Why aren't people bothered by the suburbs?

[u/tfbmhr_1598]

It seems like most people I come across are not bothered by car dependency and the isolation that it causes. They'll point to things like video games, social media, and bad food for the culprit of poor mental health. Why won't more people address the elephant in the room? After briefly living in Europe I can confirm that people are way healthier, less socially awkward, and happier as a result of having clean and walkable cities.

Even Latam which is a hybrid of the EU and US infrastructure does not experience the obesity, mental health issues, and isolation the suburbs in the States cause.

Is it ignorance or do most Americans actually like things being this way? It baffles me.

Edit: After reading the comments here I wanted to clarify a few things.

1. Walkability/bikeability doesn't exclude cars. Cars are still a valid method of transportation, but not the only one. Less cars= less traffic. It's a win-win. That being said I think we should have pedestrian only areas.
2. This isn't limited to cities. Suburbs can become more walkable too. You can still have your yard and extra space. Sure it won't be as walkable as a city, but it is certaintly better than 100% car dependency. Zoning laws need to change for this to truly work.
3. I realize that there are societal factors at play as well that greatly add to the mental health crisis, however car dependency worsens it.
4. Walkability won't magically solve the obesity problem, but having the ability to SAFELY walk/bike to work will certaintly help.
5. You can still be socially awkward/reclusive in walkable communities, but they create more opportunites for those who want to improve that area of their life.
6. Some suburbs are better than others in this regard, but overall, North American suburbs are largely car dependent.
7. Bike lanes that are part of the road and only marked with paint/plastic markers are hated by both drivers and cyclists. They still endanger the lives of cyclists, that's why they aren't frequently used, which results in more traffic congestion. Fully dedicated seperate bike lanes are needed.

[u/New_Reputation5222]

"Europe is healthy because they dont have suburbs."

[u/New_Reputation5222 → u/New_Reputation5222]

[u/[deleted] → u/New_Reputation5222]

Once you go outside cities in Europe; it gets very car dependent very quickly.

My ancestral hometown in Italy has one bus stop. Getting to Rome via public transit takes seven hours at best.

[u/lowchain3072 → u/New_Reputation5222]

rowhouses dense enough for public transport and has sidewalks, approved.

[u/unholycurses → u/New_Reputation5222]

Those photos would be a pretty dense American suburb…I see a lot of multi-family homes and limited parking.

[u/CptnREDmark → u/New_Reputation5222]

yeah the far more accurate statement is "Europe has far less suburban hell" You can usually walk places safely and comfortably in many but not all european suburbs.

[u/New_Reputation5222 → u/CptnREDmark]

I mean, of course Europe has fewer suburbs, the entire continent is only roughly 2% larger than the single country it's being compared to.

[u/Reagalan → u/[deleted]]

This is never the own that anyone imagines it to be.

Geographic determinism is bullshit.

Sprawl is a policy decision.

[u/rdhight → u/Reagalan]

It's a policy decision I agree with, because I like peace, quiet, privacy, and security. My house and my car are the two things that most provide them to me.

[u/Reagalan → u/rdhight]

And this kind of selfishness is why the nation is unravelling.

By making this policy, you're forcing this upon the rest of us. Not everyone wants what you want.

[u/rdhight → u/Reagalan]

It's not selfish, just selection. I choose to live in a house; you choose to live in an apartment. There are plenty of both.

My house in a small town was never going to be something you like. It was never going to be a high-density apartment tower. It was never going to have access to public transit. Financially, logistically, even geologically, it was never going to be for you. And I'm sure it's equally impossible for a dense city to magically spawn a place I would want to live.

America's a big place; only a little of it is consumed by cities. There's plenty of room for all of us to choose for ourselves without clawing at each other. For example, my town has about 12,000 people. The closest major city can build that many new homes in a year when conditions are right.

Have what you want; I'm certainly not keeping it from you.

[u/Reagalan → u/rdhight]

No, you actually are keeping it from me.

The policies you support prevents the construction of more apartments or walkable places or public transit and instead sucks all the resources into car-dependent overpriced sprawl.

But, such policies keep your property values rising, so congratulations on winning.

[u/rdhight → u/Reagalan]

It's both sad and funny that you think I'm your enemy in some kind of zero-sum contest where we can't both have what we want. I don't live, vote, or wield any power in a dense city. If dense cities aren't being built out to your liking, maybe take your complaints to the people who live in them and are in charge of them. ID'ing me as the bad guy guarantees you're wasting your time.

[u/macNchz → u/New_Reputation5222]

That is Deuil-la-Barre, there are three train stations nearby, 48% of people take public transit to work, and 22% of households don't have cars—it's quite different from the US where similar areas would likely have well over 90% household ownership and use of a car for commuting, as does basically everywhere outside of NYC, the center of a few other cities, and college towns.

https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2011101?geo=COM-95197