Suburban, Urban, or Rural (low income, crime, house)

[Waterlily]

I voted for rural but perhaps Other might apply. What I really like is a small town.
It's good to have a grocery store near by but I don't need a lot of things.
It's turning into a really interesting poll with some unexpected results.

[Tesla]

I guess just like anything else this comes down to tradeoffs. Given the tradeoffs that we must face I think suburbs are the best. It's cheaper than the city (for most areas), safer, with better schools and less congestion. But at the same time you have access to the better jobs that urban areas on the whole tend to provide. A lot of urbanists tend to stress the cultural resources that a city provides but living in the suburbs allows one to easily take advantage of the arts and culture of the city. Rural areas are nice but employment there is dicey. Not to mention that getting errands done (groceries, doctors visits, etc.) takes a lot longer. Schools on the whole are also not as good as the suburbs.

I can understand why people prefer the city or the country but for the average middle class person the suburbs are best in my opinion.

[ontheroad]

Thanks again to all those that contributed.

Perhaps more folks will stop by and vote later on.

In the meantime, I really am more than surprised by the large number for rural living. I had the impression, now under review , that suburban might have come in number #1. Much to learn in this here life!.

Peace!

[SandyCo]

Originally Posted by ontheroad

Thanks for popping in with a clear preference for suburan and why.

My ignorance of course, but I've always thought of LA as urban with communities. I see I'm wrong!

Most of L.A. is urban; you're right. I grew up in the La Crescenta/La Canada area, though, which is isolated between two mountain ranges. These cities have much more of a surburban feel. Combined population: 40,000 or so.

[ontheroad]

Thanks for clarifying.

Originally Posted by SandyCo

Most of L.A. is urban; you're right. I grew up in the La Crescenta/La Canada area, though, which is isolated between two mountain ranges. These cities have much more of a surburban feel. Combined population: 40,000 or so.

[YOU-CANT-EAT-SCENERY]

I chose rural, but still want to be within an hour of shopping (Home Depot, Costco etc.)

[Sgoldie]

That's a tough one for me to answer. I would have to prefice it by saying I need to live by the water. I grew up on the water and have never lived further than a half hour away, mostly less than a few minutes away. That would have to be my major prerequisite.

I found LA to be a vast sprawl, more along the lines of a concentrated suburban. Isolated at home and too much driving. San Jose was much better in that it was near the unique city of SF as well as the smaller cities along the ocean and the nearby foothills. The fresh food was good as well as the weather.

Ports cities are of the greatest interest, small historical cities such as Annapolis and where I am now. International travelers provide intrigue. Better if there's a good bakery and are close enough to a cultural center for an easy weekend jaunt. I also spend part of the year in Manhattan, and I want to be right in the middle of what's going on. Prefer staying near a park, but give me a bus pass and I'm happy. I love to explore and talk to everyone. Nice not to have to worry about a car, a consideration when you get older. I'd like to try DC, Toronto, or Portland for longer periods than just a short visit.

Found many other spots to be fun and interesting in NM, FL, GA, SC, CA, RI, etc, all over really. I'm easy to please. It's hard to predict just what place will strike your fancy, mine anyway. Do like to have an active arts/creative scene if possible or at least a college, and beautiful architecture is important to me.

[the_pines]

You forgot the exurbs. The suburbs of the suburbs. Thats where I like to be. In the exurbs of a medium sized city(2.5 mill and down, anything above that is to much congestion). The houses with the larger yards and longer driveways set back into the properties for some privacy. But not to far from a city.

[SteelCityRising]

I picked "urban." In my opinion, everyone is moving to suburbia to "raise their kids near wide, open spaces." At the same time, these open spaces are being developed for more and more low-density housing and strip malls; I've seen this firsthand here in NEPA with the influx of NJ/NYC folks flocking here for "open space." If everyone lived in densely-populated cities and stopped expanding low-density housing further and further out in ever-growing concentric circles around our urban centers, then we ALL truly could have "the best of both worlds." We could live in thriving areas within walking distance of culture, nightlife, workplaces, schools, parks, friends' homes, etc., yet still only be a brief drive (or mass transit trip) from unspoiled natural beauty. This is why I'm a huge supporter of "growth boundaries", similar to what Oregon now has. This is also why I immediately push locals to look into housing options in my area's decaying urban centers first before even considering suburbia. It may be nice to say "I have deer in the backyard", but if everyone likewise wants to say that as the new "American Dream", then where will all of the deer be able to roam? Now that the majority of Americans live in "suburban" areas, (unfortunately including myself for the time-being), we've done nothing but make it harder for those in urban areas to access rural areas to "get away from it all" for visits.

[Dedalus]

People like the urban and rural settings because of things those places have. They like the 'burbs for things they don't have - crime, mainly.

If I had children, I might feel differently. But, living in the suburbs is like a jail sentence for me.

I vote for urban.