3 ms·

Slovakian Asks Good Questions About American Suburbs

2 points by jseliger 4y ago

jleyank 4y ago
Having lived in various suburbs in the US and Canada, these are car-oriented places. Living space is as large alone can afford and every activity occurs at the other end of a car ride. Or a bus ride if one is a pre-uni student. In more-affluent, newer suburbs, there can easily be more cars than people and so there's been a tradeoff between useful yard-size (where kids can play) to pads of asphalt and concrete (where cars can be parked). Also, as ground is expensive, the inter-house distance and the yard size has dropped over the decades. If one wants to interact as the original poster is used to, one lives in the city. And there are parts of the country where such city-based living is possible (usually larger, older cities). Biking has tried to break down the car-dominated nature but that's more work than many people are willing (or able) to put in. Which makes for a bad situation for the elderly. And in the US at least, association with one's neighbours has declined.
- eesmith 4y ago
  That observation doesn't really address the questions though. Why did the US get this way, and why does it stay this way? For example, zoning laws prohibit me from setting up a little store in the middle of a suburb. Think NYC bodega - a local place to get all sorts of stuff (milk, detergent, pasta, soft drinks, coffee, trash bags, maybe a small deli) quick and easy, rather than drive to a larger store because you just realized you forgot one thing. The store would likely be close enough that kids can be sent on errands there, so the adult driver can skip the trip entirely. Are US zoning laws which prohibit this in place because our officials who passed these laws incompetent? Or due to car and oil lobbying? Or some other reason? Or, since I know more about the US, why is there such opposition to secondary suites? My retired mother rents out the apartment above her garage, but building those (or "mother-in-law suites", casitas, etc.) is not allowed in more recent zoning laws.
  - jleyank 4y ago
    Don't know as the situation was in place by the 70's. It's possible it was designed into the system in the post-war massive suburbia buildout that welcomed the GI's back (along with the GI bill). IE, where the boomers grew up. When these were done, through into the 70's, mom was at home (later, probably at home) so running errands didn't require kids walking about. I remember they were a herd of folks running about the neighbourhood being sorta watched by a collection of moms keeping them outside. There might have been a ball field nearby where football/baseball could be played, or they just played amongst the houses with the traffic lights. Parts of the country salted in basketball nets. It might have been the boomer's desire to have more than their parents had - rather than a little box house, they wanted a bigger one. With a place to bbq and entertain. In older developments the back yards were all connected so there was room to roam.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      The post-war massive suburbia had a very strong racist component. (Reynolds "Little Boxes" refers to the post-World War II white-only suburb of Westlake; the famous Levittown was also whites-only). Ditto the GI bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill#Racial_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill#Racial_discriminatio... . See also redlining. It also had a strong class component. "In some cases, suburbanites saw self-government as a means to keep out people who could not afford the added suburban property maintenance costs not needed in city living." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb#United_States ). Critical race theory attempts to address how laws and practices which were originally done with racist intent can result in racism "designed into the system" even when no one enforcing the system is racist. I can't help but think this is one such case. FWIW, I was a kid in the 1970s. I grew up in a grid-system city neighborhood containing homes mostly built in the 1930s and 1940s, and also including duplexes and 2-story apartments from the 1920s. The nearest market was 6 blocks away. The nearest restaurant 5 blocks. (That was also where the nearest newspaper rack was - I was sent there a few times to get the paper.) Zillow says the lot was 5,250 sq.ft. I enjoyed growing up there. The elementary school was in walking distance. Lots of places I could go to on my own even before I could drive. Which is why I struggle to understand why people wanted to every activity to be 'at the other end of a car ride'. Or understand why the extra time needed to maintain such a large lawn has a substantial payoff in the bbq-ing or entertaining. The few times we had events that large, we reserved covered picnic tables at a city park.

2 points by jseliger 4y ago

Having lived in various suburbs in the US and Canada, these are car-oriented places. Living space is as large alone can afford and every activity occurs at the other end of a car ride. Or a bus ride if one is a pre-uni student. In more-affluent, newer suburbs, there can easily be more cars than people and so there's been a tradeoff between useful yard-size (where kids can play) to pads of asphalt and concrete (where cars can be parked). Also, as ground is expensive, the inter-house distance and the yard size has dropped over the decades. If one wants to interact as the original poster is used to, one lives in the city. And there are parts of the country where such city-based living is possible (usually larger, older cities). Biking has tried to break down the car-dominated nature but that's more work than many people are willing (or able) to put in. Which makes for a bad situation for the elderly. And in the US at least, association with one's neighbours has declined.

eesmith 4y ago
That observation doesn't really address the questions though. Why did the US get this way, and why does it stay this way? For example, zoning laws prohibit me from setting up a little store in the middle of a suburb. Think NYC bodega - a local place to get all sorts of stuff (milk, detergent, pasta, soft drinks, coffee, trash bags, maybe a small deli) quick and easy, rather than drive to a larger store because you just realized you forgot one thing. The store would likely be close enough that kids can be sent on errands there, so the adult driver can skip the trip entirely. Are US zoning laws which prohibit this in place because our officials who passed these laws incompetent? Or due to car and oil lobbying? Or some other reason? Or, since I know more about the US, why is there such opposition to secondary suites? My retired mother rents out the apartment above her garage, but building those (or "mother-in-law suites", casitas, etc.) is not allowed in more recent zoning laws.
- jleyank 4y ago
  Don't know as the situation was in place by the 70's. It's possible it was designed into the system in the post-war massive suburbia buildout that welcomed the GI's back (along with the GI bill). IE, where the boomers grew up. When these were done, through into the 70's, mom was at home (later, probably at home) so running errands didn't require kids walking about. I remember they were a herd of folks running about the neighbourhood being sorta watched by a collection of moms keeping them outside. There might have been a ball field nearby where football/baseball could be played, or they just played amongst the houses with the traffic lights. Parts of the country salted in basketball nets. It might have been the boomer's desire to have more than their parents had - rather than a little box house, they wanted a bigger one. With a place to bbq and entertain. In older developments the back yards were all connected so there was room to roam.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    The post-war massive suburbia had a very strong racist component. (Reynolds "Little Boxes" refers to the post-World War II white-only suburb of Westlake; the famous Levittown was also whites-only). Ditto the GI bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill#Racial_discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill#Racial_discriminatio... . See also redlining. It also had a strong class component. "In some cases, suburbanites saw self-government as a means to keep out people who could not afford the added suburban property maintenance costs not needed in city living." (Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb#United_States ). Critical race theory attempts to address how laws and practices which were originally done with racist intent can result in racism "designed into the system" even when no one enforcing the system is racist. I can't help but think this is one such case. FWIW, I was a kid in the 1970s. I grew up in a grid-system city neighborhood containing homes mostly built in the 1930s and 1940s, and also including duplexes and 2-story apartments from the 1920s. The nearest market was 6 blocks away. The nearest restaurant 5 blocks. (That was also where the nearest newspaper rack was - I was sent there a few times to get the paper.) Zillow says the lot was 5,250 sq.ft. I enjoyed growing up there. The elementary school was in walking distance. Lots of places I could go to on my own even before I could drive. Which is why I struggle to understand why people wanted to every activity to be 'at the other end of a car ride'. Or understand why the extra time needed to maintain such a large lawn has a substantial payoff in the bbq-ing or entertaining. The few times we had events that large, we reserved covered picnic tables at a city park.