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.
It is really a matter of preference but was wondering how many had a certain preferred suburban style.
The Piedmont region including Georgia and the Carolinas have low density suburbs with tree cover and mostly governed on the county level for services and improvements.
The Southwest including Texas and Arizona have more of a high density suburban development and for the most part seems more City like in operation with most of these services and infrastructure improvements and schools at the city level instead of at a county level.
Eh, I mean it's all relative... the population density of Southwest-style suburbs may be higher on paper, but the residential, commercial, and entertainment areas are so segregated (and the latter two are usually strip-mall-based) that they're still hard to get around without a car and don't resemble an urban experience much.
We have both kinds of suburbia around Seattle, but generally more of the Piedmont kind (roads through the woods or farmland with houses dotted along, small developments built randomly along those roads instead of all clustered together). If I had to pick one I'd take the Southwest style, since you at least feel like you're part of a large metro area instead of just having a quiet, isolated existence. And they're more likely to have sidewalks.
But I strongly prefer denser, more walkable, more inner-ring suburbs with vibrant downtowns over both of these kinds.
Eh, I mean it's all relative... the population density of Southwest-style suburbs may be higher on paper, but the residential, commercial, and entertainment areas are so segregated (and the latter two are usually strip-mall-based) that they're still hard to get around without a car and don't resemble an urban experience much.
We have both kinds of suburbia around Seattle, but generally more of the Piedmont kind (roads through the woods or farmland with houses dotted along, small developments built randomly along those roads instead of all clustered together). If I had to pick one I'd take the Southwest style, since you at least feel like you're part of a large metro area instead of just having a quiet, isolated existence. And they're more likely to have sidewalks.
But I strongly prefer denser, more walkable, more inner-ring suburbs with vibrant downtowns over both of these kinds.
Yeah last weekend I went to some family that live in Tyrone Georgia and I couldn't believe how sparsely populated and spread out the area was to be considered part of the Atlanta metro area. Unless you was able to work remotely I don't see how that would work for most people but some people may just prefer driving a little further or take the sacrifice being in a semi rural area..
Why is that odd? The suburbs of Georgia are beautiful and yards are spacious, but they are extremely inconvenient. The suburbs of the Southwest have 5' building side yard setbacks typically which defeats the whole purpose. Texas suburbs are in the middle of those two extremes.
TX has some of the least appealing suburbs to me. Single Family tract cookie cutter homes. Lots of stucco.
Piedmont all the way.
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.
