Would you rather live in a city, suburb, or exurb? (cul-de-sac, crime rates)

[moshywilly]

I am 19 and in college. But, when I leave college, I would love to love in a neighborhood that is suburban/exurban. The issue with exurban areas is that job opportunities are bad unless you work on some farm or in a grocery store. I am an IT major in college, so definitely living in an extremely desolate exurban area would be bad for job opportunities, but also it is bad for social life for a young person. The reason why I would want to live near a suburb is so that I can have a social life and can have access to a job. I am not looking forward to living some desolate life.

Also, I lived in a NJ suburb my whole life where suburbs are great, but we have a lack of nature (my town doesn't lack much nature). If I wanted to live in the northeast my entire life, then I would not want to live in an exurban area, because of the indoorsy lifestyle we have here due to the crappy climate we have. In NJ, I like neighborhoods like Sparta or other Sussex County towns where the neighborhoods have a suburban and exurban blend. I would love to move west when I finish college such as the Pacific Northwest our the Southwest for example. I want a better climate.

What is your opinion on types of civilization?

My opinions:
Cities

Pros for me:
- You have all your resources such as food and medical care.
- Best social life
- Most job opportunities lie here.
- Most food choices
- Only some cities have fun indoorsy things to do (which is great for places that have crappy climate like the northeast)
- Don't need a car if you love walking to get everywhere (more applies to the eastern USA)
- More museums, more shops, more movie theaters, and more malls
- Diversity is amazing

Cons for me:
- Panhandlers
- Weird people
- Driving is terrible
- Hard to park
- I don't like having to take public transportation to get everywhere
- Expensive
- Crowded
- Lack of nature (but that's if you like nature like me)

Suburbs

Pros for me:
- Still some social life is doable
- You still have your resources such as food and medical care
- Still have some job opportunities
- Most job opportunities lie in the city, so commuting from a suburb is somewhat easy.
- Still have some indoorsy things to do
- Still have some nature
- Driving is easy here
- Some diversity

Cons for me:

- Suburbs are becoming more crowded these days
- Lack of outdoorsy activities.
- Expensive varying from metro area

Exurbs

Pros for me:
- So many outdoorsy activities
- Easy to drive
- Little to no traffic
- Cheap and can get more land a lowish cost depending on your state
- Everything is spaced out, so no bad neighbors to deal with

Cons for me:
- Lack of restaurants and lack of take out food, but I want to learn to cook at home to stay healthy. It's healthier to cook at home.
- Lack of resources if you really need them like medical care and emergency food from a grocery store, but that's the reason why I would live close to a suburb.
- Diversity is also an issue for me. I need some diversity. I am Indian and I would feel awkward being the only minority in an exurban area. I am worried rednecks and prejudice people.
- If you live in a bad climate like the northeast, life would be really boring and indoorsy. Snow is also a huge issue.

[ragnarkar]

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

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

[Vegabern]

I didn't think NJ was considered northeastern. I always labeled it mid-Atlantic.

But anyway, it's all about personal preference. To me, the Suburbs are the worst of both worlds, not the best. You're car dependent, you need to drive into the city for work or cultural amenities and you still have to drive out to the box stores in the 'burbs. They may have little parks but suburbs still lack much nature. Plus I can't handle the Stepford Wives-types I run into in cul-de-sac burbs. Too many busy bodies. And if you don't have kids, it would be awkward to live in the burbs.


Maybe you would enjoy a smaller city out west where nature feels more accessible (it's honestly accessible from anywhere if you're willing to look for it). Places like SLC or Boise perhaps? Or maybe the Twin Cities or Madison, WI both with great lakes and walking trails throughout the city.

[BurnInTheMil]

I prefer a nice, well equipped suburb. One within 30 minutes of the major city it borders, with some restaurants, shopping, groceries, etc...that has all I need without actually having to go into the city.

Currently I live in Walnut Creek, CA and I think that’s a good example of what I mean.

[Vegabern]

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

Yes, the rare, old, walkable "suburb" that is more like an extension of the city as opposed to a planned suburb with miles of curving pavement and cookie-cutter houses are great. I live in one myself (Shorewood, WI). It just doesn't feel like a suburb to me.

[TheTimidBlueBars]

Inner suburbs or the less "it" neighborhoods of the city. I'm in my early twenties, but I don't want to be surrounded by other young people all the time, as I find many of them really obnoxious, opinionated, judgmental, and rowdy. I still want to be proximate to a variety of stores, restaurants, and cultural instututions - but I'd rather not feel like all my neighbors are judging my uncoolness. Nature isn't a big deal for me, nor is noise, but walkability/bikeability is.

[Geo-Aggie]

Yeah, confirming what others are saying here. I like the old grid-pattern 1920-1950's street-car suburbs. You get all the pros of a city, all the pros of a suburb, and very few of the cons from either. Good schools, good social life, generally lower crime rates, swanky restaurants and coffee shops, low poverty rates, plenty of bike lanes, close to parks/open space, and close to work with multiple commuting options.

Places like:
Royal Oak, Michigan;
Bethesda, Maryland;
Lakewood, Ohio;
Glendale, California;
Oak Park, Illinois...

That's my ideal place to be. I find they're much more prevalent near older cities. Cities that "grew up" in the 1960's and beyond tend to only have sprawl-burbs, and those have zero appeal to me whatsoever.

[Matt Marcinkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Vegabern

I didn't think NJ was considered northeastern. I always labeled it mid-Atlantic.

If I had to pick one label of the two for the entire state, it'd obviously be northeastern. NJ is first and foremost associated with NYC and Philadelphia. For the very southernmost part of the state, though, I could see an argument for calling that the beginning of the mid-Atlantic. Personally, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware are the only states I've ever really associated with that label.

[Bees46]

Originally Posted by Vegabern

But anyway, it's all about personal preference. To me, the Suburbs are the worst of both worlds, not the best. You're car dependent, you need to drive into the city for work or cultural amenities and you still have to drive out to the box stores in the 'burbs. They may have little parks but suburbs still lack much nature.
.

This exactly. I grew up in the suburbs, then stupidly moved back to one after I had kids. It was ok when they were small and I had strollers and diaper bags in the trunk. But as soon as they were more independent, I grew tired of the endless driving and homogeneity of our particular town. I was glad we had a chance to relocate to a small city. I miss NYC but in general I'm much happier living in a small city than living near, but not near enough, a big one.

[moshywilly]

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

The thing I do not like about California is that every piece of civilization is a big city and suburban like the suburbs in NJ. California has a lot more open space and yet they have more crowded civilizations than NJ does. That is a reason why I would not prefer California as a first choice dream to live in. Also it is not worth the expensiveness of it either.