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.
The issue with this is that people are segregating themselves into their own political bubbles nowadays, you're less likely to find conservatives and liberals living side by side like you would back in the 2000s. Liberals can move to bright red Idaho and find paradise in blue Boise, conservatives can live in bright blue New York and find paradise in upstate towns. They call this "the big sort" in politics, people living in a red state or a blue state aren't really going to encounter opposite political viewpoints because everyone around them shares the same views, isolated in their own bubbles
I don't think sorting is as bad as it's made out to be. People don't interact as much with their neighbors and coworkers as before anyway. With social media and online dating people can now socialize with those who align better with their interests and values. Why is it better to base your social life on random things like where you got a job or found the apartment?
It is harder to get away from politics now than even 20 years ago. Things that weren't political like public health or education have become hot button issues. Because of this state governments are taking over things that used to be prerogatives of local governments. What exactly are the benefits of living in a blue paradise bubble if the progressive leaders you've elected couldn't ban fracking, manage school curriculum or enact public health measures?
The bolded comment used to irk me when I lived in SoCal--hearing but there is so much to do as an excuse for fickle sports fans......maybe I'm an exception as I grew up in sports rabid NYC metro, but we had plenty to do in NY as well regardless of weather (outside of being able to sunbathe at the beach in the middle of winter) and had just as many transplants.
.)
Re Sports. I once dreamed of spending the summer in a little apartment in Covington KY, and walking across the pedestrian bridge every night to Riverfront tlosee the Reds.
i think Wrigley was the only ballpark in walking distance to a liveabl e neighborhood.
I'll add walkability. Every city has walkable areas right? Why does it have to be the entire city?
Ditto the elusive and obscure "urbanity".
Claws come out on C-D over which city is more "urban" than another.
In the real world; "urban" and "urbanity" are unfortunately more often used by political pundits as a dog-whistle than in reference to any particular city aesthetic/lifestyle.
I'll add walkability. Every city has walkable areas right? Why does it have to be the entire city?
I strongly disagree with this - to a point, anyway. A place where I can easily walk for the vast majority of my wants/needs is right at the top of desirability factors for me. I own a car and wouldn't really want to live without one. I like driving and I like the flexibility to drive when I want to. But I don't want to live anywhere where I need a car to get to work, run to the grocery store, go to a restaurant, visit friends, grab a drink, etc. I love not needing to drive. Now that I have that, and after having lived in numerous places where it either was not possible or was not easy, I can attest that true walkability has a major impact on my quality of life. Regardless of the hair splitting here on CD, I think this definitely skews more towards "underrated" instead of "overrated."
The reason I add the "to a point" caveat is because this topic gets debated to a stupid level of detail on CD and other urban planning forums - really, to the point that it doesn't matter at all. Ultimately, if I'm looking to relocate to the auto-centric 'burbs (the vast majority of our 'burbs), it doesn't really matter if my cul-de-sac has better sidewalks than the cul-de-sac a few streets over because it's really negligible in an area where everyone is going to be driving anyway. A less extreme example is the small town or suburb with a "cute" old main street with wall-to-wall shops. Great for going out to eat and getting a drink afterwards, but most people in these towns are going to be driving for the bulk of their needs. In that sense, "walkability" shouldn't rank all that high on a priority list.
But a neighborhood where you truly don't need a car for most of your day to day? It's really hard to overstate how nice it is to have that.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,410 posts, read 6,553,115 times
Reputation: 6685
I do eat out every day and have so since 1987…perhaps not a fancy meal every day but I eat out Breakfast, lunch and dinner….you would be surprised how some top 10-20 metros mangle Italian food and put out meh steaks or other cuisines. Good restaurant scene is vital to me—as is a good gym so I can work it off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylord_Focker
To me it's food. Don't get me wrong, I know places like LA, Miami, NYC, Houston, SF, etc have great food and there may be a few things that you can't get anywhere else, but it's pretty rare. I will say I have to live in a top 50 type metro as after that, there may be a drop off.
For example, does Indianapolis have Chicago's depth and diversity in cuisine? No, but instead of having 50 great Mexican restaurants, maybe it'll have ten. And that is probably enough.
People don't eat out every day and some of the places in the elite cuisine cities are expensive and hard to get into.
Top 50 metros will have the staples you're looking for.
Yeah, I agree with this. There’s no way that I’m not going to own a car, so walkability is more of a nice to have thing, rather than a necessity.
Right, but I could live in downtown OKC or Wichita and get some walkability right? They're not NYC or even Houston but there are probably some fancy condos or warehouse apartments in almost every downtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elchevere
I do eat out every day and have so since 1987…perhaps not a fancy meal every day but I eat out Breakfast, lunch and dinner….you would be surprised how some top 10-20 metros mangle Italian food and put out meh steaks or other cuisines. Good restaurant scene is vital to me—as is a good gym so I can work it off.
True. And I understand Miami is next level. I'm just saying I could probably not be bored if I lived in a place like Charlotte. There's good food in every major city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I strongly disagree with this - to a point, anyway. A place where I can easily walk for the vast majority of my wants/needs is right at the top of desirability factors for me. I own a car and wouldn't really want to live without one. I like driving and I like the flexibility to drive when I want to. But I don't want to live anywhere where I need a car to get to work, run to the grocery store, go to a restaurant, visit friends, grab a drink, etc. I love not needing to drive. Now that I have that, and after having lived in numerous places where it either was not possible or was not easy, I can attest that true walkability has a major impact on my quality of life. Regardless of the hair splitting here on CD, I think this definitely skews more towards "underrated" instead of "overrated."
The reason I add the "to a point" caveat is because this topic gets debated to a stupid level of detail on CD and other urban planning forums - really, to the point that it doesn't matter at all. Ultimately, if I'm looking to relocate to the auto-centric 'burbs (the vast majority of our 'burbs), it doesn't really matter if my cul-de-sac has better sidewalks than the cul-de-sac a few streets over because it's really negligible in an area where everyone is going to be driving anyway. A less extreme example is the small town or suburb with a "cute" old main street with wall-to-wall shops. Great for going out to eat and getting a drink afterwards, but most people in these towns are going to be driving for the bulk of their needs. In that sense, "walkability" shouldn't rank all that high on a priority list.
But a neighborhood where you truly don't need a car for most of your day to day? It's really hard to overstate how nice it is to have that.
Fair enough. I guess my point is walkable doesn't mean it has to be Boston or SF. I can find walkability in almost any town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TarHeelNick
Ditto the elusive and obscure "urbanity".
Claws come out on C-D over which city is more "urban" than another.
In the real world; "urban" and "urbanity" are unfortunately more often used by political pundits as a dog-whistle than in reference to any particular city aesthetic/lifestyle.
We're living a cliche. Were walking around urban enclaves in the air, feeling haughty because we can walk to a breakfast and Chinese place on the same block. That exists in almost every major city. I guess what I mean is yes, urbanity/walkability is nice, but it's not exclusive necessarily.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ainsley1999
“Close to Wholefoods”.
“Close to artisanal cafés”.
“Close to luxury shopping”.
Exactly how often does one shop at Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Chanel?!
Right, but I could live in downtown OKC or Wichita and get some walkability right? They're not NYC or even Houston but there are probably some fancy condos or warehouse apartments in almost every downtown.
True. And I understand Miami is next level. I'm just saying I could probably not be bored if I lived in a place like Charlotte. There's good food in every major city.
Fair enough. I guess my point is walkable doesn't mean it has to be Boston or SF. I can find walkability in almost any town.
We're living a cliche. Were walking around urban enclaves in the air, feeling haughty because we can walk to a breakfast and Chinese place on the same block. That exists in almost every major city. I guess what I mean is yes, urbanity/walkability is nice, but it's not exclusive necessarily.
Exactly
Nobody actually cares about Gucci or whatever it’s a proxy for the kind of neighborhood it is.
Back Bay isn’t nice because it has a Chanel store, it has a Chanel store because it’s a nice neighborhood.
Same thing Whule foods signifies it’s a neighborhood where people are willing to pay $1.57 for a banana.
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.
