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

The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 195 posts

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#91

Post by nilkn »

modoc wrote: post #71
ObviousScience wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like to usually "me too", but the grand parent comment very accurately described my experience of suburbs as well. We jokingly referred to it as "the suburban cultural wasteland", because you had to walk 2-3 miles to find anything that wasn't more houses, a grocery store with corporate specialty stores attached (Starbucks coffee, various automotive places, etc), or a school. Most of what you could find in tha…

FWIW my suburban town has almost no chain anythings. I can walk to local coffee shops (have to drive to a Starbucks). We have an amazing collection of local restaurants covering almost every possible cuisine. We have a great library, rail trails, public forrest and green spaces, a local CSA my wife bikes to once a week to pick up our veggies, and much more.

I do agree that HN in general is too harsh on suburbs. However, I think this is quite far from typical, possibly as far as ufmace's post was from typical. Most suburbs are going to be in the middle somewhere.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#92

Post by Crito »

aniro wrote: post #39
modoc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 live in a suburb of Philadelphia. I find the original description absurdly accurate. I don't drive/have a car and it is crippling.

It depends on the suburb. I could see myself living in someplace like Manayunk without car, but I suppose that is sort of pushing the meaning of "suburb". Some of the towns along the Main Line seem fairly livable without a car (For a time I did the opposite, living in Philadelphia and working in Radnor), but that doesn't seem ideal. Some of the other towns along the Main Line are definitely as he describes.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#93

Post by transfire »

1. Require higher standards. Infrastructure needs to last decades, not years. We used to build things that well. There is no reason we can't again. Then the big bucks we pay up front would be worth it. Unfortunately we have been moving in the opposite direction, to fill the coffers of cheap fat cats.

2. Zoning laws must change. It is ridiculous the a suburban family has to drive to the Super Walmart for a gallon of milk. When I was young there was a local convenience store just down every street (and not just crappy junk filled 7-11s).

3. Trains. Apparently they are cheap enough to get immigrants to their jobs, but too expensive for middle America? The B.S. around trains needs to end, and a new age of private passenger rail promoted. If you don't beleive me (b/c you'd rather believe political talking points) you best get a'Googling.

4. To go along with the trains, why is my municipal airport all but useless? Is anyone else getting tired of ever bigger airports and ever smaller seats? Who decided airports needed to be malls and that all flights needed to herd people into a handful of national feed lots? I figure at this rate airports will have indoor roller coasters within the next 20 years. What we need to do instead is transition to point-to-point flights on mass produced jets. Currently jets are all hand made. Good grief!

5. And ditch that 9-5 business. It's time we split the work and go 8 to 2 and 2 to 8. More jobs, business are open longer, and yet fewer people on the roads.

My 5 cents. Penny for your thoughts?

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#94

Post by lliwta »

anthony_d wrote: post #87
saosebastiao wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its perfectly fine to like that, just as it is perfectly fine to like private jets and caviar. The discussion, at least in this article, is how sustainable it is from a cost perspective. You are talking about liking something that has tax revenues that cover mere fractions of the costs incurred. How much would you like it if your property taxes were 50% higher? 2000% higher?

I live in a suburb and my property taxes are about 3 times higher than the nearby city. I wouldn't consider moving. I like the fact that my suburb actually is financially stable, unlike many large cities. Really it sounds like the whole article could be sumarised by saying many suburbs have taxes that are too low. The article's author worked in a town with poor planning; there are plenty of large cities with poor pla…

> could be sumarised by saying many suburbs have taxes that are too low

In some areas of Minnesota this could most certainly be the case.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#95

Post by coryrc »

School-Cotton wrote: post #85
mtinkerhess wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC is one of the only places in the country where it's feasible to live without a car (without major hassle). Edit: I guess my point was that from my experience visiting New York that's a city where public transit is so good that a car really seems unnecessary. Someone from NYC might be surprised to learn (or be reminded) that it's the exception, and that in most other places in the country it's a hassle not to own…

Is that true? I live in Ballard, a pretty damn residential neighborhood of Seattle, which is only a medium-density city. I live perfectly comfortably without a car. I have heard of people living comfortably without a car in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, and I'm sure others that I'm forgetting. I even did so myself in Tucson for a year, though I'll grant that that was pretty annoying.

I'm guessing you don't have kids and do work in downtown Seattle? And rarely visit Lake City or West Seattle or anywhere south of Seattle? Or anywhere requiring a transfer outside of commuting hours?

Because those are all significantly (hours more) to take mass transit than to drive.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#96

Post by thoughtpalette »

School-Cotton wrote: post #85
mtinkerhess wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC is one of the only places in the country where it's feasible to live without a car (without major hassle). Edit: I guess my point was that from my experience visiting New York that's a city where public transit is so good that a car really seems unnecessary. Someone from NYC might be surprised to learn (or be reminded) that it's the exception, and that in most other places in the country it's a hassle not to own…

Is that true? I live in Ballard, a pretty damn residential neighborhood of Seattle, which is only a medium-density city. I live perfectly comfortably without a car. I have heard of people living comfortably without a car in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Pittsburgh, and I'm sure others that I'm forgetting. I even did so myself in Tucson for a year, though I'll grant that that was pretty annoying.

I've lived car-free in Chicago for 4 years. The only thing it'd be nice (for me, a child-free 20 something) would be to visit Michigan, which I just take Amtrak.

Instacart does my groceries and it's only about an hour or so going from the North side to the West side on the "L". Pretty great.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#97

Post by HarryHirsch »

modoc wrote: post #14
ufmace wrote: post #9

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.

Just a random statistic: in 2013 there were 216 homicides in Houston and 188 traffic deaths. It's easy to move away from crime, but in exurban America you cannot not have a car.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#98

Post by joncrocks »

ars wrote: post #84
superuser2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not outside of California. Cycling is a seasonal luxury in the northern states, and car-centric culture makes things extremely dangerous on roads where cyclists are neither expected nor welcome. The number of times I've been shouted at to "get on the sidewalk!" is astounding (riding on the sidewalk is actually illegal in most cities).

That isn't true. Suburbs frequently have wide roads that make bike riding quite easy. They are also usually flat. I don't know what you are doing to annoy car drivers, but I've biked a lot and have never been yelled at. (Or heard others yelling.)

I suspect this depends on where you're talking about. The actual residential streets are probably fine, it'll be the 'major' roads once you move from there where there's heavy traffic/people in a hurry where you might have more problems.

One of my friends has been shouted at several times cycling down a mile-road (i.e. 12-mile), that he should get out of the road.

Re: The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream

#100

Post by ObviousScience »

SilasX wrote: post #70
ObviousScience wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you're in the area that a crime is going to occur, but it's only going to happen to k of n people in the area (with k usually equal to 1), you have a lower than certain chance of being involved? 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 if you're in the area that a crime is going to occur, but it's only going to happen to k of n people in the area ... >...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. I think those assumptions are where I disagree. a) I care about (not) being near crime, and b) crime doesn't randomly…

> I care about (not) being near crime

I would rather be around more crime, but victim to less of it. Your analysis trades the potential for being a victim more often to be around less total crime, which is why I think it's somewhat suspect. Perhaps that really is a trade you're willing to make, but I'm dubious.

> crime doesn't randomly sample across the set of all people, but makes me have to avoid certain times, places, and activities

Again, per capita measure is more important for figuring out if you should avoid an area than the crimes per area metric. (Also left out of this discussion is the distribution of offenses committed, which is paramount I'd argue.)

An example from where I live: there's higher crime per unit area at 9pm (it varies by time) at the mall downtown than the gas station/bowling alley/billiards room complex where the gang members loiter in the south end of town. (I looked up police numbers, because you made me curious.) But I know which one I'd rather be at based on the distribution of types of crimes and the per capita numbers. Hint: it's not the gas station.

This is a good example of higher numbers of people hiding a lower rate of victimization per person: there are literally hundreds of times more people downtown than at the gas station, so a marginally higher crime per area rate means I'm actually less likely to be involved in a crime. (Given how little of the mall you can see at once, I likely wouldn't even know it happened.)

So let me ask you: what is it you think that the crime per area figure gives you that crime per capita doesn't?

Post reply on HN