Comments on: ‘Retrofitting’ The Suburbs — It’s About Prosperity, Not Politics

By: Pat

Pat — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:34:32 +0000

Someone develop a Suburban single family home recycling bin and build denser development in already existing cities with the materials. It’s as easy as photoshop!

By: Bells

Bells — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:46:39 +0000

Disneyland “Main Street USA” urbanism. I’d rather retire to Brooklyn.

By: Eric F

Eric F — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:13:05 +0000

The walkability aspect of communities for older people makes a lot of sense, but transit much less so. It’s painful to watch a 70 year old navigate a subway or city bus system. You can allow for elder mobility more easily by facilitating walking, and you using a call ahead elder shuttle service.

By: admin

admin — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:29:17 +0000

Ted - Thanks for heads up.

By: Winston

Winston — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:22:55 +0000

200 units on 38 acres is 5.28 units per acre. This hardly qualifies as urban density. In fact, assuming that 1/3 of the 38 acres are used for roads (as would be typical in a suburban development) the resulting 5500 square foot lots would be fairly typical for new suburban development in California.

By: Ted King

Ted King — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:46:14 +0000

OOPS - Your screenshot (alt=”screenhunter_12-sep-21-1326″) is missing. I grabbed the report anyway - looks interesting. Just thought you would like to know.

By: Ken O

Ken O — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:54:26 +0000

These seniors theoretically would be happy in a senior home, except that it’s full of other seniors which can be a bit boring if safe.

I fully applaud our efforts to go more toward “hive” sensibilities since we really all are at our cores, social animals. Misanthropes can keep their SFHs if they can afford them in old age.

Welcome to Japan (or Cambodia) folks!

By: Deacon

Deacon — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:06:46 +0000

I know for a fact that my grand mother hates not being able to be completely independent, walking to the store, the coffee shop etc.
She has to be driven somewhere to do her shopping, meet her friends for bridge, sewing club and bingo, go for a walk in a park etc. because there are no developments where she lives that provide her the pedestrian amenities that she would like.
Fair enough she could move but as the article points out why not make a conscious effort to provide the amenities for them, she loves the area she lives in and all her friends are there.
Should a development take flight the local residents should get first dibs on a place.

To expand a bit on what these retrofits might look like, I found this website (hope its ok Jeb)

http://www.re-burbia.com,

Don’t know if you’ve heard of it, anyway there is one idea in particular that makes an awful lot of sense this one below -

http://www.re-burbia.com/2009/08/04/sprawl-building-types-repair-toolkit/

It also got the most votes of the 20 proposals - over 2000 - Putting a picture to such proposals gives some perspective.

We have a few Developments neighboring the suburbs here in DFW Metro where the developments are geared toward denser living, with communal pools and businesses in close proximity, Austin Ranch and Legacy village. Both excellent ideas I thought. They do lack adequate public transit options though now if DART can stick a station close by for regional connection that would be awesome.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:43:06 +0000

Building dense housing for seniors is more politically palatable than dense housing for families.