Hacker News Reader

Comment by cagenut | Hacker News Reader

IMHO we're going to look back historically at single-family-detached-suburban-sprawl as not just the fulcrum in destroying the environment, but also actively harmful to the people that live there, especially children. Its easy for it to feel "normal" or even aspirational to us now, but its basically only ~3 generations old, and the first generation raised in suburbs was usually larger families in closer-in suburbs, people that could still walk and bike to more-than-nothing and would be able to interact with extended family and cousins more frequently than just the holiday mega-travel. So really its only the children of baby boomers and their children that have exhibited the full force of the mental health and social development impacts of the extremely isolating environment.

View on HN

Reasonable people can disagree.

My quite small yard in the burbs is my oasis with fruit trees, a garden, place for my dog to run, and a lovely place to sit and listen to birds. On top of this, we can walk to amenities and greet our neighbors on the sidewalk.

If I lived in a soulless apartment block my mental health by contrast would be in the pits.

I think people miss that there are living arrangements other than detached single family homes and tall apartment buildings.

The solution is soulful apartment blocks.

The US is really bad at apartment complexes. I commonly saw way nicer, less depressing ones while living in the outskirts of Munich.

This, I live in DC, and there are neighborhoods that have density without feeling like concrete jungles. In my condo it is possible to go outside and enjoy the trees, greenery and also spend a few hours talking to a group of 5 or 6 neighbors all within 5 ft of my front door.

I think American's would be served better by not stereotyping alternative lifestyles and environments and actually explore those alternatives more thoughtfully.

'suburb' and 'soulless apartment block' aren't the only choices. It's entirely possible to build denser mixed-use neighborhoods with less car-dependence without making them urban warehouses. THough typically this is not what we build, neighborhoods like that exist here mainly in places where they've grown that way over time.

I agree that I proposed a false dichotomy. By the same token, I disagree with the GP poster that suburbs are inherently un-walkable, among other charges. That being said, mine predates the US Interstate Highway System (which I'll use as a proxy for car centric society) and with exceptions the most recent suburbs tend to be monotonous expansive, and unwalkable.

> IMHO we're going to look back historically at single-family-detached-suburban-sprawl as not just the fulcrum in destroying the environment, but also actively harmful to the people that live there, especially children.

Spicy take. I grew up in a neighborhood that would've been considered "suburban" I guess. I had no problems because there were 20 kids who lived there and we all played together. We also went to the same schools. Never had any problem with that though the fact my family moved for work did distance us from our relatives. I was never "extremely isolated". Ever. Bullied, perhaps, but never isolated.

I think the terminally online always connected culture of today is doing far more damage. Compound that with people having less children, housing being transient due to a rental economy, etc and you have the destruction you're looking for. I don't think the implied solution here, giant multi-story multi-family housing, is the solution either. Packing people in like sardines is not effective. You only need to look at Asia to see what happens when you let this form of housing reach its natural conclusion. It sure is nice having my own 4 walls, a garage, etc. It's a space I control and I would fight to keep it. I do wish my area was more walkable. However, I will take what I can get. There's a park about 10 minutes from me and a few coffee shops.

I am simply not a fan of this anti-car, anti-natalist, anti-detatched-housing trifecta that seems to be polluting more progressive social media. I don't understand it. I don't think I ever will.

Watch the TED talk "Ghastly Tragedy of the Suburbs". Has your mind changed after watching it?

I hope we exist long enough to look back at it and see what harm it has done. As it stands, I'm pretty sure most of us will be dead and so will most life on the planet.

> ... IMHO we're going to look back historically at single-family-detached-suburban-sprawl as not just the fulcrum in destroying the environment

As opposed to packing people like ants in high-rises in cities, which is the most environmentally friendly?

Unquestionably. The denser the housing the more environmentally friendly, they are nearly perfectly correlated. Shared walls share thermal mass, which helps on both the hot and cold end. Shared facilities reduce per-unit square footage, further saving on heating/cooling. Network-effects of density cause more things to be in walkable/bikeable distance. Substantial density is required to make public transit function.

As an example, check out the map of the boston-washington/east-coast-corridor of the US here: https://coolclimate.org/maps

Reply on news.ycombinator.com