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

251–260 of 298 posts

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#251

Post by abalashov »

jayess wrote: post #55
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…

There are many people, usually in so-called "urban planing" positions in cities, that believe that suburbs are something that shouldn't exist. They detest the option of suburbs.

If there were so many people in such positions who held that view, the inhabited areas of the US wouldn't be 90% sprawl.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#252

Post by tptacek »

abalashov wrote: post #246
tptacek wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know Athens solely from REM and Elephant 6 music. I've never been there. Saline and Ypsi are suburbs of Ann Arbor. Ann Arbor itself is mostly walkable, tree-lined, mixed-use, and connected by public transportation. More than 90% of the population of Ann Arbor lives in Ann Arbor and not Ypsi or Saline. :) What are the rest of the variables? I'd like to drive to specificity. If there's a set of US midsized cities tha…

I'm not sure I've ever seen a midsized US city that defies my characterisations. I've seen plenty of cases where something progressive-sounding got built within them, but it was an island, unconnected and irrelevant. One mixed-use-sounding shopping strip with attached condos does not sprawl unmake.

New Orleans, Minneapolis, Oakland, Berkeley, Providence, Madison. There are lots of cities in that population range, and they aren't islands.

And, I just gave you a specific example that isn't "one mixed use sounding shopping strip with attached condos".

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#253

Post by abalashov »

Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #209
mrcsparker wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houston is a lot closer to what everyone seems to claim that they want: it is pretty easy to live close to work with small local businesses that service the local community. The heat keeps the city from being walkable. People from other cities tend to complain about the local of zoning. Zoned cities usually seem very organized and lack the funky house-business-house layout that Houston has. I prefer the lack of zonin…

Houston could be walkable, despite the heat. Its lack of zoning means mixed use is more frequent, but Houston has parking requirements, setback requirements, minimum lot sizes, max floor area ratio (which defines the max density), etc. The CBD however has no requirement for parking now IIRC so it will become more walkable over time. Houston will never be Manhattan, but it could be way better.

I lived in Houston for a year and walked 2 mi home from school every day. While I would agree that the humidity (more so than the heat per se) was profoundly stifling to outdoor aspirations, my experience suggests that if a place is interesting enough and if meaningful destinations can be reached by foot, people will nevertheless walk there, in almost any climate.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#254

Post by liveoneggs »

abalashov wrote: post #201
Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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, meani…

The irony, at least here in Atlanta, is that crappy car-only suburbs have become considerably more affordable than the re-gentrifying inner city. For what I'm paying here in Midtown, I could get myself a palace 30 minutes out, if I wanted to live the way I described in my article.

30 minutes out of midtown on a weekday is still midtown. ;)

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#255

Post by bedhead »

criddell wrote: post #81
ChicagoDave wrote: post #33

I'd agree about the negative impact of suburbia for completely different reasons. The culture created by it has the nature of a bubble where its occupants don't ever interact with anyone "different". Clothes, jobs, mannerisms, jokes, religions, activities, food...are all the same. This dulls people's sense of empathy in a considerable and damaging way. Instead of being able to think critically and with empathy, subur…

> 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…

It's the single largest thing that gets lost in this whole discussion: the idea of preference.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#256

Post by dang »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #82
jayess wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your completely un-sourced article has nothing to do with the OP article, which detests the option of people living in suburbs. Do suburbs pay for themselves? Maybe, maybe not. But you can't also then turn around and argue for cities that have massively subsidized transit systems that themselves, despite the massive subsidies, are breaking down and crappy.

> Your completely un-sourced article has nothing to do with the OP article Yes, you noticed that I was addressing something in your comment rather than the OP, good job on noticing the obvious. > which detests the option of people living in suburbs. He does not, in fact, detest the option of people living in suburbs. He detests American suburban design. I'm sure he would love to live in a more European-style suburb,…

This comment breaks the HN guidelines by being uncivil ('good job on noticing the obvious', 'Wow, way to completely misunderstand'). Please edit this kind of thing out of your comments here. We want thoughtful, substantive discourse on HN, and nothing corrodes that more than personal abrasiveness.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#257

Post by abalashov »

tptacek wrote: post #252
abalashov wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a midsized US city that defies my characterisations. I've seen plenty of cases where something progressive-sounding got built within them, but it was an island, unconnected and irrelevant. One mixed-use-sounding shopping strip with attached condos does not sprawl unmake.

New Orleans, Minneapolis, Oakland, Berkeley, Providence, Madison. There are lots of cities in that population range, and they aren't islands. And, I just gave you a specific example that isn't "one mixed use sounding shopping strip with attached condos".

Of those, I've only been to Minneapolis, but I can say with complete certainty that it, too, is a suburban wasteland. Yes, it's got a downtown that's clearly seeing some promise, as is true of numerous cities (even the very same Atlanta), but all in all, it's almost entirely a driving city.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#258

Post by abalashov »

liveoneggs wrote: post #254
abalashov wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony, at least here in Atlanta, is that crappy car-only suburbs have become considerably more affordable than the re-gentrifying inner city. For what I'm paying here in Midtown, I could get myself a palace 30 minutes out, if I wanted to live the way I described in my article.

30 minutes out of midtown on a weekday is still midtown. ;)

That's very true.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#259

Post by Semiapies »

Retric wrote: post #247
Semiapies wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you find any counter arguments other than just calling this fringe? I mean we did ban lead gas exit so presumably it was known to be harmful. I accept it's not my specialty, but when you have a well known and reasonable method of action and supporting research it's a little harder to just dismiss.

The burden is on the claim, not on those pointing out that the claim isn't accepted.

Re: Why Suburbia Sucks

#260

Post by abalashov »

mattdeboard wrote: post #225
TulliusCicero wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's attacking American-style, super-sprawly suburbs, not suburbs in general.

Well fine but that's what I'm saying in my first paragraph. There's a particular kind of suburb he's talking about but it definitely is not inclusive of all suburbs.

Indeed, I am referring to a type of sprawl commonly seen in, for example, new Sun Belt development. But that's a mouthful to put in an article title.

I tried to make that as clear as possible in the article by contrasting with "older" and "traditional" neighbourhoods, and by enumerating the cities that exemplify the phenomenon I am referring to.

At the same time, it's hardly a marginal phenomenon. As far as I can tell, it's what a large percentage of inhabited areas in the US look like.

Post reply on HN