Why all the hate for the suburbs?

[clement]

Better schools in the suburbs vs cities are not a cause they are an effect. I understand why any individual parent would prefer to raise their kids in the suburbs because of this, but the whole reason that schools are generally better in the suburbs (and they are) is because of the herd mentality that has existed over the past 50 years or so to escape the decaying cities, leading to dwindling property values and thus lower tax bases to support the public school systems, which leads to city neighborhoods becoming affordable to lower income people, which leads to even more flight, leading to more decay, and leading to even lower property values and lower tax base for schools, and the cycle goes on and on. Obviously if white America hadn't been so freaked out about black families getting ahead and moving into better city neighborhoods, this whole destructive phenomenon wouldn't have taken place and people could make decisions about whether to live in cities or suburbs without having to basically accept as a base assumption the notion that suburbs are better places to raise kids.

[clement]

I have to disagree with that statement, there is nothing remotely rural about suburbs. If you think for a moment you experienced rural life in any way, shape, or form I can tell you you did not. Just seeing grass and a cornfield doesn't make it so. That's my problem with the burbs - it's like a compromise that doens't give the either the city or the rural life. I personally could never live in a city, the thought of even visiting Manhattan is enough to give me the willies let alone grow up there. But I understand it, much like I understand rural life which is where I feel more comfortable.

Well that's why I said rural-ish, not rural. But I also submit that the suburbs, at least the one that I grew up in, was really a lot different in the 1970s than it is today. Like I said, we had ponds and creeks and woods and farms and dirt bike trails all over the place back then. I imagine 20 years before hideous subdivisions like the sterile generic one that I grew up in were built, it was even more rural than suburban. I guess you can still get that kind of thing in St. Louis suburbs but you probably have to go much further afield.

I just think that suburbs of that sort do sort of offer a compromise, but I also agree that they are neither here nor there. Is it the best of both worlds or the worst of both worlds? But like I said, the suburb where I grew up now is just a suburb. Nothing rurual and nothing urban about it. Just lots of familiar things lined up in indoor shopping centers and outdoor strip malls, tons of traffic, and nowhere to walk except maybe around your own little block. For me, this type of suburb is definitely the worst of both worlds.

[Magneto2.0]

It's lifeless, but I don't "hate it"

[ghostrunner]

It's lifeless, but I don't "hate it"

It's true. We pretty much just sit around picking our navels free of lint and try to roll it into pretty shapes.

[G. Keenan]

I think our resident GRB suburbanites are proof that the suburbs are NOT populated exclusively by boring, uncool people.

Different strokes.

[Arthur Dent]

Guess I'll weigh in on this.

I don't think the important issue isn't whether living in the city vs. the suburbs makes you cool or whatever. People can decide for themselves what kind of living arrangements they like best. The problem is that there are too many people. Where are we going to put them? Are we going to chew up more land for far flung low density housing? That's an extremely inefficient arrangement in a number of aspects, a fact that will become more and more apparent as energy prices increase.

[ghostrunner]

Guess I'll weigh in on this.

I don't think the important issue isn't whether living in the city vs. the suburbs makes you cool or whatever. People can decide for themselves what kind of living arrangements they like best. The problem is that there are too many people. Where are we going to put them? Are we going to chew up more land for far flung low density housing? That's an extremely inefficient arrangement in a number of aspects, a fact that will become more and more apparent as energy prices increase.

Nothing is set in stone though. We've seen old buildings in the city get demolished for new housing. Why wouldn't that happen in the suburbs if the demand was there? As it is, there's still far more uninhabited land than inhabited.

I found this interesting, and it appears to be an from an environmentally friendly publication:

http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmes ... ticle6.htm

According to that, unnecessary agriculture is the primary culprit when it comes to chewing up land.


As far as energy use, who's to say the land owned in the suburbs can't be used to everyone's benefit? If people who live in suburbs can put windmills or solar panels on their land, they could maybe pay for their own energy and even supply any extra to the city. There's already programs to encourage this kind of thing.

[jim]

I have to disagree with that statement, there is nothing remotely rural about suburbs. If you think for a moment you experienced rural life in any way, shape, or form I can tell you you did not. Just seeing grass and a cornfield doesn't make it so. That's my problem with the burbs - it's like a compromise that doens't give the either the city or the rural life. I personally could never live in a city, the thought of even visiting Manhattan is enough to give me the willies let alone grow up there. But I understand it, much like I understand rural life which is where I feel more comfortable.

Well that's why I said rural-ish, not rural. But I also submit that the suburbs, at least the one that I grew up in, was really a lot different in the 1970s than it is today. Like I said, we had ponds and creeks and woods and farms and dirt bike trails all over the place back then. I imagine 20 years before hideous subdivisions like the sterile generic one that I grew up in were built, it was even more rural than suburban. I guess you can still get that kind of thing in St. Louis suburbs but you probably have to go much further afield.

I just think that suburbs of that sort do sort of offer a compromise, but I also agree that they are neither here nor there. Is it the best of both worlds or the worst of both worlds? But like I said, the suburb where I grew up now is just a suburb. Nothing rurual and nothing urban about it. Just lots of familiar things lined up in indoor shopping centers and outdoor strip malls, tons of traffic, and nowhere to walk except maybe around your own little block. For me, this type of suburb is definitely the worst of both worlds.

Right, but I'm trying to make the point that it's not the ponds and creeks that make a place rural, it's the people and the culture. And the suburbs, regardless of how many ponds and creeks they have, do not have that kind of mentality.

As far the burbs providing the best or worst of both worlds... well i'd vote worst. Once PIR gets out of high school we are definitely out of here. The taxes alone are enough to push people without kids, but the schools and park district are so good here that I really can't complain. Plus, as much as I hate the attitude of some of the people in my town (nose in air), they care for their kids almost to a fault. You talked about herd mentality, and that's exactly what we have in my town. But this herd is one that seems to travel in the right direction with kids... college etc... I often wonder how many of those borderline kids that choose college and a profession would do so in another environment. It's literally peer pressure to go to college here, and I know we are not alone in that attitude.

[OmahaCard79]

I thought I'd chime in on this one. I am a suburb dweller. I don't have a problem with them, but I've also gotten quite a few of those "oh, you live in one of those cookie cutter neigboorhood" comments.

Of course, if I had my choice and unlimited funds, I wouldn't be there. However, the houses are very affordable for young people who haven't been married too long. They are also generally pretty safe and quiet. That's really all I wanted in owning my own property. Sure, they look the same, but I think the positives really outweigh the negatives.

Like I said, it is quiet and safe. I also have access to tons of restaurants and stores, yet i'm still just 5 minutes away from dirt roads and cornfields (yes, I know that'll probably go away in the next 10 years). It's just a really positive environment to live in and, hopefully, to eventually raise a family in. Lots of families, dogs, playgrounds, trails, etc. Who cares if the houses all look the same.

For most of my childhood, my parents lived in a beautiful older home with tons of character in the city. However, I didn't care about that. I only cared about the fact that I wasn't allowed to be a kid and go too far from home because the neighborhood was in decline. We would regularly find syringes thrown into our back yard from the alley next to our house. Also, the police once caught two men trying to break into our home. That did wonders for my seven year old psyche. Basically, the price I paid for my parents need to own a large old home with character was the sacrifice of my freedom to be a kid and not be afraid of where I lived. Of course, bad things can happen anywhere, some areas are just more prone to it than others.

With that being said, I'll take the suburbs any day of the week over that.

[JCShutout]

You talked about herd mentality, and that's exactly what we have in my town. But this herd is one that seems to travel in the right direction with kids... college etc... I often wonder how many of those borderline kids that choose college and a profession would do so in another environment. It's literally peer pressure to go to college here, and I know we are not alone in that attitude.

That's what I was trying to say in an earlier post. Had it not been for the herd mentality, I woulden't be in grad school, and neither would a lot of people. Environments pushing achievement make a big difference.