Maybe it is better in the suburbs, or is it?

The Los Angeles Times reports, in "Where to hear `Hi, neighbor!': in the suburbs," that:

In a study of 15,000 Americans, economist Jan Brueckner found that suburban living is better for people's social life than city dwelling.The less crowded a neighborhood is, the friendlier its residents become, the report says. For every 10% drop in population density, the likelihood of people talking to their neighbors once a week goes up 10%, regardless of race, income, education, marital status or age.

(PDF of study here.)

I hadn't wanted to write about this story for obvious reasons. Further, a paragraph in the Sightline Institute blog entry, "Bonhomie in the 'burbs," sums up the problems with these kinds of studies:

... is that it's very difficult to tease apart cause and effect. There's a good chance that people self select into communities that reflect their values. Those who want to socialize may want to live near a vibrant walkable commercial center (or, if this new study is correct, in a lower-density community with many people similar to them.) And there are the usual confounders like race, education, and income, all of which play a role in how many social interactions a person is likely to have.

As importantly, some of the commenters in the thread make some excellent points as well, showing that in large part, this issue isn't so much about density or urban vs. suburban at all:

-- Arie V. writes: Proximity may help, but time and and investment in a community matters more. I'll throw it out there that I see transience as a bigger factors than density. Since urban dwellers are more likely to move on, this may explain the study results.

-- Adev comments on the impact of television on Eskimo villages, and posits that the Internet also reduces interaction (although I can say that through blogging, I've made new friends, relationships, and contacts as well...)

-- giving some examples and references, Levin writes:

I suspect that the way a space is organized has a stronger effect on social interaction, than the precise number of people living there.... Clare Cooper Marcus has written about the features of shared outdoor space that promote community. These principles can be applied at many different housing densities, and they can make the difference between a vibrant, popular park and a desolate urban wasteland.

In the paper Levin cites, "The Neighborhood Approach to Building Community: A Different Perspective on Smart Growth," Professor Marcus writes about the Characteristics of Successful Shared Outdoor Space:

... shared outdoor space can be a highly significant component of the neighborhood environment, facilitating a sense of community, if it meets the following criteria:

· It is bounded by the dwellings it serves and is clearly not a public park;

· Entry points into this space from a public street or sidewalk are designed so that it is clear that one is entering a setting which is not public space;

· Its dimensions and the height-to-width ratio of buildings to outdoor space create a human-scaled setting;

· There are clear boundaries and easy access between what is private (dwelling unit, patio, yard) and what is shared; and

· As much care and budget is focused on the layout, circulation patterns, planting plan, furnishings, lighting, etc., of the shared outdoor space as is normally focused on the dwelling interiors. In particular, the design needs to focus on children (play equipment, paths for wheeled vehicles, areas for exploratory play, etc.) since research shows that children will comprise more than 80 percent of the users of such spaces if they are designed with the above criteria in mind.

These details are critical. It was the lack of many or all of these characteristics that rendered the shared outdoor space of many postwar public housing projects, and many suburban planned unit developments of the 1960s, nonfunctional. Unfortunately, design critics observing that such spaces often became poorly maintained no-man’s lands, wrongly assumed that they could never work.

There is ample evidence that, appropriately designed, not only do they work, but are actively sought after by people who are able to exercise choice over how they live. And many consumer-preference surveys indicate that suburban house buyers prefer houses that look onto culs-de-sac, rather than those that look onto through streets, because they are safer for children as well as creating a more neighborly context for adults.

Once again, it comes down to urban design and placemaking. Civic engagement is constructed in part by having great spaces to be engaged in. It also has to do with whether or not the social environment that encourages or discourages interaction. And also, whether people are provided opportunities to be engaged while growing up.

Something I used to say in college still holds true:

You don't go to relatively authoritarian schools for 13 to 17 years of your life, and then, upon graduation, become an active, free-thinking, participating member of society.

Participation has to be nurtured. And respected.

Index Keywords: civic-engagement; urban-design-placemaking