At least in the U.S. (and likely elsewhere) the design of the suburbs encourages neighborhoods with individual houses and very little walk able space (occasionally there are sidewalks or parks in the richer areas, but developments may be large and they're not evenly spaced throughout). Exclusionary zoning in the U.S. has also reduced the number of "third spaces" (coffee shops, malls, grocery stores, barber shops, etc. where people congregate and meet) near or in neighborhoods. This means fewer chance encounters since you have to plan to both go out in a car to meet. You have to find a friend then say "let's go get drinks at 13:00 across town at this place" instead of just happening to walk into the small neighborhood grocery and seeing each other.
It's even worse in the exurbs where large housing developments have been created with no amenities nearby, sometimes within upwards of an hour drive!
There are a number of good books on how the built environment affects our social life, if you're interested. It's not specifically about suburbs but "Palaces for the People" by Eric Klinenberg is one of my favorites that covers a lot of this sort of thing.
It likely depends on the rural area. In the middle of North East GA where I grew up, it's about the same, social isolation is becoming a huge problem because you're forced to drive long distances and plan ahead to meet with people.
In another small town right up the street they have a thriving main street area and the housing is mostly built around that with the exception of outlying farms. It's a smaller town, but chances are you can walk over to the square and everything you need is right there, so they have a much more vibrant feeling town even though it's smaller.
I'm not expert though, that's just my suspicion for why they're different having grown up in the area.
It is interesting that you say it is becoming a problem. Why was it not a problem in a past?
> It's a smaller town
Towns are usually considered urban. I was imagining actual, by definition, rural. Living in a small town (~2,000 people) right now, I'd say it has less of a social community that the rural areas I've lived in previously. Still nothing that should leave you feeling isolated, but there is certainly less of a "automatically friends with everyone" vibe. Granted, my rural experience is strictly in agricultural areas where everyone are farmers, which gives common ground on which to "automatically" become friends. If nothing else, you can talk about farming.
Is that the problem with the suburbs? That the people there can't find common ground on which to build friendships?
Roads have been around for several hundred years or more, along with public transportation (trains were commonplace in rural areas in the past), and the car has been the primary mode of transportation for about a century. After all that time, why is this still becoming a big problem?
A terraced street in London can have a metric boat-load of social isolation and no cars. I don't think it's (necessarily) the car or the literal distance between houses. At the very least, it's a multi-faceted problem.
Nah, bullshit. I grew up in a rural area [0], my parents are still in a rural area (their postal address literally contains 'rural route'). You just don't go to town every day. You didn't go to town every day in the past; you planned your trips ahead of time. It was a rare occurrence - maybe a monthly, quarterly or even less frequent occurrence. And if you do go to town, it might be a multi-day trip. Why? Because you were either walking or going on horseback. People got around before roads. Roads make travel easier. People have been trying to make traveling easier since the dawn of history. See: roads, ships, animal husbandry, the wheel, etc.
People can live far apart without problem if they're self-sufficient or plan ahead: grow your own food, have stockpiles that can last months if you can't make it to town (rural winters can be a bitch). What's new is this dependency on others and belief of "oh my god, I'll die if I don't make it to town (grocery store) this week".
[0] Our closest neighbor was a quarter mile away. Nearest paved road (and our bus stop as kids) was 2.5 miles away over private dirt roads with about 1000 feet change in elevation. It was 8 miles to town, 20 to city (which would barely be a suburb most places).
Yah, it's not the distance of the houses that matter (well, it does, but it's not the whole story), it's the distance between amenities. Like I said, the actual town I grew up in was terrible. It's 30-45 minutes to get anywhere and most things are stand alone. There's a shopping mall kind of development (Walmart, chain restaurants, etc.) on one side of town, but to get to most of the housing you have to drive 30 minutes. The nearest coffee shop is in another development at least 45 minutes away from both of those places, etc.
Meanwhile, the other nearby town I mentioned has plenty of outlying farms that are pretty far away, but when they do go into town to go to the grocery or whatever they can also walk into the coffee shop, or the little stores or whatever and have chance encounters with their in-town neighbors. Even among the farm areas there's a coffee shop / pub that everyone goes to at the end of the day. There's even a dance hall that used to be a one room school house and now gets re-purposed for monthly dances. You don't get that in the suburb I live in now where having anything like that in a residential or agricultural area is forbidden by the zoning code.
Similarly, back before cars sure you didn't pop into town as regularly, but everyone knew when events were happening and when you did go into town for something everyone was there and things were relatively close together and easy to get to (once you were there already, I mean).
Maybe there's a language barrier here, but isn't a suburb defined by being at the edge of a city? So wouldn't a bar in the city be the communal place for the suburb, just like the bar in town is for those out on the farms?
Granted, I've known of a small number of bars operating on farms (usually farm-based craft breweries/cideries/wineries), but is not the typical use of rural properties. Having one next door that you could walk to would be unusual.
It's much easier to get into town from a farm a few miles out than to the city from the suburbs. Plus in the city there are lots of places and in most of our cities they have similar walkability problems (I'm from Atlanta which is particularly egregious in terms of transit and walk/bikeability). There's not naturally that one place where your neighbors are going to go and happen to bump into each other. You have to first meet them, then plan "let's go to this bar at 13:00, and here's how parking is going to work, etc." as opposed to just "everyone is in town, or at the bar in their neighborhood, the obvious place where you're just going to happen to bump into someone else who showed up for happy hour" or whatever.
I'm sure I'm conveying the difference badly, but it's the difference between random encounters with your neighbors whom you'll see the next time you both go to the grocery and then walk over to the fun coffee place vs. random encounters with strangers you'll never see again.
> It's much easier to get into town from a farm a few miles out than to the city from the suburbs.
It may be harder, but surely you're doing it anyway? It is not like the suburbs have a grocery store either (usually). Driving into the city is the name of the game, much like it is for farmers.
> Plus in the city there are lots of places
Presumably if you pick one, you'll start to see the same faces, though. Certainly in my youth the big city bar I hung out at had a wonderful community of regulars. If you pick a new bar every night you're going to never get to know anyone, perhaps, but there is no reason to do that.
That said, the youth today seem to be rejecting alcohol and thus bars, so perhaps the bar is a bad example for a current conversation? Or maybe it's the right example as it visibly presents something interesting that is happening. When I was young, you'd have 20 year olds, 40 year olds, and 60 year olds all mingling together at the bar. It's just what everyone did. Now the 40 year olds are busy taking their kids to youth sports leagues, the 20 year olds are doing whatever it is 20 year olds do nowadays, while the 60 year olds are still there hanging out at the bar.
Which appears, to my eye, to have created a huge division in communities. There are still micro-communities found within that, or nano-communities, particularly with the sports leagues (the parents don't really seem to mingle outside of their immediate team's social circle), but the cohesion of an entire community seems to be devastated by that separation.
Maybe that's the source of isolation that people are feeling?
This may be different per city, but at least near me this isn't true, the suburbs have a grocery (or several).
> Presumably if you pick one, you'll start to see the same faces, though
Sure, and you'll likely only see them in the grocery and not elsewhere. Probably the same with the bar; I too know a bunch of regulars at a local bar, but likely not going to run into them outside that bar unless we become friends and make specific plans to do so. Also those people probably aren't my actual neighbors. It's a different kind and frequency of chance meeting when the built-environment is designed to facilitate community. I'm not saying that you'll literally never meet a neighbor in the grocery, it will happen, it's just not going to happen with the same kind of frequency as if we actually designed the built-environment to encourage it.
The default suburban life leads toward a comfortable kind of solitary confinement. Someone who lives in a “single family home” equipped with air conditioning, a privacy fence, a big screen TV, a garage door opener, and the internet will tend toward isolation because all of those technologies make aloneness easier.
The reader may point out that many people are isolated in big cities too. This is true – if an adult has decided to be alone, they can be. But in the city, one's lack of social connection is more often felt whereas a suburban home can diminish the effect, like ibuprofen taken for a headache.
How does that meaningly differ from rural homes, which do not have the isolation problem? Rural areas have the strongest social communities I have ever seen.
That's fair. Also a lot of "our great-grandparents were friends, so I implicitly trust that we are also friends".
But what about the suburbs destroys that? Or, would it be more accurate to say that those who already don't have connections have a preference towards living in suburbs? Perhaps that is where they feel most at home?
I don't think there is some special physical property absent in suburbs and present in rural areas that contributes to social isolation in the former but not the later. Rather I think it has to do with the kind of person that lives in each place. My grandparents and cousins live in a rural area. They all have ancestry in that town going back to the early 1900s. So do most of their neighbors. Families live next to (where "next to" admittedly might be a few miles depending on how rural) each other for generations. This is obviously conducive to strong intra and inter-family social networks.
People who live in cities and in suburbs on the other hand seem to be far more transient. They move around for school or careers and aren't tied down to one place. I grew up in suburbs in three different cities. New neighbors frequently moved in and out of all three places, and the street where I lived from aged 5-10 has only two "original" families left.
For those people, the built environment in suburbs being conducive to social isolation (in American suburbs anyways) becomes a problem. The nearest grocery store, restaurant, or interesting venue of any kind is likely 30+ minutes away if you try to walk, and the walk is likely to be dangerous due to poor pedestrian infrastructure and poor public transit. There are few accessible third places in which to meet people, it takes a lot more intentional effort. This is even more of a problem if you're a kid, as you're now entirely dependent on your parents and their car to meet friends or go to places where you can meet friends.
I moved from upper-middle class suburbs to Washington D.C. The difference in how many people you meet who you might want to be friends with, and in how easy it is to get places where you want to go (especially without a car) is night and day. Will suburbs ever be as good as cities in this regard? Probably not. But mixed-use zoning and returning to "streetcar suburbs" would probably go a long way (https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/27/in-praise-of-s...).
There's also other reasons to oppose current suburb development patterns. Suburban sprawl is highly inefficient in many ways. It takes dramatically more infrastructure to serve the same number of people that you could in a denser area. Roads, power lines, pipes for drinking water and sewage, etc. The taxes that many suburbs pay don't cover these expenses and suburbs end up being subsidized by people living in denser areas. Rural areas also suffer from this to some extent, but rural areas are a necessity for society to run, hosting farms and other resource extraction activities, so subsidizing some costs is fair. People in rural areas are also more likely to be self-sufficient, having their own septic tank, private well, etc., and aren't offloading their costs to society.
> Rather I think it has to do with the kind of person that lives in each place.
This does seem to be the repeated consensus – that suburbanites choose to live in suburban areas because they want the isolation. Which, I suppose, makes sense as it is not like you have to live there. People by and large live where they want to above all else. Obviously there can be exceptions (e.g. children needing to live where their parents do), but as far as what prevails goes.
> There's also other reasons to oppose current suburb development patterns. Suburban sprawl is highly inefficient in many ways. It takes dramatically more infrastructure to serve the same number of people that you could in a denser area.
Is denser the actual alternative, though? It seems that if you took suburbs away from these people, they'd most likely try to move into more rural areas, so then you just end up with the same there (without the practical reasons traditionally associated with subsidizing rural areas).
In fact, I'm seeing more and more spreading of the so-called "15-minute city" conspiracy, which has people believing that there is some kind of organized plot out there working towards forcing people into living in dense cities. While the conspiracy itself is not particularly important here, the sentiment of people fearing that they might be forced into the city conveyed alongside it seems quite real and indicative that denser is not the direction they are willing to head.
> that suburbanites choose to live in suburban areas because they want the isolation.
I don't think most of them want isolation, I strongly suspect that most people moving to suburbs are doing so for their career, as most well-paid jobs are in metropolitan areas. In a metropolitan area your options are mostly:
1) city
2) suburb w/ very little mixed-use zoning
Cities tend to be more expensive for less space. There are going to be many people who would want to live in a city with their family but simply can't afford the rent, so they live on the outskirts of the city (suburbs). Alternatively they may want the space, yard, etc. that a house provides, but this doesn't mean they want isolation. They may very well prefer suburbs with good mixed-use zoning and public transit, those are just very rare in the US.
> It seems that if you took suburbs away from these people
I'm not proposing taking suburbs away from people, nor are the vast majority of urbanists. We're proposing more ability to build denser suburbs (i.e. some multifamily housing in suburban areas), mixed-use zoning (so you can walk to stores), and better public transit in suburbs. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_middle_housing. Suburbs that have these features tend to be in high-demand, they're just rare today because they're illegal to build in many places (I think there's some commentary on that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0).
> they'd most likely try to move into more rural areas
Unlikely IMO because again I suspect that many/most have moved to suburbs for their careers. There aren't nearly as many jobs in rural areas.
> 15-minute city
Anyone claiming this is bad is just being disingenuous IMO. ~Nobody promoting 15 minute cities wants to force people to live in cities, they want cities where you can meet most of your needs by walking or cycling or taking public transit. If you don't want to live in a city or want to live in a city and spend 10s of thousands of dollars on a car you still can. I don't think we can extrapolate much about what the average American wants based on those who believe that conspiracy theory, because the people who believe it are either woefully uninformed about what it actually is or are just being malicious reactionaries.
> I strongly suspect that most people moving to suburbs are doing so for their career
Doubtful. Moving somewhere for a career is fairly abnormal. There is good reason why job search places always lead with: "Location". The vast majority of the population choose where the want to live first – in fact, the majority of the population still live within a small radius of where they were born! – and then figure out what they want to do for work.
Yeah, there is a small segment of the population who will chase work at the cost of where they live. Let's say this is who ends up in the suburbs. Perhaps that's the problem? As in they end up being comprised of people focused on their career, and thus don't prioritize community? Perhaps want isolation is too strong, but how about doesn't care about isolation?
> We're proposing more ability to build denser suburbs (i.e. some multifamily housing in suburban areas), mixed-use zoning (so you can walk to stores), and better public transit in suburbs.
Does that actually appeal to the people of the suburbs, or are you projecting? Presumably these people are constituents of a democratic government, and therefore can already have anything their collective hearts desire. Why isn’t this already the reality?
> Anyone claiming this is bad is just being disingenuous IMO.
Are you unfamiliar with what a conspiracy theory is...? Regardless, it resonates precisely because a lot of people don't want to live in cities. If the listener was all "Hell, ya! Get me out of this hellhole into the dense city!" it wouldn't garner any attention at all, but that's not the reality.
> The vast majority of the population choose where the want to live first – in fact, the majority of the population still live within a small radius of where they were born!
> Moving somewhere for a career is fairly abnormal.
I think you're probably right on a job-to-job basis, most people aren't picking up and moving across the country for each new role. But it only takes one move to another city for the "several multi-generational families in close proximity" dynamic of many rural areas to be disrupted. Even short moves could easily make someone much more socially isolated. Move 50 miles away from your hometown and now you're seeing your former neighbors once a month or less instead of a few times a week.
> there is a small segment of the population who will chase work at the cost of where they live. Let's say this is who ends up in the suburbs. Perhaps that's the problem? As in they end up being comprised of people focused on their career, and thus don't prioritize community?
Not sure this is the right way to frame it. It isn't necessarily about "ending up" in the suburbs when a huge percentage of the country was born in the suburbs or in a city, never having had a tight-knit multigenerational community to begin with. 80% of the US is urbanized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta...). Most people are moving from generic suburb to generic suburb (or city). A kid born in some suburb isn't choosing to focus on their career over community, but nevertheless economic migration was likely the force that caused them to end up there.
> Does that actually appeal to the people of the suburbs, or are you projecting?
Somewhat remains to be seen, but my gut feeling is yes. I think that most suburbanites haven't deeply considered other alternatives given that they've mostly only been exposed to "default US suburbia." That was the case for me until I got into urbanist YouTube and moved to a more urbanist location. When I share urbanist material with friends and family that haven't been exposed to it before, they tend to be pretty receptive. Anecdotes yes, but I'm not being disingenuous.
> constituents of a democratic government, and therefore can already have anything their collective hearts desire. Why isn’t this already the reality?
In theory yes, but in reality these are changes that will take a long time. There's a lot of red tape when it comes to building and zoning, and vocal minorities (NIMBYs) can often block or delay efforts that have popular support through lawsuits (recently near my area: https://www.arlnow.com/2024/09/27/breaking-judge-overturns-m...). Consider that there are plenty of issues that have wide bipartisan support among US voters as a whole but haven't been implemented for political reasons. Even when there is popular support and policy is implemented, whole areas can't simply be rebuilt overnight.
The US definition of urban includes towns with 2,000 people, though. Not exactly density city. Only around 60% of the population live in places with >100,000 people, and of that it seems a significant portion of them live in the suburb portion. So it seems that most of the population live in what is colloquially considered "rural". I'm not sure that is a coincidence. It seems most people would much prefer to live on farms (how often do you hear I want to give it all up and become a farmer around here?) – but most can't afford farmland (the same reason we ended up with the urbanization movement in the first place), so they settle for pretend rural as a compromise.
> But it only takes one move to another city for the "several multi-generational families in close proximity" dynamic of many rural areas to be disrupted.
While I think it is fair to say that rural dynamic was already disrupted generations ago, was that not already rebuilt in the urban areas? With housing affordability being a hot topic of late, the idea of having to leave one's friends and family behind to build a new life in a more affordable place was met with shock pickachco face, as if these were the first group of people to ever have to do such a thing. Suggesting that multi-generational family dynamics had been built elsewhere once urbanization had been settled. Otherwise it would have been considered normal to leave.
> When I share urbanist material with friends and family that haven't been exposed to it before, they tend to be pretty receptive. Anecdotes yes, but I'm not being disingenuous.
How do they react when you present your vacation slide show, for sake of comparison? Do you get a "that's nice, honey", are they booking a vacation to the same place, or "thanks for the invite, but I am not interested" People can be quite good at faking being receptive.
But, regardless, you don't have to sell me. It all does sound like good ideas. I'll not disparage that. But at the same time, I'm not sure it is better that what could be, more of a "we're stuck with this, so how do we improve upon it?" Improve it does, seemingly (but that is ultimately for the people who live there to decide), but then if you are the type of person who wants better, wouldn't you go for where the best can be found?
> I think that most suburbanites haven't deeply considered other alternatives given that they've mostly only been exposed to "default US suburbia."
That's intriguing. When I was a kid, albeit not from suburbia, we spent a lot of time talking about different lifestyles and which were to our tastes. Some were happy with what they had, others were ready to escape as soon as possible. What do you think it is about suburbia that kills that zest to consider the world around you?
> There's a lot of red tape when it comes to building and zoning
Only if the constituents want there to be red tape, of course. There is no magical deity in the sky that created this. It only exists because the people want it to exist.
> (NIMBYs) can often block or delay efforts that have popular support through lawsuits
Which, again, exists only through recognition of the very same population (albeit probably a larger one, granted). Clearly the majority are, at very least, not bothered by this or it would have been done away with long ago.
> whole areas can't simply be rebuilt overnight.
Absolutely, but we've been talking about this for at least 20 years! It was never going to happen overnight, but when we're still saying the policy – never mind the actual work – needs to change decades later...
While I do not live in a suburb, I do live in a place that had similar goals to what you are describing. The policy literally did change overnight as soon as the people decided that is what they wanted, and the work started underway soon after. It takes no time at all to do away with the red tape, if that's what the people want. If that hasn't already happened, one has to look at why the people don't want it to change.
yeah the transiency thing is huge. I think a big part of that is young people moving away from their home city for university and then for a job. It really breaks up the social fabric at an important stage and replaces it with uni friends and work friends. I find there is a bit less of that here because people are a bit more likely to get into the trades/small business so schooling doesn't uproot them as much.
The difference walking makes is interesting to me because rural communities are obviously not that walkable, though I guess as a kid I could bike to my friends' place (2km).
I really don't get the appeal of suburbs, I think they might just be a reaction to failures in cities, and companies inability to set up shop where their workers/customers are. I've heard of people who drive in 1:30 - 2:00 to their workplace in a major urban center, why wouldn't the companies just move out to where they live, drop their wages by 10% and everyone would have more time/money. So yeah, true suburbs make no sense, the only reason people choose them is because cities get expensive and/or scummy.
Rural communities have strong social cohesion out of necessity, not desire. I grew up rural, so I have some experience with this.
Suburbia hits the sweet spot of introverted personality types: you don't NEED to know your neighbors, because there are sufficient services/resources to handle everything yourself, but you also don't get hemmed into an urban chicken coop that forces you to know your neighbors.
The only people who raise alarms about "social atomization" are extroverts, and they're entirely incapable of understanding that some people actually prefer their isolation.
There is no pub to walk to, grocery store to walk to, no shared public space for walking and cycling to places, there’s no concept of being in a space shared with others. It’s that you simply don’t see people unless you choose it. If you live in the city you learn quickly to be around others. At least that’s my experience.
Rural areas tend to have strong social communities, though, despite all of those same, if not exacerbated, conditions.
Based on several adjacent discussions it seems not that the suburbs cause isolation, but that those who prefer to live in isolation are more likely to choose to live in the suburbs – presumably because it offers the isolation they seek. Even if an individual in the suburbs does not wish for isolation, if everyone else there does that limits the social possibilities.
I have lived in rural Vermont and that was only true if you were the right kind of rural Vermonter. There were plenty of those who didn’t belong and never would with no alternative they might find in the city.
I think it is fair to say that large cities are more likely to cater to those who are unique, but large cities return to the same problem again: Everything is far away and you have to get into vehicle (granted, it might be a publicly operated one) to reasonably be able to engage with it. The chances of your neighbour being of the same unique blend that you seek is no greater in the city than in the country.
At which point it really makes no difference if you physically reside within city limits or live in a suburban/rural area as the time and effort to get to the places that cater to your particular niche approaches being about the same in all cases. In fact, in my experience, it is often easier to access the amenities of a large city when you don't live in it!
Needing to take a vehicle that’s not my feet wasn’t true when I lived in Berlin or Tokyo. It definitely wasn’t true in smaller cities I’ve lived in like Oslo, Brest, or Utrecht. Needing a car was only ever true when I lived in Austin and atlanta. And I’m talking about going out to bars, hanging out with friends, going places, like yeah maybe I needed the train occasionally but really the train is a room you hang out in for ten minutes while you magically transport somewhere else. It’s not like driving a car. You don’t have to think about it.
Edit: ok I take that back we always used a car to drive ten minutes to tryvann ski mountain in Oslo but that’s because we have jobs and the bus takes like 40 minutes.
Perhaps you missed the part about someone being unique? Not even the largest cities offer that uniqueness on every street corner. Yeah, maybe there is a bar on every street corner, but generally they are going to cater to the population at large. If you fit into that scene, you are already the "right kind of Vermonter".
There is probably one or two places in the city that cater to that kind of uniqueness, but the chances of it being next door is unlikely. Most likely you'll have to travel long distances to find it. Longer than your feet can reasonably take you. At which point it doesn't matter all that much which direction you are coming from.
>At which point it really makes no difference if you physically reside within city limits or live in a suburban/rural area as the time and effort to get to the places that cater to your particular niche approaches being about the same in all cases.
What is your reference point here? This isn't the case in any large European, Asian or dense US city like NYC, Boston and Chicago.
Are they disappearing, or are they actually becoming more prevalent, dividing the population and leaving few people around to support each third space? A third place needs to more than a place – it also needs people.
I can think of 10s, maybe even hundreds, of third paces I could theoretically go to within a short distance. None of them particularly appealing, though, because they don't have enough people to create an engaging environment.
If these third places consolidated their efforts, seeing most of them disappear to focus on one third place, there is a much greater chance that the single community would thrive. Combined, it could be huge, but so long as they each try to go at it alone...
What is it about suburbs in particular that causes social isolation?