Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Having a discussion with a friend, and this question came up.
What do you think?
Why or why not?
We're neither meant to live in cities or suburbs. We're meant to live in small dense settlements of around 150 people. You can easily see this by studying how humans live in pre-state societies, like hunter-gatherers or part-time horticulturalists. We literally can't keep track of more than 150 social relationships in our head.
That said, humans have long dealt with larger numbers of people now. We've learned to "tune out" the majority of strange faces we see, not really thinking about them as if they are human beings.
The innovations for suburbia, however, are far more recent. They mostly have to do with a grossly inflated cultural idea of privacy and personal space which has no historical antecedents. In most cultures up until the last 300 years or so, the standard was for one-room dwellings with little private space. Up until the 20th century, nearly everyone shared a bedroom with someone (if not a bed), besides their spouse at some point in life.
The problem is, there's really no sign that our fetish for privacy is actually emotionally healthy. Humans are social animals, and generally are happier when they have a large number of acquaintances who they are in close daily contact with. The modern suburban auto-centric lifestyle is highly isolating, particularly if you are a parent who has little time to socialize outside of work. Cities aren't perfect when it comes to socialization either, but at moderate densities they provide more possibilities for the type of social glue that is needed in order to keep us emotionally balanced.
The problem is, there's really no sign that our fetish for privacy is actually emotionally healthy. Humans are social animals, and generally are happier when they have a large number of acquaintances who they are in close daily contact with. The modern suburban auto-centric lifestyle is highly isolating, particularly if you are a parent who has little time to socialize outside of work. Cities aren't perfect when it comes to socialization either, but at moderate densities they provide more possibilities for the type of social glue that is needed in order to keep us emotionally balanced.
Here's another way of looking at it.
Perhaps suburbia allows people to break down their social networks into small, manageable chunks. I would not say that humans are "generally happier when they have a large number of acquaintances" given that we spent much of our early existence in hunter-gatherer clans comprised of 20 to 30 people. Maybe suburbia is an instinctual reaction to social networks that have become too large and impersonal for people to deal with.
We're neither meant to live in cities or suburbs. We're meant to live in small dense settlements of around 150 people. You can easily see this by studying how humans live in pre-state societies, like hunter-gatherers or part-time horticulturalists. We literally can't keep track of more than 150 social relationships in our head.
That said, humans have long dealt with larger numbers of people now. We've learned to "tune out" the majority of strange faces we see, not really thinking about them as if they are human beings.
The innovations for suburbia, however, are far more recent. They mostly have to do with a grossly inflated cultural idea of privacy and personal space which has no historical antecedents. In most cultures up until the last 300 years or so, the standard was for one-room dwellings with little private space. Up until the 20th century, nearly everyone shared a bedroom with someone (if not a bed), besides their spouse at some point in life.
The problem is, there's really no sign that our fetish for privacy is actually emotionally healthy. Humans are social animals, and generally are happier when they have a large number of acquaintances who they are in close daily contact with. The modern suburban auto-centric lifestyle is highly isolating, particularly if you are a parent who has little time to socialize outside of work. Cities aren't perfect when it comes to socialization either, but at moderate densities they provide more possibilities for the type of social glue that is needed in order to keep us emotionally balanced.
I concur with what you said. I would like to add that in different periods of time human were meant to live different ways. Now that a big portion of the world is industrialized it has caused our world population to swell. So we can't live in small villages like we used to. So it's trying to find a balance of things. Not the strictly suburban false perception of privacy and not the overbearing congested city form. A way to house a large population and still keeping the privacy intact while also keeping a social culture is to just make things human scale. Take away the big neon signs with the gaudy company logos, put in more smaller format grocery stores, and provide ample walking space for people to move around. Instead of focusing on giving stainless steel appliances and the such, invest in quality housing and apartments where you can't hear your neighbors getting it on through the wall.--I would rather have a bland and vanilla apartment or house knowing that it's well insulated and with solid floors than have something thats all modern and updated but have shakey foundation and thin walls. I can add my own modern fixtures, just give me a quality house to live in.
Humans were DESIGNED to always keep moving. (hunting, cooking, teaching, etc...) We just have to design our big cities where we still get that experience.
Perhaps suburbia allows people to break down their social networks into small, manageable chunks. I would not say that humans are "generally happier when they have a large number of acquaintances" given that we spent much of our early existence in hunter-gatherer clans comprised of 20 to 30 people. Maybe suburbia is an instinctual reaction to social networks that have become too large and impersonal for people to deal with.
Would it be safe to say that the majority of people in suburbs don't even know their neighbors. Most suburbs don't even have sidewalks, so I know for a fact no one is interacting. You don't even have a safe path to walk on. It's creating more dense housing around public gathering spots. Whether it be a school, park, or civic center. That's what creates social networks. Think about the old charming small town's back in the day where people did most of their everyday things in the town center. The town center was where people went to work, socialize, shop, eat, buy groceries and on their way back home they would bump into neighbors. All of this done by walking, biking, or a very very short drive.
Living in houses straight off the baking sheet where one has to drive to the nearest gym just to run on a treadmil becuase their own neighborhood doesn't have a safe path to run on doesn't create a community. The same with big congested cities where you can't interact with anyone because you're too busy fighting for some space. It's about creating a balance.
Perhaps suburbia allows people to break down their social networks into small, manageable chunks. I would not say that humans are "generally happier when they have a large number of acquaintances" given that we spent much of our early existence in hunter-gatherer clans comprised of 20 to 30 people. Maybe suburbia is an instinctual reaction to social networks that have become too large and impersonal for people to deal with.
Smaller bands than 150 can form in areas where the climate is too poor to handle a steady community of 150, which is a maximum, not an ideal number. But in those cases there are usually "sister groups" which they check in with regularly on a friendly basis. Also, modern hunter-gatherer groups are usually on the ecological fringes, and shouldn't be taken as being indicative of the norms of our ancestors. Richer lands led to a richer life.
In addition, social networks have become more attenuated in the U.S., even if it isn't directly associated with suburbanization. I recall reading in 1980, they asked people the question if they found out they had a serious illness like cancer, how many people would they tell. At that time, it was 13. A few years ago they asked again. It was down to 2. Or hell, read Bowling Alone if you haven't. Even if you disagree with his thesis, the data is pretty solid.
I'd say it's an issue of countervailing desires, neither of which are entirely rational. We tend to squabble with aquaintences who we are in close contact with (roommates, for example, or family), which can be taxing and make isolation seem like a comforting choice. But virtually everyone if they spend too much time in an environment with little social interaction outside of work develops loneliness which over time leads to desperation and depression. More recent studies have shown that online contact with friends through Facebook actually makes us more depressed than we would be with no social interaction at all. People need people in order to feel whole.
I concur with what you said. I would like to add that in different periods of time human were meant to live different ways. Now that a big portion of the world is industrialized it has caused our world population to swell. So we can't live in small villages like we used to. So it's trying to find a balance of things. Not the strictly suburban false perception of privacy and not the overbearing congested city form. A way to house a large population and still keeping the privacy intact while also keeping a social culture is to just make things human scale. Take away the big neon signs with the gaudy company logos, put in more smaller format grocery stores, and provide ample walking space for people to move around. Instead of focusing on giving stainless steel appliances and the such, invest in quality housing and apartments where you can't hear your neighbors getting it on through the wall.--I would rather have a bland and vanilla apartment or house knowing that it's well insulated and with solid floors than have something thats all modern and updated but have shakey foundation and thin walls. I can add my own modern fixtures, just give me a quality house to live in.
Humans were DESIGNED to always keep moving. (hunting, cooking, teaching, etc...) We just have to design our big cities where we still get that experience.
I'm personally a big fan of cohousing, as I think it's a more natural setting for humans, although I'm fairly sure I'll never live in any, as it's too rare and expensive within the U.S. But it solves a lot of the problems with modern single-family living - particularly around child care. It could easily be built in an urban setting as well - say with a large block with rowhouses ringing it, and a central courtyard open to the whole community.
Smaller bands than 150 can form in areas where the climate is too poor to handle a steady community of 150, which is a maximum, not an ideal number. But in those cases there are usually "sister groups" which they check in with regularly on a friendly basis. Also, modern hunter-gatherer groups are usually on the ecological fringes, and shouldn't be taken as being indicative of the norms of our ancestors. Richer lands led to a richer life.
My point was simply that people led emotionally healthy lives without living in medium to high density places. I don't think people in suburbs experience any more social alientation than people living in cities. That's what urbanists would like to believe, but there's no way to confirm that belief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
