animations and presentations are really helpful to, you've done a great job making urban planning and zoning reform understandable, and I love how your whole vibe is wanting to suggest solutions to make improvements to our towns and cities instead of just criticizing how they've been built or the lifestyles of people living in them. Keep up the great work!
This is an incredible video. The balance you strike between educational infographics, storytelling, and actionable advice is fantastic. Keep doing what you’re doing, Streetcraft. If you’re a viewer like me, write to your local governments about these issues, it’s better for everyone!
Instead of creating denser communities where people actually want to live they just make more soulless corporate housing.
With houses made out of plywood where you can hear someone breathing from the other side of the house.
@@Coffeepanda294
That crumble in the slightest breeze
And no. The houses are made of paper
I don't think I've ever seen a video that so perfectly articulates what I want in a neighborhood. I like driving and want to own a car, but driving everywhere is expensive. I'd love to be able to live in a neighborhood that has small stores and restaurants nearby, while still preserving the ability to drive further when I want to. Great job, man.
I really appreciate your takes on how surburbs can be done right. I really dislike how many other of these kinds of channels seem to not understand why people decide to live in either rural or suburban areas, but your focus on fixing suburbs instead, trying to keep the positives that should exist in that system is great. The way you lay out examples really helps.
It’s also worth noting that many Americans have been propagandized to hate apartments. So the desire for single family housing may be somewhat artificial
Having lived in an apartment before moving into the suburbs, it’s not a great place to live. Loud neighbors, had crackheads living downstairs throwing garbage everywhere and broken stuff all the damn time that the owners wouldn’t fix.
@justaguy5384 I hated living in apartments too. You're spending thousands every month to a landlord, have to deal with drugged neighbors, thieves, thr smell of weed, noise, no private driveway, etc. Thank God I bought my single family home back in 2012 when they were cheap. I never looked back.
It's not propaganda. Its life experience and personal choice. More than 80% of homeowners used to rent apartments before buying homes.
Almost NO ONE wants an apartment. Its whereyou end up, due to costs, proximity, or lack of other options.
Lets just be honest, many people dont wantto live all on top of each other...and given the chance, almost always choose to move to lower density areas. Now smarter suburbs Im all for, as demonstrated, but mindless urbanity is just as bad.
@@jtcali2086 agreed 👍
I don't own and can't afford a car. I currently live in Manhattan in NYC because I'm disabled and I need to have things like groceries and doctors nearby and walkable. I would never move to a stereotypical suburb, but I'd love to move to a suburb that has the type of things you need at a reasonable and safe walking distance.
God fir you. NYC is the bu tt of the usa.
@@donquique1What does the butt of USA have to do with a disabled person unable to drive?
I find between major cities and suburbs there are in-between towns a lot of places where part of the town is dipping into the urban landscape and the other part is still leafy suburbs.
Videos like this are the reason why I subscribed to him when he had less than 1k subscribers. A lot of channels just love to assume that everyone will live in an apartment and cars are the worst thing ever invented. This channel takes into account how real people wanna live and knows that people don't wanna just give up their cars for nothing.
This channel lost me at interviewing the woman who made this issue so partisan. It shouldn’t be. Are Dems are better?
@@Cyrus992 Yea I'm not sure why he left that part in. I think the lady is forgetting who the mayor of Carmel, IN is.
@@BBGOnYT Tell me about it.
It seems that the GOP side seem to admire the traditionalism and deregulation while the Dems come at an environmental and affordability/transit angle.
@@Cyrus992 So I just watched the video and got to that part, and this is a huge misrepresentation of what she actually said
She wasn't saying "Republican bad", she was basically just saying that voters tend to make assumptions about policy based purely on party, and those assumptions are wrong sometimes
@@BIGBLUBLUR ok cool
I live in a new urbanist neighborhood that is very similar to the reimagining you beautifully demonstrated with your great graphics. It's mostly single family homes but they don't have a front yard and a front facing garage. Instead the homes have garages in the back facing alleys which cut through the blocks. There are also town homes, cottage courts, apartments, mixed use development, a school, a church, and some public parks. The neighborhood also has a much more walkable street layout with better connectivity and no cul-des-acs and it even has direct access to lovely open space with walking and biking trails that can take you pretty far. In a not so large piece of land they've managed to fit so much more and create an overall way more pleasant place to live and walk around. Unfortunately it all ends abruptly once you leave the neighborhood and it devolves into the typical suburban nonsense we're all too familiar with. It's a shame that my neighborhood isn't the standard because despite the design differences it still has the suburban feel that many people like while also being free of many of the typical flaws in standard American suburban development. If all neighborhoods were designed more like that, we abandoned the strip mall for a more main street style of commercial development, and if we had way better transit everywhere American surburbs wouldn't be so bad, in fact they would be pretty great places to live.
How many residents are able to work in the subdivision (not WFH or coworkers)? This is a fundamental flaw in new urbanist subdivisions that were less common in pre-war neighborhoods where many residents were also the neighborhood service providers & could afford the nice homes while their workers could afford the rentals in duplexes, small SFH & small multiplexes.
Seeing nature be destroyed by suburban subdivisions saddens me greatly.
some of the most productive farmland in north america being paved over for single family homes...
exactly @@realtissaye
And it’s all the more frustrating that NIMBYs often use the environment as an excuse. They’ll say shit like “oh but look at how much green there is around our house!” and how there’s still deer that come to munch on their rosebushes. In reality that greenbelt “forest” is a shrinking island 100m deep, and the only reason they can see deer is there’s nothing else to eat and nowhere left to hide. People look townhouses, 5+1s, and streets without hedgerows and think it’s bad for nature just because there’s less green in their immediate field of vision; in reality every sq foot worth of concrete stacked up on a building is a floor worth of nature left untouched, and worth far more to the wildlife than that same square foot isolated in a greenbelt or fenced into a backyard
A real environmentalist should know that increasing density is the only real way to reduce humanity’s footprint, and supporting mass transit is a far more efficient way to reduce emissions than attempting a 1:1 replacement with EVs. Anything else is purely performative, and I daresay, deeply hypocritical.
@@andrewzheng4038 Great comment. 👍
@@andrewzheng4038 yeah! I know that's right.
There are already countless urbanist channels that pretty much preach the same thing (Allan Fisher, City Nerd, Not Just Bikes, etc.). However, this is the only channel that is not entirely condescending towards the concept of suburban living. The fact of the matter is that suburban living (regrettably) is the most practical and financially attainable mode of decent living for the American middle class whether we like it or not. This channel seems genuine in its attempt to educate its viewers that we can at least make suburban living more enriching through design, but all the while not alienating the people (suburban dwellers) that probably need to hear it the most.
Thank you Streetcraft for making these videos. Can't wait for the next one!
he still added the democrat propaganda towards the end of the video though...
@@skurinski Come on now
Not Just Bikes has stated that his entire mission is not motivated by making cities better, but by encouraging people to flee North America to places that already have good development. He has no interest in improving the situation, only advertising an out to the wealthy. Ladder-pulling scab.
Suburban places are only the cheapest options because there is so much demand for urban places because citities only allow suburban devolopment. Japan has no traditional single family zoning and it is way cheaper.
@@JanMiddeke-uu4or I don’t think having a reason behind urban development being expensive gives anyone license to bully lower earners for making a more financially attainable choice. All that does is ostracize people who might otherwise agree with you.
The only thing I wonder as a non-American when I see those video: why are people who call themselves "conservatives" in America sometimes against this kind of development? Having strong, walkable and human-sized communities ist the most traditional kind of development structure I could think of. People have built like this for hundreds of years, being for this kind of structure is the most conservative/traditionalist I could think of. Why are some American conservatives against this? 😅
I’m not sure, it’s very weird. I myself am a very conservative American and would LOVE nothing more than the solutions from this video to be implemented. You’re absolutely right on traditional and strong communities. There’s no feeling of community in this country because of the soulless cookie cutter suburbs constantly built. Nobody knows or cares for eachother and small business struggle to take off because everyone has to drive to them. It’s probably because of boomer propaganda thinking that changing zoning and how suburbia is built means socialism, which couldn’t be further from the truth. The same people scared of government overreach fail to realize how much more efficient governance could be in better built suburbs.
@@SlapStyleAnimsamen
They have likely never heard of this. This is the first time I'm hearing about this type of development, with mostly single-family residential but also commercial spaces around and good biking connectivity.
I'm a conservative. It's because most of us live in rural areas, and our communities are getting taken over by overdevelopment like this. The land and areas are being destroyed. The development is causing deforestation, environmental pollution, air pollution, and noise pollution. It's also causing more people, more traffick/pedestrians, and bikers. The cost of living increases, our wililfe is dying, their homes are being destroyed, theres increased crime most of the time and overall the quality of life and community is getting destroyed. Speaking on community. No community is as good as the ones you'll find in rural America. It's believed that the more people there are, the better sense of community there will be. It's wrong, though. When you have a lot more people, you tend to just walk by more and feel indifferent. In smaller communities, when you see someone, you're more willing to talk and connect with them. They have a mindset of helping each other out and always coming together in times of need (such as if your car breaks down, usually the first car you see will come and help). It's the difference between coastal areas, suburban areas, and New York City. Nothing is like rural America, and we see how this will end up. With this being said, I dont see my point of view as being right or wrong. But this is the lens that conservatives see it through.
Also, I understand there's a need for more housing, but I don't think like this. There's hundreds and hundreds of sitting houses in my area with no one to buy them cuz the prices are too high. Coorperations own them and there not going to drop the price.
Man as a European, I gotta say those overly clean suburbs with hundreds of identical homes look like the most horrible place on earth..
A lot of us are really getting screwed by housing restrictions. There's a little building outside the baseball diamond at the school across the street. It used to just have a couple washrooms, a counter where they served hotdogs, and a little storage area, I would assume. It's probably like 12ft wide by 20ft long. a couple years ago, they added an upper level to it. I look at that little building and think "I could live in something like that". I'm just one guy. All I need is a kitchen, washroom, and an open space upstairs. I'm a musician, I make noise, so being detached from others is important. I don't need a backyard, I don't need a front yard, just gimme the little house and a place to park my car (that I may not need if the neighborhood is diverse enough), and I'd be happy. small homes like that aren't in the cards around here though.
It's because of political corruption. There's not as much money to be made in efficient, pleasant affordable housing. We have to fight to change this. It's going to be a struggle though because the big money owns our political process at every level that's the problem. They want to make big money, and you only get that from forcing people into expensive unsustainable lifestyles, and chief among these is buying a big house that puts you in debt for decades. Now I'm not against home ownership and beautiful homes, but one the cost is increasingly out of control and two that's just not what everyone wants. We need a diversity of housing because the human population is diverse in their needs and means.
Put a hold on sprawl, force developers to densify what we have. Economic output would increase.
Prices can rise unless if restrictions on height and density are removed
But not everybody wants to live in a dense degenerate city. I vehemently hate living in cities.
@@equinox2655 Sounds like a you problem 🎻
@@equinox2655 > hates the poor
> also hates ringing up his own groceries
@@chrisbartolini1508 actually it’s not a me problem, because largely American society agrees with me. So really, your cause is the problem
As someone in Florida we are terrible at saving land
Saving land for what?we have a distorted view of “savings” as for a future use other than the natural, undeveloped uses it has.
Pretty natural when you live in a huge country, I suppose. Still sad, though, I agree.
All of the Southeast is
@@ttoperonature should stay nature. Florida is highly developed already so what’s left of nature should be preserved
@@ttopero Excessive urbanization creates effeminate men, hence the lowest levels of testosterone in history.
As a Brit, it's baffling to me how a country has become so fixated on the idea that suburbs = large single family homes ... we have plenty of suburbs in the UK, but the most common type of property in them is semi-detached (duplex), and pretty much everyone will have a local grocery store and a school and a few other facilities within 15 minutes walk (and often much less!). The model of development that you sketched out with a mix of low-rise apartments, town houses, small detached homes and large detached homes, a few shops, a school and a park is basically the standard pattern for any large development. Even smaller developments that aren't big enough to warrant shops and a school will have a mix of housing types. It makes life so much more convenient!
Cause Brits don't have as much space as Americans
@@bedandbreakfast4033Space is overrated. Big houses tend to be full of junk they never use and yards are rarely taken care of properly. Instead of a nice garden they put useless grass. Grass that is awful to the ecosystem and costs more money in the long run.
@@vintagejaki751 point still stands. It's thing with countries that have too much land. Canada, Russia and US has so much habitable land
I'm a housing designer, and the common thing that really drives the entire design of new developments is car storage. People don't necessarily want long driveways and sprawling parking, but for a family of 4-5, that typically entails at least 1 car, often 2, which really screws up the lot for livable space at grade, unless you begin making these homes even larger to accommodate more vehicles. A 1600 sq. ft home built in the 1960s was considered palatial, but now, homes on average range between 2200-2600 sq. ft for a single family dwelling. And purchasers don't seem to be willing to give that up, even as the average household size has been decreasing over the decades. I am a big proponent of the architectural movement for selective urban infill, where a single family dwelling in an urban or suburban setting gets remodeled into a semi-detached or duplex, or larger lots add a secondary dwelling unit to them or even a standalone private business. Imagine living in the 'burbs, and you want to get a haircut, or you need to pick up a loaf of bread for breakfast. Normally you get in your car and drive at least 10 minutes away to the nearest grocery store or strip mall to get the goods and services you need. But imagine instead that there's a house on the corner that just converted their ground floor into a bakery, and 2 blocks away, someone opened a barber shop in their basement to cater to the neighborhood. Instead of moving an elderly person out of their home and away from familiar settings, they can downsize to a flat on the same property where they can live comfortably and still be close to family and friends.
The entirety of North America is designed around car movements and placement, designing whole cities around roads, highways and parking lots. Instead of forcing people to rely on purchasing a vehicle, our cities and suburbs should be designed around the movement of people, and the facilitation of healthy living habits and comfortable environs that encourage people to engage with nature, not build over top of it. We vastly waste the land we already have in use, and it has not only exacerbated inequality and economic instability, it has damaged our ecosystems and natural resources too. It's also reinforced antiquated notions of "districts" that not only divide up cities according to building occupancy, but by age, income, and race as well. I love the concepts of intentional urban planning, designing spaces and interiors that support people where they live and work and play, because it fosters connection between community members, and contributes to better psychological health. There's a better balance to be struck between urban development and humane design, and I'm glad to see more places and forums discussing what that could look like for their communities.
Wow you're so on top of it. you totally need to get involved in your local community. Your attitude is the right one and the one all planners should have.
Since the 1920s, both oil and gas and the automaking industry have owned our politicians in seemingly every zip code, with predictable disastrous results. 100 years of this bullshit and look at where we are. The shit that's been pulverized and destroyed and paved over for the goddamn vehicle astounds me. Parking minimums are a peculiar form of torture only Satan could love inflicting upon us.
I hate waste too, waste of potential, waste of space, waste of resources, waste of everything. It's unacceptable. I want to stop it in my home state and county and repair what can be repaired but I'll need a lot more clout for that. I'm just a random nobody right now.
Something that absolutely shocked me watching the section on your hypothetical suburb for 1,000 people was just how much parking you were able to include. One of the things that I hear from so many people who are against this type of development is that it will force people to walk, bike, and use transit because it will be impossible to use a car... and yet, you just demonstrated a community where walking, biking, and presumably if it were scaled, transit are all completely viable options while still providing ample room for people who want to drive. If anything, I can predict a lot of urbanists being outraged at just how much parking you included.
Eliminating people's option to own a car eliminates tons of people from the conversation entirely. Meeting people in the middle can sometimes be much more impactful than an all-or-nothing approach.
To be fair, the idea that new urbanism means it'll be impossible to have a car is mostly a strawman anyway.
Central parking garages are an excellent option for this as well. Residents of the community get a reserved spot(s), while the remainder are available for people coming to work or shop. We have a severe shortage of street parking here, but it is complimented largely by numerous garages.
Unfortunately, anyone proposing these new urbanism suburb subdivisions haven’t solved the affordability problem for the people who work in the shops that are allowed to exist (no six-figure salaries are moving in without office buildings with parking lots-exceptions apply). Even the apartments are built for people who typically get paid at least twice what the shop workers do!
1. Where do the people live who work at the big shops? Also: a small shop can be worked be the owner - with their home being around the corner or even upstairs.
2. Start with small changes. Allow a drug store and one small apartment building both near the edge of a suburb. How bad can it be?
@@SvenRenas yes, if allowed. It typically isn’t on the minds of the policy makers though. To only allow a few people in each subdivision will get us nowhere. Look at the streetcar suburbs to see how many corners or blocks had small commercial and/or live-work areas to see how far we have to go! It won’t be identical but the gap is YUGE!
Well we need to talk about that too. Why can't we approach both problems at the same time?
Unfortunately nobody is building affordable housing now
@@railroadforest30 ethical political leadership could change this but not going to hold my breath for that
Maaaaaaannnn I absolutely LOVE your content & your editing!! I relate to your content as a Mexican who migrated to the US and continues to be annoyed and shocked by how anti-pedestrian the infrastructure and culture is here :( I've followed you on Instagram for a while and only just clicked on your RUclips channel for the first time! Gold mine. Hope you continue to grow and create awesome things!
Thanks so much!!
Would we see neighborhoods like this become more affordable as they build more? They tend to be very expensive because of the demand.
building a lot of THIS would solve that problem too - because you basically need only one third (!) of the space (including the reduced need for commercial, road and parking space), while still having mostly single-family homes.
There is a reason for such a demand. People like convenience. Not needing to drive for everything when you can just send the kid on a fetch quest is convenient
"Gentle" density for infill within existing single family home neighborhoods may be fine, but new development and infill that's not fully within a single family neighborhood needs to be much denser. It's not about whether or not something is or isn't suburban. It's more about how car dependent a place is. We have to reduce our dependency on cars. It's unrealistic for most places to completely toss the car, but we can do a lot to enable more people to be less dependent on them for literally everything.
The place described would not be car-dependent. Within the community it supports walking and biking, and connection to outside centers can be maintained by a bus route or maybe even a train station, justified by an increase in density.
There needs to be mixed use shops at the bottom of some buildings and at least one grocery store or market in the neighborhood
In retirement we moved from a house to a condo. We can walk to a large grocery store, 2 banks, a hardware store, an Amtrak station, a Chicago commuter train station, a pizza place, a Subway, a ice cream place, a hair salon, an accountant, a pet hospital, a bowling alley, a Dollar General, and some other business. We moved 2 miles from our original house where we could walk to a lot less stores. Our house was in a town, but there are miles of subdivisions south of this town with much fewer businesses in the mix.
We need zoning that allows shops and houses on the same street yet leaves skyscrapers, factories, and large supermarkets away. Thank you for showing us examples of what’s good rather than what’s wrong
Spot on. Zoning as a principle clearly has a place. Don't put houses next to polluting factories, keep truck routes separate, etc. The issue isn't the existence of zoning but the restrictive overreach of US "single family home" zoning specifically. It's unfathomable to me even as an Australian - a similarly sprawling, low density country - that it could be illegal to have local businesses scattered among houses because that's the norm here. Nobody would complain about a cafe, florist or fish & chip shop on their corner, everyone wants that!
Japanese zoning in a nutshell. Skyscrapers and such are classed as "light industry", and therefore, are prohibited from being built in the by our standards, loosely defined "residential". Stuff like konbini and 5-over-1s are classed as "residential".
That's called covenents.
@@georgerogers1166 The are the same thing, only difference is zoning laws are determined by the government whereas covenants are by private parties.
@@Arjay404 which is a big difference.
I honestly don’t mind living in the suburbs, but I live in DC where the suburbs are easily connected to the city via transit if you don’t want to drive. I currently live in a more urban area, but I wouldn’t mind living further out if I could get a single family home with some land. The suburban areas should be a bit more diverse so everyone could live how they like. Every suburb doesn’t need to be densely built/populated, but some should be.
Such a good channel. Love how all the logic in this video is presented, the way the visuals flow makes it so much easier to understand to the untrained eye. I've been looking at quite a bit of similar content for the past few months; the portion about tax revenue wasn't even something I heard or considered when thinking about the downsides of current suburban design, along with the partial solution of cottage developments. Currently a civil engineer undergrad, but this is definitely convincing me to go for the urban design minor I've been thinking about recently. Will definitely be sharing this with friends in order to get them hooked on city planning like I am (in a healthy way of course)!
The TikTok comments on this video were absolutely infuriating. Glad to see RUclips has more sense.
Another thing, housing prices in the suburbs make it impossible for lower-income residents to buy a house, even residents who have lived in a community like Old Miakka for generations. They end up being squeezed out by more affluent newcomers who, because they are more affluent, are catered to by local governments. This is happening where I live in Michigan. Recently voters in my town were asked to approve a bond issue for the school as well as a millage increase for the library. I went to one public meeting over the bond issue and all I heard was homeowners, homeowners, homeowners. I stood up and said, Not all of us are homeowners, we have a sizable rental population here in town, what about us? Do we not exist? You want us to vote YES on YOUR projects that will primarily benefit homeowners in the new subdivisions because even though they pay property taxes, the reason we need all these new things and a larger school is because all these new families are moving in with their children, so yes, you are catering to them in a very real sense and encouraging them to move here. That is where most of the new students are coming from. Meanwhile, if you are not a homeowner, if you do not have children in school, if you are a senior, this community increasingly is not for you.
The sad thing is that many corporate investors like Blackrock are well aware of this situation. There are websites that advise if you want to get into owning a mobile home park as an "easy" source of passive income, look for a community like mine where average house prices run way beyond what many lower-income folks are able to pay, and which has very little actual low-income housing available. As long as what you charge for lot rent is less than the going rate for apartments of similar size and certainly far less than a mortgage payment, you are guaranteed a more or less "trapped" population who cannot move anywhere else at least not very easily. Now throw in a natural disaster or two, like a hurricane or tornado, and there are going to be a lot of folks in a world of hurt whose only crime is they weren't lucky enough to afford one of those nice suburban houses. But nobody cares what happens to them.
This is how suburbs tend to be built in the uk. Tbh, they still sprawl. I think were're at a point where we need to focus on increasing density in already urbanised areas. There's lots of places where density could increase but the same detatched or semi-detached houses keep being built. I'm a big fan of row homes as you can fit alot more houses into the same space. Developers don't like building them though as they can't charge as much for them
It is not the devoloper it is the zoning code. Devolopers would like to cut cost and put more housing on less land.
This is one of the best balanced how to improve suburbs video I’ve seen.
Townhouses are great for young families to be able to build equity. There is a massive missing middle gap.
My question is just, why do people WANT this? They wouldn't build it if there were no demand, but to me living somewhere so heavily controlled and isolated from everything, where you are shut out from both human life and nature if your car breaks down, is unthinkable. I love the idea of suburban towns and villages like your demo (I'm situated near Pinecraft now, which has been pretty nice), but not single-family wastelands.
...Though, I question your choice of putting your notional family houses' backyards right in alligator territory. The gators might thank you, but little Billy's parents and Mr. Fluffins' owner definitely will not :P
Part xenophobia, part ignorance. North America is so insular that a lot of Americans genuenely seem to think it's either North American style suburbs or living in a condo tower in the city, with no other possibilities inbetween.
At least things are changing even in North America wrt car-centric planning and single-family home deserts.
Because many Americans only know two types of housing: Highrises and detached single-family homes and only know "commercial" as big-box stores with giant parking lots and more traffic than a freeway. So they think "change zoning" means a skyscraper on one side and a Walmart on the other.
@@kailahmann1823 Around here, probably half the commercial usage is small shopping strips with small lots. Most of 17th Street, all of Gulf Gate, a large stretch of Cattlemen Rd., all of Pinecraft, half of Bee Ridge Rd. west of the highway, and so on and so forth. These types of installations would be entirely inoffensive up against a housing block. But yet the insane SFH developments, with tiny or no mixed/commercial zones, continue to march on up those very roads once you get further from town. I doubt it's just a basic failure to understand what commercial zoning is.
They do not build for demand. The devolopers are following the zoning code of the cities that sets these laws for lower density ,minimium size, parking requirements, minemum lawn size etc. Devolopers would like to put as much housing on the least amount of space to cut cost. Basically japan which why it is so cheap. Most people want to live in the suburban because it is the cheapest. Why is it cheaper because there is so much demand for urban housing but only suburban devolopment is allowed which means they is no supply other than single family housing.
Families have more than one car. Friends and neighbors have cars. You can rent a rent or the repair shop will loan you a car.
In the rest of the world we build wall-to-wall houses with a patio and 5 people families live perfectly fine. You could use the English high density house layouts.
Heart of the problems:
Stroads/traffic flow, large scale single use developments and building/parking layouts
korean apartment complex is so convenient. shops, gym, even school is in the complex so we dont need to drive out. also there are many bus stops and metro nearby.
You know it is a suburban American hellscape when you see every house having a larger garage than it has living space.
IKR. They don't need living space. Today's North America is built for cars. Humans are an afterthought. It's sad.
Obviously, you do not own a 3-car garage and do not know what is behind door number 3.
I literally grew up in Myakka and moved to the Netherlands for a walkable suburban life because it’s just available in America. The suburban sprawl in manatee county and Florida is just the worst.
Believe it or not, not everyone needs to own their own vehicle for transport. This is a very recent development in human timeline and its obviously a very flawed and wrong system.
80% of society needs a vehicle as you have to drive over 30 minutes to a good paying job.
@@CapitalismDeathSpiral in almost every city/metro area outside the US and Canada you can also take rapid trasit (either a bus, tram, metro, commuter or regional rail) to your workplace in the same 30-40 minutes.
Cars are necessary in less dense rural areas, but in big cities they're a bit of a waste of space.
@@pizzaipinya2442 no thanks, public transit is extremely dirty, unsafe, crime is increasing, transit times keep getting messed up or canceled, and perfect place for terrorist attack. I avoid American public transit. Not worth it as I value my life too much.
From your comment, I take it you are against evolution.
@@pizzaipinya2442 We have transit in the cities and between the cities. But in America transit does not and will never take you everywhere you need to go.
Every foreigner on this video is speaking from their ignorance of America and their naivete.
I once had a discussion that was telling: "How do you buy groceries without a car? People just need cars." Meanwhile I am thinking: "Why on earth would you want to live in a situation where you cannot get groceries without a car ride?". The point is to think about options, not about the options left after many impactful decisions have already been made (e.g. fixed city design). The misunderstanding was that the other person thought I was advocating for living in a US suburb without a car and probably thought I was stupid. You can easily guess on which continent I live and on which the other person lives.
5:16
I would just walk through the trees. IDC if its against the rules or whatever, I'm not walking all the way around.
can you hop across the creek with all the groceries on the way back?
@@nottawa86 depends I spose, a few things sure but if you're trying to bring back a carload take a car
I love living in older, walkable urban neighborhoods (even if it's in a small town of less than 10,000 people), where I can walk or bike to restaurants, parks, churches, stores, car repair shops, or the post office. I love being able to get outside and enjoy being outdoors while doing my daily tasks, without having to drive everywhere. But the downside is that my yard is pretty small, and I'm closer to neighbors than I would prefer. And maybe I feel a little bit closed in and away from nature, or maybe the neighborhood has some run-down houses that are an eyesore. Crime would also be a problem in some places.
I also love living in a rural area, where I have at least one or two acres of my own land and good separation from my neighbors, and I feel like I'm living out in the natural world. But the downside is that I have to drive to go pretty much anywhere.
I feel like the suburbs are the worst of both worlds. You don't get a lot of land or good separation from your neighbors. You don't feel like you're living amongst nature. But you also have to drive everywhere. There's nothing to walk to other than more houses. And that's basically why I've never lived in the suburbs. I've always chosen to live in a walkable urban neighborhood or in a rural area, and my parents chose the same (so those were the only two options I knew growing up).
Great video! The part on local elections is especially important. The media will cover the presidential election 24/7, but for most of us, the races that have the greatest impact on our day-to-day lives are our local and county races
The disconnectedness of it all is what's most frustrating. Everyone is forced to use the big roads no matter how they get there, car, bike, or walking. Especially when you live in a neighborhood that borders a shopping center that is a few hundred feet from your house but because there are walls around the property, you have to walk over a mile to get there. Just building a system of sidewalks that run behind and connect neighborhoods and shopping centers to each other would be so beneficial. But it doesn't happen because it's hard to adapt an existing neighborhood to have these connections, and most of what I hear from opposition is some thinly veiled concerns about "crime."
I love those colorful houses at 3:42! They’re so cute and you’re telling me they have minimal yards too? Sign me up!
Reaching out to rural communities affected by urban sprawl is a great idea. The U.S. gives rural areas a political advantage.
It *could* be something rural folk, urbanists, and environmentalists agree on.
Rising property taxes and increased traffic because of new suburban developments can be very painful and environmentally costly for rural folk.
I love the idea of denser houses. The main problem I have is bad neighbors. When I lived in apartments, all of my neighbors were psycho, loud, or rude. No one followed the community rules and I got cussed out more than once simply asking them to stop partying past 2am or to keep their dogs from barking for 8 hours straight while they were gone. That said, I want what this video proposes to be reality in the US!
Neighbours in house subdivisions can be very rude too
I want a house on lots of land with plenty of privacy. We all want different things.
Huntsville in incorporating these types of developments with areas like Providence, Town Madison, and Midcity District
There’s a development in Utah called Daybreak that attempted this kind of development and failed dramatically. They basically just managed to cram more people into a smaller space. No extra places to shop or work really. So it’s not too walkable either. They got the “put more houses in” part right, but completely flopped on the “make it easy for residents” part by not putting businesses or offices in. As a result, everyone needed multiple cara and the skinny roadways could not handle that kind of street parking.
Sounds like they didn’t actually try this type of development.
What I love about this channel is that the solutions shown are attainable. The graphics are also great and the interview at the beginning adds a nice personal touch!
Growing up in the Suburbs is the worst. I wish my parents never moved us from NYC.
New York City is a terrible place to raise children. There are lot of gangs, drugs, and violence on the streets. It is not a safe place even for adults.
The biggest problem seems to be that any time something forward thinking and well designed like this comes up, it’s too prohibitively expensive to live in and ends up failing due to no one wanting to pay the prices
Actually most of the time it's build they become expensive because the demand is so high because they are relatively rare.
If we simply built more their costs wouldn't sky rocket.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 i like that line of thought, and in theory it makes sense, but under the current economic system I feel like it would only bump up the cost of living across the board rather than lower the cost of this specific style
This is a fantastic video! I'll be sharing it far and wide!
this is probably one of the reasons house prices are so high
Some of this is starting to change. Most developments around Houston now require schools to be built by the developers, parks and retention-pond usage areas are becoming more popular, and in larger developments sets of apartment buildings, duplexes, townhomes, and occasionally cottages are appearing. They're still very bad at including commercial and mixed-use spaces, and most middle-scale or small-scale developments don't do any of this.
(An example is the massive, ridiculously-sized development south of I-10 between the Katy Love's and eastward. There's probably still too many single-family homes, but other kinds of development are sprinkled throughout.)
Personally, I want to live in the countryside and for it to remain rural for the rest of my time there, but the current urban sprawl is removing those spaces. Hopefully, developers see that this way of building a whole community, instead of just houses, will pay off for them in the long run. If they do, they'll start emphasizing this kind of development, and our rural areas can remain rural.
I really don't want what's left of the piney-woods and prairies of Texas to disappear. It's beautiful as is, and something entirely different when "developed" into cookie-cutter homes.
Texas is not going to disappear in your lifetime.
Here’s an observation I noticed today, but have thought about before:
The construction on I-75 over the Manatee River. The government is performing construction to combat traffic that builds in the area, but instead of fixing the issue itself, they are just moving it to the other side of the river! The same thing happened on the Apollo Beach exit just north of that. They were having traffic build up onto Big Bend Road, so instead of addressing the issue and redirecting or lowering traffic, they just made the on-ramp literally more than a half-mile long.
This video completely fails to mention transit connectivity as well, especially at 4:39. Sure, having a walkable suburban neighborhood is nice and you can get amenities that are close together in a walkable suburban neighborhood, but what if someone wants to go to another part of the city/metropolitan area? In the example at 10:01 there is no transit connection at all, the example assumes that if you want to go to another part of a city/metropolitan area, you have to drive there. I like the idea of this but walkable suburban neighborhoods absolutely NEED reliable transit such as bus rapid transit, light rail, and regional rail.
Transit is definitely a huge opportunity that could come with this as well, but this video was trying to focus more on how to achieve a level of density that it makes sense for people to even begin to think about implementing a transit system. This discussion was left out of this video for the sake of staying on topic, but it's definitely something that could have a whole video in itself on.
The first rule of rhetoric is to know what you want to talk about. Once you know that, stick to your topic and don't deviate. Transit discussion would be 100% mission creep.
@@Streetcraft i also noticed that you don't usually mention public transit, but yeah it totally makes sense that you're taking one step at a time. it would be a lot for the audience to process
Realistically you have to build denser housing and then transit
The suburban layout that is infecting the US is so damn sad. I’ve always hated the suburbs coming from NYC and moving to CA suburbs. I love the suburbs now but hate the cookie cutter developments and that you have to walk everywhere. There’s barely any sidewalks. if there are, they just end out of nowhere. American suburbs suck!
I’ve always hated cities.
I LOVE that icecream shop analogy, I'm definitely stealing that one for any NIMBY encounters 😅😅
People don't want "low density" though. They just want the illusion of it, the calm of not having cars everywhere making noise, the option of having a private space where you won't be brothered by anyone...
But that's also possible in a denser environment if it's designed to meet those requirements.
You don't need a driveway, garage and 2 way street if the only time you take your car is to go out of town for the weekend or for some vacation so people us their car less often and thus reduce noise.
You don't need a 2 acres lawn to have privacy (not that it even works) you can do with a terrace, a balcony or a small-ish garden with trees and plants to cut sight lines.
You can provide more amenities for cheaper if not everyone has to walk/drive for kilometers on end to do anything outside of their home.
The example shown at the end is a huge improvement in regards to what was shown before it, but it's still far from ideal and there's lots of ways to improve it :
- reserving space for a few bus stops so people don't have to walk for 15minutes to get on the bus
- making the center town square pedestrian only (with acces for deliveries) because there's no use for cars to go there
- having more commercial spaces (offices mostly) along the road to cut off the sound of fast moving cars
...
A 2-acre lawn takes all day to cut the grass.
I love walkable suburbs, but I also don't want to deal with amazon packages and car tires being stolen. Not an easy balance. I really love seeing the modern neighborhoods that have farm land mixed into them too. Adds a fun flair.
That was a brilliant animation and clear description when you reworked the single zoning suburb into a more dense, mixed use neighbourhood. That needs to be made into a short to be shared! I think that would reach a very wide audience!
It is time to end the annual housing tax. Housing should not be taxed. The regime calls it "property taxes". But it's a housing tax.
100% agree. It creates poverty and chaos in society.
All taxes above 3% should be abolished.
As a resident of Pasco County, Florida, I am appalled at the paving over of this county; countless bland housing developments that look exactly alike, the widening of streets and roads, and the utter destruction of forests and wildlife habitat. It's not the bucolic place that I moved to 13 years ago. When will it end?
Looking at it from a European perspective, it continues to fascinate me how things like this in the US seem so complicated to change. The examples shown in this video clearly show what it should look like and there are so many benefits to it. Many of these examples are the standard here in many European countries. But I need to admit that suburbia is also becoming more common here. I hope we don't continue this path.
I'd like to challenge your assertion that interurbans wouldn't exist if people didn't want to live there.
We don't really know where people want to live because for many decades in North America we've almost completely limited ourselves to building only either low-density, single-detached, car-dependent suburbs or hothead tower blocks. (There's a reason why it's called the "missing" middle.)
Surveys ask people "what type of housing do you plan to buy", and if their only options are single-detached or condo towers they aren't going to say a 1,000sqft two-bedroom unit in a 4 storey walk-up.
That type of survey only tells us which of two current options is more popular and gives us a false picture of what people supposedly want.
I like how your channel also provides solutions to the problems we have 👏
I'm personally a massive car enjoyer, and I generally hate it when people scream that we need to get rid of car centric suburbs, especially since I don't think public transport will ever be even close to as safe in the US, as it is in Europe and Asia.
But this shit looks awesome, a perfect mix of car, bicycle and walking infrastructure, with many nearby amenities that could benefit us all, and not just solely focus on a singular group of people, because different people have different wants and needs.
i'm curious - why do you think public transit won't work as well in the US as in Europe?
@@zekeperson9892 Thanks for the question.
I think Mass Transit would work in the United States, it would just be a lot more dangerous than automated private transport because of criminal activity in certain areas of cities being particularly bad when compared to European and Asian standards.
This is compounded by our gargantuan drug problems and gang issues, although gangs tend to leave current Mass Transit alone for the most part.
Unless of course, you belong to another gang.
In order to have safe and effective Mass Transit, we would need to drastically increase the budgets of our underfunded police departments, and add stipulations onto that added funding that it cannot go towards equipment, but towards higher salaries, better training, and most importantly, more police officers in general.
I think police should have to go to a federally funded/subsidized Advanced Individual Training similar to what the Military has, and the training standards should be standardized across the nation.
Upon completion of training, they should then go back to their respective Law Enforcement Offices (Police Departments, Sheriff's Offices and State Troopers) to be further trained on local laws, then afterwards, act under their (Local Department's) jurisdiction.
I am NOT for a Federal police force because I don't want the Central Government to have direct and widespread enforcement capabilities on the general populace of State citizens.
Most laws are drawn up, voted on, and passed or dismissed on a local level after all.
They should be enforced on a local level too.
But I digress.
If massive quality, funding and presence changes occur to Law Enforcement,
then I think Mass Transit will finally become a safe and viable option in American cities and suburbs.
As of right now however, Mass Transit is awful in the United States.
People are gross and tend to mistreat the facilities, the vehicles used are often old and costly to maintain, in addition to being overcrowded and dangerous due to criminal activity.
Often times women are discouraged from using Mass Transit because perverts like to intimidate and assault them.
It is almost impossible to understate how much more preferable literally *any* *other* *form* of transportation is, when compared to American Mass Transit.
@@NickCorruption i respectfully disagree. the first reason public transit in the US sucks right now (besides poor planning) is simply the underfunding of infrastructure in general. The US is the richest nation in the world, and it’s definitely possible to get more money into public goods like trains. this could increase the safety, cleanliness, frequency, and coverage of transit. secondly, the main part of your argument that i disagree with is the idea that getting a TON of more highly trained police officers will somehow solve crime. i’m not an expert in crime statistics in the us vs europe, but i know that crime is motivated by poverty. people steal firstly because they feel the need to, and it goes downhill from there. by addressing poverty with housing and job reform, crime rates will drop. obviously it’s not as simple as that, but systemic reform is needed to address crime, and police reform alone is nowhere near enough to solve the wealth gap
In what sense is mass transit not safe?
If you build transit in a way that not just poor people use it it will get safer. And car, bikes arent really that safe either 😂
@@zekeperson9892 You are correct.
I feel mostly the same way that you do on all of these topics, however I felt like it was outside the scope of the conversation on Mass Transit to discuss my entire political philosophy on how society should be run.
You are correct in that it seems like the highest motivator for crime is poverty, however that only addresses normal crime, not crime related to pervertry and gang related activity, those will still persist even if poverty wasn't as big of an issue as it is now.
Which is why I feel like a larger and better trained police force would also be necessary.
But you are right, the root cause of the problem is that Mass Transit is underfunded, however I am saying that you won't get many people to use it unless they feel like it is safe.
I was trying to limit the conversation to Mass Transit alone without addressing the fundamental problems that the United States has, because they are so nebulous and interconnected that it kinda seems pointless when seemingly nearly every conversation about some problem in the United States always loops back to the nebulous issues that seem impossible to address effectively in a bipartisan way.
Because unless you can find a bipartisan solution that both sides can agree to, you will never change anything in the United States on a nationwide macro scale.
I don’t live in suburbs, I live in a apartment complex and i am fine with it.
This is the perfect all in one video explaining the problem with suburbia and had a solution too
In London, we forced this sort of development with the Green Belt, basically a place with really strict development laws, and it means that all new developments need to be space efficient. We also got lucky that all of our detached houses were built by the train companies back in the 30s, "metroland," which drove compact suburban developments.
It meant that even places like Wembley Stadium and Brent Cross, which both have at least a million parking spaces, are relatively compact for their purpose.
Ultimately, because we did this early, we never really built the massive urban motorways seen in America, and even where it has been done, it was always much more sensetive to the surrounding area (except for Westway, but you can't have it all)
What software are you using to make road layouts?
If development is done in this way you proposed, housing prices locally would decrease with time.
And the super investor types can't have that 😢
The problem isn't suburbs, it's the lack of public transport. In our great grandparents' time there were streetcars in the middle of the road that linked suburban neighborhoods with the city center. And train stations in every small town so people could easily commute to work
Did the county shown in the video had streetcars back then?
No they are the suburbs. We have enough of them, time to focus on fixing what we have and building denser.
Suburbs are still a problem.
Building denser as in building overcrowded slum housing close to the city centre like in victorian times? People need personal space
@@Nick-zp3ub pff, no.
Just stumbled upon your videos and decided to sub here. I think you’re one of the few channels that gives a fair and balanced view while actually giving realistic solutions
Suburbs NEED commercial and economic zoning, too- they NEED to have jobs and generate money to pay for their upkeep.
No we need form based zoning or atleast zoning that is more generous with uses instead of euclidean
Zoning can be changed at will. Zoning has nothing to do with anything.
I think the U.S. could emulate pre-war suburbs - maintain suburban comforts while restoring financial sustainability and the community & health benefits of walkability & density. Could look something like suburbs around the UK or other Northwestern European countries.
Being slowly turned into exurbia in large parts of the country, especially the majority of the eastern third of the US, -often far beyond official metropolitan area bounderies. Most of these areas are predominately working to lower middle class and full of people from urban/suburban as well as rural backgrounds.
this video is great because I live in Sarasota.
Thank you for another really good video. The whole Sarasota-Bradenton developments are completely destroying all the agricultural land. Also traffic around the whole Lakewood Ranch is way worse despite being like 80 lanes wide.
What about converting rail trails back into railway lines for better connectivity?
I have always loved rail trails, until it dawned on me that these were actually once railroads to everywhere, and now everyone needs a car instead. What a huge lack of foresight when the railroads were decommissioned :(
W character development@@ssquints8056
Trains are a thing of the past. The cost of running a railroad became too high and ticket prices could not cover expenses so they went out of business. They went bankrupt.
@@Novusod Nothing could be further from the truth. Passenger trains have never been profitable, but we still need them.
@@eggballo4490 There were dozens of profitable railroads 100 years ago. Before air travel and the highway system they could charge whatever they wanted and get away with it. But as soon as competition from cars and jets came about the railroads went bankrupt. It is still possible to run a profitable passenger rail system such as Brightline but that serves a very niche market. Overall trains are a thing of the past that will never be able to bring in the kind of money they used to.