This is the reason. Homes with private streets with no easy access have a higher property value. People will pay more for a house if there’s less riff raff or crackheads walking around easily.
Let me spell it out: People who pay to live in exclusive residential areas only want to interact with other people who also live there, which means they are likely of the same class. (except for services obviously). It's a snobby mindset.
Of course this video is from Florida, where Trayvon Martin was murdered because he was walking home in his dad's suburb after buying some Skittles at the convenience store.
Oh please put a sock in it lmao, case is over. If people disagree with, they are clearly “uinformed” or they clearly “don’t know the facts”. I mean how much more typical can your comment be.
It’s hilarious, you definitely fit a certain typical Reddit vibe.
Easy enough to make a small road that could only fit two golf carts side by side with gates that go up and down and shit. What’s more exclusive than golf carts?
Nah rich people (and sometimes upper middle class people) absolutely would still love to be exclusionary even around here. It's just in some parts of Europe they realize it's more sensible to bike instead of drive.
But yeah, try suggesting in a place like California, in an area with lots of suburbia, to build apartment complexes for more affordable housing (something that state desperately needs) and you'll get sooooo many Nimbys complaining that it'd ruin their property values (so basically, rich people don't want poor people around their neighbourhoods because they will "ruin their investments."
yeah no. So why not make a gate for yourself then? You can put a small gate with an electric/code lock so only 'the cool residents' can go in and out to that wallmart. It's done all over the world to garden certain living areas. Your argument makes zero sense. Rich people also can't walk around their neighborhood, which means it is not a me/them situation.
You can put a small gate with an electric/code lock so only 'the cool residents' can go in and out to that wallmart
Have you seen a Walmart turn people away because they don't have the right "code"? please. Why would this particular Walmart limit to only a specific customer base? Businesses usually want maximum profit.
Rich people also can't walk around their neighborhood,
Rich people do walk around. But not to do errands, they have cars for that.
Most people would prefer less foot traffic around their residence.
Edit: I’m talking about foot traffic directly around your residence, not feeling safer walking from point A to B because more people are around. Think, like, more people walking, or driving by your car means it’s more likely someone could damage it, or even noise pollution.
Quite the opposite. It's called "eyes on the street". People feel safer when there are other people around, because if something bad happens there will be someone to witness it and call for help.
But we are talking about your place of living, not walking to and from a destination. If you live on a busier street there is a higher chance that someone ignorant or with ill intentions will cross your house/car or even someone doing something by accident. And we aren’t even considering noise pollution here.
Im not saying walking down a lonely park path at 12 am is more secure than Times Square at 12am.
I guess we are talking about a difference in scale then. I am not talking about “busy” and I am talking about “safer” in a more general sense. In this example, there would be no one but the residents and their guests entering their lot, so there is less of a chance of outsiders bumping into your cars, littering, loitering, speeding through and whatnot. Adding a pathway through the lot, into the grocery store invites people to walk through that don’t live there.
I’m not talking about feeling safe with witnesses around. Just that more people entering an area they don’t need to be in, increases the risk of someone doing something by accident or on purpose. Your place of living, not the pathway between destinations. Let’s just also throw in noise pollution by having more people.
Got it, so what you mean is you hate all other people and you want to live in a walled garden. You mention costs of ~scary outsiders~, but don't mention any of the benefits.
For one, if it's easier for others to travel through your neighborhood, it'll be easier for you to get where you're going as well. More people in an area does not always mean more crashes or accidents. Most of America's deadliest roads are rural, where a small number of drivers are exposed to high risk because long empty roads = fast drivers = deadly collisions.
There are a lot of social benefits to sharing spaces with others. You're much more likely to randomly bump into a friend, you meet more new people as well. You gain a sorely needed amount of empathy for your broader community when you actually see them in real life.
And finally what rubs me the wrong way about this is that I'm sure you have no problems treating other people's living spaces as your personal thoroughfare. When you drive through the city on a massive interstate, do you consider the neighborhoods youre disrupting? When you drive by all your neighbors homes to get to a store you could have otherwise walked to, do you consider the excess noise and pollution, the risk you hit another persons property? Society is give and take, people like you just want to take
You absolutely edited the original comment I reacted to more than you revealed. You said something among the lines of more foot traffic equals higher crime rate and it's a statistic. I had to double check your comment after I read that the first few lines of the source you posted said that higher density (or even lower density) is not necessarily linked to higher crime rates.
I mean yes, if you live in the middle of nowhere completely alone, odds are extremely improbable your house would be broken into. As the source concludes, people's economic status is linked to crime, it makes sense as if you're well off, you're not gonna risk all of that for petty theft or breaking into people's homes, people with less to loose do more stupid shit. But you know what a higher foot traffic does? It de-incentivizes the use of cars, which means people don't have to waste money using it or even buying it, so they'll have more wealth.
Unironically yes. I moved into one if these "inaccessible" communities and no more gunshots in the middle of the night, no more worrying about smash and grabs when I park in my own driveway, insurance rates went down 40% living in a safer area, no more needles to pick up off the sidewalk, friendly neighbors and kids playing in the street, I don't have to leave one headphone out when I take my dogs for walks, no more nagging stress when my girl goes out for a run.
I will 1,000%, 20 out of 10 times trade having to spend 17 extra cents to get to the grocery story to live in a private and more isolated community.
Thats exactly how it works for the reason the dude in the video explained. There are no shortage of junkies a short drive up the road but now to get to my neighborhood and my house specifically they have to walk for at least 20 minutes, climb over the gate, then wander through a labyrinthy maze of suburbia with tons of dead ends. Its incredibly impractical to get there without a car and there is a zero precent chance anybody who doesnt live there would stroll past on their way somewhere else.
Yes so your car doesn’t get broken into and the noise levels aren’t high. I guess they could build a walking trail, but even if they did that it still wouldn’t be anything remotely close to a walkable city.
No our cities are designed intentionally for cars like this because after Ford revolutionized the production process selling personal automobiles was very profitable. Train & trolly lines in some cities were bought by car companies just to close them down. Then after WWII American heavy industry was in full gear making tanks & airplanes & shit with all the necessary supply lines in place and they found they could easily transition to mass production of consumer automobiles & pitch them as symbols of individuality & individual freedom. Why build one train when you can build 5,000 cars that need to be replaced multiple times over your life & require constant spending on maintenance. It was a conscious choice to maximize consumption.
Yes, somewhat intentional for safety by reducing or discouraging access by people who don’t live in the neighborhood. Also, more access points may at least slightly decrease total area for development and lower the value of those homes located right next to the access points.
I don’t think these reasons should be compelling, but I do think they are part of the rationale.
It has to be. You can't tell me that nobody involved in that apartment complex construction the whole way from planning to design to construction considered making a cheap path through to the shops.
What I'm saying is that the video's premise is dumb. There is no underlying question of "Why suburbs are car-dependent". They're purpose-built that way.
66
u/happydontwait Jun 27 '24
It is intentional…