My dream long-term would be completely separated infra for cars+buses and for bikes+scooters. Human-driven cars will be pointless except on backwoods trails or racetracks in any case.
We better start on another baby boom then. Mass transit of any sort requires a certain population density to be viable. Unless you define any given suburb as "backwoods".
In the techno-utopian view which has become the default for self-driving vehicles' integration into society, suburbs are also served by self-driving cars. What is your point exactly?
It's anecdotal, but as an upper middle class, gun-owning, formerly (pre-Trump) Republican-voting American white guy raised in a largely white upper middle class suburb, I've ridden my adopted city's bus many times and it's fine. I'd happily take it to work and save on gas if it went straight there, as it stands taking the bus turns a 30 minute commute into an hour+ commute. Also my kid's doctor and dentist are completely inaccessible by bus, never mind other activities.
Whatever the original motivations for suburbs, I've yet to meet anyone who moved to a suburb to get away from <insert ethnicity>, and I've had enough unasked for conversations with racists to know I don't immediately alienate them for whatever reason. Commute, crime, space and schools are usually at the top of the list of reasons for moving to a suburb. Sure you can argue institutionalized racism and such is somewhat integrated into those things, but very few people (with the possible exception of the less educated regions of the South/Midwest) are consciously turning down properties solely because a black family lives next door.
At any rate, those people are bitter losers and idiots who's opinion grows less relevant each passing year. There are plenty of more rational people who could be convinced if mass transit was made practical
"American white guy raised in a largely white upper middle class suburb, I've ridden my adopted city's bus many times and it's fine."
Yeah, that will be the majority of people's experiences riding the bus. Other than sexual harassment. Or watching the driver have to refuse someone on the bus because they wanted to call the driver a derogatory slur.
Regardless I digress. People absolutely move out of the City to the Suburbs "for the schools".
They won't say it outright but no, white people don't want to live near black people in America. Otherwise, since rent is still pretty affordable in predominantly black neighborhoods you would think they (white people) would choose to live there instead of moving outside of the city and having longer commutes and bigger mortgages.
Gentrification is pushing people out of their environment due to high rent prices which happens because white people 'feel' comfortable to live there now.
I'm saying that our neighborhoods should reflect more or less the ratio of diversity in the population but it doesn't does it?
Presumably there's more poor white people than poor black people in America, right? So if price of rent was the main determining factor for where someone lives presumably lower income communities ought to be pretty mixed then, right?
That is white people ought to feel comfortable enough to have black neighbors and lower rent and mortgages before the gentrification happens.
> "Otherwise, since rent is still pretty affordable in predominantly black neighborhoods you would think they (white people) would choose to live there instead of moving outside of the city and having longer commutes and bigger mortgages."
This is one of the most blatant cases of selective omission I've ever seen. Pray tell why is rent in Detroit or Chicago so cheap? I mean I spent two years doing humanitarian work across north Ohio in some of the cities that have incredibly "low rent" there's a reason for that, and anyone who can chooses to leave when they can for very obvious reasons if you go and visit those areas.
Idk, I grew up in a white middle class neighborhood but the cost of housing is pretty considerably lower in the neighborhoods to the other side of the freeway/railroad tracks that happens to also be predominantly black. (This is Ohio btw)
Note those neighborhoods were built in similar times with similar sizes of lots and quality of houses.
The only noticable differences between the two locations is racial makeup of the community.
So if two areas are equally nice to live in but one is cheaper to live in than the other then why are people electing to live in a more expensive area over the cheaper one? Assuming everything else is equal.
> The only noticable differences between the two locations is racial makeup of the community.
> So if two areas are equally nice to live in but one is cheaper to live in than the other then why are people electing to live in a more expensive area over the cheaper one? Assuming everything else is equal.
I strongly doubt that "housing is considerably lower" while having no "noticable differences" besides race. Name the communities, so one can research the actual differences, otherwise this is imaginary. I hope you can't mean Cleveland.
No I mean Columbus. It's easy: Clintonville vs Linden. Communities that literally share the same street names that are cut by railroad tracks and a freeway.
I've lived in both, both are equally nice and equally nice property and neighbors. Linden is incredibly cheaper. At a glance I'm seeing around 100k price difference with similar sized homes.
Yes, it is easy. Home buyers look at schools, crime, and proximity to work and amenities.
Clintonville is right next to OSU (100k! students and staff), High St. amenities, and all the parks along the Olentangy River, of which Linden has nothing comparable to those. A crime map of the area clearly demarcates those areas https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/oh/columbus/crime
This is what makes people buy homes; hardly a gut feel on "nice neighbors." Most people reading this would easily rather buy in Clintonville if prices were the same, based on just the things I mentioned.
Parts of Linden are just as close if not closer to OSU than Clintonville.
Linden also has parks and stores just like Clintonville.
And with crime I suggest looking at where the crime happens, it's typically particular to a few main streets/corners.
The neighborhoods themselves are comparable.
You're almost making it sound like if you lived in a home in Linden that you'd expect drive by shootings on the regular or some such shit. That's not the case though shootings and street theft have been happening quite a bit in Clintonville and Short North on High St. Over last few years.
People still move out of Clintonville to smaller school districts because city schools are perceived as bad. Of course a lot of white flight occurred during inner city bussing but whatever.
If better schools, less crime, and allegedly work proximity are the reasons you need to convince yourself why suburbs became popular the first place and not that it is because white people don't want to have black neighbors, suit yourself.
> those people are bitter losers and idiots who's opinion grows less relevant each passing year
Their racist opinions have grown relevant enough in the past several years to drive you, a presumably non-racist Republican, away from voting for your own political party. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, white supremacy, and bigotry in general are all on a sharp rise, thanks to Trump's normalization and weaponization of bigotry, and to everyone who supports him, and especially to people who privately dislike him but publicly support him (most of the Republican party).
Thanks for not voting for him yourself, but don't blind yourself to the problem with America and your Republican party, which owns Trump now and forever.
