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

What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

stevemagness.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 632 posts

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#261

Post by oersted »

macNchz wrote: post #252
oersted wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European, I don’t understand why there’s such resistance to this. I get it NIMBY, but why? Surely good amenities would improve property values and life quality. If it’s right next to your home all the better. Peaceful quietness is so overrated by US and northern Europe. It feels creepy and dead to me, a liminal space. Besides, modern insulation does wonders for blocking noise if that bothers you, not to mention…

In most of the US, only single family detached houses are built (by law), which makes things spread out enough that people will want to drive. To address that, businesses are required to have a bunch of parking space. The end result of that is that, outside of a few places built before these rules took hold, living near amenities means living by parking lots and car traffic. The kind of street that "feels alive" is b…

Surely there could be small shops and restaurants dispersed at walking distances that don’t require parking space.

I get that it is low density, but not that low, and there is some money to spend in such areas. They would do good business.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#262

Post by agentultra »

Interesting what factors people choose to explain it. I just read Life After Cars which makes a compelling case that a major factor was the car: people don’t feel safe letting their kids wander and prefer driving them everywhere… which makes people feel less safe letting kids wander.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#263

Post by oersted »

smallerfish wrote: post #239
oersted wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a European, I don’t understand why there’s such resistance to this. I get it NIMBY, but why? Surely good amenities would improve property values and life quality. If it’s right next to your home all the better. Peaceful quietness is so overrated by US and northern Europe. It feels creepy and dead to me, a liminal space. Besides, modern insulation does wonders for blocking noise if that bothers you, not to mention…

There isn't resistance. It comes from development patterns. A developer buys 10 hectares of land and wants to max out the returns, so they pack it full of houses. Another developer buys the adjacent 20 hectares and follows the same strategy. Rinse and repeat. Purely market driven housing development orients towards developer profit, not long term quality of life of the neighborhoods being constructed.

I am sure that they could better maximize their returns by making room for local businesses and increasing the appeal of the area. And who says that a house will be worth more than a shop?

It sounds more like “this is the way you do it” momentum.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#264

Post by ghaff »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #226
antiframe wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% this. Every time someone visits me in my city home, they comment on how nice it must be able to walk to school, the ice cream shop, the library, the playground full of other kids who walked or biked there, or just see other people out and about. But, they say, they could never live in the city. It's too dangerous. Cars are dangerous. No sidewalks on 50mph roads are dangerous. Loneliness is dangerous. And yes, th…

> But life is full of safety vs. living tradeoffs. That's not even the issue. Suppose that more people wanted to live in a city than currently do. The market implies that -- the price per square foot is higher in cities. And that's the problem, when the city isn't allowed to grow. The existing city already has tall buildings, so if there is more demand than supply, to create more of it you need to add more somewhere…

Historically, probably more people had to work in cities and many of those people had a preference for not having a long commute. Those dynamics have doubtless changed to some degree. But, if I had to commute daily to the nearest large city, I'd seriously consider living there. But I don't have to so I live rurally/exurban or whatever you want to call it.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#265

Post by ghaff »

grvdrm wrote: post #259
hibikir wrote: post #101

What I see in my deep suburbia is just far less interest in wandering past the front yard, because there's nothing to do: House after house where no front yard has anything for anyone, and quite long distances before you get somewhere you might be welcome, or have a chair. When my son, a pre-teen at the time went to Spain with me, things were quite different: A small town that even had stores targeting kids, places t…

Something I don't see mentioned often in this discussion: what's a "long distance" Is there a formal measure or comprehensive view on that question? I lived in Manhattan (NYC). Walked a mile at a time (or more) without thinking about it. To/from work, in cold, in rain, etc. Now I'm in NYC 'burbs. The train is 1.1 miles from my house. I walk that distance on occasion but not often. My wife drives to/from train most da…

It depends on the infrastructure as well. I'm about a 7 minute drive from my local commuter rail but it's essentially unwalkable as that 7 minutes is basically along an interstate. I do take the commuter rail if I'm going into the city 9-5 on weekdays but that's very rare.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#266

Post by csomar »

grvdrm wrote: post #259
hibikir wrote: post #101

What I see in my deep suburbia is just far less interest in wandering past the front yard, because there's nothing to do: House after house where no front yard has anything for anyone, and quite long distances before you get somewhere you might be welcome, or have a chair. When my son, a pre-teen at the time went to Spain with me, things were quite different: A small town that even had stores targeting kids, places t…

Something I don't see mentioned often in this discussion: what's a "long distance" Is there a formal measure or comprehensive view on that question? I lived in Manhattan (NYC). Walked a mile at a time (or more) without thinking about it. To/from work, in cold, in rain, etc. Now I'm in NYC 'burbs. The train is 1.1 miles from my house. I walk that distance on occasion but not often. My wife drives to/from train most da…

It’s more rewarding to walk 2-3km when there is a lot of things to see/do compared to walking 1km just to get to the station in a lonely walk. Just having/seeing people walk along/across you makes a world of difference.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#267

Post by freehorse »

ekianjo wrote: post #243
swiftcoder wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data doesn't necessarily bear that out. Yes, childhood accidents have declined, over a similar time period that childhood freedom has declined. However a hefty portion of that accident reduction is attributable to other safety improvements. Cars are far safer now than in the 70s, so are kitchen appliances, electrical outlets, playground design, etc. And at the same time, child suicide rates are way up, which rese…

> However a hefty portion of that accident reduction is attributable to other safety improvements. very hard to differentiate between product safety improvement and attitude change of parents, because both are co-factors. There is no good way to dissociate one from the other. > child suicide rates are way up, which research attributes directly to the decline in independence. and brainwashing

> and brainwashing

Kids are brainwashed to commit suicide at scale? Could you elaborate?

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#268

Post by galangalalgol »

oersted wrote: post #257
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's some kind of perverse regulatory capture by landlords with the self-destructive assistance of homeowners. Actual urban real estate is preposterously expensive, but the only reason it stays that way is that you can't create more of it, i.e. put urban developments in high demand areas that are currently suburbs. The landlords who own the urban real estate correctly deduce that allowing more to be built would lower…

I do understand why it is kept as low-density, that makes sense. But why not allow intermingled small shops, family-friendly restaurant/bars, schools, sport facilities… Surely they would make the area more desirable?

I read that the banks often set minimum rents on the commercial real estate built or renovated with their loans. The minimum is too high for most any business to be profitable, so you see a series of failed attempts until a big chain like 711 or Starbucks rents it. They still don't profit and just close the store but keep the rental because longer terms usually. Not sure why the banks have this incentive.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#269

Post by d1sxeyes »

soco wrote: post #258
d1sxeyes wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- When I was a kid mums worked part time or not at all. This is a big factor. Although the gender side of things is kind of loaded, it used to be broadly the case that a two-parent household would often have one primary breadwinner and one home-maker. Nowadays, both parents need to make money which means that the 'home-making' needs to be done after both parents have finished work. So at 6pm, you're cooking, not hang…

So, going even deeper, maybe there's need for two incomes nowadays to be able to keep up with the lifestyle of a house in the suburbs?

Absolutely yes, but there's a bit more nuance than it seems. For example, 40 years ago, most families had one car, no computer, no mobile phones, no Netflix, DoorDash, etc. Houses are bigger, foreign holidays, expensive white goods, etc.

On the other hand, property costs have definitely increased massively. Folks are having kids later and less frequently, so there's a higher percentage of dual income couples looking for houses. Lenders are prepared to offer more to dual income couples, then house prices adjust, and suddenly, you need to have two incomes to buy a house. Then when it does come time to have children, you need the second income to pay for child care, and there's not much left over afterwards.

Re: What we lost when we stopped letting kids leave the front yard

#270

Post by breezybottom »

oersted wrote: post #225
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it's amazing how much modern-ish suburbia just has no place for you to even exist without a car. It's trendy to blame cars for this but the problem is fundamentally zoning. It's not that there is nowhere for you to exist without a car, it's that there is nowhere for you to exist there at all , and you thereby need a car to leave the vicinity in order to get anywhere you can. If you want to build a cafe or an ar…

As a European, I don’t understand why there’s such resistance to this. I get it NIMBY, but why? Surely good amenities would improve property values and life quality. If it’s right next to your home all the better. Peaceful quietness is so overrated by US and northern Europe. It feels creepy and dead to me, a liminal space. Besides, modern insulation does wonders for blocking noise if that bothers you, not to mention…

That's easy to say if you'd never had to live in a slum, but constant noise actually has negative health effects.
Post reply on HN