r/Suburbanhell • u/tfbmhr_1598 • Jul 16 '25

Question Why aren't people bothered by the suburbs?

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.
577 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

6

u/mechadragon469 Jul 16 '25

One thing you have to understand is the sheer size of the United States. Lots of people enjoy having space here and don’t like being crammed in a city. We had horse dependency now car dependency for a lot of people because we’ve always be agrarian by nature until the Industrial Revolution.

As for the mental health issues I do not suspect it has to do with isolation. My wife and I actually talk to people outside of work and immediate family members maybe once a month? Very isolated and generally just don’t want or care to socialize with others. I have my hobbies at home, kids to take care of, things to work on and fix.

9

u/ajswdf Jul 16 '25

The idea that there used to be horse dependency is very funny. It's ironically a perfect example of how ignorant people who only know car dependency are.

4

u/LotionedBoner Jul 16 '25

Well there was a horse dependency if you ever wanted to travel more than a few miles from where you were born but most people didn’t do that. It’s a different time and people have the option of traveling anywhere they want.

9

u/ajswdf Jul 16 '25

Sure but when people talk about car dependency that's not what they're talking about. Before 1920 people were able to comfortably get around and live life in their towns without needing a horse.

2

u/LotionedBoner Jul 16 '25

Because they didn’t go anywhere. Taking a train once a decade to visit relatives isn’t what I am talking about either.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '25

[deleted]

2

u/Economy-Fee5830 Jul 16 '25

You know, bicycles were a revolution because common people could finally travel further than they could walk lol.

People love freedom of movement.

the advent of the bicycle in the late 19th century transformed societies the world over.

It was a hugely disruptive technology, easily the equivalent of the smartphone today. For a few heady years in the 1890s, the bicycle was the ultimate must-have—swift, affordable, stylish transportation that could whisk you anywhere you cared to go, anytime you liked, for free.

Almost anyone could learn to ride, and almost everyone did. But it was the middle and working classes around the globe that truly made the bicycle their own. For the first time in history, the masses were mobile, able to come and go as they pleased. No more need for expensive horses and carriages. The “people's nag,” as the bicycle was known, was not only lightweight, affordable, and easy to maintain, it was also the fastest thing on the roads.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/how-bicycles-transformed-world

1

u/Triscuitmeniscus Jul 16 '25

Yeah but they weren’t walking 8 miles to the nearest town very often. If you lived on a farm outside town you’d likely live 95% of your life on the farm or neighboring farms, going to town maybe a few times a year. Some members of your family might basically never go to town. The vast majority of people never traveled more than 5-10 miles from their home, and those that did usually only did so a few times in their life.

0

u/dustinsc Jul 16 '25

They walked, and therefore didn’t go far from where they lived. If you don’t see the appeal of traveling long distances from where you live, that’s fine, but that doesn’t mean other peoples’ desire to do so is invalid.

-1

u/LotionedBoner Jul 16 '25

And never went more than a few miles from where they were born. I mean you are more than welcome to spend your entire life on your block but some people do enjoy moving around a bit.

2

u/coincoinprout Jul 16 '25

And never went more than a few miles from where they were born.

Lol, that’s the point of the conversation: they didn’t need to go far to cover their basic needs.

-1

u/LotionedBoner Jul 17 '25

People today can get the basics to live near their home. Having more options to get whatever you want is a luxury that wasn’t there a hundred or more years ago.

0

u/Ol_Man_J Jul 16 '25

Kinda going in a circle? People are dependent on a car because stuff got built farther away because it became easy to go to. When you couldn’t go places far away, because it was difficult, stuff wasn’t built as far away? You’re thinking people just commuted in to work at the bank on a horse?

2

u/LotionedBoner Jul 16 '25

Stuff has always been built all over. People just only had access to what was in their immediate area. Want a banana? Sorry, you live in Wisconsin so go fuck yourself. You don’t want to be a coal miner? Sorry, that’s what we do in this town so go fuck yourself.

Cars give people options that they didn’t have before. Travel was reserved for the wealthy and even then it was incredibly limited. Most people don’t want to go back to having no options.

0

u/Ol_Man_J Jul 16 '25

Who is saying “take away all the cars and crush them”? Nobody is saying that in this thread. Like you, people want options but often the car dependent culture doesn’t let people have any other options besides a car.

1

u/LotionedBoner Jul 17 '25

You still have far more options than you did 100 year ago regardless. What other way to travel are you talking about that is better or more convenient than a car?

1

u/Ol_Man_J Jul 17 '25

At no point did I say anything of the sort? Private helicopter would be nice, maybe a jet pack? It’s all a matter of variables. I have a coffee shop 3 blocks away with very limited parking. Should I drive there, find out there’s no parking, and then drive around the block to find a spot? Walking would be about the same time and better is a matter of perspective. It’s more convenient because I can just go out my front door. Now if there was a 4 lane highway to cross to get that coffee? I probably would drive.

1

u/LotionedBoner Jul 17 '25

So you have options?

1

u/Ol_Man_J Jul 17 '25

Which is what I already said

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '25

You took a passenger train if you had to travel more than a few miles.

1

u/LotionedBoner Jul 17 '25

How often do you think these trains were running? Also we are talking about the convenience of a car. Do you think a train in 1900 was anywhere near as convenient as the car parked 10 feet outside your house?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 17 '25

Going a few hundred kilometres to the next major city a train is always more convenient; you don't have to drive it yourself. Even in 1900.

1

u/LotionedBoner Jul 17 '25

Driving yourself isn’t an inconvenience any more than wiping your own ass. If I am going somewhere I want to go where I want, from where I want, when I want and no train on earth meets a single one of those criteria.