Suburbs Exonerated On Accusations of Community-Killing
Brian Doherty | November 15, 2006, 11:28am
The suburbs, in both arts and pop-social science, are frequently portrayed as veritable graveyards for meaningful, authentic life and valuable social interactions. Now some new social science research comes to praise their effects on sociability, finding, according to
this account on the Canada.com site, that
people who live in sprawling suburban areas
have more friends, better community involvement and more frequent
contact with their neighbours than urbanites who are wedged in
side-by-side. The results challenge the accepted idea that suburban
life is socially alienating a notion that's inspired everything from
the Academy Award-winning American Beauty to Harvard professor Robert
Putnam's book Bowling Alone.
The study, released by the University of California at Irvine, found
that for every 10 per cent decrease in population density, the chances
of people talking to their neighbours weekly increases by 10 per cent,
and the likelihood they belong to hobby-based clubs jumps by 15 per
cent.
"We found that interaction goes down as population density goes up.
So, turning it around, it says that interaction is higher where
densities are lower," says Jan Brueckner, an economics professor at UC
Irvine who led the study. "What that means is suburban living promotes
more interaction than living in the central city."
Here's the full paper by Brueckner and Ann G. Largey the article is about.
Here's Nick Gillespie on how the burbs don't make you fat, either.
[Link via Marginal Revolution.]
rob | November 15, 2006, 3:47pm | #
"I'm rambling but there's obviously a lot of chickens and eggs in this equasion." - DT
(Begin snark sequence.)
Why would you expect to be treated as an intellectual with a good grasp on the economic and cultural trends associated with rural and suburban development - much less the general trend of human history in Western civilization and energy consumption in industrial nations - when you not only mis-spell the word "equation" but you mix a mathematical concept with a mixed metaphor that makes it look like you're calculating an SAT word problem about chickens and eggs?
(End snark sequence)
"But of course the 'free enterprise' that produces automobiles is wholly dependent on the society to build roads - otherwise the cars are pretty much useless." - DT
Only in a scenario where the gov't maintains a monopoly on road-building. Like, say, the reality we live in today as opposed to "libertopia." Still...
"Not that 'socialism' couldn't build roads at a faster pace than it does, but people wouldn't be willing to pay the price." - DT
Actually, socialism SUBTRACTS value while capitalism is intended to ADD value. Gov't bureaucracy is a drain on a nation's value that doesn't itself generate value, and it must sustain itself from the value it is re-distributing. (In business this is referred to as skimming, or embezzling.)
Think of it this way, all governments incorporate so much value-subtracting bureaucracy that it is nearly an inverse-square ratio. (You like weird, mixed metaphor mathematical comparisons, right?)
Since the two quantities are inversely proportional, an increase in one quantity (gov't bureaucracy/control) results in a decrease in the value of the other quantity (gov't road construction).
Essentially, as the gov't attempts to do more, it requires almost twice the bureaucracy to go half as far. So the more it attempts to control or construct, the less it actually accomplishes per tax dollar.
"So traffic jams exist because people would rather sit in traffic than pay for more roads." - DT
Actually, I think that if it were up to consumers, roads would be built to handle the traffic flow following supply and demand, rather than based on the whims of politicians looking for pork in their district. (Bridge to nowhere in Alaska, for example...)
"That and the fact that the more roads are built, the quicker and more efficent automobile transportation becomes, and the more people are encouraged to drive, which leads to traffic jams, etc." -DT
Wow, now there's a self-fulfilling logical circle if you stop where you do. How about taking it to its next logical step, though, which is that once sufficient roads are built to handle the traffic - even the increased "encouraged" traffic - you can stop building and expanding roads?
But that's just that crackpot supply and demand theory, right?
Pro Libertate | November 15, 2006, 4:57pm | #
Dan T.,
I was at a luncheon yesterday with some people who are working on fixing one of our many interchange problems in Tampa. They are private contractors working on a public toll road. I asked them why the Veterans' Expressway (a toll road running north-south in western Hillsborough County) was foolishly built as a four-lane highway when the need and demand for a larger highway was obvious when the danged thing was built (as was the massive growth in the area that, in fact, occurred). The answer was money, of course.
To me, that highlights an obvious flaw with government control over the roads. The decision to build a dramatically inadequate road came down solely to funding, and, possibly (and to a much, much smaller degree), to some planners subtly sabotaging an easy route from the suburbs to the city, because they don't like sprawl.
Over the medium term, this is a crazy decision, even financially speaking. The cost of land has been skyrocketing, and it would've been incredibly cheaper to have built a bigger road in the first place. Not to mention that to have built it correctly from the outset would've avoided the massive inconvenience to drivers (wasn't an existing thoroughfare to begin with, so no displaced drivers), and the land involved was relatively undeveloped back then. Not so today.
I think a private company responsible for the building and ongoing functionality of the road would've been more concerned about future costs and increased revenues (more lanes, more traffic, more tolls, more money) than a government entity worried about this year's budget (and the political costs of spending too much money) while, simultaneously, not worrying so much about the money since there's more where that came from!
I should disclose that this evil Toll Parking Lot that they humorously call a "road" is one that I'm forced to contend with every day. So, yes, I'm bitter, and I spend at least some time daily trying to figure out why the bastards that built this thing did it in such a stupid way :)
Oh, by the way, for those of you like Dan T. with spelling issues, Firefox 2.0 has a built-in spell checker for forms. Very nice, though it doesn't check your grammar or your reasoning. Unfortunately.
rob | November 15, 2006, 5:37pm | #
"You got me..." - DT
Just jerkin' your chain man...
"For a city to work, roads pretty much have to be public. In libertopia, you may find that you’re trapped in your house because the road owner has decided to triple your charge for using his property to get to your job." - DT
But if you're a guy with a job then the odds are pretty good that you won't be priced out of road usage for 2 reasons: 1) because it will undoubtedly be cheaper for the road's owner to make a profit at less than what you would have paid in taxes for the same road, and 2) if he's pricing the working stiff out of being able to use the road he's losing the overwhelming majority of his customer base.
And if you're a guy without a job, then you've got bigger problems than road fees - you're worrying about where your next meal will come from in "libertopia"!
"Socialism doesn’t necessarily subtract value. It depends on how and when it’s applied." - DT
How can a bureaucracy that takes value from those who earned it, who then take a cut of that value for themselves before re-distributing among those who had nothing to do with creating that value, not be subtracting value?
"(For example, Central Park is a socialist project that has added tremendous value to privately owned property in NYC)." - DT
But Central Park isn't really a socialist project per se, because though it is city-owned and city-regulated, the idea of a "commons" pre-dates Karl Marx.
"Capitalism works well with things like consumer goods, not so well with infrastructure." - DT
I don't think it's really possible to prove or disprove something that's never been attempted - like whether capitalism would work well for infrastructure. I find it hard to believe that it would do a worse job of allocating resources, frankly.
"I suppose in theory a city could build a system of roads so massive that no amount of cars that would ever drive on it would cause a traffic jam." - DT
I think it's certainly within the realm of the possible - at least it seems more likely than the idea that the gov't will fail to mismanage tax dollars.
"But I can’t help but think that it would be so expensive people might begin to think that they’d rather sit through at least some traffic rather than have their entire paychecks taxed to build something like that." - DT
I would guess that it could be accomplished for less than the gov't bureaucracy's process for maintaining the current system based on the profit incentive that would be available, but like I said, it's tough to prove or disprove something that's never been tried. For example, Tokyo has built some amazing structures that seem far more complicated than the "mega-highway" we're talking about.
"It’s all about allocation of resources. Sometimes, planning actually works better than letting everybody do what they want and praying that it somehow all comes together well." - DT
Anecdotally, I have yet to see an example of central planning that was capable of overcoming individual initiative. As for allocation of resources, well, I'd love to show you my plans for allocating your resources to the projects that I really want to see accomplished, but somehow I doubt you're very open to my plan to empty your bank account for the greater good...
joe | November 15, 2006, 8:05pm | #
JW,
The right not hear unsettling truths is not one I have a great deal of respect for.
And as far as "slurs or elitist labels," why don't you scroll your mouse wheel upthread, and take a look at who turned a civil thread about this study, and the implications of different development patterns on social interaction, into a series of slurs and ad homenim attacks on the other side's character and motives? Hint: it happened around 1:30 PM, right around the time we were graced with the presence of you and rob.
rob, I am not going to cease making factual statments just because you don't want to hear them, or dislike their implications. Truth is truth; deal with it.
PS - asserting that I hold a belief - in this case, that I object "to the particular manner certain folks have chosen to build their lives" - isn't getting anything out into the open other than your need to make up positions to argue against when you can't argue against the ones presented.
"You are a dishonest piece of crap. Now that we've gotten that out into the open, allow me to congratulate myself on being your superior." How infantile. If you would like to ask me anything about what I have actually written, I may respond.
PS, any time you would care to aim this accusation where it belongs - at people like JW, who openly says that he is "not interested" in allowing anyone to build anything different than his preferred housing style, you should feel free. But you won't because you are a dishonest hypocrite who would rather use such an argument dishonestly than honestly, so that you can pick a fight with me.
suburban planner,
Your inability to imagine options besides Cabrini Green and Long Island-style sprawl in an indictment of your own beliefs, not mine.
joe | November 16, 2006, 8:42am | #
Homer,
You are quite mistaken about that. How many of my adversaries can boast have spent dozens upon dozens of evenings holding meetings to talk to people about what they wanted for their neighborhoods? I have - it's what planners do for a living.
How many of them would even admit that the general public even has the right to have a say in that question? The answer is zero, because depriving the public of their right to define their community's character is anathema to libertarians, 'property rights' philosophy.
"It can be safely said that of the best places to live in the world, none of them were centrally planned."
Paris, Rome, Northwest Washington, Seattle...nope, no planning there.
"The proper neighborhood is the one you choose to live in and feel comfortable in, regardless of what some central planner might prefer..."
Developers, on the other hand, are to be given all of the authority to determine how places would be built, with the public having no say whatsoever.
I'll say it again: planning is about incorporating the public's values into development. Planners support that, because we have faith in the public's ability to exercise that responsibility thoughtfully. Libertarians do not, because they are hostile to the hoi polloi telling their betters in the development community what they want their communities to be.
"Also, no matter how you attempt to justify it, 'sprawl' IS a euphemism for 'we don't like the way you do things, because it isn't the way we want you to do it'." No, it's not. Sprawl is a term for a particular development pattern which does measureable harm to the environment and the function of a metropolitan area. Saying I object to is because it's not how I like to do things is like saying I object to dumping mercury in streams because that's not how I like to do things. You're right, it's not how I like to do things, and there are legitimate reasons why.
rob | November 16, 2006, 1:53pm | #
"rob, I am not going to cease making factual statments just because you don't want to hear them, or dislike their implications. Truth is truth; deal with it." - joe
Then you should start making factual statements. I've re-read this thread and all I see are your opinions, not facts.
"asserting that I hold a belief - in this case, that I object 'to the particular manner certain folks have chosen to build their lives' - isn't getting anything out into the open other than your need to make up positions to argue against when you can't argue against the ones presented." - joe
Really? So you aren't against what you refer to as "sprawl" even if it is how people choose to live?
"'You are a dishonest piece of crap. Now that we've gotten that out into the open, allow me to congratulate myself on being your superior.' How infantile."
Kettle, pot. I think that my characterization of your position is accurate, but you are offended by it. That can only be either because you DON'T hold to that argument or you're offended that people have realized the moral bankruptcy of your argument. So prove it's the former by explaining how your position actually differs from what I said, instead of whining about it and calling me names.
"If you would like to ask me anything about what I have actually written, I may respond." - joe
See the last sentence of my previous paragraph.
"But you won't because you are a dishonest hypocrite who would rather use such an argument dishonestly than honestly, so that you can pick a fight with me." - joe
Show how my argument is dishonest, much less wrong, and then either I'll be in agreement with you or we can argue over your "new, improved" position.
As for my desire to pick a fight with you - don't be surprised by that. We rarely agree on things as it is, but if your arguments can't withstand vigorous opposition, maybe you should consider modifying them.
joe | November 16, 2006, 3:30pm | #
JW, it's clear that no amount of explanation about what I believe is going to alter your inaccurate perceptions, because you are so beholden to them. So I'm no longer going to try. I know that I take seriously the public's right to define their community's character. All of your "nuh-uh, you don't really"s don't change that.
rob,
All you ever do is manufacture outrage over my supposedly elitist or racist statements, and yet you are never to be found when actual racist ("Muslims are uncivilized") or elitist ("I don't want poor people in my town") comments are posted by other people. You're a dishonest whiner, still smarting from the fact that I whip your ass whenver you stick your head up. Your dishonest bitching is meaningless.
Homer,
If you want to learn about the effects of sprawl, there are numerous studies you can find at www.planning.org.
"You are the one that is arguing against the right of a portion of the public to define the character of their community (and you hide behind your euphemism of 'sprawl')." No, not at all. I am arguing that the public's right to define the character of their community needs to occur at both the individual level, and also at the community level. Like most libertarians, you don't seem to have a solid grasp of that second part.
The individual decisions people make about where they want to live can be perfectly rational, and still produce irrational outcomes in the aggregate. For example, people who move the exurbs to escape heavy traffic may well reduce their own struggles with traffic, while actually making the overall traffic problem worse. As with those shepherds bringing their sheep to the common, the individual effort to maximize well-being simply isn't a sufficient mechanism to achieve the overall good that each idividual would like to see.
That isn't a denial of each individual's capacity for reason; it's a recognition that phenomena happen at different scales, and need to be considered at the approp
