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'm interesting in hearing the responses, but I'm still curious about what those issues are, why you feel they're limited to the cities, what effect the aging of the suburbs (just appearing) will have, especially with less money to repair such costly infrastructure and why you continue to ignore the effect of suburbanization on the city itself, as well as the fact that the cities are generally improving.
I'm interesting in hearing the responses, but I'm still curious about what those issues are, why you feel they're limited to the cities, what effect the aging of the suburbs (just appearing) will have, especially with less money to repair such costly infrastructure and why you continue to ignore the effect of suburbanization on the city itself, as well as the fact that the cities are generally improving.
You made an arguement in another post that if there was better balance between the city and suburbs, people who would choose the city. I have no clue what balance is, but I assume it means the cities improve the school system, crime, repair old infrastructure in the city, and etc. I disagree, but that is why I posted the question.
I wouldn't, I hate living on top of other people. I like having a decent sized yard.
I think some people would maybe consider the city more if some of the issues of the city were solved. But for the most part, I don't see cities being able to fix things politically. It would require changes that stakeholders like politicians couldn't make.
You made an arguement in another post that if there was better balance between the city and suburbs, people who would choose the city. I have no clue what balance is, but I assume it means the cities improve the school system, crime, repair old infrastructure in the city, and etc. I disagree, but that is why I posted the question.
I said more people would choose it. Again, stop twisting my words.
The balance means investing more money in cities and less in suburbs. We have MORE THAN ENOUGH suburbs and NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH decent cities.
I'll just talk about my own experiences living in Cincinnati, in both a small town 20 miles north of the city, and in the city proper, and in suburban Philadelphia.
I moved to the small town because that's where my job was -- I could walk to work if I were so inclined, I could talk walks around the neighborhood, I could walk (or a quick drive) in one direction to the quaint little downtown, and in another to a more modern shopping center.
After a few job changes, I decided to move into the city. Why? I wanted to buy a house, and the housing prices were more reasonable in the city than they were in the 'burbs. Property taxes were affordable, and the city's income tax was not prohibitively high, especially given the city's services (except for snow removal!). I moved into a modest little neighborhood a half block from two bus lines, with a yard big enough to throw parties but not too unmanageable -- and I wanted to live in a neighborhood I could walk around in. Not necessarily walk to destinations, but just walk.
Then I move to Philadelphia, where the city's income tax is more than 4 percent for residents, where prices for a detached home similar to mine in Cincinnati were more than 3 times what I sold my Cincinnati house for, and where affordable housing means a row house with a 15 x 100 foot lot, a sidewalk for your front yard, and a driveway for your back yard. No thank you. Coming from the Midwest, Philadelphia's more dense, working-class/moderate income neighborhoods seemed downright ugly and depressing to me.
In addition, the spouse was self-employed, and he did not want to pay Philadelphia's high income tax. The town we live in has a 1.5 percent income tax. Also, he had been the victim of several violent crimes while living in Philadelphia, and had fled to the suburbs in reaction. He didn't want to move back into the city.
We found a cozy little semi-detached house in a suburban town about 13 miles away from where I work (which is not directly on any bus or train lines), which is about as far away as I wanted to be. The lot is 35 x 140, with a garage and shed. This house in Philadelphia would have cost twice as much; in the closer-in suburbs it would have been out of my price range as well. I still pay Philadelphia's wage tax, but at a lower rate than residents pay, and pay nothing to the town I live in.
For us, it was a question first of economics, then preference, then safety.
Cities can't do anything about people's preferences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richb
I wouldn't, I hate living on top of other people. I like having a decent sized yard.
This, too, but you can have a decent-sized yard and still live in the city. It just depends on the city -- and how much money you have to spend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaykibs
We have MORE THAN ENOUGH suburbs and NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH decent cities.
I'd point the finger at the cities in that case. Consider why Philadelphia did not win me and my husband over as residents.
I've gotten into a debate with other posters on the cities and suburbs about this topic. My question:
1. Did you move to the suburbs because of the city issues, or because you just wanted to live in the suburbs?
Originally, we looked at houses in the city (Denver), in the neighborhood where we were renting. All that were affordable needed extensive work, thus negating the affordability. We then got very interested in the town where we now live. It was quite "hip" at the time to live in these little towns that were a bit more distant from the city, a sort of best of both worlds; small town living with city access. That's where we bought and that's where we have stayed. We moved away once due to a job change, to the Albany NY area, came back and bought another house about 1/2 mile from our first one.
2. What are the issues you have with the city?
Older housing stock that needs renovations (kitchens, bathrooms), sometimes no options for installing, say, a second bath, etc. Small lot sizes, though in the Denver/Boulder burbs, the lots aren't much bigger. Schools could be better; we would probably do private (Lutheran) if we had lived in the city when our kids were in school.
3. If the city fixed their issues, would you move back to the city?
No, we intend to "retire in place". I have no desire whatsoever to move. If both our kids left the area, we might consider relocating near one of them.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,563 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57767
No. The issues for us were crime, bad schools and woodsy. The bigger cities could possibly fix the schools and reduce the crime, but after a couple of hundred years it's not likely. The woods they are never going to get back.
We have 100 foot trees in our yard and all around the neighborhood, and views of the mountains and the valley below. In the city you can get water and mountain views but not at an affordable price, and not in a decent sized house, only in a highrise.
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.
