This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You're substantially overestimating the appeal of New York City to the modal American. New York City is now only 30% white and the number continues to decline. New York is appealing to rich PMCs that can skip the misery of its high density and tolerate the living costs. It's fine for third-worlders that are accustomed to living in garbage-strewn, densely packed poverty. The modal American prefers living in a normal town, whether it's a suburb, town, or small city.
The demographic of the city are interesting. NYC is roughly 31% non-Hispanic white (in 2010 it was 33% and in 2000 it was 35%), numbers are pretty stable in absolute terms over time. By contrast, the black population of NYC has fallen substantially from 30% of the population in the late 1980s to about 20% today, despite significant immigration from Africa and the Caribbean. Boston actually has a higher percentage of black residents than NYC now.
Most NYC inner suburbs and working / middle class neighborhoods really aren’t squalid by the standards of the median white American of the classes. I think this is a weird combination of a social memory of Taxi Driver 1970s NYC and an even older popular memory of cramped, awful Lower East Side tenements in the days of Ellis Island immigrants as popularized in a lot of historical movies and shows. In reality the neighborhoods in the outer boroughs in which ordinary teachers, cops, criminal defense lawyers, contraction supervisors, small business owners and so on live certainly have smaller house sizes than the US average but are not particularly dirty, nasty or horrible to live in compared to picket fence Midwestern suburbs, for example.
Having been to both and having spent a lot of time in the latter I find this so so so hard to believe. I believe you could find statistics backing this up but then I wonder about the accuracy of the statistics. Also I understand what you're saying about working/middle class neighborhoods in like Queens and much of Brooklyn being nice to live in but parts of Brooklyn are pretty horrible and the Bronx and most of the area above Central Park really are pretty bad in my opinion
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am, because the American preference appears to be bimodal. 80% of America wants to live in the suburbs, 20% wants to live in NYC, and nobody seems to want to live in Philadelphia or Cleveland, even though they are packed full of the supposedly missing middle of housing stock.
Yeah, still aggressively wrong. No one wants to live in Philly because it's a shithole. Lots of people want to live in Denver or San Diego or Austin as nice cities without massive density. Lots of people want to live in Charleston or Madison or Bentonville. The options are not megalopolis or suburb as preferred destinations. No one in Boise or Bozeman wishes they were a megalopolis or a suburb.
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair, the percentage of Americans who want to live in rural areas is almost certainly high enough to drive down the percent that wants to live in suburbs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Have you been to NYC and gone beyond the "WTC <-> Times Square" region ? NYC is amazing and a lot of your complaints don't seem to apply to the rest of the city. I understand why you'd dislike the "WTC <-> Times Square" region. Even those who live in NYC hate it.
This is what non-expensive middle-class residential neighborhoods look like :
Prospect Lefferts gardens 1 & nearby park 1.1
Astoria 2 & nearby park 2.2
Caroll Gardens 3
And I didn't even mention the actually amazing residential neighborhoods that are more upper-middle class like Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Park Slope, Clinton Hill or the waterside parts of Jersey.
Yes, and I've generally hated it. That said, I was just having a conversation the other day about the best cities in the world and I remarked that I haven't really had enough experience with New York to truly compare it to Tokyo or London in any meaningful way, so sure, grain of salt. My impression really is consistent with what most people I know that aren't personally attached to New York think though, which is definitely a contrast with OP's claim that Americans want to either live in New York or a suburb. Pretty much no one that currently resides in Denver is envious of the New York lifestyle.
I just looked on Redfin and it appears that 1K square foot condos in the area are seven-figures. That this passes for "non-expensive" in the area reinforces to me that you pretty much have to be rich to swing even a tolerably decent standard of living in NYC.
On the flip side, I spent some time in Greenwich, which I would describe, roughly, as "hell on Earth". Among places where there's evident affluence, I've never been somewhere that I wanted to escape more.
Greenwich is also in the "WTC <-> Times Square" region. Greenpoint is in Brooklyn. You're correct that the densest parts of Manhattan are overwhelming in an alien manner, where someone who hasn't grown up there will find it too intimidating.
Funnily enough, having grown up in a 'nice residential part' of the arguably densest city in the world, I feel a similar 'hell on earth I need to escape' feeling when I walk through a sprawling maze-like suburb.
A 1k sqft house will be around 800k in prospect lefferts gardens today. But it is also one of the most rapidly gentrifying parts of Brooklyn. It was closer to $500k just a few years ago. Not cheap, but reasonable for the region. Especially given that NYC prices are destined to hold stable. Remember, a public school teacher or a blue collar worker in NYC can easily make around $80-100k. (Subway drivers & Public school teachers make ~90K), so it is not too bad.
This is a fallacy. No one wants to turn any city into NYC, because that's impossible. No place is NYC.
The goal is to make urban down towns less hostile. Take a 500 acre downtown circle and strip 2 car lanes from the all roads there. Add high-frequency bus only lanes & bike lanes that run within that small zone. Replace parking lots with missing middle-housing. Put large parking lots on the highway approach to this area. There, you just made your urban hellhole an urban paradise, provided more housing, and car owners aren't any more inconvenienced. Maybe move downtown Denver closer to downtown Miami in scale.
The goal to make suburbs less Hostile. To remove a few yards and add a few triple deckers. You'd expect it to look like Seattle's recently developing Wallingford/fremont neighborhoods than NYC. The suburban houses are still there, many yards are still there. It is still quiet, has good parking and feels safe. Or even Portland Maine. Both are perfectly walkable, bikeable urbanist darlings. There is even good bus connectivity within the main urban area.
Urbanists suggestions for rural areas are similarly in-keeping with the needs of a rural town. Northeastern villages are fairly walkable and cycle-able too. See Lincoln NH.
Rural small towns are by definition extremely walkable -- their radius tends to be in the 1-2 mile range, and they all have grocery stores, schools and stuff.
What do the urbanists have in mind for fucking over rural small-towners?
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry, I was referring to Greenwich, CT as a mirror to the North, in reference to the New Jersey portion of things, not Greenwich Village. My mistake for the ambiguity. I do stand by really, really disliking it there though.
So do I! The places that I understand the desire to live in the least of all types of housing are the McMansion buildouts in modern developments. I can talk myself through what people see in it, but I can't imagine even considering living there. Incredibly dense urban areas have their charms to visit even though I wouldn't live there, rural areas have obvious perks for the more independent minded (still not me), the less uniform suburbs often look fine to me, but that cookie-cutter development just looks awful. My real preference is big towns and small cities that are dense enough to have all of the amenities I'd like, but still fairly low vehicular traffic, which is exactly what I've chosen for a location.
We're actually 100% on the same page with regard to urbanist policy, entertainingly enough.
As an addendum, I really do need to apologize for being a dick about New York. It's honestly pretty uncalled for. I'm well aware that it's home to quite a few people that love it there. Sorry about that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link