U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-22-2015, 02:01 PM
 
Location: SWE
887 posts, read 1,254,419 times
Reputation: 796

Advertisements

Nice, location is excellent, and even has an elevator unlike some others in the area. Sorry to burst your bubble though, can't help but notice the windows, piping, electric is from a time before ABBA became popular, roofing also nearing the end of it's useful life. Some hefty renovation bills on the way, and the place might not be occupiable for a couple to several months during them. Wouldn't really call that one a steal, honestly. Happened to my folks with one in the same neighborhood, which is next probably going to have an elevator installation project. Lovely.

Myself might rather go for a newish, decent quality 4 br 326m2 for roughly 1/3 the price all expenses considered. In an excellently functioning, almost uniformly middle - upper middle class small suburban town, this one on top of a mountain about a mile from the town center.

https://goo.gl/maps/sIJ9b
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-22-2015, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
18,536 posts, read 22,835,930 times
Reputation: 7302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
I'm sorry, but this trend reversed already in the 90's. The majority of people, though not all, want a green urban lifestyle close to culture and city life even when they get children. What pushes people into the suburbs are mostly as you said the size of the apartment (and price), not that they want a detached house and the amazing chore of mowing your lawn.
I think your perception might be rooted in your specific demographic sampling (that is, people without kids).

Yes, there is a "return to the city" happening all over the western world, including here in North America. The inner city as a place to live is no longer out of fashion, or passé like it was for much of the 70s, 80s and 90s. And yes, many families have returned to the inner cities to join those that never left.

But I still think the vast majority of families, even in Europe, prefer to live with a bit more space (inside and outside) if they can afford it, if it's practical, etc.

The effect of the return to the city and the rejuvenation of inner urban areas has the effect of making our metropolitan areas more balanced between higher and lower density areas, but this does not mean that the suburban low-density areas are emptying out. They generally continue to grow, even if government authorities in most areas are trying to restrict their development as much as they can.

But even that doesn't always work and in many areas the population of "rurban" (formerly rural but now populated mostly by city folk but in a rural setting) areas near cities is exploding as well.

What I mean by having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too is that these days many suburban dwellers also want urban-type stuff nearby, and are less likely to be satisfied with having a huge house surrounded by half an acre but in the middle of nowhere.

And in the same way, city dwellers (especially those with kids) aren't satisfied with the city being a kid-hostile concrete jungle, and demand stuff like parks with play structures, etc.

As I said, metro areas are becoming more balanced in this way. Slowly, the city is becoming more like the suburbs and the suburbs are becoming more like the city IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,053 posts, read 6,486,413 times
Reputation: 6032
Short answer: The automobile. The automobile has been around for over 100 years now and many of the cities West of the Mississippi River were not even in existence 100 years ago or they were small towns. Unlike Europe land was plentiful and cheap and roads were/are a lot cheaper to build here than they are in Europe. Plus gasoline/diesel prices are and have been cheaper here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 03:33 PM
 
61 posts, read 64,862 times
Reputation: 81
"at is part of life, those people can afford the Escalade and the gas so they have every right to drive 50 miles a day if they please. but i am asking these pro urban posters who are not living in 3rd world nations cooking food over an ox dung fire why they are so bothered by it."

Fine I'll bite. For the record, I don't want to end all sprawl nor do I care if you live in sprawl, but I think there are enough people in the US that desire a different path for themselves. Unfortunately there are few metros that offer this, especially in small cities, towns, & suburbs. I would like to see more walkable communities built in the US with better public transportation, again I am not alone in believing that walkable communities are superior to sprawl.

As it stands I estimate 95% of the US is basically sprawl outside a few sections of major cities/metros in North America (Chicago, Toronto, New York City, etc..). I would like to see not only more walkable cities and communities developed all over N. America, but I would like the few walkable cities we have in N. America like Chicago, Toronto, & New York City etc.. to be improved upon. I don't believe W. Europe has a monopoly on walkable communities/cities, but they do have many wonderful examples that could serve as rough models to North America for building better communities/cities/towns/suburbs in the future.

To me Sprawl is
1. ugly
2. isolating, fewer in person exchanges and exposure to different ideas & perspectives
3. boring
4. wasteful & polluting
5. car life which is not conducive to a healthy life
6. conformity breeding
8. 100% reliant on automobile which negatively impacts every other aspect of metro development such as dead ugly "downtown", neglected public transportation, public spaces, making walking/biking anywhere unpleasant and nearly impossible
9. not sustainable
10. responsible for weak community ties

In defense of sprawl, I acknowledge it is
1. cheap (biggest factor)
2. private
3. a lifestyle preference for most North Americans --- I don't want to take that away, but I want more options out there for those of us who don't live that way.

As for "3rd world nations", I can say that there are many small towns and cities in so called 3rd world countries that I consider to be superior to most North American cities. I would prefer to live in numerous "3rd world" cities than over 95% of the places in N. America. This whole "ox dung" level of poverty is a joke clearly, but I do want to point out there are large prospering middle classes in South America and South East Asia for example that arguably enjoy a higher standard of living to those in the North American middle class.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 04:19 PM
 
61 posts, read 64,862 times
Reputation: 81
"And in the same way, city dwellers (especially those with kids) aren't satisfied with the city being a kid-hostile concrete jungle, and demand stuff like parks with play structures, etc. "

Yes, as well as good schools.

@acajack "What I mean by having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too is that these days many suburban dwellers also want urban-type stuff nearby, and are less likely to be satisfied with having a huge house surrounded by half an acre but in the middle of nowhere."

It will be interesting to see what the current generation of 20-30 somethings choose to settle when it is time to have a family.

I think a better suburban model would be more commuter rails to center cities, build up large town centers around rail road station, offer denser housing in close proximity and further out larger lots for those that desire the big suburban house. This is somewhat what you see in suburban pre ww2 trolley car commuter towns built around Chicago and New York City. But you can also see a commuter train station in the far out burbs surrounded by parking lots so suburbanites can drive 10 miles to the train and then ride the train 50 minutes into downtown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 06:01 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,615 posts, read 15,620,151 times
Reputation: 8738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorge Bueno View Post
"at is part of life, those people can afford the Escalade and the gas so they have every right to drive 50 miles a day if they please. but i am asking these pro urban posters who are not living in 3rd world nations cooking food over an ox dung fire why they are so bothered by it."

Fine I'll bite. For the record, I don't want to end all sprawl nor do I care if you live in sprawl, but I think there are enough people in the US that desire a different path for themselves. Unfortunately there are few metros that offer this, especially in small cities, towns, & suburbs. I would like to see more walkable communities built in the US with better public transportation, again I am not alone in believing that walkable communities are superior to sprawl.
Nice, i'm cool with that

I'm all for improving the urbanity of our cities, small towns and inner suburbs (places that are the most urban/dense in our country).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 07:43 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
4,824 posts, read 6,148,614 times
Reputation: 7510
we dont emulate them cuz we are not them. Simple as that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 08:15 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
803 posts, read 669,804 times
Reputation: 485
I don't agree that sprawl is cheap. What countries nowadays can afford sprawl?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 09:18 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
1,392 posts, read 1,088,754 times
Reputation: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by P London View Post
Living in massive houses in sprawling Suburbs isn't sustainable it may be your preference but it isn't good for the environment.

That's just a fact.
Neither is everyone living in mega cities considering the vast amount of resources that have to be diverted from outside areas to support the populations of these cities. That's not exactly great for the environment or sustainable in the long run either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OptimusPrime69 View Post
we dont emulate them cuz we are not them. Simple as that.
I would also add North America developed differently then Europe as well which is something that gets ignored a lot when discussing these topics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kent_moore View Post
I don't agree that sprawl is cheap. What countries nowadays can afford sprawl?
Australia, United States, Canada and basically any wealthy nation that has abundant land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2015, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
1,392 posts, read 1,088,754 times
Reputation: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorge Bueno View Post
"And in the same way, city dwellers (especially those with kids) aren't satisfied with the city being a kid-hostile concrete jungle, and demand stuff like parks with play structures, etc. "

Yes, as well as good schools.

@acajack "What I mean by having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too is that these days many suburban dwellers also want urban-type stuff nearby, and are less likely to be satisfied with having a huge house surrounded by half an acre but in the middle of nowhere."

It will be interesting to see what the current generation of 20-30 somethings choose to settle when it is time to have a family.

I think a better suburban model would be more commuter rails to center cities, build up large town centers around rail road station, offer denser housing in close proximity and further out larger lots for those that desire the big suburban house. This is somewhat what you see in suburban pre ww2 trolley car commuter towns built around Chicago and New York City. But you can also see a commuter train station in the far out burbs surrounded by parking lots so suburbanites can drive 10 miles to the train and then ride the train 50 minutes into downtown.
The problem with this like I mentioned earlier in this thread is the US isn't set up for passenger rail service across the nation. The US went to freight rail where as Europe went to passenger rail both have there pros and cons about them. However to build up a massive passenger rail network like they have in Europe in the United States is going to run into the trillions if you want the whole high speed rail connecting every major American city with vast regional rail networks as well. From what I've gathered Europe is running into the opposite problem trying to figure out ways to move more freight by rail and is debating about spending trillions to do so. I think it was Germany that debated spending trillions to build an underground freight rail system...not quite sure if it was Germany or another country that had that idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top