Family-Oriented Urbanism/Suburbanism

[DominusNovus]

I was reading the recent book “Family Unfriendly” by Tim Carney, about how much of society is oriented in such a way to make raising families more difficult than it needs to be. He spent some time discussing how suburbs that are too car-centric are particularly difficult, despite the suburbs being the traditional place for American families for the past century or more. I’ll note that he is particularly right-of-center, so this is not the typical urbanist arguing against sprawl. He was basically arguing in favor of more walkable suburbs with some mixed use.

Around the same time, I came across an interesting juxtaposition. The MBTA’s density mandate (15 units/acre) lines up with a typical density for townhouses. Meanwhile, supposedly the fertility rate for people living in townhouses is almost the same as for people living in detached homes (note that I’m having trouble actually isolating that data, but its supposedly in the 2021 American Community Survey, and I'll note that I found mentions of this data online that showed slightly different but very similar numbers).

It seems that there is an opportunity here for interest groups that do not normally converge to find common ground. There could be a specific focus in urban design (or, more accurately, suburban design) that focused on creating family-centric communities. These would also look about 80% like what urbanists often want communities to look like. I’m not personally certain what would make the most sense. I'm fully aware that we cannot simply assume that correlation means causation - in other words, you can't just assume that a town that gets a bunch of townhouses built will see lots of families, nor can you assume that a young couple that buys a townhouse will start a family.

As a starter, I would suggest just building as many sidewalks as possible, and building as many townhouses (not multi-family developments, but still denser single family developments - mixed use is still certainly an option) as possible. Infill old strip malls, particularly if they're on main drags, would be a good starting point. I know this is nothing revolutionary, but if there's just a simple upgrading of underperforming properties like strip malls (or office complexes or regular malls), I think a lot of popular goals could be achieved. And, quite frankly, I'd suggest that a development of townhouses is more likely to look nice and fitting with the general character of New England towns than your typical 5-over-1.

 

[Charlie_mta]

Whatever density or housing type is developed for families with children, nearby open space and diverse use is essential. Playgrounds, public swimming pools, and supervised indoor activities such as boys/girls clubs, etc. need to be placed within safe walking distance, but are often absent in today's profit-driven residential developments. Mixed use development (residential/commercial/retail) is also a good thing, It breaks through the monoculture than can develop in purely residential neighborhoods, plus it reduces the amount of driving motorized vehicles to jobs, shopping and essential services. All of these open space and diversity of use elements should be required in residential development for everyone, regardless of family or child status, but ii is particularly important for children. Of course, this requires courage of elected officials and zoning boards, as well as public awareness and activism, to stand up to powerful and moneyed interests trying to maximize their return on investment, as well as standing up to government entities stuck in the "car is king" paradigm,

 

[DominusNovus]

Whatever density or housing type is developed for families with children, nearby open space and diverse use is essential. Playgrounds, public swimming pools, and supervised indoor activities such as boys/girls clubs, etc. need to be placed within safe walking distance, but are often absent in today's profit-driven residential developments. Mixed use development (residential/commercial/retail) is also a good thing, It breaks through the monoculture than can develop in purely residential neighborhoods, plus it reduces the amount of driving motorized vehicles to jobs, shopping and essential services. All of these open space and diversity of use elements should be required in residential development for everyone, regardless of family or child status, but ii is particularly important for children. Of course, this requires courage of elected officials and zoning boards, as well as public awareness and activism, to stand up to powerful and moneyed interests trying to maximize their return on investment, as well as standing up to government entities stuck in the "car is king" paradigm,

I pretty much agree. I will say that, especially in the suburbs, you're not going to break the 'car is king' paradigm.

I'd like to use the neighborhood I grew up in (in Chicopee, for reference). It was your typical suburban neighborhood, of the sort that was laid out in the interwar years and built up in the 1950s. No sidewalks, and a loose grid-ish layout. However, though it could technically be used as a cut-thru between two main streets, it wasn't really practical to do so. Therefore, though there were no sidewalks, it was extremely walkable and bikeable for kids. And the main streets I mentioned were properly sidewalked (could have been better, of course). I could walk or bike to almost every single typical amenity one would generally want to visit (elementary school, high school, church, bank, park, playground, public pool, barber, hair salon, multiple convenience stores, restaurants, and plenty of local offices like law firms and insurance agents). Chicopee is not an extremely dense suburb and my part of town was not the densest part of it.

Like I said: this is about the suburbs and finding common ground with the people that still want the option to drive everywhere - but would like more things within reasonable walking distance. Thats why my initial suggestion is just 'more sidewalks.' Few people are going to object to that (especially if towns splurge and do nice sidewalks).

 

[Charlie_mta]

I pretty much agree. I will say that, especially in the suburbs, you're not going to break the 'car is king' paradigm.

I'd like to use the neighborhood I grew up in (in Chicopee, for reference). It was your typical suburban neighborhood, of the sort that was laid out in the interwar years and built up in the 1950s. No sidewalks, and a loose grid-ish layout. However, though it could technically be used as a cut-thru between two main streets, it wasn't really practical to do so. Therefore, though there were no sidewalks, it was extremely walkable and bikeable for kids. And the main streets I mentioned were properly sidewalked (could have been better, of course). I could walk or bike to almost every single typical amenity one would generally want to visit (elementary school, high school, church, bank, park, playground, public pool, barber, hair salon, multiple convenience stores, restaurants, and plenty of local offices like law firms and insurance agents). Chicopee is not an extremely dense suburb and my part of town was not the densest part of it.

Like I said: this is about the suburbs and finding common ground with the people that still want the option to drive everywhere - but would like more things within reasonable walking distance. Thats why my initial suggestion is just 'more sidewalks.' Few people are going to object to that (especially if towns splurge and do nice sidewalks).

I'd also add bike lanes and multi-use paths to the mix, and developments that have a mix of residential, commercial and retail, and even pockets if industry. One of the worst aspects of post WW II suburban development was the residential-only character of SFH subdivision development. In contrast, I grew up in North Cambridge in the 1950s and 60s, in which literally every kind of service, amenity, and shopping was within walking distance, with also some light industrial mixed in. I loved it. It was a neighborhood full of life, adventure and people who knew their neighbors and the folks running the neighborhood businesses. Maybe suburbia can eventually be redeveloped into that kind of model, all oriented around transit and active transportation.

 

[DominusNovus]

Maybe suburbia can eventually be redeveloped into that kind of model, all oriented around transit and active transportation.

I have to continue to push back on this. My proposal isn’t “how can we turn the suburbs into north Cambridge.” Like I said: 80% of what urbanists want.

Let me put it this way: if the various suburbs just did that bare minimum I listed above of adding more sidewalks and redeveloping failing strip malls, with nothing else. Would that be bad?

 

[Charlie_mta]

I have to continue to push back on this. My proposal isn’t “how can we turn the suburbs into north Cambridge.” Like I said: 80% of what urbanists want.

Let me put it this way: if the various suburbs just did that bare minimum I listed above of adding more sidewalks and redeveloping failing strip malls, with nothing else. Would that be bad?

That would be a giant step (no pun intended) forward. Also, electric bikes and bike lanes will be a big factor in cutting down on auto-centricism.

 

[DominusNovus]

That would be a giant step (no pun intended) forward. Also, electric bikes and bike lanes will be a big factor in cutting down on auto-centricism.

I think the places to create less car-oriented environments are the satellite cities, rather than the suburbs. I think suburbs are going to remain car-centric, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be more walkable.

 

[kdmc]

Fully agreed @DominusNovus . I'm somewhat of a militant urbanist when it comes my local area (S Medford / Somerville) but I would be advocating much differently if I were back where I grew up in suburban CT. Particularly, I'd be fighting for more+better sidewalks, places to lock bikes, and relaxed zoning for some MFH and mixed use. Bike lanes would be awesome one day in the future, but honestly, I think suburbia is so car-centric today that bike lanes would end up being a waste of money and a catalyst for anti-urban resistance. Hating cyclists on the road is popular; hating pedestrians, not so much.

Speaking of people who are hard-to-hate, you know who loves biking and walking around suburbs? Middle and highschoolers, especially ones without their licences (which are more and more every year)! If I were a suburban selectman, I'd shout a lot about making the town more bikable and walkable so that teens can safely put down their games, get ouside, see friends, and exercise. Sneakily, the same improvements that'd help teens would also help anyone of any age who wanted to move around the town without a car.

The best thing about this sort of urbanism-lite advocacy is that it doesn't need to be partisan or evoke the "culture war" (blegh). Liberals like safety and inclusivity, conservatives like grit and self-sufficiency... we should all be able to agree on making towns better places for teens to exist, right?

 

[Stlin]

Let me put it this way: if the various suburbs just did that bare minimum I listed above of adding more sidewalks and redeveloping failing strip malls, with nothing else. Would that be bad?

Isn't at least the first half of that basically a prerequisite of any state funded road project these days, what with Complete Streets, safe routes to school, etc?

Also, at least here in MA I'd argue that a decent chunk of our suburban towns, unlike places further west, have good walkable town centers, thanks largely to being historical. While it isn't intentional, the effect is the same as what you're talking about moving towards? We should be encouraging pedestrian, cycle access to places like that, and fewer strip malls. Part of it though is still density though - you need to be close enough to one of those town centers to make the decision to walk or bike vs drive.

(I'd argue that strip malls are no longer failing as a class - I think they've proven more successful in the current retail climate than indoor ones. - see all the new market basket anchored ones out in places like Westford, Maynard, Littleton and Hudson)

 

[RandomWalk]

There needs to be an ability and willingness to do a Richfield Coliseum on fallow properties.

 

[jklo]

(I'd argue that strip malls are no longer failing as a class - I think they've proven more successful in the current retail climate than indoor ones. - see all the new market basket anchored ones out in places like Westford, Maynard, Littleton and Hudson)

I hate those. I guess it's successful because of MB but I just don't like the design.

 

[DominusNovus]

Fully agreed @DominusNovus . I'm somewhat of a militant urbanist when it comes my local area (S Medford / Somerville) but I would be advocating much differently if I were back where I grew up in suburban CT. Particularly, I'd be fighting for more+better sidewalks, places to lock bikes, and relaxed zoning for some MFH and mixed use. Bike lanes would be awesome one day in the future, but honestly, I think suburbia is so car-centric today that bike lanes would end up being a waste of money and a catalyst for anti-urban resistance. Hating cyclists on the road is popular; hating pedestrians, not so much.

Speaking of people who are hard-to-hate, you know who loves biking and walking around suburbs? Middle and highschoolers, especially ones without their licences (which are more and more every year)! If I were a suburban selectman, I'd shout a lot about making the town more bikable and walkable so that teens can safely put down their games, get ouside, see friends, and exercise. Sneakily, the same improvements that'd help teens would also help anyone of any age who wanted to move around the town without a car.

The best thing about this sort of urbanism-lite advocacy is that it doesn't need to be partisan or evoke the "culture war" (blegh). Liberals like safety and inclusivity, conservatives like grit and self-sufficiency... we should all be able to agree on making towns better places for teens to exist, right?

Agreed 99%. The 1% is… in what world are adolescents hard to hate? I kid (a little

But yes, I was looking at this through that same lens of avoiding the culture war. If there’s one thing I can’t stand about discussions about policy (particularly online), its the tendency that, if someone extends an olive branch on any issue where there might be some common ground… the other side is more likely than not to say “thanks for coming an inch toward our side, time to go the full mile!” (try advocating that mass transit and highways can be complimentary rather than mortal enemies)

Isn't at least the first half of that basically a prerequisite of any state funded road project these days, what with Complete Streets, safe routes to school, etc?

Also, at least here in MA I'd argue that a decent chunk of our suburban towns, unlike places further west, have good walkable town centers, thanks largely to being historical. While it isn't intentional, the effect is the same as what you're talking about moving towards? We should be encouraging pedestrian, cycle access to places like that, and fewer strip malls. Part of it though is still density though - you need to be close enough to one of those town centers to make the decision to walk or bike vs drive.

(I'd argue that strip malls are no longer failing as a class - I think they've proven more successful in the current retail climate than indoor ones. - see all the new market basket anchored ones out in places like Westford, Maynard, Littleton and Hudson)

I’m mainly thinking of your smaller strip malls - the sort that can’t fit a major grocery store, as a rule of thumb. But yes, redeveloping indoor shopping mall is also a great idea.

One problem there is that it tends to be “just build a 5-over-1 ‘luxury’ apartment complex where an anchor store used to be,” which I don’t think is the best approach. In addition, for shopping malls, there is also the problem that they’re generally disconnected from the rest of the towns in which they reside. Usually near a highway, and some major divided roads.

What I like about redeveloping the smaller strip malls is that it is much easier to connect them to the rest of the walkable parts of town. Its also easier do it incrementally and, if there’s a few still-viable and valued businesses, space could be made for them in the new development. For example, say there’s a popular family-owned restaurant in a near-dead strip mall (we all can think of examples). To help smooth things over with the locals, the developer could make sure they get a sweetheart deal on commercial space in the new development.

And your point about walkable town centers is exactly what I’m looking at expanding. Take any town center… there’s going to be a mediocre (at best) strip mall along one of the main streets going out of it. If that can be redeveloped, you’ve basically extended that town center.

 

[HenryAlan]

Also, at least here in MA I'd argue that a decent chunk of our suburban towns, unlike places further west, have good walkable town centers, thanks largely to being historical. While it isn't intentional, the effect is the same as what you're talking about moving towards? We should be encouraging pedestrian, cycle access to places like that, and fewer strip malls. Part of it though is still density though - you need to be close enough to one of those town centers to make the decision to walk or bike vs drive.

Yes, there are dozens of examples of this, but in almost every case, there is a state route/highway passing through the center. And that one road, which is the only connection to the next town center just a few miles away, is often extremely anti-pedestrian and anti-bike. I'd argue that's really the biggest problem for non-car mobility in our suburbs. You can live walking distance to the town center, and do local trips by bike or on foot, but only the most dedicated and intrepid folks will walk or bike to the next town. That's a big problem. I will bike dozens of miles anywhere within Boston and the surrounding urbanized area, but I find biking in the suburbs to often feel extremely uncomfortable.

 

[kdmc]

You can live walking distance to the town center, and do local trips by bike or on foot

Even local trips into town can suck.

Growing up, I lived <1mi from the town center. A 15 minute walk from the park, ice cream, a comic book store, coffee, grocieries, restaurants; another 15min walk to school. Everything you could want as a kid and then as a teen. The only problem was that a 45mph (read: 65mph+) rural route without sidewalks was the only connection. You could risk your life walking in the shoulder, or wade through dirt and tick-infested weeds along the road. So, I mostly stayed home.

Only since I've moved away and "gotten into urbanism" have I realized how awesome it would have been to have sidewalks.

 

[HenryAlan]

Only since I've moved away and "gotten into urbanism" have I realized how awesome it would have been to have sidewalks.

I grew up in a suburb of Los Angeles in the 70s and 80s, and was completely shocked when I moved here to learn that sidewalks were not so common in the suburbs. LA might be reasonably criticized for its medium density sprawl, but I could walk and bike places pretty safely. There were even bike lanes on many of the busier streets. And while I did drive places in my later teens, it was certainly not a challenge to get around on my own before I had a license. The bus system was adequate, and the bike and walking options were fine. The only real problem was that most destinations were farther away than they needed to be.

 

[Charlie_mta]

I grew up in a suburb of Los Angeles in the 70s and 80s, and was completely shocked when I moved here to learn that sidewalks were not so common in the suburbs. LA might be reasonably criticized for its medium density sprawl, but I could walk and bike places pretty safely. There were even bike lanes on many of the busier streets. And while I did drive places in my later teens, it was certainly not a challenge to get around on my own before I had a license. The bus system was adequate, and the bike and walking options were fine. The only real problem was that most destinations were farther away than they needed to be.

Yes, I've always seen the Los Angeles/Southern CA area as having better planning and layout of streets and subdivisions than the Boston metro area. I worked as a civil engineer in one county there back in the late 70s There seemed to be more master planning of street layouts. In contrast, in the Boston area, little subdivisions are tacked onto the colonial-era main streets with no thought of improving or widening the main street, so you end up with a network of narrow arterial streets with no sidewalks or bike lanes. Southern Cal is not like that. They will widen the main street, and put in sidewalks and curbs, anytime any development occurs along it.

 

[stick n move]

Unfortunately lots of people have forgot how important street layouts are for building neighborhoods/cities. Theyre arguably THE most important part due to the fact that once theyre down its extremely hard to change them. Theres streets still being used that were laid down hundreds and thousands of years ago. The best thing that LA and arguably most cities from the midwest over to the west coast have is grid layouts. The grid has shown time and time again to be the most adaptable layout there is. Depending on the zoning you can have a rural town all the way up to manhattan on a grid. With the grid layout once you change the zoning its extremely easy to fill in and densify. Unfortunately in so many places we are still building disconnected street networks, but hopefully we can start to relearn this fact. For so many suburbs theyre going to need to be burnt down and a new grid laid down in order to fix but cities are going to have to go bankrupt before it could get to that point. Its so much easier just to build the streets the right way in the first place but we forgot this after ww2.

 

[DominusNovus]

“Burning down the suburbs” really seems drastic. And while I enjoy a good grid, I don’t think its really essential.

Lets look at it this way: restricting ourselves to, say, the 495 beltway, what is the worst suburb (in terms of layout) at the moment?

 

[Charlie_mta]

“Burning down the suburbs” really seems drastic. And while I enjoy a good grid, I don’t think its really essential.

It doesn't have to be a literal grid. A well coordinated and laid out system of streets and multi-use paths for a large area BEFORE developments occur is important. What's happened in the Boston area suburbia is a total lack of a comprehensive street and path plan that new developments must adhere to. Instead you have a large, or not so large, parcel of land that is subdivided, and a few dead end streets are built to access the houses on that plot of land. No connectivity at all with adjoining areas, no way to walk or bicycle outside of your own little residential-only subdivision.

 

[jklo]

Lets look at it this way: restricting ourselves to, say, the 495 beltway, what is the worst suburb (in terms of layout) at the moment?

Depends on what you mean by layout. But Lincoln is what came to mind.

It doesn't have to be a literal grid. A well coordinated and laid out system of streets and multi-use paths for a large area BEFORE developments occur is important. What's happened in the Boston area suburbia is a total lack of a comprehensive street and path plan that new developments must adhere to. Instead you have a large, or not so large, parcel of land that is subdivided, and a few dead end streets are built to access the houses on that plot of land. No connectivity at all with adjoining areas, no way to walk or bicycle outside of your own little residential-only subdivision.

I think people like that though (in the burbs). Y'know, the whole "Don't buy on a double lined street" thing.