3 ms·
You're speaking as if people exist for the benefit of cities and not the other way around. Some people like living in more quiet, open, kid-friendly spaces: i.e
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
You're speaking as if people exist for the benefit of cities and not the other way around. Some people like living in more quiet, open, kid-friendly spaces: i.e., suburban sprawl. If a city can't provide that for them, they are under absolutely no obligation to get cut down to fit in the urbanist Procrustean bed.
- TulliusCicero 10y agoNothing wrong with suburbs, but many American policies have basically forced sprawl even when people might like moderate levels of density. A good example of this is Level of Service, a policy that dictated for decades that roads be evaluated by how many cars they moved in a given amount of time. People going by other modes? Safety? Measuring how long it actually takes people to get where they need to be? Not important; always cars, always faster. One of the dumb things about American cities is that you have big cities with large apartment complexes and sprawly suburbs and not a whole lot in between, which is entirely due to policies, not the choices of individual families or developers. See: http://missingmiddlehousing.com http://missingmiddlehousing.com
- 2AF3 10y agoNot to mention we traded the town square / main street / city center for a shopping mall in the suburbs.
- stouset 10y agoI've never bought the "kid-friendly" argument. Kids grow up in cities in the US and around the world, safely and effectively. Do you have statistical evidence to the contrary? If I were to guess, it's not about being "kid-friendly", it's about being "parent-easy". And kids, in my experience, hate suburbia, especially as they get into early teens and want some independence. It's like living in a giant protective bubble where there's nowhere to go and nothing to do, without having to have someone's parents cart you around.
- honkhonkpants 10y agoEarly so-called streetcar suburbs are great for young people because they are scaled perfectly for bicycling. What people are referring to on this thread is really exurbs.
- WorldMaker 10y agoYesterday's exurbs are today's suburbs. Today's exurbs are yesterday's small towns and neighboring counties. The sprawl keeps sprawling.
- ocschwar 10y agoI live in one of those streetcar suburbs. It WOULD be great for kids, even though my house is a short walk from those oh-so-scary high rises, because that also makes it a short walk from a lot of things a kid wants to walk to. The one catch is the risk of my kid being squished like a bug by idiot suburban drivers.
- joesmo 10y agoTotally agree. Up to about 10-14 or so (depending on the child), the suburbs are likely great for children. Afterwards, once they grow up a bit and start to form their own identity, I'd say they're actually damaging to a lot of teenagers. Without friends, without community, without anything to do, of course teenagers turn to drugs, cutting, and other maladaptive behaviors. Most are not permanently harmed, but I have no doubt that large numbers are. Yet, it doesn't seem like parents take this into account when choosing where to live (for the ones that have a choice, that is).
- stouset 10y agoNot to mention obesity. My guess is a large component is from sitting inside all day because your friends are too far away to meet up spontaneously, and there's nothing to do outside anyway — things like parks, basketball courts, etc. are all far enough away that a parent has to drive. Look around "kid-friendly" suburbia, and there's practically no kids outside.
- hx87 10y ago> Some people like living in more quiet, open, kid-friendly spaces: i.e., suburban sprawl. Good for them. If that's what they want then they should pay for it in a free and open market. I shouldn't have to subsidize their preferences via restrictive zoning.