this is not a place of honor.
no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here
nothing valued is here.
You're not allowed to do what our parents and grandparents did on the burbs. Which was run around like holligans causing a ruckus.
This, where I live hanging out consists of sitting in a taco bell parking lot or fishing. None of my friends or I can afford a boat for fun stuff on the water and besides that's only applicable in the summer. There is quite literally nothing to do for teenagers/kids, because if we tried anything that would cause a ruckus we'd have the cops called on us.
pfft play basketball? There's nowhere to play. Hell the county is so corrupt they didn't even make the developers follow their own contracts, so we don't have sidewalks
Maybe a bit too close to the heart with this one :deeper-sadness:
this is the urban planning that funded the top podcast on patreon
That's not just suburbs. I've lived in one of Russia's "sleeper communities" or whatever you call them. Twenty-stories appointment buildings as far as the eye can see, like fifty thousand people packed as densely as humanly possible, yet absolutely fuck-all to do because there's nothing but grocery shops as far as business and entertainment go. I guess the big difference is there's public transportation so a kid can take a hour long ride to the city out of that hellhole.
Those were built to be temporary housing until socialist city planning could take place. They ended up just staying though.
I'm talking about Post-Soviet ones.
The ones build in Soviet times are better because the big cities weren't yet that huge so those "sleeper districts" build on the outskirts of the city are much closer to city center than the ones that are currently being built. Also the soviets baked more infrastructure into them, but I suspect much of it has been sold to the highest bidder after the Fall.
Also the ones that were supposed to be temporary are called Khrushchevkas and are up to five stories tall. Most taller ones build after were supposed to stay.
Naw, it's cause landlords own apartments so they aren't maintained and they're either old or built for as cheap as humanly possible. Of anything it's the inverse where white flight to the suburbs left mostly poor and POC people in the city apartments which led to apartments being made shittier and maintained less and the trend just kept going.
Like they'd do anything at all to encourage home ownership even negative reinforcement. It's just racism and hating poor people being given a nice profit margin once again.
Eh. Soundproofing apartments isn't cheap. Every apartment building I've lived in build in Soviet Russia or in post-soviet Russia had walls thin enough that the neighbors would annoy the shit out of you if they're noisy.
in communist russia, housing was boring, soulless, and unimaginaitve!
What could be more depressing than capitalist architecture?
Those gardens look very open. Do Americans have something against hedges, fences and privacy?
Chain link fences are common around me for suburban borders. No privacy but also no communal lawn.
No, most people with kids/pets will get them and you can see many actually do have them in the pic; but absent those things it's usually not worth the money and you wait for your neighbors to build them around you.
(specifically look at the row of houses directly beneath the text, it looks like all of them have their own fenced in yards there)
Most of those places in the pic have wood slat privacy fences. Pretty common in this style of burb.
Ends up looking like shit in five years after the soil shifts a bit.
My brother just got a house in a place with a HOA. They say he has to build a fence 3 feet back from his property line, could be some shit like that. Or they're expensive, so you only get them to keep your dog from running off or to keep kids from attractive nuancing your pool
That is why we need to move there and start forming commie culture clubs in our garages :p
try squatting a mcmansion. you can hide from the cops, but you can't hide from the HOA
Glenda goddamn I hate it when you let the property value minimaxing algorithm design my cities in the Sims
This is honestly fine. I don't live in a community like this but this type of urban planning is not really a bad thing. A lot of people want to trade living around the corner from a bodega for a bit of garden and quiet, and there's really nothing wrong with that and you aren't progressing the cause by shaming people who want it.
The problem (not shown in this picture) is when you build such communities without good public transportation or walkability to neighbourhood resources such as parks, community centres, grocery stores and schools, thereby forcing everybody to go anywhere in a big car.
These types of communities are inherently car-centric though, and that’s terrible.
They're not inherently car-centric. They may often be built in a car-centric way but this is a picture of a few blocks of houses - this kind of housing is perfectly compatible with good bus/train service and safe bike routes.
Can you point to any examples of this type of urban planning that aren’t car centric?
Regardless, it’s not practical to house large amounts of people like this. Providing public transit to a suburban sprawl is far more costly than high density. And don’t even get me started on lawns.
Can you point to any examples of this type of urban planning that aren’t car centric?
I actually can, and I say this as a suburb hater
https://www.lonelyplanet.com/articles/broendby-haveby-denmark-from-above
I’m seeing a lot of automobiles there though.
Why would you expect them not to have cars? Like, it really doesn't matter how walkable the place they live in is, people with some basic financial stability are probably gonna have cars or bikes.
They need to tear down internal hedges
Why?
I don't really understand this reply, like, the fact you can see cars in the picture of the Danish town doesn't mean it isn't walkable or doesn't have good PT. There seems to be a little bit too much space between the houses and, you know, perhaps it is far from a city so who knows, it may really not be walkable, but just seeing cars isn't evidence of that. People won't give up their cars as long as they can afford them even if they live in a very walkable community. There may be more people who chose to do without them but you'll still see many, many cars. They may just drive less. There's many reasons why they may want to still have cars even if the community is walkable/has great PT.
You don’t need cars if you’ve got good public transport networks.
Good public transport will greatly reduce need to drive and poorer/younger people will opt to not buy cars yet. But even in places with stellar PT wealthier and older people have cars, because they're always gonna be far more convenient in some situations. For instance, maybe you don't want to change between buses over and over. Or maybe your knees hurt and don't want to be standing up in a crowded bus/subway. Or maybe you are a woman and you want to avoid getting sexually harassed by creeps. Or maybe the weather is shite and don't want to be outside waiting for buses. Or maybe you want to go somewhere outside the city. People here sometimes overestimate PT and think it is a silver bullet where if PT is good enough then no one will want to have a car any more. That is not the case, it's just that they will use them far less, and specific groups of people will opt to not buy them, but it's not gonna be many of the people who are comfortable or above.
Small and narrow individual gardens are ugly and claustrophobic; a large communal ‘village green’ would be prettier.
No they're not. Small gardens are fine. People want their privacy. They're not comfortable with neighbours being able to see every side of your house and yard.
Oh yeah totally but that model of neighborhood could totally be used in a carless urban or suburban environment
I don't know about the history of these places or anything I just think this circular design greatly increases the efficiency. I should have just linked the pic
This isn't sprawl, or if it is the photo doesn't show that it is. This is literally just some small, densely packed homes and you can find examples of these kind of homes across the world that are close to train lines.
These homes are neither small nor is what is pictured in any way densely packed. Like not even for a suburb unless you go by purely by post robert moses north american standards
Anti-arbitratily dividing workers with culture war bullshit on chapo.chat
This isn't a picture of shit urban planning, it's just a picture of some (relatively densely built) homes. If you think everybody with a yard should be sneered at I really don't know what kind of movement you think you're going to build.
suburban sprawl
"densely built homes"
lmao. an endless sea of single-family detached homes isn't dense housing. return to reddit, kid
No, this is bad
The problem (not shown in this picture) is when you build such communities without good public transportation or walkability to neighbourhood resources such as parks, community centres, grocery stores and schools, thereby forcing everybody to go anywhere in a big car.
That...is absolutely shown in the picture
I mean it looks nice and bikeable but how do you get anywhere when it rains? Snows?
Bikes aren't really public transit, either. They're just not cars. How does public transit access this?
It's like four blocks of homes. Good and functional public transit doesn't mean doorfront train stations for everyone, but there's literally no reason to think this community isn't a 25 minutes to an urban centre by transit.
You can definitely see pictures of wasteland that is very clearly are just endless sprawl connected by highways, but this is just some homes lol.
I mean I'd expect to see at least one bus stop if this is truly part of comprehensive transit network. Not that buses are optimal anyways...
The community is clearly designed around the automobile. I don't think anyone here is opposed to decent sized houses and easy access to grass under your feet. But this is not the way.
It is bad if you're trying to use land efficiently. Everyone can't have a bit of garden. You could fit all those people into vertical space and then add community gardens of which everyone can participate. The neighborhood would be quiet if it weren't for cars. Other than that, you're going to get people talking and dogs barking even in the yards pictured. Also 100% willing to bet this community is not within walking distance of parks, schools, grocery stores, etc. These types of subdivisions are built all over, even half an hour or more away from some of those things. It's built off a collector or near an arterial connection that will take you to a stip-mall or huge parkinglot shopping center.
Sounds like you got booty blasted about people insulting yards and you're just being super contrarian.
Everyone can’t have a bit of garden.
Not everyone is going to want one, either. I for one like living on an elevated floor because you get fewer bugs coming inside. And I think all the other problems you described are solvable.
We're talking about whether or not it is good planning. I specifically replied to this:
I don’t live in a community like this but this type of urban planning is not really a bad thing.
It is bad planning. I wasn't making a moral judgement that having a yard makes you a bad person. Or you're land aristocracy if you have one. It's bad design and okay to criticize regardless.
There are people who live in places like this, like it and value it. This post is 100% sneering at their way of life.
No one is sneering at your parents or cousins or whomever has you personally invested here. We're sneering at the way of life that we have lived in and know to be flawed, which is valid.
Furthermore, that way of life (as it currently exists) is bad for society and the planet.
I think there will be suburban environments "after the revolution," but they won't look like this.
It's like the fucko who got booty blasted about people making fun of cape-shit movies.
Like no, no, it doesn't matter that they are gigantic propaganda pieces for capitalism, fascism, sponsored by the state department to depict the military/cops in a certain way, etc. What's important here is I'M ALLOWED TO LIKE WHAT I WANT AND THERE IS NO VALID CRITICISM OF ANYTHING BECAUSE MUH PERSONAL CHOICE
Suburbs are inherently less efficient than denser planning. Cost per person of basically all infrastructure and maintenance doubles or more compared to denser housing. Electricity lines, gas and water piper, paving roads, internet cables. All of these thing serve fewer people and inherently cost more.
What's your point? Literally nobody should ever have a yard?
Do you see how small and close together these homes are? These are the homes of workers. That some workers live in detached homes isn't the problem with the world - keep your eye on the ball.
These are neither small nor close together? Are all your neighbours Mr Moneybags or smth lol
That some workers live in detached homes isn’t the problem with the world - keep your eye on the ball.
I don't think anyone's saying it's the only or anywhere near the biggest problem with anything. But what do you think our eye should be on?
Honestly that is a problem that greatly contributed to the death of the American left.
i'm gonna use my witch powers to turn all these boxes into solar-powered treehouses
I would too if I lived in a desolate wasteland like that
