Would you rather live in a city, suburb, or exurb? (real estate, low crime)

[moshywilly]

Originally Posted by sean1the1

What makes things so crowded in California is how mountanous things are here. On paper there's a lot of land, but in reality its all bisected by mountains going any kind of way. it's not like the east coast where development can go unlimited, and makes it feel like things aren't so crowded.

I agree. Out of all western states, California is the most mountainous, PLUS has the most desirable weather and beaches, so that's why the state is crowded. Mountains are obstacles, and so many people are demanding to live here with California's great characteristics.

Other states out west have slightly less mountains than California. For example, I visited Seattle and I didn't really see any mountains that obstructed the Seattle civilization. Some buildings were built on hills. Also, The Seattle metro area probably isn't as popular. A lot of people are turned off by Seattle's weather.

[Serious Conversation]

I've never lived inside a major city. I've lived in the suburbs of two major Midwestern metros, and the Boston suburbs. I'm from and currently live in a small metropolitan area not commutable to any other job center.

I would choose a suburb or a Midwestern or Southern mid-sized metro area every time. Places like Brentwood, TN, Cary, NC, Carmel, IN. The Boston suburbs were too congested for me. Small towns and rural areas have plenty of other problems.

In many cases, employers are moving offices into the suburbs as well. They aren't just tree-lined streets where everyone piles into the major city every morning. Depending on the suburb, you're going to have enough nightlife for most folks - breweries with concerts, karaoke bars, sometimes performing arts, etc.

I spent three years in Carmel. Within a five minute drive of my apartment, I had the following grocery options. I work in a town of a little more than 50,000, but it's a poor area and has one dumpy Kroger, a super Walmart, and a regional grocery store chain. That's it.

1) Kroger
2) Marsh (regional grocer)
3) Super Walmart
4) Super Target
5) Meijer
6) Whole Foods
7) Earthfare
8) The Fresh Market

I could walk on a city maintained greenbelt to a McCallister's Deli, Smash Burger, and Buffalo Wild Wings. I was within a half mile or so of this mall and all its options.

https://clayterrace.com/dining

Downtown Carmel was a bit further but could easily be biked to.

Most of Indianapolis doesn't have all that at your fingertips. The roads are worse. Crime in the city proper is through the roof. The suburbs are getting a wide assortment of jobs. There are some select neighborhoods I'd live in the city proper, but not that many.

I'd imagine the same is true in the suburbs of Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, etc.

[moshywilly]

Originally Posted by Serious Conversation

I've never lived inside a major city. I've lived in the suburbs of two major Midwestern metros, and the Boston suburbs. I'm from and currently live in a small metropolitan area not commutable to any other job center.

I would choose a suburb or a Midwestern or Southern mid-sized metro area every time. Places like Brentwood, TN, Cary, NC, Carmel, IN. The Boston suburbs were too congested for me. Small towns and rural areas have plenty of other problems.

In many cases, employers are moving offices into the suburbs as well. They aren't just tree-lined streets where everyone piles into the major city every morning. Depending on the suburb, you're going to have enough nightlife for most folks - breweries with concerts, karaoke bars, sometimes performing arts, etc.

I spent three years in Carmel. Within a five minute drive of my apartment, I had the following grocery options. I work in a town of a little more than 50,000, but it's a poor area and has one dumpy Kroger, a super Walmart, and a regional grocery store chain. That's it.

1) Kroger
2) Marsh (regional grocer)
3) Super Walmart
4) Super Target
5) Meijer
6) Whole Foods
7) Earthfare
8) The Fresh Market

I could walk on a city maintained greenbelt to a McCallister's Deli, Smash Burger, and Buffalo Wild Wings. I was within a half mile or so of this mall and all its options.

https://clayterrace.com/dining

Downtown Carmel was a bit further but could easily be biked to.

Most of Indianapolis doesn't have all that at your fingertips. The roads are worse. Crime in the city proper is through the roof. The suburbs are getting a wide assortment of jobs. There are some select neighborhoods I'd live in the city proper, but not that many.

I'd imagine the same is true in the suburbs of Nashville, Charlotte, Raleigh, etc.

Your response made me hungry haha. Like you mentioned, another good reason to be close to a suburb is to have access to entertainment and maybe some nightlife. I am not a huge nightlife fan, but entertainment would be great to have access to.

[Gaylord_Focker]

Originally Posted by ragnarkar

I prefer a fairly walkable suburb not too far from the central city. Examples:

Berkeley, CA
Pasadena, CA
Cambridge, MA
Fairfax, VA

Now that I have kids, generally my preference. Of course, even if single, living in the central city is bad for my liver.

[T. Damon]

I’ve lived in all areas from the mountains of the West, farms of the Midwest to small college towns, suburbs and huge cities and I much prefer the city to live in.

Specifically an area such as I live in now, first ring suburb with its own vibrant commercial district, beautiful historic architecture with our own compact gardens, nearby parks with wild canyons and easy walking distance to downtown and the bay with all the ammenities of a big city with few of the negatives. The best of all worlds.

[moshywilly]

Originally Posted by T. Damon

I’ve lived in all areas from the mountains of the West, farms of the Midwest to small college towns, suburbs and huge cities and I much prefer the city to live in.

Specifically an area such as I live in now, first ring suburb with its own vibrant commercial district, beautiful historic architecture with our own compact gardens, nearby parks with wild canyons and easy walking distance to downtown and the bay with all the ammenities of a big city with few of the negatives. The best of all worlds.

Sounds like you have a combination of everything around you. You have the city with a lot of city things, but you have decent nature/outdoor activities to access outside of it.

[ABQConvict]

City or exurban. Now that I am older, I am leaning more strongly towards exurban.

Too many compromises in suburbia for my taste. It is too far from what attracts me to the city, and one still has neighbors living a distance measured in feet away. And leaf blowers.

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by ABQConvict

City or exurban. Now that I am older, I am leaning more strongly towards exurban.

Too many compromises in suburbia for my taste. It is too far from what attracts me to the city, and one still has neighbors living a distance measured in feet away. And leaf blowers.

Wouldn't that just be straight up rural or country? I think of exurbs as being basically the same as stereotypical suburbia, but further out and newer. Maybe each individual subdivision is still surrounded by farmland, but the homes within are still on cul de sacs and are spaced relatively closely together. And there's still a few strip malls within a few miles, unlike in rural areas.

[TheProtege]

For the longest time I looked at suburbs on the very outskirts of a metro area as the place to be. Only 15-20 to stores and 45-60 minutes to the main city, but still far enough out that I could afford 1+ acres.
I've started to desire still living in the suburbs, but staying in a larger suburb next to the main or largest city. possibly walking distance to a couple of stores and only a 15-30 minute drive to work. I might have to deal with being next to neighbors and having a small house, but it's worth it to have that extra hour or so every day that I would normally spend in the car.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by potanta

I agree. Out of all western states, California is the most mountainous, PLUS has the most desirable weather and beaches, so that's why the state is crowded. Mountains are obstacles, and so many people are demanding to live here with California's great characteristics.

Other states out west have slightly less mountains than California. For example, I visited Seattle and I didn't really see any mountains that obstructed the Seattle civilization. Some buildings were built on hills. Also, The Seattle metro area probably isn't as popular. A lot of people are turned off by Seattle's weather.

Idaho and Nevada have a larger part of their state covered in mountains than California, even if California has alot of mountains.

The bigger limits are water, and even then, farming uses more water than burbs.

True, the major cities run up against geographical barriers, like the mountains and ocean.

Seattle is hemmed in by water mainly and secondarily by National Parks and Forests. Exurban Seattle still has alot of room to grow, but it does have those limitations.