The Suburbs Will Die: One Man's Fight to Fix the American Dream • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by katbyte » Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 7:29 PM UTC

buerkle wrote: post #51

chrisweekly wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Driverless cars and public transit will not fix the problem of having to spend an enormous amount of money on infrastructure caused by a lack of density.

or energy moving vehicals & people such great distances

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

#122

Post by jtzhou » Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 7:30 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #50

zavulon wrote: post #7

I read the entire article, and I guess I missed it - what's the proposed solution?

One of the things that isn't talked about, my guess is because urbanists also tend to be liberals, is reforming welfare policy. States have largely succeeded in, and the federal government has condoned, treating cities as the primary welfare distribution organ. Public housing is mostly built in the cities, most federal school aid goes into the cities, etc. This concentrates the social problems which welfare attempts…

> until very recently, San Francisco had a policy of randomized school assignments

San Francisco still does and middle class families continue to move away (not just due to public schools but housing prices) -- the others spend $25k-40k per year per kid on private schools. SFUSD uses a lottery approach and at one elementary school, 1210 children applied for 22 open slots -- a 1.8% acceptance rate. One of the major critiques of the city is how many of the tech workers in the city wouldn't be there today if they had gone through the SF public school system.

Until the US has a tiered system like Germany which allows high-achieving students to be challenged for the university and regular students to go through an extensive apprenticeship program guaranteeing well-paid jobs, people will continue to move to the suburbs for better schools.

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

#123

Post by gangstaplot2 » Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 7:30 PM UTC

lliwta wrote: post #83

pnathan wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I enjoy the malls, the big box stores, and the clones. Why? I know that pretty much anywhere I go I can get a consistent experience. I can go the local mall and almost anything I can want or imagine is available, which is some level is fascinating. What's more, as cliche as all these places ares, there is a bit of a shared experience for almost everyone. I don't understand this. That is not because you're not lucid…

> I think that making a consistent experience absolutely destroys the unique culture and history of places To be fair, the unique culture of the place used to be "industrial farming corn field" is most cases. It's not like anyone is tearing down 100 year old neighborhoods to build big boxes to serve suburbs (actually, the suburbs are far more likely to save those places than destroy them).

Now that the suburbs people want to move to the city with all of their square footage, they're destroying my 100 year old neighborhood, bulldozing Victorian and Craftsman homes to build zero lot-line homes in their places.

It makes me want to throw up. Every time the council pushes for a Historic Overlay, it turns into a revolt with Tea Party style propaganda.

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

#124

Post by saosebastiao » Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 7:31 PM UTC

DinkMeeker wrote: post #113

zheshishei wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They also had minimalist infrastructure. I'm pretty sure if we went back to the days of outhouses and running to the local creek for water, that it would be more cost sustainable to be as spread out as we are. It would also be a regression.

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

#125

Post by RangerScience » Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 7:31 PM UTC

secabeen wrote: post #86

Apofis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in NYC, and recently I spent two weeks in Simi Valley, a city north of Los Angeles, and was shocked that it's basically impossible to get around without a car. Even in LA, it seems as if the public transport system is nearly non-existent.

Actually, LA has a very good public transportation system. It's just bus-based, can be slow compared to driving, and is widely considered as only for poor people. Higher-income people have a strong aversion to taking the bus, even while happily taking subways.

I find that's mostly a function of how spread out LA is. Public transit is always going to be slower than personal transport - it's got to stop every so often, or what's the point? - and that's just magnified by the distances involved.

Also, we don't have great public transit through high-traffic areas from where people are to where they want to go, because we've got this weird kind of medium density continuous sprawl. There just aren't that many of the good high-density locations at which to place Metro stops, although that seems to be changing more because people go "Hey, let's get a stop here, and then we'll /become/ a destination location."

Also, I don't know of any city I've been in where the "Buses suck, subway rocks" relationship isn't true. I don't think it's just a "buses for poor people" thing, but I don't know what's going on to cause this anecdotally widely observed phenomenon.

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

#126

Post by bane » Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 7:32 PM UTC

Brakenshire wrote: post #111

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 tow…

Let's just say modern suburbs are quite different than they used to be. There's been lots of lessons learned and as a buyer, I won't buy in an area that's not at least of this style.

Is it as convenient as a dense city? No, but my standard of living makes the affordable parts of most cities look like tenement housing in comparison.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy cities as much as the next person. But economics is a major problem that cities have to overcome. Equivalent housing in a city is one or two orders of magnitude more expensive. Cities are great for lots of things but I don't use most of those things more than ever once in a while even while living in a city. May as well live someplace nicer the other 90% of the time and take the the easy access public transport in when I really want to see a museum or go to a concert or whatever.

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

#127

Post by mturmon » Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 7:32 PM UTC

Apofis wrote: post #61

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…

I live in NYC, and recently I spent two weeks in Simi Valley, a city north of Los Angeles, and was shocked that it's basically impossible to get around without a car. Even in LA, it seems as if the public transport system is nearly non-existent.

Simi Valley is a special case in LA. It is far from downtown (almost 50 miles), far from Santa Monica even (40 miles), and in a valley of its own, just beyond the farthest reaches of the San Fernando Valley ("the Valley"). It is deliberately isolated from the rest of the LA basin. In general, people live there because they want to be away from anything urban.

If you're into NYC comparatives, its isolation and ethos compares to Staten Island. Lots of cops and firefighters.

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

#128

Post by 3pt14159 » Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 7:32 PM UTC

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…

Define walking distance. If you're talking about more than 15 or 20 minutes I think we have different definitions.

Most people cannot get more than a grocery store from a walk away if they live in a suburb.

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

#129

Post by tekalon » Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 7:34 PM UTC

CodeCube wrote: post #52

watwut wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity: would a bicycle solve that routine 2-3 and 4-5 miles walking problem?

Not with kids involved

I know a family with two young kids that do not have a car. The use public transportation and try to live near a grocery store. They seem to be more of the exception than anything else. It's not impossible, just difficult.

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

#130

Post by cpursley » Tue, Jul 29, 2014, 7:34 PM UTC

After having spent a month in Russia, another large country with significant distance between cities, it appears they have solved the problem. Instead of building out, they've built dense vertical cities where everything you need is within close walking distance. And around 40% of Russians have a dacha, or 'summer house', located in enclaves within pubic transit distance from their city where they can stretch their feet and/or work the soil.

My guess at the reasons Russian cities developed this way is due to central planning and costs to build and maintain roads. Now, I'm not advocating central planning. The reasons suburbs exploded were due to the subsidization of once unaccessible land by the federal government via interstates. Take away the pricing distortions from land and we'll have to build up. A solution to this is market based - sell of the interstate system and let users fund them.