
The end of neighbours - dfritsch
http://www.macleans.ca/society/the-end-of-neighbours/
======
design-of-homes
A UK perspective: over the past decade there has been an enormous growth in
the buy-to-let market and the UK is now overun by the worst type of property
owner: the buy-to-let (buy-to-rent) landlord or "property investor". They
treat housing as a pure profit-making exercise. When more and more homes in
your area get bought by property investors and buy-to-let landlords it can
have a detrimental effect (I've seen it happen to my street). The
neighbourhood feels more anonymous as people come and go more frequently.
Neither the absentee landlord or the tenants have a commitment to the area. If
buy-to-let comes to dominate a neighbourhood, can you ever build a community
around such a neighbourhood?

Buy-to-let is rampant in the UK. Other European countries sensibly restrict
it's growth or they enact strict tenancy laws to deter the worst type of buy-
to-let landord (UK laws are weighted in favour of landlords). In the UK, we've
lost any sense that housing has a social component.

I write a blog about housing in the UK and wrote about this topic five years
ago. Depressingly, the situation is even worse today.

[http://designofhomes.co.uk/016-damaging-effects-of-buy-to-
le...](http://designofhomes.co.uk/016-damaging-effects-of-buy-to-let.html)

~~~
rahimnathwani
Are you suggesting that people shouldn't have the flexibility to move easily
if they get a new job/partner or have a change in circumstances? That's what
happens if every home must be owner-occupied and there isn't a liquid rental
market.

I moved to China a few years ago. I am glad that I was able to let my flat (to
responsible tenants who have paid the rent on time for >3 years) and that I
was able to rent an apartment in Beijing. Selling my flat in London and buying
one on Beijing would have been impossible and, even if it had been possible,
why should I invest in a property in Beijing just because I want to live here
for a few years? And why should I sell my flat in London?

EDIT: s/chance/change

~~~
cynicalkane
The economic middle road is to penalize the externality. If a community is
concerned about non-resident property owners, they might consider taxing them
at a higher rate and longer-term full-time residents at a lower rate. I don't
know if there's anywhere that actually does this, however.

~~~
rahimnathwani
In the UK, there is no capital gains tax (CGT) on the sale of your 'principal
private residence', i.e. the place where you live. So, yes, non-resident
property owners are already taxed differently.

~~~
cynicalkane
If UK taxes work like US taxes, then the community in question doesn't capture
this externality (it goes to the state/Feds), so that's small comfort to them.

~~~
rahimnathwani
Taxing an externality can change behaviour, and the impact is not diminished
even if you just burn the cash, rather than redistributing it.

(Unless you're taxing carbon emissions, in which case burning the cash would
obviously contribute to the problem.)

------
scoofy
Good to see they finally point the finger at what is fairly certainly the
culprit: the automobile.

When i lived in NYC, i knew most of my neighbors. Why? because we literally
bumped into each other coming in and out of the building. When you have a
common destination (subway, bus, market, etc), it's nice to have someone to
chat with, but when your commute is in an automobile, you never get a chance
to ask. Living room, garage, automobile, parking lot, destination.

With automobiles, there is no opportunity to, say, bump into your neighbor and
ask, and then follow up with quickly knocking on your neighbor's door to see
if they are still interested in joining you. Without those quick
opportunities, relationships cannot form. Without relationships forming, it's
culturally awkward to ask directly.

The single occupancy automobile, and the decentralized suburbia that formed
around it are very probably central to many of the ills detailed in the
article.

~~~
nsxwolf
My suburban neighborhood consists of single family homes on roughly quarter-
acre lots. I "bump in" to my neighbors a lot when we're in our front yards.
But I hate the "stop and chat", so when I see a neighbor outside I employ the
following strategies to avoid neighbor contact:

\- Driving into the garage and lowering the garage door even when I really
wanted to park in the driveway

\- Peeking through blinds to see when my neighbors go back inside

\- Getting into my SUV from the passenger side so they can't see me through
the smoked glass

\- And more!

~~~
scoofy
Why do you hate chatting? I can understand if one of your neighbors is
annoying, but my point is that if you weren't driving, you'd certainly know
more than just the annoying one next door, and you almost certainly get a kick
out of dogging him with the person on the other side of his house.

If not, hey, there's always one or two annoying neighbors, and if you can't
find them, it's probably you.

~~~
nsxwolf
I really don't know! I just get this deeply uncomfortable feeling when I see
that I'm going to have to have some kind of unplanned interaction with them.
I'm not a terribly shy person, there's just something about the neighbor
encounter.

~~~
sliverstorm
If you get to know them better, will you feel less anxious?

~~~
nsxwolf
Possibly, but I think maybe it's that I like social interactions to be on my
terms or anticipated ahead of time.

------
kilroy123
My entire adult life, I haven't known any of my neighbors, until recently.

One day about 8 months ago, we got a note on the door from new neighbors. They
were having a "floor party" and invited everyone on the floor to their place.

Almost everyone on the floor, reluctantly went to the party expecting it to be
awkward. We all ended up drunk and hanging out until 2 am. Turns out, pretty
much everyone on the floor was a 20-30 something couple.

Flash forward to last night, we all had dinner together on the roof, and
celebrated someones birthday. I'm close friends with a few of them.

Point is, someone just has to take the initiative. I'm now embarrassed I
didn't do it sooner, as I'd live here for 3 years.

~~~
pge
To me, this is the key - someone has to take the initiative. Once you realize
that everyone is in the same boat; being that person can be uncomfortable but
incredibly rewarding. Invite everyone over. Someone has to do it, and everyone
else will be grateful.

~~~
tacoman
I live in a newish neighbourhood. There were about 8 households that moved in
within the same 2 months. One couple decided to have a get-together and put
flyers in mailboxes (in January in Canada). 10 years later, some of the people
I met that night have become my best friends. The folks that took the
initiative are long gone, but what they did for the neighbourhood with that
one leaflet has had a real impact.

------
prestadige
Communities, rife as they were with gossip, ostracism and superstitious
cruelty, were always based on mutual _need_ , not on acting out some
supposedly gene-based pantomime. I daresay when the next drought or plague
comes along I will get to know my neighbours and we'll pull together for
mutual support.

~~~
aedocw
Honest question - why would you wait until the next draught or plague to get
to know your neighbors well? Why not start getting to know them today, before
you "need" them?

~~~
cylinder
Honest question - why is it considered so inherently important to spend time
with your neighbors? I don't understand why I'm supposed to have a natural
connection to certain individuals just because we chose to live in the same
area. If my social circle consists of people who don't happen to live on my
street, is that so bad? We don't really need to worry about having someone to
come check up on us from next door because modern communication has extended
our reach far beyond our own street.

I've never really been comfortable getting to know my neighbors. I feel like
they see and hear too much about my private life as it is, it's actually
awkward for me to see my neighbors.

~~~
sliverstorm
It's not supposed to be a natural connection. But it's much easier to kill
time with people who live close by.

I don't know about you, but I find watching a movie or sitting around a fire
with my neighbors far more therapeutic than text messaging on my phone.

~~~
nine_k
You have time and have nothing better to do with it than to _kill_ it? My
condolences. Try having kids; it rids you of free time quite well! :)

Really, with current online life, people have contact less with random
strangers and more with like-minded or otherwise interesting individuals. If
in an [abstract] countryside you have to talk to you neighbors because there's
no one else around, on the Internet the choice is wider.

OTOH your neighbors _may_ be nice and interesting people; some of my neighbors
are. Also you might have some local common interest, or could e.g. lend power
tools or kitchen utensils to each other sometimes.

~~~
sliverstorm
You miss the point. I'd rather share a fire with living people, than a glowing
screen. Even if those people are less witty than the glowing screen.

Not to mention the internet tends to form echo chambers. It's good to meet
people who are _not_ like-minded...

~~~
cylinder
It's not about staring at the screen. It's about using that screen to contact
your friends who live beyond your street to come over and sit around your
fire.

People forget that 100 years ago that wasn't really an option.

~~~
sliverstorm
Friends who live twenty minutes away are far less likely to join on a casual
and/or routine basis.

BTW, the telephone was invented nearly 200 years ago. Although, yes, travel
options were more limited.

------
wbillingsley
The article seriously misrepresents the Australian sociologist and the
community response to the Queensland floods.

Here's the Australian sociologist's article (you can find both quotes in the
piece, but quite out of context): [http://theconversation.com/do-you-know-
your-neighbour-lendin...](http://theconversation.com/do-you-know-your-
neighbour-lending-a-hand-and-the-queensland-floods-4144)

The sociologist describes the community response to the floods as

    
    
       "the overwhelming message that flowed from events like the 
        floods in Queensland and Victoria last year was one of neighbours,
        friends and even strangers rallying to assist flooded residents in 
        their hour of need
    
        As the waters rose, neighbours banded together to sandbag each others’ 
        homes and move possessions to higher ground. Once they receded, 
        information, food, homes and equipment were freely shared. Observers 
        lauded the spirit of community that prevailed.
    
        So, why are neighbours still there when needed even if their noise, 
        smells and habits are cause for complaint the rest of the time?"
    

But what does Brian Bethune summarise the article as?

    
    
       "An Australian sociologist investigating community responses in the 
        wake of the 2011 floods in Queensland found relations in “a precarious 
        balance”; neighbours were hesitant to intrude even in emergencies—leading 
        the scholar to conclude that “we are less likely than ever to know” our 
        neighbours."
    

Which is quite the opposite. The sociologist was investigating the contrast --
a tremendous community response in an emergency, when we're more private than
ever the rest of the time. But Brian Bethune make it sound like she was
bemoaning a poor community response to an emergency.

------
ashwinaj
I don't think the point of the article is to go and become "pinky swear"
friends of your neighbors (which seems to me that most comments here are
alluding to). I just don't get the aversion of neighbors in the Western world.
Sure there are annoying neighbors, but if everyone claims that their neighbor
is annoying (with whatever criteria that may be) isn't there something wrong
with you? Having an active social life is not the same as having meaningful
relationships with people (NOT activity partners:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7632094](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7632094)).

------
giardini
This happens in condominiums. Condominiums were originally intended to be
owner-occupied dwellings. Once the owner moves out without selling and rents
the unit, things go awry. That's why, as written, most condo agreements are
very burdensome upon owners who try to rent (high deposits for rental, long
leases required, background checks to condo owners' association, etc).

This can be corrected in the case of condominiums by adding a clause to the
condominium agreement mandating that owners occupy the unit and disallowing
rentals. Perhaps, in the case of a neighborhood association, the same
restriction could be applied (but not likely at any time other than the
creation of the neighborhood).

------
npsimons
To me, this seems to ring true - growing up I knew our neighbours (and so did
my parents), but now I can't name any of my neighbours. The problem seems to
me to be one of a disconnect, or different priorities: I have hobbies, things
I love to do, and as far as I know (because I don't know my neighbours), my
neighbours don't share in those interests. Given a choice between spending
time with people I have nothing in common with (besides geographical location)
and pursuing my preferred activities, I choose the latter. This is also why I
don't know many of my co-workers very well.

------
archagon
Related: the previous HN discussion on "human-scale" cities.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8090190](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8090190)

------
lutusp
A quote from the article: "We have evolved for it, to the extent that those
surrounded by a tight-knit group of friends who regularly gather to eat—and,
crucially, gossip—live an average of 15 years longer than loners."

A = alive 15 years longer than the average.

B = meets friends and gossips.

The claim, made by a psychologist (of course), fails to take into account the
fact that correlation doesn't equal causation. It may be that some unexamined
factor C causes people to (B) meet and gossip, and (A) live longer as well.
Meaning before we change our lifestyle with the expectation of a longer life,
we should first do some actual science.

~~~
groby_b
And before we roll out Internet tropes about correlation and causation, maybe
we should first read the underlying studies.

The article fails horribly by not quoting any of them, but here's a good
starting point:
[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3402200381.html](http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3402200381.html)

Or, if you want a list from the guy who did the initial investigations into
the phenomenon, start here:
[http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile/478/James_S_Hous...](http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/people/profile/478/James_S_House)

I'm _far_ from an expert on the topic, but from what I read, a causal
relationship is at the least very strongly implied.

~~~
lutusp
> I'm far from an expert on the topic, but from what I read, a causal
> relationship is at the least very strongly implied.

Scientists don't imply cause-effect relationships, they demonstrate them,
using evidence, to the exclusion of alternatives. Then they offer an
explanation -- a theory about the evidence. These properties are rarely
present in psychological studies, especially the explanation requirement.

Here's an example. Let's say I'm a doctor who believes he has cured the common
cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the patient until he's all
better. My cure always works -- it's perfectly reliable, even though it
sometimes takes a week. So, where's my Nobel Prize? I've met the same evidence
requirement the linked article does, and the latter is being described as
science.

> ... the guy who did the initial investigations into the phenomenon ...

It's not a phenomenon, it's an observation, one without any effort to explain
it or demonstrate a cause-effect relationship.

> And before we roll out Internet tropes about correlation and causation,
> maybe we should first read the underlying studies.

After reading the original work, one is left with the same impression the
linked article provides -- a description without an explanation, and no effort
to meet the evidence required to move from a correlation to a cause-effect
relationship.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the
easiest person to fool." \-- Richard P. Feynman

~~~
groby_b
> Scientists don't imply cause-effect relationships, they demonstrate them,
> using evidence, to the exclusion of alternatives.

You mean like Einstein did with the theory of relativity? Oh. Wait. That was
only proven 30+ years later by Ives–Stilwell.

You mean like String Theory is completely proven to the exclusion of
alternatives? Oh. Wait. It isn't.

Science observes, formulates hypotheses, and then falsifies or shows them to
be true. It is never "to the exclusion of alternatives", or we'd be done with
science by now. It is about forming the model that best fits the world, given
our current knowledge.

> I've met the same evidence requirement the linked article does, and the
> latter is being described as science.

The "linked artice" is journalism, not science. Try following up on the links
in there, to the actual science.

> one without any effort to explain it or demonstrate a cause-effect
> relationship.

You didn't read any of the papers, did you?

> After reading the original work, one is left with the same impression the
> linked article provides

Ah. You digested 35 years of research, and found no evidence? Or you skimmed
the overview I provided, and chose to not further investigate?

Yes, there is no clear mechanism, yet. That's because we don't understand
psychology well enough to always define clear mechanisms. That's what science
is about - furthering our understanding.

The work on establishing actual causal pathways is still going on, and
probably will for quite a while. The metastudies indicate that research is
doing a decent job to control for other factors, and still reproduces nicely.

~~~
lutusp
> You mean like Einstein did with the theory of relativity? Oh. Wait. That was
> only proven 30+ years later by Ives–Stilwell.

You're registering agreement with my point. Or didn't you notice? No one
accepted relativity until it was confirmed by experiment.

> You mean like String Theory is completely proven to the exclusion of
> alternatives? Oh. Wait. It isn't.

Notwithstanding its popular name, string theory is not a scientific theory,
it's a conjecture without an empirical basis.

> Science observes, formulates hypotheses, and then falsifies or shows them to
> be true.

Yes to the first, no to the second. Science never proves anything true, only
false. This idea was perhaps best expressed by philosopher David Hume, who
said, "No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that
all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient
to refute that conclusion."

> The "linked artice" is journalism, not science.

So science journalism is free from the responsibilities of science itself? If
that were true, it wouldn't be either possible or responsible to call it
science journalism.

> Ah. You digested 35 years of research, and found no evidence? Or you skimmed
> the overview I provided, and chose to not further investigate?

There is no demonstrated cause-effect relationship, it's a correlation. If
there were evidence for a cause-effect relaitonship, it would have been
included even in the popular accounts.

> You didn't read any of the papers, did you?

This is what you think constitutes scientific debate? If the evidence existed,
you would be linking to it rather than arguing in bad faith.

> Yes, there is no clear mechanism, yet. That's because we don't understand
> psychology well enough to always define clear mechanisms. That's what
> science is about - furthering our understanding.

Psychology isn't science, and until it tries to explain what it has until now
merely described, that status won't change.

> The metastudies indicate that research is doing a decent job to control for
> other factors, and still reproduces nicely.

If reproducing unexplained results constituted science, astrology would be a
science.

------
bdkoepke
Ugh, seems like another article that derives causation from correlation.

Specifically: "We have evolved for it, to the extent that those surrounded by
a tight-knit group of friends who regularly gather to eat—and, crucially,
gossip—live an average of 15 years longer than loners."

Perhaps the reason that people with a large group of friends live much longer
is that people who are in better health tend to have more active social lives.
If you have some sort of disorder or are extremely obese could it be that
you're less likely to be able to spend time with lots of other people?

~~~
Houshalter
I assume the researchers were smart enough to think of that. Don't judge a
study based on a one sentence description from a journalist.

~~~
bdkoepke
I was commenting more on the way that the journalist portrayed the research
than the research itself.

Another example: "But, however powerful the economic and social forces behind
the disappearing neighbour—and however positive many of its results—according
to reams of new research, the transformation is also poisoning our politics
and, quite literally, killing us."

These are the kinds of articles that cause people to have an anti-science
attitude. "One week coffee is good for me and the next week it causes cancer".
It also makes it very difficult to address these kinds of problems because you
have one side where people are running around like chicken little and another
side that may actually agree that the issues is a problem but they have much
more moderate solutions than the majority.

------
Systemic33
As many people have already said, the article seems to jump to a conclusion
rather quickly.

What the author might not have taken into account is cultural changes in
living habits. With that I mean how we are increasingly moving away from our
parents home, and into our own little cell/room/apartment, instead of living
with the parents in the house or in an attached building. And when people did
move out, it would more than often be either because you moved into a
dormitory (which previously were more communal) or together with a SO. That
means more time spent in the neighbourhood, and more time with the middle ring
as it's called in the article.

It could be interesting to compare the situation in america with for example
the situation in Italy, where it's more common to stay at the parents for
longer.

------
clarkmoody
Since we're living around like-minded individuals but subjected to top-down
centralized lawmaking, there is a large disconnect between what's happening in
our backyard, in the state capital, and in Washington. Often the City Council
office is out of touch with one part of the city or another, imposing rules on
all that about half disagree with.

The federal system in America is supposed to emphasize differences in the
states, and to some extent it still does. But Washington has been taking more
power away from the states for the last ~100 years or so. This leads to large
Washington-imposed mandates forced upon the states and upon the people, which
leads to hostility.

Perhaps it's time to embrace the burbclave model from _Snow Crash_?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
I still think one of the causes of the federal over-expansion was to make
Senators popularly elected rather than appointed by state legislatures.

The point of the Senate was to create a check by the states on federal power.
Now it's just an incentive for lower population states to expand the federal
government since they have disproportionate representation in directing who
the expansion benefits.

~~~
_delirium
I think there are a few other reasons:

1\. National businesses in many cases (though not all) want uniform
regulations to ease doing business. So they lobby for federal preemption of
state regulations. For example, car manufacturers don't want to have to meet
50 separate safety codes in order to sell cars nationwide, so they
successfully lobbied for a federal code with express state preemption.
Advocates of tort reform often have similar motivations: a key proposal of
tort reform is to federalize product liability, because manufacturers dislike
the current system where litigation will always end up being initiated in the
most plaintiff-friendly county of the most plaintiff-friendly state.

2\. The last time state vs. federal power came to the point of an outright
test of strength, the federal government won. And what's worse for the states,
its victory has in retrospect been very popular, which has done quite a bit to
boost the popularity of federalization and stigmatize the slogan "states'
rights". JFK sent troops to Alabama in 1963, removed the governor's control
over the state national guard, and imposed federal law by force; and nowadays
most people think he did the right thing.

3\. People move around a lot, which makes it increasingly impractical to deal
with things like social security or Medicare at the state level, when you
might be born in one state, work in three others, and retire in a fifth. (This
one is becoming a problem in Europe, too, and will probably lead to some kind
of EU-standardized "portable pension" scheme in the medium-term future. An EU-
wide health card has already been created, though its terms are not yet
standardized.)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> National businesses in many cases (though not all) want uniform regulations
> to ease doing business. So they lobby for federal preemption of state
> regulations.

Very few of the regulations in that nature are the ones people are complaining
about. The objectionable things largely fall into the categories of things
that cost a lot in blood and treasure, put poor and middle class people in
prison or erect regulatory barriers to competition and entrepreneurship.

> The last time state vs. federal power came to the point of an outright test
> of strength, the federal government won.

The federal government always wins. They have more soldiers than anyone else.
Winning and being right are not the same thing and being right sometimes is
not an excuse to claim unchecked power.

> People move around a lot, which makes it increasingly impractical to deal
> with things like social security or Medicare at the state level, when you
> might be born in one state, work in three others, and retire in a fifth.

Problem solved by internet. There is no reason that four states can't deposit
the retirement income you're due into your bank account in a fifth. And people
retiring in a place far from where than they've lived is something to be
discouraged from a social welfare standpoint in any event.

~~~
_delirium
> erect regulatory barriers to competition and entrepreneurship

Ah, so federal preemption is okay when it's good for businesses' profits (e.g.
overriding state environmental and product-safety laws), but bad when it's bad
or businesses' profits (e.g. imposing environmental or product-safety laws)?
Sounds like policy-biased "federalism", not principled federalism.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
You're just talking about two different things. The purpose of the commerce
clause is to allow the federal government to preempt protectionist state laws,
but that doesn't exempt the federal regulations from having to be reasonable
and not impede competition or entrepreneurship.

Allow me to make an important distinction. Environmental regulations can be
expensive, because you might have to pay more for energy if you can't burn
dirty fuels. Environmental regulations can be expensive, because a small
business may need to hire a team of lawyers they can't afford, or fulfill
bureaucratic requirements that make no logical sense. The first cost may be
inevitable if we want to be able to breathe clean air. The second cost is
totally inexcusable and is to be exterminated whenever discovered.

------
smokey_the_bear
I wonder how many of the people commenting on this thread have families. I
grew up on a cul-de-sac where we knew everyone. Then I lived in a series of
apartments through my 20s and had no neighborly contact. But we bought a house
in a family friendly neighborhood to start our family, and we have fantastic
neighbors. Block parties, babysitting exchanges, toddler brunches, active
mailing list, etc.

Perhaps people just seek out the community when they need it.

------
CamperBob2
This article contains lots of definitive-sounding statements that not only
lack the ring of objective truth that they're presented with, but would be
considered offensive in other contexts. People are different, and those
differences should, when possible, be respected. Some people are homosexual,
some are members of racial minorities, some are members of unpopular cultures
and religions... and some are natural hermits.

------
l33tbro
I was moving furniture last night. In the rain. Pissing down. Had one friend
with me hauling stuff from van to doorstep. My 'neighbour', who I've never
met, simply stood on his doorstep (our houses touch one another) and didn't
even say 'hi', let alone ask if we needed a hand.

Was I pissed at this? I thought it was a little rude. But on reflection, I
don't really care too much. In fact, I prefer it this way. I like choosing my
friends and have a diverse cast of hand-picked co-conspirators in my life. So
I enjoy that, today, I am no longer geographically obligated to make chit-chat
to this uncouth guy next door.

This is what this article misses. It directly correlates the old archetype of
a buzzing neighbourhood with the issue of loneliness and it's health impacts.
It's a false pretense that the article was written on, and it conforms to the
Luddite pandering to 'the good old days before computer' that at one point it
actually mocks.

I'm sure if the guy next doors house was on fire, I'd help him out. But I can
live with the idea of him not coming around to borrow a cup of flour.

~~~
samscully
I have seen people in my neighbourhood (Bermondsey in London, UK) struggling
with luggage twice, luggage that was clearly far too much for them to carry on
their own. Both times I offered to help them take it from the train station to
wherever they were going. The first time the man accepted my help, the second
time the woman politely declined.

Even the first time I detected an uneasiness, partly because we were strangers
of course, but also I got the sense that the man was very wary of putting on
me at all. Perhaps because people like not having obligations towards their
neighbours it feels wrong to accept help and thus set up an expectation of
reciprocisity. Maybe this then leads to not offering help because it is
assumed it will be refused?

London is a particularly atomised place of course, back home I think I would
have got a very different response.

------
futuravenir
I believe that if we start helping each other in close proximity, we increase
our self-confidence and neighborhood security all while building social
capital.

I am working on an open-source hyperlocal Craigslist-style solution to the
neighborhood dilemma with JoatU :
[http://github.com/joatuapp](http://github.com/joatuapp)

~~~
mikeytown2
[https://nextdoor.com/](https://nextdoor.com/) seems to filling that niche
pretty well in my neighborhood; almost all my co-workers who own a house use
it as well.

~~~
futuravenir
It's definitely a step in the right direction and fulfills the neighborhood
aspect. I have a different idea in mind for what I'm building; I want to see a
participative economy built from the ground up.

~~~
mikeytown2
Something like [http://timebanks.org/](http://timebanks.org/)?

~~~
futuravenir
Yes, but with a democratically generated currency to collaboratively benefit
the community.

------
mathattack
Is this that different than Bowling Alone?
[http://bowlingalone.com/](http://bowlingalone.com/)

I've spent the past 5 years in the same apartment. I've had immediate
neighbors on both sides switch at least 4 times. After getting to know the
first two, we stopped bothering. And now it's our turn to move. It's very
different from where I grew up, where somebody moving from the block was very
big news, and only happened every few years.

The main difference is that this connection has moved on-line. My high
school's reunions have gone downhill because everyone can communicate on
Facebook. I have connections of classmates and shared hobbyists across the
country facilitated by technology. Yes we are losing place-based connections
in much of the country, but is that really such a bad thing if it's replaced
elsewhere?

------
onedev
[https://nextdoor.com/](https://nextdoor.com/) is trying to help bring back
that sense of community that this article talks about us losing. I think if
something like this can help us get a cursory relationship with our neighbors,
then that could potentially develop into something deeper and more meaningful
and facilitate more offline interaction as well.

~~~
lotharbot
looks like it could be beautiful, but I'd really prefer being able to at least
browse some of what's being talked about in my neighborhood before signing up.

~~~
onedev
The premise is that each neighborhood and the conversation contained within it
is completely private to the neighbors.

Since every neighbor is completely verified, you can be 100% sure the person
you're talking to is who they say they are. That's why you need to sign up in
order to use the service.

------
wehadfun
Nieghbors have caused so many problems that people don't want them. Google
"HOA hell" for more info.

~~~
guyzero
Neighbours and HOAs are two completely different things. I'm not sure what
your point is in conflating them.

~~~
legohead
they are different "things" but still related. HOAs tell you what you can and
cannot do. who created those rules? the people of the neighborhood at some
point in time.

I want to paint my house green -- NOPE, neighbors #3, 5, 16, and 20 think
green is stupid, and since nobody else had anything to say about it at the
rules meeting, I can't do it.

when I moved to into my house we were thrown right between two feuding houses.
and as it turns out, the disagreement in place affected us as well (about
children playing outside). we ended up leading the fight at the HOA meetings
while others, who had voiced their support to us directly and said they would
show up, didn't show up. long story short, old lady got sent to the hospital
over the stress of the situation, and we won. but there's a happy ending -- we
became good friends with old lady, she has married and moved on :)

------
clarkmoody
The article seems to dog on the suburbs as a big part of the problem. Is there
any breakdown of the polling that shows that people in denser areas know their
neighbors any better? Controlling for occupation / income level would
highlight differences in neighborliness against population density.

~~~
Systemic33
I would hazard a guess that its more common in apartments to be socially
distant. Because you are far more likely to get annoyed by the neighbour being
noisy, you don't have any windows to interact through with them (eg. waving)
and most important (imo) of all: you can't just talk in the hallway/stairway
the same way you do in a garden or across a fence. And actually entering
someones quarters is probably a lot more socially taxing than just stading in
their garden.

What do you reckon?

~~~
clarkmoody
I don't really know what to expect, that's why I'd like to see details in the
polling.

On the one hand, living in a denser part of the city, you might walk around
more and see people on your way. But many people just plug in headphones and
look at their phone while walking.

On the other hand, your points stand out as to why living in multi-family
homes might be taxing on community-building.

------
elwell
After spending last week at my grandparents' North Carolina mountain house, I
was encouraged to find they regularly have neighbors over for dinner. I must
admit, I only know one of my neighbors' names at my apartment in LA.

------
monksy
When I lived in NC I never knew ANY of my neighbors. When I moved to Chicago I
met all of my neighbors except for one. [That one lives above me and I'm
pretty sure everyone in the building hates them.]

------
galfarragem
Few days ago I wrote a comment praising HN community
([http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8159956](http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8159956))
but unfortunately now I have to make the opposite:

This comments page shows us the dark side of HN community.

There are comments here that completely depressed me and revealed not an
introverted but an anti-social personality among some HN users. I am/was also
anti-social but I make/made some effort to get out from there. I'm not judging
anyone but this side of HN is not a bright one.

edit: I knew that I would be downvoted but I consider that I'm doing the right
thing speaking about this.

~~~
chippy
The actual article describes some of the reasons why. The comments reflect
that yes, the article does describe the actions. I suggest that it is not "a
dark side" of the HN community - rather a frank discussion about life, the
good and the bad.

------
bgruber
if this bothers you, meetup is hiring:
[http://www.meetup.com/jobs/](http://www.meetup.com/jobs/)

------
erikpukinskis
The goal of capitalism is to systematically disconnect us from every thing we
need so it can be sold back to us.

Neighbor are free, so they have to go.

------
shimshim
what if you truly don't care to know your neighbors? personally, i could care
less and would most rather live miles away from everyone.

~~~
bdunbar
I'd argue that if one _does_ have neighbors it's in your best interests to at
least be on a first-name basis with them.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Akrasia is an unique human trait that is acting against one's better judgment.

Of course theoretically it would benefit me to know my neighbors, I don't. And
I won't, I'm reluctant talking to people when it's possible to avoid.

And given that none of my neighbors ever wanted to know anything about me - it
seems they don't want it too.

------
Dewie
Hell, I most often actively avoid bumping into the people I live with.

------
free2rhyme214
And what is the solution? Everyone here has instant communication and if you
have even a small social life, such as many who work hard all the time for
their dreams, you can still see friends once a week and family once a month or
every other month.

It's not a great idea to compare today to yesteryear because back then they
didn't have facebook, twitter, iPhones, Skype, Google hangouts, the internet
etc.

