6 ms·

> where my kids have access to safe streets, parks, and decent schools This all used to be easily achievable in urban neighborhoods. The elephant in the room p

> where my kids have access to safe streets, parks, and decent schools This all used to be easily achievable in urban neighborhoods. The elephant in the room people don't want to acknowledge is that suburbia has mostly been a way to flee from and exclude social decay. This is why people freak out about public transit to a lot of neighborhoods. The requirement of multiple car ownership in an area is a deliberately constructed mechanism for excluding lower socio-economic people. If you shut down the public school systems and made all schools private with total freedom to deny any student entry, and you empowered a very aggressive police force (lots of stop and frisk, aggressively enforced vagrancy laws), then you'd see far more urban gentrification.

fiatmoney 10y ago
Bingo. Look at the re-conquest of New York City, which follows pretty exactly the pattern you mentioned. "All private schools" isn't even necessary de jure if you can do it de facto via magnet or charter schools and theoretically open neighborhood schools targeted at particular areas.
- Retric 10y ago
  'Reconquest' of city's has far more components than most people assume. Gay community who mostly don't need good schools. Bad traffic to make suburbs less appealing. Video Games to keep young people entertained and not out damaging the community. Vastly reduced Lead levels to reduce violence. Reduced pollution to make city's livable. etc etc. Even the loss of manufacturing and retail jobs has been a net gain for city's. It's far from any one thing. PS: And if you want to go far afield reduced threat of nuclear war making city's a viable place for your population.
  - bardworx 10y ago
    > Vastly reduced Lead levels to reduce violence Can you expand on that statement? Do you imply bullets (as in higher prices and gun control) when you refer to Lead or literally the reduction of the metal Lead in paint, etc. And how is it linked to violence?
    - fiatmoney 10y ago
      Literal elemental lead. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure...
    - jlgray 10y ago
      There's been a lot of research lately on the connection between lead, brain impairment, and violence. One quick example, claiming cities in the 1920s that switched to lead pipes saw ~25% increase in homicides vs those that didn't. http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jfeigenbaum/files/feigenbaum_muller_lead_crime.pdf http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jfeigenbaum/files/feigenbau...
      - bardworx 10y ago
        Thanks. Will be interesting to read the paper.
    - Semiapies 10y ago
      There's a hypothesis out there, pushed by a few researchers citing each other (including one Bell Curve fan), that environmental lead from leaded gas and such caused reduced IQ and greater criminality among urban residents. It's not actually a remotely mainstream view among any sort of scientist. However, it has a lot of currency among left-of-center people uncomfortable with the legacy of urban renewal (aka "bulldoze functional poor neighborhoods and stuff everyone in a housing project, then be surprised that things go badly") and the race-baiting nature of "tough on crime" measures that both parties adopted.
      - Retric 10y ago
        The scale is debatable, but there is a lot more evidence for this than you might think. It's also a lot more than just gas, paint, water pipes, sodder, even fillings also made significant contributions. IMO, scale is not that important as the preverbial straw that broke the camels back is important, but so are all the others that get to that point. A leaning disability on it's own might not lead to violence, but it does reduce people's options even further. PS: Mercury was also known to have neuron toxic effects. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_hatter_disease https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_hatter_disease. However, lead is more of an issue at developmental stages. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning
- lr4444lr 10y ago
  Yes, but also pushing the more troubled denizens out of the city by letting the "affordable" housing stock diminish through less government intervention, which I'm among the admit to say has been a great help in its turnaround. The U.S. is a big country, and there's no reason why over 2.5% of the entire population should crowd themselves into its second most expensive city, many of whom aren't and won't ever be working jobs in industries that can't be found elsewhere in the country.
lr4444lr 10y ago
> The elephant in the room people don't want to acknowledge is that suburbia has mostly been a way to flee from and exclude social decay. This is why I bought in a socially conservative neighborhood: people implicitly police one another into basic civic decency, and I'd much rather suffer an occasional scolding from a few overzealous busybodies than bear the burden of intergenerational poverty and crime. Sure, I may need to drive a bit to find interesting shopping and entertainment options, but at the end of the day if I'm going to make a commitment into an asset as big and un-diversified as a 30 year mortgage, I'd want just about every "negative" the author brings up. And if I'm going to get the fury from HN for saying it, so be it. I'm happy to give up grime, drug trafficking, and violence for an internet tongue lashing.
- pyre 10y ago
  > I'm happy to give up grime, drug trafficking, and violence for an internet tongue lashing. This statement assumes that if you did not make the choice that you have you would be assured to have these things happening right outside your door.
  - lr4444lr 10y ago
    Sure. I imagine that many families moved to Sandy Hook, CT for safety and security. There's no guarantee in life. There's also relative measure: some of the old timers where I live feel the neighborhood has "gone downhill". Some people are frankly just happier living in a bustling and unstable place where they simply accept they can't let their kids go outside unsupervised until they're 18. I believe we'll generally be happier with where we live over a multi decade span by identifying our personal priorities and chasing the expected value. It's the author's judgmental and absolutist position that I take issue with, that things like tight uniform zoning, "parking first" space, and hierarchical traffic distribution must "suck". They in fact suck in his opinion.
    - pyre 10y ago
      Some people also like to live in communities where every house looks exactly the same with no variation, and where the local homeowners' association will send someone out daily during the summer with callipers to measure your lawn height (or fine you because a box was delivered to your door while you were at work and it was sitting there "too long.") It does not necessarily mean that these are "good" things just because someone thinks that they are good things either though.
tptacek 10y ago
I think you're going to get in trouble with generalizations like this. Can you be more specific about the exact metro areas whose urban cores are unsuitable for children? My nerdoreceptors are lighting up with counterexamples, but rather than list them, I'd rather understand better what you're trying to say.

fiatmoney 10y ago

Bingo. Look at the re-conquest of New York City, which follows pretty exactly the pattern you mentioned. "All private schools" isn't even necessary de jure if you can do it de facto via magnet or charter schools and theoretically open neighborhood schools targeted at particular areas.

Retric 10y ago
'Reconquest' of city's has far more components than most people assume. Gay community who mostly don't need good schools. Bad traffic to make suburbs less appealing. Video Games to keep young people entertained and not out damaging the community. Vastly reduced Lead levels to reduce violence. Reduced pollution to make city's livable. etc etc. Even the loss of manufacturing and retail jobs has been a net gain for city's. It's far from any one thing. PS: And if you want to go far afield reduced threat of nuclear war making city's a viable place for your population.
- bardworx 10y ago
  > Vastly reduced Lead levels to reduce violence Can you expand on that statement? Do you imply bullets (as in higher prices and gun control) when you refer to Lead or literally the reduction of the metal Lead in paint, etc. And how is it linked to violence?
  - fiatmoney 10y ago
    Literal elemental lead. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure...
  - jlgray 10y ago
    There's been a lot of research lately on the connection between lead, brain impairment, and violence. One quick example, claiming cities in the 1920s that switched to lead pipes saw ~25% increase in homicides vs those that didn't. http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jfeigenbaum/files/feigenbaum_muller_lead_crime.pdf http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jfeigenbaum/files/feigenbau...
    - bardworx 10y ago
      Thanks. Will be interesting to read the paper.
  - Semiapies 10y ago
    There's a hypothesis out there, pushed by a few researchers citing each other (including one Bell Curve fan), that environmental lead from leaded gas and such caused reduced IQ and greater criminality among urban residents. It's not actually a remotely mainstream view among any sort of scientist. However, it has a lot of currency among left-of-center people uncomfortable with the legacy of urban renewal (aka "bulldoze functional poor neighborhoods and stuff everyone in a housing project, then be surprised that things go badly") and the race-baiting nature of "tough on crime" measures that both parties adopted.
    - Retric 10y ago
      The scale is debatable, but there is a lot more evidence for this than you might think. It's also a lot more than just gas, paint, water pipes, sodder, even fillings also made significant contributions. IMO, scale is not that important as the preverbial straw that broke the camels back is important, but so are all the others that get to that point. A leaning disability on it's own might not lead to violence, but it does reduce people's options even further. PS: Mercury was also known to have neuron toxic effects. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_hatter_disease https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_hatter_disease. However, lead is more of an issue at developmental stages. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning
lr4444lr 10y ago
Yes, but also pushing the more troubled denizens out of the city by letting the "affordable" housing stock diminish through less government intervention, which I'm among the admit to say has been a great help in its turnaround. The U.S. is a big country, and there's no reason why over 2.5% of the entire population should crowd themselves into its second most expensive city, many of whom aren't and won't ever be working jobs in industries that can't be found elsewhere in the country.

lr4444lr 10y ago

> The elephant in the room people don't want to acknowledge is that suburbia has mostly been a way to flee from and exclude social decay. This is why I bought in a socially conservative neighborhood: people implicitly police one another into basic civic decency, and I'd much rather suffer an occasional scolding from a few overzealous busybodies than bear the burden of intergenerational poverty and crime. Sure, I may need to drive a bit to find interesting shopping and entertainment options, but at the end of the day if I'm going to make a commitment into an asset as big and un-diversified as a 30 year mortgage, I'd want just about every "negative" the author brings up. And if I'm going to get the fury from HN for saying it, so be it. I'm happy to give up grime, drug trafficking, and violence for an internet tongue lashing.

pyre 10y ago
> I'm happy to give up grime, drug trafficking, and violence for an internet tongue lashing. This statement assumes that if you did not make the choice that you have you would be assured to have these things happening right outside your door.
- lr4444lr 10y ago
  Sure. I imagine that many families moved to Sandy Hook, CT for safety and security. There's no guarantee in life. There's also relative measure: some of the old timers where I live feel the neighborhood has "gone downhill". Some people are frankly just happier living in a bustling and unstable place where they simply accept they can't let their kids go outside unsupervised until they're 18. I believe we'll generally be happier with where we live over a multi decade span by identifying our personal priorities and chasing the expected value. It's the author's judgmental and absolutist position that I take issue with, that things like tight uniform zoning, "parking first" space, and hierarchical traffic distribution must "suck". They in fact suck in his opinion.
  - pyre 10y ago
    Some people also like to live in communities where every house looks exactly the same with no variation, and where the local homeowners' association will send someone out daily during the summer with callipers to measure your lawn height (or fine you because a box was delivered to your door while you were at work and it was sitting there "too long.") It does not necessarily mean that these are "good" things just because someone thinks that they are good things either though.

tptacek 10y ago

I think you're going to get in trouble with generalizations like this. Can you be more specific about the exact metro areas whose urban cores are unsuitable for children? My nerdoreceptors are lighting up with counterexamples, but rather than list them, I'd rather understand better what you're trying to say.