31–40 of 195 posts
My skepticism of suburbs has mostly been about how the long distance and personal car dependence they create tends to isolate people and households. Build a suburban "gated community" for safety, give everyone a huge lawn that they're obligated to constantly maintain, don't allow any commercial buildings in because they're considered ugly, and you get an environment where it's pretty tough to get anywhere without a c…
My skepticism of suburbs has mostly been about how the long distance and personal car dependence they create tends to isolate people and households. Build a suburban "gated community" for safety, give everyone a huge lawn that they're obligated to constantly maintain, don't allow any commercial buildings in because they're considered ugly, and you get an environment where it's pretty tough to get anywhere without a c…
Your vision of a suburb has very little to do with the reality of my suburban existence. It's like someone from the country talking about the horribly dangerous ugly city with its filthy air, roving gangs shooting strangers, and huge rats running in the streets. I'm not saying suburbs are perfect, but you've basically thrown up a stack of strawmen here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really accurate. Suburbs have a lower overall amount of crime, but you need to think about relative rates of crime based on the number of people living in an area. Here's a simple study that discusses a lot of that: http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professi... Personally, I found it pretty easy to live in two different college towns (less than 100k pop), not own a car, and enjoy relative…
While I'm on board with the suburb criticism, I'm not sure that "per capita" is the relevant metric here. I'm concerned with the number of crime incidents per unit area , over the areas where I will most be. Is there a reason I should prefer one metric over another?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really accurate. Suburbs have a lower overall amount of crime, but you need to think about relative rates of crime based on the number of people living in an area. Here's a simple study that discusses a lot of that: http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professi... Personally, I found it pretty easy to live in two different college towns (less than 100k pop), not own a car, and enjoy relative…
While I'm on board with the suburb criticism, I'm not sure that "per capita" is the relevant metric here. I'm concerned with the number of crime incidents per unit area , over the areas where I will most be. Is there a reason I should prefer one metric over another?
I'd add a caveat that many of the side effects of crimes are area dependent--a gunshot will disturb and affect the psychological wellbeing of far more people in very dense areas. That's why many people end up with an overstated impression on how common crime in cities is.
Though I think even per capita, most cities have it worse than the suburbs...
My skepticism of suburbs has mostly been about how the long distance and personal car dependence they create tends to isolate people and households. Build a suburban "gated community" for safety, give everyone a huge lawn that they're obligated to constantly maintain, don't allow any commercial buildings in because they're considered ugly, and you get an environment where it's pretty tough to get anywhere without a c…
Your vision of a suburb has very little to do with the reality of my suburban existence. It's like someone from the country talking about the horribly dangerous ugly city with its filthy air, roving gangs shooting strangers, and huge rats running in the streets. I'm not saying suburbs are perfect, but you've basically thrown up a stack of strawmen here.
But a lot of newer suburbs make it somewhere between unpleasant and dangerous to walk anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really accurate. Suburbs have a lower overall amount of crime, but you need to think about relative rates of crime based on the number of people living in an area. Here's a simple study that discusses a lot of that: http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professi... Personally, I found it pretty easy to live in two different college towns (less than 100k pop), not own a car, and enjoy relative…
While I'm on board with the suburb criticism, I'm not sure that "per capita" is the relevant metric here. I'm concerned with the number of crime incidents per unit area , over the areas where I will most be. Is there a reason I should prefer one metric over another?
For an example, if you're on a block there's 100% going to be a robbery in the next 5 minutes, if there are also 200 other people on that block, then you still only have a 0.5% chance of being robbed.
Essentially, because so many crimes only involve a single (or relatively few) victim(s), your odds of being involved need to account for how many other people are around you, and not just the odds that it will happen in the same area as you.
Your measure of "per unit area" doesn't account for the fact most people aren't going to be involved with the crime (eg, robbed), but will all be in the same impacted area.
So, essentially, it over-calculates how likely you actually are to be the victim of a crime. Per unit area is only useful if you want to know how close you're likely to be to a crime being committed, and not how likely you are to be the victim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quit subsidizing sprawl?
Right, I got that part.. but then what? Small towns die out, and everyone moves to the big city?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I generally agree, except that the not being able to get around without a car bit is really True in my experience. edit: It's easy to know your neighbors in suburbia if you're outgoing, and things vary from street to street. But there generally is way less interaction than if you were to have a neighborhood pub at the end of your street, or side-to-side porches everyone lounges on during summer nights. It tends to be…
So what's the attraction towards interacting with everyone? That I might find out one of my neighbours is a kidnapper? I don't like to talk to everyone I meet or even be in a city for too long as it overstimulates my senses. It is the same reason why I don't like large crowds and prefer living in the suburbs.
The far more likely scenario is that you find you have some common background, and waste an evening relating stories that you would probably never dredge up again otherwise. The world really is a surprisingly tiny place.
> I don't like to talk to everyone I meet or even be in a city for too long as it overstimulates my senses.
It takes all kinds :-)
My skepticism of suburbs has mostly been about how the long distance and personal car dependence they create tends to isolate people and households. Build a suburban "gated community" for safety, give everyone a huge lawn that they're obligated to constantly maintain, don't allow any commercial buildings in because they're considered ugly, and you get an environment where it's pretty tough to get anywhere without a c…
Your vision of a suburb has very little to do with the reality of my suburban existence. It's like someone from the country talking about the horribly dangerous ugly city with its filthy air, roving gangs shooting strangers, and huge rats running in the streets. I'm not saying suburbs are perfect, but you've basically thrown up a stack of strawmen here.
I find the original description absurdly accurate.
I don't drive/have a car and it is crippling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quit subsidizing sprawl?
Right, I got that part.. but then what? Small towns die out, and everyone moves to the big city?
Most of the issues discussed in the article don't really apply to true 'small towns', but instead they're applicable to sprawled, growing suburban/exurban development near-ish larger cities. Small towns far from big cities don't tend to have growth in the form of housing developments, and have smaller infrastructure overhead.
In my hometown of 3,000 people, people living in the center of town have public water and sewer services, but everyone living farther out has wells and septic tanks. In a low density, low growth environment like this, the town doesn't need to be responsible for those things, and therefore stays out of debt and doesn't develop massive, unsustainable infrastructure.
>everyone moves to the big city
Sustainable infrastructure can exist at smaller scales as well. There is certainly boom in big cities right now, but smaller cities (25-100k people?), that had a bustling 'urban' core 100 years ago, are starting to come back. I think that these cities (many of which fell into decay after WWII) with walkable 'streetcar suburbs' and dense downtown areas, will become much more popular in the near future.