
Why Suburbia Sucks - wonder_er
https://likewise.am/2016/05/08/why-suburbia-sucks/
======
increment_i
Suburbia exists because people want a quiet, relatively safe place for their
kids to grow up. I didn't realize this until I had children myself. I remember
reaching my teenage years and cursing the dull, boring, culturally bankrupt
suburbian neighborhood I grew up in. I left the minute it became feasible.

Fast forward to now, and I'm right back in the 'burbs, in a house where my
kids have access to safe streets, parks, and decent schools. I realize now
that it was never my parents' responsibility to raise me in a place I would
find interesting, but to give me the best possible start in life they could.
If I can give my kids a similar start, I hope they can safely reach the age
where they can go off and experience the adventure of the big cities and
abroad when they're ready, just like I did.

~~~
TulliusCicero
> Fast forward to now, and I'm right back in the 'burbs, in a house where my
> kids have access to safe streets, parks, and decent schools.

You seem to be confused. The article is saying that _American_ suburbs are
particularly poorly designed, not that suburbs as a general rule are terrible.

Here is Gröbenzell, a suburb just west of Munich that's surrounded by
farmland:
[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gr%C3%B6benzell,+Germany/@...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gr%C3%B6benzell,+Germany/@48.1926563,11.3669814,4157m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x479e78d7a145c0ff:0x27c53129098974e6!8m2!3d48.1932704!4d11.375227)

In the states, such a suburb would be super-low-density and car-dominated,
with all the negative features the author describes. There in Germany,
Gröbenzell actually has a population density 30% _higher_ than Seattle, and
the whole town is within easy walking or biking distance of an S-Bahn station
that gets you to the center of Munich in 20 minutes.

It's possible to have suburban towns that are still walkable, that still allow
kids some measure of independence, that do not kill any sense of place. In the
US, we've just chosen not to create them.

~~~
unethical_ban
I believe it is the fault of bureaucrats over-zoning. I would love to have a
pub and a market next to every neighborhood. I love the idea of the Post
Office providing basic financial services such as checking and money
transfers. Let's make it as easy as possible to have peaceful neighborhoods
AND retail/business in the same area. Dangerous or loud industrial businesses
still need away from residence, but other than that... loosen up!

~~~
Apocryphon
Amazing, isn't it? In a country where we are told is all about choice and
having it our way, we're put in so many situations where we have diametrically
opposite and equally unappealing choices, the tyranny of OR, instead of room
for compromise.

~~~
abalashov
Indeed, it's quite odd that the suburban sprawl model is held up as a triumph
of choice and freedom, as if the market has spoken in favour of the one true
way to build an entire country.

------
rpedela
_For just one small example of many: life in a subdivision cul-de-sac stops
children exploring and becoming conversant with the wider world around them
because it tethers their social lives and activities to their busy parents’
willingness to drive them somewhere. There’s literally nowhere for them to
go._

What is this post talking about? I grew up on a cul-de-sac, and I was always
outside playing with my friends. When I was a little older, my parents would
let me roam the neighborhood with my friends. We played all sorts of games and
got into mischief. There are many downsides to suburbs, but that isn't one of
them.

~~~
jedmeyers
And nowadays, even if you live in an apartment building in the city, there is
no way your child is going to roam around and explore alone.

~~~
germanier
At least in many parts of the US. Here in Germany I see plenty of children
roaming around in the city every day.

~~~
ptaipale
However, the culture of helicoptering kids everywhere (and hovering nearby,
trying to control and risk-manage everything) is spreading to Europe more and
more.

~~~
kuschku
Sadly. This is one of the negative effects of having mostly-foreign
entertainment media, and I’d hope that the effect could be countered soon.

~~~
ptaipale
Entertainment is one thing, but I think far from the only factor in spreading
this.

I tend to think that US is just somewhat ahead in most developments, and
trends then come to Europe. In addition to near-hysteric control of what
children do, we'll have gated communities in fear of crime, we'll have
politically correct "safe spaces" in universities, and whatnot current US
phenomena.

------
colmvp
I've split my life living downtown (SF, NYC, London, Melbourne, TO) and in the
suburbs.

Outside my house the only thing I hear is the wind tossing about with the
trees. Can't hear my neighbors or traffic or people on the street. Contrast
that to when I lived in areas where the bars or homeless/mentally unstable
individuals would keep me up all night.

And I love all the space. Yes, it's a double edge sword. But I have lot more
space for my hobbies such as bike ownership/maintenance, musical instruments,
photography studio... I can sit in my backyard and just meditate or play
music. When I lived downtown, I had to rent space or just forego certain
things.

Lastly, I like how there's less population density. Downtown, good luck if you
want a seat at the nearby cafe. Whereas my local cafe which has ample parking
also has ample open seats.

I'm not trying to say surburbia > urban living. They just have very real
differences that suit different people and life stages.

~~~
TulliusCicero
It's amazing all the people posting comments here who completely missed the
point of the article.

The author is NOT saying that suburbs are bad. The author is saying that
_American_ suburbs are bad. There is a difference, and that difference is the
entire point of the article.

Seriously, did you even read it?

~~~
djrogers
Some of us LIKE American suburbs. The author is stating as an objective fact
something which is entirely subjective in nature - a sadly common mistake
among the overly cynical.

~~~
TulliusCicero
He's sharing his opinion. Do you really not ever say something like "X sucks"
when it's just an opinion? I'm sure the author is well aware that it's not an
objective fact.

------
hasenj
One thing I can't fathom about cities in North America is this sharp division
between residential areas and shopping areas.

I'm by no means a world expert, but the places I've been to (Middle East where
I grew up, Japan which I visited a couple of times) don't have this sharp
distinction. Sure, there are residential areas and there are shopping areas,
but every residential area will have many small shops here and there. You
don't need a car to shop for groceries. You can just go down the street and
there's likely a small store within 10-15 minutes walking distance that will
have most of the things you need.

In North America it seems rather normal to have blocks and blocks of nothing
but houses. To buy groceries, you need a car drive (anywhere from 10 to 40
minutes) to get to some plaza (or a mall) with big name stores like Wal-Mart
or Target.

This has always bothered me. I think the only exception is the core downtown
areas of big cities, but living there has its own downsides. Too expensive,
too noisy, can sometimes be somewhat shady.

~~~
mattmcknight
Walking to the grocery store sounds ridiculous to me. Even when I could see
one from my house I never walked there to do the weekly shopping. I typically
buy more than I can carry. I guess it depends on whether you have a big family
or not...

~~~
bryanlarsen
"weekly shopping".

There's your difference. In those places, you do 5-10 minutes of shopping 7
days a week, instead of 60 minutes of shopping once a week. Those corner
grocery stores are tiny, you can be in and out quick.

~~~
mattmcknight
I really doubt any daily shopping can be done in 5 minutes. Most NYC grocery
stores are very busy. Going to the store every day seems ridiculously
inefficient, and corner stores rarely have everything, forcing multiple stops.

~~~
abalashov
Corner stores may not, but there are plenty of compact grocery stores in
Europe that do. And yes, the five minutes should not be taken literally. On
the other hand, if it's on your way home--which is usually the idea--you don't
need to park, walk from your car to the store, go through a lengthy check-out
with lots of items, hoof it all back to your car, get back out of the parking
lot, etc.

~~~
hasenj
I don't know about Europe but the in the Middle East you usually would just go
straight to the shop keeper and ask for the items you want and he would have
someone grab them for you.

------
humbleMouse
I am surprised to see all of the pro-suburbia comments here. I enjoyed this
article and found it lines up with many of my criticisms of suburbia.

The suburbs to me are a soul sucking place that gives me the heebie-jeebies.
With that said, my opinion reflects my experience living in Minneapolis. When
I visit other cities like Seattle or San Francisco, I am turned off by the
ridiculous density and the inability to go to a coffee shop and not wait in a
huge line (looking mostly at SF here).

As a white person who went to an inner city highschool where white people were
the minority - I notice a huge difference in my world view than people who
grew up in suburbs with predominantly white people. The suburbs around
Minneapolis absolutely disgust me. I work in the western suburbs of
Minneapolis and constantly deal with co-workers saying underhanded
racist/classist comments all the time.

~~~
StevePerkins
Downvote away... but everything about this thread is disappointing.

There is much about U.S. zoning and housing that I believe is misguided.
However, I'll say that the pro-suburbia comments in this thread are actually
fairly well-written. Most of the anti-suburbia comments boil down to, " _blah
blah hellholes blah blah heebie-jeebies blah blah everybody 's racist blah
blah_".

That is more of a Reddit thread than the usual HN. Much of this simply sounds
like: (A) single renters under 30, or (B) European immigrants, incredulous
that they can't double their own take-home pay while experiencing zero broader
social differences.

~~~
humbleMouse
blah blah blah everyones racist is actually a true statement about the
Minneapolis suburbs.

------
CameronBanga
I'm trying to find words to describe my distain for this article, but I can't
think of anything that isn't seen as a direct attack on the author, which
isn't my goal.

Basically America is bad because we had space for cars when they were
invented?

There are plenty of places in America where you can get by without a car. I
live in "suburbia". A small city of 30,000 in Indiana called Valparaiso. We
have a vibrant downtown and where you can live, shop, eat, go to shows, etc.
We have public transportation with a local bus line and also bus service into
Chicago.

I think the author is just finding excuses for being unhappy.

~~~
arkades
> Basically America is bad because we had space for cars when they were
> invented?

I think you did an admirable job of expressing my source of dissatisfaction
with the article.

That, and the author interjecting his personal preferences as architectural
dogma - his passage about "No Street Enclosure" was very much of "I grew up in
the tight spaces of old European cities, therefore preferring the tight spaces
of old European cities is a psychological default universal in humankind".

I actually find it amusing that he thinks "parking in the rear" is some sort
of architectural grand achievement, rather than the historical reality: it was
something that emerged from streets strewn with mud and horse shit, allowing
people to emerge from carriages on a clean, usually paved, surface. It was a
practical solution to a problem that doesn't exist today.

Additionally, he seems to think the resultant alleys are "safe" (and, I don't
know, maybe they are - I really don't know, and won't speculate), but in every
European and Euro-style city where I've seen such "parking and garden in the
back", the walls are all 10' high and topped with home-made barbed wire
(usually shards of glass). It doesn't seem like the natives believe too firmly
in the safety of these sorts of hidden-from-the-public-eye spaces.

Beyond that, there's plenty of false dichotomies.

Many of his other points are valid. They all just blend together in this
general mash of "American cities suck because they're not like European
cities; European cities are the epitome of human psychology and architecture."

Damn, Europe can be fucking beautiful. Just achingly beautiful (oh, so much of
London). At other times, you can walk through street after street of 10'
gates, marred only by graffiti and the occasional heavily-barred window
(thinking of you here, huge swaths of Spain and Portugal). Then again, I can
say the same of suburbia (see almost any part of Staten Island, New York
developed pre-2000 or so if you want to see fantastic suburbs).

~~~
_delirium
I think he's also looking at European cities with quite rose-colored glasses.
There _are_ nice European cites, and (perhaps more to the point) nice areas of
European cities. I lived in central Copenhagen for years, and I really liked
it! But they're far from universal, and European development models also
produce vast swathes of neighborhoods and housing that suck. In different ways
than American suburbia, but still not somewhere you'd want to live, given the
choice.

Example of the European equivalent of suburbia, which I'd argue is overall a
less nice place to live than American suburbia: the more affordable London
suburbs, or even worse, the more affordable Paris suburbs. They aren't
vibrant, quaint, walkable cities, but just huge expanses of low-quality
commuter housing, with bad commutes. Realistically for many people, the
European equivalent to a lower-middle-class Houston suburban house with
freeway commute isn't a nice apartment in a vibrant city center, but a small,
somewhat shabby terrace house way out near Luton with a 75-minute
bus+rail+tube commute into London. Compared to _that_ version of Europe, the
Houston suburbs don't look all that bad.

~~~
takno
London is three times the size of Houston. If you did the same comparison for,
say, Birmingham you could easily afford to live in a good suburb within a 30
minute commute of central Birmingham

------
manachar
Suburbia, with all their HOAs and such are the physical manifestation of the
cultural preferences of a large majority of Americans.

The following quote perfect illustrates the goals:

"The idea, of course, is that the peaceful slumber of the suburbanite should
not be interrupted by the noise generated by the transaction of commerce or
any other public-sphere human activities"

Most Americans want to have an estate where they aim to live independently and
completely unaffected by their neighbors. They don't want to hear them, see
them, or ever have to directly interact with them unless desired.

This can be often rationalized as safer because if other people are physically
less likely to interact in any fashion they are less likely to cause harm. It
can also be rationalized as better financial sense as these "ticky-tacky"
boxes are designed to be bland and therefore have mass appeal. HOAs especially
help this as they prevent your neighbor's choices from impacting your resale
value.

As long as Americans continue to value trying to live a life as separate and
as unaffected as possible you will have something very much like Suburbia

Most who rail against suburbs (like me), do so because we have a different set
of values and beliefs about community. For those who like suburbs it's about
trying to build a personal community that you opt in to be part of.

This idea that community or your social network is something each gets to
determine for themselves is seen in a lot of political debates. This fuels
charter schools, school vouchers, zoning laws, etc. It's interesting because
it cuts across political boundaries.

~~~
cowsandmilk
> Suburbia, with all their HOAs and such are the physical manifestation of the
> cultural preferences of a large majority of Americans.

My numbers put the number of Americans in HOAs in the suburbs at ~16%. Suburbs
without HOAs ~37%. So, a small majority of Americans live in suburbs and a
much smaller number live in a suburb with an HOA. More Americans live in urban
areas (~26%) than in a suburb with an HOA.

As to preferences, my anecdotal experiences have been that I know people who
moved to suburbs out of necessity due to cost, but I have never met someone,
other than the homeless and those in subsidized housing, living in an urban
area due to cost instead of personal choice.

------
55555
Unless this is the speaker of a very similar TED Talk, this guy borrowed tons
of soundbites in the process of writing this article.

Edit: just finished reading it. He has plagarized 10+ 'jokes', and most of his
content was heavily 'inspired', from this excellent TED talk:
[https://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_sub...](https://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia)
. Very very uncool.

~~~
themgt
Agreed, I noticed that too. I was hoping he'd just subconsciously lifted some
phrases, but the amount of the overall similar content/structure and the
specificity of phrases do really kinda push it to the level of plagiarism.

~~~
abalashov
Hi, author here!

I am very familiar with Kunstler's talk and do cite it from time to time, but
it's hard for me to see the basis for the notion that I ripped it off.
Kunstler is hardly the only one to make New Urbanist architectural talking
points or to formulate them in the way that he does, notwithstanding his
rather specific sense of humour.

That said, I just rewatched Kunstler's talk (for the first time in maybe a
year or two?), and I can certainly see why you say what you do, though I don't
agree that it rises to the level of plagiarism; I sat there and made my
formulations quite originally. It's probably a case of subconscious diffusion,
as you suggest. I added a citation for his talk to the bottom of the post to
reflect the discernible overlap.

That said, you really need to look at some other critical literature in this
sphere. If you do, you might be led to accuse Kunstler of plagiarism! :-)

~~~
themgt
Thanks for adding the cite. To me that's enough to put this in the clear. It
is a great summary of our problems here in the USA.

~~~
abalashov
Cool, thanks for making me consider it. It hadn't even occurred to me.

------
slr555
Perhaps Mr. Balashov is thinking of the great urban centers of Europe like
Moscow. Where it can take 2.5 hours to go 20 blocks and where the mass transit
system embraces multi-culturalism and internationalism by only having signs in
Cyrillic.

I am sorry that Mr. Balashov has chosen to live in Atlanta, but I suspect he
has little knowledge of Omaha. Growing up in such a place is quite idyllic.
The creeks, the parks, the forest and the fields encourage children to play
sports, have pets, picnic and stare up at the sky from amidst fields of
boundless green listening to the sound of insects and birds instead of sirens.

As Oscar Wilde said, "For heaven's sake, don't try to be cynical. It's
perfectly easy to be cynical." It is easy to be cynical about suburbs and wax
poetic about cities. Well I grew up in Kansas and have lived for 25 years in
NYC (Manhattan). Also known as the capital of the world.

I've been to Paris, Moscow, London, Dubai, Cairo, Buenos Aires, Brussels,
Prague, Budapest, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Berlin, Munich, etc. And guess what I
still love Kansas and Nebraska.

Loathing suburbia is snobbery and a failure of imagination.

My favorite Tarkovsky film is Nostalghia. The title refers to a very specific
feeling that Russians experience when the miss their homeland.

------
mattdeboard
Having lived & worked quite a long time in wildly different metro areas --
Santa Clara/Mountain View, Indianapolis, Austin -- this article raises more
questions for me more than anything.

What is a suburb, by the author's definition? It seems like it's an area
outside the urban core of a city, I guess. But here in Austin, I'm buying a
house away from the urban core of downtown, in a subdivision, but it's in a
largely undeveloped area 2-3 minutes by car (and 10-15 by bike, at most,
thanks to the bike lanes that connect the subdivision) of a mixed-use
development area with a lake, park, museum, shops etc. Is this suburban? I
consider it suburban but I have trouble connecting what the author is talking
about to this spot.

Now in Indianapolis, there were some suburbs. I lived in one growing up. It
was indeed far from anything with absolutely no public transpo. Nowadays (I
left in 2014) it's slightly better, in terms of availability, as there is a
metro bus service. But the accommodation for the bus routes is awful. It's
perpetually underfunded, the bus stops are often -- I am not joking -- in
ditches, no shelters at the stops, etc., etc. It's almost like the city has
gone out of its way to make it clear the bus is for "the poors." But what's
the fix? Decades upon decades of urban planning have reinforced this notion.
So... what is to be done about it?

In South Bay, I rented a tiny apartment (~650sqft) for, at the time, the
outrageous price of $1200/mo. This was ca. 2008. I'm told such units are much
higher now. In areas of such inflated housing prices, isn't suburbia supposed
to be a pressure valve? People move farther away from where they work and play
in exchange for lower housing costs? I am out of touch with the housing scene
in the Bay Area nowadays aside from the same articles everyone else gets on
HN, so my question is an honest one. But the author's disdain for suburbia --
supported by concrete reasons though it may be -- seems like it might not be
so strident if he were living elsewhere.

~~~
cowsandmilk
> In areas of such inflated housing prices, isn't suburbia supposed to be a
> pressure valve?

All of his definitions of suburbia apply to Portola Valley, which I would
never describe as being a pressure valve on inflated housing prices[1] in
South Bay.

[1] [https://www.redfin.com/CA/Portola-Valley/16-Santa-Maria-
Ave-...](https://www.redfin.com/CA/Portola-Valley/16-Santa-Maria-
Ave-94028/home/21618945)

~~~
mattdeboard
Did you mean to link to empty land plot? It's beautiful though, but doesn't
look like what is being discussed in article.

------
fiatmoney
Suburbia allows you to ensure that your neighbors are able to afford to buy,
rather than rent, a minimum quantity of land & construction (and usually
therefore have a large amount of their net worth locked up in the value of
that property), that they can afford transportation to and from wherever the
nearest commercial center is, tends to limit population flows, and insulates
the neighborhood from anyone who doesn't have their own independent
transportation.

This selects for a higher quality of neighbor, which has positive
externalities (eg, "Good Schools" and low crime rates) that balance the
obvious costs. Alternate legal mechanisms for enforcing these constraints have
been banned, so we use the zoning code and make a lot of theoretically neutral
noise about Property Values.

~~~
caoilte
That's a really long-winded way of saying redlining ;-).

~~~
fiatmoney
"Redlining" is a specific practice that has been banned for decades.

------
phd514
I used to live on the UES of Manhattan and now live in flyover country on a
half-acre wooded lot in a house that is 6x larger than my studio apartment and
yet costs less -- the extra space is quite useful for kids and a work-from-
home office. There are pros and cons to both arrangements and I certainly miss
some things that NYC had to offer, but articles like this exaggerate the
advantages of city living. Other comments have pointed out some of them, so
I'll point out just one item -- the geographic proximity of rich and poor in
cities is way overblown. There may have been poor people living within a
couple hundred yards of luxury apartments in NYC, but that doesn't mean there
was any interaction between them. NYC is very stratified by socioeconomic
status and living geographically close to people in other socioeconomic
classes does not change that at all.

------
terda12
I agree. I live in suburbia and I feel like I'm slowly choked out of my
humanity. Can't wait to move to a damn city or somewhere with more density.
America's suburbia was designed for cars and cars only.

Here's an anecdote. My little brother has after school band practice 30 mins
drive away. What does he do after school? He can't walk home, so he has to
wait for me to pick him up. He can't go out to a movie with his friends
because it would involved several parents taking the time out of work to send
his friends there, and pick them up. He can't walk home or ride the subway
because it's a freaking sprawl of highways. Bus stations are few and far
between, and hugely unreliable. Instead all he knows is the highway that
connects the school to home, and relies on my driving instead of his own two
legs to get him home. I wonder why Americans are obese, hmm.

I watch animes that depict life in Tokyo. There is never a car involved. Kids
just walk home after school, walking to a restaurant with their friends if
they feel like it, hitting up a local 7-11. They can explore the local park,
go to the movie theater, walk home with their friends if its on the same way.

I've stayed in Paris for 2 weeks and could literally walk everywhere. It's
amazing how good it feels to see a cool gelato shop in yelp, proceed to take
the subway with a bunch of strangers, walk a bit to the gelato shop, buy my
gelato, and sit in a nearby coffee shop eating it. And want to check out some
comic books? There's a comic book shop around a mile away, let's walk there.

People were not meant to live in suburbia. We are a social creature, we need
to belong in a tribe, not a single home separate from the world.

~~~
coned88
On the other hand if he was allowed to walk home your parents would likely be
arrested for child abuse.

~~~
terda12
You realize children walk home from school all over the world right? This
isn't something new.

~~~
coned88
not in America anymore.

~~~
terda12
There's a local elementary school nearby, I see kids walk home from school
everyday. I'm not sure where you are pulling that data from. A young teenager
can walk/bike home by him/herself relatively safely in most of America. Or are
we just living in a world where a bit of hardship on a kid is "child abuse"
now?

~~~
crimsonalucard
8 year olds and ten year olds use to walk all over the city in the 1970s and
80s

------
ars
All (most of) those negatives you list I find to be positives.

I can't stand those "charming" dense, oppressive cities.

~~~
zyxley
Consider the New England states, where there are a lot of organically-
developed small towns that are low-density and low-population but still
reliably avoid most of the problems in the article.

------
ChicagoDave
I'd agree about the negative impact of suburbia for completely different
reasons. The culture created by it has the nature of a bubble where its
occupants don't ever interact with anyone "different". Clothes, jobs,
mannerisms, jokes, religions, activities, food...are all the same.

This dulls people's sense of empathy in a considerable and damaging way.
Instead of being able to think critically and with empathy, suburbia drives
people to view all of their sameness as a "good thing".

We need to break these bubbles, redraw our towns and cities with integrated
services, focused on walking, biking, and as little driving internally as
possible. You car for should be intra-city travel. Not for going around a
fence to the grocery store that's 1000ft away.

~~~
criddell
> We need to break these bubbles, redraw our towns and cities with integrated
> services, focused on walking, biking, and as little driving internally as
> possible. You car for should be intra-city travel.

How about you live the way you want to live and let me live how I want to
live?

I choose living in the suburbs because that's where I'm happiest right now.
When I was younger, I loved the energy and action of the city. In my mid-40's,
I love the peace and community of my suburb although I suspect once self-
driving cars are within reach, I'm going to move even further away from the
city.

~~~
eropple
_> How about you live the way you want to live and let me live how I want to
live?_

If the price of living where you want to live factored in the significant
externalities of it, you might have a point. But suburban and exurban areas in
the United States largely _don 't_ pay their way with regards to most
governmental services (and have a significantly higher ecological footprint,
also not accounted for).

~~~
gozur88
I do not believe this is true. The way they arrive at such numbers is to
assume that a highway between San Francisco and Los Angeles is there for the
benefit of people in the Central Valley. It's not. There are significant
services built outside urban cores for the benefit of people in urban cores.

------
grecy
> _the predominant suburban design of the US of the worst features of life
> here, viewed from the perspective of a European immigrant like me,_

Really? As an immigrant, I always though the worst features of life in the US
are the 10x higher murder rate, millions of desperate people with no health
care, etc. and the crushing debt placed onto young people looking to educate
themselves.

I would change those things long before changing urban planning.

~~~
devdas
Quite a bit of the crime rate comes from suburban development, and the highway
system.

~~~
michaelbuddy
Yes of course. Suburbs and highways cause rape. Nice try.

------
MisterBastahrd
I've yet to read a single article about why surburbia sucks that would be
convincing to me as a better alternative than my life growing up in suburbia.
If I wanted to play in a field, I went to the field. If I wanted to explore
the woods, I went to the woods. Too far to walk? I had a bike, and a
skateboard. I didn't have to spend my life walking on pavement from concrete
box to concrete box, surrounded by indifferent adults... and just the idea of
it sounds positively suffocating to me.

~~~
abalashov
_I didn 't have to spend my life walking on pavement from concrete box to
concrete box, surrounded by indifferent adults_

I agree -- that sounds quite terrible indeed!

------
jcoffland
Suburbia, none of the benefits of the country with all the disadvantages of
living in the city.

~~~
KB1JWQ
I can see this. It tends to be the "safe" middle group between urban and rural
while having none of the benefits of either.

~~~
gozur88
I guess it all depends on what you want. From my perspective suburbia has all
the advantages of both without the disadvantages.

------
alkonaut
Seems a lot of the arguments is based around the fact that suburban
developments are poorly designed, not that the idea of suburban life is
flawed.

The "kids have nowhere to go unless their parents drive them" argument I don't
understand - is there something preventing a forest from being next to a block
of flats? The point of not living in the city for me is being closer to
nature. I live in suburbia because I (or my kids) can bike to the lake or walk
in the forest. I agree an endless sprawl of square blocks is a bad idea - but
developers and city planners surely realize that people aren't willing to pay
for non-city life unless it actually delivers the benefits of not living in a
city (space, possibility to walk, good air, low noise, safety, proximity to
nature).

~~~
zyxley
> Seems a lot of the arguments is based around the fact that suburban
> developments are poorly designed, not that the idea of suburban life is
> flawed.

Well, yeah. A well-designed area isn't "suburbia", it's "a small town that
happens to be adjacent to a larger city".

~~~
alkonaut
So the term is a sort of derogatory used only for badly designed sprawling
suburbs without proper access to e.g nature?

~~~
zyxley
"Suburbia" as a term in the US pretty definitionally includes single-family
homes on small plots, single-use zoning, homogenous family incomes and home
values, and a strict street hierarchy with culs-de-sac. Add all these up and
you tend to get 'bad design' by default. Remove these and you get something
resembling an organically developed small town instead of suburbs.

~~~
alkonaut
I see. Still don't understand why these zones, however badly designed, aren't
properly mixed with reasonably sized pockets of undeveloped land such as
forests. It would make the value much higher, make the environment better,
make people healthier and so on. It should be a no-brainer in terms of city
planning. It doesn't have to be organically grown "proper" suburbs. They just
have to be planned to get the same appeal.

------
andrewfromx
In case anyone wants to study the 12 points over and over again I wrote them
down:

1\. Single-use zoning

2\. Hierarchical traffic distribution

3\. Set-backs from the street & parking ratios

4\. Proximity does not mean pedestrian accessibility

5\. Economic segregation by building type.

6\. No street enclosure and definition

7\. Useless, ugly and wasted space

8\. Parking-first aesthetics, garage façades, no alleys, no interior yards

9\. No street life or visible human activity

10\. No public transport

11\. Improper interface between city and highway

12\. Lack of regional planning vision

------
ThePhysicist
A very interesting read about architectural patterns at various scales -from
the home itself to the city and agglomoration- is Christopher Alexander's "A
Pattern Language":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Pattern_Language)

It contains lots of good examples on why some spaces are livable and why
others are not. The book itself is a bit ideological but most of the described
patterns are really great and give you a good understanding of why e.g. rural
Italian or French villages have this nice vibe to them.

------
makecheck
The article lists a lot of major issues with suburbs, and I saw them all when
I used to live in one.

Something that wasn’t really mentioned is how utterly _boring_ some of the
everyday life choices are. And yet, because none of the choices necessarily
_sucks_ , people remain “just happy enough” and never really yearn for
anything better. I’m sure this setup is great for corporations but it is sad
for human beings. Just observe: I mean, _every single shopping center_ seems
to have nearly _exactly_ the same chain restaurants and a Starbucks…EVERY ONE!
And if by some miracle you do find something different, it is usually a
“choice” between Home Depot and Lowe’s or a “choice” between McDonald’s and
Wendy’s or something.

Plenty of variety still exists outside of suburbs. The problem is that for
people in suburbs, it would mean driving 45 minutes to even _reach_ the
alternatives, much less enjoy them regularly. And if you are averaging long
drives all the time to/from work or to do anything else, the last thing you
feel like you have time for is another long drive to experiment.

I felt it sucking my soul. Long drives expose you to more traffic which leads
to anger, etc. Driving wastes a _lot_ of money (cars are expensive even when
fuel is not high-priced). And I found myself slowly accumulating garbage to
fill a large space. Ultimately I felt that it was a lot more sane to live
smaller, in an “expensive” place closer to civilization. While it did cost a
lot more per square foot, I _saved_ money after not too long and I definitely
felt better. And I have more variety now.

~~~
bryanlarsen
According to Tyler Cowen, the best food in America is found in suburban strip
malls. It's found in ethnic restaurants that are in strip malls because the
rent is cheap and there's a pocket of their community in that same area.

------
esoteric_nonces
I like wide open spaces and I'd live in the forest with no-one around for
miles if I had the means and a suitable plot.

Land, or at least a small garden or garage (in order of decreasing
usefulness), is incredibly useful for woodworking, mechanical tinkering,
painting large objects, basically any sort of real world craft that's not
'micro'.

My social life is less important than the ability for me to sit on that bit of
land that's mine and do things that I want to do.

The urban equivalent of that seems to be going to find a specialist to do
whatever you want doing. Basically, urban living is capitalism embodied - you
can get some fantastic things done, better than you could ever do yourself,
but you're trading for it. And you have to take part in the economy too.

------
mruniverse
It seems like people like Suburbia. A lot of people buy houses and live in
Suburbia. Something seems to be right about it.

Maybe we should look at is popularity before saying it sucks. Try to figure
out why it's popular. What is going on there? That would be an interesting
read.

~~~
djrogers
> Maybe we should look at is popularity before saying it sucks. Try to figure
> out why it's popular. What is going on there? That would be an interesting
> read.

From what I've learned reading here today, I like suburbia because I'm one of
the closed-minded, bigoted sheep, and the only cure is for me to live in a
City.

See how well this works? If everything about suburbia is bad, and reinforces
the bad parts of human nature, they don't need to look any deeper...

------
jimbobimbo
Author compares apples and oranges though. The closes thing to a planned
communities ("hellholes" as people refer them to in this thread) are so called
"sleeper districts" in ex-USSR. Outskirts of towns, full of multi-storied
apartment buildings, all looking the same, with a large "univermag"
(supermarket) somewhere in the middle.

I used to live in Greater New York area and it's full of little towns like
Union, Springfield, Millburn that look and feel very close to the European
towns the author likes that much. Even Short Hills - the "sleeper district" of
the affluent East coast - looks amazingly good, and it's strictly residential.

The deeper South you go, the more planned neighborhoods are there. But saying
that "all US is like that" is a stretch.

~~~
abalashov
And yet, one did not need a driving licence to leave a "sleeper district", nor
were their streets (save for main arteries) built out as pedestrian-hostile
highways, and teenagers as well as adults had the same means to access the
rest of the city.

~~~
jimbobimbo
So, essentially, it's just easier to get in and out of the hellhole.

------
coned88
To me as somebody who was raised in NYC and still lives there. American
suburbia is just lovely.

I find nyc dead boring and claustrophobic. Yes there nice restaurants in the
city but how many times do you want to eat out? How many shows or do you go
to? How many of this and that.

That's the conclusion for me. Sure there are restaurants I'd like to visit. I
can commute to go eat once. I don't need to live there and once I have eaten
at all the good places (which takes a few weeks at most) you're done.

I'd hate for the suburbs to be undone. NYC is really not a pleasant place to
live. So many lunatics walking around and people have no concept of space.

~~~
notlisted
Hear hear! 19 years in NYC. Wife 'forced' me to move to the burbs, but having
tasted what life can be like you'd need to drag me back kicking and screaming
to _ever_ live there again. I laugh at those we left behind, who sincerely
inquire "but don't you miss NYC?". Nope. Not one bit. Meet up in the park
(because no back yard)? Join you for dinner at restaurant X (because no dining
room)? Ha!

Quality of life has improved tremendously. Family life: more activities
together, fewer dinners outside because we had to escape the small confines of
our 900 sqft 2Bd apartment. Social life: we actually have enough room to have
friends over… and they come. BBQs in the back yard. Potluck dinners with the
neighbors and their 3 kids. Friends who stick around, not friends who leave
because they can't keep up with the rent increase/job loss. Kids all go to the
same school, no need for private schools, no competition for "magnet schools".
No tiger parents.

Whenever we feel the need, less and less, we get a hotel room in NYC, go out
to dinner in those "hot little joints" (mostly overrated, cronuts anyone?).
Pure heaven, a 45min drive from the 'hustle and bustle'. Now if you'll excuse
me, I have to go mow my lawn and stare at the piliated woodpecker.

------
carsongross
If you would like this rant in book form, throwing in some well-deserved
broadsides at architects, I highly recommend:

[http://www.amazon.com/Geography-Nowhere-Americas-Man-Made-
La...](http://www.amazon.com/Geography-Nowhere-Americas-Man-Made-
Landscape/dp/0671888250)

I would also add the radical individualists of the 60s who made the cities
unlivable for families.

------
Mendenhall
Here I am trying to get even further into the rural and country setting with
far far less people lol.

I lived city and burbs and for me no comparison, as a kid we would go in the
woods outback and make explosives and set them off, try that in the city.
Endless bike rides with no adult supervision and wooded areas to disapear too.

No real traffic compared to when I lived in cities, way less ambulances waking
me up, gasp yes I like to sleep and dont want to hear the endless drone of
humans.

I enjoyed aspects of both city and suburb and completely understand people
having preference to either. I just feel this article is very biased by
personal preference, the tight closed in spaces he described sound like prison
to me but author obviously enjoys. There are very real issues with suburban
planning etc, but I find many(not all) who have issue with burbs are people
with some sort of political agenda attached to their dislike.

------
pieterhog
Suburbia kills us ADHD-people. Guess I'm not the only one here who sometimes
feels an urgent need to _move_. And what is more convenient than walking (or
biking) to the grocery store, your office, the metro tube, the bar or your
friends' house?

I grew up in Holland and Spain. No problem to walk or take a bicycle there.
I've lived in New York City and it was fine (better then Barcelona for running
and bicycle, because of cleaner air). But other US cities are just soooo
stretched you that you can not do it on a bicycle. Not to mention that time in
sone Canadian suburb when they called the police, for chrissake, because I
_walked on the pavement_. Normal person don't walk, only thieves do,apparently
?

Anyway, aren't suburbs "motion unfriendly" Is this changing nowadays? Now that
it's known that being outside, & moving makes many people feel good?

------
forrestthewoods
I can't possibly roll my eyes hard enough. But if the author thinks suburbia
is bad I'd hate to hear what he'd say about my rural upbringing.

Meanwhile I'd consider an urban upbringing the worst option. Give me rural
America for kids any day of the week. Suburbia works in a pinch. But dense
urban? Urgh, no thank you.

~~~
ZenoArrow
I don't think the same criticisms of suburbia apply to rural areas. The main
issue I personally have with suburbia can be summed up in one word; boredom.
Nothing interesting to see, not much that's interesting to do. Rural life on
the other hand is far better, the act of living rurally is engaging, and the
sights and sounds of nature are far more interesting than the sights of
identikit housing and the muffled sounds of suburbia.

I suspect you may dislike dense urban if you're associating it with places
that are run down and without good city planning. Good city planning
definitely includes parks and other open spaces, so it's not some monotonous
concrete jungle.

Let me put it to you like this, if you lived in Venice, what do you think you
would dislike about it?

~~~
to3m
The smell?

My main memories of visiting Venice (20 years ago...) were also: general lack
of greenery, not many open spaces, and a pervasive delapidated shabbiness.
Also, it's built on marshland. So I'm not sure the good city planning bit
applies either ;)

Also, constant churn of tourists... not sure how I'd feel about that as a
parent. But if I had one of those grand Venetian apartments I might be OK
about living there as an adult. The lack of greenery might end up a bit trying
however.

~~~
ZenoArrow
Okay, perhaps Venice wasn't the best example. How about Barcelona?

------
atemerev
As a European who likes cars and enjoys driving, during my visit to America I
have found all these planning choices charming and convenient. Except the need
of daily commuting, of course. It reduces the joy of driving to dull routine.
Why remote working is so unpopular, I don't know.

------
apenwarr
For a more nuanced view of this whole topic, I recommend the book The Death
and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs.
[https://www.amazon.ca/Death-Life-Great-American-
Cities/dp/06...](https://www.amazon.ca/Death-Life-Great-American-
Cities/dp/067974195X)

Many of the counterarguments in these comments (especially that smaller
cities, or rural areas, are fine even when American suburbs are not) are
actually reasonable, and Jacobs covers them in her book.

Since it's from 1961, you might think the insights would be dated, but they're
not. She was complaining even as these mistakes were being made, and it's
fascinating to read so many of her predictions that we can now say clearly
came true.

------
lordnacho
As someone who grew up in Europe, I've been to visit friends and relatives in
the US quite often.

Quite often I think what this guy writes.

Between the two coasts, there is a homogeneity of architecture that is quite
amazing for a European to watch. In Europe, it's quite noticeable where you
are, and everywhere has enough character that you can remember it. In the US,
stuff looks like SimCity.

I often ask, how did you guys (my cousins/friends) ever grow up here? When I
was a kid, there were football courts within walking distance. There were
larger grass fields in town that you could easily cycle to. If you met another
kid, you could take the bus, train or bike to hang out, and when you hung out,
you could move from place to place. Like ride out to a theme park north of
Copenhagen and then to the beach nearby, then to town centre for some fast
food and cinema. You could do that. When you're hanging around at home and get
hungry, you can go to a convenience store. Without driving.

When I look at a place like Boulder or Kenosha, I wonder how on Earth the kids
get around. Distances seem to be vast, and I didn't see a train line (they
must have them though?). I saw some buses, but not many. They looked like they
would take a while to get you anywhere, because I was driving and it took
ages. Also, at least in Colorado, there's vast areas that seem to have nothing
but prairie dogs. At least you have the mountains there.

I recall American classmates talking about hanging out at the mall. This was
always a curious thing for me, but when you go there it makes sense. Malls are
the only places that have a variety of offerings, within walking distance of
the next thing. You have to walk through a ridiculously sized car park, which
I guess means land is cheap. A multi-storey parking house would make more
sense otherwise. These huge car parks also mean that your drive to anywhere is
dominated by car parks, because even commercial zones that aren't huge malls
are kinda like malls anyway, just with a few shops next to each other.

And about those shops... the proliferation of chains contributed enormously to
the SimCity feel of the country. You can go anywhere and find the same brand
of everything. I haven't travelled much in the interior, but I got the
impression that pretty much everywhere that wasn't coastal was built in the
same way. Same low-rise, big car park in front, wide streets, no life.

Another issue with malls is they're a big landlord. Their incentives are not
towards having a bunch of independent little shops, each with their own little
complaints. It's much easier for them to say "hey {Starbucks/Sonoma-Williams/J
Crew/etc}, how about you rent a space in 12 of our malls?". And then a really
quite large area will get served with the same stuff.

By contrast, places like NYC, Chicago, DC, and SF seemed somewhat more
familiar. Thought SF was a bit weird though, as it needs to look more like
NYC. A peninsula is not that different from an island, especially when there's
hills. Instead you get low-rise quite centrally. Much has been written here on
the political economy of this.

~~~
bklimt
Chains like Starbucks and McDonald's are popular for a reason. They make
products people like. They have optimized for scale and cost. They provide
consistent product and service, especially when traveling.

In the medium-sized town where I grew up, we always loved it when a new chain
restaurant opened up in our town. They made us feel like we got the same
options as the big cities.

~~~
ZenoArrow
I understand the sentiment, it does feel good to know your town is 'on the
map' so to speak, but I do think there's something to be said for supporting
local businesses too.

To give an example, I grew up in a small city. We had a McDonalds, a Burger
King, etc... but we also had local burger places that made tastier burgers
than those from the big chains. I found those local burger places gave me more
pride in where I lived than just that we had what lots of other places had.

I guess what I'm saying is that local shops can add more to a sense of place
than the ubiquitous chains. Is that something you'd agree with?

------
todd8
This reminds me of those lists, like the Places Rated Almanac (which might be
more sophisticated now than it was years ago), where a list of criteria
demonstrates that a particular place (in this case the suburbs) is inferior to
other places. One can tick off a set of criteria and come up with a score or
this case a blog post demonstrating why a place is better than another.

I currently live is the suburbs of a city that wouldn't score high on these
kinds of lists, no balanced seasons--practically no winter and no easy access
to winter sports, no major league sports team, bad traffic, no major museums,
limited cultural opportunities compared to other big cities, escalating real
estate prices. These were actual categories in the Places Rated Almanac that
would make my city seem to be undesirable.

The problem with this approach and that of the blog "Why Suburbia Sucks" is
that everyone weighs the costs and benefits differently. A more realistic
title for the blog might be "Why Suburbia Sucks for Me, Right Now". (Or to
better suit it's tone, "Why Suburbia Sucks for Me and Why You Should Feel It
Sucks Too.) Is there a more objective or comprehensive way to assess Suburbia
(or the quality of life in a particular city)?

The answer is yes, simply watch what people do. I live in Austin, the fastest
growing city in the US this year according to Forbes and it has been fast
growing for many years. Why would people move here when it is so hot, has no
major league sports teams, requires a long trip to go skiing or to the beach,
and has bad traffic? People move here for a variety of reasons and they keep
moving here faster than they move away. Likewise, the suburbs have an appeal
that overcomes their disadvantages for other people. Other posters here have
already explained some of the important factors that make people want to live
in the suburbs.

My problem with the original blog post is that it seems to express a desire to
judge and decide what is best for others. Smart people often feel that if only
they had there hands on the steering wheel then the world would be a better
place. (Maybe they could make it a better place but maybe not.)

------
tptacek
If you like both the content and the tone of this post, you'll probably also
like Christopher Alexander's _A Timeless Way Of Building_ and _A Pattern
Language_, which has a similar tone and topic, but with a broader sweep.

------
fred_is_fred
The author of this story, who obviously has no kids, is confused as to why a
family of 4 might not want to live in an apartment over a bar in downtown.
That's my worst nightmare of life. I'll drive, thanks.

~~~
abalashov
I have a newborn and two young stepkids, and the five of us live in an
apartment downtown, but not over a bar. :-)

------
qaq
It's an age thing to an extent, I shared a lot of similar opinions (lived in
DC then in European large city from 20 to 37) and now enjoy living in a suburb
with my family and kids.

------
sndean
I grew in up the northern Virginia suburbs outside of Washington DC where
certain bike paths (the Washington and Old Dominion specifically) enabled my
friends and I to ride our bikes from farm fields in the west to downtown
Arlington/DC in the east.

It would take all day to do, we'd stop along the way at shops for food/drinks,
and it was amazing.

Because of that and other experiences, IMO suburbia is made for kids on bikes.

------
lunchTime42
Completely unrelated, but maybe not. If the problm of the suburb traffic
inspired the idea of the selfdriving car, so you can be productive while
beeing stuck in traffic- why are there no group-commuters, that take a larger
vehicle, so everyone can work ond the way, except for one driver, which can
cycle?

------
abalashov
Hi, author here. Just wanted to respond to a few broad themes I see in the
comments:

1\. "My neighbourhood isn't like that at all!"

My criticism was directed at the specific type of vacuous sprawl commonly seen
in new Sun Belt development. That's a mouthful to put in an article title, so
I tried to make the distinction clear in the article by referring repeatedly
to "older" and "traditional" neighbourhoods. I suspect this may be why the
term "sprawl" came about, i.e. to more accurately capture the sort of thing
I'm referring to.

I would be the first to agree that a lot of the more dense suburban
neighbourhoods found in the Northeast and around the older industrial cities
of America are more livable than what I'm describing. And certainly, not all
kids that grow up in suburban neighbourhoods, in cul-de-sacs or otherwise,
have a miserable and isolated experience. At the same time, an awful lot of
the USA looks like what I described.

By the same token, rural != suburban to my mind, even though some of the same
drawbacks are present in rural layouts. As I see it, suburbia is precisely
that which offers none of the advantages of either urban living or the
countryside, but the downsides of both.

2\. "If you don't like suburbs, don't live there. To each his own."

Yes, but 90%+ of the US looks like this, to varying degrees.

There is a widely disseminated idea out there that this is the organic outcome
of widespread social preference, a democratic coming-together of the citizenry
in a consensus on how they want to live in the land of the free. As evidence,
boosters of the phenomenon point to the fact that the majority of new building
embodies the paradigm I lambast.

It's just not true, though. In my experience, a large percentage of Americans
simply aren't familiar with what the alternatives would look like. More
importantly, there is enormous accumulated evidence that sprawl is an
engineered policy outcome to some degree. One need not be a kooky conspiracy
theorist to see that it's astronomically easier to get additional road-
building approved (and subsidised with matching federal funds) and that there
are lots of perverse legal and economic incentives for greenfield cookie-
cutter subdivision development versus urban infill.

Does that mean that everyone really clamours to live in urban settings deep
down inside? Of course not. Some people genuinely like suburbia as I've
described it--one can find abundant evidence of that in this discussion
thread. However, I do not at all buy into the notion that there is such an
overwhelming consensus in favour of that mode of life that almost all
inhabited areas of the US are built to suit. For the most part, there just
aren't many alternatives; it's amazing what humans can adapt to and put up
with. Zoning committees, planners and government agencies have made sprawl an
easy inertial default for a variety of historical reasons.

That's how this has turned into a broad quality of life issue that merits
broad, nationally scoped criticism. If suburban sprawl were confined to a
relative niche of enthusiasts, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

3\. "You're comparing ordinary towns with exceptionally beautiful and historic
European capitals!"

No, I'm not. My experience has been, however, that on their worst day,
profoundly second and third-tier European cities and towns are infinitely more
navigable and livable than the vast majority of the US.

4\. I would never dispute that European cities bring their own problems and
developmental antipatterns.

5\. For those who say I don't understand because I'm too young or don't have
kids: I'm 30 and have a 4 year-old, a 3 year-old, and a newborn.

------
Apocryphon
I have to wonder: do any of these pro-suburban commentators live in the Bay
Area? And if so, do they live in San Jose, Fremont, or Daly City? Or do they
live in San Francisco.

~~~
gozur88
I live in a Bay Area suburb and would not move to SF. Why do you ask?

------
forgotAgain
tl;dr I don't like the environment I've chosen to live in so that environment
sucks.

------
cjrjdjcjnf
So how's that war on suburban sprawl going in San Francisco? Oh right...

------
ozborn
I suspect many (perhaps most) of the people reading that article agree that
suburbia sucks - the tricky part is fixing it.

~~~
nathanasmith
>>I suspect many (perhaps most) of the people reading that article agree that
suburbia sucks - the tricky part is fixing it.

"Fixing" it by doing what? Making it more like the urban core? That place
already exists. If you like it then go live there. Obviously many people like
the lifestyle of living in the suburbs. There is room in this country for more
than one kind of neighborhood.

~~~
dietrichepp
I live in suburbia right now. I love to walk places—I walk to work, to the
store, etc. But my town seems to be built for cars, cars, cars. The exchange
with the interstate is huge, and takes forever to cross, by foot, because the
signal timing is designed for cars. Then I cross parking lots to get where I
want.

I like the idea of having stores with parking in back, having more equal
streets rather than privileged highway interchanges, etc. But in the meantime,
having the forest closer to me is not worth the cost of spending more time in
the concrete sprawl.

