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 could easily make the argument that the fancy pants urban pantywaists are just as morally inept. Their wine and dine lifestyle creates a permanent underclass of (usually Mexican) immigrants who "do the jobs Americans (and by "Americans" we mean white, upper-class, urban wine-sippers) won't do."
What's more, and you can call me a mouth-breathing fundamentalist if you want, I think the reason most people move to the suburbs is to get their families away from moral issues so prevalent in cities--college kids puking in the streets after a night of bar-hopping, strippers walking home from parties, etc.
That happens in EVERY SINGLE city neighborhood? Really? That happens in the first and second ring suburbs? Really? WOW, I never knew that.
I think they are talking about the 90s urban sprawl housing devisions not all suburbs.
This whole question is stupid and smacks of preening self-righteousness. Basically it boils down to a person saying, "Why those people are living a completely different lifestyle than me, so I'm going to feel morally superior to them."
I've seen people who live in a downtown loft who are materialistic beyond human belief. I've also seen people who live in the suburbs, drive 10-year-old cars, give extensive amounts of time, money, and energy to charities. After all, there are people who shell out $4.50 for a latte at some precious urban coffee shop who never consider for a moment the exploitive labor practices of coffee plantations. Or they never think for a moment how their cute little gentrifying neighborhoods are displacing people who need affordable housing. So really, it's amazing how people will point out the supposed moral failings of others while not thinking for a moment about their own.
I'm torn between asking the mods to close this thread and responding. I guess I"ve made my decision, and I'm responding. I don't know how one can decided which suburbs are "acceptable" and which aren't. What makes 90s subdivisions worse than an "inner-ring" suburb. Some inner-ring suburbs in some cities have become very expensive and therefore very exclsive places to live. They may "look" nice to the urbanistas, but they're not for the average person who can't afford to buy a chicken coop in one of them.
I very much agree with cpg35223. It has nothing to do with the location. There are snobs and morally bankrupt people everywhere.
I'm torn between asking the mods to close this thread and responding. I guess I"ve made my decision, and I'm responding. I don't know how one can decided which suburbs are "acceptable" and which aren't. What makes 90s subdivisions worse than an "inner-ring" suburb. Some inner-ring suburbs in some cities have become very expensive and therefore very exclsive places to live. They may "look" nice to the urbanistas, but they're not for the average person who can't afford to buy a chicken coop in one of them.
I very much agree with cpg35223. It has nothing to do with the location. There are snobs and morally bankrupt people everywhere.
Exactly. How do you draw the distinction? After all, in my city, an entire block of apartments was recently bulldozed to build a high-rise condo. Where will the families move? Yet, I guarantee that some latte-swilling DINKs who move in will feel morally superior to those out in the 'burbs who didn't dislocate anyone at all.
I mean, is it a matter of acreage? Does that mean that a garden home on a postage-stamp lot in the suburbs is morally acceptable while a large older home on a 3/4-acre lot inside the city limits is not? Does that mean a family who chooses to stay in the city and spend $40,000 a year in private school tuition are morally superior to those who flee to a working class suburb for the public schools?
Does that mean that somebody who gets all their books from a public library is morally superior to somebody who buys books new, whether from the local bookseller or the big chain? After all, if nobody is buying the books, the publishing biz dries up in a hurry, and then people can't afford to write for a living.
Now, on to the cars. Is it morally superior to drive a Subaru Outback as opposed to a Ford crossover SUV? And, really, how many urban professionals walk to their jobs in the morning. Outside of NY, Boston, Chicago, and a handful of other cities with reliable public transportation, how many urban professionals walk to their jobs at all?
Everybody that lives in the suburbs is evil. They all have horns that stick out of their heads, and they steal candy from children.
This response is a joke. However, it isn't completely false that if you go to a big McMansion filled housing plan where mostley everybody is driving a SUV, then that is a sign of American greed and over consumption. If you live in one of these, and own a hummer, and find this offensive. Than you need to look at yourself, not my post.
Everybody that lives in the suburbs is evil. They all have horns that stick out of their heads, and they steal candy from children.
This response is a joke. However, it isn't completely false that if you go to a big McMansion filled housing plan where mostley everybody is driving a SUV, then that is a sign of American greed and over consumption. If you live in one of these, and own a hummer, and find this offensive. Than you need to look at yourself, not my post.
Well, I might agree with you up to a point. But you can say the same thing for all the people who live in the inner city who drive SUVs, too. I didn't see any lack of them in the urban neighborhood where I used to live. Somehow or another, I didn't see everybody behind the wheel of a Prius. Not even close.
As far as the McMansion goes, how do you define what is too big? 3000 sf? 4000 sf? To be honest with you, if you've ever looked at housing prices close into whatever city you live, you'll realize that affordable, reasonably spacious housing with good schools is extraordinarily scarce. So, it actually costs far less to buy the McMansion than it is to live piously much closer in.
My wife and I held on a lot longer than most, sacrificing to send our kids to a private school because the local public school was awful. We finally made our break to the suburb when faced with three kids in private high school. We moved three miles outside of town and found that, when you account for no school tuition versus a higher mortgage payment, we actually came out way ahead.
Now when the last child graduates, we're moving back into town. But don't make the blithe assumption that we should simply make enormous sacrifices either economically or in our children's education simply to fulfill your aesthetic ideal of how people should live.
Want to fix the problem ASAP? Then fix the rotten public schools. Lots of parents would stay in the inner cities if that could be done.
You could easily make the argument that the fancy pants urban pantywaists are just as morally inept. Their wine and dine lifestyle creates a permanent underclass of (usually Mexican) immigrants who "do the jobs Americans (and by "Americans" we mean white, upper-class, urban wine-sippers) won't do."
What's more, and you can call me a mouth-breathing fundamentalist if you want, I think the reason most people move to the suburbs is to get their families away from moral issues so prevalent in cities--college kids puking in the streets after a night of bar-hopping, strippers walking home from parties, etc.
Your post is a joke, right? How can someone who calls himself Mr Answers believe any of this?
Want to fix the problem ASAP? Then fix the rotten public schools. Lots of parents would stay in the inner cities if that could be done.
I think you make a very astute point about shoddy urban education. That, along with simply the advent of the automobile, is the impetus for a lot of flight from city cores. Fixing urban education is just such a huge issue to grapple with for a variety of reasons.
While I disagree with the wording of this question, I think the premise is important. I don't think people are "morally inept" for living in suburbs -- like some have noted, often times it is the cheaper option for families on a budget. You can't blame people for that.
However, that is not to say that more cannot be done to conserve land and curtail some consumption habits. There simply is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to planning how suburbanization occurs. I simply find it depressing when I see a subdivision after subdivision take up gargantuan amounts of farmland and countryside. We should be much more capable and creative when it comes to saving space than that -- and thankfully, I think housing developers are starting to keep that in mind in future projects.
The question of "consumption" should not castigate or accuse anyone, but we all need to be conscious of how our lifestyle habits -- whether in an urban, suburban, or rural setting -- affects the world around us.
I think you make a very astute point about shoddy urban education. That, along with simply the advent of the automobile, is what led the creation of most of today's suburbs. Fixing urban education is just such a huge issue to grapple with for a variety of reasons.
While I disagree with the wording of this question, I think the premise is important. I don't think people are "morally inept" for living in suburbs -- like some have noted, often times it is the cheaper option for families on a budget. You can't blame people for that.
However, that is not to say that more cannot be done to conserve land and curtail some consumption habits. There simply is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to planning how suburbanization occurs. I simply find it depressing when I see a subdivision after subdivision take up gargantuan amounts of farmland and countryside. We should be much more capable and creative when it comes to saving space than that -- and thankfully, I think housing developers are starting to keep that in mind in future projects.
The question of "consumption" should not castigate or accuse anyone, but we all need to be conscious of how our lifestyle habits -- whether in an urban, suburban, or rural setting -- affects the world around us.
All of you young dudes need to keep in mind that that is how all cities grew to their size today. This is not some new phenomenon. Your cities did not spring up from the ground fully delveloped with some mandate from the almighty to never get any bigger. They annexed and developed land. Sometimes they annexed whole cities, as Pittsburgh did, Denver did, Omaha, NE did.
GOOD GOD! Comparing 2008 subdivisions in rural land that are linked to a major city 40 miles away, is not the same as comparing the development of the Lawerenceville neigbhorhood in Pittsburgh in the late 1800s. It is comparing apples and oranges. Yes We know that Cities in America use to be natural land before being developed. That doesn't equate to the fact that subdivision urban sprawl is the same.
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.
How can someone who calls himself Mr Answers believe any of this?