I live in Manhattan with two small children in 500 Square feet with no car. Thick community is everywhere. Through work friends. Through the kids. My 4 year old daughter's school is a 5 minute walk. Her best friend is one block. The central park zoo and natural history museum and central park carousel and unlimited playgrounds are all walking distance and all provide unlimited family opportunities and chances to get to know other parents. You could choose an isolated existence to excess here if you're not thinking or you can just enjoy a bit of solitude in small amounts. This sort of housing development described in this article sounds like hell to me. Thick community would be so much more difficult.
I really enjoyed this piece. As someone with kids who lives in an inner ring suburb - that doesn't look like the place for me. BUT, I would absolutely consider it! We chose to live where we did to be close to family, even tho our jobs are at the other end of the Bay, and then looked for a house that was close enough to the train station to make our commutes easier. We accidentally happened upon an "urbanist" lifestlye before we knew that word existed. True. living in the exurbs does have its disadvantages - but as far as exurbs go, at least this one seems a bit more conveniently designed? It probably wouldn't be my first choice no matter what - but it would certainly be something I'd consider.
In regards to urbanism and family, I think there's a fundamental disconnect in the way we talk about these places, as you sometimes allude to. Having grown up out in the middle of nowhere, I fully get why folks don't see big downtown city life as conducive to raising a family, even if that is ultimately untrue (and something we've, as a society, forgotten the experience of).
The trick is, there are more options than just these sterile suburbs, which I honestly also couldn't imagine raising a family in. I right now live in a small town on the very very outer edge of the Chicagoland area. Not at all in a place that can be called a big city. But also nothing like these modern suburbs. It's a proper small town. I think it would be a great place to raise a family (still working on getting there myself, since it is, unfortunately, not a great place to meet women), for the very fact that it's a small town and not just suburban sprawl (although we have plenty of that, too).
I think to get the family folks on board, we need to learn to better emphasize that point. Just like a stroad is neither a street or road, a sprawling suburb is neither a city nor a town. We need to separate the concepts of towns and suburbs, because they really are different.
My bent is always to divide the issue into preferences and incentives. You make a good case for this looking like a bad set of preferences. But I'm an economists will always come back to the incentives: the disincentive of land use and building codes that make family friendly urbanism difficult. If THOSE things changed. probably there would be less demand for Brunswick Crossing. [As for it becoming a fiscal drag, that can be fixed by utility connection fees, pricing & taxation.]
I’m glad you’re asking the question, what is so bad about it? Aesthetics and housing costs aside, what might incentivize people to move to suburbs? Is it such a mystery? Having space for multigenerational caregiving, whether raising children or caring for aging parents. Some people value having a garage for hobbies such as woodworking, yards for gardening or maybe they want pets. Even those closely packed houses offer better sound proofing than many apartments, in which you hear every argument, every thud, every vibration from stereos.
Do urban environments facilitate building community? Pretty sure I’ve heard people express the exact opposite, enjoying the anonymity of the big city versus the tightly knit (sometimes suffocating?) small town life where everybody knows everybody else’s business. Any modern environment can be isolating, whether suburban, urban, rural. Probably more a result of our collective decision to outsource traditional dependencies on friends, acquaintances, and family, in favor of rapid/simple economic exchanges with strangers to meet needs. Also, some people are naturally just more social than others. What you feel is suburban isolation may be another person’s peace and quiet.
I know people value the urban environment, its shops, restaurants, and other amenities. It’s no mystery to me. Likewise, it should be no mystery why some people value suburban environments. There are many good arguments for denser housing and weighing the true costs of suburban development. I am interested in those issues. But it would be helpful if urbanists acknowledge that reasonable people can weigh the pros and cons, and end up choosing the burbs. It's not so bad.
I grew up in Frederick County, when it *was* boondocks. At least it was far enough from the city that the Montgomery County kids called us "frednecks."
There's much worse developments around here than Brunswick's. Villages of Urbana is particularly frustrating for me, with so much within walking/biking *distance*, but the built environment being mostly hostile to moving between places without a car.
At least in Brunswick you *can* walk between, say, the Marc station and the Weis (or anything in town between them) without walking alongside, or crossing, Burkittsville Road. In Urbana the places you might want to get to are in seven or eight pieces divided by traffic.
I live in Manhattan with two small children in 500 Square feet with no car. Thick community is everywhere. Through work friends. Through the kids. My 4 year old daughter's school is a 5 minute walk. Her best friend is one block. The central park zoo and natural history museum and central park carousel and unlimited playgrounds are all walking distance and all provide unlimited family opportunities and chances to get to know other parents. You could choose an isolated existence to excess here if you're not thinking or you can just enjoy a bit of solitude in small amounts. This sort of housing development described in this article sounds like hell to me. Thick community would be so much more difficult.
Love the whole piece but this is particularly beautiful:
“Urbanism is a set of tools that makes it easier to cultivate ties and build relationships”
I really enjoyed this piece. As someone with kids who lives in an inner ring suburb - that doesn't look like the place for me. BUT, I would absolutely consider it! We chose to live where we did to be close to family, even tho our jobs are at the other end of the Bay, and then looked for a house that was close enough to the train station to make our commutes easier. We accidentally happened upon an "urbanist" lifestlye before we knew that word existed. True. living in the exurbs does have its disadvantages - but as far as exurbs go, at least this one seems a bit more conveniently designed? It probably wouldn't be my first choice no matter what - but it would certainly be something I'd consider.
In regards to urbanism and family, I think there's a fundamental disconnect in the way we talk about these places, as you sometimes allude to. Having grown up out in the middle of nowhere, I fully get why folks don't see big downtown city life as conducive to raising a family, even if that is ultimately untrue (and something we've, as a society, forgotten the experience of).
The trick is, there are more options than just these sterile suburbs, which I honestly also couldn't imagine raising a family in. I right now live in a small town on the very very outer edge of the Chicagoland area. Not at all in a place that can be called a big city. But also nothing like these modern suburbs. It's a proper small town. I think it would be a great place to raise a family (still working on getting there myself, since it is, unfortunately, not a great place to meet women), for the very fact that it's a small town and not just suburban sprawl (although we have plenty of that, too).
I think to get the family folks on board, we need to learn to better emphasize that point. Just like a stroad is neither a street or road, a sprawling suburb is neither a city nor a town. We need to separate the concepts of towns and suburbs, because they really are different.
My bent is always to divide the issue into preferences and incentives. You make a good case for this looking like a bad set of preferences. But I'm an economists will always come back to the incentives: the disincentive of land use and building codes that make family friendly urbanism difficult. If THOSE things changed. probably there would be less demand for Brunswick Crossing. [As for it becoming a fiscal drag, that can be fixed by utility connection fees, pricing & taxation.]
I’m glad you’re asking the question, what is so bad about it? Aesthetics and housing costs aside, what might incentivize people to move to suburbs? Is it such a mystery? Having space for multigenerational caregiving, whether raising children or caring for aging parents. Some people value having a garage for hobbies such as woodworking, yards for gardening or maybe they want pets. Even those closely packed houses offer better sound proofing than many apartments, in which you hear every argument, every thud, every vibration from stereos.
Do urban environments facilitate building community? Pretty sure I’ve heard people express the exact opposite, enjoying the anonymity of the big city versus the tightly knit (sometimes suffocating?) small town life where everybody knows everybody else’s business. Any modern environment can be isolating, whether suburban, urban, rural. Probably more a result of our collective decision to outsource traditional dependencies on friends, acquaintances, and family, in favor of rapid/simple economic exchanges with strangers to meet needs. Also, some people are naturally just more social than others. What you feel is suburban isolation may be another person’s peace and quiet.
I know people value the urban environment, its shops, restaurants, and other amenities. It’s no mystery to me. Likewise, it should be no mystery why some people value suburban environments. There are many good arguments for denser housing and weighing the true costs of suburban development. I am interested in those issues. But it would be helpful if urbanists acknowledge that reasonable people can weigh the pros and cons, and end up choosing the burbs. It's not so bad.
I grew up in Frederick County, when it *was* boondocks. At least it was far enough from the city that the Montgomery County kids called us "frednecks."
There's much worse developments around here than Brunswick's. Villages of Urbana is particularly frustrating for me, with so much within walking/biking *distance*, but the built environment being mostly hostile to moving between places without a car.
At least in Brunswick you *can* walk between, say, the Marc station and the Weis (or anything in town between them) without walking alongside, or crossing, Burkittsville Road. In Urbana the places you might want to get to are in seven or eight pieces divided by traffic.