Live data from Hacker News

Why Suburbia Sucks

likewise.am

191–200 of 298 posts

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#191
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm happy to give up grime, drug trafficking, and violence for an internet tongue lashing. This statement assumes that if you did not make the choice that you have you would be assured to have these things happening right outside your door.

Sure. I imagine that many families moved to Sandy Hook, CT for safety and security. There's no guarantee in life. There's also relative measure: some of the old timers where I live feel the neighborhood has "gone downhill". Some people are frankly just happier living in a bustling and unstable place where they simply accept they can't let their kids go outside unsupervised until they're 18. I believe we'll generally…

Some people also like to live in communities where every house looks exactly the same with no variation, and where the local homeowners' association will send someone out daily during the summer with callipers to measure your lawn height (or fine you because a box was delivered to your door while you were at work and it was sitting there "too long.")

It does not necessarily mean that these are "good" things just because someone thinks that they are good things either though.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#192
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a hypothesis out there, pushed by a few researchers citing each other (including one Bell Curve fan), that environmental lead from leaded gas and such caused reduced IQ and greater criminality among urban residents. It's not actually a remotely mainstream view among any sort of scientist. However, it has a lot of currency among left-of-center people uncomfortable with the legacy of urban renewal (aka "bulldoz…

The scale is debatable, but there is a lot more evidence for this than you might think. It's also a lot more than just gas, paint, water pipes, sodder, even fillings also made significant contributions. IMO, scale is not that important as the preverbial straw that broke the camels back is important, but so are all the others that get to that point. A leaning disability on it's own might not lead to violence, but it d…

My point is that I'm not concerned about what I, you, or other laymen think about the science, here. I'm concerned about what the scientific community thinks. The scientific community does not accept the claimed social effects for lead. It's quite literally fringe science.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#193
Hi, author here. Just wanted to respond to a few broad themes I see in the comments:

1. "My neighbourhood isn't like that at all!"

My criticism was directed at the specific type of vacuous sprawl commonly seen in new Sun Belt development. That's a mouthful to put in an article title, so I tried to make the distinction clear in the article by referring repeatedly to "older" and "traditional" neighbourhoods. I suspect this may be why the term "sprawl" came about, i.e. to more accurately capture the sort of thing I'm referring to.

I would be the first to agree that a lot of the more dense suburban neighbourhoods found in the Northeast and around the older industrial cities of America are more livable than what I'm describing. And certainly, not all kids that grow up in suburban neighbourhoods, in cul-de-sacs or otherwise, have a miserable and isolated experience. At the same time, an awful lot of the USA looks like what I described.

By the same token, rural != suburban to my mind, even though some of the same drawbacks are present in rural layouts. As I see it, suburbia is precisely that which offers none of the advantages of either urban living or the countryside, but the downsides of both.

2. "If you don't like suburbs, don't live there. To each his own."

Yes, but 90%+ of the US looks like this, to varying degrees.

There is a widely disseminated idea out there that this is the organic outcome of widespread social preference, a democratic coming-together of the citizenry in a consensus on how they want to live in the land of the free. As evidence, boosters of the phenomenon point to the fact that the majority of new building embodies the paradigm I lambast.

It's just not true, though. In my experience, a large percentage of Americans simply aren't familiar with what the alternatives would look like. More importantly, there is enormous accumulated evidence that sprawl is an engineered policy outcome to some degree. One need not be a kooky conspiracy theorist to see that it's astronomically easier to get additional road-building approved (and subsidised with matching federal funds) and that there are lots of perverse legal and economic incentives for greenfield cookie-cutter subdivision development versus urban infill.

Does that mean that everyone really clamours to live in urban settings deep down inside? Of course not. Some people genuinely like suburbia as I've described it--one can find abundant evidence of that in this discussion thread. However, I do not at all buy into the notion that there is such an overwhelming consensus in favour of that mode of life that almost all inhabited areas of the US are built to suit. For the most part, there just aren't many alternatives; it's amazing what humans can adapt to and put up with. Zoning committees, planners and government agencies have made sprawl an easy inertial default for a variety of historical reasons.

That's how this has turned into a broad quality of life issue that merits broad, nationally scoped criticism. If suburban sprawl were confined to a relative niche of enthusiasts, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

3. "You're comparing ordinary towns with exceptionally beautiful and historic European capitals!"

No, I'm not. My experience has been, however, that on their worst day, profoundly second and third-tier European cities and towns are infinitely more navigable and livable than the vast majority of the US.

4. I would never dispute that European cities bring their own problems and developmental antipatterns.

5. For those who say I don't understand because I'm too young or don't have kids: I'm 30 and have a 4 year-old, a 3 year-old, and a newborn.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#194
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you point me to that? I still can't find it.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2013/7/24/FA-5548.pdf "Safety in Numbers: Are Major Cities the Safest Places in the United States?" by Myers et al, Annals of Emergency Medicine

The statistic measured is "injury death rate" which explains the qualifier a little bit better and makes perfect sense. That's a fairly narrow field.

If a physical injury is to lead to death, having somebody else around to find you and provide aid / get you to a hospital is going to be less likely the more spread out people are.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#195

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…

The choice between "dense urban core" and "suburb" is distinctly American. Especially in Europe, city (in the sense of "not suburb or rural" != center of a large (1M+) population. In America, any region with a population the order of 100k or less is basically a shopping area surrounded by suburbs. The same is not true in Europe. In Europe, you can definitely find walkable, breathable, friendly cities while still livi…

Indeed; in Europe, you can find the same reproduced at the village and hamlet level, too.

It's a density issue, at heart. Any US "city" (if it should be called that) of 100K-500K occupies 10x-20x the surface area that it would in most parts of the world, removing much of the cohesion that leads us to call places cities or towns in the first place.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#196
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>German urban areas tend to barely have any road traffic for the density since almost nobody owns a car, a quiet train that passes by once in a while and most things closing at 8pm latest. Everything closes at 8pm? Jesus, I thought that silicon valley was bad, just 'cause it is hard to get a decent meal after 10pm.

Not everything, there are still a bunch of restaurants and bars and some 24/hr liquor / 7-11 type shops. The noise level although has never been a problem when those are open. Experience: Living in a place that was right above a bar, a 7-11 and in front of a train. Also the sidewalks are huge, they are as big as a lane of traffic. As a result cafes and such can easily have comfortable outdoor seating. And because eve…

I'm not sure why people who can afford modern houses complain about noise levels; I'm living right under the flight-path for SJC and it is super loud. But if you close a double pane window? it's pretty quiet; my place has a third single-pane of glass on the outside of that, and if I close the doors and windows? the place is just about silent, no matter how many airplanes go overhead.

It's not a fancy building, either; the construction is typical of the late '80s, early '90s, I think, aside from the third pane of glass, which I think was a retrofit.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it is the fault of bureaucrats over-zoning. I would love to have a pub and a market next to every neighborhood. I love the idea of the Post Office providing basic financial services such as checking and money transfers. Let's make it as easy as possible to have peaceful neighborhoods AND retail/business in the same area. Dangerous or loud industrial businesses still need away from residence, but other than…

Amazing, isn't it? In a country where we are told is all about choice and having it our way, we're put in so many situations where we have diametrically opposite and equally unappealing choices, the tyranny of OR, instead of room for compromise.

Indeed, it's quite odd that the suburban sprawl model is held up as a triumph of choice and freedom, as if the market has spoken in favour of the one true way to build an entire country.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where my kids have access to safe streets, parks, and decent schools This all used to be easily achievable in urban neighborhoods. The elephant in the room people don't want to acknowledge is that suburbia has mostly been a way to flee from and exclude social decay. This is why people freak out about public transit to a lot of neighborhoods. The requirement of multiple car ownership in an area is a deliberately con…

> The elephant in the room people don't want to acknowledge is that suburbia has mostly been a way to flee from and exclude social decay. This is why I bought in a socially conservative neighborhood: people implicitly police one another into basic civic decency, and I'd much rather suffer an occasional scolding from a few overzealous busybodies than bear the burden of intergenerational poverty and crime. Sure, I may…

I'm happy to give up grime, drug trafficking, and violence

Well, sure! Anyone would be happy to give up those things; me too! I don't know a person who would say, "I would like to live amidst grime, drug trafficking and violence, please."

... but it's a bizarre non sequitur, unless you're just grossly misinformed about how urban life works.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#199

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…

The entirety of Europe and many countries with colder climates, where suburbia would be unsustainable due to heating costs manage to raise children in safe environments just fine.

Unless you're citing studies that explicitly show suburbia results in better outcomes for children than being raised in urban environments ceteris paribus, it seems like the only argument you're producing here is your own lack of perspective and being unable to venture outside of personal anecdotal experience.

Suburbs are extremely exclusionary (to the point of being outright xenophobic), inefficient, and in most cases outright ugly, populated by cheap, run of the mill outdated construction from the pre 1977 era, when people burned tons of oil to heat the cardboard boxes that are most of the American 'burbs.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#200

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.

It does get a lot of mention. If the overwhelming majority of housing development in the US is of the suburban sprawl type, it stands to reason that the few pockets of non-dilapidated dense urbanism will be expensive.

Amusingly, this is often cited as evidence of suburbia's unique capacity to provide "affordable housing". Scarce things are unaffordable. Who knew!

Post reply on HN