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

111–120 of 195 posts

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

#111

Post by Brakenshire »

bane wrote: post #58

I will absolutely trade my ridiculously sized house in the burbs (within walking distance of a bank, grocery, bike store, gym, Tae Kwon Do school, movie theater, two salons, 3 doctors and 3 dentists and a psychiatrist, a mix of about a dozen local and chain eating options, an optometrist, high-end toy store, dry cleaners, wine store, 2 ice cream parlors, and a 5 minute drive to more local ethnic food than you can sha…

If you are in reasonable walking distance of all those things, and it pleasant to walk to them, I would say almost by definition you don't live in a suburb, or rather, that is not the kind of place that people are complaining about. You must be just as horrified as anyone else at the prospect of living in a subdivision where you are miles away from anything apart from houses, or where you literally cannot walk to town, or from one shop to another across the road, because of a lack of pedestrian access.

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

#112

Post by dublinben »

chrisweekly wrote: post #27
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.

Couldn't agree more, modoc. Also, while prediction is a dangerous game, I foresee the combination of increased investment in public transit, and the advent of affordable driverless cars, adding up to helping suburbs remain a terrific place to grow up. As my hometown (Arlington, MA) was in the 70's and 80's, and as my new adopted town (Duxbury MA) is today. Related tangent: IMHO quality of life is less about urban/sub…

The problem with nice suburbs (Arlington and Duxbury both qualify) is that they're inherently exclusive. They are racially homogeneous, have median incomes at least 25-50% higher than average, and have nothing to offer young adults.

I'm incredibly thankful for my privileged upbringing in a similar suburban community, but none of my peers could leave fast enough.

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

#113

Post by DinkMeeker »

zheshishei wrote: post #89
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?

The article isn't pointing out that all suburbs are unsustainable. It's talking about how treating the suburbs as something they are not (a higher population density area, like a city) leads to infrastructure that is inappropriate for the community, which then leads to the tax revenue to infrastructure cost disparity. In the jargon of HN, it's a premature optimization. Charles Marohn is still championing suburbs. Wha…

Exactly. This is about incorrect management rather than inherent unsustainability of being spread out. Years ago people were spread out way more than now.

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

#114

Post by LordKano »

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.

As a Pittsburgher, I know some people who live here without cars but I wouldn't describe it as comfortably.

There are a few decent neighborhoods where one could make due without an automobile but they're pretty expensive (by Pittsburgh standards) to live in. Shadyside and Oakland are two such places. There are a few Hipster enclaves where a fair number of people do it but they're not very common. Outside of neighborhoods like these and especially outside of The City proper, it's a nightmare to try getting around without a car.

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

#115

Post by 3pt14159 »

binarymax wrote: post #55
pnathan wrote: post #24

I don't like suburbs. Why? - I don't like the constant driving to get anywhere. - I don't like the malls, the big box stores, the "clone" button that seems applied across the landscape. - I don't like the giant roads carving their way around, splitting communities. - I don't like the squandering of resources on lawns! individual houses! low-density housing! I can say, with confidence, I'd like to live in a place wher…

The way I differentiate in my brain, because I'm an 80's kid: I do like "Ferris Beuler's Day Off" style suburbs. I do not like "Edward Scissorhands" style suburbs. I grew up in the former, and given the opportunity, I'd like my future kids to do the same.

I think I'm too young to understand your references. What's the difference between those types of suburbs?

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

#117

Post by DinkMeeker »

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…

I remember a number of years back the debate when Houston was trying to annex a nearby area. One of the arguments was that the city needed to add area to its tax base. So this is a big city thing as well. Many major cities have finances that are in the crapper.

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

#118

Post by pnathan »

coryrc wrote: post #95
School-Cotton wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I live near Lake City - getting to Ballard is not under an hour by mass transit - it's something like 20 minutes by car. Very frustrating! I hope the new light rail will create more E-W bus routes.

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

#119

Post by saosebastiao »

zheshishei wrote: post #89
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?

The article isn't pointing out that all suburbs are unsustainable. It's talking about how treating the suburbs as something they are not (a higher population density area, like a city) leads to infrastructure that is inappropriate for the community, which then leads to the tax revenue to infrastructure cost disparity. In the jargon of HN, it's a premature optimization. Charles Marohn is still championing suburbs. Wha…

"in Marohn’s estimation, property taxes at suburban densities bring in anywhere from 4 cents to 65 cents for every dollar of liability. Most suburban municipalities, he says, are therefore unable to pay the maintenance costs of their infrastructure, let alone replace things when they inevitably wear out after twenty to twenty-five years."

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

#120

Post by 3pt14159 »

potatolicious wrote: post #90
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 dunno, I grew up in the suburbs and ufmace summed it up pretty well. My neighborhood wasn't explicitly gated, but the meandering streets with a million dead-ends may as well have been a wrought iron gate. It's pretty obvious to everyone that the nonsensical street layout was designed to keep everyone but residents out. Every house had huge lawns, and because the houses were all built as part of the same subdivision…

Actually, the road design was made to minimize driving times. By having a system of cul-de-sacs and crescents minimize the number of intersections that require all way stop. It also minimizes the amount of pavement you need to use.

The solution (other than making things way more dense) is to make walking / biking paths at the end of cul-de-sacs to connect the suburbs for pedestrians, while still maintaining the advantages on non-grid street layout.

Post reply on HN