4 ms·

> Not to mention that anyone who grew up pre-Internet or pre-smartphones knows that the real barriers to kids playing outside are more cultural/societal. I did

> Not to mention that anyone who grew up pre-Internet or pre-smartphones knows that the real barriers to kids playing outside are more cultural/societal. I did, and 100% that's not the barrier today. I moved my kids from a neighborhood packed with cars to one with several dead-end streets and no through traffic and the change in my kids' lives has been shocking. They almost never wanted to play outside before because they couldn't really get anywhere safely. Now they are outside until dark nearly every day they aren't in school. This isn't even addressing your ridiculous assumption that cities/towns can just easily add parks and fields. Those things take up space and people without kids don't care at all about them and want that land for their condos.

throwawaysea 8y ago
Always good to hear anecdotes like yours, so thanks for sharing. Dead-end streets and no through traffic can make some difference; but that's also saying that we need suburban towns or suburban-like neighborhoods within cities for those with families (which is valid IMO). However it isn't really practical for the next notch higher of density in terms of transit throughput, unless people are willing to give up personal point-to-point transit in favor of mass transit (which has its own tradeoffs). I am also not assuming cities/towns can "just" add parks and fields. It is something they can do if they prioritize it and have the political will to execute. And even if it were not pragmatic for an already fully-built-up locale, I am making the point as a general matter of planning or noting what is desirable in a town. One thing I did not understand: why do you think people without kids will not care about parks (which they can enjoy as well), but will care enough about kids to make their own street access more painful?

throwawaysea 8y ago

Always good to hear anecdotes like yours, so thanks for sharing. Dead-end streets and no through traffic can make some difference; but that's also saying that we need suburban towns or suburban-like neighborhoods within cities for those with families (which is valid IMO). However it isn't really practical for the next notch higher of density in terms of transit throughput, unless people are willing to give up personal point-to-point transit in favor of mass transit (which has its own tradeoffs). I am also not assuming cities/towns can "just" add parks and fields. It is something they can do if they prioritize it and have the political will to execute. And even if it were not pragmatic for an already fully-built-up locale, I am making the point as a general matter of planning or noting what is desirable in a town. One thing I did not understand: why do you think people without kids will not care about parks (which they can enjoy as well), but will care enough about kids to make their own street access more painful?