6 ms·

Yet another article claiming that I, every member of my family, and all of my friends don’t actually want to live in our horrible susburbs. It’s not possible t

Yet another article claiming that I, every member of my family, and all of my friends don’t actually want to live in our horrible susburbs. It’s not possible that we actually love it here, that we like the clean air, wide open spaces, huge yards, non-crowded downtown, small family friendly parades, and our rodeo. Nope, we’re all just lying to ourselves and really want to love in a cramped arcology.

zellyn 8y ago
It's weird. He actually called out your name in the article. I don't think the article makes the claim you're defending against. It was all about averages.
PopsiclePete 8y ago
...did you and I read the same article....? Read it again. It's quite interesting.
dreish 8y ago
That's decidedly not what the article claims. It claims that there are people who live in the suburbs but would prefer not to, and provides evidence to support that claim. The same evidence acknowledges the existence of people who are happy living in suburbs.
- jonathlee 8y ago
  I believe the article has failed to realize that "self-reporting" evidence is weaker than actions, not stronger. If you listen to the Freakonomics podcast for any length of time, you would realize that the weakest, most likely to not really be true, form of evidence is self-reporting. When self-reporting/answering surveys, people commonly give the answer they are "expected" to give. The actions then reveal their real preferences, which can differ substantially. With a topic as sensitive as urban density, where city planners have been bombarding us with the "right-answer" of high-density living for decades, I would expect people to over-report preferring high-density living, especially on a survey conducted by someone trying to prove their case that people prefer high-density housing.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Given that we've made it illegal to build anything other than low-density suburbs in most places, actions aren't good evidence.
    - notahacker 8y ago
      Given that planning and zoning boards making it illegal to build anything other than low density suburbs are elected officials, their actions are pretty good evidence of preferences...
      - so33 8y ago
        >Given that planning and zoning boards making it illegal to build anything other than low density suburbs are elected officials, their actions are pretty good evidence of preferences... ... of the voting population, whose demographics unfortunately don’t match up with the population at large. There’s also a vested self-interest for property owners to vote in such a way that preserves their property values. And what better way to do so than to restrict supply? Big caveat: My opinion comes from large amounts of anecdata. But at the same time, it has often been noted (especially on HN, given its demographics) that San Francisco, where there is a huge demand for dense housing, is fraught with many barriers to actually build dense housing. You can see City Observatory’s (an urbanist publication, so YMMV) take: http://cityobservatory.org/homevoters-v-the-growth-machine/ http://cityobservatory.org/homevoters-v-the-growth-machine/
        notahacker 8y ago
        Sure, voters' demographics don't match up with the population as a whole, but they're certainly not more skewed against the tastes of the poor than an idealised free market. (I don't think they're likely to be well represented in Levine's survey or the central San Francisco housing debate either) Your linked homevoter article underlines the point by suggesting that low density housing areas are more likely to be downzoned than zoned for higher density, which is odd if a majority of their population has an unexpressed desire to live in a less suburban area, especially since it's most likely to happen where residents are homeowners and wealthy and white enough to be an influential voting bloc. Restricting supply is itself a perfectly valid reason for actually preferring lower density housing, but it's only part of that equation. It turns out that many people who might answer survey questions saying that they ideally want a walkable neighbourhood with better transit actually end up obstructing plans to put a train line through their leafy suburb and a mixed-use development towers a few blocks away from their house.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pkulak 8y ago
It's pretty clear that you didn't even read the article. Unless you were surveyed by the study mentioned, your preference isn't relevant to anything.
clucas 8y ago
I'm not sure how you get that from the article - could you cite where it argues that people who want to live in less-dense neighborhoods don't actually want what they think they want? The point I got from it is that some people want to live in dense neighborhoods and others want to live in less-dense neighborhoods - and in certain areas that were built up more recently (e.g. Atlanta), there is more demand for dense areas than there is supply, while in some older cities (e.g. Boston) there is a short supply of both dense and less-dense neighborhoods. If anything, your comment dismissing dense areas as "cramped arcologies" is more dismissive of other people's desires than the article is. Do you have trouble believing either or both of the following: (1) some (though not all) people want to live in densely populated areas where they can walk to most amenities and (2) modern urban building patterns have underserved such people?
rayiner 8y ago
What the article shows is that lots of people who say they want to live in an urban area are forced to live in the suburbs. This has nothing to do with people who want to live in low-density suburbs, except to the extent that those people voted to make it illegal to build anything other than low-density suburbs.
srbloom 8y ago
With such a thin skin I think you have found a good fit for yourself in the suburbs.
zkms 8y ago
> It’s not possible that we actually love it here, that we like the clean air, wide open spaces, huge yards, non-crowded downtown, small family friendly parades, and our rodeo. Nobody wants to outlaw suburbs and single-family homes with huge yards and setbacks via zoning fiat, people want other options to not be outright illegal. I'm sincerely sure you enjoy living where you do, we're just asking for such preferences to not be encoded and mandated in the zoning/land-use laws and regulations and procedures.
- VLM 8y ago
  The best standard HN automobile analogy would be that the average teenage boy knows Ferraris are the coolest car. Surely that would win every poll of the "right" way to answer that question of what car is the correct car to drive. Yet its incredibly unusual for all but the very wealthiest to give their teenage son a Ferrari as their first car. Everyone knows they should say we need to outlaw teen boy ownership of worn out unreliable rusty beater cars for all kinds of health and safety reasons, but no one wants that law actually passed, especially not the teenage boys. If you can't afford a Ferrari for yourself or your teen son, you're just not cool, not in the cool driver club at all. God forbid you say in public that you want a nice boring reliable commuter car instead of a Ferrari, you know, like most people very successfully drive. But, maybe that is exactly a good way to live, just a very bad thing to say in public? Proven successful via vast population migration to where its possible and successful over many decades. Sure people will wail away at how boring and unexciting that broke down old F150 was or that rusty Dodge Omni and everyone should be forced to buy Ferraris, and thats why the cool kids say Ferraris are teh coolest, but it doesn't really MEAN anything in actual lifestyle, in what it means to live a good life. Sure, OK whatever, we should all buy Ferraris, now get off my back, because I gotta get on with real life, and go drive the Yaris or Sienna tomorrow.
sanderjd 8y ago
That doesn't sound like a suburb to me, it sounds like a town. The suburbs I'm familiar with don't have a downtown to be non-crowded or in which to have a small family friendly parade. I like towns too, but the ones where I live are still expensive akin to the cities in the area, whereas the non-town residential + strip mall only suburbs are where it is cheaper to live.
- djrogers 8y ago
  You’re not living in or visiting the same suburbs I am I guess...
- CM30 8y ago
  Probably depends on the area and country. In parts of the US I suspect the average 'suburban' area doesn't have a downtown or local shops or what not, but in much of Europe and other parts of the US it often does, with 'suburb' often being taken more to mean 'smaller town just outside of a city'.
reddog 8y ago
Don't fight it. These people have studied architecture and city planning at the best schools. They know whats best for you is to live in a two bedroom apartment next to the train station. Once there you will start to understand how irrational your life decisions have been.
troydavis 8y ago
Could you quote or otherwise cite where the article claims that?

zellyn 8y ago

It's weird. He actually called out your name in the article. I don't think the article makes the claim you're defending against. It was all about averages.

PopsiclePete 8y ago

...did you and I read the same article....? Read it again. It's quite interesting.

dreish 8y ago

That's decidedly not what the article claims. It claims that there are people who live in the suburbs but would prefer not to, and provides evidence to support that claim. The same evidence acknowledges the existence of people who are happy living in suburbs.

jonathlee 8y ago
I believe the article has failed to realize that "self-reporting" evidence is weaker than actions, not stronger. If you listen to the Freakonomics podcast for any length of time, you would realize that the weakest, most likely to not really be true, form of evidence is self-reporting. When self-reporting/answering surveys, people commonly give the answer they are "expected" to give. The actions then reveal their real preferences, which can differ substantially. With a topic as sensitive as urban density, where city planners have been bombarding us with the "right-answer" of high-density living for decades, I would expect people to over-report preferring high-density living, especially on a survey conducted by someone trying to prove their case that people prefer high-density housing.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Given that we've made it illegal to build anything other than low-density suburbs in most places, actions aren't good evidence.
  - notahacker 8y ago
    Given that planning and zoning boards making it illegal to build anything other than low density suburbs are elected officials, their actions are pretty good evidence of preferences...
    - so33 8y ago
      >Given that planning and zoning boards making it illegal to build anything other than low density suburbs are elected officials, their actions are pretty good evidence of preferences... ... of the voting population, whose demographics unfortunately don’t match up with the population at large. There’s also a vested self-interest for property owners to vote in such a way that preserves their property values. And what better way to do so than to restrict supply? Big caveat: My opinion comes from large amounts of anecdata. But at the same time, it has often been noted (especially on HN, given its demographics) that San Francisco, where there is a huge demand for dense housing, is fraught with many barriers to actually build dense housing. You can see City Observatory’s (an urbanist publication, so YMMV) take: http://cityobservatory.org/homevoters-v-the-growth-machine/ http://cityobservatory.org/homevoters-v-the-growth-machine/
      - notahacker 8y ago
        Sure, voters' demographics don't match up with the population as a whole, but they're certainly not more skewed against the tastes of the poor than an idealised free market. (I don't think they're likely to be well represented in Levine's survey or the central San Francisco housing debate either) Your linked homevoter article underlines the point by suggesting that low density housing areas are more likely to be downzoned than zoned for higher density, which is odd if a majority of their population has an unexpressed desire to live in a less suburban area, especially since it's most likely to happen where residents are homeowners and wealthy and white enough to be an influential voting bloc. Restricting supply is itself a perfectly valid reason for actually preferring lower density housing, but it's only part of that equation. It turns out that many people who might answer survey questions saying that they ideally want a walkable neighbourhood with better transit actually end up obstructing plans to put a train line through their leafy suburb and a mixed-use development towers a few blocks away from their house.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pkulak 8y ago

It's pretty clear that you didn't even read the article. Unless you were surveyed by the study mentioned, your preference isn't relevant to anything.

clucas 8y ago

I'm not sure how you get that from the article - could you cite where it argues that people who want to live in less-dense neighborhoods don't actually want what they think they want? The point I got from it is that some people want to live in dense neighborhoods and others want to live in less-dense neighborhoods - and in certain areas that were built up more recently (e.g. Atlanta), there is more demand for dense areas than there is supply, while in some older cities (e.g. Boston) there is a short supply of both dense and less-dense neighborhoods. If anything, your comment dismissing dense areas as "cramped arcologies" is more dismissive of other people's desires than the article is. Do you have trouble believing either or both of the following: (1) some (though not all) people want to live in densely populated areas where they can walk to most amenities and (2) modern urban building patterns have underserved such people?

rayiner 8y ago

What the article shows is that lots of people who say they want to live in an urban area are forced to live in the suburbs. This has nothing to do with people who want to live in low-density suburbs, except to the extent that those people voted to make it illegal to build anything other than low-density suburbs.

srbloom 8y ago

With such a thin skin I think you have found a good fit for yourself in the suburbs.

zkms 8y ago

> It’s not possible that we actually love it here, that we like the clean air, wide open spaces, huge yards, non-crowded downtown, small family friendly parades, and our rodeo. Nobody wants to outlaw suburbs and single-family homes with huge yards and setbacks via zoning fiat, people want other options to not be outright illegal. I'm sincerely sure you enjoy living where you do, we're just asking for such preferences to not be encoded and mandated in the zoning/land-use laws and regulations and procedures.

VLM 8y ago
The best standard HN automobile analogy would be that the average teenage boy knows Ferraris are the coolest car. Surely that would win every poll of the "right" way to answer that question of what car is the correct car to drive. Yet its incredibly unusual for all but the very wealthiest to give their teenage son a Ferrari as their first car. Everyone knows they should say we need to outlaw teen boy ownership of worn out unreliable rusty beater cars for all kinds of health and safety reasons, but no one wants that law actually passed, especially not the teenage boys. If you can't afford a Ferrari for yourself or your teen son, you're just not cool, not in the cool driver club at all. God forbid you say in public that you want a nice boring reliable commuter car instead of a Ferrari, you know, like most people very successfully drive. But, maybe that is exactly a good way to live, just a very bad thing to say in public? Proven successful via vast population migration to where its possible and successful over many decades. Sure people will wail away at how boring and unexciting that broke down old F150 was or that rusty Dodge Omni and everyone should be forced to buy Ferraris, and thats why the cool kids say Ferraris are teh coolest, but it doesn't really MEAN anything in actual lifestyle, in what it means to live a good life. Sure, OK whatever, we should all buy Ferraris, now get off my back, because I gotta get on with real life, and go drive the Yaris or Sienna tomorrow.

sanderjd 8y ago

That doesn't sound like a suburb to me, it sounds like a town. The suburbs I'm familiar with don't have a downtown to be non-crowded or in which to have a small family friendly parade. I like towns too, but the ones where I live are still expensive akin to the cities in the area, whereas the non-town residential + strip mall only suburbs are where it is cheaper to live.

djrogers 8y ago
You’re not living in or visiting the same suburbs I am I guess...
CM30 8y ago
Probably depends on the area and country. In parts of the US I suspect the average 'suburban' area doesn't have a downtown or local shops or what not, but in much of Europe and other parts of the US it often does, with 'suburb' often being taken more to mean 'smaller town just outside of a city'.

reddog 8y ago

Don't fight it. These people have studied architecture and city planning at the best schools. They know whats best for you is to live in a two bedroom apartment next to the train station. Once there you will start to understand how irrational your life decisions have been.

troydavis 8y ago

Could you quote or otherwise cite where the article claims that?