U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-14-2011, 07:52 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14805

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
You're being argumentative tonight. PD's post was pretty generic, about all suburbs, IMO.

To wit:
Maybe. The first few sentences were directed at Ogre's examples "these suburbs..". You seemed rather defensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2011, 07:55 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14805
@Katiana

On another topic, where is the cheap, walkable Denver suburbs you mentioned. Denver didn't look that dense, so I wouldn't have expected any of its suburbs to be really walkable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 08:02 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,996 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
@Katiana

On another topic, where is the cheap, walkable Denver suburbs you mentioned. Denver didn't look that dense, so I wouldn't have expected any of its suburbs to be really walkable.
Cheap? H***, none of them are cheap! Affordable? Louisville, Lafayette, Littleton, Arvada plus probably some others I don't know about. I'm more familiar with the northern burbs, which all of these but Littleton are. All of those suburban cities have a downtown. Louisville, where I live, has mostly restaurants in its downtown, plus the public library, city hall and a pavilion which is a warming area for the ice rink in the winter and an outdoor seating area for the weekly free concerts in the summer. To the west of downtown, but still within walking distance, like a couple of blocks, is a large park with an outdoor pool, and the community theater building. Arvada's downtown has a few more stores where you can actually buy things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 08:05 PM
 
Location: CT
1,215 posts, read 2,154,770 times
Reputation: 2008
To answer the OP's question, cause it's (comparatively) quiet, calm, and comfortable. There are people who'd call living in a small apartment trapped and owning a car freedom, having your own land and yard is nice too but the best part is some space to yourself which is more possible in bigger houses. I like suburban living just as much as urban living, they both have plenty of advantages and drawbacks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2011, 10:11 PM
 
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
3,715 posts, read 5,793,244 times
Reputation: 2599
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That's because all of the suburbs Ogre posted ARE extremely expensive and unaffordable (Shaker Heights might be an exception, I don't know).
Shaker Heights does have some very posh, expensive areas. However, it also has middle-class areas that still have plenty of character where the houses are actually affordable. The biggest drawback to Shaker Heights affordability would be the high property taxes.

In the Cleveland area, there are other unique, walkable suburbs with plenty of character that are even more affordable than Shaker. Lakewood, just west of the city, is one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 01:51 AM
 
5,772 posts, read 13,726,416 times
Reputation: 4583
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerpetualDreamer View Post
These are beautiful photos of really nice neighborhoods. The question is, how much will it cost for a new family to move to one of these areas at today's prices? Lucky for you if you grew up in one of these areas and own your home at a purchase price of 30 years ago. We find ourselves priced out of most of such nice walkable suburban/urban areas when it comes to metro areas where we tend to find employment in our fields. The places that are affordable and safe are usually further away from amenities, jobs, lack public transit options and tend to have either uglier type of old housing stock or newer HOA subdivision construction, where you cannot do anything with your yard/home without approvals, yards are tiny and neighbors are pretty close by and there is nothing within reasonable walking distance.


I am sure everyone would want to live in a beautiful walkable residential city neighborhood or a nice suburb, especially in one of these mansions you have photographed The problem is, it's super expensive and out of reach for most families to try to settle in such places without inheritance.
It is true that most of the suburbs I showed in my earlier post are very upscale towns. I'm not absolutely sure about this, but I think Cleveland Heights may be an exception which may be more of a middle-class town, maybe even working class in some neighborhoods. Keep in mind that the original post seemed to portray ALL suburbs as the bland land of ranch houses and strip malls. I did not mean for my post to be an in-depth treatise on the variety of suburban landscapes to be found across the U.S., only a few examples to briefly point out that the OP's blanket view of suburbia is inaccurate.

In fact, here in the Boston area where I live, I know of plenty of suburbs which, by the standards of the Boston area, are not overly expensive, which offer various combinations of public transit, local shopping within walking distance for many residents, and interesting architecture--often more like houses with some nice architectural appeal rather than large buildings, since we are talking about suburbs here, but nice architecture nonetheless.

My observation has been that suburbs vary widely in the degree to which they display those characteristics generally viewed as typically suburban. Some suburbs are not very "suburban" at all, except in the sense of having many single-family, detached houses. Others have some of the charactristics the OP describes while lacking others of those features, with those very "suburban" characteristics in many cases being mixed in with some of the features of genuine small towns or outer urban areas. And you can see this mix of characteristics in suburbs of various economic levels. Not all suburbs are the purely "suburban" cliches described in the opening post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 07:16 PM
 
1,495 posts, read 1,947,205 times
Reputation: 804
I hate to say it, but I actually find it a bit annoying when people have kids in the city. We're just supposed to patient as these miniature people are loud and underfoot and slowing everything down. So I guess it's sort of a mutual thing: kids and cities are difficult to mix.

I hate to say it though, because I would like to see less suburban sprawl. And it should be noted that the suburbs pose problems for people of any age. Suburban children can have a much poorer sense of culture and a harder time fighting obesity and a greater danger from high-speed traffic in which drivers are not accustomed to seeing many pedestrians. I also wouldn't be surprised if suburban children are lonelier. I know I was.

Maybe people in the city just need to have somewhat fewer kids, and a slightly different, city-adapted approach to raising them. How you do that, I don't know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 07:43 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,996 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_cat View Post
I hate to say it, but I actually find it a bit annoying when people have kids in the city. We're just supposed to patient as these miniature people are loud and underfoot and slowing everything down. So I guess it's sort of a mutual thing: kids and cities are difficult to mix.

I hate to say it though, because I would like to see less suburban sprawl. And it should be noted that the suburbs pose problems for people of any age. Suburban children can have a much poorer sense of culture and a harder time fighting obesity and a greater danger from high-speed traffic in which drivers are not accustomed to seeing many pedestrians. I also wouldn't be surprised if suburban children are lonelier. I know I was.

Maybe people in the city just need to have somewhat fewer kids, and a slightly different, city-adapted approach to raising them. How you do that, I don't know.
The suburbs are not a cause of childhood obesity. Childhood obesity is more related to race and socio-economic status, with higher SES kids, who are more likely to live in suburbs, having lower rates of obesity.

"Poorer sense of culture"? What does that mean? "High speed traffic"? This has been discussed before. Most residential streets have speed limits of 25 mph. I don't know where the idea comes from that suburbanites live on streets with 60 mph traffic.

Lonliness has to do with the kid, I think, more than the locale. Most burbs have more kids around to be friends with.

Racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and behavioral deter... [Ann Epidemiol. 2008] - PubMed result
The Obesity Epidemic in the United States—Gender, Age, Socioeconomic, Racial/Ethnic, and Geographic Characteristics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis — Epidemiol Rev
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 08:55 PM
 
1,495 posts, read 1,947,205 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The suburbs are not a cause of childhood obesity. Childhood obesity is more related to race and socio-economic status, with higher SES kids, who are more likely to live in suburbs, having lower rates of obesity.

"Poorer sense of culture"? What does that mean? "High speed traffic"? This has been discussed before. Most residential streets have speed limits of 25 mph. I don't know where the idea comes from that suburbanites live on streets with 60 mph traffic.

Lonliness has to do with the kid, I think, more than the locale. Most burbs have more kids around to be friends with.

Racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and behavioral deter... [Ann Epidemiol. 2008] - PubMed result
The Obesity Epidemic in the United States—Gender, Age, Socioeconomic, Racial/Ethnic, and Geographic Characteristics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis — Epidemiol Rev
I'll bet you anything if you controlled for SES, the suburbs would have more obesity. That's kind of what I meant but I didn't think I had to spell it out.

And traffic kills far more pedestrians and drivers in the suburbs than in urban cores. I don't see how you can argue with that. It's not like kids never ever venture off their one 25 mph street, and how sad if they don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2011, 10:13 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,996 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_cat View Post
I'll bet you anything if you controlled for SES, the suburbs would have more obesity. That's kind of what I meant but I didn't think I had to spell it out.

And traffic kills far more pedestrians and drivers in the suburbs than in urban cores. I don't see how you can argue with that. It's not like kids never ever venture off their one 25 mph street, and how sad if they don't.
You can bet me anything, eh? I've read many research articles in the Journal of Public Health that conclude that inner-city residence is a risk factor for childhood obesity.

It was hard to find statistics about car-pedestrian accidents, but what I found negates your statement.

Pedestrian Accident Statistics for Pennsylvania (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b8wiPq4y0NgJ:www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/pedestrian/statistics.html+car+pedestrian+accident+statistics &cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us - broken link)

Nearly 65% of all Pennsylvanian pedestrian fatalities in 2008 occurred in cities.

Now, most Pennsylvania suburbs are not organized as cities, as they are here in Colorado, so this means the accidents occurred in the city proper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top