this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
1010 points (98.1% liked)

196

4973 readers
617 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago (43 children)

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.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

It's not a "nice balance" it is literally the opposite of that.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] green@feddit.nl 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I believe housing choice is a good thing. The problem is that suburbia almost always takes away housing choice for everyone else.

  1. 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.

  1. 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).

  1. 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 8 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (39 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›