3 ms·

Totally 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 for

by joesmo 10y ago

Totally 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 ago
Not 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.
- 2AF3 10y ago
  No kids outside, no sidewalks, no one walking around (without a dog) because there's nothing you can walk to, a bunch of unused baseball fields aka 'parks', the only place you will likely bump into your neighbor is the supermarket. Then again, suburban dwellers aren't totally crazy because our large cities are also built for cars with space for people as a complete afterthought most of the streets in Minneapolis need a road-diet. In Minneapolis, we invented the mall (Southdale), which sucked all the retail life out the city then we added the 'Mall of America' just to finish the job, to add insult to injury we built preposterous skyways which divides what's left of our paltry street-life onto two levels. I really should move to Europe: Paris, Milan, Utrecht, Munich, London, Budapest, Prague... heartbreaking beauty.
stouset 10y ago
I also just realized/remembered that the leading cause of death for children, particularly teenagers, is automobile accidents. Surely whatever dangers kids are exposed to in cities absolutely pale in comparison to the increased risk of car accidents caused by living in the suburbs, where virtually every outing requires a lengthy trip by car.

by joesmo 10y ago

stouset 10y ago

Not 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.

2AF3 10y ago
No kids outside, no sidewalks, no one walking around (without a dog) because there's nothing you can walk to, a bunch of unused baseball fields aka 'parks', the only place you will likely bump into your neighbor is the supermarket. Then again, suburban dwellers aren't totally crazy because our large cities are also built for cars with space for people as a complete afterthought most of the streets in Minneapolis need a road-diet. In Minneapolis, we invented the mall (Southdale), which sucked all the retail life out the city then we added the 'Mall of America' just to finish the job, to add insult to injury we built preposterous skyways which divides what's left of our paltry street-life onto two levels. I really should move to Europe: Paris, Milan, Utrecht, Munich, London, Budapest, Prague... heartbreaking beauty.

stouset 10y ago

I also just realized/remembered that the leading cause of death for children, particularly teenagers, is automobile accidents. Surely whatever dangers kids are exposed to in cities absolutely pale in comparison to the increased risk of car accidents caused by living in the suburbs, where virtually every outing requires a lengthy trip by car.