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.
Rich outer ring suburbs tend to have people I wouldn't particularly want to associate with. Many are snobby, have spoiled, bratty, disrespectful children, are narcissistic and have a sense of entitlement. They also are highly reliant on their cars, and the suburbs tend to be dull and boring. Yet, on the plus side, these places tend to be relatively safe, and have good schools. The inner city, on the other hand is often the polar opposite. People tend to be more humble, grateful, and sincere. They also have the advantage of being close to downtown where the action is, and they have the ability to walk or take public transit places instead of driving. However, the neighborhoods are not that safe, and the schools tend to be much worse. Personally I would prefer to live in a diverse inner ring suburb with good schools (like Shaker Heights, where I live now), but if I had to choose between these options, I'd honestly be torn. Which one would you choose and why?
I would choose an inner city setting. People are more friendly because they need to rely more on each other in hard times, whereas (most of) the suburbanites are very insular and depend on themselves. I don't want to be car dependent, I really think cars have ruined modern life in many ways. I want to be close to the action of the city too, the heart, the soul. Also city life is more sustainable than suburbia.
I lived in both and its a tough call. In the inner city, you don't have too much freedom to even as much as walk down the street. But I lived in the hood when it was really bad in the 80's and 90's. Many gentrified inner cities today are more easily maneuverable than they were years ago. Many streets in DC, NYC, LA and SF that were unwalkable 10+ years ago are now hubs of gentrification where hipsters live next door to full-time drug dealers. The inner city is unpredictable. You can walk out your front door to an unchained pitbull chasing you back inside. One day, your street could be quiet, the next day there are 500 people outside drinking and before you know it shots are flying.
The rich outer ring suburbs also bring a bit of stress as well. I currently live in affluent Howard County in Maryland which is the third richest county in America. There is a very antiseptic nonsocial vibe out here and people can be very uptight. There is a massive police force out here that is almost solely dedicated to busting average citizens and charging them to the maximum extent of the law for petty things like smoking small amounts of pot. This is a far cry away from what I knew in the inner city in the Bay Area, California where you could light a joint or blunt anywhere and not be bothered. The extreme scrutiny in outer ring suburbia likes to punish basically law-abiding citizens for the pettiest things. Not a blade of grass is out of place in the rich suburbs and its all about this unsustainable pristine image. In the hood, as long as you aren't killing anyone, selling dope or gangbanging or bothering your neighbors who enjoy such hobbies, people will leave you alone.
I live in a middle-class, safe inner ring suburb only about 10 miles from downtown Los Angeles. I much appreciate the proximity to downtown (especially to Disney Hall, home of the Los Angeles Philharmonic and the Los Angeles Master Chorale), even though I may go there an average of only twice a month over a year's time. I am only about four miles from an art house movie theatre in another suburb to which I have even walked a few times. I feel fortunate to live in this "best of both worlds" location.
Is there a third option? I'd rather (and do) live in an established city-suburb and think it's the best of both worlds. It has a walkable, central downtown core with a riverwalk, tons of restaurants and shops, a huge beach, excellent schools, and good public transit. I've lived in the innerbcity in an up-and-coming area, and never again. Unless I could afford to live in a very low crime area of the city, I wouldn't do it---at least not with kids.
Its a toss up. I have a peaceful neighborhood, zero crime, access to nature with space for a garden and a yard. But I can't walk to many places like the grocery store or shopping, I have to drive. Its the suburbs.
On the other hand, if I lived in the city I also couldn't walk to many places like the grocery store, or shopping. They've mostly gone to the suburbs, LOL. Plus parking is a freaking %$#@ in the city and a car is just a necessity. You can't judge the people in any particular area unless you know them so thats why I won't even try to tackle city people versus suburbs people.
Suburbs, hands down. But to each their own.
The inner city, on the other hand is often the polar opposite. People tend to be more humble, grateful, and sincere.
That doesn't describe any inner city I've been in, or heard about. Inner city people are very often smug, intolerant of different opinions, self centered, assured of their own (false) sense of superiority because "they live in the city". Or maybe that just describes Seattle.
I would choose neither the rich suburb or inner city, but if forced to choose between them I'd go with the suburb in a second. Low crime, trees, usually better schools, I like to drive so I'd rather drive than walk where I need to go, suburbs are going to be closer to outdoor activities than the inner city.
That doesn't describe any inner city I've been in, or heard about. Inner city people are very often smug, intolerant of different opinions, self centered, assured of their own (false) sense of superiority because "they live in the city". Or maybe that just describes Seattle.
I would choose neither the rich suburb or inner city, but if forced to choose between them I'd go with the suburb in a second. Low crime, trees, usually better schools, I like to drive so I'd rather drive than walk where I need to go, suburbs are going to be closer to outdoor activities than the inner city.
I think that just describes cities like Seattle. When speaking of inner city, I meant cities like Cleveland, which have a mostly impoverished inner-city, not Seattle, San Fran, Manhattan, etc.
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.
Splitting the difference works for me.
