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 -
What we talk about when we talk about suburbs
Let's get the BS out of the way first.
First, the obvious one: In the last few decades, suburban growth hasn't been caused by racism. As a matter of fact, blacks and immigrants are moving to the suburbs at a faster rate than whites. Meanwhile, whites have moved into the cities.
Now let's talk about the supposed conspiracy to force people into the suburbs. The largest American cities of 1920 were all built before the car. Many of them have a ring of streetcar suburbs. Most of them have lost population. There is a plentiful supply of dense urban cores in America with lower population than they had a century ago, and yet all the demand is for building more suburbs. The population has spoken, and they don't want to live in cities, they want to live in suburbs, New York City, and nothing in between.
What about "fifteen minute cities?". I live in one, it's called a suburb. I can get to everything we need on a regular basis (groceries, parks, schools, kid's activities, a decent restaurant) in fifteen minutes. This is only possible with point-to-point, immediate-availability transportation. Mass transit simply doesn't work for this, as at-grade transit (busses, streetcars) are slower than bikes due to the number of stops, and grade-separated transit stations are so large and sparse that it's usually fifteen minutes just to get from the front door to the platform, plus half a headway.
If you want to drop one kid off at one activity, the other kid off at a different one, get a week's worth of Costco, and then pick them both up, while changing at least one of the activities every six months, you simply can't beat the car.
We have community in the suburbs. The great American self-organizing spirit is a live here. No matter what you're into (or your kids are into), there's some knitting club, drum club, or bike club. Even better, our city parks and rec centers are actually usable, and the staff and patrons are clean and pleasant.
Real problems with the suburbs
This doesn't mean we don't have real problems with the suburbs. We do, especially from a few decades ago. In a uniquely American fashion, the Garden City Movement mutated into ever-larger lawns, ever larger medians, and ever larger streets. This, plus Euclidean zoning, does mean that the only way you can get around is the car. While it's great to have the car as the primary method of family transportation, having it as the only means of transportation does constrain older kids.
There is a pointless bigness to much of our environment. The standard American family combination of a big truck for dad and big crossover for mom would probably be improved by exchanging them for a HiLux and a Golf. We insist on building houses with formal living and dining rooms that we never use, paired with the "breakfast nook" and "family room" that we actually use. And of course yards, but I repeat myself.
Suburbs in the 80s were also less pleasant. There weren't many good restaurants, and if you didn't want something from a chain store or an understocked, overpriced mom-and-pop, you were out of luck. If you wanted a specialized job, you were in for a brutal commute into the city. Amazon and work-from-home have fundamentally changed that. We don't have to be near "stuff" anymore, it all comes to us.
Real solutions from the suburbs
Right now, I live in a townhouse in a master-planned new urbanist suburb. It's medium density, I have no yard, and the houses barely have any. There's a mini-park every few blocks, the elementary school is in the neighborhood itself, some blocks are designed extra long to prioritize sidewalks and eliminate street crossing, and the "town center" has a supermarket, a coffee shop, and a few adequate restaurants. We go there all the time, often on our onewheels.
If you're not in the family stage of life, the town center also has a four-over-one mid-rise that's pretty nice.
We have all the human-scale upside of a streetcar suburb, and all the modern benefits of suburbia (close to 3k sq ft, a real two car garage, modern appliances). We even have ethnic diversity (upscale immigrants) and a low carbon footprint (modern insulation, and I have a place to charge my Tesla)
Surprisingly, people who complain about the suburbs never say that we should all move to a master-planned New Urbanist suburb.
I love it, I would recommend it to anyone, and I'm leaving.
What we're really talking about when we talk about suburbs
I'm moving to an 80s suburb, with all the problems I just described. It has a pointless bench on a lawn built in a roundabout. Every week I see someone mowing that stupid patch of grass. You can't walk anywhere.
I'm moving from my semi-New Urbanist paradise to this terribly-designed 80s suburb for the same reason that some people live in Minneapolis instead of San Diego. San Diego has better weather, beaches, hot girls in bikinis, and you'll never shovel snow again, but if your family lives in Minneapolis, you live in Minneapolis, you shovel snow, and you ride your polar bear to work. If I grew up in Manhattan, NY, I would want to live there - and if I lived in Manhattan, KS, I would want to live there too.
I'm moving there for the same reason people hate suburbs: community. People talk about how suburbs are alienating and have no third spaces. I'm moving for the community, which is my wife's extended family. The third space was her grandparent's house. Now it is her parent's house, and someday (hopefully far in the future) it will be our house.
We might prefer one physical environment to another, but the main factor for where people live is the human environment - family, jobs, schools, crime.
That's also what people are really talking about when they complain about suburbs. They complain that suburbs are isolating and atomizing, which is obviously not true if you have family there.
What we really talk about when we talk about suburbs is social climbing. The suburbs are associated with the middle class, and if you're a social climber, you have to denounce the suburbs. A century ago, when industrial working class families lived in urban flats and townhomes, the social climbers made a point of talking about how they escaped the city.
When us proles couldn't afford cars, the social climbers flaunted their cars. Now that us proles can afford cars but can't afford Manhattan, the social climbers disdain cars and flaunt their apartments.
A century from now, if a shingle-sided split-level becomes expensive, you'll see disaffected young social climbers sneer that the 70s suburb is the pinnacle of human organization, unlike whatever form of housing the proles of that day live in.
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link