4 ms·

Many people mention the loss of third places as a contributing factor in these threads. Lower church attendance, the death of shopping malls, difficulties in ac

Many people mention the loss of third places as a contributing factor in these threads. Lower church attendance, the death of shopping malls, difficulties in accessing nice parks, etc. I am sympathetic to this idea. However, it is a very US-centric point of view as well. Many countries don’t have car-centric suburban sprawl that North America has. So I’m wondering if places seen as more walkable have the same trends of time spent at home, and if those trends are as strongly tied to quality of life problems.

ethbr1 2y ago
Obligatory mention for the well-titled Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community [0] (2000) [0] https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684832836/ https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684832836/
karaterobot 2y ago
Note that the article is about the U.S.
chrisco255 2y ago
The thing is the study covers 2003 to today. People talking about dramatic changes in suburban life but neighborhoods haven't changed much at all since 2003. What has changed is home entertainment has gotten more diverse. People stream movies more often than they go to the theater. People download the latest video games instead of going to game store. People stream instead of going to Blockbuster video. There is also a greater variety of food delivery options (Uber Eats, etc). You can have groceries delivered. People buy more of their purchases online like on Amazon and have it overnighted to their door. All these conveniences remove reasons to be out and about. In 2003 you still had to leave the house for most of these things.
anal_reactor 2y ago
I am European, lived in a few cities across a few countries. I have to say that it's very convenient to blame car-centric design for everything bad, but in reality, there is some deeper decay spreading through all developed societies. In my opinion there are two reasons for this. First, we form friendships of need: there are people to whom we're nice because we know we'll need their help one day. For a farmer it's better not to have an argument with the only guy in the village who owns a combine harvester, and especially not during the harvesting season. But nowadays literally the easiest way to live is to be a shut-in and just eat microwave food. We don't need friendships anymore, as in "having friends doesn't raise material standard of life". Second, we form friendships of pleasure: we talk to people that are essentially useless, but spending time with them just feels good for one reason or another. Recently we turned up individualism to the maximum which means that it's pretty much impossible to meet a person who has similar lifestyle, hobbies, and experiences, therefore could be a pleasant conversation partner. As a result, we just don't talk one to another because we don't enjoy it anymore. I really don't know what could be done here. I'm starting to think that this is simply a new form of environmental pressure that homo sapiens needs to adapt to. Don't fight the change, find ways to thrive in it.
- seoulmetro 2y ago
  I think the one underlying problem society faces that would absolutely improve our lives in every way is to go back to the 1 income household model, but still maintain the possibility of dual income households. (don't force the other not to work as in the past, but encourage them not to double dip) As much as feminists hate it, when mothers were at home we were all much healthier. Now we just need to let fathers or mothers stay home and we'll reap such insane benefits. How? Idk. Single income families get a tax relief or something.
  - reducesuffering 2y ago
    > Single income families get a tax relief That's basically already the case because of progressive tax brackets. For example: Two incomes of $200k in CA. You're only getting half the marginal income from one of the people. Take home: 68% / $273k. One income of $200k. Take home: 73% / $146k. That other $200k income would've only netted $127k.
    - seoulmetro 2y ago
      >That's basically already the case because of progressive tax brackets. Progressive tax brackets work against single income families? Do you mean combined tax declaring? I know the US is different to most of the world. But in most of the world income is a reflection of an individual not their family. It is impossible to combine incomes in a single tax declaration in lots of parts of the world.
      - ndriscoll 2y ago
        In the US, you have different tax status if you're married. There used to be a marriage "penalty" for dual income households because of progressive buckets (the combined income would push you into higher marginal rates). i.e. it would actually make sense to not officially get married for tax purposes. Trump mostly eliminated that, and now everything but the top marginal rate (above ~600k) has doubled thresholds when married. However merely using progressive rates isn't enough; people see it as a penalty for getting married, not having a dual income. You'd want something like a credit for stay-at-home childcare to directly incentivize it. Right now, we actually subsidize working parents through childcare tax credits/deductions. We could at least make this more neutral by eliminating childcare incentives and increasing the child tax credit.
seoulmetro 2y ago
It's not about walkable or not. It's about cost. It's just that people started wanting (or were forced to) save their money on more important things at home while also working much more (two person income households are the norm now). I'm not sure why people keep harking on about walkable this and walkable that. It doesn't matter. What matters is that people can't find value in what these places offer. It doesn't make sense to spend an hours wage on a single movie ticket anymore. Or buy a round of beers for a weeks groceries. Yes, walkable cities have more people spending time at home. The cities where people seem to do the most are ones where costs of staying at home approach going out, such as HK, SG, KR, JP, CN, etc. These places have huge pressure on staying at home and home-body cultures and yet their third places are some of the best in the world.

ethbr1 2y ago

Obligatory mention for the well-titled Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community [0] (2000) [0] https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684832836/ https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684832836/

karaterobot 2y ago

Note that the article is about the U.S.

chrisco255 2y ago

The thing is the study covers 2003 to today. People talking about dramatic changes in suburban life but neighborhoods haven't changed much at all since 2003. What has changed is home entertainment has gotten more diverse. People stream movies more often than they go to the theater. People download the latest video games instead of going to game store. People stream instead of going to Blockbuster video. There is also a greater variety of food delivery options (Uber Eats, etc). You can have groceries delivered. People buy more of their purchases online like on Amazon and have it overnighted to their door. All these conveniences remove reasons to be out and about. In 2003 you still had to leave the house for most of these things.

anal_reactor 2y ago

I am European, lived in a few cities across a few countries. I have to say that it's very convenient to blame car-centric design for everything bad, but in reality, there is some deeper decay spreading through all developed societies. In my opinion there are two reasons for this. First, we form friendships of need: there are people to whom we're nice because we know we'll need their help one day. For a farmer it's better not to have an argument with the only guy in the village who owns a combine harvester, and especially not during the harvesting season. But nowadays literally the easiest way to live is to be a shut-in and just eat microwave food. We don't need friendships anymore, as in "having friends doesn't raise material standard of life". Second, we form friendships of pleasure: we talk to people that are essentially useless, but spending time with them just feels good for one reason or another. Recently we turned up individualism to the maximum which means that it's pretty much impossible to meet a person who has similar lifestyle, hobbies, and experiences, therefore could be a pleasant conversation partner. As a result, we just don't talk one to another because we don't enjoy it anymore. I really don't know what could be done here. I'm starting to think that this is simply a new form of environmental pressure that homo sapiens needs to adapt to. Don't fight the change, find ways to thrive in it.

seoulmetro 2y ago
I think the one underlying problem society faces that would absolutely improve our lives in every way is to go back to the 1 income household model, but still maintain the possibility of dual income households. (don't force the other not to work as in the past, but encourage them not to double dip) As much as feminists hate it, when mothers were at home we were all much healthier. Now we just need to let fathers or mothers stay home and we'll reap such insane benefits. How? Idk. Single income families get a tax relief or something.
- reducesuffering 2y ago
  > Single income families get a tax relief That's basically already the case because of progressive tax brackets. For example: Two incomes of $200k in CA. You're only getting half the marginal income from one of the people. Take home: 68% / $273k. One income of $200k. Take home: 73% / $146k. That other $200k income would've only netted $127k.
  - seoulmetro 2y ago
    >That's basically already the case because of progressive tax brackets. Progressive tax brackets work against single income families? Do you mean combined tax declaring? I know the US is different to most of the world. But in most of the world income is a reflection of an individual not their family. It is impossible to combine incomes in a single tax declaration in lots of parts of the world.
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      In the US, you have different tax status if you're married. There used to be a marriage "penalty" for dual income households because of progressive buckets (the combined income would push you into higher marginal rates). i.e. it would actually make sense to not officially get married for tax purposes. Trump mostly eliminated that, and now everything but the top marginal rate (above ~600k) has doubled thresholds when married. However merely using progressive rates isn't enough; people see it as a penalty for getting married, not having a dual income. You'd want something like a credit for stay-at-home childcare to directly incentivize it. Right now, we actually subsidize working parents through childcare tax credits/deductions. We could at least make this more neutral by eliminating childcare incentives and increasing the child tax credit.

seoulmetro 2y ago

It's not about walkable or not. It's about cost. It's just that people started wanting (or were forced to) save their money on more important things at home while also working much more (two person income households are the norm now). I'm not sure why people keep harking on about walkable this and walkable that. It doesn't matter. What matters is that people can't find value in what these places offer. It doesn't make sense to spend an hours wage on a single movie ticket anymore. Or buy a round of beers for a weeks groceries. Yes, walkable cities have more people spending time at home. The cities where people seem to do the most are ones where costs of staying at home approach going out, such as HK, SG, KR, JP, CN, etc. These places have huge pressure on staying at home and home-body cultures and yet their third places are some of the best in the world.