Hacker News Reader

I only experienced that in Sylvania Ohio (a suburb of Toledo). In Vicksburg MS, where I was living in the county...it was a real neighborhood (not the sticks) but we had no parks, well it was the deep south. In outside of Bothell Washington it was the same thing, but I could drive by then so whatever.

I guess I romanticized the big city as a kid, leading me to prefer urban over suburban living for my own kid. Maybe this will backlash and he will choose suburbia for his own kid(s).

I grew up in Madison/Ridgeland, Ms, where I did experience this. To some extent, at least. I had neighborhood friends. We rode bikes, crossed the tracks to go to the comic book store, etc.

Still, I’ve always romanticized the big city. Never lived it, though, so maybe it’s a grass-is-greener thing, but maybe I’ll be able to give it a whirl someday.

Grass is greener for me, but you have to choose the right big city, and those cities are expensive because lots of people make the same conclusions.

As a curiosity, I checked out the neighborhood I used to live in on google maps to see if they had put any parks or sidewalks since. Nope, exactly the same.

Parks are sanitized vacant lots.

The important thing is just having some sort of space, as the article puts it.

>> As described by Ray Oldenburg, “third places” are locations where locals can meet, interact, and relax in a place that isn’t their home or place of work. In these locations, kids get the chance to socialize and develop intellectually. American suburbs don’t have these places.

There's rightfully no stipulation whether that's a corner store, mall, park, empty lot, or wild area.

The important thing is that it's accessible to kids and parents aren't around.

I was born and raised in Vicksburg, MS. As kids, we rode bikes, made makeshift dams in Clear Creek, threw dirt clods at each other in the woods, played sports in backyards, and I don't remember ever asking our parents to take us to the park or downtown. We had grass, trees, fresh air and good company. I miss those days.

"Unstructured time with other kids" is also the source of many many problems (as you acknowledge). Especially if the only destination is a gas station.

Kids need parks, sports fields, cinemas, hobby stores, places to get food, etc, and they need them within walking distance. Being virtually dependent on cars to get anywhere is very crippling for kids.

Being dependent on adults to drive cars is the crippling component.

If there were free taxi services (or other transit), kids would be fine.

And honestly, most of the evil comes from overly-empowering parents. "I don't think you should go there / do that / hang out with those friends" is toxic.

Healthier, as kids mature, for them to be able to do things that parents disapprove of... but can't stop. While still allowing prevention of serious choices.

Making kids dependent on parents' cars increases parents' power from "I can speak out about things I disagree with" to "My agreement is required for anything to happen."

And that's really not healthy, for the kid or the parent.

Do you have any evidence of that? Asian American parents generally strictly control their kids’ choices, and they have much better outcomes than white American kids.

I think it would be great if kids could take themselves to gymnastics practice on public transit. But giving them the choice between that and smoking pot with friends? I think the choice hurts rather than helps.

What do you mean in the second paragraph about gymnastics practice? It's implying kids cannot take public transit, but why? That was fairly common, even recently, and I'm trying to understand if something has changed in some regions.

Outcomes measured with what endpoints?

Last I looked it up, there were pretty serious mental health issues associated with the tiger parenting technique.

A whole bunch of stuff—from income mobility to life expectancy to incarceration rates to morality rates from avoidable causes.

Dollars and cents

My roaming range on my bike was about 5 miles in any direction. All of those places cost money. I'm not sure what kind of childhood you had, but I didn't have a job at 14, and those are places I rarely went. What you seem to be advocating for is a credit card more than a ride.

Yeah, this. There are many arguments against suburbs, but they're relatively good places for kids. Big gardens, quiet roads, full of young families with similar age kids, and relatively free of the stuff people don't want their kids interacting with like bars and liquor stores, gang culture and street crime, "bad example" young adults and places they really shouldn't be exploring, so if anything they're a reason for parents to be less protective about letting kids go off on their own.

Kids aren't glued to their phones because there isn't a street of coffee shops and delis to buy £5 drinks and £10 sandwiches or a nightclub scene, and they wouldn't tend to go to the art gallery or library to play if moved somewhere more urban, they'd hang around on street corners, head to small parks that aren't dissimilar to the suburban ones or go explore the relative abundance of derelict buildings, industrial sites and railway sidings.

Particularly amusing to see British style terraced housing painted as a solution, as if the street corners the kids who grow up there hang out on (if they go outside at all) are some kind of idyll suburbia is depriving them of with its gardens and lack of corner stores that'll sell them vapes.

> I'm talking mostly about kids 8-14 or so. Older teens will get more bored and mischevious. Fortunately by that age there's more stuff they can be involved in at school or they can get a job.

In my experience, at least, this is a large contributor to the drug epidemic. You could get a job, or you could get high. For a lot of people, it's an easy choice.

Is the drug epidemic a kid problem?

I was under the impression it was more of a 20+ thing.