Comment by _hardwaregeek | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _hardwaregeek | Hacker News Reader

Having been born and raised in a major city, I'm certainly biased, but I truly believe that suburbs should go away. Every part of a suburb seems so insular, so wasteful, so outmoded. A one family house requires maintenance, heating and wiring that would be so much more efficient with even the smallest apartment complex. Lawns are ridiculous, especially in the parts of the country where grass is not indigenous. Why the hell are we spending so much water and energy to maintain a goddamn green rectangle?

HOAs don't seem to do much besides execute petty laws. Neighborhoods, while they can be diverse, will never approach a city in terms of allowing people of different backgrounds, races, etc. to interact. There's a particular reason cities vote more democratic than suburbs: It's hard to vote for such hateful policies when you interact with the people effected every day.

I get that there's this nostalgia or rather inertia about suburbs. I get that people grew up in a one family house with a lawn in their nice homogeneous town. But it needs to go away.

"I get that some people like it, but I don't, so it needs to go away."

More like this thing that people like is energy inefficient, produces pollution and leads to more homogeneous, less diverse communities. And therefore it should go away.

Forcing everyone into cities is also a form of homogenizing. The idea that a city mindset is the only one is just forcing people to conform in a different way.

I'd settle for suburban development not being required (through maximum density zoning laws) or subsidized (through disproportionate spending on suburban infrastructure).

I have a coworker who mentioned that he doesn't think my town needs libraries. "I never use them, so why should my taxes go to supporting them?" Trying to have a productive dialogue with someone who doesn't understand the idea of community can be a challenge.

Oh I don't think communities should go away. Cities can have communities if you build them in the right way. I just think these communities need to evolve from the particular format of a single family house with a lawn, car and garage.

Plus I'm a little perplexed at the library analogy. I'm not saying we need to lower funding or anything. If anything we should be pumping more money into suburbs so that they can build and create more healthy, flourishing communities. These communities should just be built in a way that's space and energy efficient.

It's the idea that if someone doesn't like something, it doesn't matter if others do.

In my town, a typical midwest college town, we have suburbs, we have more urban areas with smaller/older houses in row neighborhoods. We have apartments galore, and condos in downtown areas. A bit of something for everyone. Expecting a community to "evolve" means losing something of this. Other than young people who want to live in the downtown area, nobody wants to give up their homes. Apartment living is no fun with families.

And this is normal America. These cities can't be re-designed, can't really evolve. New cities, sure. Build them that way if you can (though I think the market won't support it), but expecting existing cities to evolve into urban worlds with no cars, great public transportation, and centrally located jobs and services won't happen in the majority of US cities.

'apartment living is no fun with families'

... why?

I've lived in apartments with my family for the last three years. It's honestly been great.

First of all, I get that people like living in the suburbs. But people also like eating beef and like driving Hummers. Unfortunately we need to do less of all of these.

> Apartment living is no fun with families.

That is a gigantic assumption. I grew up in an apartment and it was great. My parents wouldn't trade living in an apartment in a major city for a house in the suburbs for anything. Plenty of families all around the world do just fine in apartments.

I disagree that existing cities can't be redesigned. Sure, we'd need to invest in public transportation. And sure, we'd have to build other infrastructure. But the case in the article is a pretty obvious case for expansion. You have a town that is 30 minutes by rail from SF, an epicenter of insanely expensive real estate, and yet nobody can expand because people are worried it'll destroy their precious suburbs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com