[lr4444lr]

> The elephant in the room people don't want to acknowledge is that suburbia has mostly been a way to flee from and exclude social decay.

This is why I bought in a socially conservative neighborhood: people implicitly police one another into basic civic decency, and I'd much rather suffer an occasional scolding from a few overzealous busybodies than bear the burden of intergenerational poverty and crime. Sure, I may need to drive a bit to find interesting shopping and entertainment options, but at the end of the day if I'm going to make a commitment into an asset as big and un-diversified as a 30 year mortgage, I'd want just about every "negative" the author brings up. And if I'm going to get the fury from HN for saying it, so be it. I'm happy to give up grime, drug trafficking, and violence for an internet tongue lashing.

[rayiner]

> few overzealous busybodies than bear the burden of intergenerational poverty and crime.

New York city in recent years has had about 350 homicides and 250 traffic deaths (600 total). The state of Virginia, which has the same population (8m people), has 700 traffic deaths and 300-350 homicides. In other words, you're almost twice as likely to die in Virginia (a mostly suburban and rural state), than in the densest city in the country.

When was the last time you heard about a middle class white kid getting shot in the inner city? How often do you hear about teenagers dying in car accidents in your "safe" suburb?

[tcoppi]

There is more to safety than simply violent crimes, non-violent crimes are a worry as well. I agree modern urban cores in American are just as safe in terms of violent crime as any suburb, but I would be interested in seeing how non-violent and property crimes compare. It wouldn't surprise me if they are just as safe as suburbs in that context as well, but it doesn't seem to be talked about nearly as much.

[pyre]

> I'm happy to give up grime, drug trafficking, and violence for an internet tongue lashing.

This statement assumes that if you did not make the choice that you have you would be assured to have these things happening right outside your door.

[lr4444lr]

Sure. I imagine that many families moved to Sandy Hook, CT for safety and security. There's no guarantee in life. There's also relative measure: some of the old timers where I live feel the neighborhood has "gone downhill". Some people are frankly just happier living in a bustling and unstable place where they simply accept they can't let their kids go outside unsupervised until they're 18. I believe we'll generally be happier with where we live over a multi decade span by identifying our personal priorities and chasing the expected value. It's the author's judgmental and absolutist position that I take issue with, that things like tight uniform zoning, "parking first" space, and hierarchical traffic distribution must "suck". They in fact suck in his opinion.

[pyre]

Some people also like to live in communities where every house looks exactly the same with no variation, and where the local homeowners' association will send someone out daily during the summer with callipers to measure your lawn height (or fine you because a box was delivered to your door while you were at work and it was sitting there "too long.")

It does not necessarily mean that these are "good" things just because someone thinks that they are good things either though.

[abalashov]

They in fact suck in his opinion.

Well, yes. And you, too, can have a blog!

[abalashov]

I'm happy to give up grime, drug trafficking, and violence

Well, sure! Anyone would be happy to give up those things; me too! I don't know a person who would say, "I would like to live amidst grime, drug trafficking and violence, please."

... but it's a bizarre non sequitur, unless you're just grossly misinformed about how urban life works.