Why on earth would city folks move to suburbs (Chicago: cul-de-sac, for sale)

[sbd78]

Originally Posted by BRU67

I personally think that ex-burbs are wasteful on many levels, encourage racial segregation, and aid in the growing achievement gap between public school districts (i.e. the accepted way to get better schools is to simply move to a "new" community, not involve yourself to improve the schools in your existing community). I also think their appeal is going to diminish over time as more and more minorities discover their benefits.

I don't know, city people act like everyone moves to ex-burbs because of white flight, etc. but I and all the other people I know who made the move, did it simply for more affordable housing. The city and inner-ring burbs are RIDICULOUSLY expensive. If I could afford it, I would have moved to an inner-ring burb.

[BRU67]

Originally Posted by sbd78

I don't know, city people act like everyone moves to ex-burbs because of white flight, etc. but I and all the other people I know who made the move, did it simply for more affordable housing. The city and inner-ring burbs are RIDICULOUSLY expensive. If I could afford it, I would have moved to an inner-ring burb.

Depends on what inner-ring suburb you're talking about. River Forest, Oak Park, and La Grange yes. Berwyn, Elmwood Park, and Brookfield, not necessarily. Cicero, inexpensive. As you say, the ex-burbs are often inexpensive, which is part of their draw. We'll see if they maintain appeal over time as minorities also discover the benefits of good schools and the low cost housing.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by BRU67

I personally think that ex-burbs are wasteful on many levels, encourage racial segregation, and aid in the growing achievement gap between public school districts (i.e. the accepted way to get better schools is to simply move to a "new" community, not involve yourself to improve the schools in your existing community). I also think their appeal is going to diminish over time as more and more minorities discover their benefits. That will show their true colors I think (no pun intended). I believe that the revitalization of City neighborhoods and inner ring suburbs is preferable to further outward growth.

But that's just my opinion. As many are saying, it isn't right for me to self-righteously force it upon another -- and I try my best not to. I do, however, think when we're talking about ex-burbs, it's fair to express these opinions in the discussion without being attacked as un-American. Some people will think about them and others will disregard them. Via and I have just as much right to express our views as the folks who are pro-exburb. We live in a democracy, where all sides can be heard and a choice made from there.

I wonder if peoples' reaction to your opinion has so much to do with believing you're un-American (I don't recall anyone here ever claiming that, nor saying you don't have a right to express your opinion?) than that they resent your implication that they're bigoted racists who are plundering the Earth's precious resources and keeping the poor poor. Or maybe they just would like to be able to provide the best environment for their families as they see it without people being judgmental asses about it.

[vester72]

Kids and schools.

I have lived in the city 13 years (Lakeview and the South Loop) and am leaving for the kids - will be back when they head off to college though

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by sbd78

The city and inner-ring burbs are RIDICULOUSLY expensive. If I could afford it, I would have moved to an inner-ring burb.

You didnt try hard enough. You can easily find a Chicago style bungalow in the inner burbs for 2-250. And there are smaller single family homes of all architectural styles which run even less than that.

[via chicago]

Originally Posted by Drover

I fail to see how exurbs are not sustainable. Suburbia has been moving outward for the better part of two centuries, but only now is this trend somehow not "sustainable"?

If you cant see the differences in urban planning (or lack thereof) between turn of the century streetcar burbs and modern day car oriented exburbs, you need to get your eyes checked.

[Drover]

If the "streetcar-oriented" model was so sustainable, why isn't it still in use today?

Every suburb today is car-oriented, whether it was once streetcar-oriented or not. Suburbs haven't been built on a "streetcar-oriented" model for the better part of a century now. Even many older suburbs were not "streetcar-oriented" (they were horse-and-cart-oriented).

Unlike you, I don't consider it axiomatic that "car-oriented" and "not sustainable" are interchangeable. I don't understand why so many people refuse to come to grips with the fact that the automobile is presently the main mode of transport in this country and will be so for the foreseeable future. That's not to say that it can't or shouldn't be supplemented with other methods, but to pretend like those other methods can substantially supplant the automobile any time soon is wishful thinking.

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by Windy City John

Just curious why city dwellers are so h*ll bent on discouraging people that want space and low crime to move to the suburbs.

It's a good thing people like different things--


As far as the city having unique restaurants-- I see more chains downtown than in the burbs. everytime i go downtown I see plenty of locals flooding the lettuce-NOT-surprise-you restaurants; the steak houses Ruth Chris's, Mortons, smith & wolenskies, etc and dont forget the city dwellers favorite--Rainforest Cafe!!!!

Yuk, I've been in the city for 7 years now and no one I'm friends with or work with ever goes to chain places. Why would you go there if you live in the city? Rainforest Cafe? Gross! I don't know anyone who lives in the city who would ever go to that place. It just screams tourists. I think that's who's in most of these chain places downtown - not residents.

[Lookout Kid]

Americans made their choice in favor of private automobiles decades ago, but that doesn't mean it is the best means of transportation available. I don't think any of the Eisenhower-era transportation planners foresaw the terrible gridlock and soul-sucking commutes of today! If traditional town planning (i.e. "streetcar suburbs") were still utilized today around Metra stations, the Metra would be something that is more useful to a greater number of people. If the city still had streetcars and and well-funded mass transit that was integrated with the Metra Stations, the economy of the CBD would grow at an uprecedented pace. People will try to get to work with the least amount of effort possible, and we are not making public transportation easy enough for people to use on a daily basis.

[Manigault]

Originally Posted by Windy City John

I am just amused at the amount of suburb-bashing that is posted on this site. If the suburbs werent attractive to a certain slice of Amreica, no one would live in them.

That's why I am constantly amazed by the thread warning people away from the city or asking where the bad parts are. It has been stated very often that: 'No one would want to live there.' The surprising fact is that human beings do live there; in those bad areas. And in many of those areas there are folks with jobs who could move elsewhere if they wished.

So, even in those dank, dangerous areas there are actually people who, for whatever reason, want to live there. Sometimes people moving to this region do not credit that fact.

I guess 'bad' (or 'undesireable') means different things to different people.