Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Suburbia Sucks

likewise.am

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 298 posts

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#211

Post by gozur88 »

eropple wrote: post #110
criddell wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to break these bubbles, redraw our towns and cities with integrated services, focused on walking, biking, and as little driving internally as possible. You car for should be intra-city travel. How about you live the way you want to live and let me live how I want to live? I choose living in the suburbs because that's where I'm happiest right now. When I was younger, I loved the energy and action of the city…

> How about you live the way you want to live and let me live how I want to live? If the price of living where you want to live factored in the significant externalities of it, you might have a point. But suburban and exurban areas in the United States largely don't pay their way with regards to most governmental services (and have a significantly higher ecological footprint, also not accounted for).

I do not believe this is true. The way they arrive at such numbers is to assume that a highway between San Francisco and Los Angeles is there for the benefit of people in the Central Valley. It's not. There are significant services built outside urban cores for the benefit of people in urban cores.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#212

Post by gozur88 »

Apocryphon wrote: post #140

I have to wonder: do any of these pro-suburban commentators live in the Bay Area? And if so, do they live in San Jose, Fremont, or Daly City? Or do they live in San Francisco.

I live in a Bay Area suburb and would not move to SF. Why do you ask?

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#213

Post by gozur88 »

KB1JWQ wrote: post #26
jcoffland wrote: post #7

Suburbia, none of the benefits of the country with all the disadvantages of living in the city.

I can see this. It tends to be the "safe" middle group between urban and rural while having none of the benefits of either.

I guess it all depends on what you want. From my perspective suburbia has all the advantages of both without the disadvantages.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#214

Post by tptacek »

If you like both the content and the tone of this post, you'll probably also like Christopher Alexander's _A Timeless Way Of Building_ and _A Pattern Language_, which has a similar tone and topic, but with a broader sweep.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#215

Post by tptacek »

CameronBanga wrote: post #20

I'm trying to find words to describe my distain for this article, but I can't think of anything that isn't seen as a direct attack on the author, which isn't my goal. Basically America is bad because we had space for cars when they were invented? There are plenty of places in America where you can get by without a car. I live in "suburbia". A small city of 30,000 in Indiana called Valparaiso. We have a vibrant downto…

I think this article is poorly descriptive of most of the older and most popular Chicago suburbs, but very well describes the Chicago "exurbs" and the Atlanta sprawl suburbs. So to me, it's not that the author is wrong, so much as semantically imprecise with the word "suburb".

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#216

Post by apenwarr »

For a more nuanced view of this whole topic, I recommend the book The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs. https://www.amazon.ca/Death-Life-Great-American-Cities/dp/06...

Many of the counterarguments in these comments (especially that smaller cities, or rural areas, are fine even when American suburbs are not) are actually reasonable, and Jacobs covers them in her book.

Since it's from 1961, you might think the insights would be dated, but they're not. She was complaining even as these mistakes were being made, and it's fascinating to read so many of her predictions that we can now say clearly came true.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#217

Post by tptacek »

abalashov wrote: post #195
throwawaybookst wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're going to get in trouble with generalizations like "any US city", or even "any US city of 100k-500k". Can you be more specific about the faux-cities you're referring to, rather than nerd-baiting me to come up with a list of cities that defy your criteria?

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#218

Post by bardworx »

jlgray wrote: post #115
bardworx wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vastly reduced Lead levels to reduce violence Can you expand on that statement? Do you imply bullets (as in higher prices and gun control) when you refer to Lead or literally the reduction of the metal Lead in paint, etc. And how is it linked to violence?

There's been a lot of research lately on the connection between lead, brain impairment, and violence. One quick example, claiming cities in the 1920s that switched to lead pipes saw ~25% increase in homicides vs those that didn't. http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jfeigenbaum/files/feigenbau...

Thanks. Will be interesting to read the paper.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#219

Post by _delirium »

throwawaybookst wrote: post #56
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…

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…

I don't think it's a distinctly American term. The distinction between the "city" and "suburbs" or "commuter belt" is pretty common in Europe too, at least in cities that actually have such a pattern, especially with a radial commuter-rail network and clearly defined commercial center. For example I don't think anybody that lives in Ishøj or Brøndby is under the impression that they live in an independent "city"; they live in a suburb of Copenhagen, whose main virtue is that it's cheaper than Copenhagen but has good access via the S-train.

A large proportion of the commuter belt of London, Paris, Marseilles, Lyon, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Brussels, Rome, etc. are places like that, some nicer and some more depressing, but definitely suburbs that exist mainly to house people who commute in to the city.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#220

Post by tptacek »

55acdda48ab5 wrote: post #46
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…

> 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…

I think you're going to get in trouble with generalizations like this. Can you be more specific about the exact metro areas whose urban cores are unsuitable for children? My nerdoreceptors are lighting up with counterexamples, but rather than list them, I'd rather understand better what you're trying to say.
Post reply on HN