Hacker News Reader

Comment by potatolicious | Hacker News Reader

The perception and/or reality of safety.

Suburban flight in the US didn't occur until long after cars became ubiquitous. People had the means to move to suburbs for years but didn't do so en masse until the urban cores started to rot.

People moved out of cities when they became shitholes, and people stay out of cities out of a perception that they are shitholes. Said perception may be true or false depending on where you are.

There is also the issue that for people with families, many urban centers have in the past few decades reconstituted and cleaned up, but without the infrastructure that families are looking for: e.g., schools.

Suburban living is all about being safe from criminal hordes outside the gates - whether real or imagined.

View on HN

| Suburban flight in the US didn't occur until long after cars became ubiquitous.

It seems you're not acquainted with the concept of "streetcar suburbs" [1]. The Wikipedia article goes into some detail; I recommend it for the curious who'd like to know how streetcar technology drove suburbanization before 1920.

FTA: "Because streetcar operators offered low fares and free transfers, commuting was finally affordable to nearly everyone."

This is not academic information about the distant past that no longer applies. Transit-oriented development [2] is impacting our cities positively today. It will be a long time before driverless cars have an impact.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb

2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development

I think we're running into a case of differing terminology. I'm well aware of streetcar suburbs - by our modern understanding of cities they are substantially more urban than they are suburban.

And that's part of the point exactly - before suburban flight the concept of "suburbia" was transit-aligned, grid-based, focused around walkable distances and small(ish) housing. People were fine living in these places, even long after cars became ubiquitous. The modern suburb was not born until the collapse of urban centers.

Today we understand all of the above as "urban". The bulk of the American population lives in the modern incarnation of suburbs, not the 1920s version of it. Still-extant streetcar suburbs are now sold more as urban neighborhoods than not.

The modern suburb calls for large houses, even larger lawns, and subdivision-style street layouts (with an unspoken design intent of keeping out undesirables, a core part of its history and continued appeal). Map[1] is a modern suburb, full of meandering streets, deadends, cul-de-sacs, and indirection - and that's what I was referring to, considering that modern suburbs such as this grossly outnumber streetcar-urban neighborhoods in the US today.

If you took someone from a typical suburban environment in the US and dropped them in a streetcar suburb they'd perceive it as distinctly urban.

[1] https://maps.google.com/maps?q=dallas+tx&hl=en&ll=33...

There is no coincidence that suburban flight coincided with desegregation.

It's a coincidence by definition. Whether or not the two are linked is another matter, and someone has probably done research on it.

The idiomatic phrase "it's no coincidence" means "it's more than just a coincidence."

I know. I'm saying you should offer more than a one-line assertion.

People were really racist in the 1960's, to the point where they wanted blacks to not use the same restrooms. They didn't suddenly stop being racist when cities were legally desegregated. What happened consequently was what you would expect if a bunch of racists were stuck in cities with a bunch of black people who were no longer confined to their separate areas.

I know the popular assertions. Was hoping you had some actual research.

Are you suggesting people like big houses with large lawns in quiet suburban neighborhoods with great schools because they are racist?

Racism was certainly one of the things that precipitated the shift in the equilibrium. Remember, at the time when people still lived in the cities, the suburbs weren't like they are today. There were good schools and decent housing in the cities, because the middle class white people hadn't moved away yet. As someone pointed out elsewhere, the availability of cars to make the suburban exodus happened long before the suburban exodus itself happened. And let's face it, race place a huge role in living choices today. Check out: http://www.city-data.com/forum/chicago. People are perfectly happy to be egalitarian right up to the point where it involves sending their kids to schools with heavy black populations. "Gentrification" is almost synonymous with moving blacks out of neighborhoods, and cities like to tout gentrification statistics, with their underlying tone of racism, without any of the bashfulness that is usually associated with even the hint of racism. People in Chicago considered it a great thing that the South Loop had gone from 35% white to 75% white in just one decade.

Look at it from a different perspective. Why is it that in Europe more of the population of the various metro areas lives in the city than in the surrounding suburbs, as compared to the U.S.? Do Americans just inherently like big houses and large lawns more than Europeans? And if they do, why didn't they move out of the city long before 1960, when it was eminently practical to do so?

That of course doesn't mean that suburbanites are racist today. After decades of suburban exodus the core cities are shells of their former selves, urban public school districts are almost exclusively for the poor, etc. There's lots of non-racist reasons, today, to not want to live in the city besides the inherent availability of lawns, etc. But given how racist society as a whole was in 1960, I think it's ridiculous to claim that the racial tension precipitated by the civil rights movement and desegregation didn't play a large role in tipping the balance between the cities and suburbs.

  | Suburban living is all about being safe from
  | criminal hordes outside the gates - whether real
  | or imagined.

Or being able to afford a house.

That really wasn't the initial problem, nor is it still in most places. You have highly anomalous cities like NYC or SF where living costs are ludicrous, but for the most part cities are affordable places to live.

Sure, you will always get bigger spaces for the same price - that's why they're called suburbs, but the marginal utility of space decreases pretty rapidly. There are many cities where owning a sufficiently large space is indeed affordable. In fact this describes most cities outside of SF and NYC where we're packed like sardines.

People stopped living in cities because drug and crime became rampant, and quality of life dropped precipitously. That was the instigator, and still a cultural cornerstone of the suburban lifestyle, despite the revitalization of urban America.

People were fine living in apartments rather than owning a whole building to themselves - until the environment went to shit. They had the ability to get big houses outside the city for decades but didn't take the option until their urban neighborhoods collapsed. I suspect they still are fine with not owning a large house.

My comment was more about the current situation, than the historical cause for sprawl or "white flight."

I get that - and my thought is that the whole concept of owning a big house is ex post facto rationalization, not a root issue. If cities were safer, transportation better, and family infrastructure competent, we'd see a dramatic move back into cities - a smaller space be damned.

And we do see this in some places, where buying a medium-sized flat in a nice neighborhood close to good schools is as desirable as a big house with a big lawn in a nice area.

If you look at suburban developments all around the country, you'll also notice an explosion of smaller houses and townhouses - places that are in many cases no larger than apartments in the city, just in upright standing form. Space is a detail to most of the population, not a core factor.

It's not always space. Just the idea of owning vs. renting.

For example, in Toronto the real estate prices are sky high in the city (e.g. I've heard of just a single floor of some of those large houses in The Annex going for upwards of $800k). There are a lot of condos being built (and already built), but they are all aimed at single people or childless couples, not necessarily at families. Two or three bedroom condos are few and far between, meaning that they aren't exactly cheap.

For purposes of this argument no one gives a damn about Toronto. It's another of the edge cases where attractiveness of downtown of a major city outweighs "normal" North American real estate factors.

Take a look where the most expensive houses in Hamilton or St. Catharines or Kitchener are and where the "bad" parts of town are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com