Can we fix the suburbs?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- Subscribe to Nebula and get $20 off at: go.nebula.tv/citybeautiful
Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/citybeautifu...
The suburbs are boring, single use, car oriented, low density, and segregated. How can we solve these problems and turn them from a liability to an asset. Or is it not possible at all?
I'm on Patreon! Consider supporting: / citybeautiful
Resources on this topic:
www.mcall.com/2021/05/26/bill...
www.strongtowns.org/journal/2...
www.bdcnetwork.com/california...
www.npr.org/2022/09/29/112593...
www.brookings.edu/essay/trend...
www.brookings.edu/essay/homeo...
Produced by Dave Amos and the fine folks at Nebula Studios.
Written by Dave Amos and Hannah Woolsey
Select images and video from Getty Images.
Black Lives Matter.
Trans rights.
![Stroads are Ugly, Expensive, and Dangerous (and they're everywhere) [ST05]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ORzNZUeUHAM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
One of the single most effective features I see in Euro suburbs (and cities) are culs-de-sac that don’t end. They only end for cars. There generally are walking paths that’ll connect individual culs-de-sac to each other and then connect to feeder and/or arterial roads. This feature ensures walkability/bikability and would probably go a long way in American suburbs, as the cul-de-sac will otherwise ensure that most of everything is outside of walking distance
We have them in PDX, US. We also have terrific bike infrastructure, trains, and streetcars. We also have a butt load of cars and no traffic enforcement. We're working on it. ❤
This was a common thing in the US until (I would guess) WW2.
This is great when there are good routes for vehicles to service small businesses scattered within the suburb. US suburbs often have bottlenecks that create mini traffic jams as cars go to and from work. The roads also make it difficult for sane buss routes. They are like mazes.
@@wsams They actually just started the traffic enforcement back up last week. Our streetcars should be given more priority on the streets and run every 10 minuets instead of every 20. We need more MAX lines that don't go downtown. And how awesome would it be if the yellow/orange line was actually split and one went downtown and the other went on the east of the river and they reconnect at the bridges. God that would be so nice. PDX has so much potential.
@@skyisreallyhigh3333 I'm always a bit perplexed by the emphasis on a MAX line that doesn't go to downtown. The strongest cities and transit systems with the most potential are pretty strongly monocentric; think Tokyo, NYC, Seoul. Yes, those places have more than one center, but those centers are close to one another, and in any case, they're huge regions with a strong central city. PDX already has that--relatively. The problem is that Portland is, itself, relatively small and low density, and its suburbs (including my current hometown Beaverton) are even worse in that regard. The MAX has good bones, needing only a downtown tunnel and connection to Vancouver to be able to function well as a regional rail system. Building a tangential line that doesn't go into downtown is only likely to worsen the region's sprawl problem.
One of the issues is that the roads in many suburbs don’t have layouts conducive to increasing mixed-use zoning. The roads are not even good for their intended use. They are basically obstructive to prevent through traffic.
Since the roads are generally laid out by the developers, they reflect what the developers thought would sell best. Don’t go blaming capitalism though because it was statism. The federal housing programs ensured the whole scheme would follow their wishes by taking over the mortgage market in the name of affordable housing. The public was then primed to think that new safe neighborhoods had a certain look and feel.
@@nunyabidness3075 Chicken or the egg... capitalism that runs a government that regulates capitalism, &c &c &c
@@nunyabidness3075 Who said anything about capitalism?
@@angelsy1975Exactly. Regardless of who designed the roads, a government approved it.
Right. Sometimes I think about how roads like that could actually be good if they were designed slightly different. Like when a road ends in a cul-de-sac instead of continuing to the main road straight ahead, like you said in order to not allow through traffic. What if in situations like that there were walking/biking paths connecting the roads that should connect but only for pedestrians. This would limit through traffic like the idea is but also make walking more convenient than driving limiting traffic even more and making for a nice area.
The US and the USSR, truly 2 sides of the same coin in housing yet in 2 opposite directions. Subsidized, standardized housing with artificial layouts is what both have in common.
Glad to see someone else sees the parallelism. The Soviets and the Americans have extreme and stringent patterns of urban planning and they are both dystopias in similar and dissimilar ways.
They both have their own respective flaws.
@@Preetzole It is not about being profound. It is addressing a political attitude that many people in the United States have regarding urban planning - an attitude that is not consistent.
Yeah but the key distinction is single vs mixed use zoning. The US forces car ownership while it's mostly optional in the USSR.
@@AssBlassterExactly, Americans say they value choice, but in practice are limiting choice in urban design.
I think the victorian suburbs is what I consider is the sort of the peak design for what a suburb should be, great public transport links, a central street with local shops, a large park, and town houses with beautiful design, street patterns that aim for density, but can also be well designed with cresents etc
Prospect park area in NY comes to mind
Agreed
"Density" (being on top of your neighbors) and "public transportation" (being crammed into busses with dozens of other people, like cattle, being entirely dependent on the routes and schedules someone else chose) are the peak of bad ideas.
@@Anti-Taxxer you kinda described living in an human settlment and every form of transport
@@Grzegorz_Grabowski No. My house is not on top of my neighbor’s house because my neighborhood is not dense. I can get in my car and go wherever I want, whenever I want because it’s an objectively superior form of transportation.
Lived in Korea for a year. Love having corner stores in walking distance. Also makes daily exercise much more fun and interesting. Probably trivializing the situation but if a city allows every corner lot to be multi usage lot, it would be a start.
theres corner stores in walking distance in american suburbs too
@@cowfat8547lol
I just retired from the Army but did six years in South Korea since the year 2000 and a minimum of 10,000 steps were baked into my day by default, in the US I have to get that amount of steps in on my free time, easier to keep your BMI under control in that environment too
@@twostop6895 i live in the US suburbs and average 12,000 steps even on the days when i’m not working out or going for a walk. you can get your steps in and keep your bmi in check without doing anything extra in your spare time. it’s about mentality not your environment
@@cowfat8547 the average US BMI clearly back what you just said
Last year I stayed in suburban area of Montreal. It was much more dense than a typical suburb with most residential buildings being two-story quad-plexes. Even in this area which was a distance from the center of Montreal, I could walk to corner stores, larger supermarkets, restaurants and the metro was less than a 10 minute walk away. The area was clean, leafy, quiet, safe, near parks and all those things people stereotypical associate with suburbia. But it was much more pedestrian friendly. There is a way to do suburbs better. While a car may still be handy, you could totally be car-lite in a neighborhood like that. I like having a car, I just hate needing a car to do *everything*. For most Americans if their car breaks down and needs to be in the shop for a week they have to rent another car to be able to live life normally. That's crazy to me. In Montreal, if my car was being repaired for a week I wouldn't even be inconvenienced much.
Great to hear about Montreal. I live in the Dutch city of Utrecht and i can cycle to work, shops, family, friends. I only use my car to visit people in other cities like Amsterdam.
I live in Montreal and I don't have a car. It's only ever a problem if I want to visit my relatives in the suburbs and countryside. But for everyday travelling within the city it never even occurs to me that I could use a car because it's just so convenient not to. My favourite Montreal neighborhoods, Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and Verdun, used to be independent suburbs until they merged into the city proper in 1918 and 2002 respectively. They both have a small number of single family homes but the iconic Montreal-style "plexes" make up the vast majority of the housing supply, they both have great mixed-use commercial streets (Rue Wellington in Verdun was apparently named the coolest street in the entire world), they are both extremely walkable and they are connected to multiple bus lines, metro stations and bike paths. If only all suburbs were like this.
Where do you live that you cannot find anything like that in your town? I live in Houston, TX. We are the poster child for suburb hate vids and the arch nemesis of the city planning industry. I can walk to most everything and easily bike downtown or to the museum area or the medical center mostly on dedicated trails. I’m in a 3 story town home. We have an electric bike for our second “car”. Bus stop is two blocks away which gets us to rail as well.
If as many people chose walkable neighborhoods as gripe about suburbs, there would be no need to gripe about suburbs.
@@nunyabidness3075 That is good, Houston is better then I thought.
@@nunyabidness3075 it's not that such neighborhoods don't exist in America it's that they are prohibitively expensive for the average person. In my city to live in one of the close in walkable areas, a studio apartment would be about $2,000 a month.
Please consider traveling to a streetcar suburb and make a similar video and talk how how they were designed and layout
I live in Chicago and Evanston is a perfect example of a suburb done correctly in America. Mixed use developments, a walkable downtown, public transit that connects to the main city.
ANY inner OLD neighbourhood would count
Roncesvalles, Toronto.
Yes, this! Look at the streetcar suburbs, the older commuter rail suburbs of New York (many of the suburbs in Westchester on Metro-North have 20%+ of journeys to work taking place on transit before COVID, despite being mostly single family homes!). Shaker Heights, Ohio has an interesting street layout too -- all the side streets feed into the rapid (light rail) stations to maximize walk-to-transit. I grew up in an older commuter rail suburb of NJ, and my neighborhood of suburban homes was
@@tubz I live in Oak Park, Illinois, and consider it a close second to Evanston as a great streetcar suburb.
Yes, HOA can stop trees from growing. My neighborhood, trees can only be so big, after, you have to pay to remove and plant a new one....
that is so sad!!!
what a wonderful living situation. that shit is gross.
Where is the tree planted and what size is the limit? HOA could definitely be in the right depending on the context.
Weird, since having large trees are great.
I find HOA quite amusing as an European. We hear of the Land of the Free and all that and then some dudes telling you what color to paint your house in or how often you have to mow your lawn. That sounds so absurd.
As a west coast suburb nomad it's always hilarious to watch your videos and hear about the cities I've lived in. It's refreshing when a few of them often come up as good examples lol
I wouldn't consider myself a nomad but me and my family have lived in 5+ midsize to tiny cities and it's always very nice to hear them get mentioned.
As someone who can’t drive due to disability, and would love to live in a “nice area” but am forced to live in the city because I have to be near public transit, because the suburbs don’t have busses or public transit or usually even Uber drivers nearby, thanks for seeing and hearing the disabled community in this video ♿️🧏🏼♀️👩🏼🦯🦮🙏🏻☺️ Wish more able bodied people had compassion like you!
Sounds like the city you live in needs some improvements so that it can become a “nice area” too.
The sad thing is, most people in these suburb areas immediately just jump to anger when other neighborhoods densify and prioritize cycling, walking, and accessibility in general. They'll complain, "why is this area developing so much and removing so much parking?! I can't drive here anymore! Screw them!". They never reframe it like, "why does my own area force me to totally leave it, simply to buy a few groceries?". It's like they never understand they can have the same thing in their own neighborhood...
Yeah, the burbs as they exist in the US today aren't conducive to helping those with certain disabilities live independently, they essentially force such people into still living with mom and dad, or reside in group homes.
Thank you for sharing. I also like how inclusive and compassionate this channel is. He has discussed Universal Design and accessibility in other videos as well. Universal design just makes sense because it benefits everybody.
You can blame walmart for that, before the big box stores, almost all towns in america were very walkable, you didn't even need transit. There were general stores in every town. But now, everyone within 20 mi drives to walmart to save money and the general stores couldn't compete
Since I'm from Europe, modern suburbs gives me quite some uncanny feelings. The biggest one are the standardised houses which are so unnatural, it is incredible.
Eastern Bloc prefabs and british semi-detached houses are also cookie cutter
If there is a sudden spike in urban population (say industrial revolution) it is bound to happen
@@adamcako5281 yes, but, at least in the case of the eastern ones, they can house a lot more people in the same area, and usually had a lot of greenery around them. American suburbs are most of the time ugly and certainly inefficient
@@adamcako5281 but it wasn't segregated and single use zoning like in US.
@@GdzieJestNemo Claiming Eastern Bloc housing wasn't "segregated like the US" is a bit dishonest, dontchathink? I mean, who would you have segregated?
@@burtiq pfft I’d prefer suburbia every day of the week to eastern style blocks. Those thing are hell on earth.
Imagine if each suburb had even their own convenience store and park, most new ones don’t
I grew up in a suburb in Europe. All the houses looked identical when they were build. But now they have changed so much that they don't feel like the same houses any more. But we had multiple parks, a convenience store, a gas station with a small store, two restaurants, a gym, two preschools and two football fields, tennis court, fishing pond, museum, a golf court and a few local businesses. All within a 1km walk.
The only really bad thing about the place was the absolute lack of public transport. We had a bus stop 500m away with about one bus per hour.
It absolutely is possible to make suburbs a good place to live. But I couldn't imagine living in a social dessert like the American suburbia.
Your park is your yard
@@jerrymiller9039 How do you socialize with strangers in your yard? Stupid.
@@jerrymiller9039 Some park. Not enough space to throw a football.
@@jerrymiller9039 A yard sounds like a crap park. Literally a 1 minute walk away from our house is a park with a large children's playground, a basketball half-court, a grassed area big enough to kick a football, communal BBQs and tables to have picnics with neighbours, and lots of space for dogs to run. Unless you live in the country, not the suburbs, no backyard has that much space.
The other main benefit is what it teaches kids. Obviously every single parent on the planet (I would hope) teaches their kids to always share and consider others before themselves, to always let others go first, etc. If your own yard is your park, kids are less likely to learn that at home and possibly more likely to become protective of what's "theirs". Whereas if your play area is communal, you need to take turns, let others go first, and share the equipment, it instills manners and the kind of selflessness and consideration for others above themselves that we all want our kids to grow up with as a core value.
I have an idea: connect cut-de-sac to cut-de-sac with bike paths or concrete walkways. It would still achieve its goal of preventing rat-running. The problem now is convincing some homeowners to sell parts of their yards to make these paths.
That would mean that lots of house owners will loose some of their yard to be able to make this possible. I don’t think these homeowners will sell if it means they get a bicycle path or footpath through their (former) yard. So expropriation is the only option and you need lots of them if you want to connect all cul-de-sacs. Don’t think a county council will push this through if 5he members want to be re-elected.
It's not just that they would be losing part of their yard either. They would now have people walking through an area that used to be a private space for them.
@@Yay295 That's why they need to be built at the beginning. Many newer suburbs (at least as far back as 2005) in the Portland OR region have walking paths connecting cul-de-sacs and other looping suburban streets. You can get anywhere by foot here and aside from the gated communities, most suburbs are connected and not segregated in that sense. Car dependency is still a huge issue though. But I do see a surprising amount of bikes even with our measly painted bike lanes and car dependent infrastructure and roads. So there is potential. Adding "neighborhood paths" like those over here would be very difficult I'm sure in places that didn't put them in initially. But at least maybe sidewalks are easier to get added later when "street improvements" get done, at least on the major streets and roads. Maybe not as easy to add sidewalks for the residential streets that are built up but lack sidewalks because of the low incentive to add sidewalks to "less important streets" serving just a few houses.
I'd never sell off any portion of my property. Furthermore, it would mean losing my privacy which is of utmost importance to myself. I prefer my own company, thank you very much.
@@NatureShy In some States, there are a lack of sidewalks because the State passed legislation making the sidewalk maintenance the responsibility of the nearest homeowner. Basically, the homeowner has to pay for it, not the State or city. My State is like that. So, there aren't any sidewalks in most of the suburbs near me because the developers knew that we wouldn't want to pay for them - and they were correct. Our roads are wide and that allows for folks to walk along them. We don't need the sidewalks.
Realistically it makes sense to emphasize new neighborhoods be built at higher density with moderate amounts of in-filling in currently existing single-family neighborhoods. Since homes are individually owned the rate of change in single-family neighborhoods will be sporadic at best. It can't be planned and implemented very well. I agree with the video that increasing density on major arterial roadways is key to chipping away at suburban sprawl. Many suburbs have long and wide streets that act like junior freeways and are anti-pedestrian in nature. I would focus my efforts on that part of the suburbs. It will result in the biggest pay-off.
IMHO we NEED both BUT I believe we SHOULD NOT focus on "forcing" change in the suburbs BUT make density allowed and PRE build better transit / NON car infrastructure BEFORE the demand well demands it AS the "default" will be MORE cars and NOT more density to USE the "over built" transit that is waiting to be utilized
the NON car accessibility will INCREASE property value and INCREASE the URGE for people / AND developers to build MORE units of housing
@@jasonriddell I agree with you but you've described a model that's more in line with the Chinese model for transit which we most certainly will never adopt in the United States. I don't see that method being adopted in Canada either although they might surprise me.
So, f suburbs. Everything needs to be either actual city or "city lite."
Honestly I don't care if a place looks "cookie-cutter" if it's got the other stuff and doesn't cost way too much. If your biggest problem with your affordable, transit-accessible apartment or house is that it looks "bland", I'd say you're doing pretty well.
The great thing is that affordable, transit accessible, mixed-use and dense areas rarely look "bland" compared to suburbs. It would be very hard to make them look bland because they simply offer so much more physically.
the problem is that such homes are NOT affordable due to the housing shortage, a shortage perpetuated by cities AND suburbs (looking at YOU San Francisco, Los Angelos, NYC, and Long Island!) that refuse to construct homes in line with population growth, which has lead to worst of all possible worlds: skyrocketing homeless, working and middle-class flight, lost economic growth, and a rent burden that chews up people's income rather than allow that money to go to use on productive things like purchases or investments. On the national level our housing shortage has cost us about 3-5% of national GDP, depending on which economic studies you read
@@mohammedsarker5756 The issue is the real estate sector has its claws in local politics in a way that no other sector really has, and it greatly benefits from a scarcity of housing because it can keep rents and home prices high without having to actually put up capital investment to build new housing or redevelop. This is why only "luxury" housing seems to be built - there's certainly an element of collusion between real estate developers and local governments that encourages just enough development to build high margin rental properties and new housing developments without actually building enough to meaningfully reduce prices.
@@mikeydude750New developments are luxury because development is expensive. These developments can also lower prices since now the higher income households aren't competing with lower income households over housing that's decades old.
@@mikeyreza I disagree a SEA of tower blocks of glass with "podium" "city homes" that are all the same and the HOA/ body corporate preventing ANY exterior changes and often includes exterior "maintenance" and in same cases stipulate curtain colours
IMHO "missing middle" is quite hard to make "bland" without actual effort as long as the housing types are MIXED IE block of flats and then some terraced homes and then a tower ETC
I used to think I hated living in cities and that I only had 2 choices: either live in a place that's far away and quiet, or in a place that's convenient but loud. Turns out I just hate suburbia.
funny thing - what makes cities so loud isnt people or the landuse or the density... it is cars... lots and lots and lots of cars...
with sufficiently good public transit options and mixed use areas, you might be able to drop car usage enough to be able to hear birds sing when you step outside
Ditto! From the States but living abroad at the moment in a people-oriented city, and I had the same realization. And even within the city limits, you can still find a range of experiences for housing to fit your taste. Closer to the city center is more typically 'city-like'; further out, is missing middle/mixed use housing, and further out still (but still within like.. 30 minutes of the city center) is a bit less non-mixed use housing that's still a little more spread out but still incredibly people oriented - each block of housing typically still having communal areas, corner stores, and such. And even further out, you could find what we would call suburbia... but there's still public transit you can walk to if/when you want to get to the city center, and there's still grocery stores within a 5 minute walk.
I live in the outskirts of Glasgow and it's medium density with great public transport links with lots of little shops and restaurants about the place with fields one one side and a 20 minute train to the city centre on the other
I could never live in the American suburbs or the city
@@sandwich2473hats exactly how many Americans suburbs are though at least where I live in SoCal. Im about 5 minutes drive from any shopping I need and there's a rapid transit bus that I can take to downtown as well. America is huge and cities vary especially from one state to another. Its silly to think they are all like this video.
Like the other comment said, most of the noise from cities in North America is caused by vehicles. Even the sound of vehicle wheels driving over asphalt makes a kind of white noise. Hundreds of these vehicles all driving over asphalt, no honking or other noise required, is very loud - to the point you can't even have a conversation with someone on certain stroads. Places that are not car-dependent, because of this, can be uncannily quiet, to the point you can hear yourself breathing if you're outside.
It's sad when, as human beings, we have to do the stupidest possible thing, to realize it was dumb.
This is one of the best comments I’ve ever read. The truest words
To be fair, this is only the outcome of a country having so much money and so much space they dont need to optimize the amount of space they have.
When they do, it gives out interesting cities like New-York/Manhattan and Chicago.
Like how Indians plan their cities.
It's stupid in hindsight, but the residential zoning was seen as necessary during the World War because of (among other things) production facilities ramping up.
@@paulgabel8261Yeah not great examples of good cities...well at least not anymore
Last week, the city of Toronto (in Ontario, Canada) enacted four-unit multiplezes city-wide, not counting already legalized garden/laneway suites (theoretically allowing five units on what was a single residential property before). The province of Ontario has basically banned single-family zoning, ordering municipalities to change zoning codes to allow at least triplexes. To the chagrin of suburban councillors, Toronto went above and beyond the provincial mandate.
Make no mistake, this is a win by and for Torontonians and future Torontonians. Our council is overwhelmingly conservative after John Tory's 8-year rule, not to mention Rob Ford's reign of populist conservative shenanigans. I am so glad that the multiplex proposal passed, and we need a new mayor who will build housing with equity at the forefront. June 26th, please vote, our future depends on it!
@@kailarose93 I agree. And the polls look like we could have a mayor who actually recognizes the issue. So vote!
@@kailarose93Conservatives and Liberals are the same coin just different sides. You just got a guy that was shitty as his Job and now sounds like you guys got someone that might actually fix an issue that you have which is good.
But terrible housing prices
It’s important to note that racial segregation was just as much driven by the federal government as the private developers themselves. Developers wouldn’t get federal loans in many cases if they sold houses to African Americans
Yes, but how does this fix our current problems?
@@Winnas The first step to fixing a problem is acknowledging you have one. And not trying to ignore or actively hiding the history that led up to the situation as it stands today.
@@hogfather22 It's not ignored, and those laws were struck down. Lenders no longer discriminate by race - time to move on and figure out how to rebuild our cities without blaming others, it will not get us results.
@@Winnas Fixing the ongoing legacy of racism by ignoring the current impact of past policies and is like restoring a flooded basement by only fixing the busted pipe.
@@Winnas lenders no longer discriminate ... Lol you funny ...
Yes, You can. Toronto has been doing an ok job at it.
Canadian cities have tended to have better density in the suburbs. So we have that advantage.
Yeah kudos for city of Toronto for removing single family zoning, hope single family zoning throughout Ontario will be removed soon.
Could be better - time will tell. More medium density housing needed, like what Montreal has with multiplexes. Suburbs questionable - and more traffic from car priority and low density.
Ok job sadly isn't a great job
@@anti-naturevegan it's better than nothing...
Progress with anything big is slow.
Interestingly, most of the suburbs I have run into here in San Antonio (at least those built before 1980), the houses were very different because there was a...rule (?) that no two houses could be built in the same block with the same look. There were similar houseplans, but the exteriors were different enough that you had to really look to see the simiarities.
Oak Park, Illinois seemingly is a combination of city and suburban living. Helps that the Chicago Transit Authority has two separate subway lines serving the 'burb as well as METRA (the transit commuter rail agency).
San Antonio for a Texan city actually has an ok bus system oddly enough. My main complaint is that the humid-hot heat
I love your content and couldn't agree more about making the middle lanes a dedicated type of transit with arterial roads.
I live in Brighton which is on the outskirts of Boston. Since 2011 I've been there and it's been a mixed use neighborhood with a lot of stuff walking distance but also close to highways with parking. It's been the best balance of commuteability and livability and it's sad to think what was common sense 100 years ago when they built the neighborhood isn't anymore
Yo Dave!, an architecture student from Egypt here
I have been watching your content for the past year
by now am obsessed with your content!!!
There’s a Levittown (actual name till this day) in Puerto Rico (yes, created by the same fella in the 60’s, divided into 8 sections). Surprisingly, in general, it’s a working folk town (lower mid-middle class by PR standards). It’s also walking distance to the beach! Another plus, all the homes are done in concrete from floor to roof!
As someone who grew up in a Levitt house in New York, it's always so weird seeing people online talk about my hometown
9:38 putting rings of parking around shopping strips is something I didn’t even notice until I started trying to live a low car lifestyle.
Now it regularly annoys me that I have to walk a whole extra block through a desert of parking before I get to my actual destination!
What's worse is all that flat land could be used now for solar. Put awnings up with solar pannels, water collection, and have ways to go 'Oh hardly anyone is using a lot of this. Lets partition off these sections so they can be put to other uses in low demand times of the year.'
What is worse is walking that parking lot on a hot day with no shade!
Thats why its wise to workout and earn money
As a fan of driving and cars in general, its stupid how big some parking lots are and how unfriendly they are to people. At least give us protected and greened walk paths that provide shade and some protection from cars. Especially as people get more and more lazy and reckless with how they drive and operate cars.
Its only really Christmas that these lots are close to capacity, outside of that, its wide open.
@@joshuakhaos4451 you people talk about others being lazy yet you all cry about how much you have to walk in order to get to the store ironic. And its super wide and its a lot of land, give some attention while walking, its not dangerous at all you are just too busy in your phones while walking
I don't like the term "car oriented", because for me that means a car is the _preferred_ mode of transportation. But the suburbs are two (or three…) levels worse: A suburb is build for the car as the only mode of transportation. It is build to require driving for everything. And it even sucks to drive… So I'd use a term like "car requiring design".
car dependent
I’m questioning what part of levittown and bristol township you were in, because I live in bristol township and I have grocery stores, drug stores, ice cream shops, convenience stores, a hobby shop, etc., all within a 10 minute walk from my house. It’s one of the reasons we moved here. You’re saying this isn’t the case in bristol township, but this is the case for me.
This mass building production was the equivalent of the multiple streets of brick terraced houses built around the 1900s, to house workers in the UK. These were all identical, in either two or three bedroom layout. No front yard; only a cobbled rectangle at the rear with an outside toilet shed and the drying line.
Unsurprisingly many workers wanted to escape to the spacious green suburbs being built in America and Australia. While I wouldn’t choose suburban living I also don’t like the brick terrace streets of the UK, around the area I grew up in. They meet the density requirement, and are walkable to local services but for me they are as depressing as any suburb. To this day most of those terraced streets don’t have any trees!
I lived in Irvine for a few years. Most ideal neighborhood. Schools, parks and shops all in walking distance.
The suburbs are intentionally boring.
Parents want heir kids to focus on lessons, not anything that's actually stimulating.
The Levittown seems absolutely amazing for its time. It's a shame it didn't age well. We could use the same mentality but for mixed-use areas. Build the same apartment-over-commercial building with different sized apartments over and over if you have to.
IMHO I disagree IT DID age WELL and that is THE ISSUE we took the "good parts" (low density) and codified it as the ONLY way while discarding the other parts (assembly line house manufacturing PUSHING affordability to NEW levels)
I get "excited" at these "factory " pre fab houses that pop up here and there and personally don't MIND when NEW they are the same repeated as LONG there is NO "HOA" getting involved and preventing "evolution" from happening
I would say there is a much stronger contender for an amazing idea of its time that didn't age well, and that was public housing in america. The sad reality to public housing is that the government allowed them to fail, as opposed to terrible suburban sprawl system that was doomed from the beginning (which is artificially maintained today). Public housing would have been a great opportunity to solve a housing crisis, that because the government failures of the 20th century, are no longer a consideration. These projects, if maintained properly, could have resolved todays issues a long time ago, and if the intentions behind it were not inherently embedded on racist urban renewal policies. Soviet housing surprisingly succeeded doing the same thing, even if their current state is not fantastic.
Coincidentally , I know a lady from Levittown who doesn’t drive and she doesn’t like it and had to move to Philadelphia. I also know another guy from the area and doesn’t like it that much. In my opinion, it’s one of the better suburbs but the criticisms are also valid.
15:20 I love the realistic portrayal of some a**hole parking in a bike lane
Probably thinks the green lane is for electric, environmental friendly, cars. 🤗
This is why I love New Orleans! Every neighborhood (except for some areas) is super walkable with corner stores, grocery stores, and restaurants! But even still we love to drive for work and fun 😂
All's we have to do is look even further into the past. Don't forget that streetcar suburbs exist. Like Dorchester, MA.
Dorchester is part of the city of Boston, not a suburb. And we have a subway, light rail both urban and commuter lines, buses, and ferries, but pretty sure there are no streetcar lines here.
@@perfectallycromulent it’s part of Boston, but many residential neighborhoods of Boston can still be described as streetcar suburbs. West Roxbury, Brighton, Hyde Park and parts of Dorchester are good exampled
@@perfectallycromulent yes, it's part of Boston today. It was annexed at some point. But it still is a historical streetcar suburb of the city.
@@jamiecinder9412 dude, it was annexed over 100 years ago. i live in boston. no one thinks of it as a suburb, and there are no streetcars here, so no one talks about that. seriously, if you care about this, don't make things up, listen to the locals. we don't even think of actual separate cities like cambridge and brookline as suburbs, they are cities just like boston, but smaller.
@@tomgeraci9886 if you're gonna keep calling parts of cities that have been parts of cities for over 100 years "streetcar suburbs" you will never ever get the new ones you want. if you want more of these sorts of places,. why are you pretending places that aren't them, are? Boston is 40 square miles, including all those areas, it's very small.
It's funny that they called a suburb, a city. Not even close.
Add density? The reason people like living in the suburbs is because they have their privacy and space
It has more to do with price.
I, as an european, can for sure tell, the american suburbs are beautiful compared to europeans ones. If I could, I would anytime live in the US.
Love this video! It is a topic I've wanted to be covered for a while now. Every single day I go to work or leave my home I look around and consider how the neighbourhoods could be improved by those simple changes that you mentioned. Increasing walkability by having corner stores, coffee shops, ice cream parlors, hair salons, etc, within that desired 5-10 minute walking radius of housing.
This is how bad it has become in North American cities. I don't even live in a big city. About 50,000 people, yet we've had more and more corner stores and shops close down over the last 30 years and those stupid big box stores have plagued our city, like so many others have.
I should be able to walk to a corner store to fill up on some essential goods every week, get my haircut about once a month, get a nice treat like ice cream (during summer) or a hot chocolate (especially in winter), all by safely using walking or biking paths to get there and back. But no. Cannot be done in my city for most people. I have to get in the car and drive about 10 minutes for a haircut, 8 minutes for the big grocery store where I buy mostly the same things every week. I would gladly just walk to a corner store instead.
My city has not kept up with good public transit at all. No rapid transit whatsoever. No light rail, no dedicated bus lanes, no trams, not even much dedicated biking paths either. It is so bad that in a strange twist of fate, I actually think my city could, if they wanted, get AHEAD of the urban design trends with something like an elevated Personal Rapid Transit pod system (see SkyTran or Transit-X for more). It would be funny to me if that's what happened.
Anyway, my hope is that no matter where you live, you can see where the small, yet effective urbanism changes could happen like mentioned in this video. I don't think it is hopeless for most cities. I think the times, they are a changing and if people are educated and share videos like this, it can create the will of the people that will propel many towns and cities into the future of healthy, efficient urban design.
I unfortunately have the same problem with my city, it would’ve been so easy for them to have good walking biking possibilities to travel to the store instead of me having to drive in my car everywhere no other choice possible !!! I’m thinking in the future where I can move instead, but I don’t want a large city like New York City.
Very informative, Thank you!
Omg, if we built dense housing around all the dying malls and then made the malls into community centers, that would be balls to the walls awesome!
Or turn the malls into housing. Keep the exterior structure and retrofit the interior ❤
Absolutely! Use some of the parking space for playgrounds, gardens, and other community areas. Shove all the cars underground. So much more inviting spaces.
@@lyssasletters3232Keep the food court though lol. Nice to be able to walk to Orange Julius or Sbarro!
Great idea. Thats actually what they're doing where I live. Its great for the mall too since so many people shop online now. People so close by might opt to just walk there.
most malls have so much land, that you could easily just build a new small town on the ground. rezone it into mixed use, and build a mix of housing and business frontage, and connect it to the outside. Do this with all the dead or dying malls out there (with govt incentives for owners of dead/dying malls to sell and developers to play along too) and youve gone a long way towards addressing the housing problems we face.
Although, most of the places where dead malls lie don't necessarily have housing shortages. there's plenty of dead malls in middle america where homes are still cheap. The irony is that part of what killed those malls is that very car centric design when faced with the convenience of the internet. Why drive 15-20 minutes to be disappointed by Sears, when you can just buy a jacket or pair of shoes online.
People seem to forget townhomes are an option. A happy medium between single family homeownership and multi-story, mixed use apartments.
Oh but based off of lots of comments they want everyone to rent these things and "ownership is bad" and yes there was a comment mentioning renting being essentially the future
I live in a 1970s townhouse in a development made up of buildings with four or so units each. Even though it is older, it is a gated community with several pedestrian gates in and out. The street is limited to one-way traffic and parking is not along the street, but in communal driveways. While not perfect (I would definitely appreciate more dedicated foot/bike paths), it is more income-, age-, and family-type diverse than other suburban developments. We have retirees, young families, and some single folks like me.
Yes, but they are the only option in terms of a "missing middle". Not to mention that they also all look the same given the developer.
nice one. already excited for the next video
I moved to China 10 years ago. I like living in a city without a car. In America, that's difficult to do. I've been to maybe 30 countries and USA is the ONLY place where I NEED a car.
and thank god we use cars here
I would love a video about Australian suburbs. I have being liviging in Melbourne for some months and they don´t seem to be as bad as the Americans. They still have low density in general, but we have public transportation and shops and amenities usually are close.
I’ve never been to Australia, but from what I have seen, newer suburbs in Australia seem to be a hybrid of the slightly more functional/organized Canadian suburban planning, with the density closer to typical (non coastal) suburban areas like the Midwest
Australia is very similar to America.There are many out lying new cookie cutter suburbs with very poor public transport facilities,shops etc.I understand there is a new suburb near Sydney who have mandated a minimum size block of land,must plant a small native tree,only light colour roofs( no black roofs!) & water tanks.🌴🌲
I agree. While there are some bad US style suburbs on the outskirts (Tarneit, Truganina, etc) the majority of Melbourne's "middle suburbs" are pretty well connected to public transport, nearly all have a train station (or two) in the middle of a walkable shopping strip, and zoning seems to be pretty mixed use with cafes, milk bars (now usually converted to cafes) and fish & shops common on the corners of residential streets.
It's the exact same for most US suburbs too. These videos are not particularly accurate.
@@mikesemianczuk nah, most US suburbs are complete shit outside of the northeast and chicago.
As someone who gre up in the 'burbs I can attest that it made for an idealic childhood. The only time in my life i didnt appreciate it was in my early 20's until i had my own children. They are not as horri le as people make them out to be.
I just went to the yorkshire coast and I feel like that this the opposite of boring with Robin Hoods Bay, Runswick Bay etc. I know these places were not planned, but there was something great about them. The prices for these tiny cottages was more than for a house in the sorrounding suburbs as well, showing their desirability. Maybe something that flows more natural is designed around the people who will live there than the architects, this kind of irregular tight nit high density living. Would solve a lot of problems with sustainability and is considered very attractive.
Those are holiday homes for the wealthy now.
Excellent video! Badly needed 👍👍
My first reaction is that Levittown isn't a city. It says "A city is born", but a city is way more than houses. This is a main issue, that people's expectations have been lowered so far that we think houses with a fast food joint and petrol station on the adjacent highway is a city. Or even a town. It isn't
It is my impression that people now leave the city intentionally they don’t want they mix use because they want the separation.
I wouldn’t mind living in the good old suburbs, especially the ones with one floor homes
single story - rambler is the word/phrase you’re looking for! makes google searches easier!
The number of your videos I've bookmarked. Love it. Also, in another life, I wanted to go to Cal Poly SLO. 😞
Disabled man here. I'll never be able t odrive, never been able to drive.
Suburbs honestly are the sort of density I prefer. Just enough there that 'hey it's not feeling middle of nowhere,' but at the same time. Those little corner stores and other locally served industries? That'd be pretty awesome to have more of. Also would give employment options for people like me so that I could theretically work AT one of those places near to home without constantly bumming rides.
See, I could cook up a theoretically 'perfect' suburban layout to give a blend of profitable land use and elbow room, but I neither have an education nor can convince a place 'Hey I'm right listen to me.' Plus bulldozing and starting over is expensive and unpopular. So work with what we've got. Which around me includes a lot of places that are overgrown choked out because they arne't needed and nobody I know outside of maybe city records even knows who own these lots. Example being this overgrown brick building that used to be a bank sitting lonely in an overgrown lot across the street from a dolalr general that's just off the highway.
I want to figure out who owns these old places and put them to work. I just don't know if there's any feasability to it.
Those kinds of places can sit around for years as a tax writeoff. The somewhat contradictory thing is that zoning is blamed for how uses are separated---but aggressive zoning is the only realistic way of getting a property like that to be re-used in a timely manner. It will only be in sufficient demand if less centrally located commercial area is downzoned. Also you need a growing population for changes to take real effect, and many urban areas don't have that. Realistically there's about 20% redundant commercial space even in the suburbs.
@@josephfisher426 that and land value tax!
@@mohammedsarker5756 Yes, that should help with stuff that is straight up vacant. Commercial zoning usually has a pretty high assessment, though... a while ago I looked up an end-of-life-cycle strip mall with a fourth-rate grocery chain in a city neighborhood that is just barely not terrible enough to have a lot of vacants... it was still assessed for eight figures!
Sarasota Meadows-style condos seem to offer the best mix of peace and quiet, density, community orientation, geographical uniqueness and cost-efficiency.
If only the Meadows wasn’t wickedly expensive
I was not expecting this type of Levittown education - fascinating sht 👊
Dave, you are one of the easiest voices to listen to on RUclips. Always relaxing and informative.
In many Asian countries, American tourists prefer those resort in remote regions where they can enjoy their quietness. Meanwhile, Korean and Japanese prefer hotels near city centre will all amenities available at any times.
So, what is your plan to "improve" those remote resorts? 🙂
@@joez.2794 nothing and the point is somebody prefer quiet and boring. Attempting to build facilities might upset them
@@Teochewtuahang That was exactly my point as well. Sorry, Americans get their "tongue-in-cheek" sarcasm from the British. :-)
As someone who currently lives in Levittown, you'd be surprised at how much pushback there would be for these changes. People here are very used to and enjoy the driving to work, the spread out housing, and the separation of retail and industrial. As much as these changes would push towards sustainability and convenience, I feel that most around here would have a sour taste, as to them, it would feel closer to Philadelphia. Most people here really don't like the idea of living in the city, and couldn't get far enough away to live in rural areas. Still a fantastic video, and it would help, but I don't think it will happen any time soon.
It seems like in those areas folks would need to be educated on the downsides of car-centric cities. Do they not care that cars pollute? There's probably also not that much traffic there, right? If that's the case then it'll be very difficult to dissuade people from their car-centric thinking.
@@MontfortracingSure it contributes to air pollution, but car pollution is really the least of our concerns when it comes to the environment, so idk why people are so gung-ho about this one point. Especially when everything else about a suburb is considerably better than a city.
@@SERGEYTIMOFEYOVICH well I'm not trying to be gung ho about it. There are many ways to look at environmental justice. However I would say there are more downsides to the modern American suburb than upsides.
For one, the environmental impact especially with maintaining the large network of streets and roads, the brutalism of all the parking lots and their science of blackbody radiation contributing to higher ambient temperatures, the number of large housing lots invading wildlife and ecosystems, and lack of transportation options.
There's also single family zoning laws that contribute to homelessness because there's not many diverse homes being built.
And also the physiological and spiritual sapping that comes from the modern American suburbs. People tend to think everything is hunky dory when it's not, but that's the psychological effects of our suburbs. Also fervor for faith, spirituality and religion is sapped by our modern suburbs because our suburban neighborhoods were primarily built for comfort and tranquility. Those two characteristics are good, but should never be ends in themselves.
Hence the reasons to build better suburbs. We're always going to have suburbs no matter how many different types of neighborhoods we build, and there will always be some people who want a backyard and a fence. Nonetheless our modern American mentality of always wanting big has had detrimental effects not only on individuals but also on our cities and country. And that's what this video is trying to say.
@@Montfortracing, The main problem with your major argument is that this "lack of diverse" housing is intentional. No middle class family wants to be forced to live next to and around an urban sprawl conforming to a lower-income population (it is just gentrification backwards). Just as upper class segregates away from the middle and lower class, the middle class too segregates via socio-economic standards. If you get rid of one suburban neighborhood, they will just leave for a different neighborhood. Then that suburban neighborhood is transformed into some urban environment just like the rest of the city, or it gets abandoned and becomes some industrial zone or otherwise.
So, attempting to "fix" suburban neighborhoods is like trying to "fix" Martha's vineyard, the housing prices and value on the neighborhood goes down, the average income of the population decreases, the businesses and shops accommodate the explosion of lower-income families and housing by bringing in affordable goods/services and low wage jobs, and the middle class flee because their house they bought is sinking in value. Congratulations, you just gentrified the suburbs and made it an urban sprawl or some weird Frankenstein of urban/suburbs which the lower class can't afford and the middle class isn't interested in living.
Also, your paragraph about spiritual harmony and spiritualism doesn't make much sense, it is actually contradictory. A major component of spiritualism and peace of mind (tranquility) is through comfort and isolation from clutter. Urban communities are full of noise, crime, and activity, everything that is opposite to these principles. Buddhist monks intentionally isolate themselves, meditate for hours, and live in massive estates with long, wide open corridors and hallways for the sole purpose to seek nirvana. I would think they understand what it means to have spirit in mind and body.
@@St.JohnWort in my last paragraph I wasn't talking about spiritualism. I'm talking about how insular the modern American suburbs are and how they sap the fervor of religious and spiritual life without us realizing about it. Also monks NEVER leave to the isolation from city life to seek comfort and tranquility. They seek to be in union with God, which usually requires a lot of spiritual purging. There's nothing comfortable about that! But the ultimate goal is happiness via denying oneself, that's what the spiritual life is. When it comes to our suburbs I'm talking about our suburbs effect on religiousity and spirituality, not some form of spirituality. Plus, there aren't many Buddhist monasteries in America, it's very difficult to talk about them when we're talking about American suburbs of the last century or so.
But from your comment you don't seem to see anything wrong with our modern American suburbs. You think they're just fine?
I grew up in cities. If you needed something, you popped downstairs to the retail on the ground floor of your building snd popped back upstairs to your condo. Very few peopje owned cars. Where would you put one? Besides the bus or taxi on the corner took me to work. It was a financial shock to move to a suburb and to realize how expensive a car is. - Gen Z
I still go back to that classic observation of James Howard Kunstler, that the likely destiny of much of US suburbia is either "slums, salvage or ruins". Some will be retro-fitted, but most will not. It's too much, especially as economic conditions deteriorate.
They'll renew as people flee deteriorating and expensive urban areas, e.g. SF.
@@100c0c Suburbs are reliant on this urban areas to subsidize them. If those urban areas go, the suburbs are bankrupt pretty quickly
@@sirmed1 The people with money will be moving to suburbs so they would be fine just through income tax alone, like a reversal of what deindustrialization did to many suburbs. Plus, most would pay a premium for the peace, compared to cities that are expensive and don't have peace.
@@100c0c They are all too spread out with too much infrastructure per person. But sure, some areas could retrofit into towns, as the rest deteriorates.
If they're attracting people that are buying the houses with their income, that is likely not going to happen. Slums or ruins are more likely to occur in areas where people can't actually afford them (or are forced to be there and fail to take care of the areas around them...as annoying as HOA's are, they would theoretically prevent that type of decay from happening)
I live in a suburb that has a lot of potential to be transformed:
1. It's just 20k people, but its relatively "narrow", and it has a main 45 mph road through it. It has a bike lane, sidewalk, and no driveways exit into it. There's relatively few cross streets on it until you hit the standard suburban mini mall.
2. There's a creek that parallels that 45 mph road. With a biking trail. But it doesn't go the full way to the mini mall - bummer. That would be ideal. But it does go about 80% of the way, so you don't have to spend all your time on the super fast & scary road.
3. There's a few small side streets just off the main road with houses. Sometimes I dream about them turning those into some light commercial.
Regardless, I feel like there's not much they would have to do to greatly increase the bicycle friendliness of where I live.
That “missing middle” graphic actually blew my mind. Most “single family houses” in the UK are “semi-detached”, which in that graphic is called a “side by side duplex”. And a lot are “terraced”, which… I guess is “row houses” over there? No one over here living in those houses would answer no if they were asked “do you live in a single family house?”!
Which made me realise the key factor in the USA is whether you own every brick (or… I guess plank?) in the entire structure.
Though funnily enough we consider the “2 level duplex” to be flats (apartments/condos). Or often say “a house converted into flats”. So I suppose what really matters to us here is whether you have your own front door and garden, even if it’s squeezed-in next to others’ with some shared walls, or whether you have to share a front door and a garden.
It’s also kind of funny to me you just brushed away the parking availability thing. As over here most of the suburbs ARE impossible to park in, even with permitting systems, and plenty of them have no buses whatsoever. (“I don’t want them waking me up in the morning!”; maybe a valid concern about diesel buses but not modern electric ones. Then they complain about all the parked cars!)
What’s also funny is they’re still considered part of low density suburbia here even when they’re fully terraced. To think that’s what those dedicated American suburb-defenders are railing against when they decry density… like, it’s not that dense. It’s just not big luxury. Even luxurious high-end suburbs over here have a mix of detached and semi-detached, rather than 100% detached.
I don't understand the appeal of semi-detached houses .How hard is it to build another wall in the middle and make them fully separate?
@@thewhitefalcon8539 The dry answer is it costs more in labour AND more importantly in land. The space you’d fit 2 detached houses in could fit 3 semi-detached ones. Also you go from 8 outside walls’ area down to 7(.. or 6?), so it’s a bit of savings on raw materials too, plus marginally simplified plumbing and electrical. This is all reflected in full-detached usually being, last I looked, 20-50% pricier than semi-detached in the same development. Then market demand does the work.
There’s definitely no widespread romantic attraction, it’s just a more accessible option for Owning Your Own House. Though I know a few people actually prefer it because it feels less lonely or whatever.
(And sometimes there’s a wider goal like converting a big barn into a house, where it’d be an outright mansion as just one house and one unit is still absolutely huge and sound-isolated even when built semi-detached.)
So I can understand why, when the land was cheap and the roads weren’t so long, they made use of the extra space over there and just defaulted to detached. But keeping it as a forced policy choice, expanding further outward so every new development is an ever bigger drain on the finances of the region, is bonkers to me. Especially when house prices are a known issue!
@@kaitlyn__L exactly! Back in 1950 when the American population was about 150 million maybe being a nation of semi-detached homes was fine (so long as you look past racial segregation urban sprawl and pollution but I digress) but it is wholly unfeasible with a nation of 300 million, as seen by our housing shortage
@@mohammedsarker5756 yeah like. I think the larger goal was at best misguided, to just hope we’ll always be able to build enough individual houses all diffusely, but given the goal at hand I can see how it happened.
It’s been the refusing to change after, yk, even 20-30 years of evidence about how it played out which has more moral culpability. Let alone 80-odd years to course correct!
Though it’s gotta be said, Levitt himself designed his “template suburb” specifically to try and avoid the possibility of a revolution. Not just in having to drive someplace to social areas, and therefore maintain the car, but also the entire system of HOAs enforcing mown lawns and paintwork. He literally said (paraphrased) that if a man owns his own house he will be too busy maintaining and paying for it to have time to revolt. And I’m sure other high-up people involved with pushing it as a national solution for housing liked that aspect too.
So my first two paragraphs are more about the public-at-large’s goals and desires, which of course are not entirely separate from that wider context but are largely driven by more simple goals like housing security.
@@thewhitefalcon8539 they other guy didn't bring this up, but there's also the problem of heating multiple individual units, compared to heating a quadplex. That increase in surface area is a marginal increase in privacy or "aesthetics", but it's a pretty big increase in the total amount of heating you'd need.
_"Subvisions" by Rush starts playing_
This video is a fantastic overview of the issues in the suburbs and I immediately shared it with my local strong towns group, thank you for putting it together!
The mass produced building technique is quite genius and could have a lot of application I think. Unfortunately used in the worst method possible.
This method could have a lot of value if used on better density buildings like condos and townhouses, and if it was a lot more compartmentilized, with different formats of buildings dispersed in smaller groups over a larger area, to give some depth and variety to neighbourhoods.
the problem with those assembly line houses is that they are genuinely crap - bad insulation, low stability and not even a cellar!
the only thing they are is cheap to produce... otherwise they are barely better than a camping van
@@chemicalfrankie1030 A townhouse aka terraced or row house. It's just a normal house squished between two other houses, it doesn't need any elevators unless you seriously believe a detached house also needs one, lol.
@@chemicalfrankie1030Utah would beg to differ lol we have Townhomes and Condos for days but that's because 68% of the land is owned by the Federal Government that won't let us build in lots of areas
I hate cookie cutter suburbs and yet my job is most likely going to relocate me to Vegas or Phoenix, which means I may end up living in one.
I guess there's worse places to live, I'm originally from the Mojave Desert of California so the weather won't bother me at all.
Good one. Going to Nebula right now to preview that new video you mentioned at the end.
10:03 you only need to get rid or the dead ends for non car uses. So a network of small path ways that connect those cul-de-sac would be enough and perhaps optimal.
Is it weird that I live in the "utopia." But I would love to have a detached house in the suburbs (mabye minus the homeowner assosication)
I live in small German city in a quite cheap 6.50Euro/m² rented flat in a dead end so no traffic noise. Free street parking. Forest with hiking paths 10 minutes by foot. Bus stop just round the corner that is serviced every 12 minutes. Train station with long distance train service 24minutes by bus away. City center 20 minutes walk.
But I really would want to have house for my self. Not having to worry about causing noise. Actually making the place they way you want it not having to worry about reversing all if you move out. Having a garage for the car. Garden. But if I stay in this flat I will spend 360,000€ until my death on rent and never own anything and couldn't even pass that to potential children.
Then go live in a suburb. No one said u can’t own a house, just that we need more homes built to solve an international housing shortage and have good transit nearby so car ownership is a choice not a requirement
Same man. All these people whining about suburbs meanwhile most of us just want our own plot of land a and a proper sized home where we are king. I am From the Netherlands. Plenty of people would move into US style suburbs if anyone would build them here.
@@mohammedsarker5756 Lots of "urban" americans seem to hype/romanticize European cities. Probably because they only look at the very city center of some big cities and have no idea how it really works.
@@whuzzzup To be fair, it wouldn't be much more different when they looked at European small towns instead.
"Forest with hiking paths 10 minutes by foot."
You really want to give this up? In a typical American suburb, there *isn't* a nearby forest to hike through; it's been bulldozed to make room for yet another housing subdivision.
Ultimately, the feds or the state need to change policies to conduct sweeping change.
as long as it's not _you_ sweeping through the country 😂
I work in a business park kind of area. My commute by car is about 18 minutes. If I tried to get there by bus, with some walking in between, it’d take bare minimum just under 2 hours.
Thanks so much for your activism!❤❤❤
1) I feel like I've seen this before... oh, right, it's basically a video version of the 1995 Newsweek article "How to Fix the Suburbs."
2) A better example of mall redevelopment is The Crossings in Mountain View CA because it used recycled materials from the mall structure, has been completed for two decades, has an integrated CalTrain station, and will eventually also be served by the CAHSR.
3) I think you underestimate the sheer mass of people who despise their HOA.
It seems that one of the biggest obstacles to getting more mixed use into existing subdivisions is that, at least in the nicer more aspirational ones, the wealth in place prevents that from being a need. Door Dash, Amazon, UPS, Shipt or Instacart bring the businesses to them already. No need for the brick and mortar. And good luck selling reduced property values with multifamily housing. You have to offer something the existing residents want or need to spur change.
There’s a Levittown in Puerto Rico built in 1962. It’s the worst example of a dense suburban environment. No trees, nor yards, just concrete. I used to live there, some people like it. I hated it
Great stuff
I actually don't mind if things look a little cookie cutter as it tends to keep the people who buy there to a certain standard and it's much more visually appealing. What we don't want is people sticking on additions that are ugly (a modern one in a traditional style neighbourhood) and renting then it out to 5 families like a lot of people in certain cities of Southern Ontario do.
Suburbs themselves aren’t the problem. The distinction should be made between the pre-modern suburb and the modern suburb. The latter of them focused on the primacy of the automobile. There are a few pre WWII suburbs in nyc that are beautiful. Forest Hills in queens comes to mind. An inviting neighborhood centered around the LIRR (Long Island Rail Road) which serves commuters going to midtown.
Awesome video!
For the USA, Streetcar Suburbs from pre WW2 are the best way to go. Europe economy is varied and has different standards, compared to that of America, which was founded and gained momentum in the industrial age.
Suburbs: the Soviet blocks of 'merican Capitalism.
Instead of cookie cutter multistory apartment blocks, it's just cookie cutter single family homes in culs de sac
Now it’s flipped
@@Preetzole You have it all wrong. American suburbia is the result of state planning & control of urban spaces.
This dude really just glorified renting a cramped apartment over owning your own house and being able to do what you want with it LOL
@@akg_table unless you live in a neighborhood with an HOA
@@akg_table Having a house does not require the model of American suburbia, you can have an actually functional & interactive city designed for human beings instead of mobile metal cans, and have a house.
You really should do some traveling, hell even google earth would suffice.
Suburbs in Europe are very different. I live on the edge of one of the first planned suburbs (started 1906) and the whole idea was that there were to be shops, galleries, and houses of different types and sizes mixed together. From that point on, in the UK planning for suburbs have had to include everything people would need within walking distance and with public transport to employment hubs, and housing has to include homes of different sizes, types and costs- exactly the opposite to the way the US copied the concept.
The problem of UK cities: people still drive too much cars. Costumers driving their cars in downtown should be banned. Highways are just like American highways. Pollution, speed, accidents and deaths.
Great video!
8:42 Love to see the text book parking by the white car in the top right, colouring between the lines of the black car in the center and the overall disregard for lines lmao.
You know, I grew up in a suburb of Los Angeles and I always struggled with the definition of suburbs outside of Los Angeles. White, boring, safe, affluent, "out there", disconnected from their city. I mean COMPTON is a suburb and right next to it is Carson, a middle-class Black/Latino suburb with an IKEA(Thanks to this Swedish company for taking a chance on a minority neighborhood) The stadium where David Beckham played his American soccer and a state university. But also in LA, the TV stations are in the suburbs, and the parade that is on par with NYCs Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, The Pasadena Tournament of Roses Parade, is in a suburb. One of the area's largest and most famous tourist attractions, Disneyland,, is in a suburb. I am Black, grew up in the 80[s in a comfortable middle-class neighborhood with some other Black kids. We weren't the majority but we were far from outcasts. In my Junior year, the Homecoming King and Queen were Black. My family went to Compton for church so we could go to a Black church. And there was crime and loud noises and the like. It was a realistic and perfect place where the city and the suburbs were a network working together.
I always find it crazy how much of LA County, and the metro area, is just one large ocean of suburbs.
@@bigwatermelon4487 Yes, exactly! I tend to use phrases like “ Los Angeles area”, whereas someone from New York or Chicago is more likely to say “ Outside Chicago” ( And I think “ Well Hawaii is outside Chicago.” So that is not a phrase I would use for Chicago suburbs.) The LA area is more of a network.
Why would you segregate and go to a black church? Is that any different from a church?
I just got done with a paper about suburbanozation for my history class. It was really interesting to learn about the impact of this on history.
Cool, what did you learn that is not in the video?
7:38 I grew up 3 blocks from here. Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn!
JOLLY GOOD SHOW!
One thing I love to see more in new develop suburbs is having trees! Like, plenty along it's roads and side walks to maybe on property. Having them will also reduce energy consumption to stay cool during the summer and keeps walk ways safe for dogs under the tree's shadow.
That and obviously helps with the eco system, not just for birds but to combat climate. hah
I hate cities
I JUMPED when I saw your clip of Atlanta at North and Spring @ 10:15. That intersection is burned into my brain, right next to Georgia Tech and a major entry point into Midtown from the highway. There is so much about Atlanta, it's suburbs, car use, and public transit that just boggles the mind. I would love to know what you think about Atlanta as a whole and/or what wards/districts you know about or would like to know about.
Another item to fix: Need to add transit. The suburbs I know are not close to the city (where the jobs are). If you fixed my suburb with everything in this video, I'd still have to drive to my job 30min away. One step at a time, I suppose. It would be nice to at least have some mixed use buildings for some local small businesses.
I feel fortunate to live in some of the rare “missing middle” housing in the US (in Astoria, NYC). So much more interesting and healthy than where I grew up in the suburbs.
Wish we could have colorful homes like Havana (Cuba), Nyhavn (Denmark) and Svalbard. Even North Korea has colorful buildings in Pyongyang!
We have colorful homes in Los Angeles, especially near the beaches. I painted my house a deep teal color (front only), and my neighbors have a lot of differently colored houses. I'm in Westchester, but I used to live in Venice (CA), which is even more colorful and is also in the city limits of Los Angeles. San Francisco is equally colorful.
@@larsedik Have you been to the midwest? Every subdivision, every apartment complex, town after town after town, is light brown vinyl siding. Occasionally you'll see an oddity of a white vinyl siding home.
My subdivision: light brown.
The subdivision behind me: light brown.
The subdivision next to me to the north: light brown.
The subdivision next to me to the south: light brown.
The subdivision across the street: light brown.
Just paint your house?
Let me guess, in the Land of the Free, some HOA dude tell you, you must not do that, yes?
@@whuzzzup You can't paint vinyl siding. It costs $10,000 to replace.
Awesome video.
Wish I knew you were going to be in the region - would have loved to guide you on some of the local treasures long gone from that early era!
My favorite video on the topic! No bias and adds complete historical context not seen in similar videos.
To fix the suburbs, you have to first get rid of all the suburbanites. So, not likely gonna happen.
Supply and demand. You can't dictate demand to people. :)
To fix the suburbs, you have to first get rid of the stupid zoning laws, supply and demand will do the rest.
8:38 Thanks for giving Santa Ana some love. Just one note though, I wish it was a light rail however it will technically be a streetcar. Speaking of the OC Streetcar, if anyone makes a trip out of it, I recommend Burritos La Palma. They serve small burritos filled with savory stewed meat jam packed with flavor!
I'd love to add an adu to my property. We're on 1/2 acre lot with a large backyard and room on one side for another driveway. All the properties in my suburb have restrictive covenants, however, which doesn't allow anything fun. I'm not sure how my municipality enforces that, but I would love to review it. There are upcoming zoning changes which changes are single dwelling zone to ru3. It's a nice change, but won't change anything because of the restrictive covenants