Social How much did the formation of suburbs make us more divided?

[BreatheSherBro]

Suburbs aren't really new, but they became much more common with improvements and increased access to transportation. Once people were not limited with how far they could walk or ride their horse, they could choose to live a bit further away from their job. They no longer needed to live in the same city as were they worked.

There are major consequences to this.

1) When people left the city, they no longer had the same mutal interests. People that moved to the suburbs no longer had as much of a stake in the quailty of city schools, city safety, or city infrastructure.
2) When people left the city, they pulled a lot of tax revenue out of the city which left less money to address these sorts of issues.
3) When people left the city, it created major demographic changes. In was mostly middle class whites that left the city. Any time there are dramatic demographic changes there are going to be major social and political consequences.

Suburbs were going to expand no matter what, but specific government policies like massive highway expansion and types of zoning greatly added to the exspansion of suburbs. To me, highway expansion, single family housing zoning, and zoning for commercial shopping centers anchored by big box stores (Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, etc...) are some of the most consequential policy decisions of the 20th century right down to the present, but most people don't think about these policy decisions at all.

It doesn't surprise me that we are divided socially and politically. We cluster away from each other and don't have the same mutal interests. What does a middle class white family in the suburbs that shops at Wal-Mart in their SUV have in common with a non-white single mother in the inner city that takes a bus to the nearest corner store? Geographically they might only be a dozen miles away but they live in two different worlds. Based on how we cluster it makes us very divided as a country and it leads to things like single party rule in some areas.

I grew up in a 90 percent white suburb of Baton Rouge. I get why suburbs are popular. Less crime, less crowded, better schools, less blight etc.. At the same time, I wonder how different things would have been if government policies like highway expansion, single family housing zoning, and zoning for big box store shopping centers did not promote suburbs. I think we would be less divided due to being in closer proximity and sharing more of the same mutal interests. There would be more of an incentive for everyone to be committed to adressing poverty, crime, and failing schools if it was right where everyone lived. I think there would also be less far right and less far left politicians because of the changes in voting demographics.

I no longer live in Louisiana, but Baton Rouge became so divided that parts of the city voted to split off and form new suburban towns that are no longer within the borders of Baton Rouge.

 

[cincymma79]

Black rock starts buying up all the houses. Rates get jacked up so regular people can’t afford them. Dumbfucks call you gay for wanting a house with a yard because you’re racist. Got it

 

[Captain Tenneal]

"Why don't you want a $2000 studio apartment John? Afraid of diversity? Racist."

 

[Renard]

The subject pops up every once in a while. I've looked up the amount of funding inner city schools received vs. suburban schools many times in the past. It's calculated per pupil per year. Schools in poor areas receive more federal dollars to compensate for lower local earnings, and a lot of inner city schools have higher per pupil income than suburban schools. It's a myth that city schools always receive less funding. Some of them do, but many of them are richer than suburban schools, it depends on the area. When inner city schools fail to produce any outcomes of value whatsoever when given plenty of money, the narrative usually turns into "Well, inner city schools have a greater need so they need even more money." It's an equity thing, the idea is to give terrible schools even more money and likely receive poorer outcomes than the suburban school anyway. At which point do you realize that you won't turn iron into gold? I could post a report or two but y'all just assume things and never read anything, so doubt there would be a point.

If we mixed up the student population of both schools, this would eliminate the high-performing schools and the abysmally-performing schools and create a bunch of middling schools, until people decided "Hey, actually, we want a good school" and the two populations split again.

 

[nhbbear]

Move into the city and leave the burbs? Yeah, no thanks

 

[Sinister]

Suburbs atomized American citizens to make us more effective consumers for the wealthy class. Made us dependent on cars and got us thinking giant stores we must buy in bulk from are good ideas. Buying groceries this way also creates more food waste in households, because it's better to buy produce fresh as you need it than it is to buy that in bulk and half of it ends up spoiling. There also a tremendous waste of land space, and led to the huge local political problem of NIMBYism, which prevents smarter development that would ease homelessness and poverty.

They're also a huge Ponzi scheme if you look at the money that's wasted in them paying off previous debts with the promise of forever growth that isnt possible.

 

[BreatheSherBro]

The subject pops up every once in a while. I've looked up the amount of funding inner city schools received vs. suburban schools many times in the past. It's calculated per pupil per year. Schools in poor areas receive more federal dollars to compensate for lower local earnings, and a lot of inner city schools have higher per pupil income than suburban schools. It's a myth that city schools always receive less funding. Some of them do, but many of them are richer than suburban schools, it depends on the area. When inner city schools fail to produce any outcomes of value whatsoever when given plenty of money, the narrative usually turns into "Well, inner city schools have a greater need so they need even more money." It's an equity thing, the idea is to give terrible schools even more money and likely receive poorer outcomes than the suburban school anyway. At which point do you realize that you won't turn iron into gold? I could post a report or two but y'all just assume things and never read anything, so doubt there would be a point.

If we mixed up the student population of both schools, this would eliminate the high-performing schools and the abysmally-performing schools and create a bunch of middling schools, until people decided "Hey, actually, we want a good school" and the two populations split again.

This is a good point. I think you can find many examples where there is more money spent per pupil in the inner city but the school is still considerably worse than a nearby school in the suburbs. However, I think there is more than just money that determines whether a school is going to be good.

I think that if middle class famlies had stayed in the inner cities rather than retreated to the suburbs they would have insisted on inner city schools be improved if that is where their own kids went to school. It would have become a major political issue. Instead though they voted with their feet. I don't blame them at all for doing that, but I think it's a major reason the inner city schools suck.

Similar thing with crime. If middle class familes had stayed in inner cities rather than retreated to the suburbs they would have insisted on policies that reduced crime. It would have been a major political issue, but instead they voted with their feet.

 

[Corona]

The suburbs by arcade fire is a GOATed album imo

 

[Sinister]

The subject pops up every once in a while. I've looked up the amount of funding inner city schools received vs. suburban schools many times in the past. It's calculated per pupil per year. Schools in poor areas receive more federal dollars to compensate for lower local earnings, and a lot of inner city schools have higher per pupil income than suburban schools. It's a myth that city schools always receive less funding. Some of them do, but many of them are richer than suburban schools, it depends on the area. When inner city schools fail to produce any outcomes of value whatsoever when given plenty of money, the narrative usually turns into "Well, inner city schools have a greater need so they need even more money." It's an equity thing, the idea is to give terrible schools even more money and likely receive poorer outcomes than the suburban school anyway. At which point do you realize that you won't turn iron into gold? I could post a report or two but y'all just assume things and never read anything, so doubt there would be a point.

If we mixed up the student population of both schools, this would eliminate the high-performing schools and the abysmally-performing schools and create a bunch of middling schools, until people decided "Hey, actually, we want a good school" and the two populations split again.

To be fair I dont think he actually indicated that the reason for failing schools was a lack of funding, he just said people would be more apt to fix the problem if we weren't so atomized. I tend to agree with that as a general principal, and I live in a City with some of the worst schools (and most underfunded) in the Country, and it's just further atomizing people who are resorting to homeschooling. Weird considering how wealthy this City is, billions of dollars passing through yearly, and we're about to buy yet another sh*tty Oakland sports team.

Anyway, I will say that failing schools isnt just a City problem. There are plenty of abandoned schools in fairly small communities...so I think the lack of giving a sh*t also effects rural communities and small towns alike.

 

[BreatheSherBro]

Move into the city and leave the burbs? Yeah, no thanks

I totally get that. Currently our cities have a lot of problems. I don't plan to live in a major city any time soon because of the current state of cities.

This thread is about cities becoming worse and the country becoming more divided after large numbers of people fled to the suburbs. A lot of today's social and political problems can be attributed to that.

Now that the damage has been done though, I don't know if there is an easy way to fix what was done to cities. I'm not volunteering to move to a big city unless big cities get better.

 

[Sinister]

I totally get that. Currently our cities have a lot of problems. I don't plan to live in a major city any time soon because of the current state of cities.

This thread is about cities becoming worse and the country becoming more divided after large numbers of people fled to the suburbs. A lot of today's social and political problems can be attributed to that.

Now that the damage has been done though, I don't know if there is an easy way to fix what was done to cities. I'm not volunteering to move to a big city unless big cities get better.

The Cities are worse depending on your viewpoint. They're also the economic hubs of every State. Cities undeniably float the existences of small towns and rural communities by providing funding from tax revenue. Yes the farmers feed us, but our farmers are heavily subsidized, where do rural people think that money comes from? The Cities they love to hate. Remember how the entie Country was just freaking out about the longshoremen strike and how it could cripple the economy? What do the Port cities look like? Are they tiny sleepy small communities or are they big bustling cities which we need to receive and then transport goods?

You're right about the sense of division, but the blanket demonization of Cities is also a huge problem with that.

 

[nostradumbass]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but it sounds like you're just referring to population growth. The population has drastically increased, and the cities are already full so people have to go somewhere, so they live near the city and are able to work in or deliver goods to the cities that were already full, and eventually those areas get more people and become self sufficient with their own school, stores etc and function as their own small city.

Kind of a weird complaint when the opposite is what has actually happened. The population was always far more rural and has become much more urban over the last century, so I'm not sure the more divided theory holds up.

 

[emefer]

Seeing as it was on the deed of many houses built in suburban developments that they couldn’t be sold to black people, it was very dividing.

 

[I Am Legion]

Long Island NY used to be a great picture of how the system failed some and benefitted others. 2 Counties that consist of almost 200 towns. Most towns have their own zip, post office and High Schools. Most schools have between 1-2k students. Smaller towns will combine for a district and bus kids to a central school.

We have rich, poor, and middle-class towns. These are racial as poor is usually black and Hispanic, and rich is white. Middle is now mixed. Most towns are middle class. We also have a range of classes of towns, where the whiter the towns the better the town is in terms of homes, schools and appearance. The taxes are also higher. As politicians pushed for affordable homes in the middle-class towns, minorities moved in. They were lower socio-economic families and that didn't jive with locals and this caused "white flight". The towns over a decade would turn mostly minority. Crime went up, schools got dangerous, and budgets would not get passed (We all vote on budgets).

Fast forward the bussing issues. They decided to bus mostly black kids from bad schools into nicer white schools. All that happened was the black kids brought the same behavior to their new schools and ran gangs and caused issues.

Now things have changed to a degree because housing costs are so high. You still have rich and poor towns. But the middle-class ones (like mine) are diverse, but with people of the same socio-economic status. There is no white flight because the kids are the same type of kids regardless of color. Working parents raising their kids right. Adults take care of their properties. Kids of all races are in friend groups as opposed to when they just bussed kids in, it was "The black kids table" "The White kids table" etc. We are all fighting the push for low-income housing in the towns because that only brings crime and drugs into the area. Evey town they have done it, sees the results.

 

[BreatheSherBro]

The Cities are worse depending on your viewpoint. They're also the economic hubs of every State. Cities undeniably float the existences of small towns and rural communities by providing funding from tax revenue. Yes the farmers feed us, but our farmers are heavily subsidized, where do rural people think that money comes from? The Cities they love to hate. Remember how the entie Country was just freaking out about the longshoremen strike and how it could cripple the economy? What do the Port cities look like? Are they tiny sleepy small communities or are they big bustling cities which we need to receive and then transport goods?

You're right about the sense of division, but the blanket demonization of Cities is also a huge problem with that.

I value cities and I want them to do well. They are econimic hubs as well as cultural hubs. I work in DC and I also like to visit.

My biggest issue with cities is with crime and blight. I think the exodus out of the cities into the suburbs increased those type of problems and I often think about during my long commute how differently things would have been if there would not have been a major depature of the middle class from cities to the suburbs. I was born in the mid eighties so this happened before I was born.

I think a lot of our social and political division comes fromt this departure because people living in the suburbs and people living in cities are living very differently and don't see themselves as having the same common interests. When people in the suburbs think about crime in the cities they mostly are concerned with it not spreading to where they live or are kind of smug about it and think they are better than city folks.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

People with the means to move away from crime infested shitholes are always going to do so.

If it wasn't to suburbs, it would be to small towns.

You can't force people to live near criminals.

 

[Sinister]

I value cities and I want them to do well. They are econimic hubs as well as cultural hubs. I work in DC and I also like to visit.

My biggest issue with cities is with crime and blight. I think the exodus out of the cities into the suburbs increased those type of problems and I often think about during my long commute how differently things would have been if there would not have been a major depature of the middle class from cities to the suburbs. I was born in the mid eighties so this happened before I was born.

I think a lot of our social and political division comes fromt this departure because people living in the suburbs and people living in cities are living very differently and don't see themselves as having the same common interests. When people in the suburbs think about crime in the cities they mostly are concerned with it not spreading to where they live or are kind of smug about it and think they are better than city folks.

As an urbanist, I agree with you. The main problem plaguing Cities is definitely wealth inequality as that is the most common denominator for all the other problems people dont like about cities (it's a better indicator for criminal statistics than just "poverty" is). But then again criminal statistics are skewed and misinterpreted all the time, as the States with the highest per capita crime rates are not home to the largest cities.

But also a big indicator of what makes cities succeed or fail is how they are designed. Are they designed for people to live and be productive? Or are they designed to sell them sh*t and cost them money?

 

[lifelessheap]

Suburbs atomized American citizens to make us more effective consumers for the wealthy class. Made us dependent on cars and got us thinking giant stores we must buy in bulk from are good ideas. Buying groceries this way also creates more food waste in households, because it's better to buy produce fresh as you need it than it is to buy that in bulk and half of it ends up spoiling. There also a tremendous waste of land space, and led to the huge local political problem of NIMBYism, which prevents smarter development that would ease homelessness and poverty.

They're also a huge Ponzi scheme if you look at the money that's wasted in them paying off previous debts with the promise of forever growth that isnt possible.

Land waste? Have you taken a road trip in the USA? Fucker is huge.

 

[BreatheSherBro]

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but it sounds like you're just referring to population growth. The population has drastically increased, and the cities are already full so people have to go somewhere, so they live near the city and are able to work in or deliver goods to the cities that were already full, and eventually those areas get more people and become self sufficient with their own school, stores etc and function as their own small city.

Kind of a weird complaint when the opposite is what has actually happened. The population was always far more rural and has become much more urban over the last century, so I'm not sure the more divided theory holds up.

I'm mostly talking about the expansion of the suburbs, government policies that encouraged the expansion of the suburbs, and large numbers of people fleeing cities into the suburbs.

I think there are huge social and political consequences related to that. It created big shifts in demographics. It created people who see themselves as worlds apart from others nearby who are within a couple miles of where they live.

The city of New Orleans has less people than it had 100 years ago. Much of that is due to people leaving to go to the suburbs. Parts of Baton Rouge recently broke off to create the towns of Central and St. George because they don't like the city of Baton Rouge even though that's where most of the people living there work. They want to live in separate suburban communities.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Ugh this subject has been done to death. The suburbs got whites away from poor minorities, thus I'm grateful for them