Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasode | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>What's strange is that most people seem to agree that the best cities are made up of mid rise 5-10 storey blocks with internal courtyards.

I used to believe that but I don't think it's actually true.

I can't speak for Europe but as far as the USA, the evidence seems to show the _silent_ majority actually prefer the suburbs instead of 5-story buildings.

The above claim will be hard for readers to accept if they are well-versed in the constant negative news articles in New York Times, etc and Youtube channels like NotJustBikes, StrongtownsOrg, CityBeautiful, ClimateTown ... all disparaging the "soulless" suburbs.

What happens is the proponents of "walkable cities" have inadvertently created a "filter bubble" and now mistakenly think most families don't want to live in suburbs.

But what about all those surveys where people preferred "walkable" cities to go to businesses like grocery stores, theaters, and museums without a car?!? That's true but the surveys' methodology and framing are flawed because they don't structure the questions as a set of tradeoffs so the respondents can see if they prioritize other things above walkability such as bigger house sq footage, yard and pool to play in, garage for hobbies, not sharing apartment/townhouse walls with noisy neighbors playing music too loud, etc.

So the _silent_ majority in America do like walkability... but they also prioritize other aspects of residential living that ends up sacrificing the walkability. It's the unstated tradeoffs that explains the paradox of people supposedly wanting "walkability" but yet we still all end up with car-centric suburban sprawl.

> I can't speak for Europe but as far as the USA, the evidence seems to show the _silent_ majority actually prefer the suburbs instead of 5-story buildings.

Where in the US is made of "5-10 storey blocks with internal courtyards" that the op referenced? I don't know anywhere that that's an option on the table. People live in suburbs because it's what is available, full stop. If there were dense 5-10 storey areas sitting empty while the surrounding suburbs were full, then you'd have a point

I live in a city, not a suburb, but they seem to be grouped with suburb-talk as there is a larger city nearby, and I find it strange that ‘walk ability’ isn’t mentioned since that is best part of living in a neighborhood of single family homes. People are out walking all the time. There are parks to walk to as well, but those are getting removed as they are being replaced with 3 story apartment buildings. Not sure how it came to pass that high density housing and less parks are the ideal.

Not really directed at you, but more at the general topic which causes all the stereotypes to appear and I don’t see them in the real world. Everyone I’ve met in an apartment living space wishes for a home. I know I did.

Are you claiming that suburbs are more "walkable"? What destinations are you walking to? Or are you describing a kind of pastoral pleasantness that is present in suburbs but not in denser areas?

I think what confuses some people about this topic is that their mental image of "suburbs" is a quiet street surrounded by lawns & trees, with minimal traffic, while their mental image of cities is of noisy, stinky, dangerous streets with lots of traffic.

I would argue that the "pleasant" qualities that we associate with taking a walk are orthogonal to the density of the neighborhood itself, and that the negative qualities people see in cities are really a problem of their car-centric design in the US. For example, see a neighborhood like Sunnyside, NY, just a few subway stops from Manhattan:

https://www.newyorkitecture.com/wp-content/gallery/sunnyside... https://www.newyorkitecture.com/wp-content/gallery/sunnyside...

Highly dense row-housing, but with ample green spaces and many pedestrian-only pathways. Has enough density to sustain many local businesses within walking distance, features a number of subway stops easily reachable on foot--it's very possible to live in this neighborhood without driving.

It would be impossible to build a low-density neighborhood that works as well without a car, because there won't be enough people to sustain the businesses required to serve them within a walkable distance. And once you start assuming that everyone will own a car and will use it for every errand, then you inevitably get sprawl + congestion + traffic.

It is more walkable. That’s it. Not everything has to be centered around consumption/consumerism

Generally people use "walkable" to mean that errands can be done without a car. I presume the people in these suburbs are using a car to get their groceries.

> Not everything has to be centered around consumption/consumerism

If you're arguing for a completely non-consumptive lifestyle in which you grow/forage all of your own necessities, then I concede that my argument doesn't apply to you, but I think most suburb-dwellers are not at your level. Suburbs are typically much more resource-intensive to maintain than denser neighborhoods.

Suburban neighborhoods are clearly less resource intensive since they don’t have a high density population to maintain with equally high levels of consumption

Since when do we count cost of living/resource consumption per land area not per human/loving space/bedroom/etc?

This is more about the city than the house. To build a walkable city requires a certain density. Great public transportation requires density. Density is not possible with US style sprawl.

As evidence, look at what people are willing to pay for a tiny apartment in London.

But the canyon effect of cities built entirely of skyscrapers is also not nice.

Great cities also have trees and grass everywhere.

And mixed use is needed. Being able to walk a block to get eggs from the corner store or grab a pint at the pub is amazing. That also is not possible with US style single use zoning.

We have also tried “towers in the park” style developments. Those are too spread out to walk or bike.

There is probably a way to get density for public transport and walkability, a few taller buildings but not too many to cause canyons, and street level businesses, but the easy answer is to stay with what has worked all over the world and simply build mid-rise buildings.

Also, US style sprawl is expensive. The upkeep to pave the roads every 5-10 years, maintain sidewalks, and the longer utilities, is usually far more than what the homeowners pay in taxes. Cities either raise taxes, let older neighborhoods crumble (common), or subsidize suburban areas with tax revenue from the dense areas (common). US urban sprawl is not sustainable.

What suburbs do people prefer? The pre-war suburbs in the US are walkable. The people who prefer walkable neighborhoods but like suburbs want to live here. The prices are high in cities that have them. Affordable, walkable suburbs will never happen again.

Also, we don’t give people the choice between suburbs and dense neighborhoods. People need to be allowed to make tradeoffs. This is especially true for the lower middle who can’t afford expensive areas, We don’t know if they would choose long commute and backyard, or short commute and apartment.

A majority possibly do prefer suburbs, however, a large minority don't and we have made their preferences flat out illegal to build.

No one is asking for suburbs to be made illegal, simply that other development patterns be allowed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com