apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I don't live in a suburb, but I do live in a green point-rated home, so if it can be done in a city, it can be done in a suburb.

Times are changing. Perhaps more people will not have the need to work in a city center and will not have the need to commute long distances to work.

Or, commuter train systems will become more efficient at moving bodies to and from the city.

Another thought--Whole Foods (big green business) is opening their second largest location in the world in Chicago soon. Guess how many parking spaces they will have? 400. 400 parking spaces for a grocery store smack dab in the middle of the most ridiculously traffic laden sector of the city (North/Clybourn) There are so many stores in this area and everyone drives to them. There is no parking space on the street, so everyone drives from parking lot to parking lot. There are not enough parking spaces for everyone so people circle parking lots and idle while waiting for parking spaces to open. I would like to see the emissions put out during a typical day in this small sector of the city.

I think all communities can be environmentally responsible. All it takes is good planning. Or less reproduction (that is just an observation not a suggestion).

I would say badly-planned suburbs are the problem, not suburbia in and of itself. And as art points out, it's not like cities are car-free wonderlands.

There is room in the world for a variety of lifeways. The suburbs have a role to play, and it's not just that of "villain."

(Regarding city car emissions) I had a professor once give some statistics found on the emissions of city drivers simply looking for a parking spot (looping blocks, idling). I wish I could remember the actual stats, but I do remember having to pick my jaw off the table.

But back to the suburbs - I agree with Kate, its the poorly planned suburbs. One detail that often irks me most is the lack of green space and trees. You can find pictures of massive "grey" towns, with all the identical houses completing the maze with their large drive ways, 5 feet of grass and the occasional sapling.

Suburbs can be relatively green; consider the DC suburbs like Silver Spring or Takoma Park which are small cities in their own right and yet serve mostly as bedroom communities for DC workers. The metro for commuting plus walkable basic amenities make them far less car dependent than stereotypical suburbs.

In many metro areas, the jobs are actually moving to the suburbs, leading to urbanites getting in cars and reverse commuting, a trend described here-- http://features.csmonitor.com/economyrebuild/2009/04/06/job-migration-to-suburbs-an-unstoppable-flow/

McMansions, no sidewalks, poorly designed traffic patterns, distances to schools/groceries/jobs etc are the real anti-green of suburbs. All solvable by good urban planners and architects.

I must agree that uber-planned/identical/ stepford suburbia has its downside...car-centric. I understand the reason people move out of the city center (expensive. growing family). All that being said, transportation should be planned for the population that moves out of the city center. I live in an area where the majority of folks are very fond of their cars, and the buses tend to be under-used out to the suburbs/to the city center. (we currently have no true commuter train system) My community is now considered "suburbia" but it really functions on its own, and was established LONG before urban sprawl swallowed us up! We are nearly 20 miles from the main downtown area, and most folks rarely venture out this far, even though we have a lovely, thriving "suburban oasis" out here. Very walkable and bike friendly.

I guess I understand the appeal of 'quite suburbia' and I'm sure there are good suburbs out there, but the ones I've seen are always full of cookie cutter houses and labyrinths of culs-de-sac because everyone wants to live on a quite little street. Which makes it harder to find the one of the two entrances to the community, and you can't bike or walk anywhere because there is nothing within biking or walking distance, and a lack of sidewalks.
I personally will never live in one.

a great example of this is prairie crossing, a "conservation community" in illinois. everyone is car dependent.

hmmm...wondering about that Prairie Crossing development.

The state is constantly setting aside forest preserve land. So, it sounds like this is just a community that is selling itself as a "conservation community" (whatever that means) because it happens to be amongst already preserved property.

The community that I grew up in has just had property deemed preserve so it cannot be touched. But the community is just a town, not something more esoteric like a conservation community.

It's interesting to see how green marketing works on all levels.

Some of you have mentioned the plight of "badly-planned" suburbs. While that's true, how many well-designed suburbs have you seen been developed as of late? Suburbs used to be nice little urban villages that complemented a city's downtown. Today they're just places to live.

In general, suburbs built in the 1950s and on have been poorly planned. Suburbs aren't necessarily bad. The first commuting communities were known as "streetcar suburbs" as they had public transportation, so you could afford to live a little bit out of town without necessarily needing a car.

But things have changed. Public transportation is just now coming back. Today's suburbs consist of cookie cutter McMansions with cul de sacs that are a lot less efficient that the traditional grid streets of 100 years ago.

Sure, you can build a green home in the suburbs. But it's pretty much pointless when you have to drive everywhere to do things, not to mention the loss of resources involved in these sprawling new developments. These two elements offset each other so the earth-friendly house doesn't really have an effect on its surroundings.

The neighborhoods of 100 years ago are a lot greener than today's suburbs: they promoted transit, walking, and biking. Streets were laid out in a grid pattern and weren't as wide as they are today, and if people did live in suburbs, they either lived close to the city or had small business districts within their neighborhoods so they didn't have to ride into town to get groceries or to go shopping. Everything was just there. Until suburban planners realize that, people will continue to live in areas that aren't as good as they could be. I'm not disputing that suburban life might be pleasant for some people. But I just think there's something better out there.

Will this whole argument become moot when cars no longer burn fuel?

I'm amazed at people who think the land of cul-de-sacs and separated land uses is "safer." The chances of your teenager dying in a car accident must go up exponentially when they have no other way to get around town.

There are options between the dense urban core and the rural, large-lot subdivisions. First-ring suburbs, streetcar and other rail communities, still offer the walkability of urban areas, and allow backyards and off-street parking. Why everyone thinks they need 1000sf per family member, 3-car garages, and 3 acres of grass to mow twice a week is beyond me.