Okay, I have hosted adult Dungeons and Dragons games for many years, a pursuit that's as close to individuals common together again loneliness as one gets. Trying to find areas for small groups to use for this and other things peaked my interest in the organization of cities to encourage or discourage individuals coming together.
Effectively, I think the structure of American cities have always been designed fundamentally to decrease togetherness outside of churches and hence today increase loneliness. The basic principle since the puritan arrived has been that an idle people gathered together were a danger. Hence laws against vagrancy and idleness, the non-existence of anything like the promenades of European cities, the prohibition of alcohol and later marijuana and so-forth. The Occupy movement of several years ago, for a further example, was ended merely by enforcing all of the existing against camping, loitering, disorderly conduct and so-forth [1].
Today, rent is so high and homelessness so prevalent that any location that allows people to mill about freely is going entice homeless to sleep and hence will attract repression.
There are locations calling themselves "community centers". They only rent their common rooms for $25/hour or more, an amount that makes it impossible for most informal, average individual to afford.
Not that I disagree with your general idea, just posting as an FYI to folks in the area:
I live in Gilroy (small town south of San Jose), and our local library has several meeting rooms that are available for public use. You do have to reserve them, but the fee is a flat $25, not per hour, and they're clean, well lit, have internet, all that good stuff. Many libraries have similar.
It's cheap but there's still a fee. There's a fee on anything around here. I'm a European and I'm really bummed by how lonely and transactional our cities in California are. Want to do something social? 99% is going to be revolving around food because restaurants are the only option. The Mayor of Union city recently denied the license to a bar downtown because "we don't want that type of entertainment around here", "that type" meaning ANY entertainment that's not 30-50 minutes sitting in a restaurant then maybe movies, then go the hell back home because there's nothing to do in the East Bay.
Is it free-to-access interior space that you feel is missing? I'm perhaps not the best judge, as I just personally dislike living in large cities, so satellite towns like Gilroy are about as urban as I like to get. So maybe I'm just not familiar with what you're getting at.
But even around here, and sticking only to 100% free, there are tons of parks, tennis & basketball courts, softball/baseball fields, bike trails, etc. There's an open-air amphitheatre that anyone can use. The BBQ park benches are covered, so you can stay out of the weather/sun while hanging out. I'm not sure what I would consider missing in terms of public space. Even the library has an open atrium area with couches and the like where you can talk without needing to pay anything, and without disturbing the folks in the stacks.
It would be so hard to explain... if you ever travel to southern Europe (Italy, Spain) just take a look at how cities are structured. The cities have squares, benches, covered archways for strolling. Here you got strict separation, you're either in a park and you better be wanting to do some kind of sports, or you're in a commercial area. The closest thing you got is a mall (but no place to sit because it impacts revenue...).
Just take a look around next time you're over there and you'll see quite a different way of living. People hang out. You go out to meet your neighbors. The closest thing I've seen in this country is New York.
> There are locations calling themselves "community centers". They only rent their common rooms for $25/hour or more, an amount that makes it impossible for most informal, average individual to afford.
Where I grew up in the midwest it was relatively trivial to meet at either the local public library or community college, and I never had money. Private rooms were available, they only required reserving ahead for scheduling purposes.
We even ran a linux installfest taking over sometimes two adjacent classrooms while the quarterly computer show would occur next door. That required someone actually enrolled in the community college to get the reservations however.
Well, in the case of Dungeon and Dragons, you have an activity which has similarities to a fully structured activity like a hobby group but also similarities to an entirely unstructured activity like friends, acquaintances or strangers "hanging out" in a given space. (All of the library meeting policies I've ever looked at would prevent a D&D or similarly informally social group from meeting there btw, though other places, like restaurants do allow them).
Today, you have a vast variety of ways to explore any given hobby and yet you have an "epidemic of loneliness". My view is that this comes because lot of people don't actually have strong "special interests". You can see something like meetup with fairly vague activities informal, non-athletic hikes get lots of interest. Dungeons and Dragon in particular is nice because it doesn't require people to become experts or masters of any given field, there's no winners and so it's like a lot of specialized fields. But it still only appeals to some people. For a lot of people, the real lack is public space that isn't structured and I don't see library meeting rooms really helping there.
"Today, you have a vast variety of ways to explore any given hobby and yet you have an "epidemic of loneliness". My view is that this comes because lot of people don't actually have strong "special interests"."
I'd go further and say that it's because the interactions at hobby meetups like D&D are relatively superficial.
It's deep connection people crave, and a D&D adventure just isn't going to satisfy that need.
Of course, at a D&D (or any other) meetup, there are opportunities to form deep friendships and make meaningful connections. It's through such connections and friendships that loneliness could be tackled at the core.
Making such deep connections takes time, effort, and a willingness to get close, be vulnerable, and to open up -- all things that in our busy world full of easy impersonal interaction, many are unwilling to do, or don't know how to do.
So much easier to crawl in front of the Playstation or curl up for another Netflix marathon.
It's deep connection people crave, and a D&D adventure just isn't going to satisfy that need.
Hmm,
May offer that just about every "deep connection" also involves a certain mediation, a certain amount of day-to-day -ness.
Putting aside the merits or flaws of D&D, I'd offer that rituals of dating are intended to slowly build up to moments of intimacy rather than immediately dive in. And that's necessary because talking about "deepest dreams" without concrete connections between people tends to just be platitudes and empty abstractions. Deep connections between people imo also require multifaceted connections.
Further, a satisfying life involves both a small number of friends who can achieve those deep connections but with that circle surrounded by a larger circle of friends with strong but perhaps ties and so-forth. That's the texture of community. Only a few very good friends is rather fragile situation, just for example (what happens if that circle breaks up and you're left with no one?).
And back to D&D, I would say that table top RPGs are, or can be, fundamentally different from video games. Specifically, each person's imagination is engaged in person. Table top RPGs are often something other than an objective exercise. Each player can portray their character in the process of role playing rather than the situation being purely rule-based.
> It's deep connection people crave, and a D&D adventure just isn't going to satisfy that need.
Right! You can't just have a meet up to form a deep connection! That's not how it works!
I see posts on our local meetup sites fairly often, of people new to the city complaining about the shallow relationships they seem to be forming, how they miss their old friends they could have in-depth and emotionally vulnerable conversations with.
Well guess what? That sort of relationship takes time to build! You can't just post "I'm lonely and need a life-long friend" and expect one to come out of the woodwork without any effort on your part.
I'm not sure what happens to these folks after they post; I hope they eventually do find friends and don't just curl up in front of a screen.
I have been playing a bit of D&D recently with friends. When we play it's also an occasion to bring a variety of beers to sample and share around. I wonder if this would be off-limits in any sort of community center or public library? I suspect it would be. Those sort of restrictions and delineations of use would seem to be an integral part of what makes it hard to gather publicly. Certainly laws against open containers would make public parks off-limits for this sort of thing as well. And it's not that alcohol, in this example, is required to have fun in groups, but IMO these sort of rules/laws do add up to discourage group gatherings in public.
It would be off-limits, but it's not like these types of laws are unique to the US.
When I last visited Paris over a decade ago my Parisian colleagues took me to a bar where it was supposedly common to drink, smoke, and generally socialize outside such establishments. Either the ordinance or enforcement changed recently and we were forced to go somewhere else because it was too crowded to fit inside, and we were not permitted to take our drinks outside.
It was a memorable experience for me. My colleagues were looking forward to showing off how much better Paris was than San Francisco where you can't take your drink outside without causing trouble. Yet it was basically the same deal, though I must concede the last call situation was much later than California's exceptionally early 2AM.
I'm unsure how big a typical D&D group is, but if it's about 4-8 people (about what I could ever fit in a library meeting room) you could probably make it work at a coffee shop. They'd probably expect everyone to buy a drink or two.
As an adult, I've only really ever had an active social life for one short period where I was barely surviving as a retail wage slave. My coworkers were all in the same situation, but we found solace in our shared misery, and I made a lot of really good friends.
As a programmer, I sometimes make friends with my coworkers, but it's a very sanitized sort of interaction. Genuine exchanges of ideas is a dangerous proposition when it means risking our livelihood.
The only place where I can freely exchange conversation with strangers is, ironically, on wild backcountry trails. Out there, information is very important. How much snow is there on the ridgeline? Where is the next water source? Any good campsites? And so on.
I've come to believe over the years that friendship can essentially be distilled down to proximity + a common interest + time. Unfortunately, we spend most of our time working, and these three things are very difficult to find outside of the workplace.
I commute between New York and the Bay Area. It is so hard to strike up a meaningful conversation with a stranger out west.
And it’s not just New York. In most big cities, I can reliably find an acquaintance after a few hours at a restaurant, bar or museum. But the Bay Area is so reticent. The closest comparison to it I can think of is the Middle East.
Middle east? Are you out of your mind? Have you been in middle east?
I am from middle east and came to Vancouver 5 months ago and I literally want to go back from this hell hole and although grad school does not pay that much, but because I work a lot I get paid alot by my supervisor too, so I am in good financial situation here. (And I’ve been in some middle east and European countries and have great friends from all of those countries. So it is not like I dont know how to talk to people.)
People are not approachable. Long story short, you can search about Seattle freeze. People literally come to bars and night clubs in groups, and leave with their groups. All of my international friends are under extreme extreme pressure from loneliness. Although they don’t have financial problems, but some of them leaving. I am considering to applying to east coast and unfinishing my degree here.
In Middle East you are definitely not alone. You definitely do not make as much as developed nation. But you are not definitely alone. People are generally way more nicer, easy going. Literally yasterday I saw someguy passed out in Skytrain and there was 40,50 people there. You know what they did? literally nothing. At the end I was the one calling 911. (Not that I am a great person or something, i just call, but it was unbelievable how in western society people live their life.)
I’ve only ever been a foreigner in the Middle East. I trust that, like the Bay Area, insiders have their circles. The commonality is the tendency towards privacy clique sociology.
I was just talking today about how "The Seattle Freeze" would be a fantastic name for an NHL team here. Not that I actually believe in the Seattle Freeze, I just think it would be funny.
This is North American culture in a nutshell and I can't say it's much different in Ontario. I can relate to what you say but unless someone is well travelled or has lived in a different culture for a significant period of time it's hard for them to have perspective or realize why people are so ... standoffish.
It's an individualist culture.
All I can say is I hear ya, but you are preaching to the choir. You likely won't get a lot of acknowledgements here.
Come to Scandinavia if you really want to see an individualistic culture. Striking up a single conversation with a stranger is frowned upon. People going to North America always come back saying everyone was so talkative.
Swedish person living in the netherlands for 12 years and i can only agree. Sweden is a emtionally cold country, and even though we have space that looks like it could invite to social behaviour, make no mistake about it, people will assume that you are after something/trying to mug them if you attempt on only being a tad social. I live in Amsterdam now which is a lot more open to chit-chat, but the Dutch live very much for them selves, are so tired of tourists that you really have to speak fluent Dutch to not be cosidered someone they will never see again.
In SF, I feel people have moved to the city with their own clique that they try to stay within - people will show up to meet their group as part of their evening plans, not to meet new people. They're open to it, but never proactive.
However, the odds improve if you avoid "nice" bars - destination bars are a thing, people show up with their group for a few drinks never intending to visit again. They never socialize so locals go elsewhere.
This is really surprising to me. I live in LA and it's the same as your description of the Bay. And it's hard to me to imagine it any other way. What would these people have to say to me? What could I have to say to them?
Which is a way of suggesting that it does both ways. I don't know how people develop the skills necessary to approach someone they don't know.
I could sit there all day, and no one would say a word to me
They are all too afraid of “offending” you or committing a “microaggression”. A room full of people all desperate to connect but no one will make the first move in case it ends up on Twitter.
My experience (in SF/Oakland for 30+ years) is the same. Trouble is, I've grown so accustomed to it that I probably project the same Bay Area snotty hostility when I visit other places.
Middle East? Certainly not Lebanon. I spent a few months there as a foreigner and making friends was crazily easy, whether it was with locals or other foreigners.
Whenever I was sitting in a bar or cafe, or on a bus, there was always a better than 50% chance someone would strike up a conversation with me - and then follow up with a genuine invitation to meet up again.
I think we’re conditioned to it in San Francisco. The only people who come up to talk to you here are homeless people asking for change, scammers, religious zealots (Scientologists), people canvassing for elections, and people asking you to donate to XYZ cause.
After a certain point you just put up your guard to strangers in public spaces.
Opposite experience for me oddly. People (like, outside of SoMa) are so much more relaxed and not rushed. Open to a conversation and not really in a hurry to be anywhere.
I found it tough to find spots like that anywhere in NYC.
Foreigner. If you sit in a social setting in Dubai or Riyadh or Jordan, you’ll be left alone. All day. Sort of like the Bay Area. Anywhere else, somebody will say hi.
Middle Easterners are even more so, but probably not to foreigners as much. (although in parts of Turkey and Iran even the people living in villages will welcome you into their homes)
Ever noticed why true homelessness is so low in middle eastern countries? The "homeless" there often are people with homes who just don't go there at night.
This is a problem with how employment works, more than anything.
I've always "hung out" with colleagues after work hours. Because we're all in the same boat, and have more in common with each-other than anyone else, because we spend 40+ hours a week in the same room.
It's a failure of HR and management, imo, when that doesn't happen. And it can be increasingly hard to fix.
The more it goes the more I have resistance to that very concept.
Then I see people expecting to go to lunch together, and spent more time after work hours.
Am I getting broken or something ? It seems to me that’s an ungodly amount of our life time expected to spend with “just” coworkers. They are nice people, but it’s not like I am marrying them.
I guess I wouldn’t be able to live in middle size submarine.
I stopped doing employment because I don't have much interest in most people. At work I had to hang around some random guys for 40h a week and I just couldn't stand it.
Now I'm a freelancer and work remote, so I can minimize the non-work related communication with co-workers.
I have a few friends and go to parties two times a month and host my own meetup one time a month.
expats often ask on our city-subreddit how to make friends. our go-to answer is usually: (sports/activity) clubs (not bars). i can observe this in our weightlifting club. your job, your home country, your social background, your interests don't matter much; we at least have the common interest in weightlifting as a conversation starter, and other activities (usually dinner after training) are common. from there on you can decide to further socializing by, e.g. helping people from that community with the various tasks (moving, computer troubles, the usual stuff).
it's still possible for people to keep to themselves, but if you want to make friends, that's an easy way.
> I've come to believe over the years that friendship can essentially be distilled down to proximity + a common interest + time. Unfortunately, we spend most of our time working, and these three things are very difficult to find outside of the workplace.
Think about my childhood, that idea rings true - kids connect relatively quickly because they have all this time together and for exploring interests, or at minimum "shared misery". I'd say college was the best time to meet people... we had so much free time, mixing with new people very quarter, and even dorming with "strangers".
Although, I also believe we are way to risk averse as adults. Personally, I share this attitude:
> Genuine exchanges of ideas is a dangerous proposition when it means risking our livelihood.
but I'm deeply questioning it these days. (edit: assuming "genuine exchange of ideas" does not violate law/HR - a more complicated issue)
Why should we suppress ourselves in the name of livelihood?
Tech is a high-demand skill-based field with labor shortages projected to last upward a decade despite immigration and new graduates. We get paid well enough to have financial security (savings). Urban tech is one of the most diverse field out there. What's the worst that could happen? Leaving a poor culture fit to find a company/team we connect with? That sounds like a positive, well worth the switching cost.
So why the conservatism? If this will be a life-long career, is the total time/emotional/mental/physical cost of work worth the benefits? If not... why conform?
Networking is the most common response, but who maintains connections with people they dislike? Money is the next most common response, but towards what ends? How much additional wealth does conformity buy, and why is deferring happiness worth it? Time is expensive - every day is one out of our limited and unknown lifespan.
edit - To answer myself:
Conformity was the fastest post-graduation path to funding my own business. Now that I can safely afford the gamble, the ideas still work but my priorities have changed - I recognize this corporate lifestyle of working 40h/week in an office thinking for profit is personally unsustainable regardless of who's boss. So, I stopped conforming and next spring I'm off for some tru-hiking/traveling then pivoting to a new field through grad school (the brewing recession might be a happy coincidence).
I'm questioning myself, but no more than when I started college/working. I am confident that staying on the old path is the only wrong choice (sunk cost fallacy).
Switching jobs is an enormous cost and risk to almost anybody. Sure, there are a lot of tech jobs, but you will probably spend dozens or hundreds hours changing to one that will pay you the same or more as you are making now. So you've got this sunk cost and there is no guarantee that your controversial opinion will be acceptable at your next job, unless you discuss it during your interview (which will probably mean it will take you longer to find a job, because that's just weird interview behavior)
In my opinion, if you want to share controversial opinions, do it somewhere with a low switching cost, or high trust. I am happy to talk about my politics or sexuality at my hacker space, tree planting group, with regulars at the bar, or with my immediate family (who I love and trust even though we disagree on a lot). I am perfectly happy not finding common interests at work or the PTA, especially when I know my opinions are outside of the first standard deviation.
> I am perfectly happy not finding common interests at work or the PTA
I think that's a key distinction - I am not happy in that situation. If you are comfortable, no problem and more power to you!
> Switching jobs is an enormous cost and risk to almost anybody. Sure, there are a lot of tech jobs, but you will probably spend dozens or hundreds hours changing to one that will pay you the same or more as you are making now.
My point was to evaluate your holistic ROI in the employee-employer relationship... considering where you are, where you're headed, and where you want to be (perhaps even considering your eulogy). What are you putting in and getting out of the relationship?
If you are satisfied, keep on keeping on. If not, pivot - the sunk cost fallacy is real.
That doesn't mean flipping off your boss and moon-walking out the door. Just... recognize when you have a bad deal and want more, then start looking for ways to make it happen. A pay cut may be perfectly acceptable.
If you're in a planning role (engineering, product, or otherwise), the same skills apply to your life.
I'm perfectly happy to not be friends with my coworkers, if only because I do not want their or mine personal controversial opinions to color the effectiveness of my work.
Shameless self plug, but relevant: a few years ago I did a test of the association between spatial layout and community cohesion which came back positive for a number of network analysis measures on two different data sets.
My (non researched) opinion on this one is that most westerners find cars useful, hence car free development risks creating a district populated only by people who can't afford cars. Segregating people in that way that is going to cause other problems, it happened before in the uk when planners decided it was a great idea to knock down aging buildings and replace with tower blocks of cheap flats.
That said I do think we need to challenge our assumptions about the role cars play in society. It is assumed that highways are for cars primarily and this needs to be reined in somewhat.
Car free development might work in places where there is already a sizable wealthy demographic choosing to live car free e.g. London.
As to whole cities going car free, are there any? Not something I've looked into, would be interested to know.
Has nothing to do with wealth and everything with zoning laws. If there's mixed use, enough density to justify good public transport then cities without cars thrive (just like they did before cars were invented).
Your "observation" outs you as someone that spent most of his life in the US where most cities were designed around cars. US cities are awful, by the way.
Imagine this: a bunch of folks come to a completely unexploited continent, rape and pillage until they ran out of land and then proceeded to create one of the most unhealthy societies ever.
It's easy to be economically successful when there's tons of resources and nobody to share them with, the true measure of a society it's how most of their people live: without public healthcare, no welfare protections, lonely, stressed out, sicker than their european counterparts.
You're right that Euro style compact cities are better than urban sprawl, though plenty of people still own cars in them, and those who don't still benefit from the option of doing so should they choose. I'm not saying it can't work at all, I'm saying there is a risk of unintended consequences if you take that option away, and that risk should be considered/managed.
Your rant against the US, while it has some merits, is misdirected at me; I have lived in Europe all my life and cycled to work for around 20 years (alas no longer). Perhaps my post outs me as someone who grew up in a rural area in a country that invests poorly in public transport (1 bus per day to the village, how's that supposed to work for shopping?) and as an adult I have hobbies which require transporting equipment to remote locations (e.g. mountain biking, mountaineering, performing musician). I can't see myself enjoying the well being benefits those things bring me and my family without regular ability to drive a car to our door.
There are a number of cities of varying sizes which discourage or ban cars. Notable examples include Venice[1]. I haven't done much research on the topic, because I live in the United States and will likely need a car for the rest of my life. But the idea appeals to me. Intuitively, I think we'd be a lot happier without cars.
I think a lot of colleges do a good job of fighting lonliness. Colleges have to worry about stressed students, overworked students, mental health issues, suicide rates, because parents pay a ton of attention to these things.
As a result, I think a lot of elements of campus life are things that adults could borrow from to improve their own quality of life.
I'm curious what would happen if municipalities tried to become like universities:
- City sponsored interest clubs (over 300 and it only takes 10 people and a sponsor to start one!!!)
- City created dining halls in every neighborhood within a 10 minute walk where one pays a reasonable rate to eat there - heck even do a privatized model so cooks can consider creating one where they get subsidies per person, some sort of revenue split, and one of the only requirements being to have a "dining hall" style eating area that encourages social interaction. This could even be folded into food assistance programs where people can go and eat at these for a reduced price.
- City government health clinics for easy referral and access (Boston actually has a somewhat comparable model to this, I'm sure others do too, but listing it because it feels like a college thing)
Let's go with those three for now. The questions:
How many people would live here?
What percentage local tax would they accept to fund this?
I think this is actually a really interesting road to go down.
>City created dining halls in every neighborhood within a 10 minute walk where one pays a reasonable rate to eat there.
Why would the city do this? It sounds like you're describing the Golden Corral. In any case, if you can demonstrate that people will regularly show up to an open-plan cafeteria to socialize then let's forget about changing local government (which is corrupt and inefficient) and start this restaurant ourselves.
Eh I'm not saying it's perfect but I think a few pieces are missing from your version:
- The government subsidized price to make it a low enough cost because it's certainly can't be as expensive as a golden corral
- The incentive for a private restaurateur to want to open one of these
This is where the government can actually help make something, which could be funded by a reasonably modest tax if people were willing to pay it.
> changing local government (which is corrupt and inefficient)
All the more reason to work to change it IMO. I bet part of the reason it gets corrupt so easily is because few actually care given how little it really does for them (when the essentials like trash are on autopilot and many other issues don't affect the average resident that directly). While not without its risks and complications, a more involved local government can also mean a more politically aware and involved base of citizens. If a city actually did all these things, local policy changes would actually have a bigger effect that residents would care about.
This is all a very rough draft, I'm sure there are plenty more holes in this. But I think it would be interesting to spend some more time ironing it out.
so the restaurant will be funded mainly on taxes of the people living in this city instead of the food itself? Like some sort of all inclusive resort or cruise?
Will citizens take out loans to live in the city just like college?
Admittedly I'm not from the US , but regardless I get the feeling that you might be seeing government subsidies for public services as more bizarre and infrequent than they actually are.
Does public transport ever get subsidized at the local government level in the US? Would this make the idea of catching a subway or bus as bizarre to you as the idea of taxpayer-subsidized community food halls?
I'm not sure what ratio makes sense but let's say 50/50 taxes/paying. They are paying with taxes, there's no need for loans. It also means they have a cheap subsidized food option with the ability to socialize at the same time. The restaurants could also have other community center like aspects too.
There's also no reason it has to be AYCE style, it could just be cheap subsidized food markets with communal eating encouraged in every neighborhood. Great way to get to know neighbors as well.
50/50 taxes/paying for who? Someone who makes $30k and someone who makes $300k might both only eat $10k of food a year, would the tax be a flat fee or a % of income?
If it's a flat fee, it could be done as a business, akin to how costco works where they wholesale you food for a membership.
This suggestion reminds me a lot of Singapore and their HDB-owned hawker centers. An HDB is a government-owned housing development with a lot of similarities to a college dorm campus, and each one typically has a large hawker center (aka food court), and they are wildly successful.
IKEA in Shanghai had many elderly people socializing in their cafeteria, so IKEA ended up forcing the seniors to buy something if they wanted to sit there:
Take a look at the public housing system in Singapore ("HDB towns"), which is very similar to what you are describing, and over 80% of the Singapore population resides in.
Some snippets from the wikipedia page [1]:
> These flats are located in housing estates, which are self-contained satellite towns with schools, supermarkets, clinics, hawker centres, and sports and recreational facilities.
> Each public housing block is considered a vertical community, with common area built into the design to promote social interaction. Void decks, a term unique to Singapore, refers to the first level which are often left devoid of housing units, hence the word "void". These open, sheltered spaces are intentionally left empty to provide convenient spaces for communal activities such as weddings, funerals, parties, bazaars and even as polling stations.
> Based on the new town concept, each HDB town is designed to be self-sustainable. Helmed by a hierarchy of commercial developments, ranging from a town centre to precinct-level outlets, there is no need to venture out of town to meet the most common needs of residences. Employment can be found in industrial estates located within several towns. Educational, health care, and recreational needs are also taken care of with the provision of schools, hospitals, parks, sports complexes, and so on.
Each housing development also usually includes at least 1 hawker center [2], which is basically like a government-run and regulated food court, and is where the majority of Singaporeans get their meals. The community usually also usually includes some type of sports/recreational space such as a soccer field or community pool, a school, a library branch, and usually a clinic or doctors office.
Each one is also built around or in proximity to a metro station to ensure easy access to other HDB communities or other parts of the city, should you choose to venture outside your neighborhood.
I would love to live in a city like this and I honestly believe this kind of setup is the only reasonable one to ask for in our future.
It would be important for such spaces to give the people the power to be actively involved in shaping how they develop. Sustainability practices, labor practices, where the food is sourced (i.e. not pizza school lunches that send tax money to large food corps), local artists paid to decorate, etc.
Unsurprising, socialist governments put a lot of effort on socializing people.
OTOH the US private transportation, education, housing is preferred to public one and that has social effects. Also gated communities, single-family houses, gentrification, and so on. The word "exclusive", used in real estate, is telling.
All of this is meant to allow people that belong to the same social circles/companies/church to socialize and prevent mingling with people from other walks of life.
One interesting thing I noticed when I was living in the middle of nowhere on a 5 acre parcel: I knew all of my neighbors. I'd encounter them on a regular basis and would have meaningful conversations with them. People would help out when needed, I had all their emails and phone numbers.
When I'm living in the suburbs or in a big city, meaningful contact with neighbors is fairly nonexistent.
Great. One of the things I noticed when living in the country is I had virtually no interaction with my neighbors. Now in the city I interact with my neighbors all the time (maybe to the point of irritation).
Perhaps the difference in our experience is explained by small sample size & not systematic differences...
There is a threshold beyond which you have to know your neighbors in order to survive. Some of my earliest memories are riding my neighbor's snowmobile down the side of a mountain with my parents to buy groceries.
Obviously this is not a situation which most rural dwellers will find themselves in.
yeah it probably goes beyond rural vs city living. In my situation, it was mutually beneficial to have good relationships with the neighbors because police and emergency services were 30 minutes away at best. Also I was in the desert and the population density was ~4-5 people per square mile - how does that compare to where you were living?
Loosen regulation of street food, introduce outdoor stalls where you're encouraged to eat with strangers by design, grant licences to allow places stay open later and pedestrianize all the things.
Try spending time in Bangkok or Ho Chi Minh city/Saigon and feeling lonely. It's near impossible. Day and night is a sea of mostly friendly humanity because life is primarily lived outdoors.
Sadly, in the West we've made this abnormal (although the climate doesn't help). Our real-life is atomised. There is no third place†. And the online world we retreat to is increasingly drenched in pointless conflict. Kinda bleak.
Lawrence Osborne puts it nicely:
> Anyway, I think that’s one of the attractions of Bangkok. It’s not just f—king. It’s just the fact that you’re in contact with other people...the street makes you feel like you’re back in the human race, and alive again. Last night I went for the first time to the store called Whole Foods in Union Square. And there was this enormous line and it was like 1984. Every line was being called out by number in this soft automated female voice. It felt like being squeezed through a tube of toothpaste. It was so horrifyingly anonymous. And I was standing in this line thinking, I don’t like this. I wish I could be back in Bangkok and be treated like a human being.
IMO it's not the issue of the city. It's the issue of the living space. Humans were originally hunter-gatherers that lived in tight knit tribal communities with intimate shared spaces. Any living style that deviates from this will induce loneliness.
To eliminate loneliness you must form tribes. To form tribes you must produce settings that promote tribal gatherings. In essence this means intimate shared living spaces with medium sized groups of people. The keyword is "medium-sized" humans are not use to living with huge urban shared spaces where the people you see on the street everyday are different.
Gotta choose the right tribe. Bonds are usually formed through forced interactions. You have some choice but it's limited.
Few people have the power to be friends with anyone they want. I wish i could be friends with Bill Gates or Elon Musk, unfortunately it's outside of my abilities.
Block social media, people would look up from their cell phones.
Block map sites, people would ask others for directions.
Block movie streaming sites and people would get to the cinema more often.
The thought is that technology replaces human interactions and that is not always good
because it might lead to less people to people communication.
Religious services also made people come together in the community but nowadays
people are less religious.
But seriously, even if you consider phones as more distracting than papers, well keep in mind that many people in cities just don't want to be talked to, especially not on their daily commute or what not. I mean, try striking up a conversation with someone on the Tube when in London. They'll probably look at you as if you're mad, and that's been the case for decades.
Hell, they even tried that recently, and people weren't having any of it:
this is funny because chit chat is generally very welcomed on the nyc subway (and practically everywhere else), especially on the weekends when you can talk to tourists and give directions and have nice exchanges. Obviously rush hour isn't a great time to chat but otherwise tons of people just love to talk about anything, anytime. It's highly contrasted to how very very reserved everyone is in Atlanta (my current home) and almost every other US city outside of new york.
I have lived in NYC for more than three years and feel like I've probably only seen a conversation between strangers maybe 5-15 times ever? I take the L and NQRW the most, perhaps this is a hyper-local phenomenon with your line?
I do see the 'tourist asks if they can get to ___ on this train' conversation but don't really consider that in the context of the OP.
It's up to you to make a pithy observation + smile or comment on the weather or give up your seat + say hello. Make the subway you want! I rode the A/C & 1/2/3 mostly, fwiw. West side manhattan is just friendlier I guess ;)
Doesn't surprise me and it's because the risk outweighs the reward. The people who usually strike up a conversation are scammers or a little crazy. And the chances of converting a conversation from reasonable person into something of value (friendship, a meaningful encounter) is low.
I think there may be an element of overload avoidance. When you live so close to so many people your choices are to avoid or engage. If you engage you then have to actively limit the level of engagement or risk being swamped, either by too many people or by to deep an engagement.
Where I live there seems to be an agreement that interactions are limited to a smile and a hello how are you? The expectation is that you will respond with something positive. Nobody really wants to know your depths of dispare. I have a feeling that if somebody did really respond that they were desperatley lonely then in general most people would engage with a noncommiting conversation.
A bit harsh, but some truth in it. I think getting people to speak more with each other in public would lead to a lot more social connections being made. Even simple stuff like installing 2-player games on bus stops/subway stations could boost interaction.
Block social media, people would look up from their cell phones.
People were walking around looking at their cellphones before smartphones or social media took off. They were sending SMS messages. Or playing snake in monochrome. Or would you ban SMS as well? What about phone calls?
Block map sites, people would ask others for directions.
Chronically lonely people aren't going to get any meaningful fix asking strangers for directions.
Block movie streaming sites and people would get to the cinema more often.
Again, if you are lonely and have no friends, going to the cinema is just being in a room full of strangers. People go with their own groups. It's probably more alienating than just chilling out at home because it emphasizes your loneliness.
For me, practicing pick up was an amazing way to find friends and develop new relationships. After watching a bunch of RSD videos I started regularly going out to clubs and approaching girls. As a nerdy and socially awkward guy I didn't end up being a very successful "pick up artist" in terms of getting laid a lot, but I've met some amazing women who ended up introducing me to their friend groups, and that helped me to meet a lot of really cool people and find friends.
Besides, RSD community itself has local meetup groups, so you can find wingman buddies to go out with, and I've met a few great guy friends that way, I know pick up community gets a horrible reputation in modern culture, but the people I met were really smart, cool, and were, like me, into personal development and practicing social skills.
If you can look past the stigma, pick up is an amazing way to meet new people proactively, it's challenging (approaching new people is scary), but fun, free, can be done at any time, and the results depend on how much you practice. I highly recommend it.
Also, I have found a local Go club, and found many awesome people there. It's a fun relaxing game, community is friendly, and it's natural to have conversations and form friendships there.
Do you have any tips for finding local pickup groups where the reputation is undeserved? that is, how can I find groups which avoid the misogyny I’ve seen in many online pickup groups and where they’re focused on the skills to start and build mutually satisfying enthusiastically consensual interactions?
I ask partly because I’ve long wanted to learn to be a wingman, partly to nerd out about the study of social skills, and partly because my wife and I happen to have built ourselves a social circle with a couple of women who have talked to us about the frustrations of dating and it would be nice to help them find someone.
Hence my concern for avoiding the mysogyny and lack of respect for consent.
But there’s nothing inherently wrong with being a guy who wants to better-understand how dating works and how to navigate it. Given that we still live in a world with patriarchy and where men are still more expected to play the active/seeking role (someone has to initiate), it is perfectly reasonable for men to ask “how do I dating?”. I keep hoping that there will be a community of folks building each other up in this set of skills.
But the groups that I’ve seen are just...sigh...
I suppose one sign of a healthy group might be that it has a diversity of gender and sexual orientations (or is at least branding itself for that) and has discussions which follow from that. Another might be one which has lots of discussions about emotional/relationship skills in general. Like:
- How to ‘hold space’ for someone in emotional distress.
- How to listen to someone else in a way that helps them organize their thoughts/feelings
- How to generate sexual tension on a date, either in new relationship or a longstanding one.
- How to psych yourself up to have tough conversations or set boundaries despite discomfort.
- How to check if you’ve violated someone else’s boundaries in a way that leads to them feeling respected, while still being confident and not falling into scrupulousity.
- How to tackle scrupulousity head-on or overcome feelings that you should make yourself small in social interactions.
- How to notice when someone is feeling excluded from a group or doesn’t know how to engage and then draw them into conversation in a way that makes them feel welcomed
etc.
Having members with longstanding relationships is probably particularly important as a sign that the advice that circles around in the group is actually effective and promotes healthy relationships. It also would allow it to be an actual community rather than something that people cycle in and out of.
I have the exact opposite problem: it's too difficult to politely exclude myself from potential social situations.
Seeing that some people consider "loneliness" as a problem to be fixed is a nightmare. I know I am very much part of the problem and I don't want to be fixed: I want to stay the fuck away from you.
Loneliness is a problem, it's just that too many people confused being alone with being lonely.
Our language has wisely sensed these two sides of man’s being alone. It has created the word "loneliness" to express the pain of being alone. And it has created the word "solitude" to express the glory of being alone. (...) We are alone, perhaps in the midst of multitudes, but
we are not lonely. Solitude protects us without isolating us. But life calls us back to its empty
talk and the unavoidable demands of daily routine. It calls us back to its loneliness and the
cover that it, in turn, spreads over our loneliness.
I can't believe it either. Heck, even most (all?) family members and friends would probably balk at the idea of lending 2K for whatever reason.
Do most people's friends/families have the ability to just give out 2K in cash at the drop of a hat? Maybe yes if they're upper middle class or upper class and can just plonk thousands on a random whim, but I suspect someone making less than 40-50,000K a year would be hesitant, even more so if they're not super close.
I make less than 50k and I've lent ~20k to my brother within maybe 2 years.
Probably a combination of trust and me having no real big commitments that require using my money for myself. I think I put away ~1.5k USD per month in savings, maybe a bit less or a bit more.
I'm Australian and it would be pretty unusual. But maybe that's what the example is getting at. My close friends, I could probably borrow 2k from, but my neighbours are not my close friends.
Over the years I've sometimes found groups arranging drop-in tennis or drop-in ping-pong. I made friends there, and it was a major part of my life. But none of those ever seem to last for more than a couple of years. Whoever controls the tennis courts eventually bans the group or intentionally schedules other things at their regular time. They always tend to view somebody scheduling things on "their courts" as an intrusion. The ping-pong meets a similar fate, especially since it is already hard to find places with more than one table, so as more people start to show up the drop-ins are told that they are no longer welcome. Private clubs are the same way - they monetize their resources, so they don't want "bursts" of activity that would inconvenience the regular flow of resource availability. I know this from experience (I've belonged to probably a dozen tennis clubs over the years.)
Here's my unpopular opinion, and I'm making some assumptions for the sake of discussion.
For most of the history of civilization, people would stay in the same place, with their extended family and interact with the community through a church, temple, market, etc.
In the past 100 or so years, 2 things have happened.
1. Career and capital have become prime directive for most people, supplanting family, community, church, etc
2. Transportation is cheap and easy to move away from the few acres you lived in your whole life.
Note that I'm not saying that there is any greater virtue or value to any way of life, and the modern world is certainly more comfortable. But we evolved for millennia in these small (overwhelmingly rural) community units and perhaps our minds still crave that.
The family oriented people would go home and spend time with their families, but the non-family oriented people would go back to work -- that's where their friends are. Which would cause the family oriented people to go back to work because they don't want to miss out on the work opportunities. And you're back where you started.
Japanese culture is very different. All through their life Japanese people are part of a group and identify with that group. You are in a particular home room at school and they try not to mix change the home rooms all through junior high school and high school. You are a member of a single club all the way through junior high school and then a single club all the way through high school (and possibly a single club in University if you decide to join a club).
When Japanese people get a professional job, they all start on the same day -- The first Monday of April after they graduate from university. Professionals never change companies. They work for the same company for the rest of their life. They work with the same people for the rest of their life.
The western media portrays the Japanese salary man as being lonely, but I don't think this is generally the case. If you don't fit into your group you are going to be lonely because you won't get another one. That's why there are some super lonely people. However, the majority of people are not lonely and have lots and lots of friends at work. It's just completely different than how it works in the west.
It's really complicated. Basically salaries are quite low in comparison to many other countries. However, there is a "bonus" which is usually paid 3 or 4 times a year. Different companies have different schemes, but often the salary is based on position and the bonus is based on position and seniority. The overall compensation is lower than the US probably, but higher than many European companies. There are cost of living increases, but you don't generally get a raise without a change in position.
However, there are some other things that are important to realise. Generally the company looks after you for your entire life. When you retire, they will give you a lump sum retirement amount. I work for my own company in Japan and my accountant was very quick to point out the need for the company to save for my retirement. Additionally, you often get other "perks". For example, my wife's uncle lives in a house that used to be on land owned by the company he worked for. They sold him some land so he could build a house close to work. They even sold him some extra land so that he could have a garden (in a different location) -- and he made a tidy profit on that when we got too old to garden any more. This kind of thing (maybe not exactly, but similar) was expected before 1998. It's falling out of fashion these days, but for "permanent employees" (not on yearly contracts) it's still the norm.
The total compensation package is quite good in most companies, I think. Of course, there is a lot of competition to get into the best companies and once you are in, there is a sense that you've "made it". It's extremely difficult to get fired from a permanent position and companies will rather pay you a salary to do nothing rather than to fire you if things really don't work out. So, there is a lot of give and take. On the other hand, don't quit your job! Anybody who sees you were stupid enough to give up a permanent placement somewhere will not be interested in hiring you -- you'll be stuck on contract positions (and much less security) for your whole life.
One of the things that westerners have difficulty with when comparing their situation with the situation in Japan (and probably some other SE Asian countries like Korea, though I have no direct experience with that) is that the companies treat their workers completely differently. In the west, there is no loyalty to workers. In Japan, anyway, the company is completely responsible for their workers' well being. It even enters into what would be considered private matters in the west like if you are overweight the company will feel compelled to do something about it because in the long term it's bad. Even for things like being single -- the company usually doesn't like it and will help you find someone to marry if you are having trouble in that department. It's just such a totally different experience that you can't compare it.
On a personal note, I worked on contract for a school division in Japan and even though I was on contract, the school looked after me. I needed surgery and for some bureaucratic reason the hospital needed someone to co-sign a loan guarantee in case something went wrong. The school took care of it. The principal was also worried that at the time I was over 40 and not married and assigned the school nurse to lecture me about the dangers of not getting my personal life in order (and even arranged for me to attend some gokon -- parties where you meet people who are interested in getting married... though I explained to them that my girlfriend wouldn't like it if I went :-) ). My case is pretty weird for a foreigner on contract, but for whatever reason the school decided to treat me like an employee.
Anyway, I'm kind of droning on and you may not be interested in all of this. I'm sure a lot of it is really weird to you and you may be thinking, "I wouldn't want that!", but I guess the point is that it's really hard to compare the situations. It's just so different here for full time employees. For someone like me, it works well because I tend to bury myself in work (which I enjoy) and I need someone to look out for me. That's probably why the school decided to take on that role. I'm bad at negotiating contracts and I like it when the opposite side takes a moral position to look out for my interests. It would be almost impossible to negotiate as good a position as you might get in the west, but it's also really difficult to get into as bad a position (as long as you are a permanent employee with a reputable company). As time goes by, this situation has gone from expected for almost every worker, to only being common for professionals. It's slowly moving towards the same situation as in the west and I, for one, feel a lot is being lost along the way.
It's funny because since I own my own consulting company now, I insist that I treat myself well. However, the expense of that is actually quite high and you would not believe how low my salary is :-)
FWIW I highly value your posts about life in Japan! I've been studying the language two years now and intend to move there, and the Japan posts in your comment history have given me a lens into life there that I cannot find elsewhere.
It’s a lovely idea to design spaces for interaction, but I think there could be something said for quiet and privacy too. We probably need a balance.
I believe loneliness is an epidemic. I felt lonely recently for the first time. I’m mid 20s and in a relationship, lots of friends in my city, many in walking distance, but even so a few months ago I felt intensely lonely. I can’t imagine what it must be like for someone who moved cities. What worked for me is writing down a list of people I want to see more and then reaching out and planning activities. I find if I have one date night and see one friend a week it’s enough to keep me going and feel good. More is better of course.
Nothing against lonely people, but personally I would prefer my city designed so I have as little interaction with strangers as possible.
I meet enough people when I'm doing my hobbies/sports, and they are people with whom I share a common interest.
There's not enough personal space in the City as it is. I don't want to have a thousand meaningless interactions with strangers forced upon me when I'm trying to just get from home to work or whatever.
Medium density seems to cultivate human connections the best (close enough to be near people, not so close as to need to protect your privacy). Basically walkable townhomes density.
When I moved to London from Scotland I immediately felt more isolated than before.
I put it down to there being more people and more stress meaning a polite hello on bus or in a coffee shop is interpreted more as a hostile act.
After 3 years in London I decided to move back up north, sure my pay is not as great but I relish the moments when I can talk with a commuter or fellow patron in the local pub.
In the locality where I lived, families had been living for years in the same house as they own the houses. Everybody in the neighbourhood knew each other.
Now most of those families have sold off their homes and they were turned into apartments by the builders.
Now people don't even know the people who live in the floor above theirs.
Make cities dysfunctional. Make things difficult, and hard to work out. Make the doors stuck , so that people have to ask strangers for help to open them . Write code with bad comments , so people have to ask each other what it means. Asking for small favors makes people more likeable to each other (Ben franklin effect). activities like cooking and tending and garden are great ways to engage with others fluidly, the problem is how you get people to do these activities in the first place without self-selection.
This assumes that loneliness is from inablity to meet ppl. Ins't loneliness the inablity to connect ppl on genuine level. Meeting ppl problem is already solved by meetup.com
I think loneliness is the inability to meet people with whom you can have a connection with. And the design of spaces can help or hinder that.
The deepest sources of connection come from shared adversity, shared goals/interest or shared stage of life. To meet people with these qualities, you have to first congregate them in time and space, and then give them opportunities for repeated exposure to each other [1]. (studies have shown that repeated exposure creates the necessary conditions for building rapport -- humans by default are evolutionarily guarded against unfamiliarity i.e. strangers, and repeated exposure lowers that guardedness)
That's why parents at a playground are able to, if they desire, connect with someone and to potentially grow that connection. They have shared adversity, shared goals/interests, shared stage of life and repeated exposure.
I have personally experienced how bad building designs hinder connection. At my workplace, the cubicles are high and large pillars block views, essentially creating a maze-like layout. One can walk directly to one's cubicle each morning without saying "good morning" to anyone on the way. My entire whole floor is oddly cold and introverted, and no one takes notice of what anyone else is doing. Most days folks don't even know if a co-worker is at his/her desk. In theory one can walk up to each person and say "hi", but it's weird and awkward, and people tend not to do it.
Whereas in my old workplace, the layout was much more conducive to nonchalant interactions, and we were much closer as colleagues and shared many funny and interesting conversations -- not everyone did of course -- but appreciably more did than at my current workplace. Having a bunch of co-workers that you're friendly with can immensely improve your mood throughout the day.
[1] I go to a lot of Meetup groups. Most are extraordinarily bad when it comes to repeated exposure, because in a big city, there isn't a common core group that consistently shows up -- it's different people every time, and it's hard to form community when your population is always in flux.
When I was younger being in the same neighborhood was the main way to make close friends. This wasn't just for kids, it seemed like my parents' close friends also tended to be neighbors. Now it seems like people's friends are more far-flung (as in 15 minute drive radius vs walking distance), and people who aren't able to maintain those kinds of connections as well also don't get the automatic friend opportunity of neighbors because their neighbors' social lives aren't as local. I think the internet and especially cell phones contributed to this by allowing some people to maintain friendships easier with people further away.
Don't know if that's generally true or just nostalgia + what I've seen.
It is more lack of people one would meet regularly. You don't need perfect match, just passable-to-no match can develop into friendship over time. However, if there is no stabilit in who you meet, friendship wont happen even with great people around - it will remain shallow.
And lack of time to do anything. Nobody has time or energy to do social activities during the week after work. One weekend day lost to household errands and maintenance leaves one day of rest and socializing. Obviously family and long time friends prioritised above newcomers.
Some people who are in financial poverty have more community than more well-to-do people.
I live close to a refugee/immigrant neighborhood and despite their fears and worries, many are more connected to their families, friends and neighbors than I am. They seem to have more celebrations and get-togethers than I do with my friends. I regularly eat at restaurants there, and there's a warmth even for strangers like me that I don't experience in higher end places.
On the other hand, there's palpable loneliness among transplants to relatively affluent places like Minnesota, where despite surface politeness, is a society that is very insular and does not (and does not know how to) integrate outsiders.
For example, statistics from dating sites show how most people don't exclude potential partners based on ethnicity, nationality, religion, line of work etc but big differences in wealth is the line that people won't cross.
The same goes for socialization and architecture is affected by it: gated communities, single-family houses, gentrification, and so on. The word "exclusive", used in real estate, is telling.
All of this is meant to allow people that belong to the same social circles/companies/church to socialize and prevent mingling with people from other walks of life.
I believe I understand what you're saying. I'm curious though, how would that correlate with loneliness?
Loneliness arises from the gap between one's desired connections vs one's actual connections.
It is true that social class is a barrier and less mixing leads to less dynamism in society. This is a themed explored in Tyler Cowen's "The Complacent Class". But it seems to me that does not in itself produce loneliness, because there's still a tremendous number of connections made within the same social classes. My working class friends are the least lonely people I know. They seem to have tons of buddies and tend not to be that selective when it comes to making friends. But except in specific instances, they have no explicit desire to make connections across classes.
I see inequality being a problem in general, but just not with respect to the specific topic of loneliness. It seems to me there's something else at play.
Form and function here are fundamentally interrelated. How you design your public spaces affects how effectively they can be used. A good public space should not only be well planned, but also appealingly designed, in order to attract users.
Consider a library.
If designed well, it can use its street frontage to give views in through windows to show activities taking place, and make it clear to passers-by that they are welcome to come in and use the space.
If designed poorly, it could have a sheer concrete street frontage with no views inside, that obscures what the space can be used for, or even what spaces may exist inside.
This probably doesn't scale up as nicely for density, but one aspect of my home town that I think was a strong anti-loneliness feature was the frequent presence of inviting front porch spaces and a culture of waving at people as you pass them by. It is nice to acknowledge each other in a positive way and you can strike up a convo if you're in the mood. There is a particular old man near my town who lives on a busyish road and literally sits on his porch all day and waves at each car that passes by. He himself said he started doing it because he was lonely, and members of community have said in interviews how they will go out of their way to drive past and greet him because that 1-1 genuine human interaction is sometimes the only one they get too.
That's great. It's only a shame that instead of driving by people don't walk or bicycle by, because that would allow for easier stopping and deeper interactions. Perhaps there are changes to the street design which would facilitate that, while preserving the car movement.
I think people have forgotten about all the things learned from cohousing. I once lived in a condo complex originally designed to be cohousing and I knew lots and lots of my neighbors. Shared parking with a common path and kitchens facing the path with gardening areas goes a long way. Add in the shared common areas which were designed to force everybody to pass by, and it was routine to meet and get to know neighbors. (Then there are all the Christoper Alexander ideas that could be tried too.)
I would hate that. Being forced to be social isn’t my idea of fun. I want to choose who I socialize with not have it foisted upon me. You can pick your friends, but rarely your neighbors. I am as social as I want to be. If people are lonely, that’s on them.
It is a design that means you pass your neighbors more often. But it is like walking down the street in New York, you don't have to be friendly or have long conversations - it is enough to say "good morning". But such design allows more interaction by those who desire it.
I think you're being a bit harsh on the guy. I'd like to see a society that embraces as many people as possible. It should be possible to support both hyper-social and anti-social types - as long as they are willing to encourage a society that embraces those who are different.
Effectively, I think the structure of American cities have always been designed fundamentally to decrease togetherness outside of churches and hence today increase loneliness. The basic principle since the puritan arrived has been that an idle people gathered together were a danger. Hence laws against vagrancy and idleness, the non-existence of anything like the promenades of European cities, the prohibition of alcohol and later marijuana and so-forth. The Occupy movement of several years ago, for a further example, was ended merely by enforcing all of the existing against camping, loitering, disorderly conduct and so-forth [1].
Today, rent is so high and homelessness so prevalent that any location that allows people to mill about freely is going entice homeless to sleep and hence will attract repression.
There are locations calling themselves "community centers". They only rent their common rooms for $25/hour or more, an amount that makes it impossible for most informal, average individual to afford.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct