6 ms·

>entire generations have grown up agreeing with you because literally the density of the pre-car era was eradicated and they know nothing different. But a lot

by jasode 4y ago

>entire generations have grown up agreeing with you because literally the density of the pre-car era was eradicated and they know nothing different. But a lot of people have experienced high-density living and deliberately reject it and choose the suburbs. Consider a common life timeline: - early 20s (single no kids) : going to college in a big city or starting a career at a downtown firm so they enjoy the dense city living like Manhattan, Chicago, etc. Walking to restaurants and bars, museums, cultural things - mid-life with kids: they enjoyed cities in their younger years but they want to raise a family so they move out to the suburbs. Multiple reasons could be the better schools, less crime, less noise, more square footage, a back yard, garage and extra space for hobbies, etc. - senior/retired and kids are grown leaving an "empty nest": some (not all) senior citizens might sell the suburb house and move to a city condo and walk to museums again. But some also stay in the suburbs and just move to a smaller house or single-level townhouse. Yes "walkable cities" have advantages but the suburbs also have particular advantages that can have higher priority. It's not about ignorance. It's about prioritizing which advantage is most important.

CPLX 4y ago
The main reasons people leave cities for the suburbs are schools, crime, and cost. All three are certainly addressable by policy, and the crime element is already nothing like it was during the mass migration of the 60s-80s.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  >All three are certainly addressable by policy, Sure. But it's very much a "pick two" situation.
actionablefiber 4y ago
This is a uniquely North American perspective, and is tightly coupled to the North American pattern of development. This "common life timeline" is uncommon outside of the U.S. and Canada, and the fact that car dependency and onerous zoning codes dominate these two countries is the reason. Edit: The U.S. mythology of suburbs being a "great place to raise kids" is also sorely misguided, and is a major reason why there are so many adolescents who spend most of their free time at home on social media/video games. Being completely dependent on parents to shuttle you around is no way to live.
- Chris2048 4y ago
  So what's the norm in Europe, in contrast?
  - actionablefiber 4y ago
    The norm outside of the U.S. is that you don't have a massive discontinuity between "dense inner city" and "car dependent wasteland of highway, strip malls, and detached single-family homes surrounded by giant lawns" - if you start at the city center and travel outward you have dense high-rise apartments, which slowly morph into low-rise apartment complexes, which slowly morph into duplexes and triplexes, which slowly morph into somewhat tightly packed SFHs. So, until you get all the way out into farmland, you're always in a place that can be efficiently served by cycling infrastructure and public transportation, which makes them great places to live for children, the elderly and anyone really, and where it's always legal to just open a corner shop to serve the locals. In East Asia for example, going back millennia, you had Confucian filial piety whereby adults were expected to take care of their aging parents. In pretty much everywhere except white-collar communities in North America and Europe, multi-generational households are pretty standard fare. In a city that has not been bulldozed and hacked up for cars, both kids and the elderly can enjoy a high degree of independence and safety; by contrast in American suburbia, you are essentially trapped in a home, forced to drive a car to travel anywhere. It's no wonder I spent my childhood and teenage years on an Xbox.
bigDinosaur 4y ago
There are some advantages to suburbs but again, the model of development that literally bulldozed neighbourhoods was that any alternative was bad. It was quite literally seen as the way of the future to have low density suburbs connected by gigantic highways. Either way car-centric suburbs are unnecessary, you could still have American suburbs with big houses that people could walk and cycle and use PT in. Again, I was responding to someone who literally had it out for walking. It's interesting that for a country so obsessed with the freedom to live where and how you want that Americans are so car dependent...

by jasode 4y ago

CPLX 4y ago

The main reasons people leave cities for the suburbs are schools, crime, and cost. All three are certainly addressable by policy, and the crime element is already nothing like it was during the mass migration of the 60s-80s.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
>All three are certainly addressable by policy, Sure. But it's very much a "pick two" situation.

actionablefiber 4y ago

This is a uniquely North American perspective, and is tightly coupled to the North American pattern of development. This "common life timeline" is uncommon outside of the U.S. and Canada, and the fact that car dependency and onerous zoning codes dominate these two countries is the reason. Edit: The U.S. mythology of suburbs being a "great place to raise kids" is also sorely misguided, and is a major reason why there are so many adolescents who spend most of their free time at home on social media/video games. Being completely dependent on parents to shuttle you around is no way to live.

Chris2048 4y ago
So what's the norm in Europe, in contrast?
- actionablefiber 4y ago
  The norm outside of the U.S. is that you don't have a massive discontinuity between "dense inner city" and "car dependent wasteland of highway, strip malls, and detached single-family homes surrounded by giant lawns" - if you start at the city center and travel outward you have dense high-rise apartments, which slowly morph into low-rise apartment complexes, which slowly morph into duplexes and triplexes, which slowly morph into somewhat tightly packed SFHs. So, until you get all the way out into farmland, you're always in a place that can be efficiently served by cycling infrastructure and public transportation, which makes them great places to live for children, the elderly and anyone really, and where it's always legal to just open a corner shop to serve the locals. In East Asia for example, going back millennia, you had Confucian filial piety whereby adults were expected to take care of their aging parents. In pretty much everywhere except white-collar communities in North America and Europe, multi-generational households are pretty standard fare. In a city that has not been bulldozed and hacked up for cars, both kids and the elderly can enjoy a high degree of independence and safety; by contrast in American suburbia, you are essentially trapped in a home, forced to drive a car to travel anywhere. It's no wonder I spent my childhood and teenage years on an Xbox.

bigDinosaur 4y ago

There are some advantages to suburbs but again, the model of development that literally bulldozed neighbourhoods was that any alternative was bad. It was quite literally seen as the way of the future to have low density suburbs connected by gigantic highways. Either way car-centric suburbs are unnecessary, you could still have American suburbs with big houses that people could walk and cycle and use PT in. Again, I was responding to someone who literally had it out for walking. It's interesting that for a country so obsessed with the freedom to live where and how you want that Americans are so car dependent...