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.
I prefer urban living, but don't like living in an apartment or condo. So, I bought a single family home.
Um. That's not urban living. Don't kid yourself - if you live in a single family home, you're living in a suburb.
Anyway, condos are a lot more restrictive than most suburban HOAs, which is what people usually mean. Townhouses, the post-war ones, are garbage construction where you hear your neighbors' every sneeze, not to mention their sex making noises (detached suburban houses are also garbage, but at least you don't share walls with your neighbors). By the way, perhaps the general shoddiness of ALL post-war construction - from those disgusting red and white brick 1940's-60's turds all over Manhattan to, of course, those unlivable "duplexes" in southern Brooklyn is also a pretty big reason why people move to the suburbs. There are few things more annoying in day-to-day life than hearing your upstairs neighbors walking around as you hear your downstairs' neighbors television and your same-floor neighbors incessant petty fights and so on.
and regarding HOA's, there is just some miscommunication. to me, "Suburbs" only exist on the fringes of large cities. so in my mind suburbs are just low-density urban areas. Take Cary, NC, for example -- land of the HOA's. To me that is urban, but a true "big city person" would probably not think so. As a rural/small town person I can only imagine HOA's existing in close proximity to a city, which makes it urban in my mind.
My experience is that HOAs are almost ubiquitous in newer (post-1980) suburban neighborhoods and are less likely to exist in early urban neighborhoods like those built between 1920-1980. They are also much less likely to exist in rural areas.
Um. That's not urban living. Don't kid yourself - if you live in a single family home, you're living in a suburb.
Anyway, condos are a lot more restrictive than most suburban HOAs, which is what people usually mean. Townhouses, the post-war ones, are garbage construction where you hear your neighbors' every sneeze, not to mention their sex making noises (detached suburban houses are also garbage, but at least you don't share walls with your neighbors). By the way, perhaps the general shoddiness of ALL post-war construction - from those disgusting red and white brick 1940's-60's turds all over Manhattan to, of course, those unlivable "duplexes" in southern Brooklyn is also a pretty big reason why people move to the suburbs. There are few things more annoying in day-to-day life than hearing your upstairs neighbors walking around as you hear your downstairs' neighbors television and your same-floor neighbors incessant petty fights and so on.
Soundproofing is key to re-urbanization.
I agree with you that soundproofing can definitely help people consider going back into an urban area. Even on CD's forums in some other section, there were people being angry at each other over how they feel noise rules in condos affect their lives. It was a fight between those who said they should have the right to do what they need to do to live and those who want more quiet, and bad construction such as lack of soundproofing may indirect lead to sprawl. Bad construction hurts both parties because it puts more restrictions, which Americans don't like, and the person downstairs suffers from too much noise disturbing their sleep. Even something as simple as a woman walking in high heels above you can make a person have trouble falling sleep, and it would make the woman feel very persecuted if she was told she has to stop wearing them because of the noise they make, not to mention the condo owner would get in trouble for "discrimination" if he tried to stop the high heel wearing woman from wearing them in her condo. It would probably add maybe 10% (would it be more?) to construction costs to ensure adequate sound proofing. I don't know if soundproofing an already existing building is possible.
Well, because there are only about 10' between my house and my neighbors' houses, you might be right.
Maybe my rust belt is showing, but I always assumed HOA's were a suburban thing. i.e. the new Springwood Forest gated community would have an HOA, but not some city neighborhood. Then again, until I started visiting these forums regularly, I also assumed it was cheaper to live in the city than the suburbs.
HOAs are a suburban thing - in Pittsburgh, Chicago, Houston and Dallas. I don't know about other cities. And their rules are much stricter and more intrusive than any city I now of.
But you are showing your Midwestern roots. In Houston and Dallas the suburbs are much cheaper than the city. I think the same holds true for Chicago and most of the East Coast.
Um. That's not urban living. Don't kid yourself - if you live in a single family home, you're living in a suburb.
Sez who? There are plenty of single-family homes in the biggest cities in the country! They are generally closer together than the single-family homes in the suburbs, or even attached row houses, but still single-family homes on separate lots, not condos, not apartments.
Um. That's not urban living. Don't kid yourself - if you live in a single family home, you're living in a suburb.
Apparently, there are "suburbs" in the heart of every one of Ohio's big cities. In fact, I'm pretty sure there are "suburbs" in Chicago, and L.A., two of the largest cities in the U.S.
I'd guess that the "urban living" you're thinking of makes up only a small part of virtually all of the cities in the U.S. So, I have to ask, why is there such a big city vs. suburb debate if a large part of most U.S. cities are made up of what you call "suburbs?"
JR_C: that's because, despite what many delusional types here think, the suburbanization of the country did not start in the 1950's. Suburban sprawl is about as old as the country itself. Greenwich village, with its townhouses, was a northern suburb of New York City once. Brooklyn Heights has been a commuter suburb since the 1840's or so (ferry commutes are fun!). Until the car came along, the construction of single family homes had to be dense. As soon as the car made its appearance, lots immediately grew larger. Queens and Westchester county are full of 1920's suburban sprawl: single family homes on fairly large lots, impractical without a car.
So what wishful people here call "urban areas" are, in fact, barely more than 1920's early car suburbia or, for bigger bragging rights, townhouse-centric streetcar suburbia.
The suburbanization of the country didn't start in the 1950s, right--but what were once "suburbs" are now often distinctly urban by comparison, because the transportation networks they used promoted far denser types of growth than auto-centric cities. I live in a streetcar suburb type neighborhood, built 100 years ago, but it is in fact part of a city now, as the transportation system grew leaps and bounds beyond it.
Definitions change. In 1840, "high-speed rail" went 30 miles an hour. And there are plenty of folks here who seem to consider anything denser than one house per acre "dense and urban." I don't agree with them either, but you're just erring in the other direction.
HOAs are a suburban thing - in Pittsburgh, Chicago, Houston and Dallas. I don't know about other cities. And their rules are much stricter and more intrusive than any city I now of.
There are plenty of HOA's for townhomes in the heart of "urban" Houston. See Montrose and Midtown, and specially those areas trying to remove minorities, I mean- gentrify. Townhomes there, meaning apartment units people bought-- the owners pay the annual fees, and are under the same basic rules vs us suburbanites. Look it up if you don't believe. Honestly, the rules are pretty basic. What you hear about in here re: HOA rules is a bunch of bull most of the time.
There are plenty of HOA's for townhomes in the heart of "urban" Houston. See Montrose and Midtown, and specially those areas trying to remove minorities, I mean- gentrify. Townhomes there, meaning apartment units people bought-- the owners pay the annual fees, and are under the same basic rules vs us suburbanites. Look it up if you don't believe. Honestly, the rules are pretty basic. What you hear about in here re: HOA rules is a bunch of bull most of the time.
I don't think anyone was saying that there aren't any HOA's in cities. But I think they are rare outside of condo developments in single buildings. I assume they are probably common in most new developments--whether in cities, suburbs, or exurbs, and in a group of new homes, or a building converted to condo units.
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.
