3 ms·

You suffer from the delusion that the way the US housing works is 'natural' and the result of the 'desire' of the population. But this isn't really the case. S

You suffer from the delusion that the way the US housing works is 'natural' and the result of the 'desire' of the population. But this isn't really the case. Suberbia was is a created artificial environment propped up by massive subsidies and supported with lots of other policies, on the local, state and national level. Sure its easy to live further out in suberbia because the friendly government plowed threw a minority neighborhood so you can have a highway to downtown. Those people not wanting highways across where they lived was not considered when people wanted to have a lawn. And of course those nice lawn didn't even pay for the highway either. The US was built for and with the train. And by 1940 US cities were not very different from cities in other places. In the 1950s something crazy happened and pretty much all of a sudden every town sprawled out 5x as far as it did the previous 200 years despite population growth being slower then before. But I guess that was just totally natural as people wanted larger yards.

HDThoreaun 3y ago
> by 1940 US cities were not very different from cities in other places And people didnt like it > In the 1950s something crazy happened This was the response to not liking crowded cities while having access to cars > Suberbia was is a created artificial environment propped up by massive subsidies and supported with lots of other policies, on the local, state and national level. Sure, but those subsidies arent going away because the people who benefit have political power. The highways arent going away either. I certainly dont think suburbia is "natural." It absolutely is the result of the desire of the population though.
- bamboozled 3y ago
  And people didnt like it I read this sentence more like this, "And people didnt like it because the marketing told them they'd like the suburbs better". In Japan, people will not stay in the countryside / suburbs, young people do everything they can to move to cities. There is absolutely zero marketing, they just find cities attractive. More money, better careers, better social scene. This is why I disagree that it's "natural" because if it was true, why are cities so popular in Asia? Cities have existed for a very long time and people love living in them. Most people I know live in Suburbs because the idea of investing in property is considered a wise one, and buying a house in the suburbs is a way to get into property ownership at a more affordable level, not because living in a suburb is a romantic idea. Rural living is a different thing altogether though.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  > And people didnt like it That just false and even if it was true Suberbia wasnt the right answer and yet that is the answer that was politically picked. > This was the response to not liking crowded cities while having access to cars No it was a response to massive amount of government intervention and racism. Public housing and other subsidies were given in huge quantities to enable that type of development. And at the same time massive investment was put into widing roads, building highways and so on. At the same time that was happening you had zoning and redlining. Redlining destroyed or harmed investment in the city centers. And zoning made continous development outright illigal. So your whole stick of 'its all just naturally because of people desires' is just factually wrong. > Sure, but those subsidies arent going away because the people who benefit have political power. And they certintly wont go away if people like you contine to spread lies and propganda. And it wont go away if the people who live in the poor neiberhoods or the city proper don't even know they are being exploted. And they wont go away unless cities start to correctly account for the cost of the development they are persuing. Many cities are bankrupt and that a direct result of bad development patterns that dont pay for themselves. But the thing is highways can actually go away. Removal of Urban highways has been a thing, many have done it and more communities want to do it. Go and actually inform yourself. At the same time many town actually try to understand their finances and try to figure out how they can develop a real urban center and have sustainable development. Go look at the work of Urban3 is you want see the real finacial data. Opinions change over time. Of course not all highways will go away. And of course some people will want to live in suberbia even they had to pay their own cost. However neiter of those things mean that baseline policy should or couldn't change. You can look at all sorts of metrics indicating this change is happening. An attitude of things are as they are because of the inherent unchangable desires of the population and thus things can never change is the kind of argument I would not expect on HN. > It absolutely is the result of the desire of the population though. Governemnt sububsidy lead to a situation where it was cheaper to get a loan and buy a house in the suburbs compared to even public housing in the city. Of course only for white people, Jews, Negros, Asians and even some italians were excluded. So the minorities pay for everything a lot and dont get any investment, the. redlined and destroyed their neiberhood and they could even privatly invest. Then everybody realized that living in the suburbs was shit and all the jobs and entertainment was in the city. So you plowed a highway threw the minority communities so Joe Miller can drive to his job threw the former minority neiberhood. But yeah that outcome is what 'the people' wanted and therefore its totally and exactly what should have happen. Do you not realize what the problem with your whole narrative is?

HDThoreaun 3y ago

> by 1940 US cities were not very different from cities in other places And people didnt like it > In the 1950s something crazy happened This was the response to not liking crowded cities while having access to cars > Suberbia was is a created artificial environment propped up by massive subsidies and supported with lots of other policies, on the local, state and national level. Sure, but those subsidies arent going away because the people who benefit have political power. The highways arent going away either. I certainly dont think suburbia is "natural." It absolutely is the result of the desire of the population though.

bamboozled 3y ago
And people didnt like it I read this sentence more like this, "And people didnt like it because the marketing told them they'd like the suburbs better". In Japan, people will not stay in the countryside / suburbs, young people do everything they can to move to cities. There is absolutely zero marketing, they just find cities attractive. More money, better careers, better social scene. This is why I disagree that it's "natural" because if it was true, why are cities so popular in Asia? Cities have existed for a very long time and people love living in them. Most people I know live in Suburbs because the idea of investing in property is considered a wise one, and buying a house in the suburbs is a way to get into property ownership at a more affordable level, not because living in a suburb is a romantic idea. Rural living is a different thing altogether though.
panick21_ 3y ago
> And people didnt like it That just false and even if it was true Suberbia wasnt the right answer and yet that is the answer that was politically picked. > This was the response to not liking crowded cities while having access to cars No it was a response to massive amount of government intervention and racism. Public housing and other subsidies were given in huge quantities to enable that type of development. And at the same time massive investment was put into widing roads, building highways and so on. At the same time that was happening you had zoning and redlining. Redlining destroyed or harmed investment in the city centers. And zoning made continous development outright illigal. So your whole stick of 'its all just naturally because of people desires' is just factually wrong. > Sure, but those subsidies arent going away because the people who benefit have political power. And they certintly wont go away if people like you contine to spread lies and propganda. And it wont go away if the people who live in the poor neiberhoods or the city proper don't even know they are being exploted. And they wont go away unless cities start to correctly account for the cost of the development they are persuing. Many cities are bankrupt and that a direct result of bad development patterns that dont pay for themselves. But the thing is highways can actually go away. Removal of Urban highways has been a thing, many have done it and more communities want to do it. Go and actually inform yourself. At the same time many town actually try to understand their finances and try to figure out how they can develop a real urban center and have sustainable development. Go look at the work of Urban3 is you want see the real finacial data. Opinions change over time. Of course not all highways will go away. And of course some people will want to live in suberbia even they had to pay their own cost. However neiter of those things mean that baseline policy should or couldn't change. You can look at all sorts of metrics indicating this change is happening. An attitude of things are as they are because of the inherent unchangable desires of the population and thus things can never change is the kind of argument I would not expect on HN. > It absolutely is the result of the desire of the population though. Governemnt sububsidy lead to a situation where it was cheaper to get a loan and buy a house in the suburbs compared to even public housing in the city. Of course only for white people, Jews, Negros, Asians and even some italians were excluded. So the minorities pay for everything a lot and dont get any investment, the. redlined and destroyed their neiberhood and they could even privatly invest. Then everybody realized that living in the suburbs was shit and all the jobs and entertainment was in the city. So you plowed a highway threw the minority communities so Joe Miller can drive to his job threw the former minority neiberhood. But yeah that outcome is what 'the people' wanted and therefore its totally and exactly what should have happen. Do you not realize what the problem with your whole narrative is?