7 ms·

> It is exclusionary by nature; economic segregation is often the intent, and in most cases the impact. This seems awfully reductionist. I think often the inte

• scribu 7y ago
  > We've observed that [leaving children unattended] becomes unsafe in places with high density populations. Is that factually accurate, or just a false impression that people get? Let's assume it is objectively more unsafe. Is the problem the high density or is it some other aspect that causes issues? Most kids in East European countries, the vast majority of which grow up in high density neighborhoods, are left unattended to play in the streets, yet they are not abducted, get hit by cars etc. (Source: I grew up in Romania.)
  • thrav 7y ago
    I think the problem is imagined. The “problem” of safety has made its way out to the burbs now too. The public world is mostly safe, and kids are mostly capable of navigating it on their own and in small groups — the adults in America have chosen not to believe that, and written laws forbidding parents from allowing their children to even attempt it. These choices may have resulted in a few less kidnappings, but they’re also core to the creation of the loneliness epidemic, as kids never learn how to engage with the world on their own.
    • Misdicorl 7y ago
      Stranger danger isn't the only risk to children. Being hit by fast moving vehicle traffic is much higher on most people's worry list.
      • Redoubts 7y ago
        Well I feel much more worried about being a pedestrian in the suburbs than in a city. Drivers seem to forget people and bikes exist unless they’re constantly reminded of their presence.
        • Misdicorl 7y ago
          Trying to get from point A to point B? Absolutely. Just hanging around near point A? Absolutely not. Point A in the suburbs invariably has a space within 2 blocks that sees two to three cars a day (excluding rush hour).
      • tathougies 7y ago
        I dont think ive ever seen a fast car on a dense city street (difficult to go fast when theres gridlock) whereas speeds above 55 mph were common on the 'nice' suburban street I grew up on
        • Misdicorl 7y ago
          The fatality rate spikes around 30mph. Most city traffic is definitely in that range (at least that I've experienced). > speeds above 55 mph were common on the 'nice' suburban street I grew up on Thats not a suburban street, thats a highway interconnecting the suburb. Non-driving connection within a suburb is certainly a huge problem.
          • tathougies 7y ago
            I mean it was a street with on street parking, sidewalks, a school etc. I am unsure how you can make such a universal statement unless youve experienced literally every suburb in america. In san Francisco, most city traffic is less than 30 mph because of high density
            • Misdicorl 7y ago
              A 55mph road is a highway regardless of other factors (in my opinion). Sucks that a school is on it
    • api 7y ago
      A lot of this goes back to 80s and 90s daytime TV and its sensationalization of a small number of kidnapping cases. An example would be the Johnny Gosch case which almost single handedly ended the job of paper boy. (There is a crime podcast called Faded Out that looked deeply into this one, starting by examining the sensational claims but later finding a much more likely explanation.) The top risk to kids outdoors is cars. Strangers don't even rank. >90% of child physical or sexual assaults are committed by someone the child knows.
      • JustSomeNobody 7y ago
        I would say John Walsh as well. On the one hand, he didn't want others to go through what he went through. On the other hand, he scared the poop out of an entire generation of TV watchers.
        • api 7y ago
          Media really distorts risk perception. People are afraid of random child predators, terrorists, and mass shootings when none of these things even compare to car accidents, standard issue child abuse by someone the kid knows, cancer, heart disease, etc. Another example is that people are more afraid of nuclear power than coal when coal is dirtier and drives scary things like ocean acidification and climate change. One 9/11, random kidnapping, etc. has more "virality" than a constant undercurrent of far larger risks.
    • shrimpx 7y ago
      My take is it's not about gross safety statistics. It's about feeling safe. A lot of unsightly activity in your hood may make it feel totally unsafe even though statistically it's pretty safe.
  • danharaj 7y ago
    The reasons you will get will all be euphemisms for "I think black people are criminals".
    • Misdicorl 7y ago
      This is disingenuous. Lets admit that there are racist people who use and/or co-opt these types of regulations and address the genuine arguments in their favor. Then maybe we can find compromises that help both `sides`.
      • eropple 7y ago
        Assuming that one "side"--the one inventing things about people with more melanin--is in any way deserving of compromise is immediate and irrevocable surrender. The white-supremacist contingent understands this and are not looking to compromise. They'll take whatever compromise is handed to them and immediately refuse to change their behavior at all.
        • Misdicorl 7y ago
          As far as these regulations are a proxy for racism, yes absolutely they need to be removed. But lets understand the arguments that aren't based in racism, and I think they exist, to try and accommodate those aspects of single family home neighborhoods. I think if 1/4 of high density space is dedicated to public parks, that would go a long way towards addressing the real issues. Those parks can't just be space 'somewhere' either. There has to be one within ~two blocks of every home in my estimation.
  • Misdicorl 7y ago
    > Is that factually accurate, or just a false impression that people get? I don't know, and its a good question; the answer should definitely inform regulations like these. Though, even if the fear is imagined, it will still affect your behavior and how you're able to parent. I think its also important to note that it isn't just safety at risk here- its opportunity. High density areas are unlikely to support multi-use infrastructure since the primary use will force out secondary uses (e.g. playing kickball in the street). There are also a variety of other things you can slot into that sentence that dont invoke the sanctity of kid safety. Admittedly, a lot of them are more personal decisions that don't require regulations enforced on others.
  • toasterlovin 7y ago
    From what I can tell, most of the people arguing that cities are safe for kids also seem to think that letting street people do whatever they want in the urban core is okay. You can cite all the stats about stranger danger that you want, but no sane parent is going to let their kids play outside in American urban cores as they currently exist. Urban cores are not human friendly places. Adults put up with it so they can live in a more stimulating environment. They are not suitable for children to wander in the same way that my kids can wander in our neighborhood in the suburbs.
  • mrep 7y ago
    >> We've observed that [leaving children unattended] becomes unsafe in places with high density populations. > Is that factually accurate, or just a false impression that people get? I don't feel safe as an adult living in downtown seattle due to the homeless population (this person's experience 100% matches mine [0]) and homeless people are going to naturally gravitate towards high density areas where there are more people to panhandle from. Also, it's much riskier to commit a crime in a low density population where you can be recognized much more easily. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20422473 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20422473
• nickserv 7y ago
  It's not the density that makes urban areas unsafe, it's all the cars. A downtown pedestrian street is perfectly safe for kids to hang out and play. Neighbors, older kids and shopkeepers keep an eye out without being in helicopter mode. In the few cities I've been to that have banned vehicular traffic in downtown areas, you do see bunches of kids running around, as done for millennia.
  • Misdicorl 7y ago
    Yes, vehicle traffic would be by far my #1 worry in high density areas.
    • tomaha 7y ago
      It's really about planning. Modern Swiss towns mostly consist of high density buildings with parking underground and most of the areas around the buildings are for walking & biking. The really good thing about high density is that it allows for much more efficient public transport which reduces the need for cars.
      • SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        Just a reminder when talking about the Swiss... they are half the population of New Jersey over twice the area. Maybe their cities planning ideas might not scale?
        • scarejunba 7y ago
          Yes, but Geneva and San Jose have the same density. I think it’s worthwhi to see where scaling breaks down with constant density and also worthwhile to not a priori dismiss the idea as non-scaling.
        • TulliusCicero 7y ago
          I'm sorry, this is hilarious to me. You see, urbanists constantly get pushback from people who know almost nothing about urban planning, or cities in other countries, who say, "uh, you can't apply lessons from Japan/UK/Germany/France/etc., because the US is so much more spread out, duh." And now we have someone arguing literally the opposite. Now it's the US that's apparently too dense. We need a new word for this brand of snowflakey NIH syndrome, where unless you can't prove that [city/country] is exactly the same as [other city/country], there is nothing one could learn from them.
• bastawhiz 7y ago
  > We've observed that this becomes unsafe in places with high density populations, so lets prevent high density housing to maintain that lifestyle This is a generalization that finds its roots in "white flight", which was itself driven by racism and fear mongering and the side effects of redlining and mortgage discrimination. Suburbs as we know them today didn't exist a hundred years ago. And in fact, perpetuating this belief drives more folks with money/privilege/economic mobility away from cities, increasing economic hardship (and in turn, crime) in the areas they leave. You invalidate your own point. The south side of Chicago is not a place many people would consider safe, and yet it has a huge amount of single family units. "this becomes unsafe in places with high density populations" really means "this becomes unsafe in places with lots of poor people" or "this becomes unsafe in places with lots of people who look different from me".
  • Misdicorl 7y ago
    Can this really be tied to "white flight"? I think you make a compelling point, but white flight also happens to suburbs- which I guess is also part of your point. I don't know the reasons and history of suburb development. It seems to me that it should have a lot to do with the commoditization of fast travel costs, and its simply that rich white people were first able to take advantage. If socioeconomic status weren't so linked to race (good lord maybe this can happen in my lifetime), would people still want single family housing neighborhoods? I think the answer is yes. They have some real advantages over living in the city or in true rural localities.
    • bastawhiz 7y ago
      There's a difference between "moving to a single family home" and "preventing my neighborhood from becoming high density". I don't care how many people live in SFUs so long as it's not illegal to build higher density buildings.
      • Misdicorl 7y ago
        But I think there are rational, non-racist reasons to want to prevent your neighborhood from becoming high density.
• TulliusCicero 7y ago
  Germany has MUCH more kids walking around by themselves than the US, even with higher population densities and a complete lack of mandatory single family home zoning. The US actually sucks big time for child independence. If anything, these sort of car dominant neighborhoods make it more dangerous for kids to go around by themselves. Cars go much faster there. > There are lots of poor neighborhoods that are single family housing This entirely misses the point. The point isn't that every SFH-only neighborhood is affluent or even middle-class, it's that having all these SFH-only neighborhoods supports stratification. Such rules will block a poorer family from living in a richer area, whereas with more density-friendly zoning rules, they may choose to just live in a smaller home in a nicer neighborhood, thereby preventing severe segregation.
  • Misdicorl 7y ago
    > This entirely misses the point. The point isn't that every SFH-only neighborhood is affluent or even middle-class, it's that having all these SFH-only neighborhoods supports stratification. Is that the point? Is stratification what we are trying to prevent by removing single family home regulations? I don't think it will work.
    • TulliusCicero 7y ago
      Prevent? No. Alleviate? Yes. You can't just say "I don't think it will work" without saying why. Allowing for smaller home forms would mean affordable options in desirable neighborhoods. Do you have a reason to believe poorer families would still universally avoid those options?
      • Misdicorl 7y ago
        It seems to me that stratification of neighborhoods is extreme whether single family housing regulations are in place or not. These types of regulations probably do make it more extreme. But I also question the base motive. Is de-stratisfying neighborhoods actually a worthwhile goal? I can certainly see some benefit- its nice to live in a diverse neighborhood. I wonder if that might happen anyways if we address the underlying issues instead- violence, schools, access to public works, probably others- rather than just throwing up our hands and giving up on these underserviced 'bad' neighborhoods.