They really do have a lot of odd rules and personal regulations for a supposedly free country
America is so dumb on so many levels.
American suburbanism is truly wild. When you see how people live outside of the U.S., it’s startling what we’re putting up with here for the wonders of spending hours in a car every week.
It’s technically against the law in my state to make a new neighborhood that doesn’t have an HOA. I live in a neighborhood without an HOA because it was built before the law was passed. No one’s running a tavern but we’ve got one neighbor who grows vegetables in a patch of their front yard. Another neighbor has a bunch of chickens and also a rooster. We’re technically not allowed to have roosters but who’s going to tell on them? Not me, for sure.
HOA truly scares me about American living. That a group of people can dictate what you can and can’t do with your own house is absolutely wild. How is that home ownership?
In Canada the only real rule is don’t leave your yard in disrepair.
HOA truly scares me about American living. That a group of people can dictate what you can and can’t do with your own house is absolutely wild. How is that home ownership?
You probably do have a group of people that can dictate what you can and can’t do with your own house. You just call them “local government”, “county government”, “provincial government”, “state government”, etc as appropriate to however your current region organizes things at the smallest level.
The difference is that the bad kinds of HOA are essentially extra-local government chartered into existence for just one neighborhood, and since the “real” government has covered most of the actually important issues, they need to do something to justify themselves and are local enough to actually pay attention to your front yard and make ordinances against things they think will lower property values.
don’t leave your yard in disrepair
Even that should be your own business, unless you’re endangering anyone
It’s worth mentioning that in the majority of residential neighborhoods, either they do not have HOA enforcement or the HOA is entirely optional, in that you can pay to belong to the HOA and gain benefits like access to community centers and pools, but then have to abide by guidelines.
In these places, you can ignore HOA rules if you’re not interested in joining. I’ve greatly enjoyed telling their offended members that no, I will trim my shrubs when I feel like it, thank you very much.
There is still going to be a lot of regulations against like, turning your house into a tavern or something, but there is a little more freedom here in most places than people talk about. But it’s still pretty bad and getting worse, there are more and more “master planned” communities that turn entire countrysides into oceans of rooftops in these homogeneous people hatcheries where you have to get approval to grow flowers in your yard.
Freedom \TM
Also no chickens (usually)
Yeah depends on the municipality my area it’s fine but depends on yard size
Newer suburban housing often depresses me. You have these large, lovely homes, but they’re crammed together so tightly that you could reach out of your kitchen window to turn on your neighbour’s sink. The front yard is often just a strip of dry grass with a single crabapple sapling, and the back yard is a box the size of a small bathroom, devoid of both foliage and privacy from the eight other houses overlooking it, and serves largely as a box with air to place your dog in. This could be remedied if the developers weren’t complete cunts and sacrificed a house or two per block to space the homes out a bit. But they can’t waste an inch.
I certainly don’t mean to throw shade at anyone who has purchased a home like this and enjoys living there. Everyone deserves a place to feel happy and comfortable. It just sucks that anything built in the last twenty years is erected with no privacy or quality of life in mind. It’s just housebox. As long as you don’t peer outside, you won’t notice you’re trapped in housebox. This is extremely common here in Alberta, and it’s the reason my wife and I wound up buying an older home (1960s-70s) in a mature neighborhood. Most newer places we looked at felt as though they were missing a soul.
Just kind of gets to a point where the whole “detached home” thing doesn’t really mean anything. May as well connect the walls into row housing and drop the price 100k.
Why do I feel like living in an apartment would be better in that case (if u can’t find an older house)
A lot of higher-density residential areas are actually more enjoyable to live in if you’re a people person and like walking to places. Areas of apartment blocks tend to be placed closer to shopping and bars and restaurants.
Meanwhile, a lot of the newer, cleaner “master planned” communities are just sterile oceans of identical rooftops miles and miles from anything but schools and fire departments, forcing all residents to drive if they want to so much as pick up a carton of milk.
May as well connect the walls into row housing and drop the price 100k.
Sorry, best I can offer is row housing that is $100k more expensive.
When I had the opportunity to buy a house I was elated. Now, 10 years in? Yeah, I despise it. Neighbors that don’t give a shit that you can’t get away from, no privacy, no ability to do anything without the worry someone will report you for some HoA shit you’re not aware of, etc. I was raised on a country house on 7 acres, now I dream of ever being able to escape and have something like that.
Little boxes on the hillside
Little boxes made of ticky-tacky
Little boxes on the hillside
Little boxes all the same
There’s a pink one and a green one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they’re all made out of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same
My own property is being extensively reworked to produce a majority of our vegetables. We have already put about 185m² 2,000ft²) under direct cultivation in the back yard, and intend to wrap that garden around the entire property to the full 400m² (4.300ft²) available.
In the end, I don’t expect to have a single blade of grass on the property. It’ll all be flowers, fruiting trees and canes and bushes, and vegetables. All done in a modified Ruth Stout method, with a variation of flat-ground Hügelkultur thrown in.
Let’s just say that Bylaw is already pissed off with me, and I’m not even halfway done yet.
Ruth Stout
You had me excited to find a better method. Then it was “find a cheap source of hay”. Then you need a method to spread hay- which ain’t easy. I’ll stick with my cultivar which makes mulch in place.
You have any helpful links that assisted you with setup? I’ve been toying the idea but the soil here is horrible. Basically 6 inches of crap soil on top of bedrock. Any help is appreciated as I’m brand new to the idea. I do have some bucket planters that were gifted but other than that not much to start with.
Fruit trees. It’s the way to go. So much less work in the log run.
That’s amazing to hear! If it’s possible and doesn’t doxx you, I’d love to see a picture or two
This person is like the only one with those kinds of plants, an AI can Geogeuser them already.
Kill that lawn! Let’s fucking go!
tbf I do know many suburban families that grow a lot in their backyard, although I’m sure there are places with more strict rules around that.
otherwise very valid questions.
Land of freedom:
Can I grow potato in my own garden?
-No.
Is this true? You can’t grow vegetables in your backyard? Why tho? If true it sounds dumb to me.
A lot of houses are subject to a Home Owners Association (HOA). They often can make ridiculous rules, including kicking you out of your own home for violating whatever rules they made. They can tell you how your garden looks like, which color your house is allowed to have, can fine you for parking on the road…
The rules are usually designed around keeping up the “value” of the neighborhood by forbidding any sort of individuality in how your garden and house looks from the outside. Sterile and boring is what investors want, to evaluate a neighborhood with a high price.
These kind of organizations make sense for apartment buildings, where you need to organize the upkeep of the overall building, but for suburbs they seem to be mostly an investor too and then a tool for whoever wants to keep themselves busy, terrorizing their neighbors.
These kind of organizations make sense for apartment buildings, where you need to organize the upkeep of the overall building
Yeah this makes sense, but, in my country, this only applies to common areas of the building, and there’s civil law around what can/can not be agreed in assembly.
Are those HOS an assembly with equal voting rights? Or is there weight on shareholders votes based on amount of squares owned? Or something else completely? I’m genuinely interested if you can enlighten me. Or I can research it when I get more time.
Mixed zoning is absolutely evil. My area is becoming unliveable and gentrified because of people’s shitty businesses
Mixed zoning is what makes neighbourhoods walkable and liveable and truly desirable for a much wider range of working-class people from all backgrounds and family sizes; not just the white, upper-class, monoculture-focused, and conformance-obsessed NIMBYs.
I am an Iranian living in Tehran and definitely not upper middle class. Fuck you. I am facing actual difficulty because of this shit. Fucking bunch of western Champaign leftists on lemmy with this ass holier than thou attitude SMH
Curious for more information on what makes mixed zoning unliveable?
All those plants tend to be invasive
that aphorism about pots and kettles needs to be reworded to human beings calling other species “invasive”.
no metaphor would be more fitting.
Tomatoes, potatoes, and cucumbers invasive? Plants are one of my hobbies and I don’t think this is true.
-
As a kid I would play street hockey with my friends although nowadays I don’t see kids outside much. Sometimes kids are unlikely and live in an area with no other kids their age around.
-
Yes. Lobbying by oil and car companies
-
see above.
-
See above.
-
See above.
A lot of it also has to do with racism, and these days, people don’t even know why zoning ordinances are the way they are. They can’t defend them. They just assume that it’s what people want and there must be some good reason for the zoning being the way it is (spoiler alert: nope, actually). This is one of the ripest, and probably lowest-hanging fruits in terms of achieving QOL improvements in North America.
I don’t even like zoning in city builder games, can’t even imagine living in a zoned area.
I currently live in a single family apartment on top of a bakery; within one block of my house I also have two small family markets, two restaurants, a barber, a bicycle repair shop, two clothing stores, a pet shop, a small languages school and a few other stuff, with several houses and apartment buildings in-between.
I’m jealous, and convinced that the only reason people most folks like suburban deserts is because it’s all they’ve ever known.
-
Since I found out about the neighborhood association, I’ve been rather suspicious of this land of the free.
I live in the suburbs and really love it. My neighborhood is quiet and easy to walk around without much road noise. There’s a small park within our neighborhood that children play in and people take their dogs.
I have a front yard and back yard that’s mostly grass, but we do plant flowers and plants when the weathers nice. It gives me an excuse to be outside during the summer. And yeah, I do grow vegetables and garden in the backyard as do many others. The fenced in backyard makes it easy to have a pet with room to run.
Despite my neighborhood being quiet it’s adjacent to a commercial area, so I can walk within 10 minutes to a grocery store (a Walmart to be fair) and if I’d like, I can hop on public transit that has a bus stop right there. There’s restaurants, fast food, groceries and other small businesses like dry cleaners, hair stylists, banks, and gyms. All easily within 10 minutes of walking. The local public transit can get you to major shopping centers and downtown areas in a reasonable amount of time.
I mostly drive and what I love the most is that I can drive to heavily populated areas with activity within 5-10 minutes but my neighborhood itself is this quiet sleepy little suburb where kids play in cul-de-sacs without worrying about traffic and I know many of my neighbors by name.
I definitely get how suburbs can look bad, but it doesn’t mean they have to be.
drive to heavily populated areas
This. This right here is a major problem with the suburbs. All the benefits for the people who have the privilege to live in one are great, with the negatives of driving externalized onto other people.
I understand what you’re saying, and being able to drive is definitely a privilege I have. Public transit exists. I can walk to a bus stop within 10 minutes of my home. It’ll take me all over including to a vibrant downtown. It can also take me to a local train station where I can ride affordably into many neighboring communities along my route, ultimately taking me to a major city.
Suburbs don’t have to be these horrible places they’re made out to be.
No, suburbs are great for the people who live there. What I’m pointing out is that the people who live in them don’t pay the costs. The people in the heavily populated areas have to deal with car noise, traffic congestion, pollution (like tire and brake dust) and its detriment to their health, and traffic danger of suburbanites driving through their neighborhoods, all the while subsidizing the suburbs with their tax money.
I think there’s a bit more nuance to it than that. I can look up a tax map for my state and see that for every dollar I pay in taxes that only 60 cents come back to where I live. It’s 98 cents back to the big city associated with my suburb.
The areas that get more in taxes than they pay in are the rural areas.
Your mindset is rooted in privilege.
I think that might be the point in that suburbs can be this way, but it’s mostly luck that you happen to have the 10 minute accessibility to the public transit piece, most seem to be a 10 minute vehicle ride away from facilities which is a huge downgrade
I moved to a suburb in a country with unbearable heat yet because of how the suburbs are designed, I still walk more than when I did in the US. Everything from barbershops and grocery stores, to pharmacies and bakeries are within a 10 minute walk. Though I usually wait until night fall to do so.
I didn’t know heat until I went to Kuwait in summer
Sounds like the Philippines. Hell, sounds like just about every other sane place on the planet.
I am interested in the replies
The front and back yards are there to increase pervious cover. That’s it.
I work in municipal development and have worked in dense areas, suburbs, and now work in an enclave for the ultra-rich (average new house is about 7 million dollars in the city where I work). Every single developer wants to level all the trees and build as much on the lot as possible with zero pervious cover anywhere, and they don’t give the smallest fuck about flooding the downhill neighbors.
So, you guys are tearing out parking lots and removing parking minimums, right?
Turf is barely previous
StormTech under the parking lot is all the rage now.
It’s never, ever maintained properly and the inlets or “permeable” pavement gets plugged up and effectively gets turned into 100% IC almost every installation. My last city’s engineering team went from encouraging it to recommending it be banned when they saw what happens when it isn’t maintained.
There’s some pervious asphalt at my office that has over 10 years of fines in it and infiltrates <1”/hr. If you hit it with a vacuum it quickly clears to >50”/hr.
I can see that this is going to be an unpopular opinion but the answer is… most people don’t actually want to live in commie row houses with a bar downstairs.
I live in suburban Australia. We don’t have HoA’s and the police don’t shoot people, but other than that I imagine that it’s comparable to suburban US.
We have a front and a back yard because it’s nice to have some room. My kids play in my back yard. We also have about 10m2 of raised planter boxes to grow vegetables. Lots of people also have a shed where you can store hobby equipment like bikes, trailers, camping gear, woodworking, et cetera. Some people have pool tables, sofas, beer fridge, et cetera.
There are some sensible rules about what you can do in your front or back yard but they’re for everyone’s benefit. For example you can’t erect a BFO wall along your front yard, because if everyone does it then the neighbourhood would feel oppressive. There’s also some varieties of trees you can’t plant because it upsets the neighbours when it inevitably falls over on them in 100 years time.
You can’t have shops in a residential street because most people don’t actually want that. In most suburbs there are shops, bars, and restaurants a few minutes down the road. Far enough away that I’m not bothered by them but close enough that it’s convenient.
In Australia you can choose whether you want to live in a busy city in an apartment with shops up your ass, or in the suburbs, or on a rural property with no towns within 100km. Most people live in the suburbs this guy is questioning, because it’s a nice balance of cost, serenity, and convenience.
I would really enjoy a house i could afford.
So here’s the thing:
The housing that people want is the housing they can afford. Sure, I’d love to live in a 20,000 sqft mansion up in the Pacific Northwest rainforest with a built in pool and free-range dino nuggies dispensers, but I can’t afford that, so I live in what I can afford. Problem is, our zoning doesn’t permit really anything except unaffordable, bland tracts of McMansions that force you to drive to everything. If you can’t afford that, then, oh well, get bulldozered, idiot.
I want to make living in my city affordable; if all my kids can afford is a $400 studio with no car, then that should be an option.
That’s absolutely fine, and obviously a worthy objective.
My comment is really just pointing out that the “bafflement and hilarity” from the screen capped post isn’t really baffling nor hilarious.
A surburban lifestyle is nice and that’s why people want to live there and that’s why it’s expensive. You can make fun of people who want that, and you can make a case that alternatives are better in a multitude of ways, but it’s a bit silly to suggest to people happily living in the burbs that a row house would be more comfortable.
To your last sentence, I can address it directly:
We live in one of those soulless, godless cookie cutters suburbs. We had a Russian exchange student from St. Petersburg for a year. He grew up in and still lives in a commie block. In complete fairness, he said it was close, but that he preferred the commie block to the suburbs (largely because it was just so damn convenient to do grocery shopping on the ground floor and catch the light rail just outside if he wanted to go anywhere else).
I don’t really follow I’m sorry.
Are you suggesting, on the basis of the opinion of one Russian kid who expressed a preference for living where he grew up, that I’m mistaken regarding my own preferences?
Sorry mate that’s a little bit nutty.
Well, it’s more like this: have you ever lived in a suburb and a commie block? I haven’t, but he did, and he explained why he felt that way. I’m not claiming it’s scientific or anything
I believe housing choice is a good thing. The problem is that suburbia almost always takes away housing choice for everyone else.
- Suburbia is not cost viable.
Notice how suburbs are almost always built around cities and almost never on their own. There is a reason for this; they are heavily subsidized by the city and its infrastructure - eventually killing off the city due to extreme maintenance costs and uncooperative tax base (NIMBYs). This is a parasitic relationship, fullstop.
- Suburbia is not recyclable.
It is extremely difficult to reuse suburban infrastructure for non-suburban purposes. This effectively eliminates scarce land until a patron spends 10x removing what it costs to install (not happening). This is why suburbs are often just abandoned instead of repurposed (see any rust-belt suburb).
- Space should not come at the cost of the future.
To navigate suburbia (only viable by car) is to put massive strain on the human body and environment. We were built to walk. If you do not, you will become fat and die (see America). Cars pollute the air to no end, and “third places” can never truly be established - killing communities.
Wanting space is fine, but people should find a way to do it sustainably without harming themselves and everyone around them.
I don’t really follow you regarding cost viability.
I live in a small city of about 70,000. We don’t really have a dense CBH. There are small blocks of apartments here or there but not really in a business district.
99% of the population here lives in detached houses in a suburban setting.
It seems kind of nonsensical to me to suggest that suburbs kill off cities due to extreme maintenance costs.
I know people who work in the city’s finance department. The taxes people in suburbia pay to the municipality pay for the maintenance and services they receive. If there were a deficit from suburban parasites the city would’ve become insolvent long ago.
most people don’t actually want to live in commie row houses with a bar downstairs.
of course! these types of building were an imperfect answer to a problem of how to make enough living space for many people fast enough and cheaply enough. the apartment blocks went a long way from prefabricated panel blocks in a concrete jungle to the point i absolutely loved living in my modern block apartment in the city center in a quite spot between two parks, 10min walk from a train station and a shopping center, with a terrace, garden, playground and childcare across the street and within 15min from any shop, restaurant, pub, doctor or anything else i ever needed.
You can’t have shops in a residential street because most people don’t actually want that.
what? i mean, i can believe you can be conditioned to not wanting it. just like many americans think unions are bad or any other crazy shit like that… but generally no. anyone who ever lived in a place where they can run down the street to buy milk when they run out or just walk sane distance to a pub will disagree with you.
It’s kind of an odd take to suggest that people who have a different perspective to yours have been “conditioned” into thinking that way.
In Australia the “corner store” type set up where you could walk a few minutes down the road to buy milk and a paper was more or less defunct by the early 00’s. It’s just not a viable business model.
I spent my 20s working in bars and restaurants and I did drink far too much at that time. I always lived a short walk away from wherever I was working. IDK why exactly but I’m just not interested any more. I haven’t been trying to abstain but I’m pretty sure I haven’t had a beer or any other sort of alcohol since December 2022. I can assure you that I couldn’t care less about being a “sane distance” from a pub.
i do believe you honestly mean the things you wrote. and maybe many other people believe that too… but if a person born in soviet russia would say that the decadent west is the root of all evil would you consider it as simply their perspective and someone who suggest otherwise as “having an odd take” for not accepting it? there are perspectives and there is reality.
i do believe you honestly mean the things you wrote. and maybe many other people believe that too… but it’s just plain arrogant and maybe even delusional to assume everyone other than you has been conditioned to think contrary to reality.
But you are the one claiming other peoples perspectives are “odd takes” and you are the righteous one.
For what it is worth, those suburbs you are describing are decaying in America. Those bars and shops just a few minutes down the road closed a couple generations ago. Many are empty lots or were razed for additional road lanes or gas stations. (In my city: another shooting range for police.) There aren’t even sidewalks outside the neighborhood where I live, and this is in an area developed in the 1980s ‘shining house on a hill’ era of America.
Most people live in the suburbs this guy is questioning, because it’s a nice balance of cost, serenity, and convenience.
The cost is blown out of the water, but for serenity and convenience goes: the conveniences are decaying and so the serenity is about all you can hope to get for the cost. More than anything though the spiraling cost destroys that balance. Most renting folks I know can’t afford the shops or restaurants anyway because of housing costs. American suburbs are increasingly isolated.
I can totally understand not wanting a bar or tavern nearby. In Brazil, those always have excessive loud music and if you live nearby, you won’t sleep. Drunkards are the least of the problems, surprisingly.
German here, we solved that with some good ol’ regulations.
To me as a European who lives in a medium-sized city the US-style suburb model sounds very claustrophobic. The suburbs aren’t walkable, you can’t cycle anywhere either. The only way to get around is by car. Commercial areas are the same, shops are separated by streets and large parking lots, if you want to visit another shop you have to go by car.
It’s like each house or store is a little island and you can only island-hop using your car. Once you get out of your car, you’re stuck on yet another island. It’s like one of those older computer games from when they didn’t have the tech to stream large open worlds yet, just a bunch of small areas and a loading screen (car) in between.
You are describing exactly why fast travel is bad in video games too. Convenience isn’t the blessing everyone thinks it to be.
I’m assuming there are suburbs that have these problems, but I think that’s a city planning problem.
I live in a suburb and enjoy it a lot. It’s very walkable and people bike around the neighborhood all the time. We have a walking/biking path that connects to a larger trail that goes for a miles.
I don’t have access to everything within walking distance, but I have access to a lot within a 10 minute walk.
I live in a suburb and enjoy it a lot. It’s very walkable and people bike around the neighborhood all the time. We have a walking/biking path that connects to a larger trail that goes for a miles.
But have you got anything to walk/bike to?
A bike trail for sports is nice and all, but is it not just a larger island? What if you wanted to go to the supermarket, can you do that by bike/walking or do you run into obstacles like e.g. a highway that you can’t safely cross?
Say you wanted to cycle or walk to the other side of the country (assuming you have the time), could you do that? How far can you go without a car?
Yeah, I had another reply in this post where I talk about it. My subdivision is next to a commercial area so I can walk within 10 minutes to a grocery store, pharmacy, restaurants, fast food, gym, dry cleaners, banks, and to a bus stop for public transit.
As an American, having lived where I can bike to the store I don’t want to go back
IDK I we have what you’re calling “US style suburbs” but none of that is true here. I’m an avid cyclist, with several bikes, one of which is a cargo bike. Dedicated bike infrastructure could be better but its hyperbole to suggest you’re “stuck on an island”.
Trying seriously to bike anywhere on my city’s painted bike lanes is taking your life in your hands. I’m on the city bicycle commission and when we tried to pressure the city engineers to put in some flexible bollards to keep drivers out of the bike lane, they complained that they get broken all the time and they’re hard to keep up on. Someone else on the commission beat me to the punch and said “if those bollards get broken too often, imagine what it’s like to be a cyclist on that lane”.
Yeah. Look, I’ve got to be honest with you, this is a huge problem in regional Western Australia also.
If you ride every day then one or two times a week you’re going to encounter some asshole driver who genuinely believes that you shouldn’t be on the road and at times these interactions are dangerous and upsetting.
I spend a lot of time pondering people’s attitude to riders. My supposition is that it’s a combination of a bunch of things, but a large part of it is simply that people would prefer not to be reminded of the fact that they are sedentary and don’t exercise.
Personally, I think this is a problem with people, lifestyles, and culture, rather than a problem inherent to suburbia. It’s worth pointing out that these are the people you need to convince that walkable cities are superior. I think our micromobility brethren, on escooters and so on, will help us by putting more “sedentary” type people into the bike lane.
I’d argue that the sedentary…uh…ness(?) is inherent to the car-dependent suburban lifestyle. The way our suburbs are, you’ve got to REALLY want to use a bike, like you’re either making a statement or too broke to do anything else, to choose to bike anywhere. It’s just too dangerous and inconvenient to be practical. There’s no reason to walk or bike anywhere in walking or biking distance, and plenty of reasons not to (many of them to do with the urban design and zoning codes). People living in walkable and bikeable cities don’t walk and bike because they want to, they walk and bike because it’s more practical than driving.
he’s not wrong the burbs I grew up in the 90s sure I could bike to the store but my current neighborhood has all the stores on a stroad, before kids I still weaved in and out of traffic with a bike or euc but now with kids I would never risk their lives vs these massive lifted pickups it just takes one drunk maga voter to knock into your hippie bike to end it all
I lived in a commie block for 10 years and I’d shoot myself before I have to return in one.
People who claim it’s the future have never enjoyed the displeasure of living in one. They can fuck right off.
No matter how terrible your experience was, it was better than homelessness.
Not sure about the details of a commie block, but apartments are fine.
You do know it’s not only commie block or American suburb right? You can have denser, row housing, you could have better zoning. You hey privacy and and land, but you get isolation and most of your nation are mentally handicapped people from too much excess and misinformation in their life
Row houses are nice if you want to listen to your neighbors’ 2am conversations and music.
GTFO with your human storage units.
Your buildings in America are built cheap af lmao. You dont even know you can live without hearing your neighbors next door 🤣
You must’ve lived in some really badly built stuff (not surprised, US buildings are usually on the worse side of construction quality).
I’m living in a modern German apartment building with about 24 parties. The only thing I hear are when the children in adjacent apartments go full blast at it, screaming like they’re tortured (probably having to eat their cauliflower). Other than that I only heard my neighbor once, apparently having the sex of their lives (it was super quiet in the middle of the night). I chuckled and went back to sleep.
The walls between row houses should be even thicker if build properly, you shouldn’t really hear anything except extremely loud bass. And depending on the quality there even are building techniques to muffle those (I think by leaving some air gap inside the wall).
Sloppy U.S. construction is your issue, not density. Walls can be built to be sound proof.
Houses in the US have thin walls. Nothing prevents something slightly denser without it being row houses, and something mixed use without it having loud and obnoxious night life.
US row house owner here: Air-gapped, sound-insulating walls DO exist here. I never hear my neighbors or their kids. My only regret is having a car when I moved here. It just sits there rusting since I can walk and bike everywhere, including to work. Should have sold it 10 years ago.
Suburbs are not feasible, cost wise, from a municipal standpoint. They’ve been heavily subsidized by the denser parts of the municipality, and surprisingly by the rural parts too.
The cost of maintaining infrastructure in a fit state of repair (water main, sanitary sewer and treatment plants, roads, bridges, storm sewer, curbs, sidewalk, street lighting) for these semi-spread out houses is the same as maintaining it in denser areas without the benefits of the higher tax income.
Additionally, the spread out housing, at least here, has overtaken lower lying wetlands, filled in creeks, and increased water flow down the water courses that do remain, causing erosion, sedimentation, and killing off the aquatic wildlife. Ontario has just started to require Low-Impact Development, standards that require constructing artificial wetlands, soak away pits, raingardens, green roofs, or similar measures to reduce water flow off site and encourage aquifer refilling. These all cost extra money above and beyond what the cost of repair has been up to now.
I work as a consultant designing infrastructure repair and rehabilitation for municipalities, and have seen the cost of these projects. For most of them, it’s the equivalent of their property tax for ~40yrs, and typically has a lifespan of 50-75yrs on the high end.
Suburbs are being subsidized through grants provided by our Federal or Provincial government, which is funded through other taxes.
Ok great.
That sounds like pretty standard /c/fuckcars stuff you could post in any thread.
The post I’m replying to didn’t say anything about cost, I’m just explaining why people like to live in suburbs.
My point is the “cost” you’re describing as a nice balance has been artificially deflated. Property taxes need to be ~doubled for those areas (in my province) in order to properly account for those costs.
Also this thread was initially posted in c/196, which is where I came across it.
It’s not a “nice balance” it is literally the opposite of that.
Aparently most Australians disagree with you.
Yeah just as most Americans think their suburbs are the shit. Until they live in an actual walkable city and it turns out you don’t need a car to survive.
I only just noticed this is posted in /c/fuckcars
Anyhoo. I guess it depends how you define a walkable city. There’s plenty of places in Australia where you really don’t need to own a car, and can walk to everything you need or use public transport.
Still, most Australians choose to live in the suburbs for all the reasons I mentioned.
A walkable city means you have everything you need to thrive within a 5 - 10 min walk. Not just “survive” - i.e a grocery store or whatever. Gyms, restaurants, local establishments, work, etc. Public transport gets you to the next region like that, and is necessary mostly to go somewhere because someone else you want to meet lives further away.
Is it ok if people just think differently? Is it ok that maybe some people want to live in the city and some want to live in the suburbs? Do we have to attack every way of life with every flaw that it presents? Is it ok if we just live?
(Not at you Maalus)
I mean honestly …when one of those “ different thoughts” is massively contributing to making earth uninhabitable for
humancomplex life?No, that’s not okay.
Amazing.
