I'm not sure I'd limit those 15-minute suburbs to the older, denser, filled-in communities you mention. The Jersey burb where I grew up, like many, was mostly farmland until suburbanizing in the 1950s and becoming a turnpike exit. But everything (doctors, churches, schools, banks, movie theatres, library, whatever) was a 15-minute-or-less drive. Heck, the place was barely 15 minutes from end to end. The issue with these suburbs isn't so much the lack of amenities within 15 minutes but the quality of them. There are restaurants, but few good enough to be worth coming from even the next town over. There are art galleries, if you like mall art. There are the supermarket chains, but no serious butchers or bakers. Etc.
True. The last bit is also true, although for most people it probably makes little difference. Even those bland places can be tweaked to be safer for walking and biking if we care to do so.
Sure, to a point. There is a natural limit to how much walkability can be achieved, though, since there is a minimum density required for anything to be conveniently walkable to anything else and that level of density is contrary to the whole idea of these places (in addition to the zoning codes). Aesthetics also drive behavior: people are fine with a ten-minute walk through a park or tree-lined street, but nobody is going to take a ten-minute walk from one parking lot to another one. As you've pointed out several times, the closest you'll get to a walkable downtown is the shopping mall or Walmart.
Biking is another matter, though frankly these types of suburbs are already pretty accommodating to bikes. The car traffic on the residential streets is light enough to let kids bike around unsupervised, which is perhaps more than can be said for any metro area in the United States in 2024. Even the main arteries for the most part are so gratuitously wide that you can bike on them without feeling threatened by the passing traffic. I'd say cities have vastly a lot more work to do in tweaking themselves for safe biking than suburbs do.
Love this quote: "Urbanism to me isn’t a subset of environmentalism or a question of social justice, at least not primarily. It’s about making people’s time more pleasant and productive, our mobility easier and safer. And above all, it’s the belief that Americans deserve beautiful and lovely places to live in, every day."
and also the part about dead time in the car is so true - nobody plans for time parking, or walk from the parking lot, and we always round down (such that even a 20 min trip is "just 15 minutes" or sometimes even "ten minutes.")
But I think the key is that there are so many suburbs - not even close in ones, but exurbs where 3 housing developments are all adjacent to a strip mall at a big intersection - that can be made safer to walk and bike to tomorrow as a first step. And as a second step when there are vacancies in the strip mall, it can be redeveloped into housing, and other small businesses can have space on the corners of the intersection some ten years down the road. You've immediately got a nice little main street area that serves those housing developments - a grocer, a barber/salon, a coffee shop a small hardware store - and you've got the start of something. A bus stop, an urgent care and a post office? And it's a bona fide town.
I live a mile from my fave grocery store. While traffic can be maddening at rush hour, it's never been just as fast to walk than drive. It's never close.
I grew up in a very old-school walkable suburb but I noticed the residents still get out the pitchforks and battle every new townhome/apartment/hotel proposal in the little “downtown” area.
To your point about making urbanism more appealing, I’d say we have an appealing urbanism: those new luxury apartment buildings going up in major cities. The opposition to them comes from the fact that they *are* appealing, which is why they have high prices; they’re conveniently located, well-designed and obviously help create 15-minute cities. 15-minute neighborhoods appeal to a large part of the market, which is why they fetch high prices.
I really love the idea of avoiding cars! I despise driving! I would especially love to be able to walk everywhere. I wouldn't say the bus or metro are "convenient" in this area. They tend to take a lot longer than driving too! I just can't justify twice (or more) the commute time over driving. Although, those denser urban areas (you mention Arlington, VA) where you could walk or scooter everywhere - where driving may even be a detriment - may be prohibitively expensive to live. So that $10,000 yearly saved on a car may go toward rent for the convenience of living in a dense urban area. And, I dare ask, what about everyone else who can't afford to live in those expensive dense urban areas? I'm guessing there will still be those awful cars for those less fortunate... and I get the very slight impression that the urbanists want to essentially punish those living outside of their urban environment by making it harder to access their environment (e.g. the reduced off street parking). Although being a dense urban area is already detrimental for driving I suppose!
I'm not sure I'd limit those 15-minute suburbs to the older, denser, filled-in communities you mention. The Jersey burb where I grew up, like many, was mostly farmland until suburbanizing in the 1950s and becoming a turnpike exit. But everything (doctors, churches, schools, banks, movie theatres, library, whatever) was a 15-minute-or-less drive. Heck, the place was barely 15 minutes from end to end. The issue with these suburbs isn't so much the lack of amenities within 15 minutes but the quality of them. There are restaurants, but few good enough to be worth coming from even the next town over. There are art galleries, if you like mall art. There are the supermarket chains, but no serious butchers or bakers. Etc.
True. The last bit is also true, although for most people it probably makes little difference. Even those bland places can be tweaked to be safer for walking and biking if we care to do so.
Sure, to a point. There is a natural limit to how much walkability can be achieved, though, since there is a minimum density required for anything to be conveniently walkable to anything else and that level of density is contrary to the whole idea of these places (in addition to the zoning codes). Aesthetics also drive behavior: people are fine with a ten-minute walk through a park or tree-lined street, but nobody is going to take a ten-minute walk from one parking lot to another one. As you've pointed out several times, the closest you'll get to a walkable downtown is the shopping mall or Walmart.
Biking is another matter, though frankly these types of suburbs are already pretty accommodating to bikes. The car traffic on the residential streets is light enough to let kids bike around unsupervised, which is perhaps more than can be said for any metro area in the United States in 2024. Even the main arteries for the most part are so gratuitously wide that you can bike on them without feeling threatened by the passing traffic. I'd say cities have vastly a lot more work to do in tweaking themselves for safe biking than suburbs do.
KL, come with my on a visit back home. This is not my suburban experience. Plenty of restaurants worth going to, butcher shops and bakeries.
Love this quote: "Urbanism to me isn’t a subset of environmentalism or a question of social justice, at least not primarily. It’s about making people’s time more pleasant and productive, our mobility easier and safer. And above all, it’s the belief that Americans deserve beautiful and lovely places to live in, every day."
and also the part about dead time in the car is so true - nobody plans for time parking, or walk from the parking lot, and we always round down (such that even a 20 min trip is "just 15 minutes" or sometimes even "ten minutes.")
But I think the key is that there are so many suburbs - not even close in ones, but exurbs where 3 housing developments are all adjacent to a strip mall at a big intersection - that can be made safer to walk and bike to tomorrow as a first step. And as a second step when there are vacancies in the strip mall, it can be redeveloped into housing, and other small businesses can have space on the corners of the intersection some ten years down the road. You've immediately got a nice little main street area that serves those housing developments - a grocer, a barber/salon, a coffee shop a small hardware store - and you've got the start of something. A bus stop, an urgent care and a post office? And it's a bona fide town.
I live a mile from my fave grocery store. While traffic can be maddening at rush hour, it's never been just as fast to walk than drive. It's never close.
I choose to walk for other reasons.
I grew up in a very old-school walkable suburb but I noticed the residents still get out the pitchforks and battle every new townhome/apartment/hotel proposal in the little “downtown” area.
To your point about making urbanism more appealing, I’d say we have an appealing urbanism: those new luxury apartment buildings going up in major cities. The opposition to them comes from the fact that they *are* appealing, which is why they have high prices; they’re conveniently located, well-designed and obviously help create 15-minute cities. 15-minute neighborhoods appeal to a large part of the market, which is why they fetch high prices.
I really love the idea of avoiding cars! I despise driving! I would especially love to be able to walk everywhere. I wouldn't say the bus or metro are "convenient" in this area. They tend to take a lot longer than driving too! I just can't justify twice (or more) the commute time over driving. Although, those denser urban areas (you mention Arlington, VA) where you could walk or scooter everywhere - where driving may even be a detriment - may be prohibitively expensive to live. So that $10,000 yearly saved on a car may go toward rent for the convenience of living in a dense urban area. And, I dare ask, what about everyone else who can't afford to live in those expensive dense urban areas? I'm guessing there will still be those awful cars for those less fortunate... and I get the very slight impression that the urbanists want to essentially punish those living outside of their urban environment by making it harder to access their environment (e.g. the reduced off street parking). Although being a dense urban area is already detrimental for driving I suppose!
just clicked through to Resident Urbanist, and yikes, the amount of AI art there just makes me uncomfortable.