Are suburbs bad for the environment?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ne4me. Show ne4me's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]Suburbs vs. city life is really a matter of different strokes for different folks. People who like the suburbs or the country will pay whatever it costs to live there. People who like city life will put up with crime, noise, and crowding to avoid dealing with a car.[/Quote]

    I fully agree with the different strokes part. But for people who like city life: Crime is not much of an issue in most parts of the city. Noise and crowds make life fun. Mostly, cultural opportunities and intersting human diversity drive people to live in cities. Avoiding cars is a bonus, not the driving force (so to speak).

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from princess-cal. Show princess-cal's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    I love living in the suburbs and wouldn't have it any other way.   All of you "urbanites" can enjoy  your city, and I'll enjoy my suburbia!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fms. Show fms's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    I would consider moving to the city -- if that's where the jobs were.  Unfortunately, in my industry, the jobs are scattered across Rtes 128 and 495.  Sadly, the commuter rail hasn't caught up with that concept.  Nor have they caught up with the concept that maybe people might need to drive to the stations.  I-495 station in Littleton parks -maybe- 15 cars, unless they have updated it in the last 5 years or so.  We've got this nice hub road bringing possible commuters to the commuter rail spoke, but no place for them to park when they get there.  Makes no sense.  I would LOVE it if someone were to build a commuter rail that ran the length of I-495, with stops at every interchange (another the length of 128 would make sense, too).  I could bike to the station and ride the train to work.  There was discussion of just such a thing about 10-15 years ago, but such talk seems to have disappeared.  There is now discussion around a possible link between the Worcester and Fitchburg lines, running from Worcester to Fitchburg, but that doesn't do anything much for the 495 commuter.  Even a commuter bus line around 495 would be an improvement!  I can't afford to move closer to my job (housing prices near work are exorbitant), and I can't afford to leave my job to take something closer to home (nothing nearby in my area of expertise anymore).  But I do have 3000 square feet of vegetable garden in my back yard, so I can minimize trips to the grocery store (minimum round trip 10 miles, given where the nearest grocery is to our house), and my husband's office is close enough to home that he can walk if he needs to.  I'm driving an 11-year-old car that gets better gas mileage than the majority of the vehicles on the road today, and it's already paid for...

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BoDubya. Show BoDubya's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    dear suburbanites - please stay put.  you won't like it in boston. it's noisy - i will not turn my tv down at 9pm. it's smelly - i'm going to grille up a storm with a cloud of smoke every night this week. it’s dirty – yes that guy is peeing right on your front steps.  it's dangerous - i bumped your car, that's why they have bumpers. you gotta problem with that. 

    i paid $5.60 for a small ice coffee and a croissant today - and you want to move to the city to save money.  whaaaaa?

    please stay home - you'll just complain and complain and complain until someone throws a brick through your window. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bynxers. Show Bynxers's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    I agree with Princess Cal- to each his/her own. I enjoy living just outside the city because I get the best of both worlds.  At the end of the day- when I was younger I was a HUGE supporter of urban living and lived in many other cities in both the US and  Europe.  However- I realized something once I moved to Boston, urban cheerleaders just don't seem to understand that by  deifying  places  like Boston and San Fran, etc. they don't realize that these are cities that really ONLY cater to the wealthy and poor when thinking about serious new growth or planning initiatives. There is a very strong reason why  so many people live in the suburbs- and that's because urban living doesn't address a single major concern or need of  a  typical  suburban household.


    If developers only build luxury condos and 40B housing, thats a pretty clear message to young mom and dad with 2 kids and 2 dogs, isn't it?  Furthermore, urban planners don't seem to realize that this  overbearing and constant  trend of trying to enforce "new urbanism" don't realize that this basis and love of the so called streetcar suburbs and community core living was a very short period in american history between the downfall of travel by horse and the innovation and adoption of the automobile. This period of time in the late 1800's and early 1900's lasted 20 years and planners seem to be fighting very hard for it to be a permanent fixture in our society. Two decades is awfully short to be trying to come up with permanent doctrine.


    In the end, I just think that planners need to grasp that in order for a successful urban fabric to function- you need ot be as inclusive as possible and 40B and luxury condos ends up excluding the largest portion of the population. I don't believe America will ever experience suburban slums on the level that Paris does because there is a large chunk of our population that will always continue to want to live in these communities. In fact, I can think of many right here in Massachusetts where people in MetroWest or the North or South Shores Ahbor the thought of going into Boston.  Urban elitists will call them suburban soccer-moms or uncultured buffoons, just as much as people in these communities call urban dwellers gang-bangers, blue-bloods, or trendy yuppies. 


    Everything in moderation, nothing in excess.... we need the suburbs to be happy and healthy as much as we need the city to be vibrant and world class. No one seems to focus on the REAL threat of the decline of rural communities and its impact on our agriculture.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from hot-tomato. Show hot-tomato's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]I thought this was a free country? What business is it for anyone to tell someone that living in the suburbs is bad or that living in the city is no good? It is for everyone to decide for themselves where they want  to live and to hell with the environmentalist watermelons that want to tell everyone else how they should live.[/Quote]

    I think you missed the boat on this conversation. No one is saying don't live there, the question is just does living there have an adverse effect on the environment.

    I think it's not so much the suburbs as it is the suburban way of living. It's the kind of mentality that says "I have to keep my gigantic trophy lawn as green as possible and to hell with all the environmental watermelons."

    When I moved from the city to the burbs I noticed a huge difference in the kinds of cars I saw around me: small cars like Civics in the city, a preponderance of gigantic SUVs in the burbs. It's like OMG we have so much space out here, we should supersize everything!

    It's a trade off. I just think that folks who live in the suburbs need to be aware of the ways they adversely affect the environment through driving everywhere, using chemicals on their lawns, having huge energy sucking homes, etc., and act to offset that. The same is true for people who live in the city.


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mistergman123. Show mistergman123's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]

    Building the 'burbs' was the single biggest waste of resources ever dreamed up. In order to buy mik you need to drive 10 miles

    [/Quote]

    Not true.  I live in the 'burbs and everything I need is only a few minutes away.  Don't like it - don't live there.

    [Quote]

    We exported our manufacutring base to the Chins and replaced it with home building trades. OK folks, whos' bright idea was this?

    [/Quote]

    That would be Bill Clinton.  He signed that God-awful trade agreement with China.  Anoyone with a clue called it a bad idea and a one-sided deal that was not in our best interest.  But it was signed anyway and look what happened - a HUGE trade deficit with China.  We send them raw materials, they send us computers, DVD players, etc.  Great idea.

    [Quote]

    The airline industry which destroyed the rail in this nation is itself being destroyed, yet there's no rail service.

    [/Quote]

    A superior method of transportation supplanted rail travel.  Trains suck.  Ever try taking a train from Boston to LA?  I would rather fly and so would many others.  Rail service would make sense if the surrounding cities and towns were designed around it.

    And Amtrak is a joke - all subsidies for this disaster should be ended IMMEDIATELY!  If Amtrak can't compete, go out of business!  Stop bleeing the taxpayers dry!

    [Quote]

    We're a nation that responded to 9-11 by telling people to buy duct tape and traskbags and to Hurricana Katrina we didn't even bother to respond.

    [/Quote]

    The victims of Hurricana (sic) Katrina had ample warning to get out.  Many did.  But the big problem was that the local government failed the people of New Orleans!  They knew about the potential for disaster for years but did nothing!

    As an aside, even though there is massive flooding and devastation right now in the Mid-West, notice how there are no reports of muggings, murders, or lootings.  Odd.  I guess these folks are too busy trying to take care of themselves to misbehave.

    [Quote]

    I just hope the entire economy just fails so we can divide the nation into regional areas, nationalize certain industries, energy, water, health care insurance, etc. and get back to being a first claas nation. Right now we're starting to resemble Zibabwae.

    [/Quote]

    We are nothing like Zibabwae (sic) and that analogy is so stupid it makes my brain hurt.   Your Socialist Utopia has been tried many times and has been proven (over and over) to be a dismal failure. 

    We need true capitalism and a laissez-faire government.  We need the return of personal responsibility - don't count on the government to take care of you, take care of yourself.  We need smaller government and more personal freedom. 

    The Federal Government should have far less power than it does.  But you can thank your Liberal Supreme Court justices for that.  The Feds are only entitled to those powers explicitiy listed in the Constitution, all others revert to the states.  At least that's how it's supposed to work.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from WardC. Show WardC's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]check your facts.  Dorchester, Rozzie, JP, and West Roxbury are all neighborhoods located within City of Boston limits, and are not suburbs of boston. [/Quote]

    They were suburbs before they were annexed to Boston. Here's an interesting book on the subject:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=baxaVyCKzqYC&dq=%22streetcar+suburbs%22&pg=PP1&ots=Ip30HguYVf&sig=9V4AakcmpQf_PBR-HIwJFdQQiCk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from J1aN. Show J1aN's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    Are you kidding ?  Cities are practically the definition of pollution and environmental degradation.  And I would estimate anyone living in the city probably shortens their life by 10 years.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BoDubya. Show BoDubya's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]Are you kidding ?  Cities are practically the definition of pollution and environmental degradation.  And I would estimate anyone living in the city probably shortens their life by 10 years. [/Quote]

    silly.  burbs = fat people.  fat people = death.   

    what - do you think us urbanites drink out of the charles and heat our homes with coal?  you ever even been to roxbury? 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ne4me. Show ne4me's posts

    Are suburbs bad for the environment?

    [Quote]Are you kidding ?  Cities are practically the definition of pollution and environmental degradation.  And I would estimate anyone living in the city probably shortens their life by 10 years. [/Quote]

    Wow, it sounds like you have not visited a city in 75 years.

    While it is true that cities cause more environmental degradation than suburbs per square mile, cities have far less environmental impact per person. Cities simply function more efficiently than suburbs do.

    And people have compared longevity in cities vs. suburbs: https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/23149/1/V086N4_144.pdf

    The bottom line? Suburban longevity was about 9 years better in 1930. In 1980, it was only 2 years. Given that Boston in 2008 is far safer than in 1980, I would guess that city longevity has now surpassed suburban longevity, especially if you adjust for socioeconomic status.

    Many Boston suburbs are great places to live, and city living has challenges for people accustomed to suburban life. But as energy prices rise, cities and near suburbs become a relatively better value. Recent, relative changes in home values bear this out.
     

Share