Brookline, North Carolina

Good question.

Reminds me of a story linked on CR--perhaps someone else can find the post--of the terminally bored teenagers in a new "luxury" subdivision whose one and only social outlet was hanging out at the local grocery store.

New housing is built to be sold, not lived in--hence the two-story entryways that cost a fortune to heat but deliver the requisite "wow!" moment to buyers. Same is true of entire communities, which are designed to promise safe suburban bliss during the tour with your realtor, even if they offer nothing to the families who actually live there other than high gasoline bills and meth addictions.

I don't think there's much to be surprised about here. In most parts of the US, public transportation is an afterthought or not considered at all. In areas of the country with few restrictions on development and few constraints on using space for parking, there are almost no incentives to develop effective public transportation. That might change in the next decade if transporation costs continue to increase more rapidly than wages, but for now, housing in much of the country is developed with the idea that a house is a private retreat rather than an integrated part of a larger community.

This post and the last one raise quite a few questions about housing, transporation, and how communities are planned. Even in Boston, where public transportation is available and widely used, changes in the way people work and the way people commute will pose significant challenges for workers, transportation systems, and developers. Workers change jobs frequently, so few workers can count on a stable commute over a ten or fifteen year period. Moreover, many commuters are moving in the off-peak direction (city to suburb) or bypassing the city altogether and commuting suburb to suburb, and the MBTA currently isn't designed to accomodate those commuters. That means that areas that have access to major interchanges that allow rapid access to multiple highways might become more desirable than those that have ready access to a single route; it also means that commuters may be less likely to find suburbs with commuter rail access attractive because suburban employment destinations are often inaccessible by rail.

I don't really know much about how North Carolina is developing, but if jobs are diffusely located in suburban areas rather than concentrated in downtown areas, it's not all that surprising that housing is following a similar, diffuse growth pattern, but that means that it's not trivial to develop a "streetcar suburb," when commuters are going in so many directions.

I think it does point to a tremendous challenge for developing and upgrading public transportation in the 21st century: how do you move commuters from not just from point A to point B, but from points A, B, and C, to points B, D, and E?

Brookline never looked so good

clwho, you raise an interesting point but overlook the obvious. People live and work in all sorts of places that make no sense whatsoever unless you assume cheap gasoline.

Admittedly, metro Boston's public transportation is in sore need of an update--you can't even get from Cambridge to Brookline without a detour to Park Street, much less find an efficient bus or train route from Newton to Burlington. And it is absurd that a town like Arlington can say no to the Red Line without paying a hefty tax hike to neighboring towns for carrying Arlington's excess traffic.

However, we may never be able to provide public transportation from anywhere to anywhere. Rising transportation costs mean housing, commerce and industry are going to have to locate along an existing infrastructure, just as they did before the now-departed era of dirt-cheap gas.

The building of subdivisions that require people to drive to everything boggles my mind, but that is typically how it is done here in the US, especially in the West. Do towns and counties have no vision or foresight? That is the only thing that makes sense to me.

On visiting Orlando, FL a few years ago, I made sure to drop by the "town that Disney built", called Celebration, FL. I have to admit, I was impressed. A beautiful town center with lots of walking paths and wetlands, many types of housing done in colonial, victorian or craftsman style, small efficient lots, well landscaped. It reminded me of Arlington and Lexington, except for it was brand new.

Unfortunately, they didn't have street cars :). It's still Florida, after all.

As a transplant from the Midwest, I know all to well that "new" construction is cheap and without character, with a disposable quality about that comports with the contemporary view of things, including the environment. As soon as that house starts falling apart, we'll just get another in a new suburb. Unfortunately, we will not be able to buy a new environment. While we haven't had enough time to adapt to high gas prices, I am glad that higher gas prices will force us to become more logical and practical about our communiting habits and living situations.. at least, maybe, someday. And the sense of broader community besides the two people you'll talk to on your cul-de-sac? Non-existent. It's all about choices, though, and I love being in a real, non-contrived, inner ring T-acessible burb w/ a sense of community.

After three years of living in Brookline, all I had to show for it were three burglaries, (more than the number of people who knew my name). My brother in Charlotte, on the other hand, has been made to feel a part of the community and has made wonderful friends after moving there from the Boston area. If "cachet" is synonymous with "expensive", I guess we are worth emulating. Given the smug nature of some previous posts, maybe they just like the architecture.

and let me guess, this phony baloney development will be built on former farmland?

I can't wait until foreclosures start taking place, and squatters start moving into the abandoned houses. Good times!

I live in the NC, and lived for years in Brookline. It always surprises me the pace at which we tear down what's inherently southern just to replace it with things from other parts of the country. Yet, when people move here they want a taste of the south. They want magnolias, and biscuits, and that elusive hospitality...things of which are quickly vanishing. I truly believe our developers and urban planners should build on the old southern neighborhoods and way of life instead of emulating other parts of the country. Our problem is our state is being destroyed by urban sprawl, and the malling of america that took place in the 70s and 80s. The old neighborhoods and towns that worked here are gone. The factory and milltowns, where you lived where you worked and shopped. There are only a few old NC towns that had what Brookline has. Asheville, Chapel Hill, Wilmington, and surprisingly Durham. Durham has never been malled over, still has old bungalow neighborhoods, stores, bars, restaurants, ballparks. Raleigh is trying to create a downtown urban environment, but fact is we're addicted to our cars, we are used to driving miles for groceries, even to neighboring cities just to get a bite to eat. We're not a centrally oriented society here, and to simply adopt the ideas of other areas I believe is a mistake. Brookline works because of many things, but it took decades to make it what it is. I'd love to see my state's visionaries be just a little more original. Leave Brookline in Brookline and build neighborhoods that are appropriate to our region and history. Of course, imitation is the best compliment, something like that? And to Marcus, there's always the 66 bus. Not as sexy as the trolleys but it'll get you to Harvard SQ faster than the Green Line.

God help us. Another Brookline in the South.

I'm a NC native who used to live in Allston. I used to love cruising through Brookline by foot or train... and yes, it's dissapointing that my hometown (just north of Charlotte) does not provide the same opportunities!

However, Charlotte is a growing city and we just got our first tramline (yay!), and the city is planning to expand the "lightrail" system even further. Maybe mass transit isn't such a dream for Charlotteans anymore.

As to why people choose these gated, inaccessible housing developments over the "real thing," well it has to do with the cost of living, the weather, the job market, diversity, and basically just breathing room. No, it's not the real thing but Brookline (and other mimicked cities) should be flattered that natives and transplants in Charlotte want a piece of their town!

Anyone gotta slice of the Upper Crust or a pastry from Mike's that they're willing to ship down here? :-) I miss yall!

Will they have an Anna's?

I live in a charming, nearly unspoiled Southern town in northern Louisiana, that still has a downtown, a coherent town center, and decent old houses (for here, old = 1880s). The locals have no appreciation for any of it- they all drive their jacked up trucks to the Walmart on the edge of town, build Capes and split-levels in gated neighborhoods, and whoop about the brand new Applebees, while the restaurants downtown that serve actual Southern cuisine can barely keep their doors open. Southerners have no appreciation for their own culture.

Here near Raleigh, NC, we have immense developments (thousands of homes each) named Bedford (which fondly reminds me of parts of Roslindale near the Arboretum) and Wakefield (which reminds me of, well, Wakefield), that has a TPC golf course. Wakefield even comes with its own namesake elementary, middle and high schools, which only adds to the status attraction.

When I first moved here, I also moved into an apartment complex that had recently changed its name to include Berkshires.

I don't know if it is because Massachusetts towns have such appeal, or if it is to capitalize on name recognition for the many, like me, are moving here from up north.

My best memory of Brookline is the Coolidge Corner T-stop. It resembles like a classic small-town train station. I remember thinking the T stop would make a nice movie setting.

Being from the midwest and after having lived in other areas of the U.S., I can understand the desire for new development.... or newER development. No septic systems? No oil heat? Public water and trash pickup? What a dream! Not having to drive 3 towns over for a good restaurant or a home improvement store because your town doesn't want to build anything new?

I see that MA is quaint and has held onto it's history, and that is appealing. At the same time, there's a fine line between tradition and resistance to change. When there are other places (like Charlotte) that aren't resistant to change, they grow both in jobs and population. It's scary to me that the Boston area keeps losing people due to cost of living and that companies that have entertained a move to the area have opted to move other places (like NC).

Bottom line on the Brookline development in NC? Take it as a compliment, why argue about why Brookline, MA is better than a Brookline development in Charlotte? There are people that will enjoy living in both places, and they will both be great - neither one is better than the other!

Perfect idea. Let's build another housing development to further flood the already saturated US housing market. And let's build it far away from jobs and public transportation in a time when oil is $118 a barrel and gas is on it's way to $4 a gallon. Better yet, by the time this development is built, oil will probably be $200 a barrel and gas will be $6 a gallon and US home prices will be down another 20%.

Brilliant!

Like most of the people here I prefer high-density walkable communities, and believe there is an undersupply of such places. I want to do all I can to encourage more people to live in these areas. However, a bit of critical thinking reveals that the problem is not caused by builders or by consumers, but rather by the people that live in high-density areas already.

Let me explain. Have you noticed how expensive Brookline, or Cambridge or downtown Boston are? Have you noticed how little new construction is going up in these areas (relative to the suburbs)? Well those things go hand in hand. Builders build where they are allowed to. Consumers buy where they can afford to. Well guess what? When a builder tries to put up housing in Brookline or Cambridge or Boston he is faced with reams of restrictions and zoning limitations that only serve to drive up prices. In the suburbs the builder can buy a plot of land and put up 20 homes with relative ease. Downtown the same development requires years of permits, fees, restrictions, “community input”, and more.

If you are REALLY a progressive, pro-density proponent, you will support development in downtown areas. Yes, this means more construction in the downtown areas you love. This is not hard to understand, but it does require a bit of open-minded thinking outside the normal political party line.

If on the other hand you are in favor of sprawl and gas-guzzling suburban towns, keep supporting the status quo. Keep pretending that restrictions on development downtown are about the “quality of life” downtown, when what you mean is YOUR quality of life, not that of society overall.

Regardless, please stop pretending that the fact that more people don’t live downtown is the fault of the greedy builders or the selfish consumers. It's not. It's the fault of YOU, the wealthy downtown dweller who has got yours and doesn't want anyone else to have the same.

For those I am unjustly accusing, I apologize. But I generally see rampant hypocrisy on this issue. People are all too willing to point fingers and bad, bad builders in the suburban South, and all too unwilling to consider their own role in our current situation.

I would like to see a Brockton in Arkansas I would move there in a heartbeat.