Suburbs foster more sense of community than downtown

[miketoronto]

Here is an interesting article. All these studies coming out now showing suburban stuff is better for people. First transit riders are not as happy as car drivers. And now city dwellers have worse social lives then city dwellers.

I think this has to do more with downtown and the suburbs then inner city neighbourhoods and the suburbs. My sisters friends are married and live in the inner city in a house. And they know people on their block, and the kids play together, etc just like in the suburbs.

So I think this article I guess touches more on downtown housing then having a house in the city.


-------

Suburbs foster more sense of community than downtown

Suburbs foster more sense of community than downtown
study: Those living outside the cities have more friends and know their neighbours

Published: Saturday, November 11, 2006

If absence makes the heart grow fonder in far-flung romances, it seems a bit of elbow-room does the same for neighbours.

A new study says 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."

The results are no surprise to Fayrouz Costa, who has lived in -- and loved -- the Toronto suburb of Mississauga, Ont., for the last 20 years. She has two young children and is constantly socializing with her neighbours, who take turns watching over each other's children while they play outside and house-sitting for those on vacation.

"You couldn't give me a free house in the city and say, 'Move here.' Honestly, I could never do it," she says. "There's just too many people, people are too close to each other and people are not friendly. I'm a chatterer and people don't chat in the city."

Costa is a member of her community centre, where she uses the fitness facilities five days a week and knows "almost everyone." She contrasts her lifestyle with that of her sister, who lives and works in Toronto, and concludes that she "would never leave the suburbs."

"People are always in a rush to get where they need to go and they work a lot more," Costa says of life in the city. "A lot of the time in the suburbs, people have families and their life is a little more relaxed."

That "social homogeneity" may partly explain the closeness of neighbours in the suburbs, says Pierre Filion, a professor of urban planning at the University of Waterloo. Young children often act as social catalysts for their parents, and people in the suburbs tend to have more common ground than the diverse lifestyles crammed into a given city block, he says.

"People [in the suburbs] are pretty much of the same social class, same social background and so on, which eases interaction between people," Filion says. "At the other extreme, you can have a whole bunch of people living in a condo, but you've got old people, young people, people in between. You won't have that much interaction because of the differences."

Brueckner says the UC Irvine study accounted for differences in social class, family structure and other factors, and found that people are still friendlier in the suburbs. The results suggest society needs to re-think some received wisdom about the evils of suburbia, he says, but other criticisms about the loss of green space and the costs of commuting still stand.

"All the other arguments against urban sprawl are still there, it just removes this particular one from the list when you're complaining," he says.

Lyn Scott has lived in Steveston for the last three decades and watched as it grew from a sleepy village to "the 'in' place for young families to live," a 30-minute drive from downtown Vancouver.

She is now the block captain of a neighbourhood watch program that welcomes new residents, keeps tabs on crime and hosts an annual block party. While most young families who move into her neighbourhood are surprised to find such quaint niceties, some have a hard time adjusting to the suburban scene, she says.

"Some of them are a little bit cynical and say, 'Oh, that makes me feel really safe, having a block watch,' " Scott says in a faux-sarcastic tone. "But they come around."

© The Vancouver Sun 2006

[DeadManWalking]

I completely agree with the idea that suburbs require a person be more outgoing in their social interactions by talking with your neighbor more often, and by joining more clubs or groups. I disagree with the notion that living in the city means you will lead an unhealthy social life.

A persons social life has more to do with the individual person than their environs.

[miketoronto]

I think it has more to do with kids. Everyone on my street use to know each other here in the burbs. That was when everyone had small kids at home. But now I notice that the new people who have moved in, we don't interact with as much, as they have no kids, and everyone just sticks to their homes.

So I guess kids are the glue.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

I think it has more to do with kids. Everyone on my street use to know each other here in the burbs. That was when everyone had small kids at home. But now I notice that the new people who have moved in, we don't interact with as much, as they have no kids, and everyone just sticks to their homes.

So I guess kids are the glue.

I just think people with similar interests who see one another will interact no matter where they live. In my development...the people with kids tend to talk to one another and hang out out on the small playground while their kids play...and those of us who just have dogs....tend to wind up talking to one another as our dogs sniff each other.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Where's Chicago103?



Actually I agree with the comment about the kids. Nearly every apartment I've lived in, I've never really had much interaction with my neighbors - and neither has anyone had any interactions with anyone else, that I could observe. But growing up in the suburbs - yeah, kids kinda force neighbors to get to know each other. And suburbs tend to have more kids.

[miketoronto]

But we have to remember that not everyone in the city lives in apartments

There are houses and townhouses in the city with kids in them.

Now I live in the suburbs, but down the street from me are high-rise apartment towers with mostly families in them. And you do see interaction there. In the evening you see all the kds out in the park with their parents chatting with other parents from the building, etc. So I guess kids can bond parents no matter if it is condos or houses.

[aion26]

I agree that in the burbs were I grew up, it was the kids that seem to bring the everyone together. We were all out in the street playing all day (at least until the streetlights came on) and would go over to each others houses, and our parents wanted to know who we were hanging out with. As such, they got to know each other too.

Oh, and there are kids on the street in my neighborhood in the city now, quite a few of them in fact.

[Curious Atlantan]

People need to be around people. In the city the density allows that to happen naturally, in the suburbs you have to go out of your way to socialize. This is also why people go to churches and hobby clubs much more in the suburbs.

[MayorOfChicago]

I wish I could vomit on the person who wrote this article.


It clearly seems like some happy housewife who lives on a cul-de-sac in beautiful suburban America with 27 houses on the street, every one of them with children between the ages of 2 and 14 who all attend school together.

I grew up in that exact situation, and yes, we knew every single person on the block. My parents then moved one street over about 5 years ago. It was a street that looked much the same as the one they left, except the whole area of town had been developed for about 30 years now and only one or two of the houses had kids. Surprise surprise!!! No one on the street ever really talked and no one knew each other. My parents met the neighbors just because they're always outside at the same time, that's about it.

Kids make the difference, not living in a city or the burbs. In the suburbs, these households who know all their neighbors are mostly married couples with children who interact because they meet their neighbors through their children playing together. They do sports, boy scounts, girl scouts, community programs, school shit.

Most people living in the city are single, couples, domestic couples, but not the sheer number of people living with children in their homes. I don't think I'd know every single house on the street if I were to move to some single family home in Woodstock Illinois right now. I don't really mesh well with famlies and kids, I find them annoying.

Maybe they find me annoying, more power to them.

It still doesn't mean I don't have much as much a social life and sense of my community in Chicago than I would if I lived in some suburb. I find this person insulting to city-dwellers that we're all mean (awwww) and don't care about our neighbors or cities we live in. Yes, we all go home after work, draw the shades, and sit in the corner of our living room with a shotgun in hand waiting for the rapists and home invaders.

[rapid_business]

Add the fact that the study also showed people were more comfortable around similar age, social class, standard of living, (race?). It's f@*&ing ridiculous! It's all the WASP's who live in their closed bubbles and don't want to imagine life outside of that. [EDIT FOR CLARITY SAKE] although it might not be verbalized, what they think is..."What, hanging out with an Asian construction worker? Sorry, I'll stick to my standard WASP professional..."

EDIT: Article was on the front page of the Sat. Edmonton Journal.... *groan*

[BnaBreaker]

There is really nothing more for me to add to the previous three posts. I think they sum up my own thoughts quite well.

[jeicow]

Originally Posted by onishenko

Add the fact that the study also showed people were more comfortable around similar age, social class, standard of living, (race?). It's f@*&ing ridiculous! It's all the WASP's who live in their closed bubbles and don't want to imagine life outside of that. "What, hanging out with an Asian construction worker? Sorry, I'll stick to my standard WASP professional..."

EDIT: Article was on the front page of the Sat. Edmonton Journal.... *groan*

Uh, seeing as it quotes Mississauga as an example you may want to take your racist view off the table.

[tackledspoon]

Most living situations foster more of a sense of community than downtown districts that usually have lower residential rates and huge amounts of office space and businesses that cater only to the workers who are there on weekdays from 9-5.
This article neglects the middle ground- urban neighborhoods outside of the central business district. Outer city neighborhoods and extremely inner-ring suburbs are most conducive to community.
No offense Mike, but do you really expect the people on this site to do anything but shit on an article like that?

[Chicago103]

To the extent that this is true it is not true because of density nor because of the nature of the built environment of cities vs. suburbs. Rather it is due to a self fullfilling prophecy brought about by decades of propoganda that the suburbs are the proper place for family life. Yes if you examine certain city neighborhoods and certain suburbs the suburbs will come ahead because they have been socially engineered to be that way.

However back in the day, meaning 1950 or earlier many children were raised in crowded urban settings and there was alot of interaction between neighbors and children. In fact I would argue that 1950 urban areas had more social interaction than the suburbs of today or really anywhere today aside from the few places where traditional family oriented urban areas exist (mostly in immigrant communities like hispanics). If you go back to many of these neighborhoods that were once thriving with children decades ago you might find a lot sterile childless yuppy like people because for one those people bring the suburban mentality with them to the city and secondly because they dont have children and because of what they are conditioned to believe those neighborhoods arent the proper places for child rearing.

Also the age of a community is an important factor, if a suburb is 25, 30 or more years old even if it is fairly auto-centric there will be social interaction simply through there being long term residents that had their children grow up together etc. In many newer subdivisions and new condos and/or highly gentrified parts of the city people are very transient and their neighborhood has no meaning to them besides their own self interest and the resale value of their homes. If there is no community in a highrise it says nothing about the nature of the highrise itself but rather there not being enough people who believe that social interaction, much less family social interaction is even possible. If you assent to the belief that "cities are places where people are so crowded, are not friendly and dont like to chat" than even if you move there it will become a self fullfilling prophecy from your closed minded beliefs. I would argue to the contrary that in urban areas the nature of the built environment itself fosters more social interaction and that only false perception of reality has prevented that in modern times. On the other hand sprawly suburbs are only have commnity because people believe that is the only place where proper community can exist but in reality the nature of the built environment actually works against that very socialization.

Where I live in the Hancock building there is a fairly strong sense of community and that is in part because the building has been occupied by residents for 36 years and the older residents know each other. Thats not to say there arent reclusive people but there could be reclusive people anywhere, its not because of the building. Kids trick or treat from floor to floor for Halloween, there are common areas of the building where the HOA sets up social events of all kinds, we have our own grocery store, swimming pool, exercize room etc where residents can gather and socialize. This building is only a sardine can for people who believe it is a sardine can. People need to simply free their minds to make downtown a sociable place to live.

[MonkeyRonin]

As I said in the other thread about this article.. it is more of a myth that suburbs are mostly children and families and the city is couples and singles, etc. in Toronto's case, the City which makes up 44% of the GTA's population, contains 43% of it children.

Also, the title is misleading when it tries to give the impression that suburbanities have more "friends" or social interaction than urbanities.. they just have more annoying neighbours who they have to talk to.

[brickell]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

So I guess kids are the glue.

In my neighborhood it's the dogs.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

As I said in the other thread about this article.. it is more of a myth that suburbs are mostly children and families and the city is couples and singles, etc. in Toronto's case, the City which makes up 44% of the GTA's population, contains 43% of it children.

Also, the title is misleading when it tries to give the impression that suburbanities have more "friends" or social interaction than urbanities.. they just have more annoying neighbours who they have to talk to.

That is also true, the city has just about as many kids as the suburbs its just that professional suburban minded people and the neighborhoods they tend to live in the city tend not to have kids. So when people say the city has no kids what they really mean is that people like themselves dont have kids in the city and sub-consciously some people think that people like themselves are the only people that exist or really count and at worst they view the people different from themselves as the "undesirables" cast of society and thus dont really count either.

[the pope]

off note, suburbs (whether intentionally or not) do a good job of keeping similarly situated incomed households together. Entire swarths of land will be priced "from the 250s" whereas the market variation in a city is much more pronounced (I can at least speak for cleveland) in a much smaller radius.

[Chicago103]

Originally Posted by the pope

off note, suburbs (whether intentionally or not) do a good job of keeping similarly situated incomed households together. Entire swarths of land will be priced "from the 250s" whereas the market variation in a city is much more pronounced (I can at least speak for cleveland) in a much smaller radius.

That also touches upon perception of housing costs and demands for living space. When people say they cant afford to live in the city and that the suburbs are more affordable for families with kids what they really mean is that you can only afford a large house with a separate bedroom for each of your 2.5 kids, a free parking space for your two cars in an overly marketed neighborhood in the suburbs and for some people you also add in the phrase "in a racially, ethnically, politically and/or economically homogonized neighborhood where people like yourself live". To say people cant afford to live in the city nor form a sense of community is pure hogwash on the highest order.

[rapid_business]

Originally Posted by jeicow

Uh, seeing as it quotes Mississauga as an example you may want to take your racist view off the table.

What the hell are you talking about? I was using an example of the typical, (yet candid) opinion of these ignorant and self-absorbed suburbanites who 'feel better' amongst their own.