4 ms·
I don't think it's broken. I think it's working as intended, but what it's optimizing for (people raising families) is perhaps not what you'd like for it to opt
by yowlingcat 3y ago
I don't think it's broken. I think it's working as intended, but what it's optimizing for (people raising families) is perhaps not what you'd like for it to optimize for. Whether it's the right or wrong thing to optimize for is another conversation, but you may be surprised about what the collective political will of the US expresses. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a voting majority support for the idea that "American suburbs should have to pay for themselves."
- Retric 3y agoAmerican style suburbs are worse for raising a family than living in a city. Long commutes practically remove one or more parents from the equation 5 days a week. Long bus rides compromise sleep and exercise etc. All for a back yard that’s rarely used and worse in just about every way than a nice park. What they are is a cheap imitation of the wealthy enclaves near cities that only work because so few people can afford to live in them. You can imitate such buildings cheaply, what you can’t do is build or maintain the support structures which made such places so appealing.
- macinjosh 3y agoMy superior air quality, lower crime rate, and better schools disagree with your assessment.
- Retric 3y agoDon’t confuse socioeconomics for inherent advantages. Adjusted for income people live longer in cities, they are thus objectively safer. Wealthy parts of cities have vastly better schools and less crime than the average suburbs, but the American middle class abandoned cities. Air pollution again can go either way, suburbs often have surprisingly terrible air quality made worse by long commutes.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- alwayslikethis 3y agoFrom the perspective of the child, it's much worse. You are basically arrested until you are 16-18. No independence whatsoever. Want to meet a friend? Ask your parents to drive. They're busy? Too bad.
- Retric 3y agoParents and society can be unreasonably restrictive in any environment. People call social services on parents for letting kids walk around alone in suburbs. The freedom you can get as a young teen without a car is however vastly higher in cities due to public transportation. Social norms also vary widely, first graders in Tokyo take public transportation to school alone. This isn’t inherently unsafe or unreasonable.
- rootusrootus 3y agoMy children love it. There are so many friends within walking & biking distance of my house. The roads are slow, traffic sparse, with wide open spaces to play and ride bikes, etc. None of the kids seemed bored, there's so much to do. And little of the unpleasant stuff that makes living in the city more exciting.
- badtension 3y agoWhy can't they just walk or bike to their friends? 2-3 km walking distance is perfectly fine, bike extends that range significantly (10 km at least). This was the case for me. Sorry if the question is naive, I don't live in USA.
- paulmd 3y agoBecause your friends can easily be 10-30 miles away and only accessible via shared roadways with 55mph road traffic. There are no cross country bike routes here. Building around roads results in everything being pushed farther away and that includes other people’s homes too.
- badtension 3y agoFair point about shared roadways that probably split communities. Do kids attending the same school really live that far apart? Seems like a very long distance, especially in a suburbian neighbourhood.
- mmatants 3y agoSuburbs are not the only place to raise kids though. Probably not the best place for it either.