Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now that I've read Tex?Il?'s OP (are you really torn between those two states? They're entirely different worlds), I think I grasp the question.
I grew up in a drive-everywhere city: my hometown of Kansas City happens to have the least congested traffic of any city in the Western Hemisphere, and even though I grew up using the buses, they don't go everywhere you would like to go, and they don't run often or late enough. When I go back, I tend to focus on the cool neighborhoods in the older part of the core city, but as so many things are scattered throughout the metropolitan area (Harry Truman stuff in Independence, celebrations of agriculture in KCK's western fringes, the airport all the way up there in the northwest corner of the city, restaurants and great BBQ joints all over), you sort of have to take into account the entire metropolitan area in order to truly experience everything KC has to offer. That said, the core city punches well above its weight.
I now live in a city where I can get to all the good stuff without having to get behind the wheel. And I do just about all my shopping, entertaining and recreating in the core city - there's no need for me to head out to some suburb unless I'm seized by the vapors and have an urge to drop mad coin on super-expensive designer clothing, which requires a trip to King of Prussia. (This happens never. However, I also like off-price outlet shopping, and while we have a Century 21 right at 8th and Market, guess where most of the outlets are? Hello, Zipcar.) There's so much to do, see and eat in Philadelphia's core that I can't imagine a city dweller getting bored or fed up and feeling the need to head out to, say, Ardmore.
But I also (a) happen to live in an outlying city neighborhood that's close to a very chi-chi shopping district in a neighborhood at the city's northwest tip that happens to be its wealthiest (or second wealthiest) - it's a suburb-in-the-city in look and feel - and (b) write about real estate all over this region, which means I have more occasion than the typical city dweller does to head out to, say, Ardmore and spend time on its Main Street. And what I've learned about metro Philadelphia on these jaunts - some of which I made before I got this job because I love riding the rails, and you can get to many of these on our regional rail system or the suburban trolley and rapid transit lines - is that this area is absolutely lousy with really cool, attractive, walkable and - dare I say it? - urbane suburbs with Main Streets you'd want to spend some time hanging out on. They don't look like each other, either, because the railroad shaped them well before the automobile ate our understanding of what a city should look like. And I can get to all of them without a car, though driving to some of those suburbs (e.g., Doylestown, which takes about an hour and a half on the train but about half that time on the roads) is undeniably more convenient.
But I think that this pleasant mix is actually rare as far as U.S. metropolitan areas go. You won't find it anywhere west of the Mississippi, with the possible exception of St. Louis. You won't find it in any city that experienced its greatest period of growth after World War I (Los Angeles falls into this category, but it's interesting in that it was a polycentric city from birth and only later retrofitted a downtown onto it). And you won't find it in any U.S. metro that lacks a metropolitan rail transit system built before the Second World War.
With that last statement, I've ruled out everywhere but New York, Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia. Washington, however, also belongs with these. I guess the streetcars filled in for the subway it didn't get until the 1970s.
That's a great question. My wife and I were just discussing this the other day. I compare the metro as a whole with the central city as the focal point. I personally prefer major metros and living in the suburbs. Suburbs, in many cases, tend to be less expensive than the central city. I have more elbow room, more relaxed, less hectic. But I still have access to all the city has to offer. Nice thread!
Interesting question. Like others have already stated, I'd say it depends on the city/metro area in question, and the particular dynamics there.
When I lived in the Cleveland area, I was definitely more of a metro person. I actually lived in a suburb bordering the city proper, I drove a car everywhere (except to and from my 9-5 office job downtown) and traveled pretty much around the entire metro area all the time. Indeed, many of the things I wanted to do, like see a foreign/indie movie, visit a Borders, dine at certain types of ethnic restaurants, or shop in a major department store, could only be done in the suburbs there.
Now I live in Chicago, and it's different. The city is much denser and more self-contained, everything I want is within the city limits (and, more often than not, pretty close to where I live), I walk or use public transit to get around and no longer even own a car. Indeed, I feel very little need to ever even travel to the suburbs, and except for occasional excursions to Evanston or Oak Park, I very rarely do.
It's ironic that the city itself offers so much, because compared to most metro areas, Chicagoland makes it a lot easier to actually get to the suburbs if you don't have a car, via Metra and Pace.
Metro,, especially when it comes to living! I love the city by day and having the multitude of cities and options when it comes to verity in a metro. Plus laying my head down in quiet suburbs at night! It does depend on the Metro area though like some have stated when it comes to some, especially visiting. When i'm in cities like Chicago, Philly and NY I can be a city person only, especially with them being so huge at city level, it's so much to do. Typically I end up still staying in the burbs anyway but not spending much time in suburbs. vs. say when I go to a Miami, Nashville,, Dallas, Louisville, DC, Memphis, San Francisco etc. For some cities land area is so small, being a city person only isn't an option. Boston to me though has always been my odd man out city when it comes to city and burbs. For the most part that Metro is so old I never really feel like I can escape the City feeling to get to that true suburban feeling I'm truly looking for and used to. I can find it easier in Chicago suburbs then I can in Boston believe it or not.
I'm a metro person. The things I like about Denver are all spread out throughout the metro. I spend as much leisure time outside the city proper as inside it. There's certain things like golf courses, motorcycle rides, mountain biking trails, shows, shopping, that are just going to be spread out around the metro that you can't get in the city center. Red Rocks is a perfect example.
It's the same way when I visit somewhere. I'm just as interested to see what the edges look like as the center. I feel like you need to see both to get the full experience. Pittsburgh proper just doesn't give you a complete taste of the Appalacian region that it's a part of.
Metro,, especially when it comes to living! I love the city by day and having the multitude of cities and options when it comes to verity in a metro. Plus laying my head down in quiet suburbs at night! It does depend on the Metro area though like some have stated when it comes to some, especially visiting. When i'm in cities like Chicago, Philly and NY I can be a city person only, especially with them being so huge at city level, it's so much to do. Typically I end up still staying in the burbs anyway but not spending much time in suburbs. vs. say when I go to a Miami, Nashville,, Dallas, Louisville, DC, Memphis, San Francisco etc. For some cities land area is so small, being a city person only isn't an option. Boston to me though has always been my odd man out city when it comes to city and burbs. For the most part that Metro is so old I never really feel like I can escape the City feeling to get to that true suburban feeling I'm truly looking for and used to. I can find it easier in Chicago suburbs then I can in Boston believe it or not.
I think the reason you don't get that "suburban feel" in Boston is because most of the cities and towns that border it (Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Revere, Somerville, Newton, Watertown, Winthrop) and even some of the cities and towns that border those (Medford, Malden) look more like extensions of the core city than what we think of when we hear the word "suburb."
Newton gets more suburban as you head west in the city. Belmont (abuts Cambridge and Watertown) strikes me as pretty suburban. Arlington (abuts Cambridge and Belmont) ditto. The towns to Boston's south, like the city's southernmost neighborhoods (West Roxbury, Mattapan, Hyde Park), are very much suburban, as are Brookline's southern reaches, especially the community called Chestnut Hill that straddles the Brookline/Newton border.
I think the reason you don't get that "suburban feel" in Boston is because most of the cities and towns that border it (Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Revere, Somerville, Newton, Watertown, Winthrop) and even some of the cities and towns that border those (Medford, Malden) look more like extensions of the core city than what we think of when we hear the word "suburb."
Newton gets more suburban as you head west in the city. Belmont (abuts Cambridge and Watertown) strikes me as pretty suburban. Arlington (abuts Cambridge and Belmont) ditto. The towns to Boston's south, like the city's southernmost neighborhoods (West Roxbury, Mattapan, Hyde Park), are very much suburban, as are Brookline's southern reaches, especially the community called Chestnut Hill that straddles the Brookline/Newton border.
This is true! I think that's why I some times have an issue with the comparison some like to give to a city like Atlanta to a Boston. The shoe, just doesn't fit IMO, no matter the population of the metro.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
