Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw0101a | Hacker News Reader

> Like, what is your "I don't care for subsidies" threshold?

When the thing being subsidized has no benefit to society.

'Subsidizing' the impoverished is helping another human being, and is always worthwhile. Healthcare for all is enlightened self-interest because I do not know what future illnesses I may have, and what they may cost, so I'd rather have everyone subsidized than risk myself not having access to future treatments.

Education and the public fire departments help build better societies.

But what benefit do car-based suburbs give to society as a whole? Can you least three benefits that we can discuss?

View on HN

Sure:

- suburban areas largely "subsidize" the cost of education, which far exceeds the cost of roads and utility infrastructure subsidized by the cities. The quality of schools in suburban areas is also largely higher than in cities.

- suburban areas have anywhere from 1/7 - 1/3 the crime rates of cities—even accounting for socioeconomic factors—which reduces personal and social harm. There is also vastly faster emergency response in suburban areas which save lives and stop culprits.

- mood disorders (anxiety, depression, etc) are about 40% more common in city dwellers then suburbanites, and that's strongly linked to the differing environments.

If the cost and quality of education, reduction of crime, and mental health aren't benefits to society as a whole, I don't know what is.

Please understand, I do not suggest that city living is "bad". I do, however, suggest that diversity of living environments is good, for the individual and for society as a whole.

The first two points probably have less to do with the the design of suburbs, but can probably be better attributed to income/wealth:

* https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/the-ur...

I live in Toronto, Canada, and we probably have as much variation with-in the city as between the suburban and urban areas given that different neighbourhoods with-in the city have different average incomes.

Access to green spaces does help help in many ways, but that may be countered by the lack of activity in car-centric areas:

* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-11/the-publi...

Further, lower density building necessities eating up more land for the same population than higher density. You're paving over the very 'green' land that is providing benefits in the first place.

And 'urban living' also exists on a spectrum: it is not necessary to design things as scrunched together as (say) Manhattan. Brooklyn and Queen's (for example) can support walkable neighbourhoods with useful public transit (and cycling), while having SFH, garages/lanes, backyards, etc.

I'm less against 'real' rural living than suburban design. The post-WW2 suburbs just seem to be the worst of both worlds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com