6 ms·

As someone who frequently blames car-dependence for many of the USA's social problems, this passage really stood out: The large size of the townships and the

As someone who frequently blames car-dependence for many of the USA's social problems, this passage really stood out: The large size of the townships and the long distances between dwellings have had much to do with making social coherence difficult. A single township may embrace four or five communities two or three miles apart, with no common rallying-point but the annual townmeeting. Not only do these detached sections get nothing socially from the township as a whole, but they are not, as a rule, populous or compact enough to have any appreciable social activity of their own. In this respect our farming communities are at a distinct disadvantage as compared with those of France and most of the other countries of the Old World. There the tillers of the soil live closely together, in almost crowded villages, from which they go forth to their work in the outlying fields. I wonder why even early in the USA's history, before cars, before railroads, we distributed housing so widely as to inhibit socialization? I guess it's because towns grew up around separate farmsteads, instead of a bunch of non-owners living in town, working fields around town for an estate owner? I usually assume that this USA-specific "missing middle" of dense housing is a result of car culture and the suburban nightmare we've created across the country. In fact, I specifically chose to live in a small, dense New England town because I like that kind of socialization and walkability. It is curious to hear someone complaining about the same issue, over 100 years ago, for entirely different reasons.

dont__panic 4y ago
I know double-commenting is frowned upon, but this quote also stood out to me as a bike nerd: The least important, perhaps, and yet to some of us the saddest thing about the decay of New England country life has been the disappearance of the hospitable wayside tavern. Something similar, it is hoped, may be brought in by the bicycle. It is much to be feared, however, that the new bicycle road-house will be nothing more hospitable than a mammoth stand-up lunch-counter. I wonder what these wayside taverns were like. Nowadays, I find myself happy enough with "stand-up lunch-counters" when I bicycle tour (ride self-supported long distances by bicycle). I also find myself greatly appreciating the dirt roads present in Vermont and much of New England, since they slow down car traffic and are honestly much more pleasant to bike on than poorly maintained pavement roads. Meanwhile, this author laments the poor state of (presumably dirt) carriage roads across rural New England. It's interesting how I seem to agree with the base thoughts and preferences of the author, but we have inverted preferences on these things (for similar reasons). I wonder what this author thought about the automobile.
- baxtr 4y ago
  What is double-commenting?
  - waster 4y ago
    Replying to one's own comment.
  - dcminter 4y ago
    Presumably they mean creating a daughter comment to their own top-level comment? Though I'm not personally aware of any particular convention against it.
- jollyllama 4y ago
  It's relatively easier to have a pint or two and ride a horse or drive a wagon than it is to do the same and ride an old bicycle. I would assume you could also water, feed, and rest your horse at the tavern, which a bicycle did not require.
- chrsig 4y ago
  It's much easier to appreciate the dirt roads when you're a tourist. Having grown up on a dirt road in New England, I can say that I'd much rather it were paved.
  - dasil003 4y ago
    For driving or biking?
    - chrsig 4y ago
      both. and walking, rollerblading, skateboarding…
  - the_third_wave 4y ago
    Hm, I live one a farm in the Swedish countryside where part the road was paved a number of years ago and I can't say I appreciate the "improvement". Cars speed by faster, it is harder on horses' hooves, frost damage is harder to repair. Since it is too hilly here to skate and the pavement type - oil-drenched gravel - is too coarse for it anyway that argument doesn't hold either. I can bike, ride my motorbike and tractor just as well on the gravel so... where's the upside?
rhapsodic 4y ago
>I usually assume that this USA-specific "missing middle" of dense housing is a result of car culture and the suburban nightmare we've created across the country I suspect the layout of European farming communities is a holdover from feudalism, when serfs worked the land on behalf of the lord of the manor, who owned all the land. They probably found conditions in the New World much more desirable, where they could own their own farm. And when they owned their own farm, they probably found it much more convenient to live close to the fields and barns and livestock that they also owned.
- ghaff 4y ago
  I live in an old New England farm town in a house from the early 1800s. (The town was founded in 1653.) Looking at maps from the 1800s, it was always pretty spread out. There is a small town green with a couple old churches, library, cemetery, and town hall. And there used to be some mills along the river. But it was mostly fairly spread out farming. As you suggest, in England and I assume other areas of Europe there would be a more distinct village with a place dating to that time.
seanalltogether 4y ago
I may be wrong but I'm guessing it's because in europe the peasants didn't own the land. The hub and spoke design of old world villages was beneficial to the landlords, not the workers.
- neaden 4y ago
  I think this is kind of true, but not fully. It's not that the peasants didn't own the land, though certainly many didn't, it's that they didn't farm contiguous rectangular fields like is common in America. In older farming there would be two or three fields for crop rotation, and then different parts of the field would be owned by different people. So you might have a bit over here, a bit over there, etc. You would grow different crops on different areas of the field, and then have a vegetable garden near your house. In America, relatively early on, instead we ended up with farmers who had a single contiguous piece of land where they primarily farmed a single crop.
  - monknomo 4y ago
    Seeing like a state covers this - it could be that in the interest of making ownership legible (while dispossessing the Native Americans), people could only buy contiguous land. In particular, I'm reminded of the piece on how the tsar and soviets both tried to get rid of the strip system that the peasants liked because it was easy to farm and manage from their level.
ericmay 4y ago
> I usually assume that this USA-specific "missing middle" of dense housing is a result of car culture and the suburban nightmare we've created across the country. The rural areas are just that, rural. But cities are where the problem of the suburban nightmare take hold and they weren’t an issue for most of American history because a city was a city and the countryside was the countryside. This changed with the highway infrastructure, gutting of city transit like existing streetcars, etc. and trying to sell the idyllic countryside at mass scale that was for a brief period “achievable” via personal automobile. Socialization doesn’t have to be because of density. It can be between homesteaders who pass each other by once in awhile or meet up at the market place that exists in the town. The problem with suburbs is that they don’t reproduce any of the benefits of city life or productive rural life.
- monknomo 4y ago
  This article contrasts two different modes of rural areas. There is the US-style rural, where the homesteads are widely separated. The house is on the farm, and far from the neighbors. Then there is the European (and really most of the rest of the world) style of rural, where there is a dense little village and the farmers travel to their fields, rather than live in the middle of the fields. Why is that, even without cars?
  - stevesearer 4y ago
    It likely would have to do with how land was distributed to owners in the US compared to how it was distributed in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_township https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_township
kodah 4y ago
> I wonder why even early in the USA's history, before cars, before railroads, we distributed housing so widely as to inhibit socialization? It might seem strange but there's a lot of people out there who don't hate you but also don't want to hear from you unless it's on their own terms. > I usually assume that this USA-specific "missing middle" of dense housing is a result of car culture and the suburban nightmare we've created across the country. The south and Midwest were built before cars. I don't think this hypothesis tracks. It seems like it's just a popular topic on HN that exists among a younger, city-living crowd who are searching for answers. Answers which they'd like to use to influence national policy, whether it fits or not. Edit: that's not to say we can't have more spaces that have less or no cars, but folks here use "car-free" a lot, and not just with respect to their locality.
- stemlord 4y ago
  >The south and Midwest were built before cars. I don't think this hypothesis tracks Reread the portion you quoted and misinterpreted, with its context. They are responding to a specific passage from the article, which predates the automobile, about said sprawl.
  - kodah 4y ago
    I'm not sure how you think I misinterpreted it. Feel free to explain.
djbusby 4y ago
Those arrivals in 1600s were, eg, landing in Boston then going out any buying a plot of land to work and build their future. So there were these larger parcels available, and you'd cut some trees to a) clear some land for farming and b) build your new house. Folk weren't necessarily able to acquire an existing home then some land out of town.
barry-cotter 4y ago
> I wonder why even early in the USA's history, before cars, before railroads, we distributed housing so widely as to inhibit socialization? Lack of endemic warfare after the initial period of settlement and being settled from the least communalist culture on Earth at the time. Farmers clustered in towns far from their fields because they were more defensible from raiders. This wasn’t a problem in the US once the local area had killed all the local Indians. With cheap land you can have large farmsteads, large enough that the nearest settlement is quite far away.
ralph84 4y ago
Almost by definition the Europeans coming to the US weren't happy with their living arrangements in Europe, so it's not surprising they came up with different arrangements. And establishing a homestead on what was wildland didn't leave much time for social events anyway, so also not surprising socialization wasn't a priority.

dont__panic 4y ago

I know double-commenting is frowned upon, but this quote also stood out to me as a bike nerd: The least important, perhaps, and yet to some of us the saddest thing about the decay of New England country life has been the disappearance of the hospitable wayside tavern. Something similar, it is hoped, may be brought in by the bicycle. It is much to be feared, however, that the new bicycle road-house will be nothing more hospitable than a mammoth stand-up lunch-counter. I wonder what these wayside taverns were like. Nowadays, I find myself happy enough with "stand-up lunch-counters" when I bicycle tour (ride self-supported long distances by bicycle). I also find myself greatly appreciating the dirt roads present in Vermont and much of New England, since they slow down car traffic and are honestly much more pleasant to bike on than poorly maintained pavement roads. Meanwhile, this author laments the poor state of (presumably dirt) carriage roads across rural New England. It's interesting how I seem to agree with the base thoughts and preferences of the author, but we have inverted preferences on these things (for similar reasons). I wonder what this author thought about the automobile.

baxtr 4y ago
What is double-commenting?
- waster 4y ago
  Replying to one's own comment.
- dcminter 4y ago
  Presumably they mean creating a daughter comment to their own top-level comment? Though I'm not personally aware of any particular convention against it.
jollyllama 4y ago
It's relatively easier to have a pint or two and ride a horse or drive a wagon than it is to do the same and ride an old bicycle. I would assume you could also water, feed, and rest your horse at the tavern, which a bicycle did not require.
chrsig 4y ago
It's much easier to appreciate the dirt roads when you're a tourist. Having grown up on a dirt road in New England, I can say that I'd much rather it were paved.
- dasil003 4y ago
  For driving or biking?
  - chrsig 4y ago
    both. and walking, rollerblading, skateboarding…
- the_third_wave 4y ago
  Hm, I live one a farm in the Swedish countryside where part the road was paved a number of years ago and I can't say I appreciate the "improvement". Cars speed by faster, it is harder on horses' hooves, frost damage is harder to repair. Since it is too hilly here to skate and the pavement type - oil-drenched gravel - is too coarse for it anyway that argument doesn't hold either. I can bike, ride my motorbike and tractor just as well on the gravel so... where's the upside?

rhapsodic 4y ago

>I usually assume that this USA-specific "missing middle" of dense housing is a result of car culture and the suburban nightmare we've created across the country I suspect the layout of European farming communities is a holdover from feudalism, when serfs worked the land on behalf of the lord of the manor, who owned all the land. They probably found conditions in the New World much more desirable, where they could own their own farm. And when they owned their own farm, they probably found it much more convenient to live close to the fields and barns and livestock that they also owned.

ghaff 4y ago
I live in an old New England farm town in a house from the early 1800s. (The town was founded in 1653.) Looking at maps from the 1800s, it was always pretty spread out. There is a small town green with a couple old churches, library, cemetery, and town hall. And there used to be some mills along the river. But it was mostly fairly spread out farming. As you suggest, in England and I assume other areas of Europe there would be a more distinct village with a place dating to that time.

seanalltogether 4y ago

I may be wrong but I'm guessing it's because in europe the peasants didn't own the land. The hub and spoke design of old world villages was beneficial to the landlords, not the workers.

neaden 4y ago
I think this is kind of true, but not fully. It's not that the peasants didn't own the land, though certainly many didn't, it's that they didn't farm contiguous rectangular fields like is common in America. In older farming there would be two or three fields for crop rotation, and then different parts of the field would be owned by different people. So you might have a bit over here, a bit over there, etc. You would grow different crops on different areas of the field, and then have a vegetable garden near your house. In America, relatively early on, instead we ended up with farmers who had a single contiguous piece of land where they primarily farmed a single crop.
- monknomo 4y ago
  Seeing like a state covers this - it could be that in the interest of making ownership legible (while dispossessing the Native Americans), people could only buy contiguous land. In particular, I'm reminded of the piece on how the tsar and soviets both tried to get rid of the strip system that the peasants liked because it was easy to farm and manage from their level.

ericmay 4y ago

> I usually assume that this USA-specific "missing middle" of dense housing is a result of car culture and the suburban nightmare we've created across the country. The rural areas are just that, rural. But cities are where the problem of the suburban nightmare take hold and they weren’t an issue for most of American history because a city was a city and the countryside was the countryside. This changed with the highway infrastructure, gutting of city transit like existing streetcars, etc. and trying to sell the idyllic countryside at mass scale that was for a brief period “achievable” via personal automobile. Socialization doesn’t have to be because of density. It can be between homesteaders who pass each other by once in awhile or meet up at the market place that exists in the town. The problem with suburbs is that they don’t reproduce any of the benefits of city life or productive rural life.

monknomo 4y ago
This article contrasts two different modes of rural areas. There is the US-style rural, where the homesteads are widely separated. The house is on the farm, and far from the neighbors. Then there is the European (and really most of the rest of the world) style of rural, where there is a dense little village and the farmers travel to their fields, rather than live in the middle of the fields. Why is that, even without cars?
- stevesearer 4y ago
  It likely would have to do with how land was distributed to owners in the US compared to how it was distributed in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_township https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_township

kodah 4y ago

> I wonder why even early in the USA's history, before cars, before railroads, we distributed housing so widely as to inhibit socialization? It might seem strange but there's a lot of people out there who don't hate you but also don't want to hear from you unless it's on their own terms. > I usually assume that this USA-specific "missing middle" of dense housing is a result of car culture and the suburban nightmare we've created across the country. The south and Midwest were built before cars. I don't think this hypothesis tracks. It seems like it's just a popular topic on HN that exists among a younger, city-living crowd who are searching for answers. Answers which they'd like to use to influence national policy, whether it fits or not. Edit: that's not to say we can't have more spaces that have less or no cars, but folks here use "car-free" a lot, and not just with respect to their locality.

stemlord 4y ago
>The south and Midwest were built before cars. I don't think this hypothesis tracks Reread the portion you quoted and misinterpreted, with its context. They are responding to a specific passage from the article, which predates the automobile, about said sprawl.
- kodah 4y ago
  I'm not sure how you think I misinterpreted it. Feel free to explain.

djbusby 4y ago

Those arrivals in 1600s were, eg, landing in Boston then going out any buying a plot of land to work and build their future. So there were these larger parcels available, and you'd cut some trees to a) clear some land for farming and b) build your new house. Folk weren't necessarily able to acquire an existing home then some land out of town.

barry-cotter 4y ago

> I wonder why even early in the USA's history, before cars, before railroads, we distributed housing so widely as to inhibit socialization? Lack of endemic warfare after the initial period of settlement and being settled from the least communalist culture on Earth at the time. Farmers clustered in towns far from their fields because they were more defensible from raiders. This wasn’t a problem in the US once the local area had killed all the local Indians. With cheap land you can have large farmsteads, large enough that the nearest settlement is quite far away.

ralph84 4y ago

Almost by definition the Europeans coming to the US weren't happy with their living arrangements in Europe, so it's not surprising they came up with different arrangements. And establishing a homestead on what was wildland didn't leave much time for social events anyway, so also not surprising socialization wasn't a priority.