Is the urban big city lifestyle worth not being able to enjoy a house? (houses, public schools)
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.
Manhattan-ite I guess you've never been to Seattle. I do not own a car and I get around just fine. Crime is extremely low, public transportation is great and getting better. I can walk to grocery stores, the movies, coffee houses, the post office and many nice restaurants. And Seattle does not have the 2nd worst traffic in the nation. Also if you venture across the Anacostia River in D.C. you can count on one hand the number of grocery stores, movie theaters if any at all, coffee houses, galleries or any of the other amenities that make up a good neighborhood. Plus crime in D.C. is always near the top of the list though its gone down in recent years. Poverty exist in all cities including D.C. Live in any of the desireable areas of any of the cities I mentioned, you can get most if not all the great amenities. Its not just a select few.
a City is always better in some cities you dont even need a car because of the public transportation and the larger parks are a plus and every single major city has at least one nice neighborhood espically new york city even harlem is not even a bad neighborhood and you get to meet the most intresting people
Manhattan-ite I guess you've never been to Seattle. I do not own a car and I get around just fine. Crime is extremely low, public transportation is great and getting better. I can walk to grocery stores, the movies, coffee houses, the post office and many nice restaurants. And Seattle does not have the 2nd worst traffic in the nation. Also if you venture across the Anacostia River in D.C. you can count on one hand the number of grocery stores, movie theaters if any at all, coffee houses, galleries or any of the other amenities that make up a good neighborhood. Plus crime in D.C. is always near the top of the list though its gone down in recent years. Poverty exist in all cities including D.C. Live in any of the desireable areas of any of the cities I mentioned, you can get most if not all the great amenities. Its not just a select few.
There's nothing more annoying than an individual who loves his or her city so much he or she can't see the negatives of the place. This blindness is sad, bothersome and misleading.
I'm glad you love Seattle. But gimme a break, OK? Seattle does have crime (double the American average and higher than many big cities), Seattle does have the second worst traffic in the nation (read the damn news) and Seattle's public transportation is not as good as it could and should be. Otherwise folks would use it more often and you wouldn't have the second worst traffic in the nation. Right?
On top of that, everything is awfully expensive. Or should I say overpriced? Because it's not worth paying big buck in Seattle for what you get in return.
And did I mention the weather? You must be a realtor in Seattle or something. Trying to sell fairy tales.
Did you know traffic in Seattle is only getting worse? If five years ago it was the second worst in the nation, by now it probably has surpassed California.
Your photos of Seattle are beautiful, but you hide the realities of your town.
Come back to me when you have real arguments and some data to support your attacks. I'm done with you.
Manhattan-ite: 'Did you know traffic in Seattle is only getting worse? If five years ago it was the second worst in the nation, by now it probably has surpassed California.'
We know its getting worse. But since it was 2nd, by now 5 years later it probably surpassed California?! Sounds like an assumption not a fact.
What do my pics hide? What am I suppose to take pictures of?
This is Seattle reality.
Is the urban big city lifestyle worth not being able to enjoy a house? Is this not the title of this post? I don't understand why people are discussing urban vs rural vs small town, etc here. There is another thread for that. It seems to me, anyway, that the discussion is basically city vs suburbs. I think the answer is: it depends.
If you are way into the urban lifestyle with quick access to trendy coffee shops, restaurants, movie theaters that show artsy movies, singles bars, etc the city is probably for you. If you like a yard and all that entails (garden, maybe a pool, playing croquet, doing yardwork), supermarkets, places with lots of activities for kids, then the burbs are for you. In re: access to cultural events, sporting events, etc that the city has to offer, it's a tossup. I can get to the Denver Center for the Performing Arts as quickly in my car as my daughter can walk to it from her apt. in a "hip" part of Denver. For all the blah-blah on many threads about the suburbs being culturally devoid, it is not true. Most suburbs have their own cultural activities and there's always the city.
I live in a 725 sq. foot condo in center city Philly. When it snows, somebody else shovels. I don't have or need a car. I walk to work and to restaurants and theaters. I have my groceries delivered. If I want to go to the King of Prussia Mall, I take a bus. I am close to the train. It is worth it to me.
I would imagine that you would have to give up living in a big house in order to live the big city life in a northeastern or northwestern place (not sure), but this is not so in the south. Say what you want about sprawl, but in my opinion it gives us the best of both worlds. The only thing is that city transit needs to be more accessible. And you won't really find any cookie cutter, suburban style homes, either. You're going to find classic and beautiful homes within the city limits. Can't say too much about other places, but in H we have a lot of urban living to choose from.
Or cramped style. These are pictures are by user RGV
^That's all pretty suburban looking. You can't have transit that's "more accessible" if you don't have dense population and activity centers where origin-destination pairs match for large numbers of people. I know you were probably trying to show us suburban style housing that's available in the city of Houston, but from my understanding (I've never been there) it's overall a fairly suburban city.
I don't think of living in an urban environment as "giving up" a big house. I don't want the big house to begin with. I would say that one of the only things an urbanite "gives up" in most cases is really good public schools. I'm not trying to pick on mpope there. Comments about "giving up" big houses, cars, and "suburban conveniences" (?) have been made going all the way back to the OP. By not living in the tropics am I "giving up" yellow fever?
I live in the suburbs now because my work situation requires it. My situation is changing and by Fall I'll be back in the City. But even still, I'm renting in a suburban downtown where I don't have to use my car for anything other than getting to work or for special needs that my town doesn't meet. For me, a $500,000 1-BR apartment in Brooklyn would be much more desirable than a $500,000 shabby house in the suburbs. Either way I'll have to settle down with someone to be able to afford it.
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.