What's up with the hatred of suburbia?

[mnemosyne]

@Hello_Again

The irony, ir burns us. That wouldn’t be your life if you lived in NYC. Over half of New York City residents don’t own a car, and it’s 75% in Manhattan. That would be your life if you lived in the New Jersey suburbs of Manhattan.

This made me laugh too, because it’s a similar complaint about Montreal by some people who live off the island…“OMG the traffic is so bad” when the vast majority of the traffic is caused by those very people commuting in single-passenger cars onto the island for work and then commuting home. The areas of the road system in the city that have the worst traffic jams are all bridge/tunnel access areas; the actual city traffic isn’t that bad at all. All I know is that I could never put up with driving 1 hour each way on a 15km commute from the South Shore or West Island just so that I can have a lawn to mow every weekend (well, in the summer…!). It just seems so soul sucking. I guess if my husband and I worked in those areas (which I don’t mentally consider “suburbia” even though they are technically suburbs) we’d live there, but our careers will be in the city, so it’s where we will live.

The “suburbia” that I dislike is like some others have described; the identical-home, circular road, sidewalk-less new developments that are springing up like crazy in the past years, often far from commuter transit or far enough away that people prefer to take their cars (really, the concept of commuter parking lots seems weird to me!). They seem falsely idyllic to me, and give me the creeps.

Even if they are a peaceful, fun, safe place to live, they just make my skin crawl. I’m just not comfortable there, whereas the busy-ness and anonymity of Montreal appeals to me greatly. I like the proximity of services, and I never feel like I’m “fighting” anyone on public transit; it doesn’t bother me if my arm brushes up against someone on the bus (really, I almost never see anyone that I’d consider “filthy” on the bus or metro, so those descriptions of transit seem odd to me). I like to people-watch, so the city is great for that.

I guess it’s not so much that I hate suburbia, but I hate suburbia for me. I just couldn’t live in that type of community; I’d be very unhappy. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly why, but I know it’s true.
Oh, as for doing the groceries, we do have a car so for big trips we’ll take it; several of the larger grocery stores have parking lots. Generally, though, we stop by on the way home 2-3 times a week and pick up what we feel like having. We use large cloth bags, so we can carry quite a bit. Our neighborhood store is 400m away, so even in the winter it’s very practical. It really isn’t that much of a hardship.

[lindsaybluth]

@Lady_of_the_Lake

The kids of people in affluent suburbs just a few blocks away from your 160k Ryan starter homes also do not have the option to be docents at the museum or ride the bus to the food bank any more than the kids in the cheaper suburban homes so how

There is decent public transit in the more affluent suburbs. It’s easy to get to the museums, universities and libraries. My SO did just this as a late middle schooler and high schooler. They also often have a nanny or babysitter in the summer that drives them places. A bus pass for a city dweller is cheaper than a babysitter, of course.

@Lady_of_the_Lake

But sometimes people just want a home that’s near their job<snip>.

The majority of these people in Pittsburgh (again, I have no idea what it’s like where you live, just as you have no idea what it’s like where I live) actually work Downtown or in Oakland. Very, very few are living in the 'burbs for a shorter commute.

@Lady_of_the_Lake

So, this type of home is not okay, but affluent suburbs in your opinion are fine then…because? Affluent suburbs also would fit into your theory ‘moved because scared of brown people’ and others comments of ‘cultural wasteland.

Affluent suburbs, like Shagnasty has described, have the money to build their own amenities like the city. Miles of sidewalks, cute downtown squares of shopping and business and restaurants, access to some ethnic restaurants (because the $ is there, drives the business owners there too), trails, parks, playgrounds and nice libraries abound. They even have their own theaters and plays and productions. They build their own culture. Also, (again, in Pittsburgh) the most affluent suburbs are the closest to the city so getting to the city is a 20 minute haul instead of a 40-hour long trek from the outer 'burbs, so getting to culture is less of a pain and more likely.

Like I said before, you can get a better built house in the city (there is no shortage of housing stock here). For 160k home value, you get better access to transit, better quality and cheaper, healthier food options (wholesalers in the Strip District), a better school and access to museums, libraries, universities, kids’ intellectual summer day camps, ethnic restaurants, the arts and so forth. You can live with one car easily. Your quality of life is far more culturally and intellectually richer in the city for the same price as a cookie-cutter house in the outer rings of the suburbs with a long commute.

[Lady_of_the_Lake]

@lindsaybluth

There is decent public transit in the more affluent suburbs. It’s easy to get to the museums, universities and libraries. My SO did just this as a late middle schooler and high schooler. They also often have a nanny or babysitter in the summer that drives them places. A bus pass for a city dweller is cheaper than a babysitter, of course.

This is not true, at all, of the suburbs here in Minnesota.

We have light rail that goes into the twin cities. We have a bus system in my suburbs downtown which is *much *closer to the cheap townhouses and ugly cookie cutter suburban houses that spring up everywhere than the nice *affluent *suburb areas which are in the nice wooded areas near the nice lakes and far away from suburban downtown’s.

In general the affluent suburbs here are much less likely to have bus stops and, in general, they are much farther away from the rail line.

In general, the poor and middle class suburbs are much more likely to have bus stops with access to the rail line.

Therefore, here in Minnesota (and I suspect in most states), the affluent suburbs are even less likely to have public transport readily available for their kids to use to volunteer at a museum or at a city food shelf.

You are correct, people in affluent suburbs can afford to have a nanny to drive them in to experience the culture of the city. So, again it comes down to money. The rich suburbs can pay the help to broaden their kid’s horizon and thus they are worthy and the middle class suburbs can’t, therefore we despise the middle class suburbs. Even though they are both – set away from the city, contain a lack of ethnic diversity, are cut off from true cultural exchange.

@lindsaybluth

<snipped the section I have no issues with> Affluent suburbs, like Shagnasty has described, have the money to build their own amenities like the city. Miles of sidewalks, cute downtown squares of shopping and business and restaurants, access to some ethnic restaurants (because the $ is there, drives the business owners there too), trails, parks, playgrounds and nice libraries abound. They even have their own theaters and plays and productions. They build their own culture. Also, (again, in Pittsburgh) the most affluent suburbs are the closest to the city so getting to the city is a 20 minute haul instead of a 40-hour long trek from the outer 'burbs, so getting to culture is less of a pain and more likely.

Like I said before, you can get a better built house in the city (there is no shortage of housing stock here). For 160k home value, you get better access to transit, better quality and cheaper, healthier food options (wholesalers in the Strip District), a better school and access to museums, libraries, universities, kids’ intellectual summer day camps, ethnic restaurants, the arts and so forth. You can live with one car easily. Your quality of life is far more culturally and intellectually richer in the city for the same price as a cookie-cutter house in the outer rings of the suburbs with a long commute.

Ah, I see. The affluent suburbs have money therefore they are able to buy nice things.

The poor suburbs don’t have money, they can’t buy nice things, and therefore they are to be despised.

The only difference here is money.

Affluent suburbs suffer from the same lack of skin color diversity you accuse of Middle class suburbs. They suffer from the same cultural separation; in fact they are even more likely to have gated communities and set away cul-di-sacs.

I live in a middle class suburb (granted it’s a nice older house with diverse houses, we have sidewalks, big trees, and an active community) but I am near middle class suburbs that fit the description of the 160k Ryan homes. We also nearby have rows of those ugly identical town houses. Here, in this middle class suburb we have access to buses which are connected to the light rail system to the twin cites. We have ethnic restaurants (granted, they are hole-in the-wall places in strip malls, but here we have thai, vietamese etc..) We have a city museum, a community center for things like plays, camps, events, a library, good schools and parks.

The only difference is that our buildings and parks and libraries are simply not as nice as the nice museums, libraries, ethnic restaurants, etc…you find in an affluent suburb because we are not as rich.

There is no more likely to be a man playing a trashcan on the side of the street to give us some ethnic culture in an affluent suburb than there would be in a middle class suburb.

[Balthisar]

And yet you’ve provided no evidence that people in suburbs are less educated, cultured, financially successfuly or healthy [than NYC].

@msmith537

New York is a metropolitan city of almost 10 million people. It has top universities, museums, and theaters. It’s the financial capital of the world. It’s a major hub for industries such as tech, fashion, media and many others. I thought it was just understood.

You’ve not addressed anything. The point as far as my reading comprehension allows is people, not businesses. The museum’s being is in the city has nothing to do with my culture as a suburbanite, because I can drive into the city to go to the museum without being forced to live there.

[lindsaybluth]

@Lady_of_the_Lake

Ah, I see. The affluent suburbs have money therefore they are able to buy nice things.

The poor suburbs don’t have money, they can’t buy nice things, and therefore they are to be despised.

The only difference here is money.

How the hell did you get that from this:

@lindsaybluth

Like I said before, you can get a better built house in the city (there is no shortage of housing stock here). For 160k home value, you get better access to transit, better quality and cheaper, healthier food options (wholesalers in the Strip District), a better school and access to museums, libraries, universities, kids’ intellectual summer day camps, ethnic restaurants, the arts and so forth. You can live with one car easily. Your quality of life is far more culturally and intellectually richer in the city for the same price as a cookie-cutter house in the outer rings of the suburbs with a long commute.

What I said is they make choices - the choice to live in a lower-middle class suburb instead of the choice to live in the city where they live closer to one another and often experience greater racial diversity but gain a whole host of things in return (which I listed above).

@Lady_of_the_Lake

There is no more likely to be a man playing a trashcan on the side of the street to give us some ethnic culture in an affluent suburb than there would be in a middle class suburb.

If that’s how you define culture of big cities, well then…we really have nothing to talk about.

Bu I don’t think you really think that. I think, quite honestly, that we experience different things in different ways (which I’ve now said 3 or 4 times).

Us experiencing different things:

@Lady_of_the_Lake

In general the affluent suburbs here are much less likely to have bus stops and, in general, they are much farther away from the rail line.

In general, the poor and middle class suburbs are much more likely to have bus stops with access to the rail line.

Therefore, here in Minnesota (and I suspect in most states), the affluent suburbs are even less likely to have public transport readily available for their kids to use to volunteer at a museum or at a city food shelf.

This is a big difference between the Twin Cities and Pittsburgh then. That doesn’t make you right, nor does it give you the right to accuse me of saying poor people suck. You don’t get to “suspect” either. Unless you’re a city planner, a military serviceman who moves often or some other “moves often” person and you know these things.

[msmith537]

@Balthisar

You’ve not addressed anything. The point as far as my reading comprehension allows is people, not businesses. The museum’s being is in the city has nothing to do with my culture as a suburbanite, because I can drive into the city to go to the museum without being forced to live there.

So how often do you end up driving in?

[Dr.Strangelove]

@RickJay

An excellent study on the matter:

http://www.vtpi.org/shoup.pdf

I finally got around to reading this, and only when noticing that the writing style seemed familiar did I realize that it was written by the same Donald Shoup as the article I cited. It seems that there really aren’t that many people talking about it.

An important point, I think, is that it is possible to simultaneously have too much and too little parking: minimum parking requirements may well degrade walkability to the point where auto use is a must, and yet still not provide enough parking to meet peak demand. More parking could solve this, but less parking is an even better idea since it doesn’t sacrifice the density needed for a thriving city center.

[Lady_of_the_Lake]

@lindsaybluth

How the hell did you get that from this:

I feel that I’m beginning to highjack this thread, apologies. We can drop this if you’d like. I am merely trying to explain my impression of your posts.

My interpretation of your viewpoint is due to your first post in this thread. In that post you mention your approval of affluent suburbs and you then make several negative generalizations and express disapproval of middle class suburbanites (who live in ‘Ryan’ type homes’). But in each case I look at your generalizations and the same sort of generalizations fit the people who live in affluent suburbs – the people you have expressed approval of. Those Botoxed, golf club, status chasing rich people who spend all their time around other white people just like them and don’t give back to the community. It is your opinion that rich suburban people create more culture and are more likely to experience the diversity of the city, whereas I look at them and wonder how that’s possible when they’re living in isolated cul-di-sacs and gated communities and the culture they create is just a more expensive version of the white bread culture common to middle class suburbs.

Additionally, you then hint that people who live in middle class suburban homes are racist by saying this:

*“I was volunteering at a Petco (for an unrelated charity) when 30 heads swiveled to the front - where a young black woman and a white guy were holding hands. That would never happen in the city itself.

In short, there is no intellectual curiosity, there is no drive to succeed nor authenticity of food or culture. The only interests are in maintaining the status quo in a “new” house and living paycheck to paycheck in a bland suburb away from the city (and scary brown people).”*

The same could be said of affluent suburbanites. They moved to the suburbs and live in gated communities to get away from scary brown people, unless of course the brown people are cleaning their house or mowing their lawn. Don’t be a black guy running in an affluent neighborhood though or they’ll call the cops (I remember a news article about a black professor whom this happened to.)

I understand that your argument is that it would be better, in your opinion, for middle class people to choose toe live in an urban setting, more culture, more diversity etc…but my point is that all of the negative stereotypes you throw at middle class people also fit affluent people like a glove. It seems like a double standard on your part, imho.

@lindsaybluth

If that’s how you define culture of big cities, well then…we really have nothing to talk about.

Apologies, this was me referencing this postas an example of the differences between urban/suburban.

@lindsaybluth

This is a big difference between the Twin Cities and Pittsburgh then. That doesn’t make you right, nor does it give you the right to accuse me of saying poor people suck. You don’t get to “suspect” either. Unless you’re a city planner, a military serviceman who moves often or some other “moves often” person and you know these things.

Fair enough, you have a good point here – I have no studies only my impression of my area. But then the same could be said of you, you referenced your boyfriend’s affluent suburban house as having public transit as back up for your belief that affluent areas are more likely to have public transit (at least this was my impression of what you said.) I am only going by what I see: bus signs near lower and middle class areas, less so when I drive through more affluent areas. shrug

[Rand_Rover]

@John_Bredin

I grew up in a house in a suburb bordering Chicago, where the lot sizes are identical to the adjoining city neighborhood with straight streets on a grid pattern and consistent sidewalks on both sides of the street. The town doesn’t have a proper downtown, but commercial uses aren’t kept separate from residential, and when I lived there plenty of people walked to the park, to the library, to school, to the mall – which is enclosed but across a narrow side street from houses. Were it not for the different street signs and lamp-posts, I doubt many people passing by on the main streets would know where the city ended and my suburb began.

Oak Park?

I live in another Chicago suburb now, and it has some truly suburban portions. But the area where I live is the old downtown around the commuter rail station, with a mix of condo or apartment buildings and houses, with a commercial area around the train station, and consistent sidewalks on both sides of the streets. I have a car and find it useful but not an absolute necessity for daily living.

Evanston?

[jz78817]

@lindsaybluth

This is actually an attack on their values and their judgments, not at all a disdain for how much they have. For that same 160k (there was just an ad in the paper for starter Ryan homes for 160k, 100k was me lowballing it) you can get a home in a nicer neighborhood in the city and have your kids go to the best city school. The best (not the middling schools in the cheaper suburbs) city school kids end up going to many prestigious schools while also being in a diverse neighborhood (note here that diverse does not mean crime riddled). The kids don’t lifeguard at the local pool, they’re docents at the museum or work at the food bank, all able to get to their summer positions with the bus system..

come to detroit. Show me the nicer neighborhoods in the city, and show me the “best” schools.

[Caffeine.addict]

It depends on the suburb. McLean Virginia which is a fairly affluent suburb of DC doesn’t have great public transportation.

The main attraction of the suburbs here are the schools. The schools in DC suck especially compared to the suburbs. I know a lot of people who either move out when their kids get to school age or send them to private school.

[RickJay]

@lindsaybluth

This is a big difference between the Twin Cities and Pittsburgh then.

This is a fairly big difference between Pittsburgh and most large metropolitan areas. Have you ever been anywhere OTHER than Pittsburgh?

In most big cities that aren’t absolute disasters like Detroit, the cost of housing in the city is significantly higher than in the suburbs, and generally speaking the further you get from a major population centre the cheaper it gets. If Pittsburgh is not that way, it is an unusual exception.

My last house in suburban Burlington cost $305,000; an equivalent property in Toronto would probably cost between $500,000 and $750,000 depending on the specific location, assuming the same basic features and state of repair. Friends recently sold their Toronto home, half a duplex, a home just 12 feet wide - significantly smaller than my apartment - and old and in need of some repairs, with no finished basement, no parking, just off a major thoroughfare where drunks prowl around every night, for about $550,000, a price that around here would get you three thousand square feet of non-cookie-cutter house in n established, leafy neighbourhood.

[tumbleddown]

@lindsaybluth

Also, (again, in Pittsburgh) the most affluent suburbs are the closest to the city so getting to the city is a 20 minute haul instead of a 40-hour long trek from the outer 'burbs, so getting to culture is less of a pain and more likely.

Uh, Lindsay, no. Just stop.

The most affluent suburbs in this area are Cranberry Township, (which is in another county) Fox Chapel, Sewickley, Upper St. Clair and Peters Township (also in another county). None of them are “closest to” the city (each has at least one inner ring suburb between it and the city, most have at least two or three) and none are less than a 45 minute drive into downtown or Oakland, and that’s without rush hour traffic. (Have you ever traveled Routes 19, 28 or 65 in rush hour as a daily commute?) Hell, I live in the city itself and it would take me 30 minutes to get to Oakland in rush hour.

Please stop now, because you’re now talking out of your ear.

[Balthisar]

@msmith537

So how often do you end up driving in?

Depends on the city. Here at home in the Detroit area, at least once per month, depending on my time. In Mexico City, it was once per week. In Toronto, it was once per week. (No hatred for Detroit, but I have a house that’s been neglected while not living in it recently.)

Now of course you know the cliché about people that live in, for example, New York that have never gone to the Statue of Liberty or haven’t set foot in the Museum of Natural History since they were in school?

In fact, I’d suggest that the overwhelming majority of suburb people take just as much advantage as city people of a city’s cultural aspects.

[suranyi]

@msmith537

So how often do you end up driving in?

Well, I don’t usually drive in – I take the train. But I’d say maybe once a month or so I go to some cultural event in the city.

And judging by my passport stamps I’m sure as well-travelled as the average city dweller. So I don’t get where someone can say that suburbanites don’t travel. Heck, I probably live closer to the airport than some city dwellers.

[dangermom]

What I like about my town is that there are plenty of cultural opportunities, but they’re actually affordable and easy to get to. When I lived in the Bay Area, going to a cultural event was a huge project and cost a lot of money. I go to more cool stuff now than I did then, and spend less money on it.