A UK perspective: over the past decade there has been an enormous growth in the buy-to-let market and the UK is now overun by the worst type of property owner: the buy-to-let (buy-to-rent) landlord or "property investor". They treat housing as a pure profit-making exercise. When more and more homes in your area get bought by property investors and buy-to-let landlords it can have a detrimental effect (I've seen it happen to my street). The neighbourhood feels more anonymous as people come and go more frequently. Neither the absentee landlord or the tenants have a commitment to the area. If buy-to-let comes to dominate a neighbourhood, can you ever build a community around such a neighbourhood?<p>Buy-to-let is rampant in the UK. Other European countries sensibly restrict it's growth or they enact strict tenancy laws to deter the worst type of buy-to-let landord (UK laws are weighted in favour of landlords). In the UK, we've lost any sense that housing has a social component.<p>I write a blog about housing in the UK and wrote about this topic five years ago. Depressingly, the situation is even worse today.<p><a href="http://designofhomes.co.uk/016-damaging-effects-of-buy-to-let.html" rel="nofollow">http://designofhomes.co.uk/016-damaging-effects-of-buy-to-le...</a>
Good to see they finally point the finger at what is fairly certainly the culprit: the automobile.<p>When i lived in NYC, i knew most of my neighbors. Why? because we literally bumped into each other coming in and out of the building. When you have a common destination (subway, bus, market, etc), it's nice to have someone to chat with, but when your commute is in an automobile, you never get a chance to ask. Living room, garage, automobile, parking lot, destination.<p>With automobiles, there is no opportunity to, say, bump into your neighbor and ask, and then follow up with quickly knocking on your neighbor's door to see if they are still interested in joining you. Without those quick opportunities, relationships cannot form. Without relationships forming, it's culturally awkward to ask directly.<p>The single occupancy automobile, and the decentralized suburbia that formed around it are very probably central to many of the ills detailed in the article.
My entire adult life, I haven't known any of my neighbors, until recently.<p>One day about 8 months ago, we got a note on the door from new neighbors. They were having a "floor party" and invited everyone on the floor to their place.<p>Almost everyone on the floor, reluctantly went to the party expecting it to be awkward. We all ended up drunk and hanging out until 2 am. Turns out, pretty much everyone on the floor was a 20-30 something couple.<p>Flash forward to last night, we all had dinner together on the roof, and celebrated someones birthday. I'm close friends with a few of them.<p>Point is, someone just has to take the initiative. I'm now embarrassed I didn't do it sooner, as I'd live here for 3 years.
Communities, rife as they were with gossip, ostracism and superstitious cruelty, were always based on mutual <i>need</i>, not on acting out some supposedly gene-based pantomime. I daresay when the next drought or plague comes along I will get to know my neighbours and we'll pull together for mutual support.
The article seriously misrepresents the Australian sociologist and the community response to the Queensland floods.<p>Here's the Australian sociologist's article (you can find both quotes in the piece, but quite out of context):
<a href="http://theconversation.com/do-you-know-your-neighbour-lending-a-hand-and-the-queensland-floods-4144" rel="nofollow">http://theconversation.com/do-you-know-your-neighbour-lendin...</a><p>The sociologist describes the community response to the floods as<p><pre><code> "the overwhelming message that flowed from events like the
floods in Queensland and Victoria last year was one of neighbours,
friends and even strangers rallying to assist flooded residents in
their hour of need
As the waters rose, neighbours banded together to sandbag each others’
homes and move possessions to higher ground. Once they receded,
information, food, homes and equipment were freely shared. Observers
lauded the spirit of community that prevailed.
So, why are neighbours still there when needed even if their noise,
smells and habits are cause for complaint the rest of the time?"
</code></pre>
But what does Brian Bethune summarise the article as?<p><pre><code> "An Australian sociologist investigating community responses in the
wake of the 2011 floods in Queensland found relations in “a precarious
balance”; neighbours were hesitant to intrude even in emergencies—leading
the scholar to conclude that “we are less likely than ever to know” our
neighbours."
</code></pre>
Which is quite the opposite. The sociologist was investigating the contrast -- a tremendous community response in an emergency, when we're more private than ever the rest of the time. But Brian Bethune make it sound like she was bemoaning a poor community response to an emergency.
I don't think the point of the article is to go and become "pinky swear" friends of your neighbors (which seems to me that most comments here are alluding to). I just don't get the aversion of neighbors in the Western world. Sure there are annoying neighbors, but if everyone claims that their neighbor is annoying (with whatever criteria that may be) isn't there something wrong with you?
Having an active social life is not the same as having meaningful relationships with people (NOT activity partners: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7632094" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7632094</a>).
This happens in condominiums. Condominiums were originally intended to be owner-occupied dwellings. Once the owner moves out without selling and rents the unit, things go awry. That's why, as written, most condo agreements are very burdensome upon owners who try to rent (high deposits for rental, long leases required, background checks to condo owners' association, etc).<p>This can be corrected in the case of condominiums by adding a clause to the condominium agreement mandating that owners occupy the unit and disallowing rentals. Perhaps, in the case of a neighborhood association, the same restriction could be applied (but not likely at any time other than the creation of the neighborhood).
To me, this seems to ring true - growing up I knew our neighbours (and so did my parents), but now I can't name any of my neighbours. The problem seems to me to be one of a disconnect, or different priorities: I have hobbies, things I love to do, and as far as I know (because I don't know my neighbours), my neighbours don't share in those interests. Given a choice between spending time with people I have nothing in common with (besides geographical location) and pursuing my preferred activities, I choose the latter. This is also why I don't know many of my co-workers very well.
A quote from the article: "We have evolved for it, to the extent that those surrounded by a tight-knit group of friends who regularly gather to eat—and, crucially, gossip—live an average of 15 years longer than loners."<p>A = alive 15 years longer than the average.<p>B = meets friends and gossips.<p>The claim, made by a psychologist (of course), fails to take into account the fact that correlation doesn't equal causation. It may be that some unexamined factor C causes people to (B) meet and gossip, and (A) live longer as well. Meaning before we change our lifestyle with the expectation of a longer life, we should first do some actual science.
Ugh, seems like another article that derives causation from correlation.<p>Specifically:
"We have evolved for it, to the extent that those surrounded by a tight-knit group of friends who regularly gather to eat—and, crucially, gossip—live an average of 15 years longer than loners."<p>Perhaps the reason that people with a large group of friends live much longer is that people who are in better health tend to have more active social lives. If you have some sort of disorder or are extremely obese could it be that you're less likely to be able to spend time with lots of other people?
As many people have already said, the article seems to jump to a conclusion rather quickly.<p>What the author might not have taken into account is cultural changes in living habits. With that I mean how we are increasingly moving away from our parents home, and into our own little cell/room/apartment, instead of living with the parents in the house or in an attached building.
And when people did move out, it would more than often be either because you moved into a dormitory (which previously were more communal) or together with a SO. That means more time spent in the neighbourhood, and more time with the middle ring as it's called in the article.<p>It could be interesting to compare the situation in america with for example the situation in Italy, where it's more common to stay at the parents for longer.
Since we're living around like-minded individuals but subjected to top-down centralized lawmaking, there is a large disconnect between what's happening in our backyard, in the state capital, and in Washington. Often the City Council office is out of touch with one part of the city or another, imposing rules on all that about half disagree with.<p>The federal system in America is supposed to emphasize differences in the states, and to some extent it still does. But Washington has been taking more power away from the states for the last ~100 years or so. This leads to large Washington-imposed mandates forced upon the states and upon the people, which leads to hostility.<p>Perhaps it's time to embrace the burbclave model from <i>Snow Crash</i>?
I wonder how many of the people commenting on this thread have families. I grew up on a cul-de-sac where we knew everyone. Then I lived in a series of apartments through my 20s and had no neighborly contact. But we bought a house in a family friendly neighborhood to start our family, and we have fantastic neighbors. Block parties, babysitting exchanges, toddler brunches, active mailing list, etc.<p>Perhaps people just seek out the community when they need it.
This article contains lots of definitive-sounding statements that not only lack the ring of objective truth that they're presented with, but would be considered offensive in other contexts. People are different, and those differences should, when possible, be respected. Some people are homosexual, some are members of racial minorities, some are members of unpopular cultures and religions... and some are natural hermits.
I was moving furniture last night. In the rain. Pissing down. Had one friend with me hauling stuff from van to doorstep. My 'neighbour', who I've never met, simply stood on his doorstep (our houses touch one another) and didn't even say 'hi', let alone ask if we needed a hand.<p>Was I pissed at this? I thought it was a little rude. But on reflection, I don't really care too much. In fact, I prefer it this way. I like choosing my friends and have a diverse cast of hand-picked co-conspirators in my life. So I enjoy that, today, I am no longer geographically obligated to make chit-chat to this uncouth guy next door.<p>This is what this article misses. It directly correlates the old archetype of a buzzing neighbourhood with the issue of loneliness and it's health impacts. It's a false pretense that the article was written on, and it conforms to the Luddite pandering to 'the good old days before computer' that at one point it actually mocks.<p>I'm sure if the guy next doors house was on fire, I'd help him out. But I can live with the idea of him not coming around to borrow a cup of flour.
I believe that if we start helping each other in close proximity, we increase our self-confidence and neighborhood security all while building social capital.<p>I am working on an open-source hyperlocal Craigslist-style solution to the neighborhood dilemma with JoatU : <a href="http://github.com/joatuapp" rel="nofollow">http://github.com/joatuapp</a>
Is this that different than Bowling Alone? <a href="http://bowlingalone.com/" rel="nofollow">http://bowlingalone.com/</a><p>I've spent the past 5 years in the same apartment. I've had immediate neighbors on both sides switch at least 4 times. After getting to know the first two, we stopped bothering. And now it's our turn to move. It's very different from where I grew up, where somebody moving from the block was very big news, and only happened every few years.<p>The main difference is that this connection has moved on-line. My high school's reunions have gone downhill because everyone can communicate on Facebook. I have connections of classmates and shared hobbyists across the country facilitated by technology. Yes we are losing place-based connections in much of the country, but is that really such a bad thing if it's replaced elsewhere?
<a href="https://nextdoor.com/" rel="nofollow">https://nextdoor.com/</a> is trying to help bring back that sense of community that this article talks about us losing. I think if something like this can help us get a cursory relationship with our neighbors, then that could potentially develop into something deeper and more meaningful and facilitate more offline interaction as well.
The article seems to dog on the suburbs as a big part of the problem. Is there any breakdown of the polling that shows that people in denser areas know their neighbors any better? Controlling for occupation / income level would highlight differences in neighborliness against population density.
After spending last week at my grandparents' North Carolina mountain house, I was encouraged to find they regularly have neighbors over for dinner. I must admit, I only know one of my neighbors' names at my apartment in LA.
When I lived in NC I never knew ANY of my neighbors. When I moved to Chicago I met all of my neighbors except for one. [That one lives above me and I'm pretty sure everyone in the building hates them.]
Few days ago I wrote a comment praising HN community (<a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8159956" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8159956</a>) but unfortunately now I have to make the opposite:<p>This comments page shows us the dark side of HN community.<p>There are comments here that completely depressed me and revealed not an introverted but an anti-social personality among some HN users. I am/was also anti-social but I make/made some effort to get out from there. I'm not judging anyone but this side of HN is not a bright one.<p>edit: I knew that I would be downvoted but I consider that I'm doing the right thing speaking about this.
The goal of capitalism is to systematically disconnect us from every thing we need so it can be sold back to us.<p>Neighbor are free, so they have to go.
And what is the solution? Everyone here has instant communication and if you have even a small social life, such as many who work hard all the time for their dreams, you can still see friends once a week and family once a month or every other month.<p>It's not a great idea to compare today to yesteryear because back then they didn't have facebook, twitter, iPhones, Skype, Google hangouts, the internet etc.