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.
Totally disagree. I grew up in a suburb and I would much rather have grown up in a denser area like San Jose or SF where you are close to public transit and can get to good stuff easily. In the suburb where I grew up, for example, there's an outdoor sports complex that draws a lot of users, but it's not directly accessible via public transit. You have to either walk a mile from the closest bus stop or drive there.
Why not use public transit instead of a car? I do it because I can't afford a car, but I don't experience stress from traffic. I just kick back and browse the web on my phone, play games, watch videos etc.
I didn't drive much when I was there, mostly walked or took transit. I originally left the suburbs to get away from the traffic and autocentric lifestyle, only to discover the traffic congestion and crush of vehicles is even worse in the downtown of a major city. Which I found to be not pleasant to experience on a daily basis, as a pedestrian or a driver. But might be even worse as a pedestrian, because you can't roll up your windows to shut out the noise. After a while I just got sick of it and moved out after just three years.
What would you do with that big lawn? I spent a lot of time raking grass clippings. (I was lucky that my step dad insisted on doing the mowing.)
You're right that one doesn't have to worry as much about traffic. I could ride my bike up and down the street, over and over, without worrying about too many cars.
How would you have gotten to the arcades, malls, laser tag, pizza hut, before you were 16?
As soon as there's no more of that "my urban childhood was so awful."
In the case of yards some space to run around in without being in danger of damaging something. In the case of traffic, I would have preferred less of it interrupting play in the alleys. I really couldn't bike in the streets too busy.
In the case of arcades, malls, laser tag and pizza hut the same way I got around the city ask your parents or your friend's parents to drive you. Kids need to be at least 11-12 before you use public transit for simple routes and more like 14 to do anything complex with it which greatly limits your range before 16. Also between school and curfew there isn't that much time you can do stuff before 16.
In addition heading out of your neighborhood can be dangerous at young ages. You can get picked on by other kids and get into an fight and there will be no adult around. There are issues with gangs and public transit itself is not safe I know about someone who got stabbed and died. Not to mention the occasional fights at the bus stop some people I knew got into. And as for walking all you can walk to are things like restaurants and shops and not much else. The shops can't hold an candle to an entire mall full of stuff and an food court and the restaurants darn near want to run you out for being an teenager.
It's not an issue of money. I may be a left-winger, but the left-wing orthodoxy on schools (that if you throw more money at under-performing schools, they'll become better) is just wrong.
Nine times out of ten, you need to alter school demographics to make a substantial change to performance on standardized testing. This means less disadvantaged minorities (particularly Blacks and Latinos), and more upper-middle class families (note, more upper-middle class kids in the schools actually seems to improve disadvantaged minorities scores too - perhaps because the peer culture of performance changes).
This sort of change is semi-organically happening in many cities - or at least in portions of many cities. First racially mixed areas become much whiter, resulting in a big drop in neighborhood school enrollment. Then a handful of "pioneer parents" (usually moms) make a pact to enroll their kids at the neighborhood school. A few years later there's big "improvements" in test score performance, and it becomes increasingly seen as the default for middle-class parents in the area.
I don't think of it so much an issue of race as of class. The better urban schools tend to be located in more affluent neighborhoods that have the taxbase to pay for better schools (same with the suburbs - better schools are located in the better neighborhoods). These schools may happen to be more proportionately white, but are where students (of all races) tend to come from better backgrounds and are more motivated to do well in school.
I didn't drive much when I was there, mostly walked or took transit. I originally left the suburbs to get away from the traffic and autocentric lifestyle, only to discover the traffic congestion and crush of vehicles is even worse in the downtown of a major city. Which I found to be not pleasant to experience on a daily basis, as a pedestrian or a driver. But might be even worse as a pedestrian, because you can't roll up your windows to shut out the noise. After a while I just got sick of it and moved out after just three years.
That sounds like you weren't living in that great of a city. It also sounds like they didn't put pedestrians first. I could be wrong, but that is what it sounds like.
Schools with a poor Asian population often don't do that badly, however.
Right. But there are poor blacks and poor hispanics who also do well in school, despite the obstacles. There are poor asians who do poorly in school, and rich whites who do poorly. Economic and social background are factors, but also depends on the individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
That sounds like you weren't living in that great of a city. It also sounds like they didn't put pedestrians first. I could be wrong, but that is what it sounds like.
It's no secret. I mentioned it was San Francisco several times.
I have to wonder if the new trend towards suburban small lot development is going to in part drive this choice. I see a lot of the suburban starter homes in the Seattle area (under $500K) being built on sub-4000 sq ft lots, which is basically the same size as the average Seattle city lot. The advantage of the 'burbs in this case is the homes are newer, but this totally negates the point about moving to the burbs for a bigger yard. In many cases these houses are packed in back to back with as little as 6 feet between them, and there's still nothing to walk to.
I have to wonder if the new trend towards suburban small lot development is going to in part drive this choice. I see a lot of the suburban starter homes in the Seattle area (under $500K) being built on sub-4000 sq ft lots, which is basically the same size as the average Seattle city lot. The advantage of the 'burbs in this case is the homes are newer, but this totally negates the point about moving to the burbs for a bigger yard. In many cases these houses are packed in back to back with as little as 6 feet between them, and there's still nothing to walk to.
The small lots are more likely the result of high land prices (generally, a house should spec out at 2 1/2 to 3 times the cost of the lot). Also, planning theory has changed and small lots in the close in suburbs are being encouraged.
It also means a higher profit for the developer-more houses on a smaller tract.
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.
