All Hail Suburbia! Does Density Destroy Community?

This whole post just got erased. Allow me to try again.

I am trying to link to this post over at Reason, in which Brian Doherty links to an interesting study about suburban versus urban living:

The suburbs, in both arts and pop-social science, are frequently portrayed as veritable graveyards for meaningful, authentic life and valuable social interactions. Now some new social science research comes to praise their effects on sociability, finding, according to this account on the Canada.com site, 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.

Remember, I'm just linking. Take a look at the whole study. Here's the conclusion, if you are interested:

The paper’s findings therefore imply that social-interaction effects cannot be credibly included

in the panoply of criticisms directed toward urban sprawl. In fact, the results suggest

an opposite line of argument. With a negative effect of density on interaction, individual space

consumption would tend to be too low rather than too high, tending to make cities inefficiently compact, as explained in section 2.

I spent a good deal of time in the original post explaining my views on this study. But I can't bear to go over it all again. So I am just going to go hide now.

Comments

[Mark Stroup]

I couldn't get through *Bowling Alone* and I certainly can't make it through "Social Interaction and Urban Sprawl." But if the researchers do regression analysis, I'm sure they probably know something I don't. I'm probably also sure that social interaction in sprawl lands also includes social interaction among people of diverse economic backgrounds (who do you think is bagging the groceries, cleaning the houses, weeding the gardens?).

What is socially constructive about a city is its ability to tell what's good and bad about society. It's pretty much in your face, and it's telling us we have social, political, and economic systems that could be improved upon.

Maybe our density is part of our problem. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence otherwise. Lack of income, lack of education, lack of meaningful work, poor nutrition, guns, and drug abuse are better determiners of crime and social disconnection than is density. So I won't begrudge Franklin Park and South Pointe a small advantage in building clubs for hobbyists. That we urbanites get along at all is hopeful.

[sean mcdaniel]

Hey, Mark,

The same people bagging groceries, tending the garden and lawn and cleaning the home are the same in the suburbs and the cities...unless city hired help is all white and all American. From what I can tell when I bike along Ellsworth Avenue in Oakland, those look like dark skinned people pulling weeds and emptying the trash...and I bet they don't live in those mansions.

stop with the trite stereotyping.

Actually, the Giant Eagle on Camp Horne employs, for the most part, white high school kids. Same with the lawn crews in my part of town.

[C. Briem]

I say lock the authors in a room with Kunstler for an hour and see who survives.

[Mark Stroup]

Sean,

It wasn't my intention to indulge in trite stereotyping. I must admit I was generalizing, not in terms of race or ethnicity, but in terms of class and income. Perhaps we live in a more fluid society than I suspect. That would be a very good thing. That people who bag, clean house, and pick weeds are on their way to a piece of the pie is good news whether they're from the suburb or the city.

Of course if a piece of the pie means that we'll all have 5,000 sf houses on 1.5 acre lots and commute 50 miles each way, I think we still might have a bit of a problem.

[sean mcdaniel]

"Of course if a piece of the pie means that we'll all have 5,000 sf houses on 1.5 acre lots and commute 50 miles each way, I think we still might have a bit of a problem."

You know, that's been the situation in NYC for about, oh, 70 years, right? People from CT, NJ and other places commuting 50 miles and a couple of hours to work in Manhattan. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Same thing happens in SF, Boston, Chicago and...well, you get the point, right? Those towns are really suffering.

by the way, not that many people live in 5000 sq ft homes. 3,000 is getting common. but that extra 2000 sq ft is just more of your hyperbole.

[Jonathan Potts]

I believe that while average home sizes nationwide are increasing, average lot sizes are decreasing.

[sean mcdaniel]

Jonny boy, I acknowledged that new homes are big.
But not the size of Mark's silly stereotypes.

[Jonathan Potts]

My point was not to dispute what you were saying; rather I was pointing out evidence that overall densities may be increasing, even while average home sizes are also growing.

[sean mcdaniel]

JP,

sorry, but usually you're a little snarky in your replies to me.

[Jonathan Potts]

With all due respect Sean, between the two of us, I don't have a monopoly on that characteristic.

[sean mcdaniel]

sure you do. i'm sarcastic and caustic. and not the least bit intellectually pretentious. now you see the difference?

[Jonathan Potts]

No. You'll need to stop using big words.

[sean mcdaniel]

stay away from the humor JP. intellectual pretentiousness really better suits you.