Are streetcar suburbs insufficiently "urban"?

[1Boston]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Depends - did they actually have streetcars at one point in the past, or still do? If so, they're probably sufficiently urban at this point.

Boston is home to some of the country's original streetcar burbs, and the homer in me aside, these are hands-down some of the best and most urban streetcar burbs in the country too: Newton, Quincy, Milton, Watertown, Arlington, Malden, Medford, etc. But the king of them all is Brookline, maybe the single best streetcar burb in America. Brookline has census tracts above 30,000 pp sq mile near Coolidge Corner at the northeast tip of the town, and areas which might as well be Weston or Dover (meaning, bucolic coastal New England) in the southwest corner.

For those wondering what hes referring to.

Coolidge corner is one of my favorite areas in the boston area, and one of the few streetcar suburbs that still has a streetcar.

[eschaton]

Here's Sewickley. Sewickley is not streetcar suburbia - it's instead a railroad suburb which grew up as a "country home" area for the well-to-do who lived on the North Side of Pittsburgh. It no longer has commuter rail into the city, but retains probably the best traditional walkable downtown in the Pittsburgh suburbs, with a Walkscore of over 90. Since it wasn't a streetcar suburb, it has a true three-dimensional downtown, which extends not just along Beaver Street, but several side streets 1-2 blocks out from the core intersection.

1-unit detached: 50.6%
1-unit attached: 6.5%
2-unit: 5.5%
3-4 unit: 14.1%
5-9 unit: 8.0%
10-19 unit: 7.4%
20+ unit: 7.9%

Unlike Dormont, which was mostly built out by 1950 or so, Sewickley built a good deal of more recent multi-family housing toward the river, which is why it has a higher proportion of its multifamily in larger structures.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by 1Boston

Coolidge corner is one of my favorite areas in the boston area, and one of the few streetcar suburbs that still has a streetcar.

Of course, most of the residential streets around Coolidge Corner look like this, which isn't what people think of when they think streetcar suburb at all.

[Citylover94]

There are some houses or smaller apartments with yards this is about four blocks form the Green Line.

[miketoronto]

While I find it really nice design wise. I do find Cleveland's Shaker Heights a tad too suburban in many aspects. Unless you are taking the train downtown, or you live within walking distance of Shaker Square, you are pretty much driving everywhere.
The densities are also really low along the Green Road segment, and this is reflected in the low frequency of LRT service on the Green Road service.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Citylover94

There are some houses or smaller apartments with yards this is about four blocks form the Green Line.

I wasn't implying there were no houses at all in Coolidge Corner. But the overall housing mix is more reminiscent of the urban core of Chicago than a streetcar suburb as it is commonly understood.

[Chase Unperson]

Depends.

If you are married, in your 40s or 50s with kids, and sedentary then for sure they are urban enough.

If you are in your 20s and single, they are not that much different than the suburbs other than being a bit more aesthetically attractive.

[Citylover94]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

While I find it really nice design wise. I do find Cleveland's Shaker Heights a tad too suburban in many aspects. Unless you are taking the train downtown, or you live within walking distance of Shaker Square, you are pretty much driving everywhere.
The densities are also really low along the Green Road segment, and this is reflected in the low frequency of LRT service on the Green Road service.

True I was just showing that even with the density there are still some other buildings mixed in although even the triple decker apartments can have quite high density's and are similar to three flats in Chicago.

On a related note it seems to me that as a whole even outside of Coolidge Corner and the high density apartments following the B line in Boston it seems that the streetcar suburbs in Boston are on average denser than areas that were developed as streetcar suburbs in other cities.

For example:

Church Street near Union Square Somerville- 20,000 ppsm

Armstrong St. - Jamaica Plain(?) 31,604 ppsm

St. John St. Jamaica Plain- 24,294 ppsm

Winthrop St. Roxbury- 19,699 ppsm

The density is for the census block group that street is located in and is based on the 2014 ACS.

[eschaton]

I think it's important that we distinguish between three different late 19th/early 20th century.

Horsecar suburbs: The earliest form of fixed-route mass transit, which developed in the 1830s in the U.S., when the earlier large-size public carriages (omnibuses) were put onto rail. They remained the dominant form of urban mass transit up until the 1890s, although other transit systems, like cable cars, steam-powered streetcars, and ferries were also used. Horsecar suburbia is invariably recognized as urban today. The only functional difference between horsecar suburbia and "fully urban" neighborhoods is it was not self contained, having a large middle class to wealthy population who commuted into the urban core. They also tended to be more residential, and less industrial, than other neighborhoods of their time, although since they were built out pre-zoning, they were all mixed use.

Streetcar suburbs: Became dominant in the U.S. only during the 1890s, reaching their peak by 1923. Most of the characteristics of their typology have been outlined in the thread already, but one which hasn't been is fairly uniform density. As streetcars were designed to stop on essentially every block, every space within a 5-10 minute walk of a streetcar line was deemed equally desirable. As a result, the streetcar typology didn't result in the formation of "urban nodes" of particular density unless it was specifically planned.

Railroad suburbs: Developed through the 19th century during both the horsecar and streetcar eras. They were always further from the urban core. Since railroads didn't stop every block like streetcars, development was also clustered in a tight area within a 5-10 minute walk from the railway stop. Railroad suburbs, unlike streetcar suburbs, thus didn't tend to be linear, but three-dimensional, with a definable downtown which spanned multiple streets. In addition, railroad suburbs tended (particularly in the early stages) to have residents across the income spectrum. Even if they were built out to cater to the wealthy, the needs of the well-to-do required that middle class people (shopkeepers) and working-class people (domestic servants, laborers) live within proximity to their homes. As a result, many classic railroad suburbs were purposefully developed with a poor side of town (Greenwich, Connecticut is a good example of this).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

As a result, many classic railroad suburbs were purposefully developed with a poor side of town (Greenwich, Connecticut is a good example of this).

This is true. Many of the affluent railroad suburbs surrounding NYC have a "poor side of town", though more recently, these neighborhoods have been heavily gentrified and are often more desirable/almost as expensive as "rich side of town" (tend to be nabes with very heavy teardown activity, and are valued for walkability and access to transit/town center).

People would probably be surprised to know that Greenwich has housing projects and extensive social services for the poor (though almost all of the Greenwich poor are in subsidized housing; their neighborhoods are now quite desirable and expensive).

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Chase Unperson

they are not that much different than the suburbs other than being a bit more aesthetically attractive.

along with aesthetics, there are some functional differences as well. streetcar burbs typically have better non-car transportation options (walk, bike, transit) than standard post-war suburbia. that's not a terribly important point of distinction for your average gas guzzling american, but it is a real difference for those of us who don't enjoy being slaves to automobiles.

growing up in wilmette (northshore chicago pre-war burb), my family was able to get by with one car for many years. my dad walked to our local metra station to get to his job downtown. my sister and i could walk/bike to school and loads of other places, leaving the car for my mother to get to her part-time job and run errands. when i was 9 my dad got a new job out in freaking schaumburg, so he got a second car for his commute.

its a very real financial advantage to live in an area that can allow you to forgo ownership of an additional car that you would likely otherwise own if you lived in typical post-war suburbia.

[mrsmartman]

The development of street car suburbs laid the foundation of American leadership in urban planning in the 20th century.