Why are people (at least those on SSC and like-minded online sites/blogs) so obsessed with what they see on streets, which ultimately are TRANSPORATION infrastructure more than anything else?

Most of people get their needs or activities happening indoors. From the overwhelming majority of jobs (who are performed indoors, from powerplant operators to hospital doctors to burger flippers) to the overwhelming majority of leisure (bars, pubs, clubs, theme parks, resorts) to the overwhelming majority of civic/religious engagements (voting, associations, church services) and, of course to virtually all housing-related activities.

So why this fixation on what happens on the small and mostly irrelevant sum of instances where someone isn't heading or coming to, from or into some building as a matter or judging whether a city is "good" or "bad"?

It seems to be a very shallow perception of what really matters to most people who are not concerned, at all, with the "street scene" or by other buzzwords in their daily lives.

Just because a city has "desert" streets doesn't follow that people are living miserable lives automatically. Which is the case of many American cities: are they streets "dead" (as in: not having people walking in large numbers)? Yes, they might be. But its inhabitants usually have a very high standard of living, great schools, more commercial and leisure floor space per capita than any other citizen of a developed country, a wide array of business and other places they go to.

It JUST happens they don't go to those places walking or by public transportation, but I don't see how the fact someone drives to a prime-quality sushi bar surrounded by a parking lot makes the experience of Japanese fine-dining ANY different than someone who go walking from home to that same place. Or how some church (or mosque or synagogue for that matter) experience is ANY different it the temple is located in a big building near a highway exit or in the midst of downtown.

There is an overemphasis on how people go to places they need/want to among the "planning community", a borderline creepy talk of "people watching" and other quasi-stalking concepts, and a reduction of criteria used to evaluate neighborhoods and even whole cities by silly things like "pedestrian activity", when ultimately what counts is not if someone drove, took a flight, rode a Segway or hopped on a tram to work, but how is his/her job, how much does he/she earn, how is the quality of employment in the city, how much stuff can he/she buy with wages received.

But he raises a solid point. Why should people feel obligated to be a part of a community, to help facilitate "street life" or "urban activity" or walkability.

Why, if they have the resources to avoid it, should people not withdraw to their little bubbles of safety, security and isolation? Is spending time by yourself or only amongst those you identify with such aberrant, deviant behaviour?

Satre said that “hell is other people” and I’m sure there are enough misanthropes here in the ‘zzone to agree with him on that. Why talk to people if you don’t have to? Why face the pushing and shoving of meaningless, impedimental strangers in some strange quest to insist that you’re part of a ‘community’? These are good questions.

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

Hrrmmm what is the difference between Churches, Mosques, and Synagogues located in places where only people who can afford cars and are able to travel relatively further distances to reach their places of worship???? Get over your self IWC.

I didn't say "please outline the economic injustice behind suburbia", i said why should people reject it if they can afford it?

for example affording alcohol and drugs is an excess luxury that could be spent helping others but you still indulge in it, it's the same with suburbanites

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

Personal choices and institutional economic and social trends are totally the same. Great points, IWC.

well this is what i'm saying: Why should people feel obligated to participate in this charade of "public life" or whatever?

swirlsofhistory posted:

Suburbia has its benefits, but there's no freedom like being alone in a crowd of people you've never met and never will.

"There's no freedom like a new call of duty game and a bag of cheetos"

what is this? just meaningless value judgements based on your opinions. Many people hate crowds and feel tense and ill at ease, not surprising since if you look at every war, pogrom, riot and famine throughout history the one thing they involve is lots of people bandying together

swirlsofhistory posted:

Suburbia has its benefits, but there's no freedom like being alone in a crowd of people you've never met and never will. Urban life offers the possibility of a schizoid lifestyle where there's almost no imposed social interaction; you don't even have to say hello to neighbors let alone know their names. Even in large suburbs where you've got lot of options, there's still a high chance you're going to run into someone at the nearby Costco everyone shops at, someone you'll have to pretend to like and share values with.

when you move to the 'burbs it's assumed you already share a common set of values including but not limited to traditional male-headed households, strong biblical principle, love of country and respect for rule law, maximizing freedom in order to grow prosperity, etc.

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

there are buses and peopel riding bikes in pretty much every city in the rural south...

every city in the rural south you say?

Superabound posted:

every city in the rural south you say?

ya. the rural cities, dude.

Impper posted:

because isolation feels sad and wretched

like being in love...