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.
You are right. The past 60 years have been geared towards urban sprawl. However, the tide is changing. Companies want to spend less on transport, gain a greater amount of customers in a smaller space and, politicians cater to companies. Not for any sinister, illuminati crap, in most cases, but cuz' money.
I don't think so!
Again, it depends on the area and on planning and $$$.
In Florida, developers, the mob, drug money and such has created vast burbs and continues to do so. I think over 100,000 people live in that ONE development (the Villages). 2400+ sq ft tract homes are being built by the thousands anywhere that a pol can be paid off (and that is pretty much the entire state).
Urban areas are often that way due to history and topography. For example, the Bay Area in CA. has very little flat land. Even then, people have went "over the mountains" inland to scorched earth areas (coastal deserts?) and developed those into burbs.
NYC, of course, was built on islands around a harbor. Same for Philly, Baltimore and many others.
There is a method to what seems like madness.
Now - to play a game - if I had the choice when I was in heaven to be reborn in the Charlotte NC burbs or in a nice Danish town....I'd choose the later...by far!
I know that this is an extremely unpopular opinion these days but..
Everybody and their mama likes to talk about how the suburbs are going to be dead in XYZ years and how the cities will be where it's at soon!
But I don't see the value of living in a city besides for the close commute to work (assuming you're CBD is even in a major job center).
- Suburbs allow for a high quality of life that even moderate-income people can afford. Believe it or not, there's plenty of affordable and reasonably-nice suburban areas outside of most cities (if you settle for an "okay" school system as opposed to a top-notch one).
- Most of the cities over-glorified like Manhattan, San Francisco and DC are priced SKY-HIGH and almost completely impossible for regular middle class people to give their family even a basic middle class quality of life (having their own room, a backyard to play in, a school to pay field sports in, a private swimming pool, clean air, etc). In most other developed countries, the middle class would KILL to live in even a basic single-family home where their families had even a fraction of this.
- If you live in the suburbs and want access to the "culture", amenities, museums and unique restaurants that cities offer then you can just take the train or drive into the city and spend a weekend day there; and travel back home for the peace and comfort of the suburbs when your tired of all the mayhem.
- Most city residents with means have to pay for expensive private schools for their children or PRAY that they get into a 'charter school/specialized high school' in order to give them a quality education. Usually the property taxes in most suburbs pay for at least a decent education.
An honest answer and discussion cannot be had here without mod action.
It's not a matter of "putting down" burbs, but more the lack of good planning which is evident in many (most?) places.
If one wanted a REAL reason to "go urban" (or more urban), it would be energy and resource use. People living in populated areas use 1/2 to 1/3 the amount of energy.
But I think the biggest beefs are:
1. The isolation - obviously this varies by location. However, many Americans who experience Europe and similar places are really pleased about being able to walk places, sit down outside at a Cafe, see people of ALL ages and types, etc.
2. The Lack of Planning - I did business in Denmark and visited a few times. The people I knew lived in what we could call suburbs....with a BIG difference. First, their children could easily walk to a local "downtown" which had places they could go (yes, you can drink beer at 16 or earlier). Same goes with many factory workers - you could walk to work or bike (very close), and yet everything was clean and green.
When you wanted to go to any bigger place (this was a village), there was a train (trolley-type in the small villages) and it ran VERY often and you could get anywhere. So they had the best of both worlds.
You described exactly what I would like in my retirement. I guess that's why I am planning on doing it in Europe! I wish I could double rep you.
You described exactly what I would like in my retirement. I guess that's why I am planning on doing it in Europe! I wish I could double rep you.
I can't say it's the same, but our winter place in Sarasota FL is within walking and biking (or free shuttle - or city bus, or a few minutes with Uber or our car) from just about everywhere including the warm (relatively) Gulf Waters. There are probably 10+ performance venues (playhouses, opera, etc.) downtown as well as almost countless other things going on. Of course, the average age slants older (retirees), but there are plenty of families too.
Too much family for us to retire in Europe....but it would be fun thinking about Italy where my family (1/2 are the Ferragamo fashion folks)...left. Both of those ancestral lands are still similar to what they looked like back then - little towns on the hillside.
Come to think of it, our place in New England sits right above the Bay (RI) and I can walk to the beach and sail or swim or access endless miles of trails with views. But it doesn't have a real downtown (Newport RI is only 12 minutes away, tho).
So - yeah - we sought out such places intentionally. When we were younger we always shunned the idea of "living in a development" - and, amazingly enough, we never have. To each their own. Some people like living in gated enclaves without walking access to stores....where a dude comes down the street with a ruler to check the height of the grass. For better or worse, I picture myself as Mel Gibson yelling "FREEDOM" at that dude.....
Suburbs COULD be suitable for singles, if there was enough concentration of single-owners buying suburban houses... and if those singles were open to the sort of casual, unfettered relations that they formerly experienced in college. As a single male without children, I was given quite the quizzical and perturbed looks, when shopping for a house (I bought one in the countryside; an urban rehab might have garnered less surprise). Singles could just as easily gather in those suburban hot-tubs, for dinner parties, backyard volleyball or whatever else. Singles could specialize, trading skills, so that one excels at say plumbing, and another at lawn-care, and they take turns, bartering their labor. Singles could trade gardening tips, car-repair tips, and on and on... activities useful and natural in the suburbs/exurbs/countryside. But... how often does this happen?
Families may occasionally visit other families, but most social interaction is limited to within the kin-group. And formal recreational activities revolve around the children. Adults interact with other adults, mainly through their children's activities. This is not unique to suburbs; it's a situation America-wide. But it is especially prevalent in suburbs, because of the trope (accurately enough) that suburban = family.
Also depends on the individual too. I'm in my forties now and whether married with kids or single I'll never go back to living in small apartments, or dense urban environments with skyscrapers and people everywhere. To me, it'd be fun relaxing in a backyard hot tub and drinking on the patio. Tonight I walked through my rose garden while the birds chirped. I was alone, then I was joined by my daughter. That is bliss to me right now. Throngs of people I find overrated lol. If it were up to me I would've bought an old house on some acreage farther out
I know that this is an extremely unpopular opinion these days but..
Everybody and their mama likes to talk about how the suburbs are going to be dead in XYZ years and how the cities will be where it's at soon!
But I don't see the value of living in a city besides for the close commute to work (assuming you're CBD is even in a major job center).
- Suburbs allow for a high quality of life that even moderate-income people can afford. Believe it or not, there's plenty of affordable and reasonably-nice suburban areas outside of most cities (if you settle for an "okay" school system as opposed to a top-notch one).
- Most of the cities over-glorified like Manhattan, San Francisco and DC are priced SKY-HIGH and almost completely impossible for regular middle class people to give their family even a basic middle class quality of life (having their own room, a backyard to play in, a school to pay field sports in, a private swimming pool, clean air, etc). In most other developed countries, the middle class would KILL to live in even a basic single-family home where their families had even a fraction of this.
- If you live in the suburbs and want access to the "culture", amenities, museums and unique restaurants that cities offer then you can just take the train or drive into the city and spend a weekend day there; and travel back home for the peace and comfort of the suburbs when your tired of all the mayhem.
- Most city residents with means have to pay for expensive private schools for their children or PRAY that they get into a 'charter school/specialized high school' in order to give them a quality education. Usually the property taxes in most suburbs pay for at least a decent education.
I never have or ever will live in a major city. I can’t imagine living in such conditions with so many people, excessive noise, pollution of all kinds. I don’t even like the fact that my small city is growing rapidly. I guess this is what they call progress.
They could all these things but the reason why they don't is because families / couples are pretty exclusive and not inclusive. I went to Disney world with my daughter. No one spoke to us. I went on a weekend trip to the Poconos with my brother from another month. No one spoke to us. When you are in places with couples and families; they pretty much stick to other couples and families. Most single people consider living in places like that the end of having any local social life, with good reason.
My experience is that couples without children can still be fairly inclusive. It's the advent of children that breeds (pun intended) insularity. To the extent that suburbs are "engineered" for the rearing of children, we have a self-fulfilling prophesy, that people with kids will gravitate towards the suburbs, and those without kids, would find themselves to be ill-composed in suburbs. This is also true to some extent in rural areas.
Many US cities are very suburban and layout, though. I was looking around Google street view in Houston, Texas (a major city) and most of the residential areas looked blatantly suburban to me. I think this would be a happy medium for someone who wants a suburban lifestyle, but wants to have city amenities (restaurants, sports, concerts, museums, etc.) nearby.
Not all cities are expensive to live in and not all suburbs are cheap.
Not all homeless people are lazy and not all rich people are hard workers.
But there is correlation.
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.
