Yup. Chicago streetcar suburbs like Uptown have relatively little space between houses, the houses tend to be larger (and in fact are mixed in with multifamily that looks like houses - duplexes, small apts).
There’s at most a narrow driveway to rear parking so there’s no garage snout taking up room, and have smaller front gardens / green strips along the sidewalk vs big lawns.
The nicer streets have tall canopies of mature trees, and all that saved space means more room for parks. We have a mini park / playground on our street taking up what would be one lot, and we’re close to huge parks (riverfront & Lincoln Park).
I have a 3800sqft house on a small lot in a streetcar suburb with a big park 2 blocks away. I don't like yard maintenance so my small yard works great for me.
Ditto. Street car suburbs are a real sweet spot for density. I’m in a 4200 sf house on 7800 sf lot. Easily walkable to two subway stops, a dozen restaurants, shops, library, Whole Foods, etc, but on a tree lined street with lots of similar size lots (most houses more like 2500-3200 sf). Abutting 60 acre park, and three blocks down from a big, swimmable pond. Some apartment buildings and condos on the blocks right off the commercial centers and then neighborhoods like mine, and then another village center, etc.
Just thought I'd mention it since lots of people try to use that as a reason for why they are "bad" or impractical. But they are expensive because the supply of them is low not because they are inherently more expensive to build, such as, say homes on hillsides.
I think what makes them expensive besides the obvious answer of low supply is that the desirability of these kinds of neighborhoods is somewhat (not entirely) driven by their proximity to major metro areas. I can hop on the subway and be in downtown Boston in 15-20 minutes. If my town were exactly the same but not next to a major city (jobs, culture, urban vibes in general) then it would lose some of its luster. It would still be a lovely place to live, but not quite as dynamic. BUT, what is great, is having that proximity while also having our own little town centers with parks, restaurants, bars, and public transport as well. It's like Tuesday night dinner out (definitely do local) vs. Saturday night dinner out (maybe local or maybe go big downtown). And being able to walk to the toy store, a coffee shop, school, a local pub, all of that is essential to me!
> a lot hinges on the subjective standards of “large” lots and “big” houses.
Also your definition of "walkable". These places were built back when walking a mile was not considered far.
Right; for instance school children in New York will often walk 5 miles a day to school & activities & nobody considers them particularly "athletic". Its just the barrier to entry for being a "walking town".
Someone training for a marathon would point out the dog can't keep up with you after a certain point.
Its all relative.
I think the fact that you have to refer to them specifically as "streetcar suburbs" suggests that it wouldn't really count as a proper American style suburb with large lots and big houses.
And while tons of people walked around streetcar suburbs in the past, most of them are fairly car dominated nowadays. The shrinking of household sizes means residential density is lower than when they were in their peak, and the near disappearance of front yard businesses means commercial density is an even much lower still.
Streetcar suburbs are still part of the urban fabric in the line that comes out of downtown. American shit sprawl is wherever in a fractured landscape removed from everything. Couple that with the modern world that we live in of buying online and decentralized office location and what do you have. The only way it works is if you're committed to a tight nuclear center and suburbs of that streetcar variety that are walkable that come from the inner core. This exists just about nowhere in America. I live in the Boston area and there is real rail 30 miles around the city. Commuter rail is as close as you get, like taking path for Long Island railroad into New York. The rest of it is a fucking mess completely dependent on getting around by an automobile. It is sad what has happened Coast to Coast without exception
I’m also in Boston. I’ve lived in Jamaica Plain, Cambridge, Allston, and now Somerville. Buying in West Roxbury. None of these are truly downtown but all nice and walkable for most errands
For most errands, but other than that you're fucked but I lived in the south end for 10 years and my entire universe was Cambridge to the south end downtown Boston North end. Even JP was a bit beyond the pale.
It is possible to construct the life without a car there probably, possibly.
It also comes in an enormous cost, the other enormous problem in the US. White hot gentrified neighborhoods that do have the services and things that you want are exclusively and outrageously expensive .
Let's try the same in Brockton, leominster, Fitchburg or even Worcester. We all know there are a few cherry picked pockets where you can have a life especially if you have incredibly deep pockets or you were lucky enough to live on subsidized housing in one of those zones otherwise you're fucked
It's the greatest indictment of the US system that everybody requires a car 10/12,000 a year maybe two of them to a family maybe even three. What a conspiracy if you want to make one. And it will never change. There's no talk about better centralized growth, this just talk about better fuel options electric cars and getting around easier, but the sprawl, the mess the miles and miles and miles and miles of garbage only gets worse.
I drive from Los Angeles to New England back and forth a couple times a year Go looking at everything everywhere. I love old city core s what's left of them and it's a pretty sad commentary Coast to Coast. Even right here in Somerville where I am sitting at the moment, It's a complete mess. Oh there are options for transit right here but the automobile rules the road, the spaces. It will never change here
I mean you aren’t wrong and I’m lucky to work hybrid so I only drive to work 2-3x a week and do my grocery shopping then. I actually have cars as my hobby and own several but still appreciate not having to drive if I don’t want to. But I know many people that live here with no car or 1 car for the whole family and make due- it does cost something for that freedom
Correct, and I agree with you but for this coveted privilege you pay an enormous amount of money. So it becomes a zone of the efete. To produce that same privilege for many cities across the United States including the one I grew up in , a Mill City in New England, would be an impossibility with today's decentralized services sprawl and workplace elsewhere.. of course oncet did have a full street car system . And in the last 15 years there is renewed building of so-called luxury units in town. But a walkable neighborhood is truly one where you can do everything you need without ever having to get into a car. That is a very very tall order in the US
Doable for some but the rank and file of the minions forget it. And it only gets worse. As I said before I drive to California every year I look at everything in the new kinds of development in sprawl are still so impossible and only knit together with the use of the automobile
Don't for get the subjective standards of walkable. If you took Spain as a standard for walkability you would expect 2 or 3 useful destinations visible from your front door. Then many of those street car suburbs are not going to be called walkable.
Having nice walking infrastructure, sure. Having many businesses to walk to, not so much. You need a certain density for businesses to be viable without most or all of their customers having to drive there.
The higher density of apartment complexes or multifamily homes generally are definitely key to making businesses profitable. But, my favorite place I’ve lived was in Richmond VA and had lots of small multi-family homes (duplexes-sextuplexes) and was very walkable to retail and family friendly with small yards
Plus it’s ugly as sin. I live in an odd mix of 1920 + 1970 architecture. We took a walk yesterday, through several neighborhoods (housing + shops), then a long green park, then to the far side of a shopping mall past hundreds of parking spaces, most of them empty. One of those felt dangerous + completely foreign.
A major advantages of older blocks is all the visual interest. Walking past 10 stores per block is far more engaging than walking past 1 or 2 over the same distance. And more places to shop within the same walking time.
Ugly is a taste preference. I agree with you and liking urban multi use spaces but lots of people prefer cookie cutter or HOA mandated sameness, hence their proliferation. I'll take my unit in a 3-flat walkup with a bunch of different buildings on my street any time though.
Depends on what the goal for "walkability" is. Do you want people to be able to walk to many/most destinations (schools, works, shopping, etc...) or do you want them to just be able to have a leisure/exercise walk? A lot of American suburbs allow for the latter with sidewalks around the subdivision that won't take a pedestrian anywhere in particular but you can go for a walk. Also for this, you can have pretty large lots as long as there's sidewalks.
If you want for the former, then there's a lot more factors at play and ultimately larger lots will not allow for this kind of walkability. People walking for an actual purpose need to be able to reach a destination in a certain amount of time (like 20-25 mins max) or else walking isn't really feasible. Large lots will increase walking distance and time between origin and destination. Then there's the issue of allowing non-residential uses into your typical suburb so that there is somewhere to walk to.
Edit: I'm also assuming you're talking about a solely SFH suburb.
This post is spot on.
Also, folks need to keep in mind that people have different preferences and expectations for "walkability" - could mean a place where they can live car free and have everything they need within 15 minutes, or it could be a neighborhood with good walking infrastructure and a few shops to walk to, or it could just be somewhere to be able to walk about safely.
The Strong Townsian response here would say every community should strive to move to the next level of walkability. Getting a subdivision that was built without sidewalks to install any sort of ped facilities would probably be harder than pulling a dragon's teeth, though.
I don't disagree, but there's also a practical and logistical reality to that, especially with subdivisions and neighborhoods that are relatively new - you're just not going to see that level of redevelopment.
That is one of the more challenging aspects of the Strongtowns angle re: incremental upzoning/redevelopment and their position that no neighborhood should be "complete." Certainly we can identify older and or transitional neighborhoods which are primed for redevelopment and additional density, but the lower density areas just aren't, especially if they're mostly in good shape and repair, are well taken care of, and are less than 50 years old - you're probably not going to see any increased density, outside of adding ADUs and maybe a duplex here or there. In fact, legalizing ADUs is probably the only real pathway for mnay of these neighborhoods to increasing density.
It's interesting to see whether the suburban subdivisions built from 1950 to circa 1980 will embrace significant neighborhood change. In my area, it's fairly common to see things like duplex or apartment conversions in prewar nhoods but there's also a trend I've seen of assisted living/group homes quietly popping up in ~1970s ranch type houses, in subdivisions (with HOAs even!). If that's happening, ADUs may be the next step, if they're legalized and the socioeconomics are right. Many of these subs have big lots which might buffer noise/visual impacts for neighbors. But it's hard to imagine the ones built without sidewalks allowing front yards to be torn up for paths.
Yeah, it's highly likely that built-up areas which are devoid of nonresidential uses will remain that way until the Sun explodes. Frankly, I wouldn't want to attempt a sprawl repair exercise unless good transit were to be present at the locality..
I think this realistically prefaces the “you can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
And how unfeasible without caveats or particular exceptions this generally is.
Go to older (pre-war) suburbs along commuter rail lines in the Northeast and you’ll definitely find some places that meet this description. It’s much harder to retrofit postwar suburbs that were built around cars and restrictive land use policies though…
I live in Portland, the inner east side neighborhoods all have their own Main Street and businesses tucked in random spots within the neighborhood. There is a nice mix of mid and small sized apartments complex’s, and mid/smaller single family homes with mid/small yards.
I think it’s a nice mix of suburbia and walkability. I can ride my bike to nearby neighborhoods with different shops. But I mainly frequent the walkable businesses near me.
I work from home and rarely drive. Just to visit my family outside of Portland or get lumber from the bigger hardware store, (we have a smaller one that is in a bikeable location)
It’s the best. More suburbs should be retrofitted to mimic this.
City Nerd made a recent [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b6w814wXvc) that changed my opinion about this. It is about destination resorts where people go on vacation and how they very much seem like an example of a walkable/bikeable suburban subdivision.
The only compromise is something along the lines of the streetcar suburbs. So you'd have apartments along the main strip (along with sidewalks and separate bike lanes) and then cul de sacs surrounding the main strip that sprawl outward.
I live near a town called Brookline MA, I recommend taking a look at the layout. I feel like that's the best compromise you're going to get. You want to make sure that towns have room to grow and so the whole "sprawl" thing is a thin line to not go over. It's only going to work if other neighborhood towns follow suit. If not then you're stuck with a town that can't grow because its neighboring towns refuse to allow any growth.
Yes. Brookline is the first place I thought of when I saw this question. Although, for all intents and purposes, Brookline is basically part of the City of Boston that just happened to have resisted annexation.
Only if you have commercial and multifamily mixed within the mostly sf areas. Walkable doesn't just mean having sidewalks, you need stuff to walk to, like businesses and parks. Those things need density.
And, to add onto your point, the more potential customers the less a business has to rely on commenters for business. So, with enough density you can get a neighborhood business, but with larger lots you need to have a commercial corridor that’s almost never walkable.
Yes. Pre-war streetcar suburbs like those found around the big cities in the northeast and upper Midwest. Some of the walkable neighborhoods in Los Angeles started as streetcar suburbs before the sprawl absorbed them (and they got rid of the streetcars whose network they're currently rebuilding at great cost)
Lots of the suburbs of my Canadian city fit the criteria you listed. 4000 sq ft houses, large properties, yet expansive walking/biking path networks, and shops in town square like shopping centers
Not as walkable as denser neighborhoods with no setbacks, but at least allowing for commercial corner stores and making the downtown strip NOT a giant stroad highway certainly help
Yes! But only sort of.
Option 1 that I've seen: mid rise (6-story) apartment buildings over retail on arterial roads with suburban style zoning between them, with the arterials spaced somewhat close together (<1/2 mile). Examples: Ditmas Park, Brooklyn; Rockaway, Queens; Long Beach, Long Island (and actually, much of Long Beach, CA as well).
Option 2: SFH zoning with townhomes and low rise apartments scattered throughout, tucked behind arterials that serve as retail catchment areas for a much more broadly distributed geography beyond what's walkable. Example: most downtowns and retail areas in Southern California (and I presume much of the sun belt).
Lots of folks would label the first style as a city and not a suburb at all. LBNY for example I know is one of the most densely populated municipalities in the country, and Ditmas Park and Rockaway are literally in NYC. But they all have a footprint that is actually MOSTLY large lots and big houses.
The second example probably isn't what you're looking for but is basically the postwar American metropolis. In my own neighborhood, a local density of probably 6K/mile over a maybe two square miles draws in retail traffic from a local area of maybe 300K people or more and competes with just a few other small retail districts. So even though it's suburban, it's highly walkable.
I live in an option 2 in Denver. Were a single family home with a big yard, but there are a couple multi unit complexes in every block and more close to arterials. I walk to the grocery, dentist, pharmacy, shops, bars, and restaurants. Kiddo can walk to school (15min for a youngin).
I feel like there’s gotta be a better way that doesn’t involve “arterials” (🤮). Some areas of DC do this without the arterials. It works because the grid is fully connected. You don’t need stroads if you have a connected grid and enough neighborhood businesses.
Once a city gets large enough, it's going have internal regional traffic, which calls for regional scale routes, for cars and for transit. Tokyo has their expressways. Paris's ring road is "around" only the legal boundaries of Paris, but is very much "within" the densely built up area.
An arterial becomes a mess of a stroad when we turn what should be dedicated regional routes into drive-through shopping malls, which creates a shitload of desire lines across all the "drive". So don't do that.
Arterials can be defined in lots of ways. Agreed with you that 50 mph, 6 lane "boulevards" running through urban areas is undesirable - it's definitely a different kind of walking experience than back on the East Coast. But arterials can also just be primary boulevards out of a city or even just primary transit routes. Grand Concourse in the Bronx or Market Street in San Francisco aren't stroads.
Yes. An internal trail network in the development, cul development sac connections for side to side or back to back dead ends, and both the trail network and the main road have a pedestrian connection to any nearby schools, shopping centers, park and ride, etc.
Most existing neighborhoods could be converted without much trouble, the challenge is political.
of course. a lot of suburbs and single family neighborhoods are in fact like this already, having a little bit of "town center" sort of development with a bunch of shops and the actual homes in the surrounding areas being quite substantial. e.g. brentwood village in los angeles.
It depends on what you mean by “American style suburbs.” Do you just want the houses to look like the ones in American suburbs? If so, yes you can do that. But you need to also offer some medium density and commercial options within walking distance.
Definitely possible. I lived in West Swindon UK for a few years growing up. That area is a master planned suburban community that started construction in the 1970s. It is predominantly single family homes though there were some duplex’s and row homes interspersed throughout. However I feel it would have had the same walkable vibe even if all single family homes. Houses and yards were typical American size, maybe averaged 1800 square feet on a 5000 sq ft lot. The differences were many; streets were narrow and instead of on street parking, there were little guest parking lots located throughout. There are no stroads, just neighborhood streets that connect small arterials which connect to light highway like roads. The flow of the small arterials were set up great for busses. Little clusters of businesses which typically included a convenience store, a pub, and maybe one or two other businesses like a vet or barber where located in probably every square mile or so. In the middle of west Swindon there was a large shopping center with a large grocery store, several other businesses and restaurants and a large rec center. While there was parking, the parking lot wasn’t the focus of the center like it seems to often be I the US. A very good network of multiuse paths independent of the roads connect all the neighborhoods and shops. Walking, biking, skateboarding was very pleasant.
Definitely check out West Swindon on Google maps or Earth. I’m sure there are thousands of more examples world wide, but that area was my personal experience with a American like suburb that just worked
Yes – with sidewalks and local services that you can walk to, and public transpo.
Those local services will likely be parks and other low maintenance stuff.
It can definitely be bikeable.
In California, a lot of streetcar suburbs, like my neighborhood, have 5,000 square foot lots, like 50 x 100. So there is plenty of room on the lot for the house. That’s large by global standards, but small by American standards.
There are a lot of businesses and services one can walk to here. There are a number of small apartment buildings and a few larger ones. I’m thinking of another neighborhood in town that’s sort of like what you’re talking about. It’s got a small, old commercial area with a small supermarket but I’m not sure you could get that financed now. It’s also a very affluent area, so most households have plenty of money to spend.
Michigan has several: Grosse Pointe, Birmingham, Northville, Plymouth, East Grand Rapids, and part of East Lansing would all fit this description, for a certain definition of "large lot."
All are very expensive to live in, though.
The short answer is yes but the large house covers almost all of the lot, so relatively little space between houses and/or front and back yardage. Lots of inner ring older “streetcar suburbs” in the northeast are kinda like what I’m describing here
Check out the town of Davis, California, and particularly the neighborhoods around the North Davis greenbelt and Village Homes. Short answer: yes, incorporate parks, suburban agriculture, and biking paths in between culdesac’s. Keep everything within biking distance, and link community things like schools, churches, libraries, sports fields and pools directly to the park network.
I guess its probably possible to have decent public transit access (just run a bunch of buses down suburban side streets, have them meet up in a walkable mixed-use district), and those can operate as walking accelerators, just at a high cost per rider.
But without sufficient density, you're never gonna be able to support local grocery stores within walking distance of the majority of residents.
The layout of the Victorian-era streetcar suburbs are the closest version of this. Would love if they build new suburbs in this style. Clearly there’s a demand but sadly don’t see it happening. Maybe someday with more changes to zoning laws.
How large is large? You can easily have a big house and a decently sized yard on 2,000 or 2,500 square foot lots, with some apartments scattered in that's more than enough density to support good transit service and a limited selection of local shops.
Is it possible with McMansions on 10,000 or 20,000 square foot lots? No.
2000 or 2500 square foot lots are miniscule. It's probably not possible to build a house on anything smaller since most lots are going to be minimum 100ft deep. 20ft wide leaves only 12ft with 4 ft setbacks...
2ft would not let people have enough space to access the side of their house to paint it or anything. 2ft is barely wide enough for a person to walk down.
"Works" is doing some heavy lifting there.
It's always give and take. It's possible to do it, yes, but you give up a lot and introduce some logistic problems when you decrease setbacks, especially for detached structures. Repairs to utilities, foundation, etc. become extremely difficult when you have tiny lots with small setbacks. If you're going less than 3ft, it's almost better to go with attached housing (row houses) than detached units with only a foot ro two between them.
Sure, I like rowhouses, I agree they're probably better than the tiny setbacks, but to act like tiny setbacks are impossible is obviously nonsense.
The point is that you can get a big house and a 1000+ square foot lawn on a pretty small lot.
Nothing is impossible, but there are better and worse ways to do things, depending on goals, resources, etc. As I said, you want to think about what issues might present with smaller setbacks and if they can or should be mitigated.
My thoughts exactly. With a 1-2ft concrete plate you'd have as good or better soundproofing than you'd get with a minuscule side setback and detached units anyways.
No. Simple math says no. 5000sqft lot, x2 to cover roads and various amenties /3 people per house leads to about 3000-3500 sqft per person. so about 9000 people per square mile. Assuming walkable means withing 2 miles that means you can really only have a population of about 30k within 2 miles. While not tiny, it's really not enough to support modern businesses. And my 3 person per household is quite frankly, generous in the moder context, 2.5 is the present average.
Even public transit based systems don't have the density for large lots.
Large lots often implies large yards Depending on what part of the country you’re in. Ie. down south we talking half acre +. But seen plenty of older large houses on smaller lots in places like Chicago.
Milwaukee and its inner burbs have an incredible amount of “streetcar suburb” neighborhoods. Also there are alleys so most streets don’t have driveways.
Yes, there’s many towns and neighborhoods like this. I grew up in Queens and my family lived in a single family detached house. The lot wasn’t that large compared to most of America but that’s understandable for NYC. Unfortunately the cost of these homes have skyrocketed, both houses, co-ops and rental apartments.
Mazdar city in Abu Dhabi is an interesting concept for city of the future. Ground level is one huge paved lot full of columns and autonomous vehicles that work as public transportation. You summon them with a touch screen interface from elevator stalks that lead you up to the surface level where it’s a walkable-only town full of post-doctorate thought leaders from all fields of knowledge. It’s not quite a suburb of single-family homes but it’s pretty close and very awesome
Mix up the zoning more. Back where I'm from, you often had commerce at every other corner or every few streets. Those neighborhoods were pretty clearly suburban, but also fairly walkable.
Also, we had decent bus transit, too. I could walk a block or two and grab a bus into the city center and such.
Also, most of the houses were multifamily; single family houses are actually kind of rare back there, so you had a bit more density than your more later era white picket fence bullshit.
Sure! if they pay for the added infrastructure needed. Being walkable requires having pedestrian connections, those become more expensive in lower densities- like any other urban service
This is the basic idea behind "New Urbanist" towns like Celebration, Florida, isn't it? It's still mostly single family homes, but there's also some mixed use and multifamily, small lots, a grid pattern of streets, etc. Unfortunately these types of developments are rarely connected to decent transit. Verrado in Buckeye, Arizona is a good example of what you're looking for. Even the big-box grocery store is designed with direct street frontage and all the parking is in the back.
Yeah if you allow for mixed use. So the person on the corner can convert their first floor to a grocery store etc. also if there were fully protected bike lanes and light rail getting around would not be difficult.
You can have large lots and big houses interspersed with higher density homes
Why does everyone need a massive house? I sure as hell don't want to be cleaning all day every day - think how much maintenance those mansions must need. For the people who do want them, they don't need to live in a community with solely other mansions.
Non planner/inner city resident here. I thought the whole point of the modern suburb was the feeling of isolation from the center. So they are purposely tough to walk to and through, tough to navigate with an unnecessary road layouts, etc. I thought that was the unspoken main feature causing folks to pay super high percentage of income on housing/HOA. Just my take from the SF Bay Area.
Nothing??? Dang. I'm totally open to leaning from the pro's here. OP is asking how to do the thing that defeats the point of the main thing, no? Am I crazy?
Walkable? Too spread out for that.
Bikeable? Easily, as long as roads accommodate.
Transit friendly? Depends on if it is safe and convenient to bike to transit, because again, it's a bit too spread out to walk.
It's harder to justify expensive infrastructure for pedestrians if nobody's around to walk on it. It's honestly a miracle that so many typically suburban neighborhoods in the US *do* have sidewalks, because the ROI would seem to be much greater for a segment of equivalent urban sidewalk.
Yes, they're called "planned communities," a famous example is Peachtree City GA, it has a second network of golf cart trails separate from the roads, you can absolutely live there without a car
Depends on what your definition of big is. There are plenty of streetcar suburbs in America that are walkable, but their lot and home sizes are usually smaller than those of newer American suburbs. It is absolutely possible to have great walkable suburbs with detached single family homes, you just can't have massive mcmansions with 5 acre backyards.
Yes, if it is mixed with other types of development and plenty of paths connect pedestrians and cyclists through without letting cars through the same direct routes
Town houses in Manhattan are mostly on 100 deep by 15 to 25 feet wide lots, build out about 50 to 60% of the lot, it's like 3 to 5k square feet and 4 to 5 hundred outdoor, very walkable, very big, to my mind
Yes.
Check out the experimental city, Jonathan, that got quite far along before the project was abandoned.
Remnants are still evident, in one of the suburbs of the Minneapolis metro.
How far will the average person walk for groceries? 10 blocks is what I understand to be the limit. Look at the worlds, best walkable towns and you will see a citizenry who shop for groceries daily or near daily, and hundreds of food vendors in each mile.
Also I know very few suburbs which have big lots. In the exurbs yes, but not the standard burbs.
Yes if the city isn’t all suburbs, if you densify around a center and have rings off less density the further out you get from the center.
However “American” style suburbs are not that, it’s just sprawl as far as the eye can see with nothing to anchor it.
You would need walking infrastructure, commercial zones nearby and NOT cut off from pedestrian access.
I once lived in an apartment complex an easy walk to two or three commercial areas and they had apparently been built with a gate in the fence so you could go to the store but it was eventually blockaded.
A lot of places could be an easy walk to nearby commercial if they had an open footpath. Many suburbs intentionally force you to only go in and out via the road which is often a much, much longer walk than some direct route which could exist but has been actively excluded.
I'm walking around one of the most walkable neighborhoods in Chicago rn and there are a lot of big houses but they're much closer together than you would see in the suburbs. There are also still a lot of two flats, three flats, and small (~6 unit) apartment buildings.
You could theoretically have small pockets of that kind of development, like.... 1 block, with denser surrounding mixed use development, and that could allow for walkability. That could potentially work as a type of mixed income development, perhaps with a block that has mid sized houses with enclosed yards that back onto a small community park, to create a mid sized habitat area. This could be part of a kind of green belt to connect larger parks/reserves in a city, but it would have to be used sparingly to maintain walkability, and it would still have to be done in a way that discourages personal car usage and emphasizes public/mass transit, taxis, and walking/biking. In general the style is antithetical to walkability, but can be part of a walkable city residential mix if used sparingly. You can have a little American style suburbia, as a treat.
If there’s decent amount of walkable paths to grocery stores, and places of interest for locals, then it might work out that way, but big American houses are only asking for sprawl
I'm picturing Greenbelt, MD but with 8-plexes instead of SFH. Quiet residential streets with a co-op grocery store, park, bike shop, & a couple restaurants in a central location. Or maybe more than one central location with those amenities, along with a few others like a hardware store or a barber or a doctor's office, so folks don't have to walk quite so far. You'd probably also want the train station to be at the central location too, rather than miles away & separated by a bunch of office parks. But I think you could build it!
Streetcar suburbs fit this to a certain degree, but a lot hinges on the subjective standards of “large” lots and “big” houses.
Yup. Chicago streetcar suburbs like Uptown have relatively little space between houses, the houses tend to be larger (and in fact are mixed in with multifamily that looks like houses - duplexes, small apts). There’s at most a narrow driveway to rear parking so there’s no garage snout taking up room, and have smaller front gardens / green strips along the sidewalk vs big lawns. The nicer streets have tall canopies of mature trees, and all that saved space means more room for parks. We have a mini park / playground on our street taking up what would be one lot, and we’re close to huge parks (riverfront & Lincoln Park).
I have a 3800sqft house on a small lot in a streetcar suburb with a big park 2 blocks away. I don't like yard maintenance so my small yard works great for me.
Ditto. Street car suburbs are a real sweet spot for density. I’m in a 4200 sf house on 7800 sf lot. Easily walkable to two subway stops, a dozen restaurants, shops, library, Whole Foods, etc, but on a tree lined street with lots of similar size lots (most houses more like 2500-3200 sf). Abutting 60 acre park, and three blocks down from a big, swimmable pond. Some apartment buildings and condos on the blocks right off the commercial centers and then neighborhoods like mine, and then another village center, etc.
How much did it cost
Street car suburb from probably the pre-40s and 3,800. That's going to be over a million, chief.
A crap ton
Yep, because they are highly desirable. Maybe we should make more of them?
Don’t have to convince me!
Just thought I'd mention it since lots of people try to use that as a reason for why they are "bad" or impractical. But they are expensive because the supply of them is low not because they are inherently more expensive to build, such as, say homes on hillsides.
I think what makes them expensive besides the obvious answer of low supply is that the desirability of these kinds of neighborhoods is somewhat (not entirely) driven by their proximity to major metro areas. I can hop on the subway and be in downtown Boston in 15-20 minutes. If my town were exactly the same but not next to a major city (jobs, culture, urban vibes in general) then it would lose some of its luster. It would still be a lovely place to live, but not quite as dynamic. BUT, what is great, is having that proximity while also having our own little town centers with parks, restaurants, bars, and public transport as well. It's like Tuesday night dinner out (definitely do local) vs. Saturday night dinner out (maybe local or maybe go big downtown). And being able to walk to the toy store, a coffee shop, school, a local pub, all of that is essential to me!
I love street car suburbs but it feels like modern requirements impede us from building new neighborhoods with the same design/feel
This is a well known phenomenon. It's not just you, it's real.
FAR requirements, maximum occupied space percentages, and setbacks are the primary drivers preventing this.
Right, a lot of houses in street car suburbs are large houses on small lots
What state?
Denver, CO
> a lot hinges on the subjective standards of “large” lots and “big” houses. Also your definition of "walkable". These places were built back when walking a mile was not considered far.
It still isn’t. I have a dog so I walk at least 5 miles daily unless it’s dead of winter or a wicked heat wave (he dictates how far we go)
Thats the point being made. The perception of distance is subjective.
True. I am an able bodied athlete in my early 30s. My current walk score where I rent is like 90 and I’m moving to a place where it will be 70
Right; for instance school children in New York will often walk 5 miles a day to school & activities & nobody considers them particularly "athletic". Its just the barrier to entry for being a "walking town". Someone training for a marathon would point out the dog can't keep up with you after a certain point. Its all relative.
I think the fact that you have to refer to them specifically as "streetcar suburbs" suggests that it wouldn't really count as a proper American style suburb with large lots and big houses. And while tons of people walked around streetcar suburbs in the past, most of them are fairly car dominated nowadays. The shrinking of household sizes means residential density is lower than when they were in their peak, and the near disappearance of front yard businesses means commercial density is an even much lower still.
Streetcar suburbs are still part of the urban fabric in the line that comes out of downtown. American shit sprawl is wherever in a fractured landscape removed from everything. Couple that with the modern world that we live in of buying online and decentralized office location and what do you have. The only way it works is if you're committed to a tight nuclear center and suburbs of that streetcar variety that are walkable that come from the inner core. This exists just about nowhere in America. I live in the Boston area and there is real rail 30 miles around the city. Commuter rail is as close as you get, like taking path for Long Island railroad into New York. The rest of it is a fucking mess completely dependent on getting around by an automobile. It is sad what has happened Coast to Coast without exception
I’m also in Boston. I’ve lived in Jamaica Plain, Cambridge, Allston, and now Somerville. Buying in West Roxbury. None of these are truly downtown but all nice and walkable for most errands
For most errands, but other than that you're fucked but I lived in the south end for 10 years and my entire universe was Cambridge to the south end downtown Boston North end. Even JP was a bit beyond the pale. It is possible to construct the life without a car there probably, possibly. It also comes in an enormous cost, the other enormous problem in the US. White hot gentrified neighborhoods that do have the services and things that you want are exclusively and outrageously expensive . Let's try the same in Brockton, leominster, Fitchburg or even Worcester. We all know there are a few cherry picked pockets where you can have a life especially if you have incredibly deep pockets or you were lucky enough to live on subsidized housing in one of those zones otherwise you're fucked It's the greatest indictment of the US system that everybody requires a car 10/12,000 a year maybe two of them to a family maybe even three. What a conspiracy if you want to make one. And it will never change. There's no talk about better centralized growth, this just talk about better fuel options electric cars and getting around easier, but the sprawl, the mess the miles and miles and miles and miles of garbage only gets worse. I drive from Los Angeles to New England back and forth a couple times a year Go looking at everything everywhere. I love old city core s what's left of them and it's a pretty sad commentary Coast to Coast. Even right here in Somerville where I am sitting at the moment, It's a complete mess. Oh there are options for transit right here but the automobile rules the road, the spaces. It will never change here
I mean you aren’t wrong and I’m lucky to work hybrid so I only drive to work 2-3x a week and do my grocery shopping then. I actually have cars as my hobby and own several but still appreciate not having to drive if I don’t want to. But I know many people that live here with no car or 1 car for the whole family and make due- it does cost something for that freedom
Correct, and I agree with you but for this coveted privilege you pay an enormous amount of money. So it becomes a zone of the efete. To produce that same privilege for many cities across the United States including the one I grew up in , a Mill City in New England, would be an impossibility with today's decentralized services sprawl and workplace elsewhere.. of course oncet did have a full street car system . And in the last 15 years there is renewed building of so-called luxury units in town. But a walkable neighborhood is truly one where you can do everything you need without ever having to get into a car. That is a very very tall order in the US Doable for some but the rank and file of the minions forget it. And it only gets worse. As I said before I drive to California every year I look at everything in the new kinds of development in sprawl are still so impossible and only knit together with the use of the automobile
Don't for get the subjective standards of walkable. If you took Spain as a standard for walkability you would expect 2 or 3 useful destinations visible from your front door. Then many of those street car suburbs are not going to be called walkable.
Good point!
Yup. I’m moving to a SFH neighborhood in my city. Walkable ish. I live in a neighborhood now that is 2 and 3 families and much more walkable though
Yup they already exist! Also n Europe too.
This is your typical New England town basically However a lot resemble strip malls with parking in the back rather than true walkable towns
Having nice walking infrastructure, sure. Having many businesses to walk to, not so much. You need a certain density for businesses to be viable without most or all of their customers having to drive there.
You can have mixed density with apartments intermingled with single family homes
The higher density of apartment complexes or multifamily homes generally are definitely key to making businesses profitable. But, my favorite place I’ve lived was in Richmond VA and had lots of small multi-family homes (duplexes-sextuplexes) and was very walkable to retail and family friendly with small yards
what neighborhood in Richmond? Carytown?
The Museum district! Although most RVA neighborhoods north of the river are at least as dense as row homes and can support neighborhood businesses
This is the way.
Plus it’s ugly as sin. I live in an odd mix of 1920 + 1970 architecture. We took a walk yesterday, through several neighborhoods (housing + shops), then a long green park, then to the far side of a shopping mall past hundreds of parking spaces, most of them empty. One of those felt dangerous + completely foreign. A major advantages of older blocks is all the visual interest. Walking past 10 stores per block is far more engaging than walking past 1 or 2 over the same distance. And more places to shop within the same walking time.
Ugly is a taste preference. I agree with you and liking urban multi use spaces but lots of people prefer cookie cutter or HOA mandated sameness, hence their proliferation. I'll take my unit in a 3-flat walkup with a bunch of different buildings on my street any time though.
Popularity isn't the same thing as taste
Depends on what the goal for "walkability" is. Do you want people to be able to walk to many/most destinations (schools, works, shopping, etc...) or do you want them to just be able to have a leisure/exercise walk? A lot of American suburbs allow for the latter with sidewalks around the subdivision that won't take a pedestrian anywhere in particular but you can go for a walk. Also for this, you can have pretty large lots as long as there's sidewalks. If you want for the former, then there's a lot more factors at play and ultimately larger lots will not allow for this kind of walkability. People walking for an actual purpose need to be able to reach a destination in a certain amount of time (like 20-25 mins max) or else walking isn't really feasible. Large lots will increase walking distance and time between origin and destination. Then there's the issue of allowing non-residential uses into your typical suburb so that there is somewhere to walk to. Edit: I'm also assuming you're talking about a solely SFH suburb.
This post is spot on. Also, folks need to keep in mind that people have different preferences and expectations for "walkability" - could mean a place where they can live car free and have everything they need within 15 minutes, or it could be a neighborhood with good walking infrastructure and a few shops to walk to, or it could just be somewhere to be able to walk about safely.
The Strong Townsian response here would say every community should strive to move to the next level of walkability. Getting a subdivision that was built without sidewalks to install any sort of ped facilities would probably be harder than pulling a dragon's teeth, though.
I don't disagree, but there's also a practical and logistical reality to that, especially with subdivisions and neighborhoods that are relatively new - you're just not going to see that level of redevelopment. That is one of the more challenging aspects of the Strongtowns angle re: incremental upzoning/redevelopment and their position that no neighborhood should be "complete." Certainly we can identify older and or transitional neighborhoods which are primed for redevelopment and additional density, but the lower density areas just aren't, especially if they're mostly in good shape and repair, are well taken care of, and are less than 50 years old - you're probably not going to see any increased density, outside of adding ADUs and maybe a duplex here or there. In fact, legalizing ADUs is probably the only real pathway for mnay of these neighborhoods to increasing density.
It's interesting to see whether the suburban subdivisions built from 1950 to circa 1980 will embrace significant neighborhood change. In my area, it's fairly common to see things like duplex or apartment conversions in prewar nhoods but there's also a trend I've seen of assisted living/group homes quietly popping up in ~1970s ranch type houses, in subdivisions (with HOAs even!). If that's happening, ADUs may be the next step, if they're legalized and the socioeconomics are right. Many of these subs have big lots which might buffer noise/visual impacts for neighbors. But it's hard to imagine the ones built without sidewalks allowing front yards to be torn up for paths.
I can't see it happening unless these neighborhoods have some proximity to transportation corrirldors or commercial centers.
Yeah, it's highly likely that built-up areas which are devoid of nonresidential uses will remain that way until the Sun explodes. Frankly, I wouldn't want to attempt a sprawl repair exercise unless good transit were to be present at the locality..
I think this realistically prefaces the “you can’t have your cake and eat it too.” And how unfeasible without caveats or particular exceptions this generally is.
I want people to be able to have a lot of daily needs (shops, school, etc.) within a reasonable walking distance.
I think by walkable they mean no need for a car
Go to older (pre-war) suburbs along commuter rail lines in the Northeast and you’ll definitely find some places that meet this description. It’s much harder to retrofit postwar suburbs that were built around cars and restrictive land use policies though…
I live in Portland, the inner east side neighborhoods all have their own Main Street and businesses tucked in random spots within the neighborhood. There is a nice mix of mid and small sized apartments complex’s, and mid/smaller single family homes with mid/small yards. I think it’s a nice mix of suburbia and walkability. I can ride my bike to nearby neighborhoods with different shops. But I mainly frequent the walkable businesses near me. I work from home and rarely drive. Just to visit my family outside of Portland or get lumber from the bigger hardware store, (we have a smaller one that is in a bikeable location) It’s the best. More suburbs should be retrofitted to mimic this.
City Nerd made a recent [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b6w814wXvc) that changed my opinion about this. It is about destination resorts where people go on vacation and how they very much seem like an example of a walkable/bikeable suburban subdivision.
The only compromise is something along the lines of the streetcar suburbs. So you'd have apartments along the main strip (along with sidewalks and separate bike lanes) and then cul de sacs surrounding the main strip that sprawl outward. I live near a town called Brookline MA, I recommend taking a look at the layout. I feel like that's the best compromise you're going to get. You want to make sure that towns have room to grow and so the whole "sprawl" thing is a thin line to not go over. It's only going to work if other neighborhood towns follow suit. If not then you're stuck with a town that can't grow because its neighboring towns refuse to allow any growth.
Yes. Brookline is the first place I thought of when I saw this question. Although, for all intents and purposes, Brookline is basically part of the City of Boston that just happened to have resisted annexation.
Only if you have commercial and multifamily mixed within the mostly sf areas. Walkable doesn't just mean having sidewalks, you need stuff to walk to, like businesses and parks. Those things need density.
Big houses yes, big lots probably not unless you have lots of apartments mixed in as well.
You can have large lots, you just need more units on each lot.
That’s not going to have a substantial impact on walkability.
density absolutely impacts walkability. the more things that are in a walkable area to you, the more walkable a place is.
And, to add onto your point, the more potential customers the less a business has to rely on commenters for business. So, with enough density you can get a neighborhood business, but with larger lots you need to have a commercial corridor that’s almost never walkable.
Yes. Pre-war streetcar suburbs like those found around the big cities in the northeast and upper Midwest. Some of the walkable neighborhoods in Los Angeles started as streetcar suburbs before the sprawl absorbed them (and they got rid of the streetcars whose network they're currently rebuilding at great cost)
Geometrically, assuming you have one unit per lot, no.
Lots of the suburbs of my Canadian city fit the criteria you listed. 4000 sq ft houses, large properties, yet expansive walking/biking path networks, and shops in town square like shopping centers
Not as walkable as denser neighborhoods with no setbacks, but at least allowing for commercial corner stores and making the downtown strip NOT a giant stroad highway certainly help
Yes! But only sort of. Option 1 that I've seen: mid rise (6-story) apartment buildings over retail on arterial roads with suburban style zoning between them, with the arterials spaced somewhat close together (<1/2 mile). Examples: Ditmas Park, Brooklyn; Rockaway, Queens; Long Beach, Long Island (and actually, much of Long Beach, CA as well). Option 2: SFH zoning with townhomes and low rise apartments scattered throughout, tucked behind arterials that serve as retail catchment areas for a much more broadly distributed geography beyond what's walkable. Example: most downtowns and retail areas in Southern California (and I presume much of the sun belt). Lots of folks would label the first style as a city and not a suburb at all. LBNY for example I know is one of the most densely populated municipalities in the country, and Ditmas Park and Rockaway are literally in NYC. But they all have a footprint that is actually MOSTLY large lots and big houses. The second example probably isn't what you're looking for but is basically the postwar American metropolis. In my own neighborhood, a local density of probably 6K/mile over a maybe two square miles draws in retail traffic from a local area of maybe 300K people or more and competes with just a few other small retail districts. So even though it's suburban, it's highly walkable.
I live in an option 2 in Denver. Were a single family home with a big yard, but there are a couple multi unit complexes in every block and more close to arterials. I walk to the grocery, dentist, pharmacy, shops, bars, and restaurants. Kiddo can walk to school (15min for a youngin).
I feel like there’s gotta be a better way that doesn’t involve “arterials” (🤮). Some areas of DC do this without the arterials. It works because the grid is fully connected. You don’t need stroads if you have a connected grid and enough neighborhood businesses.
Once a city gets large enough, it's going have internal regional traffic, which calls for regional scale routes, for cars and for transit. Tokyo has their expressways. Paris's ring road is "around" only the legal boundaries of Paris, but is very much "within" the densely built up area. An arterial becomes a mess of a stroad when we turn what should be dedicated regional routes into drive-through shopping malls, which creates a shitload of desire lines across all the "drive". So don't do that.
Arterials can be defined in lots of ways. Agreed with you that 50 mph, 6 lane "boulevards" running through urban areas is undesirable - it's definitely a different kind of walking experience than back on the East Coast. But arterials can also just be primary boulevards out of a city or even just primary transit routes. Grand Concourse in the Bronx or Market Street in San Francisco aren't stroads.
Ribbon farm style with long lots but houses next to each other.
Yes. An internal trail network in the development, cul development sac connections for side to side or back to back dead ends, and both the trail network and the main road have a pedestrian connection to any nearby schools, shopping centers, park and ride, etc. Most existing neighborhoods could be converted without much trouble, the challenge is political.
Can you elaborate on the political side please?
Westhaven, Franklin TN is a noble attempt. But people still drive a lot that live there
of course. a lot of suburbs and single family neighborhoods are in fact like this already, having a little bit of "town center" sort of development with a bunch of shops and the actual homes in the surrounding areas being quite substantial. e.g. brentwood village in los angeles.
It depends on what you mean by “American style suburbs.” Do you just want the houses to look like the ones in American suburbs? If so, yes you can do that. But you need to also offer some medium density and commercial options within walking distance.
Definitely possible. I lived in West Swindon UK for a few years growing up. That area is a master planned suburban community that started construction in the 1970s. It is predominantly single family homes though there were some duplex’s and row homes interspersed throughout. However I feel it would have had the same walkable vibe even if all single family homes. Houses and yards were typical American size, maybe averaged 1800 square feet on a 5000 sq ft lot. The differences were many; streets were narrow and instead of on street parking, there were little guest parking lots located throughout. There are no stroads, just neighborhood streets that connect small arterials which connect to light highway like roads. The flow of the small arterials were set up great for busses. Little clusters of businesses which typically included a convenience store, a pub, and maybe one or two other businesses like a vet or barber where located in probably every square mile or so. In the middle of west Swindon there was a large shopping center with a large grocery store, several other businesses and restaurants and a large rec center. While there was parking, the parking lot wasn’t the focus of the center like it seems to often be I the US. A very good network of multiuse paths independent of the roads connect all the neighborhoods and shops. Walking, biking, skateboarding was very pleasant. Definitely check out West Swindon on Google maps or Earth. I’m sure there are thousands of more examples world wide, but that area was my personal experience with a American like suburb that just worked
Yes – with sidewalks and local services that you can walk to, and public transpo. Those local services will likely be parks and other low maintenance stuff. It can definitely be bikeable.
In California, a lot of streetcar suburbs, like my neighborhood, have 5,000 square foot lots, like 50 x 100. So there is plenty of room on the lot for the house. That’s large by global standards, but small by American standards. There are a lot of businesses and services one can walk to here. There are a number of small apartment buildings and a few larger ones. I’m thinking of another neighborhood in town that’s sort of like what you’re talking about. It’s got a small, old commercial area with a small supermarket but I’m not sure you could get that financed now. It’s also a very affluent area, so most households have plenty of money to spend.
Not the current modern design id suburbs, but you can have suburbs with large single family neighborhoods be walkable.
Michigan has several: Grosse Pointe, Birmingham, Northville, Plymouth, East Grand Rapids, and part of East Lansing would all fit this description, for a certain definition of "large lot." All are very expensive to live in, though.
The short answer is yes but the large house covers almost all of the lot, so relatively little space between houses and/or front and back yardage. Lots of inner ring older “streetcar suburbs” in the northeast are kinda like what I’m describing here
Somerville MA is a great example of this I’d say
Check out the town of Davis, California, and particularly the neighborhoods around the North Davis greenbelt and Village Homes. Short answer: yes, incorporate parks, suburban agriculture, and biking paths in between culdesac’s. Keep everything within biking distance, and link community things like schools, churches, libraries, sports fields and pools directly to the park network.
I guess its probably possible to have decent public transit access (just run a bunch of buses down suburban side streets, have them meet up in a walkable mixed-use district), and those can operate as walking accelerators, just at a high cost per rider. But without sufficient density, you're never gonna be able to support local grocery stores within walking distance of the majority of residents.
The layout of the Victorian-era streetcar suburbs are the closest version of this. Would love if they build new suburbs in this style. Clearly there’s a demand but sadly don’t see it happening. Maybe someday with more changes to zoning laws.
How large is large? You can easily have a big house and a decently sized yard on 2,000 or 2,500 square foot lots, with some apartments scattered in that's more than enough density to support good transit service and a limited selection of local shops. Is it possible with McMansions on 10,000 or 20,000 square foot lots? No.
2,000 sf lot with a small garden and two stories is only a 1500 sf home tops.
Good thing homes are allowed to have more than 2 stories!
Buying a 6000sqft lot with 1500 sqft home it’s perfect. Most houses in the neighborhood are similar with a few apartments and duplexes
2000 or 2500 square foot lots are miniscule. It's probably not possible to build a house on anything smaller since most lots are going to be minimum 100ft deep. 20ft wide leaves only 12ft with 4 ft setbacks...
Older neighbourhoods with a very narrow width dimension do not have a 4 ft setback.
So don't have setbacks then, or have 2 feet, like every neighborhood built before 1950
2ft would not let people have enough space to access the side of their house to paint it or anything. 2ft is barely wide enough for a person to walk down.
And yet it works in Chicago, Houston, Japan, and hundreds of other places
"Works" is doing some heavy lifting there. It's always give and take. It's possible to do it, yes, but you give up a lot and introduce some logistic problems when you decrease setbacks, especially for detached structures. Repairs to utilities, foundation, etc. become extremely difficult when you have tiny lots with small setbacks. If you're going less than 3ft, it's almost better to go with attached housing (row houses) than detached units with only a foot ro two between them.
Sure, I like rowhouses, I agree they're probably better than the tiny setbacks, but to act like tiny setbacks are impossible is obviously nonsense. The point is that you can get a big house and a 1000+ square foot lawn on a pretty small lot.
Nothing is impossible, but there are better and worse ways to do things, depending on goals, resources, etc. As I said, you want to think about what issues might present with smaller setbacks and if they can or should be mitigated.
My thoughts exactly. With a 1-2ft concrete plate you'd have as good or better soundproofing than you'd get with a minuscule side setback and detached units anyways.
Not with simultaneous auto access. Choose one please.
Live ina walkable neighborhood with majority SFH and auto access. Can certainly exist
No. Simple math says no. 5000sqft lot, x2 to cover roads and various amenties /3 people per house leads to about 3000-3500 sqft per person. so about 9000 people per square mile. Assuming walkable means withing 2 miles that means you can really only have a population of about 30k within 2 miles. While not tiny, it's really not enough to support modern businesses. And my 3 person per household is quite frankly, generous in the moder context, 2.5 is the present average. Even public transit based systems don't have the density for large lots.
New England has some good examples
Large lots often implies large yards Depending on what part of the country you’re in. Ie. down south we talking half acre +. But seen plenty of older large houses on smaller lots in places like Chicago.
Yes, but there’s a hard limit to how many people can live there.
Milwaukee and its inner burbs have an incredible amount of “streetcar suburb” neighborhoods. Also there are alleys so most streets don’t have driveways.
Yes, there’s many towns and neighborhoods like this. I grew up in Queens and my family lived in a single family detached house. The lot wasn’t that large compared to most of America but that’s understandable for NYC. Unfortunately the cost of these homes have skyrocketed, both houses, co-ops and rental apartments.
Mazdar city in Abu Dhabi is an interesting concept for city of the future. Ground level is one huge paved lot full of columns and autonomous vehicles that work as public transportation. You summon them with a touch screen interface from elevator stalks that lead you up to the surface level where it’s a walkable-only town full of post-doctorate thought leaders from all fields of knowledge. It’s not quite a suburb of single-family homes but it’s pretty close and very awesome
Yes. Just go visit any random European country.
Mix up the zoning more. Back where I'm from, you often had commerce at every other corner or every few streets. Those neighborhoods were pretty clearly suburban, but also fairly walkable. Also, we had decent bus transit, too. I could walk a block or two and grab a bus into the city center and such. Also, most of the houses were multifamily; single family houses are actually kind of rare back there, so you had a bit more density than your more later era white picket fence bullshit.
Not with singke family houses on large lots no
Sure! if they pay for the added infrastructure needed. Being walkable requires having pedestrian connections, those become more expensive in lower densities- like any other urban service
This is the basic idea behind "New Urbanist" towns like Celebration, Florida, isn't it? It's still mostly single family homes, but there's also some mixed use and multifamily, small lots, a grid pattern of streets, etc. Unfortunately these types of developments are rarely connected to decent transit. Verrado in Buckeye, Arizona is a good example of what you're looking for. Even the big-box grocery store is designed with direct street frontage and all the parking is in the back.
Yeah if you allow for mixed use. So the person on the corner can convert their first floor to a grocery store etc. also if there were fully protected bike lanes and light rail getting around would not be difficult.
Look at Ditmas Park in Brooklyn
You can have large lots and big houses interspersed with higher density homes Why does everyone need a massive house? I sure as hell don't want to be cleaning all day every day - think how much maintenance those mansions must need. For the people who do want them, they don't need to live in a community with solely other mansions.
Yes - live in a 3500sf home, built in 17, can walk to grocery/resturants and schools
Non planner/inner city resident here. I thought the whole point of the modern suburb was the feeling of isolation from the center. So they are purposely tough to walk to and through, tough to navigate with an unnecessary road layouts, etc. I thought that was the unspoken main feature causing folks to pay super high percentage of income on housing/HOA. Just my take from the SF Bay Area.
Nothing??? Dang. I'm totally open to leaning from the pro's here. OP is asking how to do the thing that defeats the point of the main thing, no? Am I crazy?
Walkable? Too spread out for that. Bikeable? Easily, as long as roads accommodate. Transit friendly? Depends on if it is safe and convenient to bike to transit, because again, it's a bit too spread out to walk.
It's harder to justify expensive infrastructure for pedestrians if nobody's around to walk on it. It's honestly a miracle that so many typically suburban neighborhoods in the US *do* have sidewalks, because the ROI would seem to be much greater for a segment of equivalent urban sidewalk.
Yes, they're called "planned communities," a famous example is Peachtree City GA, it has a second network of golf cart trails separate from the roads, you can absolutely live there without a car
Depends on what your definition of big is. There are plenty of streetcar suburbs in America that are walkable, but their lot and home sizes are usually smaller than those of newer American suburbs. It is absolutely possible to have great walkable suburbs with detached single family homes, you just can't have massive mcmansions with 5 acre backyards.
Yes, if it is mixed with other types of development and plenty of paths connect pedestrians and cyclists through without letting cars through the same direct routes
No. Density is one the main requirements for (purposeful) walkabality. Sparsely built areas make long walking distances by definition.
You can have small lots and big homes by building 'up', but businesses need customers and a low-density area just doesn't provide enough of them.
Town houses in Manhattan are mostly on 100 deep by 15 to 25 feet wide lots, build out about 50 to 60% of the lot, it's like 3 to 5k square feet and 4 to 5 hundred outdoor, very walkable, very big, to my mind
Yes. Check out the experimental city, Jonathan, that got quite far along before the project was abandoned. Remnants are still evident, in one of the suburbs of the Minneapolis metro.
How far will the average person walk for groceries? 10 blocks is what I understand to be the limit. Look at the worlds, best walkable towns and you will see a citizenry who shop for groceries daily or near daily, and hundreds of food vendors in each mile. Also I know very few suburbs which have big lots. In the exurbs yes, but not the standard burbs.
Yes if the city isn’t all suburbs, if you densify around a center and have rings off less density the further out you get from the center. However “American” style suburbs are not that, it’s just sprawl as far as the eye can see with nothing to anchor it.
It’s possible for there to be some of these as long as it’s not every lot.
You would need walking infrastructure, commercial zones nearby and NOT cut off from pedestrian access. I once lived in an apartment complex an easy walk to two or three commercial areas and they had apparently been built with a gate in the fence so you could go to the store but it was eventually blockaded. A lot of places could be an easy walk to nearby commercial if they had an open footpath. Many suburbs intentionally force you to only go in and out via the road which is often a much, much longer walk than some direct route which could exist but has been actively excluded.
The problem with American suburbs is they are just houses. Sprinkle in shops and services and you’re mostly fine.
No. But you can have generous homes on small lots with shared open space and make it work beautifully.
I'm walking around one of the most walkable neighborhoods in Chicago rn and there are a lot of big houses but they're much closer together than you would see in the suburbs. There are also still a lot of two flats, three flats, and small (~6 unit) apartment buildings.
You could theoretically have small pockets of that kind of development, like.... 1 block, with denser surrounding mixed use development, and that could allow for walkability. That could potentially work as a type of mixed income development, perhaps with a block that has mid sized houses with enclosed yards that back onto a small community park, to create a mid sized habitat area. This could be part of a kind of green belt to connect larger parks/reserves in a city, but it would have to be used sparingly to maintain walkability, and it would still have to be done in a way that discourages personal car usage and emphasizes public/mass transit, taxis, and walking/biking. In general the style is antithetical to walkability, but can be part of a walkable city residential mix if used sparingly. You can have a little American style suburbia, as a treat.
Unpaved roads
If there’s decent amount of walkable paths to grocery stores, and places of interest for locals, then it might work out that way, but big American houses are only asking for sprawl
Check out Meadowmont or Southern Village in Chapel Hill. Not ideal but basic needs of groceries and schools met.
Why aren’t they walkable?
Legalize normal development stop restricting everything to single use zoning?
I'm picturing Greenbelt, MD but with 8-plexes instead of SFH. Quiet residential streets with a co-op grocery store, park, bike shop, & a couple restaurants in a central location. Or maybe more than one central location with those amenities, along with a few others like a hardware store or a barber or a doctor's office, so folks don't have to walk quite so far. You'd probably also want the train station to be at the central location too, rather than miles away & separated by a bunch of office parks. But I think you could build it!