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 know that this is an extremely unpopular opinion these days but..
Everybody and their mama likes to talk about how the suburbs are going to be dead in XYZ years and how the cities will be where it's at soon!
But I don't see the value of living in a city besides for the close commute to work (assuming you're CBD is even in a major job center).
- Suburbs allow for a high quality of life that even moderate-income people can afford. Believe it or not, there's plenty of affordable and reasonably-nice suburban areas outside of most cities (if you settle for an "okay" school system as opposed to a top-notch one).
- Most of the cities over-glorified like Manhattan, San Francisco and DC are priced SKY-HIGH and almost completely impossible for regular middle class people to give their family even a basic middle class quality of life (having their own room, a backyard to play in, a school to pay field sports in, a private swimming pool, clean air, etc). In most other developed countries, the middle class would KILL to live in even a basic single-family home where their families had even a fraction of this.
- If you live in the suburbs and want access to the "culture", amenities, museums and unique restaurants that cities offer then you can just take the train or drive into the city and spend a weekend day there; and travel back home for the peace and comfort of the suburbs when your tired of all the mayhem.
- Most city residents with means have to pay for expensive private schools for their children or PRAY that they get into a 'charter school/specialized high school' in order to give them a quality education. Usually the property taxes in most suburbs pay for at least a decent education.
I think the opposite. Boring suburbs will continue to increase and grow due to sky high prices within the city and they wouldn't be affordable either. There is a reason city is called a city. I like country or city, not in between with the Targets, Olive Gardens and shopping malls.
I would ask who was polled? Are we talking 20 somethings just out of college that enjoy the city lifestyle and all it offers or are we talking 30 somethings that want more space to raise a family and they don't mind the commute to work.
I don't like cities and wouldn't live in one. Give me the country any day.
Having lived in both, I understand why people believe city living can be better for some people (mostly young people). The same can be said for paying the premium to live at the beach in California. You could save a ton of moeny and just drive to the beach on a weekend spend four hours looking for parking and get to hang out at the beach for an hour or tow, but it is not the same as being able to come home from work, drop your suit-coat on the couch and go for a walk on the beach for half an hour each evening before dinner.
It you only visit the city on occasional weekends when something catches your attention, you will have no idea what you are missing, because you will not know about it. In a good city, there is always something exciting going on. Something interesting to see and do. People to meet and hang out with etc. For young people, this is the ideal. For older people, they do not really want to go out and about every single night. Even if they lived in the city, they might just go home, watch the news and go to bed. City will not appeal to them. Some people also prefer quiet to exciting. So, rather than seeing a Shakespeare in the park performance in a crowd of people, they prefer to go for a walk along in the woods. However right now, the more exciting city lifestyle is the prevailing preference. To young people it appears the suburbs are doomed. All the (young) people they know want to live in the city. No one wants to live in the suburbs but a few old people, and when they are gone, no one will want to live there. Over time, many of those young people will grow up and become the old people living in the suburbs snorting in derision at the young people in the city who say suburban living is doomed. There may be more or less emphasis on suburban vs city living over time, but the cycle will continue endlessly.
One of my girlfriends bashes suburbs because they are often designed to be inefficient.
I think this is the best argument. I have lived in the city, in suburbs, and in the country, and there are nice things, as well as bad things, about all three.
The issue I have with many suburbs is that they are so narrow in their focus, which is primarily on single family homes, ruthlessly excluding apartments or businesses of any kind - even small offices or grocery stores. Many do not even have sidewalks. In addition, an ever-increasing number of new developments have such strict rules that it's difficult for people to plant a vegetable garden or put up a clothesline, let alone have a few chickens (God forbid!) They are places to sleep, watch TV, and completely isolate oneself from the outside world. That's fine for those who want that, but lots of people would rather be able to enjoy a less compartmentalized existence. I liked being able to walk to the store in the city, and I liked being able to do as I wished with my land in the country.
In my opinion, and I speak only or myself, many suburbs exclude the best of city AND country living. The convenience of the city is gone, and so is the freedom of the country. I don't hate them, but they are definitely my least favorite.
I have never had any desire to live in a truly major city like New York or Chicago. I grew up in small town Tennessee. I like space with things spread out.
Before I moved back to Tennessee, I lived in Carmel, IN, which is a very affluent suburb of Indianapolis. There was plenty of fine dining there. The downtown had been revitalized over the years, and it had a nice strolling area with barbershops and other "quaint" businesses and restaurants. The suburb had several breweries. There's a performing arts center with all manner of fine arts. Simon had a small mall there, and there was plenty of shopping for day to day needs.
It was a very easy, posh lifestyle. There are some parts of Indianapolis that are nice, but most of the city is nowhere near as nice or convenient to live in as Carmel is. That's not even mentioning the poor schools and crime problems in some neighborhoods.
"...the insane manufactured anthropogenic global warming claim and global climate change claim by the United Nation. The tin pot dictators at the U.N. are only interested in redistribution of wealth, population control, the buildup of megacities, and global governance under the U.N. aegis. How would they build these mega regions, mega cities? The plans are already underway in the form of destroying the American suburbs, the family, the way we purchase and own homes and apartments, and by depopulating rural areas."
These people are certifiable crackpots.
Not sure you are capable of being objective given your screen name "citylove", but do you have any actual rebuttal to offer, or just the unsubstantiated smear against the authors' perceived state of mental health?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
One of my girlfriends bashes suburbs because they are often designed to be inefficient.
Examples? Suburbs seem to be designed to be efficient at providing single family homes with the amenities families wanted/needed. Space for the family, the car, the children's play, and social gatherings.
If you look at many of the postwar suburbs, they were unfortunately modeled after the cities, which is very INefficient, because they were not also equipped with any city amenities such as mass transit, residential over retail, etc.
My experience, a lot of 'burb-bashing is done by childless hipsters rejecting where they come from. They don't want to appear like naive suburbanites. And they're not invested in public schooling.
Most people with kids appreciate the saner school districts of the suburbs. That's a concern that seems quaint to ppl who are focused on their vinyl collections..
This, pretty much.
With today's low birth rates, you can live your whole life in a city since you don't have to worry about the pathetic school system. When people marry and pop out kids, they flee to the leafy suburbs with the top public school systems. Strong private schools in high COL cities are like sending your kid to college for expense. Few people have the cash flow to sustain a couple kids through 12 years of that.
I'm 59. I'm Boston-centric. I lived in Back Bay for a while when I was in my 20's. I have lots of friends who lived in Boston and bailed out when they had kids. I ski and sail. My tech work has almost always been in the office parks in the 'burbs so I was reverse commuting and mostly not in the city on weekends. I got tired of finding bums sleeping in my car in the morning and bailed out.
Having lived in both, I understand why people believe city living can be better for some people (mostly young people). The same can be said for paying the premium to live at the beach in California. You could save a ton of moeny and just drive to the beach on a weekend spend four hours looking for parking and get to hang out at the beach for an hour or tow, but it is not the same as being able to come home from work, drop your suit-coat on the couch and go for a walk on the beach for half an hour each evening before dinner.
It you only visit the city on occasional weekends when something catches your attention, you will have no idea what you are missing, because you will not know about it. In a good city, there is always something exciting going on. Something interesting to see and do. People to meet and hang out with etc. For young people, this is the ideal. For older people, they do not really want to go out and about every single night. Even if they lived in the city, they might just go home, watch the news and go to bed. City will not appeal to them. Some people also prefer quiet to exciting. So, rather than seeing a Shakespeare in the park performance in a crowd of people, they prefer to go for a walk along in the woods. However right now, the more exciting city lifestyle is the prevailing preference. To young people it appears the suburbs are doomed. All the (young) people they know want to live in the city. No one wants to live in the suburbs but a few old people, and when they are gone, no one will want to live there. Over time, many of those young people will grow up and become the old people living in the suburbs snorting in derision at the young people in the city who say suburban living is doomed. There may be more or less emphasis on suburban vs city living over time, but the cycle will continue endlessly.
I went out all the time living in the suburbs. I knew what was going on in the nearest big city all week long. There were lots of things to do in our town and in the small cities around it. Plus we made our own fun, house parties and such. I think the current obsession with city living is really about something else.
The burbs offer decent priced housing and usually less crime, they at least 'appear' safer. But in turn you have a long commute, reduced access to everything, and fewer jobs close by. Not much if anything you can walk to from your house and it is necessary to have at least 1 car.
I lived in the exurbs, almost rural, for years. It was pretty but between the 100mile a day commute and all the yardwork, I had no time to enjoy it. And shoveling a triple driveway was no fun either. I would have liked it a lot more if I had worked close to home.
Chose urban for my next adventure. Still a SFR but OMG, the wonder of being able to walk to stores etc is amazing. Everything is convenient. I still have a car and all those expenses. I think I like urban better! Would love to try out NYC or DC but I know those are not affordable for me.
I think too many young people grew up watching Seinfeld and Friends and think it would be cool to live like that. It would be torture for me.
I’ve lived like that before in a major city, it is absolutely torture. Police sirens, ambulance sirens, massive traffic, rats, trash, roaches, sky high rent, no parking, parallel parking, pollution, littering, expensive restaurants, drunks, homeless, impoverished neighborhoods just down the street, etc.
Don’t believe the hype, living inside a city is not fun.
I will gladly live in the suburbs to enjoy bigger housing any day of the week. And make no mistake, there’s plenty of rich people who could live inside a city yet still opt out to live in the suburbs
Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowsnow
The burbs offer decent priced housing and usually less crime, they at least 'appear' safer. But in turn you have a long commute, reduced access to everything, and fewer jobs close by. Not much if anything you can walk to from your house and it is necessary to have at least 1 car.
Reduced access to everything is not true at all. Suburbs often have movie theaters, gyms, malls, dry cleaning, grocery shopping, restaurants, strips mall, and other suburbs close by you can commute
Oh and they also have something important, excellent schools which is worth more than anything
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.
