Why all the hate for the suburbs?

[MrCrowesGarden]

The suburbs really are perfect for me, I suppose:

-Hate the bar scene
-Never cared about art galleries or music venues or anything really like that
-Have a general disinterest in people

i don't think this is helping your case.

Yeah, I'd have to agree.

"Fundamentally defective" isn't how I'd put it, but I would say that what you (MrCrowesGarden) have described is a boring life (at least for me), and I think that's the rep that the suburbs have: boring, predictable, repetitive...

And, for the umpteenth time, that's fine.

But I like routine, and I can't for the life of me understand why it has to be ragged on so much.

[thrill]

I like routine, and I can't for the life of me understand why it has to be ragged on so much.

I think it has to do with people who prefer very specific things about the city (art, culture, social scene) tend to be vocally opinionated. They (we, really) stick up for what we like righteously, while you like the comfort, convenience and peace the burbs offer, an attitude that doesn't lead to militant, passionate opinions.

Personally, I'm a city guy who also loves the country. I could go either way. I'm just not a big fan of the halfway. If I'm living in the country, I can put up with the lack of convenience and the commute because of the closeness to nature and the peace. If I'm in the city, I can put up with the lack of peace and closeness to nature because of the convenience and culture. I don't like going halfway because imo, instead of getting the best of what I want out of both worlds (convenience, culture, nature and peace), you get a watered down version with the worst parts.

[ghostrunner]

Some people seem to think it's more environmentally responsible to live in the city. I think you can argue that. But at the same time, what good is it to save the environment if you're going to spend all your time away from it around a bunch of large buildings? I'm not suggesting I'm Henry David Thoreau, but I do have a treeline around me. It's about as good an approximation of nature as I can find without having to drive too far to jobs or groceries. I'm sure some animals were run out whenever this area was developed 40 years ago. New York City is essentially an island that was paved over with a concrete canyon built on top. Fun? Yes. I wouldn't begrudge anyone's enjoyment of that, but I'm not sure I see the nobility in it.

Everything you said was very well stated ghost, but I do have a minor issue with this part. My issue with the suburbs from an environmental standpoint (putting aside the "green" aspect) is that it's like animals in a zoo, sure it's a close approximation of nature... but why not have the real thing. A least with the city you understand that you're destroying the natural environment, but minimizing the damage to a relatively small area. With the suburbs, you're destroying much more of the natural environment and trying to replace it with grass and trees not native to the area. As a kid, I hiked through suburb "forests" and the real thing, and there's just no comparison. The suburb forest is a few acres of trees and heavy growth but not a whole lot of life, and a lot of concrete (which looked like cool ruins to us kids) that are there to redirect creeks... and you're hiking just a yards from someone's backyard most of the time. The real thing is just something else altogether.

I'm not saying I begrudge anyone's enjoyment of that... but if you really enjoy it, wouldn't you be much better suited in the country? I guess I just don't understand someone saying they like living close to nature and then saying the suburbs suit their needs. Same thing with privacy. The country would be a much better place if you want real privacy. The suburbs just kind of seem like a half-assed attempt at both those things.

Maybe that's the best way I can put it - the 'burbs are neither good or bad... just half-assed.

'

I think you make it sound simpler than it is. I need a job, as does my wife. She's a graphic designer and she likes it, so that rules the country out unless she wants to drive 30 or 40 miles a day, which she doesn't. I don't want to either. I do also like having the option of going into town easily if I so choose.

All the jobs aren't in the city either. My wife currently works about 2 miles from our house, but soon she'll take a job that's further out of the city. My job is on the opposite side of town, though I drive to my clients. I should mention we actually live in the city limits, so I don't even know if that conforms to your definition of the suburbs. It's an old suburb which is basically in-town now.

Suppose a lot of people do feel like me - if we all move out to the "country," doesn't it then become the suburbs? I'd also have to drive even further and use more gas to get to work. Even the people who live in the country now have changed the land to their benefit. Not all those people are farmers. The way I see it, where I live is a nice compromise between the city and the country. It's quiet, pleasant to live in, and goods and services are easily accessible.

[ghostrunner]

The suburbs really are perfect for me, I suppose:

-Hate the bar scene
-Never cared about art galleries or music venues or anything really like that
-Have a general disinterest in people

i don't think this is helping your case.

Yeah, I'd have to agree.

"Fundamentally defective" isn't how I'd put it, but I would say that what you (MrCrowesGarden) have described is a boring life (at least for me), and I think that's the rep that the suburbs have: boring, predictable, repetitive...

This puzzles me a little. By and large, it seems we all often discuss the same music, movies, books, magazines, news.... All that stuff is accessible anywhere. Having lived in the city for a while, I don't find my day to day life that much different, except that I don't live in close proximity to other people anymore and I have yard work to do. I lived in South Austin, and was never able to walk down to a corner grocery. I could drive to one across the highway, but it's not much different than what I do here. Everything was a much closer drive, but still a drive. I went to more parties, but those were at people's houses. I did go to bars every so often and socialize, but I could do that living where I do now. I even talk to my neighbors more now than I did in that apartment building. Nobody really hangs outside their apartment. It's very easy to be sociable in the suburbs if you choose to.

To achieve the sort of urban life I think is being advocated, it seems to me you have to live in the big mass-transit cities like Chicago or New York, or live in a fairly dense neighborhood with a lot of stuff within walking distance. Not everyone is able to do that. I definitely don't relish the idea of a world where we bunch everyone together and have a dozen or so New York Cities.

[cardsfansince82]

To achieve the sort of urban life I think is being advocated, it seems to me you have to live in the big mass-transit cities like Chicago or New York, or live in a fairly dense neighborhood with a lot of stuff within walking distance. Not everyone is able to do that. I definitely don't relish the idea of a world where we bunch everyone together and have a dozen or so New York Cities.

That was the point I was going to make reading through this thread. I've never been to Chicago but ever other city I've been in there isn't anything more exciting or advantageous to living in a city. A person in the suburbs has the same access to restaurants, bars, "culture," whatever and chances are we're both going to get in our cars and take the same amount of time to get there. What's the definition of a suburb anyway? Anything new? There's only so many places to live that are actually in the city.

[UK]

If developers have their way every tree between here and Portland will be cut down so they build a house where it used to stand that is three feet away from the house next to it that it looks the exact same as.

Substitute "tree" for "farm land" and "Portland" for "Chicago" and that's what I'm looking at as far as suburbs go.

It already swallowed me up. We moved here because it wasn't a suburb, but the sprawl overtook us. I figure you are 10 years away lipp.

I would never choose to live in a big city but I think the suburbs are worse. 90% of the hassle with only 10% of the benefit.

They still haven't got me yet, it's still rural, and this housing crunch as stopped alot of it. But, it was coming and there wouldn't be the infrastructure to handle it.

[Popeye_Card]

I think a few important distinctions need to be made.

"City" doesn't have to mean "downtown". As we've discussed before, cities like St. Louis have incredibly varied options for living that are not concrete jungles downtown.

"Suburbs" are not created equal. There's a huge difference between a suburb like Webster Groves with beautiful old homes, and a suburb full of subdivisions with shodily built, boring housing.

To me, subdivisions show an incredible lack of good urban planning. Yes, it's "suburban", but when more people are living out there than in the urban areas, they really are "urban". They just aren't laid out like it.

[ghostrunner]

To achieve the sort of urban life I think is being advocated, it seems to me you have to live in the big mass-transit cities like Chicago or New York, or live in a fairly dense neighborhood with a lot of stuff within walking distance. Not everyone is able to do that. I definitely don't relish the idea of a world where we bunch everyone together and have a dozen or so New York Cities.

That was the point I was going to make reading through this thread. I've never been to Chicago but ever other city I've been in there isn't anything more exciting or advantageous to living in a city. A person in the suburbs has the same access to restaurants, bars, "culture," whatever and chances are we're both going to get in our cars and take the same amount of time to get there. What's the definition of a suburb anyway? Anything new? There's only so many places to live that are actually in the city.

I do think cities have "better" restaurants and culture. At the very least more unique and worth a trip out. Not that chains don't have good food at times, but I generally don't care for the way they do it. Chili's and Friday's, for example, seem to believe in piling more cheese or chocolate on things, and giving you enough food for a horse. There's also better selection of food and more ethnic varieties in the city. This is getting back to the meat and potatoes discussion though.

None of that is really relevant if you like to cook, as we do. I think that enriches our lives more than going out to restaurants. It's also a lot cheaper to cook your own food. We grow tomatoes in the summer, and there's actually a guy that sells his own produce about two blocks from here. So I personally don't see a huge advantage to the city there. Though I should add that Indy is generally a terrible food city and it does get frustrating at times. If you go out, it's more or less deciding which chain to go to. There's local stuff, but you have to dig to find it and it too is spread out everywhere. I miss Austin in that respect, though even there we had to drive to the places we went.

[omaha_red]

The suburbs really are perfect for me, I suppose:

-Hate the bar scene
-Never cared about art galleries or music venues or anything really like that
-Have a general disinterest in people

i don't think this is helping your case.

Yeah, I'd have to agree.

"Fundamentally defective" isn't how I'd put it, but I would say that what you (MrCrowesGarden) have described is a boring life (at least for me), and I think that's the rep that the suburbs have: boring, predictable, repetitive...

And, for the umpteenth time, that's fine.

But I like routine, and I can't for the life of me understand why it has to be ragged on so much.

if you're fine with it.. and you dislike everything you mentioned..
why worry about it?

[ghostrunner]

I think a few important distinctions need to be made.

"City" doesn't have to mean "downtown". As we've discussed before, cities like St. Louis have incredibly varied options for living that are not concrete jungles downtown.

"Suburbs" are not created equal. There's a huge difference between a suburb like Webster Groves with beautiful old homes, and a suburb full of subdivisions with shodily built, boring housing.

To me, subdivisions show an incredible lack of good urban planning. Yes, it's "suburban", but when more people are living out there than in the urban areas, they really are "urban". They just aren't laid out like it.

I'd agree with that. I do admit to my own bit of snobbery when it comes to modern subdivisions. I can't stand to see houses crammed next to each other that are all made from the same building materials and therefore look the same. Even painted the exact same colors.

On the other hand, I do think there's something to not caring what your house or yard looks like. If you spend most of your time inside, then it doesn't make a lot of difference. Maybe you just need a patio garden and that's enough.

Most of these subdivisions are about kids, I think. The idea is that cars aren't zooming through them ( hence all the cul de sacs) and the kids can play safely outside. It doesn't seem like a fun play environment to me, but then I can't really judge that for other people.

If a lot of these places were designed better and they left more trees up and the yards were bigger, I'd generally have no problem with them. The fact that they're located outside the city doesn't is okay in my book, other than the traffic in and out of those places is usually too frustrating for me. The idea of separate, mixed-use neighborhoods is appealing to me as well. Though the advantages are fewer if you can't work in or near that neighborhood.