Good point.  But how did people survive before SUV's?  Families are smaller now.  Yet when we look at traffic footage from the 70s, it's mostly cars.  Now it's mostly trucks.  When I started driving in the early 90s, it was rare to be surrounded by trucks on all sides.  Now it's the norm.  I understand there are practical reasons for them, I just don't understand how it's the only way people can live.  We largely did without them before.

 

Cars were much bigger inside in the 70s. The wide bench seats and the front AND back had lots of room. Then you factor in the lack of seatbelt requirements, and its cheaper to own a big camaro or monte carlo.

Yes, in the 70s kids could roll around in the back of a station wagon or pickup truck without being safely restrained (hence incidents like Grumpy's brother falling out).  And agree with neville, the car seats were much bigger/wider.

 

I am not a fan of minivans either. They are no different than SUVs IMO.  I don't see why one would be "better" than the other.

^^um, they were dangerous?  Between the gas fumes and the fact that kids were rolling around like cereal in a plastic bag, they weren't exactly a safe way to travel. 

 

Our 93 Volvo wagon is the safest way to travel this side of an up-armored Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

All in all, the SUV's you see driving around suburbia (threw that in there to stay on topic) that have one bench seat in the back are the most impracticable cars on the market. They fit the same amount of people as a Neon, they have less trunk space than a Civic, and they are terrible on gas. If people buy them because of their kids, that is crazy. I hate to sound like an advocate for mini vans, but they can fit lots of kids, you can walk into the back on road trips and feed a kid without stopping (or get in their face and yell at them). Also, when removing the seats, I fit 17 sheets of drywall (1/2") in the back and closed the door without damaginh any drywall. They hold far more than a pick-up-truck.

 

Plus they keep the cargo dry.  As much as I dislike minivans (in traffic), they are a lot more practical than SUVs or pickups under most terrain conditions.  Part of my attitude toward SUVs comes from their association with suburban living.  Great attention paid to selfish isolationist convenience; no consideration of its effect on others. 

^But the fun we had rolling around in the back was worth the risk! (until my brother fell out the back door)

 

Shut up!  He fell out the back??  :o

We were in a parking lot and he was playing with the handle. He just got some bruises. I got some too when he kept hitting me for laughing at him about it.

Sounds similar to my brother.  He kept messing with the window and sticking his head out and making faces at other cars. My mom told him to stop it.  We were going north on Lee Rd., just passed the police station and he stuck his head out the window and my mom rolled the window up on him.  Luckily he was able to get his head back in as his arm was only thing outside the car. 

 

People were blowing their horns and pulling up next to us saying, "your kids arm is stuck in the back window".  My mom was like, "I know".  The look on those peoples faces.  It was so funny to me, but I dare not laugh out loud, or risk getting slapped, but inside I was cracking up!

 

^ Apparently these are legit problems with station wagons, but I think the safety comparison to SUVs is still favorable.  Especially when everyone else's safety is considered... not just the SUV passengers.  I've had more than one person tell me the view and the sense of power they get in an SUV is such that they can never go back to a regular car.

 

I think everyone had a wagon in the 70's.  To me the SUV is the "new" station wagon.

 

Right, and we should go back to the low profile version.  These new crossover things are a step in that direction.  Another safety issue with SUVs, also related to their excessive height, is how their headlights shoot right into your mirror or into your face. 

 

Now that my older nephews and niece don't need to be "chauffeured" around, my brother and skank-in-law traded in her SUV for a saturn Vue.

 

All in all, the SUV's you see driving around suburbia (threw that in there to stay on topic) that have one bench seat in the back are the most impracticable cars on the market.  They fit the same amount of people as a Neon, they have less trunk space than a Civic, and they are terrible on gas.  If people buy them because of their kids, that is crazy.  I hate to sound like an advocate for mini vans, but they can fit lots of kids, you can walk into the back on road trips and feed a kid without stopping (or get in their face and yell at them).  Also, when removing the seats, I fit 17 sheets of drywall (1/2") in the back and closed the door without damaginh any drywall.  They hold far more than a pick-up-truck. 

 

I'm not an SUV person, but it's an individual case by case situation.  My brother is 6'6", I have cousins as tall as 6'7" & 6'8", fitting into a car is not easy task.

 

My brother has five kids and I can tell you when there were just three (my brother, skank-in-law, and three kids lived with me at the time), getting all that baby crap into a car, you damn near had to be David Cooperfield!

 

When kid no. 4 came along, they had to get a bigger car so the whole family could fit, and the only thing that worked was an SUV.  There was always much stuff to bring.

 

I see them a lot with one or two occupants as well, but you have to think, if they are dropping off the kids at daycare before coming to work, what do you expect to see?  You're not going to see a bunch of people driving downtown on a weekday with a car full of kids as they all put them in daycare close to their home.  They're not going to drop the kids off, come back and switch cars to continue on to work.

 

Good point.  But how did people survive before SUV's?  Families are smaller now.  Yet when we look at traffic footage from the 70s, it's mostly cars.  Now it's mostly trucks.  When I started driving in the early 90s, it was rare to be surrounded by trucks on all sides.  Now it's the norm.  I understand there are practical reasons for them, I just don't understand how it's the only way people can live.  We largely did without them before.

Family's drove two cars.  Thats how.  As a kid from a huge family, I can remember when going somewhere, that kids would squeeze in whatever car they could if we were all going to the same destination. 

If you live in the city, 25MPH is perfectly reasonable for trips since there is a higher concentration of destinations in a smaller area. 30MPH would have to be carefully done. This is especially true if you want to encourage cycling as transportation.

 

I'm afraid our positions diverge a great deal on these issues.  For one thing, I'm not sure I want to encourage cycling as urban transportation.  Their speed makes them incompatible with cars and with pedestrians.  How many different lanes, observing different traffic laws, do we really want?  I don't think I share your vision for having pedestrians deal with multiple vehicle types in the same space.  I also don't think forcing people to drive slow will make them want to patronize businesses they don't patronize already. 

 

We can build vibrant walkable neighborhoods without needlessly hindering cars.  While the idea is definitely to have people shop more locally, that idea doesn't trump all other concerns.  One concern is that something you may need is neither in your hood nor accessible via freeway.  It isn't practical to take care of all needs in all hoods, so free movement among them is necessary for any to flourish.  That requires various modes of transportation working in harmony.  People need to walk more.  Transit should be expanded.  Development should encourage these modes over driving.  None of that requires cars or trucks to be intentionally inconvenienced.  The best way to encourage urban development is to make it inviting, to dispel the notion that living in a tighter community is unpleasant.  Aggressive speed limits are something I view as a move in the opposite direction.

 

While I'm not as familiar with Columbus, I actually think several Cleveland streets should be raised 25 to 35, or 35 to 45.

 

Bikes are incompatible with cars, yet I regularly catch up with cars that pass me at the next red light. I can also get to where I need to go faster than a car to a street where parking usually requires driving around for a spot like in Downtown or the Short North. And as a ped, would you rather get hit by a bike or a car going your preferred 35-45MPH? Obviously, bikes are a much better fit for urban areas. If more people biked, Cleveland wouldn't have had buildings leveled for large parking lots: they'd be used for businesses and residents. So bikes have advantages both in their practicality (most urban neighborhoods are easily reachable in a timely manner) and in the development they both discourage (car-oriented) and encourage (pedestrian-friendly). Keep in mind I was 100% car-dependent and after getting to the point where I only used my car for weekend visits to my parents (took months to adjust  my habits, especially in winter) I ditched it. I've been to both sides and here the grass is definitely greener.

 

You make it sound very confusing, but no, I never said I want bike lanes, because I don't. The lanes we already have are just fine. If a pedestrian's brain melts at trying to comprehend that cars and bikes legally share the same lane, then that's not my problem. Slower speed limits are demonstrably better for businesses and pedestrians in cities everywhere. There's a reason why Ohio City sees so many peds and cyclists and is attractive for residents and businesses. Wider, faster streets would kill places like that while ones that exist prevent any potential that is there for a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly street. People don't like having to cross wide streets with fast traffic nor do they feel comfortable with cars whizzing by them at high speeds.

 

The only people hindering themselves in cars are those who choose to do so. You can have cars maintain steady movement at slower speeds, which is probably better than a faster speed limit, but sitting at lights all day. I don't understand your next point, since I'm arguing for all modes of transportation to exist in harmony. Letting cars speed around to threaten or even kill pedestrians and cyclists does not accomplish that. Putting cars first has proven to turn urban neighborhoods into disposable objects, vs. a place where one has an attachment, much like older sprawling-suburbs which have been left to rot for newer, brighter, and bigger boxes. Giving people more real options means more people will use them and less cars will be on the road. If people want to insist on sitting in traffic all day, that's their choice. That being said, I don't see wide, multi-lane streets being places where a pedestrian or cyclist would want to be. A higher speed on these wouldn't be so bad if there were alternatives, but when you want to cross a river or highway you're pretty much stuck with an arterial street which is virtually always a dangerous place unless you're going by car.

 

Lowering some speed limits along with road diets where necessary is simply leveling the playing field, since so much of our road network is built for cars first with no consideration for anything else. I've taken the 2 Mile Challenge, you might want to try out urban cycling before you knock it. I'm always here for advice.

I thought this fit in well with the bikes/cars/peds thread of this thread:

 

"Today, I'll be sharing my appearance with HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan. Together, we will announce a joint effort to revitalize our downtowns, foster walkable neighborhoods, and bring people, employers, and housing closer together through public transportation."

 

This, believe it or not, is from the blog of the U.S. secretary of transportation, Ray LaHood: http://fastlane.dot.gov/2009/03/livable-communities-the-hometowns-americans-deserve.html

What ever happened to good old station wagons?  The proverbial family truckster?  Those were designed to haul large families, plus their stuff, without flipping over or blocking out the sun.

 

My family had a maroon '87 Celebrity wagon until around '94 when my sister was born. It was at that time we graduated to the mini van. For medium range trips whoever got stuck sitting in the very back looking backwards had to sit with the luggage. On longer trips we got one of those turtle luggage carriers and strapped it to the roof...classy.

 

Not maroon?!  LOL

Columbusite, maybe we agree on the big picture and only diverge on the bits.  I can't cycle at the moment.  Long story.  But I was on a bus yesterday and watched a troop of cyclists come within inches of committing mass suicide by means of that bus.  They darted right in front of it.  The driver was very shaken.  If there is to be a significant increase in urban bike traffic, which I'm not against, I think we will need a new level of coordination.  I don't see reduced car speed as a part of that balanced breakfast.  I'd like to see some streets narrowed too, for the same reasons you do, as soon as mass transit capacity increases.

 

I think more compromises, like bike lanes, could alleviate some of the safety problems for cyclists.  Although it did appear these bikers yesterday were trying to reach an awkwardly placed bike lane.  There are inherent risks in operating a bike alongside cars and car speed has little to do with it.  It would help if cars went the same speed as bikes, but that's not realistic.  25 mph still leaves a significant speed gap, and whenever you have a speed gap you have passing.

 

Cars have to switch lanes to pass bikes.  Every lane switch introduces chaos and creates a potential accident.  Speed does not cause accidents, but lane switches do, in a big way.  Very few bikers I've encountered here stop at stop lights, so the same traffic has to dance around them over and over and over.  Also, a bike may not be visible at the moment someone in a parked car looks back to see if it's safe to open the door.  This is often because bikes do not stay in an ascertainable or predictable lane. 

 

Predictable movements prevent accidents.  Car speed is irrelevant to pedestrians getting hit, because legally they never share the same time-space.  Any time a pedestrian is hit, either the pedestrian or the car is somewhere they weren't supposed to be.  Someone went when they should have stopped.  That has absolutely nothing to do with speed.  Bikes are more vulnerable than pedestrians because instead of being separate and predictable, they move randomly through shared space.  Cut that and you cut accidents.

 

The non-highway arterials I described earlier would probably not be the best place for a bike at rush hour, although peds could still use the sidewalks and crosswalks as safely as they can anywhere else.  But these particular roads would be set up mainly for car traffic and car oriented development like drive-thrus and Applebees and Valvoline places.  By putting this stuff in a specific place, along the arterials, other denser areas can have much less of it.  Right now we're in no position to eliminate cars or much of the crap that goes with them.  What I'm suggesting is the "hope to contain it" method.

You miss the point. NO city streets hould be car-only. It's fine to keep bikes and pedestrians off controlled-access highways. But ALL city streets MUST be available to bicyclists. And If I had my druthers, drive-thrus would be abolished. And Applebees and Valvoline places surrounded by asphalt are urban blight. That kind of development should be zoned out of a real city.

 

I have been bicycle commuting here in Seattle since 1994 (lately fair weather only). Route selection is the key. As long  as the right lane has a wide, paved shoulder (preferably unmarked so it is occasionally  swept by an automobile tire) cars and bikes can get along fine even with large speed differences. It is also  extremely important to ride with and use a rear view minor. It is impossible  to be a courteous cycle commuter without one.  Cleveland has a huge asset for cyclists if it would only complete the  Emerald Necklace!  If that were done, Cyclists would travel from around  the country to do that tour.

mirror! mirror !

The higher profile of an SUV serves only one purpose...off-road driving.  All of the other effects of it are bad...Higher step up to get into the car, harder for other drivers to see past you, headlights in other drivers' face, less stability at higher speeds, etc.

 

I actually work with a guy that said he likes to be able to see over other people.  That is one of the most selfish reasons I have heard.  If every other driver thought that way, then he'd have to keep increasing the height of his SUV.  Obviously, he doesn't care if other drivers can see past him.

 

I am not a minivan fan, but I think it is much more practical for large families AND hauling things than both an SUV and a pickup truck.

Yet all cars vehicles fit all people.  I'm not in favor of SUVs but some people to have reason for buying them.  Seems like we're missing that.

I actually work with a guy that said he likes to be able to see over other people. That is one of the most selfish reasons I have heard.

 

I've heard this literally hundreds of times.  I don't get why they don't see that if EVERYONE ELSE has one too, you're not higher than other people.  women say the height makes them feel "safer" because they can see more of what's happening in traffic. 

That's like Peggy Hill driving with her brights on all the time, wondering why everyone doesn't do that since it helps you see so much better.

 

My family had a maroon '87 Celebrity wagon until around '94 when my sister was born. It was at that time we graduated to the mini van. For medium range trips whoever got stuck sitting in the very back looking backwards had to sit with the luggage. On longer trips we got one of those turtle luggage carriers and strapped it to the roof...classy.

 

We had the '85 maroon Celebrity wagon. Lovely automobile ;)

 

My family had a maroon '87 Celebrity wagon until around '94 when my sister was born. It was at that time we graduated to the mini van. For medium range trips whoever got stuck sitting in the very back looking backwards had to sit with the luggage. On longer trips we got one of those turtle luggage carriers and strapped it to the roof...classy.

 

We had the '85 maroon Celebrity wagon. Lovely automobile ;)

 

I can't believe I didn't notice more of these in the 80's.  I guess it depends on where you live(d)/grew up.

I actually work with a guy that said he likes to be able to see over other people.  That is one of the most selfish reasons I have heard. 

 

I've heard this literally hundreds of times.  I don't get why they don't see that if EVERYONE ELSE has one too, you're not higher than other people.  women say the height makes them feel "safer" because they can see more of what's happening in traffic. 

 

Apparently people don't know how to look up 3 degrees. I have a Porsche 944 and the IROC pictured at left. They are low and get incredible highway mileage (even the IROC, which has over 300 horsepower and a huge cam) and I don't have a problem except when boxed in by SUVs or freight -- no amount of pickup/SUV lift kits or 44" Gumbo Monster Mudder tires will let you see around a semi or box truck!

I actually work with a guy that said he likes to be able to see over other people.  That is one of the most selfish reasons I have heard. 

 

I've heard this literally hundreds of times.  I don't get why they don't see that if EVERYONE ELSE has one too, you're not higher than other people.  women say the height makes them feel "safer" because they can see more of what's happening in traffic. 

 

Apparently people don't know how to look up 3 degrees. I have a Porsche 944 and the IROC pictured at left. They are low and get incredible highway mileage (even the IROC, which has over 300 horsepower and a huge cam) and I don't have a problem except when boxed in by SUVs or freight -- no amount of pickup/SUV lift kits or 44" Gumbo Monster Mudder tires will let you see around a semi or box truck!

 

True but the drag is scary.  I hate driving on the highway with a truck next to me.  That is the worst thing.

Essentially, if you want to see what the station wagon, SUV, CUV, minivan fight well end up looking like - the Ford Flex is probably the best example. The Europeans have minivans too, except they are actually still mini, the Mazda5 is the American car most like most Euro-minivans.

How did a reasonably intelligent discussion of sprawl devolve into silly ramblings and reminiscences about types of cars?

Not sure. But I stand by my position that a good urban street is slower and multi-modal.

Not sure. But I stand by my position that a good urban street is slower and multi-modal.

 

I agree.

Not sure. But I stand by my position that a good urban street is slower and multi-modal.

 

I agree, except that sometimes less pedestrian-friendly streets are required because they're fed by a large volume of more regional traffic (parkways for instance). But even those are better off with well landscaped medians (that slow traffic), sidewalks, etc.

 

To me, the best urban streets I've ever seen are in German Village. One walk through there and you instantly realize something went wrong with the art of making cities in modern times! If you've walked through German Village and still say you prefer the sprawly suburbs, something is wrong with you.

I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate place to put this but I have to vent about something regarding subdivisions.

 

Every development caters to a target group. Subdivisions are designed for families with young kids. They have little parks with playgrounds, they have sidewalks, they have traffic calming features. The main collector roads force you to slow down because cars may be parked on one side of the street and you have to be aware of it, which is good for safety. The size of the lots are even reasonably dense to where setbacks are minimal - it saves the developer money and the consumers don't seem to mind it. Those all seem very positive to me.

 

What I DON'T understand is why (at least I've never seen seen it outside of a few master planned communities in the south) there is never any walkable commercial district. When families move to these subdivisions, they crave a sense of community. That's partially why they go for parks with playgrounds and those grand entrances that brand their subdivision. So why don't they incorporate any commercial activity? It would provide an opportunity for people to interact. Places where people have excuses to run into their neighbors, while walking.

 

Usually there are areas zoned commercial nearby, and it's a really short drive, but what's the point? If it's a short drive, why not just walk if you can? Isn't that why we have sidewalks? If you're walking in a residential-only community, what are you walking to? A park, if you're lucky.  That's it.

 

I understand there would be concerns about noise and traffic, but there's a simple solution. Put the area zoned commercial at the EDGE of the community and make it easily accessible and enviting to pedestrians. I don't think it has to look like an english town square for it to work. If people cared that much about aesthetics, they wouldn't live in a vinyl siding box to begin with. Have the storefronts face the community and do a good job of hiding the parking lot. If the subdivision borders a main artery then it would benefit from business from outsiders as well as people in the community.

 

You don't even see recreation centers in subdivisions. I just don't understand entirely residential communities. It makes no sense to me. It's boring, and sadly, it's consumer-driven.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Opinions? It's something I've been thinking about a lot. I feel like I'm talking to a wall when I start talking about planning lol.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Opinions? It's something I've been thinking about a lot. I feel like I'm talking to a wall when I start talking about planning lol.

 

Subdivision are bad!  Subdivision housing prices are tanking!  Subdivision homes that have a garage in the front as the main focal point are ugly.

 

There.  Happy?

Zoning. Zoning, zoning, zoning is the reason. Bad, stupid zoning that was adopted without a plan. Cities and towns in the 1950s -- a time when the American philosophy was: "New is good; old is bad" -- wanted to get in on zoning, which was still fairly new. So they adopted zoning codes put together elsewhere -- zoning codes that had nothing to do with their communities. Zoning codes that made their neighborhoods and neighborhood shopping districts illegal (but grandfathered).

 

Zoning is not bad. It's just that there is a lot of bad zoning. Good zoning starts with a plan, and a good plan starts with the community and what it values. Once the community agrees on what it wants, then it adopts a plan. And then it creates a zoning code to enforce the plan.

 

But many, many communties in Ohio, and elsewhere, adopted some other town's zoning code instead of doing a plan. And so we have zoning laws that make it illegal to have the kinds of towns we now want.

That's just lazy.

 

I like the idea of form based codes because of the flexibility.

 

More neighborhoods should be like German Village!

 

UrbanSurfin have you ever been to The German Village?

My in-laws are building a brand-new house in a sub-division in the sprawling suburbs of the secondary city in a medium-sized southern east coast city. In also happens to be the in the shadow of army base. It is miserable and sad.

^But it's new!

UrbanSurfin have you ever been to The German Village?

 

Many, many, many times. I love it. It should be a model for all new development. But it is illegal under most zoning codes.

I think a lot of people who want to live in those subdivisions don't want stores in there, their definition of a good, quiet neighborhood specifically involves not having stores there.  Stores invite traffic, noise and outsiders.  I know you say it's about zoning, but they obviously don't want stores in there, they want to be able to drive to stores that are nearby.  Walking is something that people like this choose to do specifically either for exercise or for fun, such as walking to the park. People do not want to walk as something they have to do every day (perhaps weather has a lot to do with this), to the store to pick up a few groceries each day, or rent a movie, they are buying 20 bags of groceries at a time and are on their way to rent a movie after stopping at the drive through and want to get home to watch it, not spend an hour walking to and from the rental store.  (Outside of NYC,) I think it's just more of a European way to think to incorporate walking to and from places into your daily routine instead of driving there, or in picking up just enough food for dinner each day and then walking it home and fixing it or having a lot of shops that are in walking distance in your neighborhood. 

 

I'm not saying I agree with it, but I *can* see that it would feel safer.  If there's no purpose for outsiders to be driving through your development, there is likely to be less crime, less people driving by the park to bother the kids, etc.  The ultimate in these IMO are places where it's really expensive and things are really highly designed within the development, and you wouldn't be walking anywhere except to the neighborhood pool, which you pay quite a bit each year to belong to, whether you like it or not. 

 

Oh, and if you think all developments are ugly, take a drive through Ledgewood, a Bob Schmit development in Strongsville.  This is a perfect example of what I mean.  I actually think it's a great looking development, NOT ugly and styled in such a way as to try hard to incorporate nature as it existed before the houses were developed.  You have to pay quite a bit to belong to the pool and there are NUMEROUS and very specific restrictions in the by-laws and regulations which help prevent it from being an eyesore.  You can't put up a shed or cut down a tree without the whole development agreeing to it.  There is a limited amount of landscaping and maintenance that is done every year by the development, so it stays looking nice.  It's off the beaten path just enough that nobody would be driving through it that didn't specifically intend to be there.  Even in some other nicer developments we've looked in, you see some real problems in the neighborhood, like mounds of rusted junk in the front and back yard of certain neighbors, abandoned, rusted cars on blocks, garish/horrid outdoor decorating schemes that all bring down the whole street/neighborhood.  If the houses weren't all electric in Ledgewood, it would be a place we'd consider buying in.  I think it's a great example of a GOOD development.  What do you think?

A major problem with changing zoning laws is; 1., a lot of people don't understand how the current setup is a problem and 2., those that do don't know how to change it.

 

Luckily, more places are making changes to allow mixed-use development, such as in Columbus where urban commercial overlays are being adopted to prevent more sprawl and only allow urban development. Unfortunately, it's not strongly worded, so in the case of drive-thrus all they have to do is stick their building up against the street to fit the definition of "urban". Drive-thrus have no place on an urban street. They waste way too much land.

 

Cities generally require  an insane amount of parking with any business. Columbus cut that in half and handles it on a case-by-case basis such as a fitness place setting up shop in German Village which requested no parking spots.

 

 

Throughout the history of civilization, mixed-use walkable communities have been the norm until the advent of American-style zoning, which quickly evolved into total segregation of land uses and then into detailed rules that promoted and favored automobile use: insanely wide street widths, parking requirements, candlepower requirements for lighting in parking lots, etc.

 

Oh, and if you think all developments are ugly, take a drive through Ledgewood, a Bob Schmit development in Strongsville.  This is a perfect example of what I mean.  I actually think it's a great looking development, NOT ugly and styled in such a way as to try hard to incorporate nature as it existed before the houses were developed.  You have to pay quite a bit to belong to the pool and there are NUMEROUS and very specific restrictions in the by-laws and regulations which help prevent it from being an eyesore.  You can't put up a shed or cut down a tree without the whole development agreeing to it.  There is a limited amount of landscaping and maintenance that is done every year by the development, so it stays looking nice.  It's off the beaten path just enough that nobody would be driving through it that didn't specifically intend to be there.  Even in some other nicer developments we've looked in, you see some real problems in the neighborhood, like mounds of rusted junk in the front and back yard of certain neighbors, abandoned, rusted cars on blocks, garish/horrid outdoor decorating schemes that all bring down the whole street/neighborhood.  If the houses weren't all electric in Ledgewood, it would be a place we'd consider buying in.  I think it's a great example of a GOOD development.  What do you think?

 

It's not that they're necessarily ugly to me, new communities are just dull and boring to me. I brought up German Village. I don't think the lure of German Village is necessarily the houses - I mean, yeah, they're historic and unique to Ohio but I think it's more about how they let the neighborhood evolve. Like I said, the changing of uses. A lot of the businesses were at one time houses so they still fit in the urban context. Some of the houses have limestone stoops that are aged like tombstones. The brick looks used and isn't laid perfectly. The way the moss is superimposed on the brick sidewalk is something you notice. The trees are matured and everything is landscaped. The backyards are small and people do a lot of creative landscaping/gardening with the small space. Some even have small inground pools. And a lot of these backyards are visible from the street. A lot of the infill has garages, but they're small and better hidden. Just little things like that, you notice. You're always running into something new that you didn't notice before when you're walking through the neighborhood; a restaurant or the photography gallery for instance.

 

Nothing really catches my eye in any new development. Dull, boring and standardized. The only interesting feature my mom's subdivision has is a small lake. That's not a feature, that's just a standard solution to a site constraint lol.

 

---

 

I typed in the Ledgewood Strongsville development. Is it the new white houses you're talking about? I wouldn't raise a kid there. The sidewalks look like they're 2 feet wide and there's no buffer between the sidewalk and the street (for safety). I don't know why they even bothered. They could have just eliminated the sidewalk, saved money and reduced impervious surface at the same time. The street looks like it should be marketed to retirees, not families with young kids. I don't know if I'm looking at what you were talking about though.

Garages belong behind houses, period. Nothing is worse than an ugly, faceless garage door fronting the street. It looks like total ass, and tells you everything you need to know about the American value system.

 

Ditto with parking lots in front of strip malls, etc. Really, a lot of this could easily be better hidden. The entire attitude of the United States is cars before people. They can coexist in a coherent manner, it's just our populace doesn't want them to. Hence why I came to the conclusion many years ago that the United States is too fargone to save without massive government intervention forcing urban development (or hell, just development that doesn't look like ass). Americans like things that look like ass. I mean, damn, no offense to Paris Hilton (I do think she's hot), but she wouldn't be a role model in most other countries. She's sometimes just too trashy for her own good. Carry Paris Hilton ideals over into planning and architecture ideals. The tall slut with the fake blonde hair is hot, not the woman who is reliable and classically pretty. This is a nation of Paris Hiltons without the money, and Ashleys from "Rock of Love Bus" without the...ah, hell, I don't know, good stripper legs. We are a trashy people. It's time we face that and admit it. That's the first step in dealing with it. The problem is we run from our problems faster than a high school teacher after having sex with a student, and nothing changes.

 

This country never changes in any meaningful way unless a gun is pointed at our head. That's just the way we are. We're stubborn and have a superioity complex. No matter how idiotic our laws and zoning regulations have become, they're still the "best" simply because they're American. Even in this economic collapse, very few people see any benefit to denser, pedestrian-friendly living. People still hate the mention of Europe. The freedom fries mentality never went away. People are still offended when you attack our suburban culture. "Oh, you're so anti-American! Go back to Russia!" Most Americans still want suburban trash even though it's bankrupting us (just imagine what is going to happen during the next oil spikes). At their core, more people are like Ashley from "Rock of Love Bus" than anything else. They just don't have the guts to admit it on TV. The American dream has always been find a semi-permanent partner (though after much sleeping around and at a much older age these days), have a couple kids to vicariously live through, buy a slobbering overpriced pet that sh!ts on the floor, purchase an SUV (though now a smaller one at least), move into an overpriced house in the suburbs, and eat overpriced Columbus chain food not fit for that dog to eat (say Max & Erma's). Actually, the dog at least gets it. He's only there because he gets free food. All he worries about is the most logical way to survive. Humans, by contrast, are an exercise in illogic. It's not about logical survival with us. It's all about "status." We'll sink our entire nation if it means we get to look good in the eyes of others. Never mind we don't have money for a permanent military base in Iraq, it's probably happening one way or another. We've got to flex our guns so the Israelis think we're cool. Never mind we don't have money to maintain all these highways, suburban developments, and overextended utilties. We'll keep supporting it if it makes people overcrowded in China and India jealous of our way of life. The whole point of America is trying to look cool. What the hell is that? Who defines it? John McCain? Brad Pitt? Ann Coulter? Rihanna? Jesus? Steve Wilkos?

 

Our generation, David, is perhaps the first one to really question the suburban American value system on a large scale. Many of us are seeing the light, but that won't change anything. We're too broke to change anything. Change only comes from spending. Hardly any of us are in a position to spend. The 9/11 generation is perhaps the most throughly f$&ked generation in American history. That's why a doomer. Growing up in a trashy, prescription drug-addled, wannabe Perrysburg didn't teach me what was right with the world. It taught me everything wrong with the world.

 

Honesty, places like Anthony Wayne or Springfield Township sum up that disconnect between the Perrysburg ideal and the unfortunate reality of the people trying to emulate that wealth without having wealth. The people around me growing up didn't have money like people in Perrysburg, they just pretended they did. And guess what's happening now?? Foreclosures, foreclosures, more foreclosures, and now abandonment. People can only live a lie for so long...suburban America is the biggest lie of them all.

 

It's time to start all over. In a another year or so, we probably won't have a choice...keep warning people we need to change. It won't make you popular with the suburban folk, but someone has to say it.

 

I don't think garages only belong in the back of a house. There's a lot of different options. There's great urban infill with garages in the front but they're smaller. In the suburbs, the size of your house becomes a measure of status. The number of rooflines. A 2 car garage in the front of the house is a way of making the house look bigger at a cheaper price. Garages end up being dead space though. They serve no function other than storage. They might as well be basements since people end up parking on their driveway or on the street.

 

You're right about us not doing anything until sh!t hits the fan. You only have to look at Katrina to see that. That was the consequence of a decentralized government that we've been so focused on for generations. We want government smaller, we want the power to go to the states. We want to make our own decisions. It took the weakness of the federal government in handling Katrina for California to wake up and realize that numerous levees needed to be repaired because if disaster strikes, the drinking water is contaminated for everyone in a state that is the 5th largest economy in the world. No one gave a sh!t before then. Suddenly Bush cared.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/21/AR2009032102248_pf.html

In Va., Vision of Suburbia at a Crossroads

Targeting Cul-de-Sacs, Rules Now Require Through Streets in New Subdivisions

 

By Eric M. Weiss

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, March 22, 2009; A01

 

Virginia is taking aim at one of the most enduring symbols of suburbia: the cul-de-sac.

 

The state has decided that all new subdivisions must have through streets linking them with neighboring subdivisions, schools and shopping areas. State officials say the new regulations will improve safety and accessibility and save money: No more single entrances and exits onto clogged secondary roads. Quicker responses by emergency vehicles. Lower road maintenance costs for governments.

 

Although cul-de-sacs will remain part of the suburban landscape for years to come, the Virginia regulations attack what the cul-de-sac has come to represent: quasi-private standalone developments around the country that are missing only a fence and a sign that says "Keep Out."

I typed in the Ledgewood Strongsville development. Is it the new white houses you're talking about? I wouldn't raise a kid there. The sidewalks look like they're 2 feet wide and there's no buffer between the sidewalk and the street (for safety). I don't know why they even bothered. They could have just eliminated the sidewalk, saved money and reduced impervious surface at the same time. The street looks like it should be marketed to retirees, not families with young kids. I don't know if I'm looking at what you were talking about though.

 

Um, no, that's not it, Ledgewood was built in the 70s.  I don't like any new developments either.

 

 

I don't think garages only belong in the back of a house. There's a lot of different options. There's great urban infill with garages in the front but they're smaller. In the suburbs, the size of your house becomes a measure of status. The number of rooflines. A 2 car garage in the front of the house is a way of making the house look bigger at a cheaper price. Garages end up being dead space though. They serve no function other than storage. They might as well be basements since people end up parking on their driveway or on the street.

 

I know you say there are options, but you cannot tell me that you prefer this crap.......

 

 

 

to a stand alone garage.

 

 

[quote author=MyTwoSense link=topic=7292.msg379808#msg379808

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Umm yeah, can I order a triple garage with a side of house? Hold the ornamentation". Those just look ridiculous.

 

MTS you know me better than that. I think garages can work well in an urban context and even in subdivisions. What I think they need to do in subdivisions is put them in the basement with a rear entrance from the backyard. My cousin lives in a really nice Tudor home thats like that. Or they could put them on the side of the house - which is kinda common in upscale development. A garage can have aesthetic appeal just as any other element of a house. IMO the problem with garages in the first picture is that the garage seem to be a house of their own on the lower level. The cars are living better than the people. A house is to be inhabited by people, not 2-3 cars. The answer is 1 car garages. It makes no sense on collector roads because you can park on the street and you have a drivewa anyway. It's just unnecessary. They need to fit in better with the house in terms of proportion, materials, etc. I like the standalone garage you posted. The doors have depth and a pattern. It's a nice color. And I bet it fits reasonably well with the rest of the house. The other materials compliment the garage too.

 

Here are some great examples of reasonable garages in German Village:

 

This wouldn't work in a suburban environment but it looks great in an urban context. This is also what I meant about the insane mixture in GV.

 

 

Here's another garage in German Village. I don't know what that building was before. It's curious how one garage door is taller than the other. The building leaves a lot to be desired but I think the variation is interesting and the building probably looks better in the day time.

 

(thanks Columbusite)

 

 

Garage is in the front *Gasp* but hey it works. I doubt anyone is complaining.

 

 

Another picture of German Village for the hell of it (thanks Jeffrey)

 

 

Sorry I can't stop myself lol

 

Basi Italia is in a back alley in Victorian Village. Oh no, that's too chaotic. This should be in a commercial district. Can't have people walking through alleys and being surprised to see a top notch italian place! We prefer boredom in our neighborhoods.

 

 

 

I think R&R describes the prevailing thinking accurately.  This was never an unfortunate tick of zoning, it was deliberately created through zoning.  Commerce, and activity in general, are to be isolated and avoided.  People are too.  Subdivision dwellers want to pretend the outside world doesn't exist.  They're going for sterile and bland safe because they consider those to be virtues.  They're specifically rejecting diversity.  The answer to subdivisions and sprawl is psychological and it's really very ugly.

Commerce, and activity in general, are to be isolated and avoided. People are too. Subdivision dwellers want to pretend the outside world doesn't exist.

 

I disagree with this part.  They don't want to avoid "people" or "activity" they want to avoid having strangers racing through the neighborhood or having criminals come in from outside the neighborhood, or child molesters or whatever.  I do not see why this is "bad." 

 

Yesterday we looked at 8 houses in a variety of areas, all suburban, and it's really very different from place to place.  IMO you can't make sweeping generalizations that would apply to all suburbs any more than you could apply things to all urban areas.  In several neighborhoods we saw LOTS of people outside and interacting with each other.  Neighbors talking over fences, children riding bikes or playing with each other, basketball games in driveways, parents playing with their children, people doing yardwork, they weren't hiding in their houses at all.  But I do think sometimes it's hard to integrate some cultures and that's why they are less diverse than urban areas.  At one house, when we pulled up, an Arabic teenaged boy was shooting hoops in the driveway of the (vacant) house we were going to visit.  He glared at us when we pulled up and wouldn't move to let the realtor pull all the way in to the driveway.  We got out and all said hello and he slowly and sullenly walked back next door to where he lived.  He went inside and shortly several of his younger siblings all came to the window and stared at us.  I've never seen a group of small children look so stone-faced.  When we came out I waved to the kids who were still in the window and they just turned away.  Meanwhile, when we were looking at the roof from the front, 2 other kids from the neighborhood rode their bikes by and said hello as they passed.  I mean, it's a good thing we didn't like the house at all because who would want to move in next to that family?  Obviously not all Arabic families are like this, but it's this kind of cultural divide that can present a problem.  And it happens in the reverse as well.  Where we live now, the apartment complex is primarily Indian.  I would say it's probably 80% Indian.  There are some white people, a few blacks, a few Arabs, but not many of any other culture besides Indians.  The Indians glare at us with hostility.  When everyone is walking around the lake outside in the center of the complex, they refuse to move to accommodate you and share the track if you are walking or jogging the other way, though they move for other Indian families; you have to jog off into the grass and go around them if you want to go by them.  They never say hello and really keep to themselves. I don't mind having them as neighbors because they are largely pretty quiet and the complex has very low crime, but I wish it were a friendlier place.  So it's not just white suburbans that flock together.

Interesting observations.  That basketball kid sounds downright creepy.  I'm not so much saying subdivision dwellers don't go outside, but when they do it's to work on THEIR yard or to talk with someone very specific and do so over a fence.  These aren't necessarily bad things.  But they fall very short of having active common areas on every block, like a corner store or a park.  I consider those public activity nodes to be crucial.  Subdivisions consider them to be enemies.

I just think people want different things, and I don't see why that's bad.  The pictures that were posted above of German Village would just not be a place I would want to live at all, though I haven't been there to see it in person so it's hard to say for sure.  A lot of suburban parents DO socialize at a local park, and many are in walking distance.  I have been interviewing day care providers, many of whom are stay at home moms and all of them go to a local park with their kids all the time and see other people there from the neighborhood.  They have next door neighbors who watch their house when they're not home and pick up their mail, etc.  They socialize at the development's pool or recreational complex.  Just because they don't want a convenience store smack dab in the middle of the neighborhood, I don't see why that's bad?

I just think people want different things, and I don't see why that's bad... Just because they don't want a convenience store smack dab in the middle of the neighborhood, I don't see why that's bad?

 

It hinders the socialization of their children, it encourages too much driving and not enough walking/transit, and it uses scarce land resources in a wasteful manner.  I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard of someone casually driving 2 miles each way to Giant Eagle for a gallon of milk.  That really does hurt everyone.  There are perfectly good reasons for doing it sometimes, but to make it a way of life is just wrong.

R&R, I guess he's saying it's better for you to sit outside on the stoop because there is no other place to go when you live in an apartment in the city!  Better to have your kids hanging around doing nothing instead of running and playing in your yard in their bare feet!

Here's something I don't get about the traditional developer driven suburb--large front yard.  Who uses the front yard if you have an equally large back yard?  Why not move the houses much closer to the street, add nice front porches and still leave about 5-10ft or so of setback for a nice garden or landscaping in the front.  You then create potential interaction between the houses and the street.  You can talk to neighbhors on their porch without yelling up to them or going onto their property, and you make it more walkable by moving the buildings closer in (I don't know why that is the case but it is). 

 

Then you can either cut down the total size of the subdivision or double the size of the backyard and have it be the same size.