question to those anti-suburbs people... (Pittsburgh, Oakland: salons, subsidized, living in)

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by tranceFusion

Tell me why I SHOULD live in the city?

I have better schools. I have lower taxes. My house is much newer than most in the city (less maintenance and unpredictable expenses). I can get to shopping or the rural parks or on a highway the hell out of here more quickly. Crime is lower. We have less squatters, transient renters, crack houses, etc - My neighbors are all hard working folks or retired people that value their property and maintain it well (thus maintaining my property value). I don't have pest problems caused by neighbors. I have far less risk of flood. I know my neighbors much better than in the city - there are less of us so people bond rather than ignore or giving a vacant nod. If I have a problem, my township office is readily accessible. There's less litter. There's wildlife to enjoy.

AND I can take advantage of everything you city folks do, too.

You want me to put all that aside to support some theoretical ideal of urban efficiency? Seriously?

I prefer city living.. but it's a hard choice to make around here.

This will ramble and I apologize in advance but I think much of this post represents the biggest problem that I, as a child of suburbia, have with the modern suburbanite and the attitude endemic amongst many of them.

The notion that they are perfectly happy to live in an area that could not exist without the city around which it revolves, take advantage (a telling term) of it's amenities and yet feel little responsibility or even sympathy toward the challenges faced by urban America. Instead, they prefer to lecture about what they view the city and its residents get wrong while maintaining that it's not their problem. Overall, I think suburbs take more from the city than they give to it but there's little self-awareness of this fact. If anything, they delusionally think it's the other way around.

Fundamentally it is a selfish world-view that is all too often couched in the language of "good schools" and the notion that such self-centered behavior is demanded of them in order to adequately provide for their children. It's a cop-out and a justification for the "haves" to cluster and not help with the collective work required of citizens.

Of course its cheaper to live in the burbs that aren't mature enough to have to deal with the some of the problems that occur as localities mature. When those problem do begin to arise (in some 1st ring burbs for example) lets not deal with them, lets move even further away to a brand new utopia.

Suburbs have to exist but the dismissively anti-urban attitude does not.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by airwave09

I can almost guarantee that everyone, both pro-city and pro-suburb will come to some sort of an agreement on this.

You'd think, but there are some people who just want a City versus Suburbs culture war, no matter how little that makes sense, and how self-defeating such a war would be for any metro area, including Pittsburgh.

[gg]

Originally Posted by airwave09

h curtis, it's not a city vs. suburbs thing... read my post above

All the post on this thread are city vs. suburb, so of course it is city vs. suburb. You even asked, why should I live in the city. The only answers are reasons why you would choose either, which is city vs. suburb. Goodness, how can anyone view it differently than that?

[tranceFusion]

Originally Posted by airwave09

Its not as simple as you make it out to be, its not a city vs. suburbs thing. There are many well designed older suburbs that are designed in a efficient and urban manner, are well connected to the city through various transit options, and have different and interesting architecture. Then there are the brand new sprawling exurbs on the fringes of the metro area that lack pretty much all of what I mentioned. Which type of suburb do you live in?

I don't get the rabid necessity of interesting architecture? The vocal pro-city folks are always arguing economic efficiency, but interesting architecture costs money. If you want to argue build quality, that's one thing.. in most cities, you would be right - that the older housing stock is better built, but in Pittsburgh, that just isn't true. Those old bottom-end laborers houses that make up so many neighborhoods are built like crap. And certainly people don't want to/aren't able to make many new investments into interesting architecture... as time passes those existing buildings will begin to fade from the city as well.

I also don't understand the efficient argument. Are you referring to transit? Most streets here (city or otherwise) aren't built around efficiency. They are built around minimizing build cost with challenging topography being a primary factor. There are plenty of city neighborhoods with incredibly poor public transit options and poorly planned roads. There's also lots of places (in and out of the city) where efficiency could be gained by re-routing, adding spurs, etc. and yet there is never money to be invested in these types of projects.

[SammyKhalifa]

Originally Posted by tranceFusion

I don't get the rabid necessity of interesting architecture? The vocal pro-city folks are always arguing economic efficiency, but interesting architecture costs money. If you want to argue build quality, that's one thing.. in most cities, you would be right - that the older housing stock is better built, but in Pittsburgh, that just isn't true. Those old bottom-end laborers houses that make up so many neighborhoods are built like crap. And certainly people don't want to/aren't able to make many new investments into interesting architecture... as time passes those existing buildings will begin to fade from the city as well.

I also don't understand the efficient argument. Are you referring to transit? Most streets here (city or otherwise) aren't built around efficiency. They are built around minimizing build cost with challenging topography being a primary factor. There are plenty of city neighborhoods with incredibly poor public transit options and poorly planned roads. There's also lots of places (in and out of the city) where efficiency could be gained by re-routing, adding spurs, etc. and yet there is never money to be invested in these types of projects.

You don't understand the efficiency in building a new house vs. using one that's already there?

[tranceFusion]

Originally Posted by Lobick

The notion that they are perfectly happy to live in an area that could not exist without the city around which it revolves, take advantage (a telling term) of it's amenities and yet feel little responsibility or even sympathy toward the challenges faced by urban America. Instead, they prefer to lecture about what they view the city and its residents get wrong while maintaining that it's not their problem. Overall, I think suburbs take more from the city than they give to it but there's little self-awareness of this fact. If anything, they delusionally think it's the other way around.

..

Suburbs have to exist but the dismissively anti-urban attitude does not.

What in my post was dismissive or anti-urban? I simply stated my view of both options and the difficulty in making the opposite choice. Presented both options, what compelling reason do I have to live in the city? Selflessness that will rarely be returned? Most city-dwellers are not there because they have made a conscious decision to let their personal situation take backseat to their world views. I'm not being hateful, ungrateful, disrespectful or dismissive - just honest.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by tranceFusion

I don't get the rabid necessity of interesting architecture? The vocal pro-city folks are always arguing economic efficiency, but interesting architecture costs money.

Under some circumstances it costs less money, and under many more circumstances it only costs a small premium.

The reason to care is that interesting architecture affects people. And this actually has straightforward economic implications: land values can be higher in proximity to better architecture, so not just the individual properties, but other properties nearby, will benefit.

Unfortunately this gives rise to a potential free-rider problem. Say if every structure in a locale spent 10% more on design, every structure would be worth 30% more. That's a good deal. But say if then just one structure didn't spend the 10% more, it would still be worth 25% more. That's an even better deal, for that property. The problem is if every builder thinks that way, none of them will spend the 10%, and no one will get the benefit.

That's the basic economic case for localities regulating these issues: to prevent free-riders and allow for greater overall land value. Of course there is no inherent reason that suburbs shouldn't think the same way.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by tranceFusion

What in my post was dismissive or anti-urban? I simply stated my view of both options and the difficulty in making the opposite choice. Presented both options, what compelling reason do I have to live in the city? Selflessness that will rarely be returned? Most city-dwellers are not there because they have made a conscious decision to let their personal situation take backseat to their world views. I'm not being hateful, ungrateful, disrespectful or dismissive - just honest.

Wasn't singling out you or that post in particular. Apologize if that was the effect.

"Selflessness that will rarely be returned" has not been my experience at all and is a phrase pregnant with cynicism.

If "personal situation" is purely monetary considerations, you might be right, although personally I feel many people don't take the full gamut of costs associated with living in suburbia into account when doing the analysis.

I could easily live in suburbia, it would probably be cheaper for my family and I and in many ways less challenging, but personally I'd feel like more a part of the problem instead of part of the solution. I guess my bottom line is that I wish the problems of the City of Pittsburgh were more commonly viewed as those of the metro area and not simply those of the fortunate few living within the city limits.

[airwave09]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

All the post on this thread are city vs. suburb, so of course it is city vs. suburb. You even asked, why should I live in the city. The only answers are reasons why you would choose either, which is city vs. suburb. Goodness, how can anyone view it differently than that?

You must not be able to read then, I specifically stated that it is actually about well designed urban areas vs. poorly designed "urban" areas. Most pre-1980 build suburbs fall into the fall into the first category along with the city itself.

[gg]

Originally Posted by airwave09

You must not be able to read then, I specifically stated that it is actually about well designed urban areas vs. poorly designed "urban" areas. Most pre-1980 build suburbs fall into the fall into the first category along with the city itself.

Then don't ask the question, "why should I live in the city?", if you don't want an answer to that. Seems you may need a bit of help writing, if you want people to understand you. It isn't the reader.