Life in the Suburbs vs Brookline

[Kahta]

So I've been inactive for about a year now... I got a new job, bought a house in Bellingham, had a baby, and got married.

I used to live in Brookline and commute to the Seaport. I timed changing my job so that I closed on my new house, gave notice, and then started my new job in the suburbs and never had to make the commute to Boston. Here are a few observations that, in my opinion, many contemporary discussions about urban planning, parking, and transit fail to capture.

When I gave notice at my job in the seaport, they asked if they would be given a chance to beat my new offer and retain me. My new offer was already a ~30% raise over my current comp not including the better 401k match and stock plan at my new company. I respectfully told them that I wasn't interested in hearing it. Why? The commute. In no traffic it takes me a reasonable 45 minutes to get from my new house to my old office. Unless I left for work at 530 I would be dealing with an hour and a half or longer via 495> Pike or 495>95>128 >93. Alternatively, I could drive to the train station and take the train from Franklin to South Station and then the silver line to the seaport... but again, that would take an hour and a half and still present a significant time commitment and at each step, a potential exists for problems. Other commuting factors to consider at the new job included... not having to pay tolls, free parking at work, and 15-20 minutes from my new house.

Having a baby makes the logistics of going anywhere and doing anything 10 times more complicated than being single or a couple. In Brookline I had a parking spot that was a 45 second walk to my front door and thanks to the 2 hour on street limit, I was always able to park out front if I had to. Even with those two factors in my favor I can't even begin to think of the headaches of going up and down stairs, through multiple doors, etc. that applied as well as what it might be like in an area where parking is not immediately close or without the two hour limit and overnight parking ban that keeps spaces cleared up.

Living in the suburbs is cheaper. My mortgage payment is a few hundred dollars less than my combined rent + parking cost. Car insurance on our cars went down by about $400/car/year. Instead of going to Whole Foods or Shaws I can go to Market Basket. A quick errand is now a quick errand without dealing with the surprise of an event that's snarling traffic with no alternative routes. There are no seasonal issues like BC football games, Walk for whatever, etc.

Yes, I drive more, but I recently traded my Acura in for a Chevy Volt that I can charge for free at work. Even before I bought the Volt I was spending less overall on my car overall because of the lack of tolls, free parking, and significantly improved gas mileage from suburban vs urban speeds.

I still go into Boston/Brookline every few months to go to a Sox game, see my grandmother, etc. and I don't miss it at all. There are too many headaches. Nothing is simple, easy, or cheap.

 

[bigeman312]

Interesting perspective! I agree that many of the issues facing families are too often overlooked, but you are also overlooking many factors that make living in the suburbs cheaper, and the factors that caused you "headaches" when living in Brookline.

Before I get into this, there is nothing wrong with your choice to move to Bellingham. There is something wrong with the system that encourages this behavior. I don't blame you, I blame the system in place that allows this to be an easy decision for you. Keep that in mind throughout my rant

First of all, I believe urban planning should set out to alleviate these headaches.

Transportation Planning - Cities with world class public transportation are places in which you don't have to pay for parking/tolls/whatever because you can ride world class public transportation to your destination. This is the case in many cities around the world (NYC, many Euro cities such as Munich, and many Asian cities such as Seoul.) Also, these cities (including Boston) tend to be more walk-able and bike-able than Bellingham.

Ideally, city living afford you the opportunity to live car-free. I've lived car-free for two years now, living in Newton, Somerville, and now Jamaica Plain. I would not be able to do this in Bellingham. If you live a suburban lifestyle (i.e. drive everywhere) it will always be easier to do that in a community built for driving (i.e. Bellingham). Alternatively, imagine the "headaches" that would ensue if I continued to try to live car-free in Bellingham. Forget about it!

If you were living car-free in Brookline before you moved, you would not be saving money on parking, tolls, gas, insurance, lease, whatever else you are saving money on. Rather, you would begin to pay these prices that you hadn't paid before.

Therefore, I would argue your "headaches" of urban transportation in Brookline are caused by two things:

1. Poor Transportation Planning - if it were quicker, easier, and cheaper to move around the city without a car (walking, biking, public transportation), you would have never driven anywhere, and there would have been fewer "headaches" in transportation.
2. Your Suburban Lifestyle - while our non-automotive infrastructure may not be world-class, it is still pretty damn good. A whole hell of a lot better than Bellingham. If you had embraced these options, and lived car-free, you wouldn't have head all of the "headaches" that obviously come with driving in an environment not suited for driving. Similar headaches would occur for anyone trying to live car-free in Bellingham. It's like I say to many people: "(insert hip, urban neighborhood such as Davis Square) is great, if you don't have a car and want to actually live an urban lifestyle. If you want to drive everywhere and pretend you are in the suburbs, that desecrates the urban environment and will be no fun for you or anyone else. You, and the world, will be better off if you stay in (insert suburban, area such as Lexington)."

Poor Land Use and Associated Subsidies and Externalities

You may not care, and that's fine, but you are living a very damaging lifestyle. You would also be leading a damaging lifestyle commuting from Bellingham to the Seaport. The amount of miles you travel in your single-occupancy vehicle is directly correlated with the amount of land that needs to be used to accommodate your damaging decision. It has very little to do with whether you drive a "Volt." I am not talking about fossil fuels (while that does play a role). I am simply talking about geometry. If you drive a single-occupancy vehicle 40 miles/day to your office park that has a "free" spot waiting for you, that blatantly takes advantage of environmental and public externalities.

There is a cost to the public and damage to the environment in destroying natural land to bring you a multi-acre parking lot of "free" parking. There is a cost to the public and a damage to the environment for providing many miles of otherwise unnecessary roads, in what would otherwise be a natural environment. There is a cost to the public and damage to environment in bringing you utilities: the miles of wires, sewers, etc that are needed to accommodate your choice in lifestyle are far greater than in an urban setting.

You chose to live there: fine! But it's not cheaper because its better. It's cheaper for you, but the cost is born by the desecration of the natural environment, as well as the further wasting money on overbuilt, sprawling suburban utilities through our society's subsidization of suburban living.

Housing/Amenities

A failure of our urban environment, in many cases, is how difficult it is to raise a family in an urban setting. Often, most urban units have many stairs, poor school systems, etc. In your case, Brookline has a great school system: better than Bellingham! But still, there are inherent challenges in schlepping around a stroller, and trying to go up and down many stairs. Another failure is the lack of development of more housing units where the demand is greatest. With the continued restriction on supply, it will be nearly impossible for a middle-class family to afford a unit big enough to raise a couple kids. Good planning seeks to address this issue of rising housing costs through continued development where demand exists.

Another failure of our urban environment is that in most neighborhoods, there is not a full-service grocery and whatever-else store within walking distance. I was lucky to live 0.5 miles from a 24-hour Shaw's when I lived in Somerville. That enabled me to live an urban lifestyle. Ideally, urban planning captures both the diversity of housing and urban amenities that are needed to sustain a family living an urban lifestyle.

Conclusion

You have every right to live in Bellingham, and that's great that you moved out there. You obviously recognized inherent advantages over Brookline. Where you are wrong is:

• Pointing to your issues with Brookline and citing it as a problem with "urban planning." All of the issues you cite are issues that good planning address. It is a failure of Brookline's planning that you could not live an urban lifestlye there, and had many "headaches" associated with your community. Good planning seeks to address these problems.
• Pointing to your great experience with Bellingham as being indicative of how great the suburbs are. There are many forces outside of yourself (almost all negative) allowing you to reap the rewards from living a very unsustainable lifestyle. I don't blame you, I blame the system in place that allows this to be an easy decision for you. Your lifestlye improved! Great! Given your life, you should have moved out there. What good planning does is seek to make living in Brookline better, cheaper, more headache-free, and decreases subsidies on your Bellingham life, so that living in Bellingham never becomes appealing to you.

 

[Matthew]

Congrats, sounds like you're happy - glad to hear it.

P.S. update your profile!

 

[rinserepeat]

youre really only thinking of your own convenience, though . Once your kid gets older, you will spend a lot more time carting them around until they are old enough to drive. They have less freedom of mobility. Plus, when they are younger, that time you spend walking or riding public transit is bonding time. Very different than talking at each other while in a car. My kid prefers the bus over the same trip in a car. It takes us longer, but to them just the walk to the bus stop is high entertainment. They get to walk on the bus themselves and find their own seat. They get to look at other people and perhaps interact with them.

Our network of friends has grown exponentially once we had a kid. We see the same families out a lot and have gotten to know a lot of people really well. A lot of interactions are spontaneous and we often find ourselves having a great unplanned night out in the neighborhood. My relatives in the suburbs don't have nearly the same extensive network we have, and they spend a lot more time at home rather than in their neighborhoods. You might have this experience if you live in a walkable suburb, though.

Granted, our commutes are also pretty short (both of us have 30 minute bike rides). But I would feel like I'd miss out on a lot by moving to the suburbs.

 

[whighlander]

Interesting perspective! I agree that many of the issues facing families are too often overlooked, but you are also overlooking many factors that make living in the suburbs cheaper, and the factors that caused you "headaches" when living in Brookline.

Before I get into this, there is nothing wrong with your choice to move to Bellingham. There is something wrong with the system that encourages this behavior. I don't blame you, I blame the system in place that allows this to be an easy decision for you. Keep that in mind throughout my rant

First of all, I believe urban planning should set out to alleviate these headaches.

Ideally, city living afford you the opportunity to live car-free. I've lived car-free for two years now, living in Newton, Somerville, and now Jamaica Plain. I would not be able to do this in Bellingham. If you live a suburban lifestyle (i.e. drive everywhere) it will always be easier to do that in a community built for driving (i.e. Bellingham). Alternatively, imagine the "headaches" that would ensue if I continued to try to live car-free in Bellingham. Forget about it!

Your Suburban Lifestyle - while our non-automotive infrastructure may not be world-class, it is still pretty damn good. A whole hell of a lot better than Bellingham. If you had embraced these options, and lived car-free, you wouldn't have head all of the "headaches" that obviously come with driving in an environment not suited for driving.

If you don't have a car and want to actually live an urban lifestyle. If you want to drive everywhere and pretend you are in the suburbs, that desecrates the urban environment and will be no fun for you or anyone else. You, and the world, will be better off if you stay in (insert suburban, area such as Lexington)."

Poor Land Use and Associated Subsidies and Externalities

You may not care, and that's fine, but you are living a very damaging lifestyle.

There is a cost to the public and damage to the environment in destroying natural land to bring you a multi-acre parking lot of "free" parking. There is a cost to the public and a damage to the environment for providing many miles of otherwise unnecessary roads,

You chose to live there: fine! But it's not cheaper because its better. It's cheaper for you, but the cost is born by the desecration of the natural environment, as well as the further wasting money on overbuilt, sprawling suburban utilities through our society's subsidization of suburban living.

A failure of our urban environment, in many cases, is how difficult it is to raise a family in an urban setting.

You have every right to live in Bellingham, and that's great that you moved out there. You obviously recognized inherent advantages over Brookline. Where you are wrong is:

What good planning does is seek to make living in Brookline better, cheaper, more headache-free, and decreases subsidies on your Bellingham life, so that living in Bellingham never becomes appealing to you.

Bigeman -- Please -- you're just sorry that you can't live the live of Naked and Afraid in some remote presumably tropical place where clothing, housing and food are all optional

Most of the rest of us however chose to live in suburbs and the other lower density parts of the top 100 metropolitan areas -- there's a fundamental reason why the transformation from dense-pack urban [not necessarily tall] to lower density happened and its the Freedom afforded by the automobile

As one who has lived in cities and suburbs and visited far more rural places -- I like coming home to my small single family home in Lexington

Yes its a suburban world with a nice park and 30 acres of forest steps away but it also has
walkable access to Wilson Farms, a DD, Bollywood Cafe, Taipei Gourmet, a bakery, a dozen other food places, 2 wine and beer shops, 2 banks, a Trader Joe's, Walgreens, a hardware store and a dozen or so other shops

In about a half mile circle I can take the #62 to Alewife, the #77 to Harvard and several other buses

The only two downsides to my location -- its too bad the NIMBYs stopped the Red Line from running up the old rail line and its too bad that they abandoned the old rail line

 

[citylover94]

You know it gets old how you post the same exact thing over and over. We get it Whighlander you live in Lexington and love it (that is great, good for you), but don't ignore that there are a lot of negative externalities caused by living in a suburban area. Even if some things can be reached by walking by living in the suburbs a person is automatically encouraged to drive more and therefore is more likely to or even has to in many instances.
The relative walkability of where you live is not the norm and don't pretend that most people in most suburbs can walk to even half the number places you mentioned. Most suburbs also don't have transit that can be used or is as useful as the buses you mentioned although even those aren't ideal.

Also that "free market" didn't lead to people living in the suburbs what led to the development of the suburbs was not some concept of freedom other than a totally hypothetical idea of freedom by virtue of driving created by advertising to sell homes. It was largely a social experiment to some extent based upon a mix of progressive theories from the early 1900s on the ill effects of cities on people and powerful homebuilder and oil/car lobbies during the mid 1900s that created the subsidies that allowed mass suburbanization to occur. I would suggest reading "Dead End: Suburban Sprawl and the Rebirth of American Urbanism" it gives a very good in depth history on what led to the creation of suburban america if anyone wants to learn more.

Tl;dr:I can understand that living in the suburbs is very appealing to you and some other people, but the appeal of suburbs has been artificially increased by government policies that penalize urban development and lifestyles and enable suburban development and lifestyles.

 

[Shepard]

Americans traipse off to Paris, wide-eyed at all the people and street life, and fantasize about living in such a place. And then they get home from their European sojourn and raise hell when they find out their neighbors, five-hundred feet down the road, want to expand their tool shed.

(To be fair, I will also note that the reverse is true also... by and large, friends from Europe I've hosted here find themselves awed and fascinated by all the features of American suburbia we often deem featureless. I think this has a lot to do with finally making sense of all the Hollywood movies that take place in these settings.)

 

[bigeman312]

"Dead End: Suburban Sprawl and the Rebirth of American Urbanism" it gives a very good in depth history on what led to the creation of suburban america if anyone wants to learn more.

Checking it out.

----------------

Westie: You got me! xoxo

 

[fattony]

Americans traipse off to Paris, wide-eyed at all the people and street life, and fantasize about living in such a place. And then they get home from their European sojourn and raise hell when they find out their neighbors, five-hundred feet down the road, want to expand their tool shed.

nice post

 

[HenryAlan]

youre really only thinking of your own convenience, though . Once your kid gets older, you will spend a lot more time carting them around until they are old enough to drive. They have less freedom of mobility. Plus, when they are younger, that time you spend walking or riding public transit is bonding time. Very different than talking at each other while in a car. My kid prefers the bus over the same trip in a car. It takes us longer, but to them just the walk to the bus stop is high entertainment. They get to walk on the bus themselves and find their own seat. They get to look at other people and perhaps interact with them.

Absolute agreement. Boston is a fantastic environment for kids and the mobility options available to them as tweens and teens are a huge bonus. My 14 year old goes all over the city on her own, taking advantage of cultural amenities like the MFA, Chinatown, etc. And plenty of people criticize BPS, but I've found that families who commit to their children's educational success manage to do quite well within that system. All of which, of course, brings us to your next point.

Our network of friends has grown exponentially once we had a kid. We see the same families out a lot and have gotten to know a lot of people really well. A lot of interactions are spontaneous and we often find ourselves having a great unplanned night out in the neighborhood. My relatives in the suburbs don't have nearly the same extensive network we have, and they spend a lot more time at home rather than in their neighborhoods. You might have this experience if you live in a walkable suburb, though.

We have had that same experience, and have strong ties with both long time residents and transplants such as ourselves. As we have navigated the BPS system, the geography of those relationships has also expanded. Two of my kids attend BLS, and now have friends from every neighborhood. That kind of social network is not something I've witnessed among my suburban friends. And for the most part, what I hear from them about their kids' schools convinces me again that BPS was the right choice.

Granted, our commutes are also pretty short (both of us have 30 minute bike rides). But I would feel like I'd miss out on a lot by moving to the suburbs.

And that is another win for being in the city if you also work in the city. My commute by 'T or bike is about 30 minutes. One option allows me an opportunity to read, the other grants me a solid hour of exercise for the day.

All that said, I don't at all begrudge people moving to the suburbs. People should live where they want to live and for many, the suburb is the right choice. I'd like to see some rationalization of subsidies, but aside from that, let people vote with their feet.

 

[underground]

Americans traipse off to Paris, wide-eyed at all the people and street life, and fantasize about living in such a place. And then they get home from their European sojourn and raise hell when they find out their neighbors, five-hundred feet down the road, want to expand their tool shed.

You don't even need to go to Paris. People all over Massachusetts love Beacon Hill, the South End, the North End, and Back Bay. But propose a development anywhere remotely as dense? WHY ARE YOU UNLEASHING THIS UNGODLY HELL ON US!?!?!?!

But to be serious; some people like the suburbs and some people like the city and some people like something in between, and that's all fine. It's not a competition and it's not a zero sum game.

 

[deh74]

Bigeman -- Please -- you're just sorry that you can't live the live of Naked and Afraid in some remote presumably tropical place where clothing, housing and food are all optional

Most of the rest of us however chose to live in suburbs and the other lower density parts of the top 100 metropolitan areas -- there's a fundamental reason why the transformation from dense-pack urban [not necessarily tall] to lower density happened and its the Freedom afforded by the automobile

As one who has lived in cities and suburbs and visited far more rural places -- I like coming home to my small single family home in Lexington

Yes its a suburban world with a nice park and 30 acres of forest steps away but it also has
walkable access to Wilson Farms, a DD, Bollywood Cafe, Taipei Gourmet, a bakery, a dozen other food places, 2 wine and beer shops, 2 banks, a Trader Joe's, Walgreens, a hardware store and a dozen or so other shops

In about a half mile circle I can take the #62 to Alewife, the #77 to Harvard and several other buses

The only two downsides to my location -- its too bad the NIMBYs stopped the Red Line from running up the old rail line and its too bad that they abandoned the old rail line

I would just like to point out that Bellingham and Lexington are two completely different kinds of suburbs. Lexington has been an established town with a solid, walkable town center for hundreds of years, while Bellingham was just a couple hundred farmers and a church until after WWII. Lexington has fairly decent public transportation, even though the Red Line never quite made it out that far, while Bellingham has absolutely no public transportation of any kind and the nearest public transportation is the Commuter Rail in Franklin.

Lexington is really an outlier when speaking in terms of American suburbs because Lexington has some form of public transportation and a walkable town center, both of which you have noted. However, those two things are fairly uncommon when in comes to American suburbs in general, especially outside of the Northeast, where the closest thing a suburb might have to a town center is a group of strip malls along the major highway through that town. In fact, a lot of suburbs in the west aren't even in incorporated areas. For example, my brother used to live in a suburb about fifteen miles from downtown Denver. I can't tell you that suburb's name because it didn't have one and his mailing address was listed as Denver, which is odd considering that the area he was living in was basically a prairie and there wasn't another building within hundreds of feet of his house. That situation is by far the more typical experience of an American suburb than Lexington is.

So in conclusion, Lexington is a great town to live in and a fine example of a New England style town, but it is in no way a typical suburb.

 

[cden4]

I question whether it actually is cheaper for the poster to live in Bellingham rather than Brookline. In the post, he says "Yes, I drive more, but I recently traded my Acura in for a Chevy Volt." Now if he had not moved to Bellingham, would he have bought that new Volt? If not, then that's a big new expense that needs to be factored in.

 

[bigeman312]

I think the biggest factor is that he was living a suburban lifestyle in Brookline. It is not cheap, easy, or fun (and shouldn't be) to live a suburban lifestyle in an urban setting. If you want to drive everywhere, every day, move to the suburbs. The money and peace-of-mind savings in an urban setting come with living an urban lifestyle.

 

[fattony]

I think the biggest factor is that he was living a suburban lifestyle in Brookline. It is not cheap, easy, or fun (and shouldn't be) to live a suburban lifestyle in an urban setting. If you want to drive everywhere, every day, move to the suburbs. The money and peace-of-mind savings in an urban setting come with living an urban lifestyle.

Excellent points. The mismatches inherent to quasi-urban life and suburb-to-downtown-commuting are what make people miserable. I'm not sure why it is so hard for people to just live in the lifestyle they actually want.

What I find most annoying/troubling/etc from people complaining about their urban vs suburban living situation is that they inevitably put themselves into the situation they are unhappy with. If you want or need a downtown job, then try to make peace with an urban lifestyle instead of spending your life miserable in traffic. Or make a few compromises to make commuter rail work for you.

If you like the quiet and (relative) isolation of suburban living, try to find yourself a job in the suburbs like Kahta did. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Kahta]

Interesting perspective! I agree that many of the issues facing families are too often overlooked, but you are also overlooking many factors that make living in the suburbs cheaper, and the factors that caused you "headaches" when living in Brookline.

Before I get into this, there is nothing wrong with your choice to move to Bellingham. There is something wrong with the system that encourages this behavior. I don't blame you, I blame the system in place that allows this to be an easy decision for you. Keep that in mind throughout my rant

No offense taken at all- I enjoy hearing the opinions of others who disagree with me and enjoy the discussion.

First of all, I believe urban planning should set out to alleviate these headaches.

Transportation Planning - Cities with world class public transportation are places in which you don't have to pay for parking/tolls/whatever because you can ride world class public transportation to your destination. This is the case in many cities around the world (NYC, many Euro cities such as Munich, and many Asian cities such as Seoul.) Also, these cities (including Boston) tend to be more walk-able and bike-able than Bellingham.

Ideally, city living afford you the opportunity to live car-free. I've lived car-free for two years now, living in Newton, Somerville, and now Jamaica Plain. I would not be able to do this in Bellingham. If you live a suburban lifestyle (i.e. drive everywhere) it will always be easier to do that in a community built for driving (i.e. Bellingham). Alternatively, imagine the "headaches" that would ensue if I continued to try to live car-free in Bellingham. Forget about it!

If you were living car-free in Brookline before you moved, you would not be saving money on parking, tolls, gas, insurance, lease, whatever else you are saving money on. Rather, you would begin to pay these prices that you hadn't paid before.

Keep in mind, it's not as though I lived in South Brookline. I lived between Washington Square and Cleveland Circle. Doing a multi-destination trip (Beer, Dry Cleaning, and a few groceries) is nearly impossible for the simple reason that I only have two arms.

Therefore, I would argue your "headaches" of urban transportation in Brookline are caused by two things:

1. Poor Transportation Planning - if it were quicker, easier, and cheaper to move around the city without a car (walking, biking, public transportation), you would have never driven anywhere, and there would have been fewer "headaches" in transportation.
2. Your Suburban Lifestyle - while our non-automotive infrastructure may not be world-class, it is still pretty damn good. A whole hell of a lot better than Bellingham. If you had embraced these options, and lived car-free, you wouldn't have head all of the "headaches" that obviously come with driving in an environment not suited for driving. Similar headaches would occur for anyone trying to live car-free in Bellingham. It's like I say to many people: "(insert hip, urban neighborhood such as Davis Square) is great, if you don't have a car and want to actually live an urban lifestyle. If you want to drive everywhere and pretend you are in the suburbs, that desecrates the urban environment and will be no fun for you or anyone else. You, and the world, will be better off if you stay in (insert suburban, area such as Lexington)."

It's already free to bike and walk everywhere and taking the T is still a huge cost savings compared to just the parking costs of a trip.

Poor Land Use and Associated Subsidies and Externalities

You may not care, and that's fine, but you are living a very damaging lifestyle. You would also be leading a damaging lifestyle commuting from Bellingham to the Seaport. The amount of miles you travel in your single-occupancy vehicle is directly correlated with the amount of land that needs to be used to accommodate your damaging decision. It has very little to do with whether you drive a "Volt." I am not talking about fossil fuels (while that does play a role). I am simply talking about geometry. If you drive a single-occupancy vehicle 40 miles/day to your office park that has a "free" spot waiting for you, that blatantly takes advantage of environmental and public externalities.

There is a cost to the public and damage to the environment in destroying natural land to bring you a multi-acre parking lot of "free" parking. There is a cost to the public and a damage to the environment for providing many miles of otherwise unnecessary roads, in what would otherwise be a natural environment. There is a cost to the public and damage to environment in bringing you utilities: the miles of wires, sewers, etc that are needed to accommodate your choice in lifestyle are far greater than in an urban setting.

You chose to live there: fine! But it's not cheaper because its better. It's cheaper for you, but the cost is born by the desecration of the natural environment, as well as the further wasting money on overbuilt, sprawling suburban utilities through our society's subsidization of suburban living.

Those environmental costs are quite low and are largely mitigated. If it weren't for technology and cars all of that land that is "natural" would be used to grow food as it was 150+ years ago.

How about the cost of a 3 bedroom condo in Brookline? I was spending $1,400 on rent (not including utilities or parking) for one of the three bedrooms. The actual unit that I was living in is valued at about $950k. My single family house cost ~25% of that. I'm in the top few % of earners for my age (27) and the only places that I considered moving were places that would keep my total housing costs (taxes, mortgage, utilities) under 25% of my net income. There really weren't that many to begin with and they were all on or outside of 495 unless I wanted to live in a bad part of Framingham, Boston, Brockton, etc.

Housing/Amenities

A failure of our urban environment, in many cases, is how difficult it is to raise a family in an urban setting. Often, most urban units have many stairs, poor school systems, etc. In your case, Brookline has a great school system: better than Bellingham! But still, there are inherent challenges in schlepping around a stroller, and trying to go up and down many stairs. Another failure is the lack of development of more housing units where the demand is greatest. With the continued restriction on supply, it will be nearly impossible for a middle-class family to afford a unit big enough to raise a couple kids. Good planning seeks to address this issue of rising housing costs through continued development where demand exists.

Another failure of our urban environment is that in most neighborhoods, there is not a full-service grocery and whatever-else store within walking distance. I was lucky to live 0.5 miles from a 24-hour Shaw's when I lived in Somerville. That enabled me to live an urban lifestyle. Ideally, urban planning captures both the diversity of housing and urban amenities that are needed to sustain a family living an urban lifestyle.

Brookline has a great school system because the people that live there are smart and well off.

Supply is extremely constrained largely as a result of the anti-sprawl and anti-growth state laws and local zoning laws in both suburban and urban areas. Any laws that change this and increase supply will necessarily reduce prices and be met with resistance from property owners. That's not even mentioning the NIMBYism that would inevitability occur if there were any proposals for "right sized" large scale developments in urban areas that currently have 2-3 story buildings.

The town that I grew up in passed "anti sprawl" zoning laws that mandated one acre minimums on new housing. The result was quite predictable... very few parcels of land existed that could meet minimum profitability requirements so the houses that did go up were large and expensive. Look at any housing development in MA from before the major reforms in the early 1970s and after and you'll see exactly what I mean. My neighborhood now does not meet minimum lot requirements in most towns because the houses are only 20 feet apart and about 5 feet from the property lines.

Any type of reform that makes living truly affordable for a middle class family (HH income of $100k) would mean an immediate 50-75% cut in the cost of housing. How is that possibly going to be accomplished?

Conclusion

You have every right to live in Bellingham, and that's great that you moved out there. You obviously recognized inherent advantages over Brookline. Where you are wrong is:

• Pointing to your issues with Brookline and citing it as a problem with "urban planning." All of the issues you cite are issues that good planning address. It is a failure of Brookline's planning that you could not live an urban lifestlye there, and had many "headaches" associated with your community. Good planning seeks to address these problems.
• Pointing to your great experience with Bellingham as being indicative of how great the suburbs are. There are many forces outside of yourself (almost all negative) allowing you to reap the rewards from living a very unsustainable lifestyle. I don't blame you, I blame the system in place that allows this to be an easy decision for you. Your lifestlye improved! Great! Given your life, you should have moved out there. What good planning does is seek to make living in Brookline better, cheaper, more headache-free, and decreases subsidies on your Bellingham life, so that living in Bellingham never becomes appealing to you.

I live in the world that exists in the present, not the alternative world where planning is done properly.

There are also other considerable social costs of living in Brookline... such as not being allowed to own a handgun "for all lawful purposes", not being able to get a plastic bag at a grocery store, dealing with the crazy Brookline people who delay every single project for years with countless NIMBY meetings... the list goes on and on but those are just a few of the examples that come to mind when I think of living there.

I looked at condozing the basement of the building where I lived to add two additional units (I rented a condo with roommates from my dad) and once I read through the brookline code, it became very clear that it would be nearly impossible to do. The current laws now are entirely written to preserve the status quo instead of plan for the future.

Congrats, sounds like you're happy - glad to hear it.

P.S. update your profile!

Thanks... updated!

youre really only thinking of your own convenience, though . Once your kid gets older, you will spend a lot more time carting them around until they are old enough to drive. They have less freedom of mobility. Plus, when they are younger, that time you spend walking or riding public transit is bonding time. Very different than talking at each other while in a car. My kid prefers the bus over the same trip in a car. It takes us longer, but to them just the walk to the bus stop is high entertainment. They get to walk on the bus themselves and find their own seat. They get to look at other people and perhaps interact with them.

I live in the center of town. I can walk to all of the town buildings and schools. Even if I was not in the center of town, because of the lack of congestion most destinations in town are under 10 minutes from the rest of the town.

 

[bigeman312]

After reading your response, it sounds as though we are on the same page, to be quite honest. The only difference is that you blame "urban planning." I point out that the world we live in is caused by forces counter to good urban planning: i.e. the NIMBYism you cite that restricts the development of more housing where the demand exists. Good urban planning overrides these forces to enable you to afford to live in Brookline. That world does not exist, because there is not enough emphasis or power on good urban planning.

Congrats on the place in Bellingham!

 

[Shepard]

The town that I grew up in passed "anti sprawl" zoning laws that mandated one acre minimums on new housing.

I just think this is hilarious.

"We'll now be instituting an anti-waffle breakfast, where the only ingredient available will be waffle batter and the only cooking implement will be a waffle iron."

 

[Justin7]

I still go into Boston/Brookline every few months to go to a Sox game, see my grandmother, etc. and I don't miss it at all.

This discussion could go on forever, but I think this sums it up. Different people appreciate different things. Congratulations on finding happiness in suburbia and thank you for not trying to bring suburbia to the city.

 

[whighlander]

You know it gets old how you post the same exact thing over and over. We get it Whighlander you live in Lexington and love it (that is great, good for you), but don't ignore that there are a lot of negative externalities caused by living in a suburban area. Even if some things can be reached by walking by living in the suburbs a person is automatically encouraged to drive more and therefore is more likely to or even has to in many instances.
The relative walkability of where you live is not the norm and don't pretend that most people in most suburbs can walk to even half the number places you mentioned. Most suburbs also don't have transit that can be used or is as useful as the buses you mentioned although even those aren't ideal.

Also that "free market" didn't lead to people living in the suburbs what led to the development of the suburbs was not some concept of freedom other than a totally hypothetical idea of freedom by virtue of driving created by advertising to sell homes. It was largely a social experiment to some extent based upon a mix of progressive theories from the early 1900s on the ill effects of cities on people and powerful homebuilder and oil/car lobbies during the mid 1900s that created the subsidies that allowed mass suburbanization to occur. I would suggest reading "Dead End: Suburban Sprawl and the Rebirth of American Urbanism" it gives a very good in depth history on what led to the creation of suburban america if anyone wants to learn more.

Tl;dr:I can understand that living in the suburbs is very appealing to you and some other people, but the appeal of suburbs has been artificially increased by government policies that penalize urban development and lifestyles and enable suburban development and lifestyles.

City -- try a little bit of real data instead of just theory -- its really an empowering thing

If you look at Lexington in 1940 it could almost have been the 1840's -- they were still cutting hay on the Battle Green using real horse power

Fast forward 25 years and Lexington had already assumed most of its current form [minus the McMansions] -- a huge number of small houses were built to accommodate the Greatest Generation returning from World War II and joining the labor force -- and schools and other services grew to accommodate the then birthing baby boomers

The homeowners of 1960-70 were people who most likely grew-up either in a Boston neighborhood or in one of the original StreetCar suburbs such as Somerville or Medford -- quite possibly in an apartment -- who suddenly could become suburban homeowners on America's Technology Highway [Rt-128]

I sincerely doubt that we would have had DEC and Raytheon or the rest of the industry which remade Boston in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's without Rt-128 and the freedom of action provided by the motorcar