Are people who live in suburbs/exurbs morally inept? (suburban, crime, downtown)
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'd like to get your thoughts on this one. For many of us, suburbs/exurbs seem to be a byproduct of conspicuous consumption. Some people actually do move out there for good schools, less crime, etc but then again there are people who just like a jumbo house to park their SUVs (and then complain about gas prices).
No they aren't but I do think people are very much in the mindset of consumption and the misguided ideal the house in the 'burbs and the big SUV is the American Dream...
No, its just part of American culture. Everyone thinks its a great idea to move out to the middle of nowhere and buy up a big house with more room than they could ever need with a SUV to match that gets like 10 miles to the gallon.
In my mind this isn't a moral issue so much as it is an issue of wastefulness. Do you really need that house with 5 br/5ba if there are only 3 or 4 people in your family? Do you really need a huge SUV?
Also in my mind it just seems really tacky, but I suppose that is open to debate.
All this stuff is going to come back to bite this country in the a$$. People are spending too much money and aren't putting any money in the bank. The economy seems to be unravelling at the moment. A lot of people are probably going to be in over their heads in the near term.
I don't understand why conspicuous consumption is always automatically associated with suburbs/exurbs.
In my opinions there are people who live in vibrant inner cities neighborhoods, such as one immediately north of downtown Chicago.
They maybe aren't gasoline that much. But their conspicuous consumption is more in the form of fancy clothes, expensive lofts, restaurants, and nightclubs.
From an environmental standpoint that certainly is not as bad.
I personally tend to be attracted to places where I'm close to more nature (it doesn't have to be in the super boonies). I like the forest preserves of the Chicago suburbs because they're real, whereas the lakefront parks in the city are kind of fake (the shoreline is NOTHING like what was originally).
So proximity to nature and the fact that I simply don't relate to the interests of many people of the gentrified neighborhoods of the city.
You're painting in pretty broad strokes. I don't think you can say it's only people living in suburbs and/or exurbs. What about the person who buys a small older home in a close-in area, bulldozes it and wedges a showy out-of-scale McMansion onto the tiny lot? Conspicuous consumption happens all over - not just in the suburbs.
I won't accept the argument that the suburbs are close to nature. Sure, they are for a short time when they are new. However, when the next wave of development occurs you just have a house with alot of lawn. Kentucky Bluegrass is not nature. Nor are asphalt plains. Suburbs try to combine city and country; they acheive neither.
If suburbs were only big houses on wooded lots and 2 lane roads, I would have no qualm. They are not. They have big-box stores and corporate headquarters. This serves neither suburbs or their city. It leeches from the economic power of the core city, and (in theory, at least) suburbanites don't want large complexes. There is something nice about the fakeness of an urban park, IMO. I like nature too, but sometimes a big lawn with good people watching gives me the same feeling.
I'm not a fan of the idea behind the urbanistas. At least they are bon vivants with their consumption. (A loft is not anymore expensive than a house) I think suburban consumption focuses too much on impressing the Joneses.
Mead, as long as a little money is saved, consumption is one of the best things for the national economy.
Id say that is only a recent phenomenon. People originally moved to the burbs to get away from the cities, to have lower crime, a bigger place, a bigger yard, etc. It seems in the last 20 years the world in general has turned into a money hungry bunch of keeping-up-with-the-Joneses losers.
I'd like to get your thoughts on this one. For many of us, suburbs/exurbs seem to be a byproduct of conspicuous consumption. Some people actually do move out there for good schools, less crime, etc but then again there are people who just like a jumbo house to park their SUVs (and then complain about gas prices).
I think I missed the memo that explained how purchasing big houses and nice cars makes somebody morally decrepit. The suburbs might look like sweet heaven to someone who came up in an urban, dirty gutter. Believe it or not, urban life can get old.
I won't accept the argument that the suburbs are close to nature. Sure, they are for a short time when they are new. However, when the next wave of development occurs you just have a house with alot of lawn. Kentucky Bluegrass is not nature. Nor are asphalt plains. Suburbs try to combine city and country; they acheive neither.
If suburbs were only big houses on wooded lots and 2 lane roads, I would have no qualm. They are not. They have big-box stores and corporate headquarters. This serves neither suburbs or their city. It leeches from the economic power of the core city, and (in theory, at least) suburbanites don't want large complexes. There is something nice about the fakeness of an urban park, IMO. I like nature too, but sometimes a big lawn with good people watching gives me the same feeling.
I'm not a fan of the idea behind the urbanistas. At least they are bon vivants with their consumption. (A loft is not anymore expensive than a house) I think suburban consumption focuses too much on impressing the Joneses.
Mead, as long as a little money is saved, consumption is one of the best things for the national economy.
Youre generalizing big suburbs here, and comparing all other suburbs to them. There are many suburbs around here that are supremely quiet and many retain the house-on-big-wooded-lots feel. For instance, Naperville, IL and Wayne, IL are only a few miles apart, but couldnt be any different if they tried. Same with towns like Sleepy Hollow, IL and Algonquin, IL. Neighbors, but 100% different. Dont assume all suburbs everywhere are concrete prairies and cookie cutter homes, even though they are the majority.
Youre generalizing big suburbs here, and comparing all other suburbs to them. There are many suburbs around here that are supremely quiet and many retain the house-on-big-wooded-lots feel. For instance, Naperville, IL and Wayne, IL are only a few miles apart, but couldnt be any different if they tried. Same with towns like Sleepy Hollow, IL and Algonquin, IL. Neighbors, but 100% different. Dont assume all suburbs everywhere are concrete prairies and cookie cutter homes, even though they are the majority.
But where are they a majority? Even in my area, cookie cutter suburbs are only a few.
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.
Dont assume all suburbs everywhere are concrete prairies and cookie cutter homes, even though they are the majority. 
