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.
I think the thing about urbanism vs suburbanism is that there is probably a low key correlation between educational attainment, income, politics, lateness of having children, and the desire to move to a city. There's also an almost 100% correlation between working in the media and living in a big city. So you end up with a massive cultural dissonance that is amplified by a media that is predominantly made up of educated city dwellers whose friends are other educated, wealthy, city dwellers. This creates a high degree of prestige toward the idea of urban living. But I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with just wanting a nice house in a safe spot and, as usroute says above, it is probably all the majority of people really want (even young, educated, liberal people who aren't walking stereotypes).
Exactly. I'd rather deal with the snootiness than having my neighbors blowing off fireworks at 1:00am while my kids are trying to sleep, having my garage broken into several times, having my tatoo'ed single mother neighbor screaming swear words at her toddlers on a daily basis for not listening to her, and looking at check cashing places, pharmacies and medical marijuana places on every corner. All things I experienced living downriver that I have not in Northville. It's a class thing. Lower class people tend to be, well, lower class. I don't want my family to experience low class culture. And I don't see the need for my kids to go to school in a "socioeconomically diverse" school district. With "socioeconomic diversity" comes low class culture. They can learn those things on their own when they become adults. I don't want them learning them during their impressionable years. On the other hand, if I were single with no family, by all means, I'd probably choose an affordable place like downriver.
Most people, by a lot, would rather be in the suburbs. The anti-suburb mentality is usually trumpeted by millennials who grew up in "boring" suburbs who now want the perceived excitement and trendiness of the city. Until they start a family. Then they realize they want the "boring" suburb again.
Hell, no.
I'm an older GenXer. Mom of 3, whose eldest child will enter her junior year of a pre-dental college program in the fall. Former SAHM (in suburban Detroit) who meticulously shopped for nutritious, whole foods, cooked dinner every night, volunteered in my kids' schools, and had a pretty darn clean home. I rarely drink, and I don't smoke nicotine or weed. I'm not a partier, never have been. Don't have any tats (though I'm thinking about getting one). Master's degree, formerly married to a man (almost 23 years) with 3 master's degrees. I don't watch TV. One of my favorite things to do, besides physical activities outdoors, is reading. Grew up middle class with teetotaling parents. White, Anglo Saxon Protestant...
...and I think most suburbs of large cities are soulless, oppressive places.
In fact, if I could do it all over again, my kids would NOT have spent a good part of their childhoods growing up in them. The affluent suburbs we lived and worked in had some of the most hyper-competitive, materialistic, badly mannered (yet, strangely, very conformist) individuals I've ever come across. I work in education and found that many people, for all their preoccupation with the outer trappings of "academic excellence," considered education little more than a means to an end. They were concerned, ultimately, with their kids' ability to outperform other kids. No matter how.
What constitutes "high class" and "low class" is subjective.
The people who share an anti-suburb mentality are greatly outnumbered by the people who share your suburban mentality, the proof is in the % of people who live in the suburbs vs the % of people the city. The city-data forum is slanted toward urban moreso than the overall US population.
So there is a minority of people who don't share your view - why is that "quite sad"?
What I think is quite sad is the emptying out of the city and the inner ring suburbs, and the gobbling up of nature, pastures, forests, orchards, and farms in places like South Lyon in a metro area that hasn't gained any population since the '60's yet continues to sprawl out of control leaving perfectly fine older suburbs to shrivel up and die.
The people who share an anti-suburb mentality are greatly outnumbered by the people who share your suburban mentality, the proof is in the % of people who live in the suburbs vs the % of people the city. The city-data forum is slanted toward urban moreso than the overall US population.
So there is a minority of people who don't share your view - why is that "quite sad"?
What I think is quite sad is the emptying out of the city and the inner ring suburbs, and the gobbling up of nature, pastures, forests, orchards, and farms in places like South Lyon in a metro area that hasn't gained any population since the '60's yet continues to sprawl out of control leaving perfectly fine older suburbs to shrivel up and die.
That's the way it works! Immigrants generally take over the vacated cities and burbs.
Why people want to live where the air is clean, crime is low (no public transport!), houses are new and have desired amenities...gee...not hard to figure out. We live in a free country and people can live where they want to. Remember, the city and suburbs you speak of were once "nature, pastures, forests, orchards and farms."
That's the way it works! Immigrants generally take over the vacated cities and burbs.
Why people want to live where the air is clean, crime is low (no public transport!), houses are new and have desired amenities...gee...not hard to figure out. We live in a free country and people can live where they want to. Remember, the city and suburbs you speak of were once "nature, pastures, forests, orchards and farms."
I'm confused by this post. Are you suggesting that public transit creates crime, or that criminals don't have cars? If so, those are some very odd opinions which you hold. I'd be interested in seeing you back that up with data. Also, it seemed you were suggesting immigrants are undesirable, so I'm curious - what's wrong with immigrants? Would you prefer the vacated cities were taken over by zombie hoards? Were your relatives not once immigrants? Mine were; straight out of Scotland! People hated them... those lazy Scots... takin' our jobs...
The air being clean is a pretty relative statement. The EPA keeps a pretty good dataset of air quality, and currently the air is green throughout the state. Yesterday it was cleaner in Flint than in Ann Arbor and cleaner in Detroit than Traverse City. If you mean highly-localized air quality issues, then yeah - Del Ray and River Rouge are going to have poor air - don't move there, but New Center and Lincoln Park are going to have about the same air quality as Rochester Hills and Woodhaven. This idea that country air is better is purely based on a 1950's Pre-EPA world where we didn't address urban pollution. Today this kind of intense urban pollution only exists in cities bounded by mountains like Los Angeles or Salt Lake City, and even then it still applies to their suburbs (As a former Salt Laker, trust me, air is awful there).
As for new houses, keep in mind that not everyone wants a new house when a remodel is a perfectly acceptable way of achieving similar results with far less materials. The consumerist greed of "!!NEW EVERYTHING CONSUME ALL THE THINGS!!" isn't as prevalent as it was just 20 years ago. It's still there, and if you want a new house, that's cool - I won't stop you, but many of us quite like old homes. There's a sort of human affinity for "old things" which I don't fully understand, but is unquestionably present. Plus, there are advantages to neighborhoods with the more communally minded urban planning objectives of the Late-19th/Early-20th Century. I vastly prefer this over the sprawl and individual space minded urban planning objectives of the Mid-Late 20th Century. In a metro like Detroit which has seen so much sprawl, it too confuses me as to why there isn't a stronger movement to revitalize existing areas, rather than a continued march to undeveloped areas.
Because we have 60 years of "LIVE ON A LAKE 75 MILES FROM ANYONE BAD*" culture in this metro and even our younger population has internalized it to a massive extent as the ideal situation
I'm confused by this post. Are you suggesting that public transit creates crime, or that criminals don't have cars? If so, those are some very odd opinions which you hold.
I'd be interested in seeing you back that up with data.
Odd? No, quite common, actually. It's the reason many of us object to public transit in rural areas. The results of research on this topic varies by location. Some yes, some no. So in short, yes, it can raise crime rates. Do a quick Google search and you'll see the studies.
Also, it seemed you were suggesting immigrants are undesirable, so I'm curious - what's wrong with immigrants? Would you prefer the vacated cities were taken over by zombie hoards? Were your relatives not once immigrants? Mine were; straight out of Scotland! People hated them... those lazy Scots... takin' our jobs...
No, you can set your eyes back. You read into that. I said nor implied no such thing. If you keep up on those writing about the revitalization of Detroit, just about every writer says that immigrants will be the ones to revitalize the city. People that come from other countries will deal with the cities ills to live here. I'm seeing quite a bit of immigrants now setting in the western suburbs as well.
Yes, my family immigrated here. One side in the 1770s, the other just 2 generations ago, if you must know.
The air being clean is a pretty relative statement. The EPA keeps a pretty good dataset of air quality, and currently the air is green throughout the state. Yesterday it was cleaner in Flint than in Ann Arbor and cleaner in Detroit than Traverse City. If you mean highly-localized air quality issues, then yeah - Del Ray and River Rouge are going to have poor air - don't move there, but New Center and Lincoln Park are going to have about the same air quality as Rochester Hills and Woodhaven. This idea that country air is better is purely based on a 1950's Pre-EPA world where we didn't address urban pollution. Today this kind of intense urban pollution only exists in cities bounded by mountains like Los Angeles or Salt Lake City, and even then it still applies to their suburbs (As a former Salt Laker, trust me, air is awful there).
Yeah, I think you just made my point. Yes, the air is cleaner at my home (rural) than workplace (urban).
As for new houses, keep in mind that not everyone wants a new house when a remodel is a perfectly acceptable way of achieving similar results with far less materials. The consumerist greed of "!!NEW EVERYTHING CONSUME ALL THE THINGS!!" isn't as prevalent as it was just 20 years ago. It's still there, and if you want a new house, that's cool - I won't stop you, but many of us quite like old homes. There's a sort of human affinity for "old things" which I don't fully understand, but is unquestionably present. Plus, there are advantages to neighborhoods with the more communally minded urban planning objectives of the Late-19th/Early-20th Century. I vastly prefer this over the sprawl and individual space minded urban planning objectives of the Mid-Late 20th Century. In a metro like Detroit which has seen so much sprawl, it too confuses me as to why there isn't a stronger movement to revitalize existing areas, rather than a continued march to undeveloped areas.
Good for you! You'll have plenty of homes to choose from. As much as you resent "sprawl," I resent other people telling me where and how I should live. Why should we all live in a city? What's the point? I don't want to deal with the traffic, crime, pollution, and noise all the time. I don't want to have to go to a public park to enjoy grass and water. I want space. Community is made in more ways than one. ;-)
Because we have 60 years of "LIVE ON A LAKE 75 MILES FROM ANYONE BAD*" culture in this metro and even our younger population has internalized it to a massive extent as the ideal situation
Isn't it the ideal situation? Living on a lake far from crime sounds like an enjoyable and smart thing to do. If you like living with crime, you can. No one is stopping you.
Isn't it the ideal situation? Living on a lake far from crime sounds like an enjoyable and smart thing to do. If you like living with crime, you can. No one is stopping you.
Haha! You win the post of the day award. . Lake living with no crime sounds horrible, doesn't it?
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.
If so, those are some very odd opinions which you hold. I'd be interested in seeing you back that up with data. Also, it seemed you were suggesting immigrants are undesirable, so I'm curious - what's wrong with immigrants? Would you prefer the vacated cities were taken over by zombie hoards? Were your relatives not once immigrants? Mine were; straight out of Scotland! People hated them... those lazy Scots... takin' our jobs... 
. Lake living with no crime sounds horrible, doesn't it?
