Why Suburbia Sucks • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#121

Post by jacobolus » Sun, May 08, 2016, 9:39 PM UTC

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #105

jacobolus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia, Valparaiso Indiana was a regional transportation hub in the mid 19th century. I suspect it has considerably different city plan than more recent “suburbs”. Try comparing an online map satellite view of Valparaiso to some new housing development from >1990, and you’ll observe dramatic differences.

Eh, I doubt it. Around the core -- maybe -- but Valpo (and Merrillville) are bedroom communities for Gary and Chicago. That's WHY there's a commuter train into Chicago. I expect it's brimming with white-dominated, cookie-cutter neighborhoods, exactly as described by the article.

Did you look? Judging from the satellite pictures, it’s a pretty sleepy small town, and there isn’t really anything outside the “core” (except farmland and a few terrible but limited modern-style housing developments). That core is made up of a relatively dense grid of small streets, with lots of trees and lots of small tightly packed houses. There’s fairly easy access to shops and so on, and while a lot of space is spent on parking lots, it isn’t out of control. The design is significantly different from more recent suburbs.

Looks pretty boring for anyone between the ages of 10–35, and probably still quite inconvenient for the elderly or disabled, but also reasonably walkable.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4752549,-87.0579275,2374m/da...

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#122

Post by Zach_the_Lizard » Sun, May 08, 2016, 9:40 PM UTC

JPKab wrote: post #102

increment_i wrote: post #18

Suburbia exists because people want a quiet, relatively safe place for their kids to grow up. I didn't realize this until I had children myself. I remember reaching my teenage years and cursing the dull, boring, culturally bankrupt suburbian neighborhood I grew up in. I left the minute it became feasible. Fast forward to now, and I'm right back in the 'burbs, in a house where my kids have access to safe streets, park…

I grew up in two different environments: A small, late 1800's built, pedestrian friendly town in a rural county, and later after moving to another house, in the countryside in the same county. In both places, there was a lot of economic diversity. Kids who lived in trailers socialized and spent the nights out with kids who lived in old houses, and vice versa. Something I've noticed about people like you whose entire…

>The most evil part of it all is the economic segregation. My kids currently go to school with other upper middle class kids. Nobody lives in trailers in their school, or even apartments. No economic diversity translates to minimal racial diversity. It's terrible.

That's by design. The suburbs have many laws built to enforce 1950s racial segregation without mentioning race. E.g. your house must be large by law, meaning the poor are entirely excluded. Streets must be built for cars first, then people, because the poor can't afford cars.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#123

Post by todd8 » Sun, May 08, 2016, 9:40 PM UTC

This reminds me of those lists, like the Places Rated Almanac (which might be more sophisticated now than it was years ago), where a list of criteria demonstrates that a particular place (in this case the suburbs) is inferior to other places. One can tick off a set of criteria and come up with a score or this case a blog post demonstrating why a place is better than another.

I currently live is the suburbs of a city that wouldn't score high on these kinds of lists, no balanced seasons--practically no winter and no easy access to winter sports, no major league sports team, bad traffic, no major museums, limited cultural opportunities compared to other big cities, escalating real estate prices. These were actual categories in the Places Rated Almanac that would make my city seem to be undesirable.

The problem with this approach and that of the blog "Why Suburbia Sucks" is that everyone weighs the costs and benefits differently. A more realistic title for the blog might be "Why Suburbia Sucks for Me, Right Now". (Or to better suit it's tone, "Why Suburbia Sucks for Me and Why You Should Feel It Sucks Too.) Is there a more objective or comprehensive way to assess Suburbia (or the quality of life in a particular city)?

The answer is yes, simply watch what people do. I live in Austin, the fastest growing city in the US this year according to Forbes and it has been fast growing for many years. Why would people move here when it is so hot, has no major league sports teams, requires a long trip to go skiing or to the beach, and has bad traffic? People move here for a variety of reasons and they keep moving here faster than they move away. Likewise, the suburbs have an appeal that overcomes their disadvantages for other people. Other posters here have already explained some of the important factors that make people want to live in the suburbs.

My problem with the original blog post is that it seems to express a desire to judge and decide what is best for others. Smart people often feel that if only they had there hands on the steering wheel then the world would be a better place. (Maybe they could make it a better place but maybe not.)

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#124

Post by maxsilver » Sun, May 08, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

increment_i wrote: post #18

Suburbia exists because people want a quiet, relatively safe place for their kids to grow up. I didn't realize this until I had children myself. I remember reaching my teenage years and cursing the dull, boring, culturally bankrupt suburbian neighborhood I grew up in. I left the minute it became feasible. Fast forward to now, and I'm right back in the 'burbs, in a house where my kids have access to safe streets, park…

> Suburbia exists because people want a quiet, relatively safe place for their kids to grow up.

And because it's the only thing affordable. Which does not get mentioned enough.

I would love to put my family in a walkable urban environment. But I don't have a $500k+ housing budget, so anything even remotely urban is completely out of the question, unless it's in the heart of some gangland territory somewhere.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#125

Post by to3m » Sun, May 08, 2016, 9:42 PM UTC

ZenoArrow wrote: post #93

forrestthewoods wrote: post #58

I can't possibly roll my eyes hard enough. But if the author thinks suburbia is bad I'd hate to hear what he'd say about my rural upbringing. Meanwhile I'd consider an urban upbringing the worst option. Give me rural America for kids any day of the week. Suburbia works in a pinch. But dense urban? Urgh, no thank you.

I don't think the same criticisms of suburbia apply to rural areas. The main issue I personally have with suburbia can be summed up in one word; boredom. Nothing interesting to see, not much that's interesting to do. Rural life on the other hand is far better, the act of living rurally is engaging, and the sights and sounds of nature are far more interesting than the sights of identikit housing and the muffled sounds…

The smell?

My main memories of visiting Venice (20 years ago...) were also: general lack of greenery, not many open spaces, and a pervasive delapidated shabbiness. Also, it's built on marshland. So I'm not sure the good city planning bit applies either ;)

Also, constant churn of tourists... not sure how I'd feel about that as a parent. But if I had one of those grand Venetian apartments I might be OK about living there as an adult. The lack of greenery might end up a bit trying however.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#126

Post by brightball » Sun, May 08, 2016, 9:43 PM UTC

ef4 wrote: post #117

increment_i wrote: post #18

Suburbia exists because people want a quiet, relatively safe place for their kids to grow up. I didn't realize this until I had children myself. I remember reaching my teenage years and cursing the dull, boring, culturally bankrupt suburbian neighborhood I grew up in. I left the minute it became feasible. Fast forward to now, and I'm right back in the 'burbs, in a house where my kids have access to safe streets, park…

> Suburbia exists because people want a quiet, relatively safe place for their kids to grow up. Yes, but people are making their decision based on out-of-date facts. Because in the United States in 2016, mortality risk goes down as population density goes up, and city kids are statistically safer. The #1 killer of children in US is car accidents. Guess who gets in dramatically less car accidents? City kids who don't…

Ummm...guns are nowhere near the #2 killer of children in the US. Where did you even find get a stat like that? I'm looking and can't find anything that even resembles it anywhere.

Here are the top 3 by age group: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001915.htm

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#127

Post by tormeh » Sun, May 08, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #59

arkades wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically America is bad because we had space for cars when they were invented? I think you did an admirable job of expressing my source of dissatisfaction with the article. That, and the author interjecting his personal preferences as architectural dogma - his passage about "No Street Enclosure" was very much of "I grew up in the tight spaces of old European cities, therefore preferring the tight spaces of old Eur…

I think he's also looking at European cities with quite rose-colored glasses. There are nice European cites, and (perhaps more to the point) nice areas of European cities. I lived in central Copenhagen for years, and I really liked it! But they're far from universal, and European development models also produce vast swathes of neighborhoods and housing that suck. In different ways than American suburbia, but still no…

Saying London is Europe is like saying NYC or SF is the US. These cities are extreme exceptions to the rules.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#128

Post by kingkawn » Sun, May 08, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

cowsandmilk wrote: post #99

kingkawn wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol at calling the north side risky

the point is that the same demographics of middle class and wealthy people in the city are just as safe as they are in the suburbs. That is the north side vs. Chicago suburbs. Nothing about the south side of Chicago being "risky" is an inherent result of being in a city.

You're right, making the entire comparison pretty pointless from the start, hence my original point, lol at calling the north side risky.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#129

Post by phil21 » Sun, May 08, 2016, 9:45 PM UTC

humbleMouse wrote: post #85

matwood wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what you are seeing is that not all suburbs are created equal. I grew up in the burbs and live in the burbs now. Nothing in the article matches up to my experience. I am also on the coast in a smaller city so it is hard to have explicit city and explicit burb.

That is definitely what I am saying. Minneapolis is an interesting place because rent/home prices are actually more in the suburbs than in the cool parts of the city. Furthermore, our highways are structured basically so that there are rings of highways that circle around the city. You can drive for miles on these highways and it is nothing but flat open land with cookie cutter houses and the same shops and strip mal…

Minneapolis also isn't what it was 20 years ago. I grew up on the Northside, and it was a pretty economically depressed area still on the decline swing of things. This included most portions of NorthEast as well.

I'm glad I had the experience, but today the community is far more vibrant. I think you will see those rent/home prices invert rather rapidly as the current first time home buyer generation starts to realize Minneapolis is not the Minneapolis of their parents.

I also completely agree re: the soul-soucking nature of Minneapolis suburbia though. Can't imagine a more horrid place for mental health.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#130

Post by WillAbides » Sun, May 08, 2016, 9:45 PM UTC

mattdeboard wrote: post #11

Having lived & worked quite a long time in wildly different metro areas -- Santa Clara/Mountain View, Indianapolis, Austin -- this article raises more questions for me more than anything. What is a suburb, by the author's definition? It seems like it's an area outside the urban core of a city, I guess. But here in Austin, I'm buying a house away from the urban core of downtown, in a subdivision, but it's in a largely…

I don't want to overstep, but I'm curious what part of Austin you are describing. I can't think of any place that is largely undeveloped but is a 2-3 minute drive from a museum.