Hacker News Reader

Comment by aaronbrethorst | Hacker News Reader

Concur. American suburbs are my idea of hell. http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53dd6676e4b0fedfbc26ea...

Many people buy houses for their utility, not because it makes them a special snowflake.

I live in an apartment in a major city for the utility and because it makes me happy. I am within walking distance of a cooperative food market, a Trader Joe's, and four supermarkets. I am within walking distance of dozens of bars, restaurants, concert venues, cafes, and bookstores.

I can walk to my community darkroom, where I spend hours developing film and black and white prints.

I can walk to work. It's between 1.67 and 2.5 miles each way, depending on the route. The walk back includes an elevation gain of about 300 feet, giving me a pretty decent cardio workout just by commuting.

I drove briefly today because I had to go to purchase containers to store my overflowing material possessions (oh, irony). I was stuck in traffic, and it sucked. I love getting to bus, or take the light rail, or the street car, or walking.

I love living in a dense neighborhood overflowing with interesting people and shops, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. If that makes me a special snowflake, then so be it.

This conversation is about architecture. Walkability of a neighborhood is a different discussion.

The architectural monoculture guarantees that there will never be a cafe, restaurant or bookstore.

That's not correct. Many of these housing developments specifically have sections zoned for small shopping areas that have precisely those things.

If it's a different discussion, it's extremely related. Storefronts with no doors on the street (because everyone uses the lot in the back), or buildings set back 80 feet from the sidewalk, all make a neighborhood more hostile.

no, this conversation's about people telling other people what to like and how to live.

As are zoning requirements, parking minimums, and HOA's, so apparently prescribing a particular lifestyle is something folks are quite fond of. Given that the winning side has generally been the one fond of low-density, sprawling, single-use architecture, it seems worthwhile to discuss the merits of said architecture and its impact on the people who live in it.

That's great, and I'd certainly rather live somewhere with higher population density, but if there's anywhere in my city that 1) is not a horrible mcmansion suburb, 2) has good schools, and 3) isn't ZOMGWTF high priced, I haven't seen it.

Lots of people live in suburbia not because they love it, but because they can't afford a decent place in/near the city and a good private school for their kids. Probably 75% of the cool houses in my city are in high(ish) crime areas with awful schools, and the rest are way out of my price range (and often still have bad public schools)

Some people love suburbia. You don't have to worry about mugging, loud neighbors, the blight of most urban architecture, piss-stained subways, the ability to own space as opposed to rent it, and more. Being able to have woods in your backyard, being able to walk out to see a stream, being able to get in a car at any time you like and go out to explore...those are sizable benefits.

Oh, and you can bicycle for pleasure with far more safety in most suburban areas, and jog too. You can own your own garden, build a shed or workshop on your own property, and do a lot of things that the worker drone lifestyle of an urban apartment won't let you do.

"Oh, and you can bicycle for pleasure with far more safety in most suburban areas"

Cycling for transport, on the other hand, is hell on Earth. My rib still aches now and then from the driver who hit me while I rode home from work (and then was shocked I wanted to call the police).

I wish people would discuss this more often.

You get "horrible mcmansion suburbs", in large part because they are cheap. People have to live somewhere, and anything that isn't a suburban detached house is unaffordable for 95+% of the American population. People pose this as a choice, but when the only alternative is crappy apartments or being homeless -- it's not really a choice.

I'd love to live in a Brownstone, or a Townhouse, or a Highrise, or a "dense urban area" that can support some form of functional public transit. Someday, I might be a millionaire who can afford that. Until that happens, I live in a suburban box, and drive everywhere, just like every other person in this entire state. Suburbs aren't cheap -- but they're the only somewhat-affordable housing option in the nation.

Yours. Plenty of us would rather the suburbs than... most anywhere else.

Honest question: why?

Backyards are extremely convenient, as opposed to walking/driving to a park, when you have dogs and/or small children.

the suburbs are mostly about crime (none) and schools (much better). this entire thread is filled with pedantic bullshit from people who haven't got a clue.

Many people dislike the congestion, noise, and higher expense of space of the city.

The average income of the US is like 50k. If you have a family of 4 the size of apartment you get on that income in a city is extremely cramped. Additionally, the allure of walking everywhere quickly disappears when you have a 2 and 5 year old.

To be fair, that has more to do with the US than with suburbia vs city.

I'm European and I wouldn't want to live in a place like most US suburbs ever.

you would if you had kids you cared about. the schools in suburban areas in the states are magnitudes better than comps in the city. there's a fucking reason people pay and pay dearly to live in those areas.

You didn't read what I said. I wouldn't want to live in US suburbia.

My wife and I actually live in two places right now because of our line of work:

There's a 2BR apartment in a German city with about a million residents. It's not exactly downtown but definitely urban. It's actually slightly less central than the place I grew up but it's where we mostly stay when working on-site for clients in the region.

We also live in a 3BR apartment in a German town with about 15k residents. When we have children, this is where they will grow up until we need a bigger place.

I wouldn't want to live in US cities either, but for completely unrelated reasons. I'm more inclined to believe that it's possible to find a bearable place in urban regions in the US than in the traditional American cliché suburbia. Either way I'd prefer almost any apartment I've lived in (except for the tiny 1BR place we stayed when we were studying) over that.

320M people have managed to find places in our 3.8M sqare miles "bearable". did you learn about america from movies?

It sounds like you are judging the entire US based on almost no information. The snobbish condescension is almost insufferable. Maybe try providing some interesting information in your comments about what it is that you don't like about US suburbia.

And yet they fail to teach capitalization. Or tact.

By choosing suburbia you are part of the force underfunding city schools and perpetuating the problem.

Probably. But you choosing to have your kids go to a suburban school doesn't singlehandedly cause it, and you choosing to remain in an urban environment won't singlehandedly fix it.

So the choice remains, do you want your kids to go to a good school or a cruddy school? If you care about your kids and are mildly practical, this question answers itself.

i lived in chicago for 20 years. the city schools were funded just fine, the teachers' pensions (generous to say the least) weren't. i'm a lot more interested in my kid being safe and challenged at school than i am in paying for some retired teacher to take more vacations.

"you would if you had kids you cared about."

With that statement, you just lost any credibility your point had.

> Additionally, the allure of walking everywhere quickly disappears when you have a 2 and 5 year old.

Does it? Many people have small children in my peer group, and I've seen them moving to walking through their neighborhood rather than driving to their errands. The difference might be that German cities are much more hospitable to pedestrians in general. Also, there is sane public transit which is helpful if your toddler doesn't like to walk anymore.

"German cities are much more hospitable to pedestrians in general"

From what I've seen, German cities are much more hospitable to _humans_ in general. Towns too, for that matter. And Germany isn't exactly hostile to automobiles, which is impressive considering there's usually a conflict between walkability and drivability.

>Does it?

Yes, walking 2 miles with a two and five year old is awful. I suppose the experience from person to person is different, but I find two-year-olds to be quite selfish with short legs making them bad walking companions.

>Also, there is sane public transit which is helpful if your toddler doesn't like to walk anymore.

That sounds like not walking to me, but whatever.

"Yes, walking 2 miles with a two and five year old is awful."

If you're walking two miles for normal errands your city is poorly designed.

This. Also, most small children here have a tricycle or something similar once they're old enough to walk on their own. Sometimes the parent will carry or pull the tricycle, sometimes the child will use it if it does not want to walk.

It's a common complaint people give. "Well I can't see carrying 8 bags of groceries a few miles without my car"

But within 2000 feet of my apartment I have at least 4 or 5 grocery stores. The main reason they're so damn far apart in suburban America is that a 15,000 square foot grocery store might have 60,000 square feet of parking. US Suburbia basically _is_ parking and roads, with the occasional building sprinkled here and there on top of the skidpad.

If you've never lived outside of it, though, you're blind to it. It's like trying to explain why you'd want an umbrella to someone on Arrakeen.

> It's like trying to explain why you'd want an umbrella to someone on Arrakeen.

Or, in this case, like trying to explain distances in feet to a non-American. :)

Good thing there's units(1).

I feel like there's more to it. When Americans visit me in Dublin they ask, before they get here, how I get by without a car. I don't think they really fathom that not only can it be done, it's actually easier when the city is well-designed. And Dublin's not even particularly great in that regard!

I have my groceries delivered. That saves a lot of trouble. Small purchases easily go in my bike or in a backpack.

And yet childhood obesity is an increasing problem in the US. Maybe the suburban "let's drive everywhere" mentality is part of the problem.

have you people never been to a suburb? obesity is definitely not a problem in the suburbs i've lived in. we're talking mcmansions here -- parents are likely climbers pushing their kids into every activity of every imaginable kind (good or bad).

In an inner ring burb, or a New England town, you don't have to enroll the kid in anything to avoid obesity. Mine has to climb down and back up an 80 foot hill any time she wants to go to the library or ice cream shop.

Anecdotal, but I've noticed you can get a pretty good sense of the wealth level of neighborhoods in my city by who's out on the sidewalks on a summer weekday morning: skinny kids and overweight adults, all walking? Poor neighborhood. Skinny good-looking joggers? Rich neighborhood. The more attractive the average jogger, the richer it is.

I grew up in a tony suburb. Sure, the average kid who lived in one wasn't obese (although their parents are another matter), but for every McMansion there are 1000 people who work in the Walmarts, Home Depots, and AutoZones, and obesity rates among them are sky high.

If that were the case, childhood obesity would have risen like a missile in the 50's and 60's.

> Additionally, the allure of walking everywhere quickly disappears when you have a 2 and 5 year old.

Here's how Dutch parents solve that problem: https://www.babboe.be/media/easyslide/Babboe-City-Bakfiets-T...

Though a 2 year old can still go in a stroller, and the 5 year old can walk. (And some strollers these days come with a platform where the 5 year old can stand.)

Lacks the crowded bustle of the city, it's generally quiet when I walk outside. Yet I'm close enough to the city to take a train there if need be. Major events aren't far away, but aren't in my backyard. Crime rate is lower, police response time is incredible.

I live in a condo, but even in a condo, drastically more space than you'd get in the city for less money.

I feel I have a better quality of life in the suburbs on my income than someone with twice my salary would have living in the city.

I get that it isn't for everyone, but every couple weeks HN has a 'the suburbs are awful' post, and I feel that's incredibly unwarranted. Urban vs. suburban vs. rural is a lifestyle choice and a preference.

The problem here is not the ugliness of the houses, but the fact that they all look alike. But you've got the exact same thing in other countries, except that in the US, they are detached, which in Netherland tends to be too expensive for middle incomes. Those who can afford detached houses, can afford unique houses. Here, identical houses come in long rows: http://www.vansantvoort.nl/wp-content/uploads/46_rijtjeshuis...

Suburbs would be a lot better if they had shops and stuff instead of endless rows of houses. Low-density housing is ok, but why not put down a small mall every few blocks with stores and apothecaries that stocks essentials and maybe has a cinema or an arcade.

Why don't just live in a real city, with shops, pubs, parks, or centers to socialize almost everywhere?

Being on a suburb like that feels like puttying your house on its own prison for houses.

Because the city is full of fucking people. Crowds, lines, innumerable traffic jams. Or... I can live outside the city, with less of all those things, and more green space, and I don't have to hear my neighbors through the wall.

Builders often include business expansion lots between the residences and the arterial road, purportedly for businesses like that. Hardly anyone ever buys one of the lots to build there until long after the area is already too developed to build a business building anywhere else.

This indicates to me that developers tend to overvalue their owned lots near a neighborhood that they just filled with McMansions, almost as though they were selling lots that already had local businesses in them. They would do a lot better to just build the strip mall first, stick one franchised business in to anchor it, sell the house lots, then spin off the strip mall ownership into a separate business after 80% of the lots are built.

The home builders see it as someone else's problem. The houses are their moneymaker, and the businesses can take care of themselves. It's almost as though they have never heard of loss leaders.

You're describing Phoenix, Arizona there. The city (and most of the surrounding cities, with the exception of downtown Phoenix itself and downtown Tempe) is divided into streets along a 1-mile grid system. The low-density housing is usually located in the interiors of these 1-square-mile blocks, while the corners usually have strip malls with pharmacies, small shops, grocery stores, and sometimes cinemas. (Arcade? Those are extremely rare these days. Usually you'll only see them at a large mall.)

I would go crazy trying to find a particular house in there. This is worse than Plattenbausiedlungen. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plattenbau)

I know you're using that stock picture as an example of cookie-cutter-stepford-wives-american-hoa-creepiness, but taking a look at those from the air I see a really good use of interior space for low-slung structures, and some charming garden/enclosed deck/pool design going on. Looks like there's some real cozy gems in that neighborhood.

You gotta get in your car to get most places, sure. But it could be much worse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com