Every house on the street I grew up on had a front porch and 4 to 6 people living in it. Everyone knew everyone and we did everything together. There was no organized sports; if you wanted to play you just went in the middle of the street and in 5 minutes there were 10 other kids. If you wanted to take a shortcut, you just cut though people's yards; no one had a fence.
Every one of my parent's 14 siblings and my 32 first cousins lived within 10 miles. We all saw each other at least once per week.
Our mailman cut our hair, our dry cleaner picked up and delivered, our principal was also manager of the local swimming pool, and we worshipped in our neighbor's basement.
We knew the names of every police officer, fireman, cashier, clerk, waitress, gardner, and handyman in our neighborhood. If you ever needed anything, someone knew someone else who could help you. We didn't have google, cell phones, or cable TV; we had lots of other people in our lives all the time.
In college, I lived with 35 others in a fraternity house. We didn't do a whole lot of planning. There was always someone around to do stuff with.
Today, I don't know the name of a single neighbor. I don't remember the last time I lived in a house without a fence in back or with a porch in front. My nearest relative lives 1000 miles away. I know the names of exactly 2 waitresses; guess where I eat out all the time?
Loneliness probably has more to do with the proximity of people in your life than all these other "factors".
I don't know when things changed, but they sure have. Anyone with experiences similar to mine?
It was mostly the same with me. We attended a church 400 yards from my house. All the neighbors did as well. The neighborhood was like a family -- if you needed a glass of water you just went in the kitchen of the closest house and got one. Nobody locked their doors because everybody knew everybody and somebody was always around checking on what was going on. Kids played outside until dark, and sometimes later, without much parental supervision. Everybody knew that everybody else was looking out for the kids.
That's how I thought everybody grew up.
My dad died and my mom remarried and moved off to a retirement community in Florida. They have about 1200 units which are mostly full in the winter. Everybody attends the same church, everybody participates in the same activities, everybody sits out on their porch in the evening. You're never bored because somebody is always coming by and either talking to you or asking you to participate in something. If somebody has a problem going to the store, other people drive them. If somebody has a problem cooking their meals, neighbors pitch in and help them out.
When my mom died last month, there were a thousand people at her memorial service. The line of people coming by to give me a hug, cry, and offer their condolences took almost an hour. These were people who had kids and grandkids off all over the world, but for them the people in the park were their family.
There is something in that experience that I want, especially as I grow older. We all spend a lot of time plugged in and wired up, but we seem to have forgotten how to sit on the porch as the sun goes down and have a good heart-to-heart talk about our lives and values.
As cool as technology has become, we're missing something very important.
>we seem to have forgotten how to sit on the porch as the sun goes down and have a good heart-to-heart talk about our lives and values.
We haven't forgotten, we've just changed the space. Like right now, in this thread we're doing exactly what you claim is missing. Whether the porch is physical or virtual isn't nearly as important as the actual sharing of ideas.
I somehow doubt anyone from HN is going to come to my funeral. We've created a system that allows us to select our own designer social network. With you're neighborhood, you're stuck with those people, you can't just go looking for a new physical community as easily as you can a virtual one. I think this is actually a good thing; it tends to teach a lot more patience between people.
Just because you live in a neighborhood, and have neighbors, doesn't mean they'll come to your funeral either. What I'm saying is physical space might not be the core issue here.
The system we've created allows more freedom, freedom to choose your communities more closely. In some cases the trade off might be less patience, and I suppose in my own case, I value freedom above possible lack of patience.
I think the point that DanielBMarkham was trying to make was that, in order for the general person to feel whole, they need social interaction of some kind. You don't see too many hermits in the world. This ability to select our social networks allows us an emotional escape that de-prioritizes building relationships with physical neighbors. The advantages given to automobile travel started it, and the internet has accelerated it dramatically.
I think the "freedom" to choose one's community is at the core of the complete lack of reasonable political discourse these days. It's very rare to see people calmly discussing issues with each other; they segregate themselves into their like-minded social groups, seeking validation for their preconceived notions rather than searching for the truth. When your barber who has been cutting your hair for 20 years expresses a view that you find surprising, you're going to tend to have a discussion with him about it, rather than shout at him and call him names.
Each community, physical or virtual, has its own unique ideology. The difference between the physical and virtual is that physical ones must necessarily be inclusive, virtual ones are encouraged to be exclusive.
Without getting too sidetracked, there is also the issue of the disconnect between seeing words on a screen and knowing deep in your subconscious that your dealing with a real person. Text on a screen is really difficult to anthropomorphize and sympathize with.
I would argue that most communities are self-selected, virtual or not.
>The difference between the physical and virtual is that physical ones must necessarily be inclusive, virtual ones are encouraged to be exclusive.
It depends on the community. I don't see how physicality is the determining factor of what is inclusive or exclusive. Look at country clubs, or Hollywood.
>Text on a screen is really difficult to anthropomorphize and sympathize with.
Have you ever read a novel or story that moved you? Empathized with a fictional character? It is very possible to connect with text, you just have to be creative.
I could have (conceivably) created an account name "Steve Jobs" and posted under that, which is another way in which virtual social interaction fails people. I've had friends find out that someone had been impersonating them on MySpace. At least in physical interaction, I have to stay logically consistent with everything I've told people before. Online, I could be a new person every day.
>Whether the porch is physical or virtual isn't nearly as important as the actual sharing of ideas.
That would be like saying that the only important part of sex is the exchanging of fluids. Yes, the internet is great, but it cannot replace a strong family or community.
> "That would be like saying that the only important part of sex is the exchanging of fluids."
It strikes me as like saying the important parts of sex are the physical sensations and emotional connection (regardless of where the fluids end up.) It's dead on.
I have a strong family and a strong community, but much of it is online. I met my wife on the internet (in 1998, on a website devoted to our favorite video game); another friend from the same website was a groomsman at our wedding; we named our son after the website's founder. Members of our online community have organized prayer groups, attended weddings and funerals of other members, and helped each other in times of physical, emotional, or financial crisis. I personally have met with people from our community in Chicago, Vancouver, Kansas City, Seattle, Denver, Colorado Springs, Provo, and at a hog farm near Medford, Oregon.
The important part of community is not that we can walk over to each others' houses. It's that we can share with each other, help each other, take joy in each others successes, give comfort in failure or tragedy, learn from each other, and treat one another as friends.
Not every website can live up to this standard of "community". But mine has for the last twelve years.
For me, a physical presence isn't a requirement in order to have a strong relationship with someone. So in my case, it could very well work as a replacement.
My experience is similar, but an inverse, of your own. :)
I didn't have your childhood experience - my childhood was much like your current situation. I knew a couple kids in the neighborhood, but we mostly just played video games indoors (when we were younger, we would climb trees, explore the creek, or play with an extensive collection of GI-Joes). And then they all moved away, and I didn't know anyone anymore (and neither, I suspect, did my parents).
Then I moved to Brooklyn. Not Park Slope, not Red Hook, and definitely not Williamsburg. I moved into what was up until very recently (in the last decade) one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the borough, and which laid claim to the most dangerous block in the five boroughs: Bushwick.
I moved in three years ago, several years after the neighborhood started getting safer. It's still not that safe: you have to keep an eye on who else is on the block with you. But now there's a nice coffee shop, a delicious bistro-bar, a wine/beer bar, and a coctail/dance club within five blocks.
I don't work with anyone in my neighborhood. But I know several painters, several musicians, several photographers, a puppeteer, and several businessfolk. I'm also on a first-name basis with most employees of the coffee shop and bistro-bar (who, incidentally, do all sorts of other things as well). I met the woman who cuts my hair at the bar (price? bring a six-pack of beer over) - and she does a wonderful job. One of the guys who works at the coffee shop put on a play/concert with his band at the local performance theater.
A small music venue (official, as opposed to all the ad-hoc venues scattered throughout the [il]legal lofts off the Morgan stop) is opening in the next six months: I know the proprietor.
I've never known a community like this. It's fantastic. I don't know of any other neighborhood in this city that can claim a community as active, as friendly, and as full of vermont transplants (I'm from the opposite direction, however).
Very true. I believe the reason I could integrate so well with this community is due to one specific situation and a couple attributes of the community that I've not seen elsewhere:
- I moved to the neighborhood when the community was just beginning
- It is not based around typical cultural or ethnic norms (there are Haitian, Asian, European, Hispanic immigrants involved: this is not an affluent-white-urban group, though caucasian transplants to the city tend to be the majority)
- It is not based around our job description or industry, though creative-types are definitely in the majority
- It's not whether you're deemed cool by the American Apparel masses
We're just neighbors. Awesome neighbors.
(before this, I lived in northern Astoria - whose community was rather insular and comprised of primarily Greek individuals; there were yuppies there, but they weren't a part of nor 'invited' in to the community)
There was a time, when I was a kid, that to meet your friends, you went to their house, rang the doorbell, and asked the above question to the parent of X who opened the door. Or you called them, and then their parents would answer the phone, and you asked the same question.
Now, all kids have mobiles, and just call or text each other directly, completely bypassing the parents. Parents get to meet the friends of their children much less, and kids get to meet their friends' parents much less, and I think we're worse off as a society because of it.
Not the parent, but I'll answer for myself: it's a good thing to have more people in your life in your formative years than just your immediate peers and your parents because you get experience developing more types of relationships with people. You understand how to relate to someone who is older and more experienced than you and has a different point of view than you do outside of the context of them having a direct authority over you. You also get exposed to more points of view than just your parents', which can be a good or bad thing depending on what those points of view are, but plurality on average tends to be beneficial, especially in your developmental years.
By contrast, when you interact only with your self-selected peers of your own age group, your social circle becomes a bit of an echo chamber. In addition to the intellectual incest, if you don't have to deal with outsiders or people with different backgrounds or perspectives, you never figure out how to, and that's an important life skill. At the societal level, when people don't have to interact beyond their selected circle, they start becoming more insular, and that impedes the ability of groups to understand each other and communicate with each other, creating friction that can lead to conflicts and the inability to resolve such conflicts.
For parents, it was a great way of getting to know their children's friends, it forced an interaction whereas today, parents have to actively seek that out.
On the flipside, giving mobiles to kids makes it much easier for parents to keep track of them, or for the kids to get help from their parents. But it also helps kids keep secrets from their parents, which is good in some cases and bad in some cases.
All interactions increase the richness of your social graph, IMHO anyways. It's the difference between ordering your lunch from a human vs. tapping it out on a touchscreen and having it appear from a pneumatic chute.
One of the themes I'm getting from other comments here is that modern society makes you too independent - everything we need we get from machines, and in the places where we must interact with other humans there's a corporatized formality to it that robs it of human substance.
For example: Your local grocery store is probably a gigantor-chain, the person at the counter is probably running through a script of unenthusiastic niceties - a far cry from smalltalk with the grocer you see every day at the corner store.
Oh my. This resonates with nearly everything I'm experiencing after migrating to the US 2 years ago. I grew up in a city where most of my friends live within a 1-mile radius around my house. Those friends are still there after all these years growing up. My old home was a small apartment unit in a building where I personally know most of its tenants.
Though I don't largely blame it one the US as much as I blame it on my introvert attitude, living here seems a lot lonely by comparison. Living in the suburbs, I've probably seen more squirrels outside my current residence than there are humans (quite an exaggeration, but I do feel that sometimes). Graduating from college or high school meant that most of your friends will be living in different states with a huge chance of losing contact from them afterwards. I originally thought of this as culture shock, so I'm glad even natives are experiencing this.
Reminds of Bulgaria - not much houses, but 8 to 12, and sometimes 18 story blocks. You take the elevator (if it works), go down in front of the block and kids were there - all day being dirty was just fun.
But now, I know the names of just 3 of my neighbours, and they all happen to be old folks (65+). We have lots of young people, but we just say "Hi" and that's it.
Then we go the park with our little kid, and lots of spanish speaking people (mostly mexican emigrants, I live in Los Angeles) have gathered at the BBQ and having fun. Their kids are more friendly with our kid, more giving, understanding. An american kid, much like our kid (he was born here) would always try to be individualist - not sharing much, crying sometimes for no reason, etc.
Being an atheist in a strong community like you describe just sucked for me. I would prefer to pick my community rather than have it forced upon me by geography. For instance when I entered college I joined an engineering fraternity which was filled with plenty of people as bizarre as me.
I think most people would rather pick their communities than have it selected by default hence the fences popped up once it became feasible to do without your physical neighbors.
There are obvious drawbacks though. You put a foot wrong, i.e. you do something that your community disapproves of, and within hours everybody knows about it.
I am originally from the Netherlands (very densely populated), and now live in a rural area in the US. I wouldn't want to go back anymore to that kind of life. (Then again, I'm agoraphobic, that probably has something to do with it... :-)
Since I quit my job to work on my startup, I've moved out of Dublin to cut costs and most of my friends now live a ~1.5 hour bus journey away. I head back every now and again to keep in touch, but mostly I talk to them over the internet. I do live with my little brother now and my other brother and his girlfriend live literally opposite my house, so I hang out with family a lot more than I used to. I know some of the people working in the local shops, but I don't know anyone else that lives on the street.
I grew up in the coutnry, so there weren't many people living nearby, but the few other kids that did live close, we knew well. We generally let ourselves into each others homes and there was never any problems, though if we wanted to visit our friends who lived further away, we would get our parents to drive us.
I am very lucky to live in the (US) subdivision I'm in right now. The situation you describe about kids playing in the street and (mostly) the yards is what we have here. Our neighbors have "parties" in their driveways and everyone is welcome. People just sit around and talk as the kids play in the yard.
It's not utopia, but it's good enough that we have seriously considered the risk of moving into a closed off neighborhood when we move. We are lucky and are going to hang out here as long as we can.
As an 18 year old who grew up/is growing up in the suburbs, this sounds ridiculously idealized to me. I'm not saying that it is, just that it's so far from my experience I have trouble comprehending it. Anyone with experiences similar to mine?
There was a comment earlier on this thread a while back about seeing "more squirrels than humans" in the suburbs... it then apologized for the exaggeration. For my entire life, I've lived in a place where that isn't an exaggeration, and my nearest friends (people who I know well who are not my immediate family) live 20 miles away.
Seems like just something a large part of our generation, especially parts of it that grew up in the suburbs, takes for granted.
This article taught me about the problems of a small diner in Vermont and its quest to find a local pork producer raising 300-500 pigs per year. Along the way I read some comments about suburbia and learned the diner had a jukebox that played the music of local artists.
I got the same impression. The article felt like two articles hastily joined in the middle. The first was some musing on the loneliness and disconnected lives Americans now lead, with some unsupported thoughts as to why.
Then it launched into a description of the problems of a local diner owner.
The article was heavy on the heartstrings, light on the facts.
Bingo -- my parents' street, which is comprised mostly of successful professionals with post-graduate education who work full-time jobs, has excellent community spirit. It's pretty much a given that any Friday evening with warm weather, most of the adults and kids on the street will be outside having a shared meal, talking about their weeks, and so on. They call it "Firepit Fridays," and it's apparently inspired other streets in the neighborhood.
My cousins live about a mile away, and have had similar success after installing a big front porch.
It's not "energy independence," or anything like that, it simply takes an effort to get these things started, and keep them going. And you have to like your neighbors; having a front porch doesn't hurt, either.
The conclusion of the article is (and I paraphrase) that Americans are so lonely because they don't gossip anymore while shopping. I'm not buying that.
It wouldn't surprise me if the opposite were true: that by buying everything from the internet you save time you would otherwise spend in shopping malls... which you can then invest in meaningful (real life) relationships instead.
The conclusion of the article was that people don't need to meet people anymore to go about their life. The question is if the time saved by shopping online (if any, while it may be more efficient, there's also much more data you can potentially peruse in deciding your purchases), or in the supermarket, is actually invested in cultivating relationships or if it goes into more hours working, for example.
Right, but my point is that even if you interact with people while shopping it doesn't lead to meaningful relationships, so I think the "correct" choice is to shop in whichever way is most time efficient.
What you end up doing with the time you save is up to you of course. But no amount of shopping is going to compensate for a lack of friends and family.
I think you're completely correct. This is really a suburban issue more than anything else. Think about suburbs:
() Each part of your existence is cordoned off into unique zones. There is the work zone, the shopping zone, and the home zone.
() None of these 'zones' are close enough together to walk. So you get into your car (with tinted windows!) and drive from zone to zone.
() Your house has a big fence (it's a 'privacy fence').
() Your house is huge. So big that you have rooms dedicated to things like excercise and 'media'. You don't have to leave your house...ever! You can excercise at home. No need to go to the movies. That gourmet kitchen can feed 200...
() Look at your street. In suburbia the streets are curvy and twisting... why? Go stand out on your front sidewalk. Notice how when the street twists it looks like you only have a handful of neighbors? That's why...
() That subdivision has a name. I bet it's something ranch, or
something glades or some other name designed to make you think you're living far out in the country away from everything (a great post on the subject: http://denverinfill.com/blog/2006/09/guide-to-suburban-denve...)
Everything about suburban life is designed to isolate. You drive in your tinted car to the giant grocery store. You nod at the cashier, hurry back to your car and drive home. You park as close to the store as you can.
You'll find that folks in suburban areas are obsessed with security. That's what their being sold. 'Come live here and you'll be so isolated no one can ever do anything bad to you ever!!'. Of course the cynic in me takes a trip back to the 60's and hears 'Come live here and you'll be so isolated you'll never have to deal with those black people in the cit...ever!!'
So ya... living in that environment you're bound to be unhappy. I've done that. I've lived it. It sucked.
Contrast that with my current situation:
() Small house with a small fence.
() Nice front porch
() Streets on the city grid.
() Grocery store is a 5 minute walk away
() (lots of) Restaurants, shops, and parks are all within walking distance
() My wife and I own one car, but we almost never use it. Our bikes get us around quite nicely.
() We both take public transit daily.
It's amazing. When we're walking or riding the bus we are nearly constantly interacting with other human beings. Walking down the road we'll meet new folks and pet their dog. More than once we've invited folks inside for a drink... It's really a pleasant way to live. I'm sure that we're statistically slightly less safe (our house was broken into once, and cars are occasionally robbed on our street) but we're 100% more happy.
I've noticed that the kids in the neighborhood (and there are a LOT) are also much better adjusted and well socialized as well. When we lived in the suburbs it became comical. We had tons of trouble finding places to eat. We'd go to $30/plate restaurants that would still have kids running around like it was Chuck-E-Cheese. I really think that the lack of daily socialization breeds a child that is fundamentally self-interested.
Urban kids do much better. Sure we've had the occasional problem... but it's been far less frequent. It just seems like a more natural and overall better way to live.
Grew up in a suburb, cannot agree more. You'd have to beat me with a very large bat to get me to go back to that kind of lifestyle. It's not a way to live.
It doesn't have to be this way, though. Part of the urban conversation that happens in America is diluted by the polarizing notion that you either have the twisty, identical, soulless gigantic suburb, or the gardens of glass and steel that is high-rise condos. The people on either side see the opposing extreme as the alternative - but it needn't be so.
Walkable suburbs are entirely feasible - you don't need big concrete high-rises to be dense and transit-friendly.
I totally agree. As a matter of fact I live in a neighborhood that IS a suburb. It's one of the original 'streetcar suburbs' in Denver.
The big differences:
* houses align to the city grid (well a city grid, Denver actually has two.. it's complicated;) ). This is really important as the grid is far more friendly for pedestrian access.
* mixed use: There are integrated retail spots throughout the neighborhood. I don't have to leave the confines of my neighborhood to take care of almost anything
* Ready access to transit. I have a bus stop 2 bloycks away
* Proximity : I'm about 2 miles out of Downtown.
I still have a house (albeit much smaller than out in the burbs). I have two dogs. I have a yard. So in many ways I have the same trappings as those houses farther out, just less space.
Really when we talk abut 'suburbs' we're talking about 'exurbs' or extra urban areas.
That said, it can be very difficult to get this right. Here in Denver our old Airport gave way to a 'new urban' development called Stapleton. To me it's an absolute tragedy. The planners took 'walkable' to mean, quite literally, 'able to easily walked'. They forgot that you have to actually have things to walk TO. They built a neighborhood that sort of mashes up the two concepts. The houses are on the grid (for the most part), but the retail centers are highly zoned off. So they failed to actually integrate the retail into the neighborhood itself. They sit on the edges of the development. It has nice wide sidewalks and a really big park, but most people live at a pretty good distance.
So the results are mixed. You do get a lot of leisure walking going on. On a day like today (almost 80 degrees and sunny) you'll see a lot of folks out and about pushing strollers and the like. However, most people find themselves packing up the car when they want to eat or go to the grocery store.
Contrast that with my neighborhood where half the streets don't have sidewalks that go all the way through. Yet it's highly trafficked all day and well into the evening simply because we have lots of places worth walking to.
note: As you can tell, this is one of most favorite topics to absolutely geek out about:)
I agree that the headline and conclusion was linkbait, but the main story was great.
I have this sinking feeling that the globalization of food production is a race to the bottom, but it's a race that can only work with the extremely low costs of transportation that we have. But if oil prices rise, and with it transportation costs, we will have huge problems turning back the change from individual local farms to centralized agribusiness.
This article was very refreshing by talking about growing a business to the right size, not to the largest possible size.
It seems about once every 20 years or so there's a new wave of this small is beautiful, re-localization, grow your own food or die idea. Maybe every generation has to go through that phase before realizing that we're never going to go back to anything resembling our countryside village past. And I'm glad we won't.
It's all based on the idea that we're running out of traditional sources of energy so quickly that we won't be able to innovate ourselves out of it. I don't believe that for a second. It's wishful thinking by people who will latch on to any difficulty to make that same argument over and over again.
There are huge amounts of natural gas left and we have nuclear. I don't see why that wouldn't be sufficient for a smooth transition to more wind and solar to save us from the horrible prospect of the stifling, oppressive horror that was the village.
Are Americans so lonely? The article doesn't seem to establish that. There's a reference to a book, and an assertion, but since I'm not going to read that before I read the article, it doesn't help.
Saying that people have fewer friends or neighbours doesn't equate to being more lonely. People may have richer lives with less face-to-face contact because they can now interact with people who are more in tune with their beliefs and dreams.
It doesn't help to have lots of neighbours if all of them think you're just that weird goth kid. But if you can share a virtual space with thousands of other weird goth kids, you may be better off, and less lonely.
The real reason why Americans are lonely is simply because they stay at home. Rather than living and working out of cafes and pubs. Doesn't matter whether its the suburb or city. Compare this to somewhere like Spain where they even take their children to bars with them.
I have a car, access to public transit, a cell phone, and the internet. I can choose to socialize with the people I choose to, rather than the people who are spatially closest to me through mere happenstance. I don't know my neighbors much nor do I need to. I have plenty of friends and I am not at all lonely. I doubt my story is unique in the western world.
I wonder how many of us complainers about how we're all disconnected actually try to a) go out an make friends, b) do something for others in the neighborhood, c) basically get off our asses (and the internets) and go interact and be a part of the community.
"Not the kind of money that's looking for a 20 percent annual gain; when that happens, everything but return gets pushed aside. What Tasch has in mind is a consistent, sound, 3 or 4 percent return"
Is 20% all that much? The way I see it, one has to strive for gains to compensate for losses (in bad years). I am pretty sure 3% gain is not enough to compensate for losses.
In the worst case, your product becomes obsolete from one year to the next. Happy if you had some healthy years and can invest in creating a new product.
I am all for cosy countryside romanticism, I just don't understand why bad economics have to be part of the equation.
I don't think it was the fault of "cheap energy". Oil and motor companies designed our cities to be the way there are, killed dense downtown living areas and public transportation, on purpose. So, the demise of community sociality is squarely their fault, a victim of capitalism and the political influence of money.
Certainly the abundance of anonymous services and goods takes out a lot of the enjoyable social aspects of those things but it also makes many other things possible. I don't think there has ever been a time in history like this one where the barriers to entry to whatever you can imagine have been so low.
It's not just cheap oil. The real reason: it's part of our national character, especially post-1950. We don't care enough about close friendships to have them.
We have an arrangement where everyone in the white-collar world is expected to live a lifestyle that makes sense only for the most ambitious-- 40-60+ hour work weeks, unpaid overtime, a social life based on weak ties ("networking"), and national job markets. This is fine for the most ambitious 0.1%, but it shouldn't be expected of the other 99.9% who will never be CEOs.
Because we deny the reality of class, we're in a sort of perennial "gold rush" mentality. Look at the shitty houses built in suburbia, most of which will be falling to pieces in 30 years. Isn't this the same level of quality you'd expect in housing built one mile from a gold mine, on land that will be abandoned after the mine is exhausted?
Europeans focus more on community and less on individual ambition because they know that most of them will never be CEOs. Oddly enough, virtually every study of social mobility has concluded that Europeans have at least as much social mobility as we do in all dimensions that matter. We sacrifice a lot more, and don't get much for the sacrifice.
It's strange, because my experience is completely counter to that. I'm 30 years old. I live in a relatively dense urban neighborhood in Denver. I have many close friends that I see on at least a weekly basis and often much more often than that. My experience is very similar to the one studied in a great book:
Maybe it's a generational thing? While the political and social structures have definitely changed (particularly with regards to church), the end result is very much the same. I think the 'Generation Y' (god I hate that term) is showing a very different attitude towards community than our parents did. They're (we're?) settling into more urban neighborhoods. They value their friendships and relationships more than the previous generation did. They're relying on those friendships much longer and postponing starting families.
It really does seem to me that this generation is living gasp a much more European lifestyle than generations past. Having lived in Europe myself for several years, I can definitely see the similarities.
I'm not sure what you base your statements about Europeans on. From my experience in both cultures, there is very little difference in this respect, except for the provision of greater societal safety nets in Europe.
The problem with your theory is that we now work fewer hours than we did in the past. As of 1964, we worked on average 38.7 hours/week, as of 1999 we work only 34.5. Additionally, domestic labor has almost certainly decreased, thanks to modern conveniences like washing machines and dishwashers. Not sure where to get stats on that, however.
The hero of Sartre's Nausea says on page 6 "I live alone, entirely alone. I never speak to anyone, never; I receive nothing, I give nothing...." http://books.google.com/books?id=dbCJ40j7t1sC&printsec=f...
That was written in 1938. Probably he was alone by choice (not lonely). Now we are alone (lonely) because technology forces us to be alone?
I stopped reading at "And they've paid equal, or even greater, attention to suburbia; in the developed world, after all, that's where most people live."
I don't think this is true. Google failed me but according to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GCTTable?_bm=y&-geo... ), the plurality of people in the US live in "urban, urbanized area, central place" (39%), as opposed to "not in a central place" (29%) or "rural" (21%). And my experience is that the US is much more suburban than the rest of the developed world, Europe particularly. Seems a very odd thing to say. Turns out, most people actually live in cities, and have jobs other than writing this kind of nonsense.
If you stopped reading there, you completely missed the meat of the article, it wasn't about suburbia at all, it was about getting the size of businesses right.
I'd be wary of trying to equate technical census terms with common definitions of related terms without citing their explanations. Both "urbanized area" and "not in a central place" probably don't exclude suburban areas.
Every one of my parent's 14 siblings and my 32 first cousins lived within 10 miles. We all saw each other at least once per week.
Our mailman cut our hair, our dry cleaner picked up and delivered, our principal was also manager of the local swimming pool, and we worshipped in our neighbor's basement.
We knew the names of every police officer, fireman, cashier, clerk, waitress, gardner, and handyman in our neighborhood. If you ever needed anything, someone knew someone else who could help you. We didn't have google, cell phones, or cable TV; we had lots of other people in our lives all the time.
In college, I lived with 35 others in a fraternity house. We didn't do a whole lot of planning. There was always someone around to do stuff with.
Today, I don't know the name of a single neighbor. I don't remember the last time I lived in a house without a fence in back or with a porch in front. My nearest relative lives 1000 miles away. I know the names of exactly 2 waitresses; guess where I eat out all the time?
Loneliness probably has more to do with the proximity of people in your life than all these other "factors".
I don't know when things changed, but they sure have. Anyone with experiences similar to mine?