Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ajkessler 5252 days ago
Right, but if the suburbs weren't so sparse... they wouldn't be suburbs. The empty space is precisely the reason many people choose to live there.
2 comments

There's a difference between suburbs where everyone has a yard and peace and quiet and suburbs where the sidewalks inconsistently exist, cul-de-sac neighborhoods inflate route lengths and compound traffic snarls, zoning breaks up residential areas with light commerical areas that have mandated massive lots to handle twice-a-year peak parking needs, etc.

You can literally see the difference in walkability and infrastructure service levels between suburban neighborhoods built in the 50s and those built in the late 70s and later.

One has consistent street and infrastructure grids, parks, likely bus stops (because they're feasible) and commercial-cluster downtown areas for goodness sake! While the other has larger yards, cul-de-sacs, inconsistent sidewalks and the closest they come to a downtown is a (likely now decrepit) mall with its own ocean of usually-empty parking and the commensurate traffic-snarling entrances and exits.

This is why I feel so out of place in the vast majority of american suburbs today. Standing in any public space, if you look at roads and parking lots as dead space, it seems as if half the total space surrounding you is just nothing. It isn't beautiful, it isn't usable, it is just empty space that soaks up the landscape, carving it up all to make it cheap for someone to drive, but making it impossible for someone to walk.
Back yards are great: they hold pools, gardens, playgrounds, BBQs, etc.

But front yards are nothing but unused space that increase sprawl.

Good. Let them pay the actual costs of such luxury.