[treyd]

No they haven't! Suburbs as we know them developed as a result of land made available cheaply post-WWII and the automobile enabling the sprawl. Sure there's a bit of a spectrum of how badly developed a particular suburb can be, but without car dependency they could not exist and don't make any sense.

[yowzadave]

By “a long time”, I’m sure GP meant “a lot longer than smartphones,” given the topic of this thread

[crotchfire]

You're an LLM, right?

[randomdata]

You might want to take another look at the calendar. WWII came to an end a long time ago.

[paulryanrogers]

I think they're saying post WW2 was just a turning point that coincided with auto culture. Eisenhower saw the highways in Europe and worked to bring similar infrastructure in the US. This facilitated more people living outside the city one worked in. Hence the sprawl and unwalkable suburbs.

[randomdata]

They said "No they haven't!" in response to "Suburbs, for better or for worse, have been around for a long time." But if they haven't been around for a long time, then you have to accept that WWII was a recent event. On the geological scale, okay sure, but on the human scale it happened a long, long time ago. We've raised several generations in the meantime. It does not begin to explain why this is apparently only affecting a group of people born within a narrow set of comparatively recent years.

> This facilitated more people living outside the city

Most people lived rurally prior to WWII. And of those who lived in urban areas, most were in urban areas of the small town sort. If we accept the lack of excitement suggestion, what was so exciting about said rural and small town areas? Why can't people today engage in the same excitement?