Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm looking on it from a European perspective, where American style suburbs are practically non-existent. American style surburbs are maybe somewhat comparable to isolated residential settlements in more rural parts in Germany. I grew up in such a place. I think it's for parents of small children a more comfortable way to raise their children but it's not exactly a good place for their children.
It's really like an idyllic world. But I think the kids from such places are up to 2 years behind in their development compared to kids in more urban areas. Kids in more urban areas get more easily in contact to
people from all different kinds. They learn at an earlier stage how to interact or not to interact with very different people from all ages. Especially when they use buses, trams or trains. They make more experiences with different people and that makes it easier for them to solve conflicts. Children in more urban areas will visit playgrounds more frequently than children in more suburban settings and by doing so they make more experiences with more diverse people. So they improve their social skills. They have a bigger treasure of experience. Kids that grew up in more urban areas tend to be more tolerant and more liberal thinking.
You don't understand. In America we have suburbs built on white flight. This was a choice made to keep these newly built WW2 era suburbs racially segregated for decades, thus keeping the schools, churches, .etc. all white and specifically all one or two ethnicities. Boomers in places like NYC have interesting info on how this mostly Irish suburb was fighting with that Italian one, who were fighting with the Polish one... After various cases like Brown vs Board of Education and all the nonwhite G.I.s returned the govt. worked hard to force the racist social order back how it was 10-20 yrs ago. The last thing these folks wanted was their children having interactions with more diverse people.
Wow. I didn't even attack you. Are you capable of civil conversation? I was responding to one poster's suggestion that the suburbs were for one kind of demographic--families with children--and was asking if, assuming that's to be the case, such a monoculture of demographics is good.
Urban/City: Think of the financial district and the embarcadero in San Francisco.
Suburban: Endless sea of cookie-cutter homes with a few Wal-Marts and McDonalds.
I wasn't asking what others think is city vs. suburban, I was saying that Kotkin didn't say. But when one's whole point in an article is to write about the inevitable return to the suburbs, the author needs to explicitly differentiate between the two. He didn't.
Wow. I didn't even attack you. Are you capable of civil conversation? I was responding to one poster's suggestion that the suburbs were for one kind of demographic--families with children--and was asking if, assuming that's to be the case, such a monoculture of demographics is good.
No, I'm not. Thanks for asking.
That's not quite what you asked. You just agreed there is a "monoculture". In case you've forgotten your own words, here they are, below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
Is this monoculture good, though? Doesn't this present a systemic weakness to be built so heavily around one socio-economic group with codes and laws so specific and inflexible? Remember, the suburb and the SFH are relatively recent in their popularity, so the "return to the suburbs" of married couples is neither inherent nor given.
Again, is this a good thing? I argue that churning cities out at this pace and scale is actually a bad thing and produces fragile city finances, disconnected neighborhoods, and heavily subsidized and exaggerated economic cycles.
nei pointed out there is a lot of mulit-family housing in the suburbs where you live, so you know better.
What an incredible burden for you. #firstworldproblems
In all fairness to the poster, there has been evidence that suburbia correlate with an increased level of social isolation and a lack of random social interactions. I don't get why people dismiss small metrics as if, taken over time, they don't matter.
All depends on what you want. To me, the suburbs are for raising children and families... also for peace and quiet. You have to choose what's best for you. Very immature to simply hate it when all it is is another option some people prefer. Heck, I've even used Airbnb on occasion simply to smell fresh air and hear nothing. It has its own value. I don't understand this rant really, if you don't like it... why not move to a more urban area?
In all fairness to the poster, there has been evidence that suburbia correlate with an increased level of social isolation and a lack of random social interactions. I don't get why people dismiss small metrics as if, taken over time, they don't matter.
That's not quite what you asked. You just agreed there is a "monoculture". In case you've forgotten your own words, here they are, below.
nei pointed out there is a lot of mulit-family housing in the suburbs where you live, so you know better.
I took the poster's premise as given and asked if a monoculture was a good thing. That I'm surrounded by multi-family housing is not relevant to that question.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
