>If so many people live in suburbs, it must be because that’s what they prefer, right? But the evidence is to the contrary.
This article makes its point from the book "Zoned Out" (2005.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the argument is that zoning policies make suburban sprawl, not free markets. They argue that if zoning restrictions were lifted and development responded to free market forces, higher density housing would result and more people would prefer that to sprawl.
I think that might be true - moderately. You might get a relative increase of higher-density housing.
But I think sprawl just represents a long tail of real preferences among the population. It may be relative price, it may be having a yard, it may be the suburban school districts, it can be all kinds of things. And yeah, if people had control, the suburbs wouldn't sprawl forever. It would be just their nice suburban neighborhood and everybody else could be jammed into the city.
I would hold up Houston as the counterexample. It has zero zoning policies whatsoever and is one of the most sprawled cities in the country, and everyone lives in low-density single family ranch homes with huge floor plans and drives an hour to work each way.
Developers still basically just plop large single-family residential developments on random plots of land with few ways to stop them. In the absence of zoning, developers will not build denser properties because they’re riskier.
In the same blog I linked (different article I think) they actually noted that the downtown has no mandatory minimums, but it needs lots of lots because there are mandatory minimums elsewhere and everyone has cars as a result.
Part of my point is that I think the cause-effect relationship may be reversed anyway. Texas is also so hot in the summer that people will not be walking outside for any appreciable period of time; it becomes a health risk after a certain point when temperatures can be above 100F / 90% humidity for months on end.
It’s not an accident that Texas looked more like Montana in 1900 than California. The mass adoption of automobiles and air conditioning made large cities in Texas possible; and the low population density made land cheap.
The centers of most big southern cities were never walkable. Most of those cities would never have existed without cars. I don’t know how you introduce density into a situation like that, and I don’t think zoning rules would be able to undo the damage of the last century. These cities were built around cars, and you can’t just roll that back without remaking the whole city and displacing many, many people.
I have to respectfully disagree as someone who has lived in Houston for more than a few years. The density in Houston is bimodal because the traffic makes commuting so painful.
There are huge numbers of zero lot line 2-4 story townhouses being built within say 5 miles of downtown. 4-6 houses on 1/4 acre so not a lot of room to waste.
And then once you get past say 5-10 miles from downtown the sprawl is undeniable.
But to paint Houston as all sprawl just isn't honest.
I commented just before you, so you probably didn't see it. But Houston mandates parking minumum, setbacks of houses, very wide roads, and long blocks.
Those are all pro-sprawl. My dense, walkable neighbourhood in Montreal would be illegal in Houston.
I've been to Cuba. There are old cities in the Spanish style, and new ones (1950s) in the american style.
In the spanish cities you can walk comfortably. The buildings are tall enough and near enough to the sidewalk that you can always find shade. And everyone walks on the shaded side of the street.
In the american cities the buildings are set back, and there is no shade. People still walk (they're poor), but there are a lot more horse carriages that pass by to offer people lifts. Walking isn't so feasible.
Walking has never been feasible in the South US. It works in Cuba because Cuba is a small island with a lot of people. Density is forced, so you don’t need a car to get to everything — thus your walking trips are 10-20 minutes long.
Living in the south, it would take me 15 minutes walking just to leave my neighborhood. And most neighborhoods remotely outside the cities do not have sidewalks. So it’s a chicken-and-egg problem.
Just bear in mind most cities in the south (especially Texas) were very small prior to the mass adoption of automobiles and air conditioning. My hypothesis is that the car was required for large Texas cities to exist, and as a result the city has always been a sprawled mess.
So the real question is whether we should build cities this way in the first place? But it’s kind of an irrelevant question — we do and will continue to build cities this way regardless of it being a good idea or not.
That's a good argument: the development of cities post-AC and post-car strongly favours the current model.
But, is it possible that cities were small because the wrong building style was used? After all, the Spanish colonies to the south of the US are warmer than the South, but had large cities.
There's also the radical European idea of planting (gasp) trees in the streets to provide shade when the sun is out.
(And, while we're dreaming, putting benches in the streets so that tired walkers could have some rest, and maybe even putting little plazas at street intersections to provide spaces for people to socialize and thus making the whole process of walking around the city more enjoyable).
Also gasp mass transit. A dozen small compact cites with trams (streetcars) modern ones get up to 40mph can serve to create a good cbd at the hub, fit well with walking and cycling while providing critical mass for there to be enough things and places nearby. If service is 24/7 and stops are spaced close enough you can even park most cars outside the city.
> But I think sprawl just represents a long tail of real preferences among the population. It may be relative price, it may be having a yard, it may be the suburban school districts, it can be all kinds of things. And yeah, if people had control, the suburbs wouldn't sprawl forever. It would be just their nice suburban neighborhood and everybody else could be jammed into the city.
That's pretty much it. Everyone who lives in a suburb likes a different subset of suburban features, and that all aggregates together to result in the kinds of suburbs we have.
It makes sense to consider zoning law to be a reflection of people's preferences rather than a constraint on them. In many cases zoning laws are the result of established homeowners trying to preserve the suburban features they like.
This logic doesn't square with what we observe in voting patterns. When high rent cities go from majority homeowner to majority renter, the laws start to change to legalize more housing.
That doesn't mean renters didn't care for housing when they were a minority, it just means they were efficiently marginalized.
I live in Tokyo and well, I'm not so sure. Maybe you just got lucky or I got unlucky. I've lived in places where they neighboring couple would scream and throw things at 3-4am for 30 minutes every couple of weeks. Lived in a place across the kanda river from the Chou line where the trains were so loud I couldn't hear the TV when they went by. My current place is nice enough but I feel I have to tiptoe all the time which I hate. I want to not have to think about it rather then always have to think about it.
Those are not unique to Japan though. My SF apartment had the thinest floors ever and I got all kinds of complaints even though I'm way more aware of the noise I make than most, even going so far as to always watch TV with wireless headphones.
Conversely I've lived in apartments designed for noise in Los Angeles where the landlord told me it was okay to run the washing machine 24/7 because the neighbors wouldn't be able to hear it next door as the walls were concrete and doubled with a space between to absorb the sound.
I know some of the newer 20-30 floor apartment buildings in Japan are built similarly but I don't currently make enough to live in a place like that, probably $3k-$4k a month for a 2LDK
Japanese people tend to follow all rules, written and unwritten. I guess Americans follow only rules that can be enforced (cf. Uber, Airbnb, etc...)
Probably from a culture of rebellion against Britain colonial government... In some cases it is good and in some bad.
In Japan there is also no tolerance for the 1% that ruins public spaces for everyone (compare Tokyo subways against San Francisco subways). This allows true public spaces that can be shared by everyone.
I live in Central Asia, which is poor and people there are not very considerate or tend to follow the rules, yet cities are clean and relatively nice, especially the big ones. The reason why the cities are okay, because the people and especiallt governments know how to live urban life, how to plan properly etc.
> represents a long tail of real preferences among the population
The other problem with this long tail is that (like other long tails of, say, bandwidth or storage utilization) it has a disproportionate effect on the whole. If 60% of, say, 100k people in a metropolitan area prefer to live in urban, high-density housing at 20,000 people per square mile, and 20% prefer to live in low-density suburbs at 4,000 people per square mile, you have 3 square miles of urban housing and 10 square miles of suburbs. And the small number of rural folks on the outskirts who are living the American dream of having their own 40 acres (160 houses per square mile) have an even larger effect on average land usage.
> They argue that if zoning restrictions were lifted and development responded to free market forces, higher density housing would result and more people would prefer that to sprawl.
I think this is half true (that zoning regulations have caused a good amount of sprawl) but I think that other posters here are right that the free market may also create sprawl, as it will respond to preferences and cultural biases that may favor sprawl.
Really the point of zoning is to prevent that, to guide the market toward development that is in the interest of the common good. Without zoning regulations you tend to get pretty nasty tragedy of the commons effects.
Zoning codes shouldn't be overly restrictive, in fact they should be a gentle touch that doesn't interfere with competition very much, but they are often hugely beneficial and guide the market toward a solution that benefits the community at large.
Some of the free market attempts in the UK ended up with Milton Keynes which is pretty much the American auto style roads come first. While others ended up with city of London which is highly walkable and dense being just over a square mile. Cost of land and transit is probably the deciding factors for the free market. Conversely regulation has given more walkable areas (mixed zones, offices, and small retail on the street with residental) so it's not just a case of the amount of regulation but what they say.
>In Boston, about 40 percent of respondents said they preferred denser, more pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, while in Atlanta, just under 30 percent of respondents did so.
In the absence of prohibitive zoning laws and other restrictions, the split between urban and exurban properties should converge to align with consumer preferences. Of course, it’s possible that consumer preferences will change if increased urban development results in lower crime, cheaper housing, better schools and transit, etc.
Not sure about Atlanta but Boston suburban lots tend to be about half an acre, the ones outside of the 495, closer to an acre. Inside the 128 they do get smallish though. So given those sizes, I’m not surprised people are okay with “more density”.
We're just outside the 495, our lot is just under 5 acres. There's a acre minimum zoning requirement in some areas, but most lots in our area are larger.
Judging by Zillow's map, 5+ acre lots are a small minority of the properties in that area. Probably less than 10%, although 10% could feel like "most" compared to places where it's closer to 0%.
I suspect that the people wanting "an urban zone", want one without all the drawbacks.
Once you include the drawbacks that can not be removed, you will find they are living exactly where they want to live.
The kind of analysis in this report is one of those "lying with statistics" things, because I don't think it's measuring what the authors think it's measuring.
How do you account for the effect where people do live closer to their stated preference in Boston than Atlanta, then? Surely if those effects were so deleterious, that wouldn’t be a thing
My favorite part of the suburbs is that my kids are physically incapable of walking or biking to an urban area. When they have grown to acquire the sense to look out for themselves, then they coincidentally will have the freedom (e.g. drivers license) to go to an urban place. Until then, I love that I can let them just go outside without supervision and dick around. American urbanity is just not for families.
I grew up in a such a suburb, incapable of walking or biking to an urban area, and it was painful, unbearably boring. Even after the light rail system came in and it became possible to get downtown, I still felt trapped and lonely in that neighborhood. Perhaps it is more convenient for you, while you raise them; but if your children are having an experience anything like mine, they're going to move far away once they're able, then do their best never to come back.
I'm curious, what would you have done downtown as a kid because pretty much everything I can think of to do downtown requires money which I didn't have as a kid.
Also, are you planning on having kids and raising them in the city?
I grew up in a suburb and I am sure glad my kid will be growing up in the city with access to transit and a wide range of amenities within walking distance, and streets/neighborhoods actually designed for walking around. American suburbs are awful for anyone under the age of 16 or anyone without a car. Kids can't do anything without being babied around by a parent.
I grew up in the suburbs. I guess I don't know what I was missing. There were parks, hobby stores, shopping centers, open lots where people made bike ramps and burms, we launched model rockets, went to arcades, raced slot cars, flew RC planes. Would also semi regularly ride bikes 2-4 miles away from home and sometimes 6 or 7.
My impression of most high density cities would be that my options would be more limited as a kid. Sure there's a lots of shopping, restaurants, and bars but what is there for kids?
Of course I only have the places I've experienced to go on.
Berlin has all of those,(albeit it is one of the highest open space cites there are) hell London has over 20 skateparks that is just for skating that is before you consider a lot of the Thames bank serves as open parkside. With the only traffic pedestrians and boats on the water. High density doesn't have to mean no space, it does have to mean no space for autos though, they simply take up too much space. If you have mass transit that reduces carparks and roads to say 10% space opens up a lot more. Playing in the streets or cafes using sidewalk for tables is a lot more compatible with trams running on fixed rails and electric overhead than with massive auto traffic.
Because that is a fundamental point that seems to often be missed in density discussions. Cars are great for low density areas and appealing at high density areas where as mass transit is great at high density but awful at low.density this why park and ride stations outside the city are a thing.
Even if you could build miltistory underground car parks you still need roadway space. German narrow gauge trams quite happily chug Elon in two directions on 10 feet carry highway capacity traffic one highway lane is 12 feet. They don't need the space. So car traffic takes up much more space that means you can't have the same density. If you don't have those cars you could put all the factories and warehouse space underground and you would have even more surface room this would allow a higher density of people. To imagine this take a look at your closest city on Google maps and how much space is taken up by car parks and roads now if you can reduce that use to 20% while keeping the same city boundaries, the density of the city hasn't changed but a lot more land is available. How much bigger can your house be if the highway is only one lane wide? How many more people can you add in?
You would also have the issue of getting people to and from the miltistory underground but that is exactly what happens on car free areas. You take the tram/bus/train pick up your car/rental/rideshare/uber at the multi story car park and continue on from there. If it's right on the major highways around the area you reduce a lot of the traffic headaches.
A neighborhood optimizing for a 5 year old is very different than a neighborhood optimizing for a 15 year old. It makes sense that people set down roots in a child friendly suburb, and then their teens just deal with the fact that they live in a nice place that might be a bit boring. Parents deal with shuffling them around to whatever. It's really not a big deal. If I were uprooting the family when I had teens, okay, maybe urbanity is for us. Probably not though, because I'd rather deal with a bored surburban teenager than the safety and educational nightmare of American cities.
The suburb is best for healthy childless people aged like 40–60 who have few social hobbies and enjoy commuting to work by car and then spending the rest of their time at home, e.g. doing carpentry in their garage, gardening in a large yard, or sitting on a couch watching a big TV. Or those who really love driving cars every day.
Someone age 2 or 6 or 12 or 17 or 23 generally has a better time in the city: more freedom, more things to do within walking/transit distance, less time wasted on car transportation, more people of all ages and interests to engage with.
The density of cities can support a higher density of parks, playgrounds, plazas, markets, museums, libraries, schools, art galleries, music venues, coffeeshops, restaurants, ice cream stores, churches, community centers, ...., which means these can all be easily accessed on foot.
In typical American suburbs everything is dispersed and there are oceans of concrete standing between any two points, so walking around is unpleasant and impractical. People who walk around are viewed with suspicion, and children walking around alone are often reported to the police. In many suburbs, almost nobody rides a bike or takes the bus. Instead, nearly all trips are taken by car, which adds a ton of time overhead to every trip and makes anyone without car dependent on someone else.
That doesn't match my experience growing up in a suburb. We biked by ourselves to each other's houses all the time and especially to parks where we would play ultimate Frisbee, football, and basketball games. Finding open park space to play those games sounds way harder in the city because the parks are always so packed due to the density.
And most of those other benefits you cited you cited would have been practically useless to me as a kid because I had hardly any desposable income.
I kinda agree that American urbanity is not for families. However, Soviet/Post-Soviet is just fine. I live in a big city in Central Asia, and our schools get better the closer you get to the urban core, the neighborhoods get more affluent, there is a lot of large communal areas between houses, crime is low, parks and recreation areas are clean etc.
It's a shame you're being downvoted for expressing quite accurate downsides to city living. Issues like what you describe are why I will never live in SF and only begrudgingly live in any large city.
It's not a surprise they're being downvoted because while their claims are technically accurate, they're pretty disingenuous.
I lived in an "urban" area and I didn't have bars on my windows. I'm sure the chance of me being mugged was higher than a suburb, but that's more a function of population than anything else. It's still low enough that it's a negligible risk for me and my girlfriend. While I've certainly seen discarded needles in big cities, I've never come across them on the lawn of major parks and actually tend to find them in the more suburban areas of cities. Most big cities have at least some schools that are very good, even if some of them are sub par.
I live in DC and experience exactly 0 of any of that. Your imagination of a "city" seems to be based entirely on the Mission district of SF. I would suggest travel.
I've seen all of that in every city in the US I have been to. That does not surprise me whatsoever about Washington DC though because Washington DC is a city dedicated to running the most powerful government in the world. I doubt any city has as tight of security as Washington DC.
DC actually has legendarily high crime rates, in the 90s being called the "murder capital of the United States". Crime has decreased since then but is still about three times the national average.
Government sites and government persons enjoy tight security. The rest of the city... Not so much.
2-6 are addressed in europe through public transit (often electric) good quality buildings (rather than the cheapest possible materials to profit the developers) and the wide avalibilty of public open spaces like parks, forests, sports courts, allotments, cycle roads wandering lanes (away from the traffic and development) and good funding for schools. The rest is tricker and requires a strong police force.
Interesting to note that there is only two choices - city or commuter suburb with cars.
The third choice is villages and towns where people live with their own front door onto the street and still walk to work.
Move the work where the people are. Decentralise
Something like downtown Palo Alto would be my choice; you could probably do a lot in Palo Alto without a car, although you'd still want to have one available. The problem with Palo Alto is just that it costs 10x too much.
I wonder if preferences are correlated or anticorrelated with how one grew up (maybe people who grew up in suburbs might think it's too boring, but people who grew up in the city might think it's too loud).
I grew up in the suburbs, now live in downtown seattle, and my girlfriend and I 100% plan to move to the suburbs once we get married/start having kids for the reasons Turing_machine stated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17379068
this article is a little strange since Atlanta has something like a 20 year supply of condos in midtown/surrounding for very affordable prices. Single family in-town homes, however, are scarce.
Yeah, this article doesn't really seem in sync with the realities of where the construction is in Atlanta.
The reality seems to be more one of the market chasing changing preferences - as desire for denser areas increases relatively, a lot of inside-the-perimeter denser construction has followed.
The basis for the 14? New apartment buildings in Atlanta is that we are drastically understocked, also why rents are climbing to $2k for a luxury 1br.
Most evidenced by new luxury apartments at West end station with surprising rents for a studio (targeting pilots)
Most single family homes seem unattainable (going over ask price, quickly) in the North of the city, but South and West are still cheap and attainable.
In the Boston area the less dense neighborhoods are scarce so only the rich can afford them. In Atlanta the denser neighborhoods are scarce so they cost more so the rich go there. Of course if you ask people what their preference is a huge chunk of them will describe the features of whatever more upscale place that the place they currently live is compared to.
In Boston, everything is expensive so only the rich can afford them. Boston resident preferences might be explained by culture more than looking up through the glass ceiling of home prices.
I think we might also be reaching a tipping point where school districts may not even hold people back. If you can afford a house anywhere, you probably also can afford to send your kids to private school.
You would expect that to be the case in the Bay Area, but even now people will spend several hundred thousand dollars more for a home in a good school district, even though that money could have been used to pay for private school.
This is kind of backwards. Because of the way that education is funded in the US, expensive housing areas end up with good schools because they have the funding. And people live in these expensive areas because they have the means and desire to live in an area with others of their same social status, or and/or whose reputation confers status.
In the Boston area the less dense neighborhoods are scarce so only the rich can afford them.
I live in the Boston area and that doesn't sound right. I guess you could say Brookline is low density and rich. But you have to consider the Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End (north of Mass. Ave)--really the densest areas are the most expensive. Places like Chelsea, Roxbury, are cheaper and lower in density. Proximity to jobs, transit, and amenities is the driver of cost, and density goes with it.
Right now, a house in Revere or Everett probably goes for about half of what a condo in Somerville or Cambridge would cost. So it is very location dependent. And of course, that was true in Somerville twenty or thirty years ago. The red line extension, the end of rent control in Cambridge, and the conversion of a lot of rental apartments into condos during the housing bubble changed Somerville a lot.
I'm thinking in terms of everything inside I-95 as being Boston area. e.g Lexington (less dense and rich) vs Waltham (still not cheap but much cheaper and more dense than Lexington).
The first is confusing want with what you're culturally conditioned to say based on style of question. We don't know how the questions were led or if they attempted to be neutral, they made a huge logical leap from asking people what they want to declaring thats what they actually want, real world doesn't work that way. We know from prior propaganda issues that people can be led to claim almost anything, when questioned correctly to lead to it. Its a universal part of human existence that what people are socialized to say to get along, generally has nothing to do with what they'll actually want (or do) in private or semi-private, which also generally has nothing to do with whats best for them (and good luck finding a fair and unbiased judge of whats best for them, LOL). The study actually abstracts to "I know from intensive propaganda my whole life that a good person would say they want X, therefore I'll say I want X, but I actually want and will execute plan Y". What could be more pithy than "do as I say not as I do?" The study doesn't even scratch the surface of "what should they do" which is a totally orthogonal third dimension. The study is willfully and intentionally ignoring a major component of human psychology to push a propaganda point; this really does not look good at all.
To help non USA people, there's a large aspect of group affinity and identification going on. Essentially a non-metaphysical religion, complete with proselytizers and those who define whats holy and who is or is not. So for the "new urbanists" for over half a century, fervent belief in returning to the cities after white flight from the 60s race riots is the definition of what a good person is, in a simplistic 1 to 1 mapping. Trying to argue rational logic merely strengthens their beliefs, like trying to reason about fossil records with a creationist Christian. If your worldview is defining being a good person as holding a set of beliefs X, Y, Z, regardless if those are good or terrible ideas, then someone trying the atheistic rational argument against those beliefs "just think about it", well, a good person would NOT think about it, they would believe, wouldn't they? That type of argument will just strengthen the belief set; look here is a bad person who is defined as bad by not having matching beliefs, being bad by making sacrilegious statements, why look how great my beliefs must be? People who don't understand this try to interact with urbanists on a rational level which certainly doesn't work. No Christian ever lost their faith by a pagan nostalgia along the lines of "My childhood as a pagan was not so bad, I don't understand the hate". Likewise its a waste of time to tell an urbanist that suburbs are not that bad why all the propaganda. You'd have better luck trying to convert a Christian Fundamentalist by telling them that Satan guy gets a lot of bad press but he's not all bad all. Trying to talk a urbanist out of the city is literally on a psychological level like trying to talk a devoted missionary out of going on a mission. It is the same thought process. Please don't waste everyone's time trying to convert them, merely wish them well on their pilgrimage and hope they survive, etc.
Everyone on both sides should understand and accept the group affinity issue. There is absolutely no moral, ethical, medical, technological, or rational argument that black tennis shoes are worse or better than white tennis shoes. None the less, the cool kids have proclaimed one or the other is cool this year and the only choice you have in the issue, the only reason for discussing it anywhere including here on HN, is to declare your group affinity with the cool kids for todays fad, or try to be that cool apostate rebelling against "the man", or just be confused about the social dynamics of the whole thing and make the huge mistake of thinking the discussion is actually about sneakers or ethics or anything other than declaring your allegiance or opposition or cluelessness. Are tattoos rebellious or conformist today? Well, fundamentally they're neither, they're art ink on skin. If the argument is about enforcement of conformity, such as devout belief in new urbanism, don't get in weird side arguments about tattoo ink toxicity or stretch marks, thats totally not the point of the discussion. This incredibly boring topic boils down to are you an new urbanist conformist or a rebellious suburbanite, and the only thing that matters is the conformity or rebellion. Forest for the trees and all that.
If you can't tell I think "new urbanist" stories are pointless and should probably be globally banned on HN, they're just trash, fibrous filler, the low formaldehyde particle board of furniture, as a discussion topic, but others disagree, sometimes with strong arguments that I admit may be strong but none the less disagree with. So the article is this weeks two minutes hate on the burbs, oh well, whatevs.
For those interested in the topic, I'd also highly recommend Richard Rothstein's "The Color of Law." Rothstein discusses there how explicitly racist zoning policies contributed to the segregation of suburbs. I found it to be a fascinating read.
The Boston suburbs are what my ideal neighbourhood looks like.
Extremely close to the city and well connected through transit.
Safe, with great schools and communities.
All this while downtown is never more than 30 minutes by transit and the neighbourhood is still extremely walkable.
Parking is still an issue, and the NE weather can be terrible at times. But that apart, I really like those areas.
I'm not sure what this article is trying to prove. They say that local ordinances should follow the demands of the citizens, but then use a case where the auto-oriented fans have a majority over the pedestrian-friendly fans, which in the fun world of two-choice democracy means their demands are overridden.
Yet another article claiming that I, every member of my family, and all of my friends don’t actually want to live in our horrible susburbs.
It’s not possible that we actually love it here, that we like the clean air, wide open spaces, huge yards, non-crowded downtown, small family friendly parades, and our rodeo.
Nope, we’re all just lying to ourselves and really want to love in a cramped arcology.
That's decidedly not what the article claims. It claims that there are people who live in the suburbs but would prefer not to, and provides evidence to support that claim. The same evidence acknowledges the existence of people who are happy living in suburbs.
I believe the article has failed to realize that "self-reporting" evidence is weaker than actions, not stronger. If you listen to the Freakonomics podcast for any length of time, you would realize that the weakest, most likely to not really be true, form of evidence is self-reporting. When self-reporting/answering surveys, people commonly give the answer they are "expected" to give. The actions then reveal their real preferences, which can differ substantially.
With a topic as sensitive as urban density, where city planners have been bombarding us with the "right-answer" of high-density living for decades, I would expect people to over-report preferring high-density living, especially on a survey conducted by someone trying to prove their case that people prefer high-density housing.
Given that planning and zoning boards making it illegal to build anything other than low density suburbs are elected officials, their actions are pretty good evidence of preferences...
>Given that planning and zoning boards making it illegal to build anything other than low density suburbs are elected officials, their actions are pretty good evidence of preferences...
... of the voting population, whose demographics unfortunately don’t match up with the population at large.
There’s also a vested self-interest for property owners to vote in such a way that preserves their property values. And what better way to do so than to restrict supply?
Big caveat: My opinion comes from large amounts of anecdata. But at the same time, it has often been noted (especially on HN, given its demographics) that San Francisco, where there is a huge demand for dense housing, is fraught with many barriers to actually build dense housing.
Sure, voters' demographics don't match up with the population as a whole, but they're certainly not more skewed against the tastes of the poor than an idealised free market. (I don't think they're likely to be well represented in Levine's survey or the central San Francisco housing debate either)
Your linked homevoter article underlines the point by suggesting that low density housing areas are more likely to be downzoned than zoned for higher density, which is odd if a majority of their population has an unexpressed desire to live in a less suburban area, especially since it's most likely to happen where residents are homeowners and wealthy and white enough to be an influential voting bloc.
Restricting supply is itself a perfectly valid reason for actually preferring lower density housing, but it's only part of that equation. It turns out that many people who might answer survey questions saying that they ideally want a walkable neighbourhood with better transit actually end up obstructing plans to put a train line through their leafy suburb and a mixed-use development towers a few blocks away from their house.
That's an interesting point. I would point out another problem with this article based on my own experience living in metro Atlanta since 2001: many people, especially those moving to Atlanta from the Northeast, would likely have said that there was no good urban neighborhood in which to live in Atlanta in 2005. I think that was more of a chicken-and-egg problem than a zoning one. Midtown Atlanta had the right zoning and had neighborhood civic associations that were working toward urbanizing the neighborhood, but it wasn't until several years later that significant amounts of neighborhood-serving businesses started to move in.
Massive demographic and socioeconomic class differences.
I worked in a city where only the very richest people could live in the very expensive high-density areas. A tiny condo being perhaps four times the cost of my very large luxurious suburban house, maybe ten times the cost of a cheap suburban house. They had experimented generations ago with high-density poor people housing; that was not exactly paradise for anyone involved, so high density is only approved if the rent will be over $3000/mo otherwise the police budget cannot handle the crime issues. There is a self imposed demographic separation where only wealthy live in the penthouses therefore being wealthy the prices charged to fit their budgets are high. Of course there are maybe 1000 suburbanites for every CEO in the nicest five million dollar penthouse. And the population of the burbs combined is approximately 20 times the population of the high density areas. Its possible to cheat such that you are "in the city" but in a tiny house near the dangerous part of town that hasn't been gentrified into unaffordable condos... yet. But I'm not counting SFRs as "high density urban" because its basically substandard suburban lifestyle.
Housing projects are another question altogether, since people who live in subsidized housing don't really have the same choice and don't participate in the market the same way.
Let me ask you this--why don't the very richest people in your city live in very expensive suburbs instead of very expensive high-density areas?
> why don't the very richest people in your city live in very expensive suburbs instead of very expensive high-density areas?
Don't they? The only rich person that I know that lives in a penthouse is the dropbox CEO. Bill gates, Jeff Bezos, Andy Jassy, Mark Zuckerburg, Larry and Sergey all live in suburbs as far as I know.
First, this depends a lot on the city as to whether it is true.
For example, MTV/Palo Alto have the same per sq ft price as san francisco. There are sources showing each one as higher than the other, but not to any significant degree.
Second there are a tremendous number of factors that affect housing prices other than personal preference.
I'm really unsure if you are trying to be serious here, because it's so rare a preference like we are talking about here really has a majority at one of the extremes.
What the article shows is that lots of people who say they want to live in an urban area are forced to live in the suburbs. This has nothing to do with people who want to live in low-density suburbs, except to the extent that those people voted to make it illegal to build anything other than low-density suburbs.
I'm not sure how you get that from the article - could you cite where it argues that people who want to live in less-dense neighborhoods don't actually want what they think they want?
The point I got from it is that some people want to live in dense neighborhoods and others want to live in less-dense neighborhoods - and in certain areas that were built up more recently (e.g. Atlanta), there is more demand for dense areas than there is supply, while in some older cities (e.g. Boston) there is a short supply of both dense and less-dense neighborhoods.
If anything, your comment dismissing dense areas as "cramped arcologies" is more dismissive of other people's desires than the article is. Do you have trouble believing either or both of the following: (1) some (though not all) people want to live in densely populated areas where they can walk to most amenities and (2) modern urban building patterns have underserved such people?
> It’s not possible that we actually love it here, that we like the clean air, wide open spaces, huge yards, non-crowded downtown, small family friendly parades, and our rodeo.
Nobody wants to outlaw suburbs and single-family homes with huge yards and setbacks via zoning fiat, people want other options to not be outright illegal.
I'm sincerely sure you enjoy living where you do, we're just asking for such preferences to not be encoded and mandated in the zoning/land-use laws and regulations and procedures.
The best standard HN automobile analogy would be that the average teenage boy knows Ferraris are the coolest car. Surely that would win every poll of the "right" way to answer that question of what car is the correct car to drive. Yet its incredibly unusual for all but the very wealthiest to give their teenage son a Ferrari as their first car. Everyone knows they should say we need to outlaw teen boy ownership of worn out unreliable rusty beater cars for all kinds of health and safety reasons, but no one wants that law actually passed, especially not the teenage boys. If you can't afford a Ferrari for yourself or your teen son, you're just not cool, not in the cool driver club at all. God forbid you say in public that you want a nice boring reliable commuter car instead of a Ferrari, you know, like most people very successfully drive. But, maybe that is exactly a good way to live, just a very bad thing to say in public? Proven successful via vast population migration to where its possible and successful over many decades. Sure people will wail away at how boring and unexciting that broke down old F150 was or that rusty Dodge Omni and everyone should be forced to buy Ferraris, and thats why the cool kids say Ferraris are teh coolest, but it doesn't really MEAN anything in actual lifestyle, in what it means to live a good life. Sure, OK whatever, we should all buy Ferraris, now get off my back, because I gotta get on with real life, and go drive the Yaris or Sienna tomorrow.
That doesn't sound like a suburb to me, it sounds like a town. The suburbs I'm familiar with don't have a downtown to be non-crowded or in which to have a small family friendly parade. I like towns too, but the ones where I live are still expensive akin to the cities in the area, whereas the non-town residential + strip mall only suburbs are where it is cheaper to live.
Probably depends on the area and country. In parts of the US I suspect the average 'suburban' area doesn't have a downtown or local shops or what not, but in much of Europe and other parts of the US it often does, with 'suburb' often being taken more to mean 'smaller town just outside of a city'.
Don't fight it. These people have studied architecture and city planning at the best schools. They know whats best for you is to live in a two bedroom apartment next to the train station. Once there you will start to understand how irrational your life decisions have been.
For entertainment, I like cities better than suburbs. Hands down.
At home, I like parking in a driveway better than parking on the street.
At home, I like parking in a garage better than parking in a driveway or alley.
At home, I like parking in an attached garage better than parking in a detached one.
I like living in my own house better than an apartment.
I like living in a free-standing house better than a duplex or row house.
I like a large yard where my young kids can play with their friends and I can keep an eye on them out the window.
I want to be able to make some noise without disturbing my neighbors, and vice-versa. I don't like living cheek-by-jowl with my neighbors.
I like living in a neighborhood that has virtually no violent crime or burglaries. I don't want to have to run a gauntlet of panhandlers when I go for a walk around the neighborhood.
I prefer to live in a house built since 1978, so I don't have to deal with lead paint, asbestos, knob & tube wiring, wood lath walls, lead (water) service lines, buckling foundations, damp moldy basements, rotting, leaking box gutters, or cheap, chalky aluminum siding that was installed in 1968 over Insulbrick that was installed in 1938. Unfortunately, those houses tend to be relatively rare and exorbitantly expensive in my local city.
I don't know why so many city dwellers seem to obsess over the fact that there are many people who simply prefer living in the suburbs. But there are.
I'm fine with people making different lifestyle choices than me. I just want them to:
1. Not outlaw my preferred lifestyle choices. The vast majority of the country makes it illegal to build walkable urban neighborhoods.
2. Don't make me pay for your lifestyle choices. Car use is heavily subsidized in the US via road and parking infrastructure, laws that require private citizens to build parking at their own expense to be able to build buildings and by car users being able to externalize the cost of their environmental damage.
You are free to live in your preferred type of neighborhood; just let me do the same.
There's also an aspect of affordability to why I ended up in the suburbs (in downtown or midtown Nashville, I'd be in a one-bedroom or studio condo for what I paid for my three-bedroom house), but it's mostly because I like living in my own standalone house. I have a yard; I have a garage and a driveway; I don't have upstairs neighbors rolling bowling balls around on their floor at 2 in the morning.
It is because the suburban lifestyle has some hidden costs, and in the US those costs tend to be paid equally by everyone. For example, air pollution (both local and greenhouse gases), and road maintenance costs.
On the other hand, with sufficiently low density, things like stormwater/flooding, drinking water, fire control, and pest control work themselves out naturally without complicated infrastructure to manage them
Urban vs suburbs vs rural have differing land use requirements and viable transport options and resource requirements. So the moral and ethical standards are really proxies for resource use. Compare that to white and black tennis shoes, if one dye used 4x the resources of the other you'd have a point bit otherwise they are not quite the same. Though some of that can be achieved through long and narrow yards (still the same size) and allows higher density
What a load, I've never been to a city that wasn't a disgusting concrete nightmare. God forbid you want to raise kids, say goodbye to playing outside. I'll take my cozy yard and breathable air, thanks
I get way more time in parks and nature in San Francisco than I did when living in suburban North San Jose or Sunnyvale. The suburbs were asphalt nightmares with few trees and no parks within walking distance. In SF I can easily get lost in green space and fresh ocean air.
Educational outcomes, crime (both as victim and perpetrator), and mental health are all worse for those who grew up in cities, and not just slightly worse. Much worse.
I have, they are awesome. I've never been to a US city though. The idea of the inner city being the poor area or bad area is bizzare and culture shock. That's usually where all the good apartments are.
>If so many people live in suburbs, it must be because that’s what they prefer, right? But the evidence is to the contrary.
This article makes its point from the book "Zoned Out" (2005.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the argument is that zoning policies make suburban sprawl, not free markets. They argue that if zoning restrictions were lifted and development responded to free market forces, higher density housing would result and more people would prefer that to sprawl.
I think that might be true - moderately. You might get a relative increase of higher-density housing.
But I think sprawl just represents a long tail of real preferences among the population. It may be relative price, it may be having a yard, it may be the suburban school districts, it can be all kinds of things. And yeah, if people had control, the suburbs wouldn't sprawl forever. It would be just their nice suburban neighborhood and everybody else could be jammed into the city.
I would hold up Houston as the counterexample. It has zero zoning policies whatsoever and is one of the most sprawled cities in the country, and everyone lives in low-density single family ranch homes with huge floor plans and drives an hour to work each way.
Developers still basically just plop large single-family residential developments on random plots of land with few ways to stop them. In the absence of zoning, developers will not build denser properties because they’re riskier.
I just did a cursory search, and houston has mandatory parking minimums. Those are one of the most sprawl policies you can find.
It also mandates setbacks from the street, wide roads, and long blocks.
Overall Houston does a lot of stuff right! But, I think they have still baked sprawl into their system.
From what I can see, my dense Montreal neighbourbood would be illegal in Houston. (It's illegal almost everywhere in North America, of course)
https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-...
The aerial picture of downtown Houston with all its parking lots is a favorite to show the deleterious effects of mandatory parking minimums: http://www.cdandrews.com/2014/09/surface-parking-lot-design-...
In the same blog I linked (different article I think) they actually noted that the downtown has no mandatory minimums, but it needs lots of lots because there are mandatory minimums elsewhere and everyone has cars as a result.
Part of my point is that I think the cause-effect relationship may be reversed anyway. Texas is also so hot in the summer that people will not be walking outside for any appreciable period of time; it becomes a health risk after a certain point when temperatures can be above 100F / 90% humidity for months on end.
It’s not an accident that Texas looked more like Montana in 1900 than California. The mass adoption of automobiles and air conditioning made large cities in Texas possible; and the low population density made land cheap.
The centers of most big southern cities were never walkable. Most of those cities would never have existed without cars. I don’t know how you introduce density into a situation like that, and I don’t think zoning rules would be able to undo the damage of the last century. These cities were built around cars, and you can’t just roll that back without remaking the whole city and displacing many, many people.
“Wait, why are we deregulating again? It didn’t even work the last time.”
“Oh ... well ... we just didn’t deregulate enough last time. Let’s just deregulate a little more, and we’ll see the results!”
The parent gave an exact rationale that answered the point made...an intelligent response would be appropriate. Not... this.
Houston doesn't have zoning, but it does have development regulations that accomplish what zoning codes accomplish in other US cities.
https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/
I have to respectfully disagree as someone who has lived in Houston for more than a few years. The density in Houston is bimodal because the traffic makes commuting so painful.
There are huge numbers of zero lot line 2-4 story townhouses being built within say 5 miles of downtown. 4-6 houses on 1/4 acre so not a lot of room to waste.
And then once you get past say 5-10 miles from downtown the sprawl is undeniable.
But to paint Houston as all sprawl just isn't honest.
That's a counterexample to the article, not the person you are replying to, right?
In fact that's such a strong counterexample to the article you can basically discount it entirely.
> will not build denser properties because they’re riskier.
Or because people don't want them. What's riskier about them?
I commented just before you, so you probably didn't see it. But Houston mandates parking minumum, setbacks of houses, very wide roads, and long blocks.
Those are all pro-sprawl. My dense, walkable neighbourhood in Montreal would be illegal in Houston.
https://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/19/how-houston-regulates-...
Also, nobody wants to walk in Houston. AC is required to survive there.
I've been to Cuba. There are old cities in the Spanish style, and new ones (1950s) in the american style.
In the spanish cities you can walk comfortably. The buildings are tall enough and near enough to the sidewalk that you can always find shade. And everyone walks on the shaded side of the street.
In the american cities the buildings are set back, and there is no shade. People still walk (they're poor), but there are a lot more horse carriages that pass by to offer people lifts. Walking isn't so feasible.
Walking has never been feasible in the South US. It works in Cuba because Cuba is a small island with a lot of people. Density is forced, so you don’t need a car to get to everything — thus your walking trips are 10-20 minutes long.
Living in the south, it would take me 15 minutes walking just to leave my neighborhood. And most neighborhoods remotely outside the cities do not have sidewalks. So it’s a chicken-and-egg problem.
Just bear in mind most cities in the south (especially Texas) were very small prior to the mass adoption of automobiles and air conditioning. My hypothesis is that the car was required for large Texas cities to exist, and as a result the city has always been a sprawled mess.
So the real question is whether we should build cities this way in the first place? But it’s kind of an irrelevant question — we do and will continue to build cities this way regardless of it being a good idea or not.
That's a good argument: the development of cities post-AC and post-car strongly favours the current model.
But, is it possible that cities were small because the wrong building style was used? After all, the Spanish colonies to the south of the US are warmer than the South, but had large cities.
Cuba is small? The length, just under 800 miles, is about the same as the distance from New York to Chicago.
Perhaps if buildings were a bit taller with people and businesses closer, you'd require less walking and it would be spent more in the shade.
There's also the radical European idea of planting (gasp) trees in the streets to provide shade when the sun is out.
(And, while we're dreaming, putting benches in the streets so that tired walkers could have some rest, and maybe even putting little plazas at street intersections to provide spaces for people to socialize and thus making the whole process of walking around the city more enjoyable).
Also gasp mass transit. A dozen small compact cites with trams (streetcars) modern ones get up to 40mph can serve to create a good cbd at the hub, fit well with walking and cycling while providing critical mass for there to be enough things and places nearby. If service is 24/7 and stops are spaced close enough you can even park most cars outside the city.
There are underground and above ground non auto networks. See Canada, las Vegas, Portland transit mall
> But I think sprawl just represents a long tail of real preferences among the population. It may be relative price, it may be having a yard, it may be the suburban school districts, it can be all kinds of things. And yeah, if people had control, the suburbs wouldn't sprawl forever. It would be just their nice suburban neighborhood and everybody else could be jammed into the city.
That's pretty much it. Everyone who lives in a suburb likes a different subset of suburban features, and that all aggregates together to result in the kinds of suburbs we have.
It makes sense to consider zoning law to be a reflection of people's preferences rather than a constraint on them. In many cases zoning laws are the result of established homeowners trying to preserve the suburban features they like.
This logic doesn't square with what we observe in voting patterns. When high rent cities go from majority homeowner to majority renter, the laws start to change to legalize more housing.
That doesn't mean renters didn't care for housing when they were a minority, it just means they were efficiently marginalized.
It is also culture that plays a big part.
I've lived in very high density housing in Japan (20 floor manshion type apartment) and medium density in US (2 level apartment).
Higher density in Japan is much more pleasant due to the culture of being considerate of others.
If I have to live in the US, I will choose suburbia for that reason.
I live in Tokyo and well, I'm not so sure. Maybe you just got lucky or I got unlucky. I've lived in places where they neighboring couple would scream and throw things at 3-4am for 30 minutes every couple of weeks. Lived in a place across the kanda river from the Chou line where the trains were so loud I couldn't hear the TV when they went by. My current place is nice enough but I feel I have to tiptoe all the time which I hate. I want to not have to think about it rather then always have to think about it.
Those are not unique to Japan though. My SF apartment had the thinest floors ever and I got all kinds of complaints even though I'm way more aware of the noise I make than most, even going so far as to always watch TV with wireless headphones.
Conversely I've lived in apartments designed for noise in Los Angeles where the landlord told me it was okay to run the washing machine 24/7 because the neighbors wouldn't be able to hear it next door as the walls were concrete and doubled with a space between to absorb the sound.
I know some of the newer 20-30 floor apartment buildings in Japan are built similarly but I don't currently make enough to live in a place like that, probably $3k-$4k a month for a 2LDK
Not being able to walk across your own home at night is reason 1 of 100 why I choose suburban sprawl over high density. It's like a damned prison.
How more considerate? Noise wise?
With noise, with garbage sorting, etc...
Japanese people tend to follow all rules, written and unwritten. I guess Americans follow only rules that can be enforced (cf. Uber, Airbnb, etc...)
Probably from a culture of rebellion against Britain colonial government... In some cases it is good and in some bad.
In Japan there is also no tolerance for the 1% that ruins public spaces for everyone (compare Tokyo subways against San Francisco subways). This allows true public spaces that can be shared by everyone.
I live in Central Asia, which is poor and people there are not very considerate or tend to follow the rules, yet cities are clean and relatively nice, especially the big ones. The reason why the cities are okay, because the people and especiallt governments know how to live urban life, how to plan properly etc.
Not same person, but yes.
> represents a long tail of real preferences among the population
The other problem with this long tail is that (like other long tails of, say, bandwidth or storage utilization) it has a disproportionate effect on the whole. If 60% of, say, 100k people in a metropolitan area prefer to live in urban, high-density housing at 20,000 people per square mile, and 20% prefer to live in low-density suburbs at 4,000 people per square mile, you have 3 square miles of urban housing and 10 square miles of suburbs. And the small number of rural folks on the outskirts who are living the American dream of having their own 40 acres (160 houses per square mile) have an even larger effect on average land usage.
> They argue that if zoning restrictions were lifted and development responded to free market forces, higher density housing would result and more people would prefer that to sprawl.
I think this is half true (that zoning regulations have caused a good amount of sprawl) but I think that other posters here are right that the free market may also create sprawl, as it will respond to preferences and cultural biases that may favor sprawl.
Really the point of zoning is to prevent that, to guide the market toward development that is in the interest of the common good. Without zoning regulations you tend to get pretty nasty tragedy of the commons effects.
Zoning codes shouldn't be overly restrictive, in fact they should be a gentle touch that doesn't interfere with competition very much, but they are often hugely beneficial and guide the market toward a solution that benefits the community at large.
Some of the free market attempts in the UK ended up with Milton Keynes which is pretty much the American auto style roads come first. While others ended up with city of London which is highly walkable and dense being just over a square mile. Cost of land and transit is probably the deciding factors for the free market. Conversely regulation has given more walkable areas (mixed zones, offices, and small retail on the street with residental) so it's not just a case of the amount of regulation but what they say.
The article seems to support this argument:
>In Boston, about 40 percent of respondents said they preferred denser, more pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, while in Atlanta, just under 30 percent of respondents did so.
In the absence of prohibitive zoning laws and other restrictions, the split between urban and exurban properties should converge to align with consumer preferences. Of course, it’s possible that consumer preferences will change if increased urban development results in lower crime, cheaper housing, better schools and transit, etc.
Not sure about Atlanta but Boston suburban lots tend to be about half an acre, the ones outside of the 495, closer to an acre. Inside the 128 they do get smallish though. So given those sizes, I’m not surprised people are okay with “more density”.
We're just outside the 495, our lot is just under 5 acres. There's a acre minimum zoning requirement in some areas, but most lots in our area are larger.
Judging by Zillow's map, 5+ acre lots are a small minority of the properties in that area. Probably less than 10%, although 10% could feel like "most" compared to places where it's closer to 0%.
I suspect that the people wanting "an urban zone", want one without all the drawbacks.
Once you include the drawbacks that can not be removed, you will find they are living exactly where they want to live.
The kind of analysis in this report is one of those "lying with statistics" things, because I don't think it's measuring what the authors think it's measuring.
How do you account for the effect where people do live closer to their stated preference in Boston than Atlanta, then? Surely if those effects were so deleterious, that wouldn’t be a thing
care to explain what those drawbacks are?
Let's see:
Drunks/junkies/mentally ill people shitting, pissing, and vomiting everywhere, while verbally (and sometimes physically) abusing the passers-by.
Noise.
Breathing the stench of exhaust fumes, week-old garbage, and someone else's idea of cooking.
Having no place for your children to sit on the grass without worrying about them finding someone's discarded needle or excrement.
Having no space for gardens, hobbies, or gatherings of family and/or friends.
Bad schools with apathetic parents.
The inability to leave personal property unattended for even a moment.
The need to have extensive home security (bars on windows, etc...)
The much higher likelihood that you or one of your loved ones will be mugged, raped, or killed.
Those are just a few that come to mind.
+1
My favorite part of the suburbs is that my kids are physically incapable of walking or biking to an urban area. When they have grown to acquire the sense to look out for themselves, then they coincidentally will have the freedom (e.g. drivers license) to go to an urban place. Until then, I love that I can let them just go outside without supervision and dick around. American urbanity is just not for families.
I grew up in a such a suburb, incapable of walking or biking to an urban area, and it was painful, unbearably boring. Even after the light rail system came in and it became possible to get downtown, I still felt trapped and lonely in that neighborhood. Perhaps it is more convenient for you, while you raise them; but if your children are having an experience anything like mine, they're going to move far away once they're able, then do their best never to come back.
I'm curious, what would you have done downtown as a kid because pretty much everything I can think of to do downtown requires money which I didn't have as a kid.
Also, are you planning on having kids and raising them in the city?
I grew up in a suburb and I am sure glad my kid will be growing up in the city with access to transit and a wide range of amenities within walking distance, and streets/neighborhoods actually designed for walking around. American suburbs are awful for anyone under the age of 16 or anyone without a car. Kids can't do anything without being babied around by a parent.
I grew up in the suburbs. I guess I don't know what I was missing. There were parks, hobby stores, shopping centers, open lots where people made bike ramps and burms, we launched model rockets, went to arcades, raced slot cars, flew RC planes. Would also semi regularly ride bikes 2-4 miles away from home and sometimes 6 or 7.
My impression of most high density cities would be that my options would be more limited as a kid. Sure there's a lots of shopping, restaurants, and bars but what is there for kids?
Of course I only have the places I've experienced to go on.
Berlin has all of those,(albeit it is one of the highest open space cites there are) hell London has over 20 skateparks that is just for skating that is before you consider a lot of the Thames bank serves as open parkside. With the only traffic pedestrians and boats on the water. High density doesn't have to mean no space, it does have to mean no space for autos though, they simply take up too much space. If you have mass transit that reduces carparks and roads to say 10% space opens up a lot more. Playing in the streets or cafes using sidewalk for tables is a lot more compatible with trams running on fixed rails and electric overhead than with massive auto traffic.
High density doesn't me
Why are you saying "no space for cars"? You need to build multistory and underground garages here and there and you are all set.
Because that is a fundamental point that seems to often be missed in density discussions. Cars are great for low density areas and appealing at high density areas where as mass transit is great at high density but awful at low.density this why park and ride stations outside the city are a thing.
Even if you could build miltistory underground car parks you still need roadway space. German narrow gauge trams quite happily chug Elon in two directions on 10 feet carry highway capacity traffic one highway lane is 12 feet. They don't need the space. So car traffic takes up much more space that means you can't have the same density. If you don't have those cars you could put all the factories and warehouse space underground and you would have even more surface room this would allow a higher density of people. To imagine this take a look at your closest city on Google maps and how much space is taken up by car parks and roads now if you can reduce that use to 20% while keeping the same city boundaries, the density of the city hasn't changed but a lot more land is available. How much bigger can your house be if the highway is only one lane wide? How many more people can you add in?
You would also have the issue of getting people to and from the miltistory underground but that is exactly what happens on car free areas. You take the tram/bus/train pick up your car/rental/rideshare/uber at the multi story car park and continue on from there. If it's right on the major highways around the area you reduce a lot of the traffic headaches.
Terrible not appealing, a synonym was autocorrected
A neighborhood optimizing for a 5 year old is very different than a neighborhood optimizing for a 15 year old. It makes sense that people set down roots in a child friendly suburb, and then their teens just deal with the fact that they live in a nice place that might be a bit boring. Parents deal with shuffling them around to whatever. It's really not a big deal. If I were uprooting the family when I had teens, okay, maybe urbanity is for us. Probably not though, because I'd rather deal with a bored surburban teenager than the safety and educational nightmare of American cities.
The suburb is best for healthy childless people aged like 40–60 who have few social hobbies and enjoy commuting to work by car and then spending the rest of their time at home, e.g. doing carpentry in their garage, gardening in a large yard, or sitting on a couch watching a big TV. Or those who really love driving cars every day.
Someone age 2 or 6 or 12 or 17 or 23 generally has a better time in the city: more freedom, more things to do within walking/transit distance, less time wasted on car transportation, more people of all ages and interests to engage with.
The density of cities can support a higher density of parks, playgrounds, plazas, markets, museums, libraries, schools, art galleries, music venues, coffeeshops, restaurants, ice cream stores, churches, community centers, ...., which means these can all be easily accessed on foot.
In typical American suburbs everything is dispersed and there are oceans of concrete standing between any two points, so walking around is unpleasant and impractical. People who walk around are viewed with suspicion, and children walking around alone are often reported to the police. In many suburbs, almost nobody rides a bike or takes the bus. Instead, nearly all trips are taken by car, which adds a ton of time overhead to every trip and makes anyone without car dependent on someone else.
That doesn't match my experience growing up in a suburb. We biked by ourselves to each other's houses all the time and especially to parks where we would play ultimate Frisbee, football, and basketball games. Finding open park space to play those games sounds way harder in the city because the parks are always so packed due to the density.
And most of those other benefits you cited you cited would have been practically useless to me as a kid because I had hardly any desposable income.
I kinda agree that American urbanity is not for families. However, Soviet/Post-Soviet is just fine. I live in a big city in Central Asia, and our schools get better the closer you get to the urban core, the neighborhoods get more affluent, there is a lot of large communal areas between houses, crime is low, parks and recreation areas are clean etc.
It's a shame you're being downvoted for expressing quite accurate downsides to city living. Issues like what you describe are why I will never live in SF and only begrudgingly live in any large city.
It's not a surprise they're being downvoted because while their claims are technically accurate, they're pretty disingenuous.
I lived in an "urban" area and I didn't have bars on my windows. I'm sure the chance of me being mugged was higher than a suburb, but that's more a function of population than anything else. It's still low enough that it's a negligible risk for me and my girlfriend. While I've certainly seen discarded needles in big cities, I've never come across them on the lawn of major parks and actually tend to find them in the more suburban areas of cities. Most big cities have at least some schools that are very good, even if some of them are sub par.
I live in downtown urban Bellevue, and I’m sure it is much safer/cleaner/more boring than the more suburban parts Seattle.
Those aren’t problems with urban areas in general. They’re problems with poorly-managed urban areas
I live in DC and experience exactly 0 of any of that. Your imagination of a "city" seems to be based entirely on the Mission district of SF. I would suggest travel.
I've seen all of that in every city in the US I have been to. That does not surprise me whatsoever about Washington DC though because Washington DC is a city dedicated to running the most powerful government in the world. I doubt any city has as tight of security as Washington DC.
DC actually has legendarily high crime rates, in the 90s being called the "murder capital of the United States". Crime has decreased since then but is still about three times the national average.
Government sites and government persons enjoy tight security. The rest of the city... Not so much.
2-6 are addressed in europe through public transit (often electric) good quality buildings (rather than the cheapest possible materials to profit the developers) and the wide avalibilty of public open spaces like parks, forests, sports courts, allotments, cycle roads wandering lanes (away from the traffic and development) and good funding for schools. The rest is tricker and requires a strong police force.
Why, you anti-density, hell-bent-on-destroying-the-earth scoundrel! :)
Interesting to note that there is only two choices - city or commuter suburb with cars. The third choice is villages and towns where people live with their own front door onto the street and still walk to work. Move the work where the people are. Decentralise
Something like downtown Palo Alto would be my choice; you could probably do a lot in Palo Alto without a car, although you'd still want to have one available. The problem with Palo Alto is just that it costs 10x too much.
Or commute via rail. Google metroland bit dated. However railroad to the front door isn't a bad idea.
"The myth of drawing conclusions from one isolated data source that happens to support your own ideology"
I wonder if preferences are correlated or anticorrelated with how one grew up (maybe people who grew up in suburbs might think it's too boring, but people who grew up in the city might think it's too loud).
I grew up in the suburbs, now live in downtown seattle, and my girlfriend and I 100% plan to move to the suburbs once we get married/start having kids for the reasons Turing_machine stated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17379068
this article is a little strange since Atlanta has something like a 20 year supply of condos in midtown/surrounding for very affordable prices. Single family in-town homes, however, are scarce.
Yeah, this article doesn't really seem in sync with the realities of where the construction is in Atlanta.
The reality seems to be more one of the market chasing changing preferences - as desire for denser areas increases relatively, a lot of inside-the-perimeter denser construction has followed.
The basis for the 14? New apartment buildings in Atlanta is that we are drastically understocked, also why rents are climbing to $2k for a luxury 1br.
Most evidenced by new luxury apartments at West end station with surprising rents for a studio (targeting pilots)
Most single family homes seem unattainable (going over ask price, quickly) in the North of the city, but South and West are still cheap and attainable.
buying a condo seems to be cheaper than renting the same amount of space (per-month, anyway).
In the Boston area the less dense neighborhoods are scarce so only the rich can afford them. In Atlanta the denser neighborhoods are scarce so they cost more so the rich go there. Of course if you ask people what their preference is a huge chunk of them will describe the features of whatever more upscale place that the place they currently live is compared to.
In Boston, everything is expensive so only the rich can afford them. Boston resident preferences might be explained by culture more than looking up through the glass ceiling of home prices.
I think we might also be reaching a tipping point where school districts may not even hold people back. If you can afford a house anywhere, you probably also can afford to send your kids to private school.
You would expect that to be the case in the Bay Area, but even now people will spend several hundred thousand dollars more for a home in a good school district, even though that money could have been used to pay for private school.
This is kind of backwards. Because of the way that education is funded in the US, expensive housing areas end up with good schools because they have the funding. And people live in these expensive areas because they have the means and desire to live in an area with others of their same social status, or and/or whose reputation confers status.
You can sell the house after the kids have been educated. You can't sell their education on second hand
My kids’ private school bills are about triple my mortgage so I think you’d better check your math.
Neighborhoods with good school districts also tend to have lower crime rates so that probably accounts for much of the difference.
In the Boston area the less dense neighborhoods are scarce so only the rich can afford them.
I live in the Boston area and that doesn't sound right. I guess you could say Brookline is low density and rich. But you have to consider the Back Bay, Beacon Hill, South End (north of Mass. Ave)--really the densest areas are the most expensive. Places like Chelsea, Roxbury, are cheaper and lower in density. Proximity to jobs, transit, and amenities is the driver of cost, and density goes with it.
Right now, a house in Revere or Everett probably goes for about half of what a condo in Somerville or Cambridge would cost. So it is very location dependent. And of course, that was true in Somerville twenty or thirty years ago. The red line extension, the end of rent control in Cambridge, and the conversion of a lot of rental apartments into condos during the housing bubble changed Somerville a lot.
I'm thinking in terms of everything inside I-95 as being Boston area. e.g Lexington (less dense and rich) vs Waltham (still not cheap but much cheaper and more dense than Lexington).
There are several severe issues with the study.
The first is confusing want with what you're culturally conditioned to say based on style of question. We don't know how the questions were led or if they attempted to be neutral, they made a huge logical leap from asking people what they want to declaring thats what they actually want, real world doesn't work that way. We know from prior propaganda issues that people can be led to claim almost anything, when questioned correctly to lead to it. Its a universal part of human existence that what people are socialized to say to get along, generally has nothing to do with what they'll actually want (or do) in private or semi-private, which also generally has nothing to do with whats best for them (and good luck finding a fair and unbiased judge of whats best for them, LOL). The study actually abstracts to "I know from intensive propaganda my whole life that a good person would say they want X, therefore I'll say I want X, but I actually want and will execute plan Y". What could be more pithy than "do as I say not as I do?" The study doesn't even scratch the surface of "what should they do" which is a totally orthogonal third dimension. The study is willfully and intentionally ignoring a major component of human psychology to push a propaganda point; this really does not look good at all.
To help non USA people, there's a large aspect of group affinity and identification going on. Essentially a non-metaphysical religion, complete with proselytizers and those who define whats holy and who is or is not. So for the "new urbanists" for over half a century, fervent belief in returning to the cities after white flight from the 60s race riots is the definition of what a good person is, in a simplistic 1 to 1 mapping. Trying to argue rational logic merely strengthens their beliefs, like trying to reason about fossil records with a creationist Christian. If your worldview is defining being a good person as holding a set of beliefs X, Y, Z, regardless if those are good or terrible ideas, then someone trying the atheistic rational argument against those beliefs "just think about it", well, a good person would NOT think about it, they would believe, wouldn't they? That type of argument will just strengthen the belief set; look here is a bad person who is defined as bad by not having matching beliefs, being bad by making sacrilegious statements, why look how great my beliefs must be? People who don't understand this try to interact with urbanists on a rational level which certainly doesn't work. No Christian ever lost their faith by a pagan nostalgia along the lines of "My childhood as a pagan was not so bad, I don't understand the hate". Likewise its a waste of time to tell an urbanist that suburbs are not that bad why all the propaganda. You'd have better luck trying to convert a Christian Fundamentalist by telling them that Satan guy gets a lot of bad press but he's not all bad all. Trying to talk a urbanist out of the city is literally on a psychological level like trying to talk a devoted missionary out of going on a mission. It is the same thought process. Please don't waste everyone's time trying to convert them, merely wish them well on their pilgrimage and hope they survive, etc.
Everyone on both sides should understand and accept the group affinity issue. There is absolutely no moral, ethical, medical, technological, or rational argument that black tennis shoes are worse or better than white tennis shoes. None the less, the cool kids have proclaimed one or the other is cool this year and the only choice you have in the issue, the only reason for discussing it anywhere including here on HN, is to declare your group affinity with the cool kids for todays fad, or try to be that cool apostate rebelling against "the man", or just be confused about the social dynamics of the whole thing and make the huge mistake of thinking the discussion is actually about sneakers or ethics or anything other than declaring your allegiance or opposition or cluelessness. Are tattoos rebellious or conformist today? Well, fundamentally they're neither, they're art ink on skin. If the argument is about enforcement of conformity, such as devout belief in new urbanism, don't get in weird side arguments about tattoo ink toxicity or stretch marks, thats totally not the point of the discussion. This incredibly boring topic boils down to are you an new urbanist conformist or a rebellious suburbanite, and the only thing that matters is the conformity or rebellion. Forest for the trees and all that.
If you can't tell I think "new urbanist" stories are pointless and should probably be globally banned on HN, they're just trash, fibrous filler, the low formaldehyde particle board of furniture, as a discussion topic, but others disagree, sometimes with strong arguments that I admit may be strong but none the less disagree with. So the article is this weeks two minutes hate on the burbs, oh well, whatevs.
For those interested in the topic, I'd also highly recommend Richard Rothstein's "The Color of Law." Rothstein discusses there how explicitly racist zoning policies contributed to the segregation of suburbs. I found it to be a fascinating read.
The Boston suburbs are what my ideal neighbourhood looks like.
Extremely close to the city and well connected through transit. Safe, with great schools and communities. All this while downtown is never more than 30 minutes by transit and the neighbourhood is still extremely walkable.
Parking is still an issue, and the NE weather can be terrible at times. But that apart, I really like those areas.
I'm not sure what this article is trying to prove. They say that local ordinances should follow the demands of the citizens, but then use a case where the auto-oriented fans have a majority over the pedestrian-friendly fans, which in the fun world of two-choice democracy means their demands are overridden.
Read Kunstler's book "The Geography Of Nowhere" - our suburban system is not an accident
Yet another article claiming that I, every member of my family, and all of my friends don’t actually want to live in our horrible susburbs.
It’s not possible that we actually love it here, that we like the clean air, wide open spaces, huge yards, non-crowded downtown, small family friendly parades, and our rodeo.
Nope, we’re all just lying to ourselves and really want to love in a cramped arcology.
That's decidedly not what the article claims. It claims that there are people who live in the suburbs but would prefer not to, and provides evidence to support that claim. The same evidence acknowledges the existence of people who are happy living in suburbs.
I believe the article has failed to realize that "self-reporting" evidence is weaker than actions, not stronger. If you listen to the Freakonomics podcast for any length of time, you would realize that the weakest, most likely to not really be true, form of evidence is self-reporting. When self-reporting/answering surveys, people commonly give the answer they are "expected" to give. The actions then reveal their real preferences, which can differ substantially.
With a topic as sensitive as urban density, where city planners have been bombarding us with the "right-answer" of high-density living for decades, I would expect people to over-report preferring high-density living, especially on a survey conducted by someone trying to prove their case that people prefer high-density housing.
Given that we've made it illegal to build anything other than low-density suburbs in most places, actions aren't good evidence.
Given that planning and zoning boards making it illegal to build anything other than low density suburbs are elected officials, their actions are pretty good evidence of preferences...
>Given that planning and zoning boards making it illegal to build anything other than low density suburbs are elected officials, their actions are pretty good evidence of preferences...
... of the voting population, whose demographics unfortunately don’t match up with the population at large.
There’s also a vested self-interest for property owners to vote in such a way that preserves their property values. And what better way to do so than to restrict supply?
Big caveat: My opinion comes from large amounts of anecdata. But at the same time, it has often been noted (especially on HN, given its demographics) that San Francisco, where there is a huge demand for dense housing, is fraught with many barriers to actually build dense housing.
You can see City Observatory’s (an urbanist publication, so YMMV) take: http://cityobservatory.org/homevoters-v-the-growth-machine/
Sure, voters' demographics don't match up with the population as a whole, but they're certainly not more skewed against the tastes of the poor than an idealised free market. (I don't think they're likely to be well represented in Levine's survey or the central San Francisco housing debate either)
Your linked homevoter article underlines the point by suggesting that low density housing areas are more likely to be downzoned than zoned for higher density, which is odd if a majority of their population has an unexpressed desire to live in a less suburban area, especially since it's most likely to happen where residents are homeowners and wealthy and white enough to be an influential voting bloc.
Restricting supply is itself a perfectly valid reason for actually preferring lower density housing, but it's only part of that equation. It turns out that many people who might answer survey questions saying that they ideally want a walkable neighbourhood with better transit actually end up obstructing plans to put a train line through their leafy suburb and a mixed-use development towers a few blocks away from their house.
That's an interesting point. I would point out another problem with this article based on my own experience living in metro Atlanta since 2001: many people, especially those moving to Atlanta from the Northeast, would likely have said that there was no good urban neighborhood in which to live in Atlanta in 2005. I think that was more of a chicken-and-egg problem than a zoning one. Midtown Atlanta had the right zoning and had neighborhood civic associations that were working toward urbanizing the neighborhood, but it wasn't until several years later that significant amounts of neighborhood-serving businesses started to move in.
OK, so tell me why housing prices in high-density cities are significantly higher than in suburbs. Isn't that a revealed preference?
Massive demographic and socioeconomic class differences.
I worked in a city where only the very richest people could live in the very expensive high-density areas. A tiny condo being perhaps four times the cost of my very large luxurious suburban house, maybe ten times the cost of a cheap suburban house. They had experimented generations ago with high-density poor people housing; that was not exactly paradise for anyone involved, so high density is only approved if the rent will be over $3000/mo otherwise the police budget cannot handle the crime issues. There is a self imposed demographic separation where only wealthy live in the penthouses therefore being wealthy the prices charged to fit their budgets are high. Of course there are maybe 1000 suburbanites for every CEO in the nicest five million dollar penthouse. And the population of the burbs combined is approximately 20 times the population of the high density areas. Its possible to cheat such that you are "in the city" but in a tiny house near the dangerous part of town that hasn't been gentrified into unaffordable condos... yet. But I'm not counting SFRs as "high density urban" because its basically substandard suburban lifestyle.
Housing projects are another question altogether, since people who live in subsidized housing don't really have the same choice and don't participate in the market the same way.
Let me ask you this--why don't the very richest people in your city live in very expensive suburbs instead of very expensive high-density areas?
> why don't the very richest people in your city live in very expensive suburbs instead of very expensive high-density areas?
Don't they? The only rich person that I know that lives in a penthouse is the dropbox CEO. Bill gates, Jeff Bezos, Andy Jassy, Mark Zuckerburg, Larry and Sergey all live in suburbs as far as I know.
First, this depends a lot on the city as to whether it is true.
For example, MTV/Palo Alto have the same per sq ft price as san francisco. There are sources showing each one as higher than the other, but not to any significant degree.
Second there are a tremendous number of factors that affect housing prices other than personal preference.
I'm really unsure if you are trying to be serious here, because it's so rare a preference like we are talking about here really has a majority at one of the extremes.
It's certainly a revealed preference for allowing denser development and reducing square footage of housing when land is expensive...
What the article shows is that lots of people who say they want to live in an urban area are forced to live in the suburbs. This has nothing to do with people who want to live in low-density suburbs, except to the extent that those people voted to make it illegal to build anything other than low-density suburbs.
I'm not sure how you get that from the article - could you cite where it argues that people who want to live in less-dense neighborhoods don't actually want what they think they want?
The point I got from it is that some people want to live in dense neighborhoods and others want to live in less-dense neighborhoods - and in certain areas that were built up more recently (e.g. Atlanta), there is more demand for dense areas than there is supply, while in some older cities (e.g. Boston) there is a short supply of both dense and less-dense neighborhoods.
If anything, your comment dismissing dense areas as "cramped arcologies" is more dismissive of other people's desires than the article is. Do you have trouble believing either or both of the following: (1) some (though not all) people want to live in densely populated areas where they can walk to most amenities and (2) modern urban building patterns have underserved such people?
> It’s not possible that we actually love it here, that we like the clean air, wide open spaces, huge yards, non-crowded downtown, small family friendly parades, and our rodeo.
Nobody wants to outlaw suburbs and single-family homes with huge yards and setbacks via zoning fiat, people want other options to not be outright illegal.
I'm sincerely sure you enjoy living where you do, we're just asking for such preferences to not be encoded and mandated in the zoning/land-use laws and regulations and procedures.
The best standard HN automobile analogy would be that the average teenage boy knows Ferraris are the coolest car. Surely that would win every poll of the "right" way to answer that question of what car is the correct car to drive. Yet its incredibly unusual for all but the very wealthiest to give their teenage son a Ferrari as their first car. Everyone knows they should say we need to outlaw teen boy ownership of worn out unreliable rusty beater cars for all kinds of health and safety reasons, but no one wants that law actually passed, especially not the teenage boys. If you can't afford a Ferrari for yourself or your teen son, you're just not cool, not in the cool driver club at all. God forbid you say in public that you want a nice boring reliable commuter car instead of a Ferrari, you know, like most people very successfully drive. But, maybe that is exactly a good way to live, just a very bad thing to say in public? Proven successful via vast population migration to where its possible and successful over many decades. Sure people will wail away at how boring and unexciting that broke down old F150 was or that rusty Dodge Omni and everyone should be forced to buy Ferraris, and thats why the cool kids say Ferraris are teh coolest, but it doesn't really MEAN anything in actual lifestyle, in what it means to live a good life. Sure, OK whatever, we should all buy Ferraris, now get off my back, because I gotta get on with real life, and go drive the Yaris or Sienna tomorrow.
That doesn't sound like a suburb to me, it sounds like a town. The suburbs I'm familiar with don't have a downtown to be non-crowded or in which to have a small family friendly parade. I like towns too, but the ones where I live are still expensive akin to the cities in the area, whereas the non-town residential + strip mall only suburbs are where it is cheaper to live.
Probably depends on the area and country. In parts of the US I suspect the average 'suburban' area doesn't have a downtown or local shops or what not, but in much of Europe and other parts of the US it often does, with 'suburb' often being taken more to mean 'smaller town just outside of a city'.
You’re not living in or visiting the same suburbs I am I guess...
Don't fight it. These people have studied architecture and city planning at the best schools. They know whats best for you is to live in a two bedroom apartment next to the train station. Once there you will start to understand how irrational your life decisions have been.
Could you quote or otherwise cite where the article claims that?
...did you and I read the same article....? Read it again. It's quite interesting.
It's weird. He actually called out your name in the article.
I don't think the article makes the claim you're defending against. It was all about averages.
With such a thin skin I think you have found a good fit for yourself in the suburbs.
It's pretty clear that you didn't even read the article. Unless you were surveyed by the study mentioned, your preference isn't relevant to anything.
For entertainment, I like cities better than suburbs. Hands down.
At home, I like parking in a driveway better than parking on the street.
At home, I like parking in a garage better than parking in a driveway or alley.
At home, I like parking in an attached garage better than parking in a detached one.
I like living in my own house better than an apartment.
I like living in a free-standing house better than a duplex or row house.
I like a large yard where my young kids can play with their friends and I can keep an eye on them out the window.
I want to be able to make some noise without disturbing my neighbors, and vice-versa. I don't like living cheek-by-jowl with my neighbors.
I like living in a neighborhood that has virtually no violent crime or burglaries. I don't want to have to run a gauntlet of panhandlers when I go for a walk around the neighborhood.
I prefer to live in a house built since 1978, so I don't have to deal with lead paint, asbestos, knob & tube wiring, wood lath walls, lead (water) service lines, buckling foundations, damp moldy basements, rotting, leaking box gutters, or cheap, chalky aluminum siding that was installed in 1968 over Insulbrick that was installed in 1938. Unfortunately, those houses tend to be relatively rare and exorbitantly expensive in my local city.
I don't know why so many city dwellers seem to obsess over the fact that there are many people who simply prefer living in the suburbs. But there are.
I'm fine with people making different lifestyle choices than me. I just want them to:
1. Not outlaw my preferred lifestyle choices. The vast majority of the country makes it illegal to build walkable urban neighborhoods.
2. Don't make me pay for your lifestyle choices. Car use is heavily subsidized in the US via road and parking infrastructure, laws that require private citizens to build parking at their own expense to be able to build buildings and by car users being able to externalize the cost of their environmental damage.
You are free to live in your preferred type of neighborhood; just let me do the same.
This is how democracies work. You don't always get what you want. Sorry to break it to you.
This is sort of an ironic response, given your initial post.
"Live and let live" has to go both ways, or the party getting the short end of the stick won't put up with the arrangement for long.
Exactly this for me, too.
There's also an aspect of affordability to why I ended up in the suburbs (in downtown or midtown Nashville, I'd be in a one-bedroom or studio condo for what I paid for my three-bedroom house), but it's mostly because I like living in my own standalone house. I have a yard; I have a garage and a driveway; I don't have upstairs neighbors rolling bowling balls around on their floor at 2 in the morning.
It is because the suburban lifestyle has some hidden costs, and in the US those costs tend to be paid equally by everyone. For example, air pollution (both local and greenhouse gases), and road maintenance costs.
On the other hand, with sufficiently low density, things like stormwater/flooding, drinking water, fire control, and pest control work themselves out naturally without complicated infrastructure to manage them
Only at densities much lower than a typical suburb.
Urban vs suburbs vs rural have differing land use requirements and viable transport options and resource requirements. So the moral and ethical standards are really proxies for resource use. Compare that to white and black tennis shoes, if one dye used 4x the resources of the other you'd have a point bit otherwise they are not quite the same. Though some of that can be achieved through long and narrow yards (still the same size) and allows higher density
> I don't know why so many city dwellers seem to obsess over the fact that there are many people who simply prefer living in the suburbs.
Tribalism and a desire to see the whole world remade to their own fancy, just like everything else people have strong opinions about
What a load, I've never been to a city that wasn't a disgusting concrete nightmare. God forbid you want to raise kids, say goodbye to playing outside. I'll take my cozy yard and breathable air, thanks
I get way more time in parks and nature in San Francisco than I did when living in suburban North San Jose or Sunnyvale. The suburbs were asphalt nightmares with few trees and no parks within walking distance. In SF I can easily get lost in green space and fresh ocean air.
Millions of children grow up in cities (in apartments, no less!) and they turn out just fine.
And millions of them don't.
Educational outcomes, crime (both as victim and perpetrator), and mental health are all worse for those who grew up in cities, and not just slightly worse. Much worse.
The worst are rural areas, currently. It has nothing to do with housing layout and a lot to do with availability of jobs etc.
No, it absolutely is not.
And even if that were true, we're talking about suburbs, not rural areas.
In Europe all of those are better in cities than suburbs.
Where is the opioid crisis right now?
Thought so.
> Where is the opioid crisis right now?
Pretty much everywhere in the country, but heroin et al have been problems in the cities for generations.
https://www.google.com/search?q=vauban+freiburg
5000 people in just over 0.32 miles, plenty of trees and Greenspace.
Have you been to any non-US city? You should try it...
I have, they are awesome. I've never been to a US city though. The idea of the inner city being the poor area or bad area is bizzare and culture shock. That's usually where all the good apartments are.
Atlanta is the most tree'ed city. If you walk 4 blocks from the highway you might think you're in a forest with birds being the loudest things around