Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Thomas C. Meggs" <tom AT plik.net>]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Parker, David X wrote:

> poster child of New Urbanism, comes to mind) or are simply an excuse by
> developers to pack more homes into a smaller area.

It's not an excuse, it's what builds communities. Right now you live in a
box, and then get in a box, to drive to a box, to work in a box, to look
at a box. For many office workers its entirely possible to wake up and go
to work without having a single human interaction.

> I read a book once that decried suburban development and touted New
> Urbanism. (Can't remember who wrote it.) The author claimed that the suburbs
> bankrupt people's souls, or words to that effect, but he had no way of
> backing up the claim. The suburbs as they now exist do cause environmental
> problems because people have to drive everywhere, but the fact is that most
> people who live in the suburbs have chosen to live there and are perfectly
> happy living there. Experience in my own neighborhood has shown me that

Suburbs exist because people can drive everywhere, they don't cause more
driving. The only thing that makes them possible is the automobile.

> people would prefer not to have their homes so close to the street, would
> prefer not to live ten feet from their next door neighbor, and would prefer
> to have a nice big back yard for the kids to play in. I don't even see that
> many people walking on the one sidewalk that runs through our neighborhood,
> so it may be that they're perfectly happy driving everywhere, too.

The street isn't a bad place if there isn't dangerous traffic. Living ten
feet from your neighbor isn't terrible if you know them. Part of New
Urbanism layouts is to have a common green area. Personally I don't like
the way Southern Village is laid out. I don't like how the road in
surrounds that massive open area and seperates it from the houses (Correct
me if I'm wrong, I've only been there once, a while ago, at night). I
think the houses should be built in a square around the green area, and
cars should be on the outside. And it needs some nice land scaping.

> I live in the suburbs but I don't like everything about it. It really
> bothers me that most neighborhoods don't have sidewalks. I especially don't
> like the restrictive covenants (though I understand the reasoning behind
> them). My wife and I sometimes feel like we're bohemians trapped in
> bourgeois-land. There are plenty of things we would like to do with the
> house and yard, but the restrictive covenants won't let us. Then again,
> Seaside has restrictive covenants, too.

Suburbs don't have side walks because all that's important is driving in
and out. People who develop suburbs don't care about making them livable,
they care about getting basic accessibility in, running some utilities,
maybe builiding a few houses, and selling it all off. The bottom line is
profit. Sidewalks are an added infrastructure expense which don't have a
pay off. All that matters is that cars can get in and out.

> New Urbanism is a great idea, but the movement won't gain strength unless it
> can be made affordable, the developers truly adhere to it in more than name
> only, and a major change in attitude take place among the general
> population, which probably won't happen for a very, very long time.

Unfortunately, agreed. It occurs to me though one thing that really has
been bothering me more and more lately. That people don't act out their
beliefs.

This is a good question for Matus. We all have a lot of great thoughts and
ideas.  But how come we are all so apathetic to not make them happen?

> Thanks for listening.

No problem.

>
> - Dave P.

Regards,
Tom