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.
High quality of life, nice neighbors, less drugs, nice homes, clean stores, nice parks, better road system, less crime, could be closer to work.. etc.
I live on the north side of Chicago in a very urban neighborhood and I feel like I have every single one of those, except maybe the less crime. That's only because of the sheer number of people though (30,000 per square mile). More people, more incidents. The number of crimes in my neighborhood is probably similar to a suburb though per person. I mean if someone is killed in Lincoln Park in Chicago (maybe once a year), it's very huge news.
I think people associate "urban" and "city life" with the bad neighborhoods. Yeah, Chicago has some messed up areas on the south and west sides, but I did a little research and the north side of the city has around 800,000 people, and had 9 homicides in 2005. That's a very low rate, no matter where you are....
The housing from the 1880's to 1940's in the cities seems to be of much better quality than the cookie cutter suburbs these days. Better materials, built to last hundreds of years. Cheap wood framing, quickly put together - lots of quick housing subdivisions from the 60's and 70's are starting to show their age. I live in a building from the 1800's, and it still looks amazing. You just need to fix up the interiors every 10-20 years, but the actual building is very very sound.
I'm aghast to see the honest knee-jerk and/or "Chicken Little" responses that are being provided by many suburbanites on here about the "big, bad, scary city." Give me a break! I happen to live on the outskirts of a city of 75,000 residents that has a very low violent crime rate, great public schools, sidewalks leading to amenities, tree-lined streets, independent businesses, decent lot sizes, off-street parking via rear alleyway access (in some neighborhoods), interesting topography, varied architectural styles and options ranging from Victorian to new construction, and affordable housing prices. The city's population continues to drop like a rock. Why? People are being led into the false sense of security that the 'burbs offer. Greedy land developers are rapidly deforesting our hillsides to make way for extravagant cookie-cutter McMansion communities, most of which are selling to refugees from the adjacent BosWash Corridor who think forking over $400,000 for a 4-bedroom, 2.5-bath home on a 1/3-acre lot on the edge of a cul-de-sac is a "bargain."
Take it from a youth who has grown up in the suburbs that they're not all they're cracked up to be in relation to urban areas. There are just as many drugs, property crimes, etc. here as well, only they are "swept under the rug" in vast real estate conspiracies to prevent housing values from tanking if potential new families get whiff of drug deals going down in the schools or burglaries occurring. In my area the city of Wilkes-Barre is one of the ONLY police departments in a county of 76 municipalities that fully discloses its police blotter to the local print media whereas some other communities are never mentioned, namely the suburbs, contrariwise to what I hear reported on my police scanner. Why?
This whole mindset on City-Data of "city=crime + bad schools" and "suburb = safe + excellent schools" needs to cease; all it is doing is perpetuating a nation that is becoming increasingly divided by race and social class. With the exception of a few major U.S. cities (Washington, DC comes to mind) most other suburban areas are predominantly college-educated Caucasian and upper-middle-class (especially the Philadelphia 'burbs in the Main Line and Bucks County, for example). Detroit probably best exemplifies this example of racial/socioeconomic divide of the city being primarily home to poor blacks while the suburbs are almost exclusively middle- to upper-middle-class whites. In my own area I can't name ONE diverse suburb or exurb.
That's inexcusable---in essence whites are simply fleeing the minorities in the cities, but that's not the "politically correct" or "polite" way of referencing White Flight or suburban sprawl, is it? This trend has reversed itself lately in the immediate downtowns of most major cities, where young white professionals and empty-nesters are flocking to lofts and condos, but by and large if you go to a random neighborhood in West Philadelphia you're going to find rowhome after rowhome of struggling African-American families while just heading a few miles away into the "Main Line" you'll find cul-de-sac after cul-de-sac lined with upper-middle-class white families with BMWs in their oversized front-facing garages. It's a bloody shame how Dr. King, Rosa Parks, and many others fought valiantly to stop segregation while we are now once again doing it to ourselves indirectly by where we choose to live.
Now, now, SWB, don't think the misunderstanding doesn't go both ways. Sure alot of suburbanites mistake all cities for being crime-infested hell-holes but some urbanites mistake all suburbs as sterile bedroom communities that require you to go "downtown" for any entertainment. While the latter might be true in suburban Scranton, please don't think that is true everywhere.
Your growing up in suburbia sounds alot worse than mine. It is true my old neighborhood was built in the 70's and is not in the far ring of suburbs. I will list the amenities I had within in biking distance before I was old enough to drive:
park and pond
basketball gym, soccer field, baseball field
convenience store
Super Kmart
public library
a water park
lots of friend's houses
All of this was less than a mile away in any direction from my "sterile" suburb. My sterile suburb was around 70% white, about the same as the U.S. as a whole.
Once I could drive movie theaters, a mall (130 stores+), too many restaurants and shopping centers to list, golfing, the beach, etc. And of course we could and did drive to downtown Charleston quite often.
Now, Scranton might be a nice town to live in but there are some cities where escaping to the suburbs is the best choice. I just don't understand the mindset of looking down on someone because of where they desire to live. If someones just out of college and wants to live the urban life, great! If you want a small rowhouse in the city to raise a family, great! If you want a big house (even the much-maligned McMansion) in a subdivision, go for it! Alot of people on this forum somehow think they're able to inject morality to the situation.
I think your last paragraph is missing the point. It's about the haves and the have-nots, not about the whites and the blacks (and Latins). Maybe in the 1960's way, way before either of us were born whites left neighborhoods because blacks came in but now all middle class and upper class people usually want to be around others with the same values. The reason it still seems segregated to you is because of simple economics. Lack of education and other things has made black Americans poorer than white Americans. So why would you expect an affluent white family to live in a "black" neighborhood that is lower class???? Many middle class blacks I know wouldn't either. But to believe that whites as a whole are racist is to be racist yourself for believing it
Back to the OP's original inquiry, I'd say undoubtably, the reason our nation has grown with most growth in suburban areas is that on an unprecedented level, people with families are sacrificing at the altar to the twin gods of safety and education. Whether it be perceived or real, that's what parents want today, and since this is still a nation of personal choice, this is what most want, over manicured and asthetic neighborhoods, or access to a, b, and c. This is especially desirous of suburban women who want the best for their children going forward. I think you really have to be a parent to understand this mindset.
By the way, I am not necessarily advocating this lifestyle, but merely trying to render an explanation.
I was referring, not to everyone who lives in that area, but to the 3% (or whatever number) that messes it up for everyone else--the drug addicts, the drug dealers, the gang-bangers, etc. It's really just a small percentage of people who cause the problems, but most people would still prefer not to live anywhere near them. Glad to hear that you found a good neighborhood to live in; hope it stays good for you and that Detroit makes a comeback.
I understand, I took some general frustrations out on you. I work with people in Detroit to build community pride and when suburbanites make blanket statements about Detroit being a ghetto or dump it makes residents who are already struggling feel more like giving up. I can't tell people what to think or say, but I do ask them to consider the effect of their words and to remember children whose only crime is living in the city use the internet and read. They want to feel proud of their community just like everyone else.
Just look at places like Sharpstown in Houston for a prime example of people moving out to their own little bubble that only lasts so long until what they're trying to escape from follows them out there, then they run further out leaving a decaying slum behind. And so when the next new shiny place comes, I'm gonna thoughtlessly sign my name to a 30-year mortgage for that, considering it's likely to be left for the dogs in 20 years? Like hell. Eventually they're going to have to build apartments somewhere nearby for us poor folks who work in establishments like Wal-Mart and gas stations so y'all can fill up your Expeditions and Hummers, and we're not all going to be white. If you've got a problem with that, save the headache and sell your house and move out to the prairie 100 miles outside of the city, immediately. Enjoy the six-hour roundtrip commute.
Back to the OP's original inquiry, I'd say undoubtably, the reason our nation has grown with most growth in suburban areas is that on an unprecedented level, people with families are sacrificing at the altar to the twin gods of safety and education. Whether it be perceived or real, that's what parents want today, and since this is still a nation of personal choice, this is what most want, over manicured and asthetic neighborhoods, or access to a, b, and c. This is especially desirous of suburban women who want the best for their children going forward. I think you really have to be a parent to understand this mindset.
By the way, I am not necessarily advocating this lifestyle, but merely trying to render an explanation.
Exactly, I see a ton of people bashing sprawl on this thread when that isn't the OP's intent. Right now, I am enjoying my 5 minute commute and wouldn't even think of moving out to a suburb where that commute would become 30-45 minutes (I know that is nothing compared to what large metro suburbanites deal with), but when my kids become school aged, I will have to make some sacrifices if I don't want to shell out the bucks to put them in private school.
I live on the north side of Chicago in a very urban neighborhood and I feel like I have every single one of those, except maybe the less crime. That's only because of the sheer number of people though (30,000 per square mile). More people, more incidents. The number of crimes in my neighborhood is probably similar to a suburb though per person. I mean if someone is killed in Lincoln Park in Chicago (maybe once a year), it's very huge news.
I think people associate "urban" and "city life" with the bad neighborhoods. Yeah, Chicago has some messed up areas on the south and west sides, but I did a little research and the north side of the city has around 800,000 people, and had 9 homicides in 2005. That's a very low rate, no matter where you are....
The housing from the 1880's to 1940's in the cities seems to be of much better quality than the cookie cutter suburbs these days. Better materials, built to last hundreds of years. Cheap wood framing, quickly put together - lots of quick housing subdivisions from the 60's and 70's are starting to show their age. I live in a building from the 1800's, and it still looks amazing. You just need to fix up the interiors every 10-20 years, but the actual building is very very sound.
This has been discussed on the forum many times in the past. I disagree. I grew up in an original "This OLd House". It was built in 1918. It had no insulation, and singe-pane windows. My dad had some insulation blown in after the "energy crisis" of the 80s, but it's just not the same. The first Christmas we were there, someone made a piece of toast when the Christrmas tree lights were on and the lights dimmed througout the house. My dad had an electrician come in, and it turned out the whole house had to be rewired to be brought up to code. This was in 1957. It probably needs to be rewired again, to accomodate all of today's electronics. That was just the beginning of many repairs and surprises. It did not have hardwood floors, but pine. One bedroom had no heat ducts. An electric heater had to be installed. The basement is damp and moldy. My DH lived in a house that was built in the 1920s. It had no bathroom originally, the kitchen was barely large enough to turn around in, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02
Exactly, I see a ton of people bashing sprawl on this thread when that isn't the OP's intent. Right now, I am enjoying my 5 minute commute and wouldn't even think of moving out to a suburb where that commute would become 30-45 minutes (I know that is nothing compared to what large metro suburbanites deal with), but when my kids become school aged, I will have to make some sacrifices if I don't want to shell out the bucks to put them in private school.
O contraire, here is the OP's post:
If this topic has been discussed before, I apologize for bringing it up again.
Quote:
As a city dweller who can't stand suburbs and sprawl, I just don't get it. In this forum it seems most people like cities. Yet throughout the country it's the sprawling suburbs that are growing the fastest. It's the sprawling metro areas that are growing the fastest (Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix, DFW, Charlotte, Raleigh, Nashville, Las Vegas, NoVA, etc).
What is it about sprawling suburbs that is so appealing to apparently the majority of the population?
I checked the commute times in Denver on the City Data page. Most people are commuting between 15 and 30 minutes, a fair spread. I know people who commute from Denver to the suburbs. I commute 12 minutes, 4 1/2 miles, living in a suburb. DH commutes 6 miles, about 15 minutes. What's the difference?
RE: racism, some of the larger cities are very segregated. The 'burbs aren't the only place that happens.
I understand, I took some general frustrations out on you. I work with people in Detroit to build community pride and when suburbanites make blanket statements about Detroit being a ghetto or dump it makes residents who are already struggling feel more like giving up. I can't tell people what to think or say, but I do ask them to consider the effect of their words and to remember children whose only crime is living in the city use the internet and read. They want to feel proud of their community just like everyone else.
You and I sound quite similar. I've grown up in the suburbs, but I eat, live, sleep, and drink everything about the city of Scranton to the point where I've become its strongest cheerleader on this forum without even having residency there. I see a dwindling number of like-minded young people with strong civic pride who want to see the Electric City reborn, and when I realize that for every one of them there are three others with the "this city sucks; don't move here" mentality I myself become discouraged about moving into the city to raise my family. This is why I find the suburbs to be so abhorrent; I'm merely jealous that the suburbs are growing so quickly that they can't keep pace with new schools, wider freeways, etc. while the city proper has block after block of formerly-vibrant neighborhoods that now house tumbleweed. It just seems like such a WASTE for what could still be a wonderful place to call home.
Last semester one of my professors, a recent transplant to the area, bashed Wilkes-Barre, which is Scranton's sister city, into the ground before finishing with "none of you actually like this old coal town, do you?" I was the only one to raise my hand, and I was met with laughter from my peers. THAT was the last straw and helped fuel my ire for the suburbs for how they're profiting off of the declining cities. Scranton used to have 145,000 residents, and Wilkes-Barre used to have 90,000 residents. They now have 72,500 and 40,000, respectively, or less than half of their heyday populations. Meanwhile sprawl has become a HUGE concern in my area as you can't go five feet without bumping into a sign advertising a new housing development or a new "lifestyle center." I abide by the old adage of "waste not; want not." I see no point in deforesting our pristine hillsides for mass-produced newer homes when block after block of cozy older homes are just wasting away mere miles away in the city.
In the case of places like Denver, San Diego, Atlanta, etc. I'm less adverse towards the suburbs because even as they are all rapidly growing, their respective city cores are also thriving by leaps and bounds---meaning that those who wish to live in the sprawl can do so (mostly) guilt-free because they aren't causing their host city to decline. Here in Scranton I tell the suburbanites all the time that they SHOULD feel ashamed of themselves for jumping ship as the city collapses in on itself, leaving a progressively higher property tax burden remaining for those left in the city to shoulder in order to balance the budget as they head back into the city daily for work, college, shopping, dining, nightlife, etc. while their former neighbors finance the services they use on a day-to-day basis. I resent the fact that in most major U.S. metropolitan areas one could viably live in either a stable suburban area or the heart of a vibrant, walkable neighborhood in the city, yet in my own area the latter is largely unavailable as a consequence of the overpromotion of the first.
I'm hopeful that the influx of NYC/NJ transplants that is just beginning to materialize here will bring in those with a keen eye for urban renewal, but even then I'm a skeptic because 99.9% of the PA natives are making the NYC/NJ transplants feel unwelcomed.
I'm getting the feeling that suburbs are very very different in each part of the country. I have learned a lot from this thread and this is what I have come up with:
California suburbs: Well, most of the state is sprawling, more in So Cal, but there is a big difference between areas that are the city and the suburbs. In California people move to suburbs only for the quality of life because suburbs often are just as expensive, if not more so than their big city (Los Angeles or San Francisco) neighbors. Cities grew around cars so suburbs aren't any different transportation wise than the big cities (other than SF). People have stereotypes here about crime in the city. Suburbs here always boast about being "master planned."
Rest of the Southwest: The cities all are very flat and sprawling, but it is because of their young age and growth during the auto age that they grew like this. The suburb areas usually look like a perfected, cleaner, and more planned version of the city they are outside of (like Scottsdale vs. Phoenix). The suburbs usually are more upscale and expensive than the city.
Texas: Suburbs are very affordable and many people choose to live their for their value. McMansions are typical and the suburban style can often be found still in the city limits of the big city of the area (think Houston). Suburbs come with lots and lots of land too.
South: Very similar to Texas with McMansions that are more affordable and a dependence on the automobile for transportation. Suburbs are the majority of the growth since the cities have so much space.
Northeast/ Midwest: The most animosity towards suburbs. The cities here are the most established and oldest and some of the most significant in the USA. Cities are usually very dense with non-dense suburbs surrounding them. Cities can often have a small population (like St. Louis), but a lot of population in its metro area that is mainly suburbs. Northeast suburbs are not "master planned" like those in the west and you usually get more land and less cost for living in a suburb. Suburbs are sucking dry the middle class from the cities with some economic problems and thus are hurting the heart of their metro area.
With the metros that are struggling, like SWB's beloved Scranton, it is like an amoeba. The amoeba is growing at its fringes as it consumes more and more and the amoeba thinks this is good for it and the right way to go. Meanwhile the amoeba is unaware that is dying at its center and eventually the whole amoeba pops and dies.
The most noticeable thing is people in sunbelt regions don't mind suburbs because the cities have grown so fast that suburbs have always been there too growing right along with it. In the older cities, the suburbs are something new that is foreign to the urban lifestyle that most people were raised with. These are cities that were not born as sprawl.
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.
Give me a break! I happen to live on the outskirts of a city of 75,000 residents that has a very low violent crime rate, great public schools, sidewalks leading to amenities, tree-lined streets, independent businesses, decent lot sizes, off-street parking via rear alleyway access (in some neighborhoods), interesting topography, varied architectural styles and options ranging from Victorian to new construction, and affordable housing prices. The city's population continues to drop like a rock. Why? People are being led into the false sense of security that the 'burbs offer. Greedy land developers are rapidly deforesting our hillsides to make way for extravagant cookie-cutter McMansion communities, most of which are selling to refugees from the adjacent BosWash Corridor who think forking over $400,000 for a 4-bedroom, 2.5-bath home on a 1/3-acre lot on the edge of a cul-de-sac is a "bargain." 
