124 replies to this topic

[tdot style]

If you we're to choose between these two locations, where would you rather live and why?(remember, suburban houses are bigger).

[FromCityToRural]

Suburbs, without a doubt. Why?

Typically cheaper housing
Less hustle and bustle, and noise
Situated near enough to everything to still be convenient
May not have city taxes which are typically higher
Better on the crime front
Somewhat more freedom
Less crowded and cramped

[GRDadof3]

tdot style, on Jul 16 2006, 02:08 AM, said:

If you we're to choose between these two locations, where would you rather live and why?(remember, suburban houses are bigger).

Suburban houses are not always bigger.  In fact, many of the inner ring suburbs of the Midwest contain small "ramblers" or "ranch-style" homes that are one floor in the 1200 - 1400 sq ft range.   Whereas in many cities, there are homes built in the early 1900's through WWII that were much larger two story homes in the 1800+ sq ft range.  Many of these have been split into 3 or 4 rental units, or are single-family homes.

But there are a lot more factors than house size.

Perhaps for clarification, you should define "suburb" and "city", and then list what size homes you think are in each of these subcategories, how far they are from the urban core, what size is the metro you are referring to, and maybe even give a couple of examples of particular cities and their respective suburbs, etc..

[Skyliner]

Between these two choices, I definitely say, CITY.  I actually prefer the rural mountain villages where properties are larger and more interesting, but to live in an urban setting has major advantages that one can't dream of in a rural or even suburban location.  Of course, there are drawbacks to that as well.  Some urban locations have much higher crime rates, and most have a considerably higher cost of living.  The benefits are tremendous though, when you consider the savings in transportation costs, among others.  If a majority of people were to reside in the urban centers of our cities, I think we could see less air pollution as a result, and definitely would help to preserve the natural beauty and importance of the land.  More could be done to satisfy alternative transportation demands.  Mass transit and light transit could all be redesigned to utilize new methods of clean and efficient energy.

[coyotetrickster]

City.  No Suburbanites for neighbors.

[moonshield]

I would chose the city if I were single, the (inner) suburbs if I had children.

Edited by moonshield, 16 July 2006 - 09:10 AM.

[paul514]

Definately city fore me, but it has to be a city like Sydney, New York, London, Toronto, Vancouver where people actually live in the urban core. I don't ever want kids so I guess schools aren't a big concern. I like to be able to walk most places and would like to live in a highrise with amenities such as a pool, gym etc. For myself I see no need for a big house, a comfortable well designed modern apartment with large windows and a great view and balcony will do. I don't like gardening and hate the sound of lawnmowers in the morning in the suburbs. Give me great clubs, restaurants and shops instead of malls and big box shopping. The savings of not needing a car can be spent elsewhere.

[daniel18]

1. City
2. Rural Area
3. Suburb
4. Exurb

[krazeeboi]

Are we speaking of "city" as in the CBD, urban core, center city, etc., or simply within city limits? In that same vein, are we talking about inner-ring suburbs, outer-ring suburbs (both of which can be within city limits), etc.?

[daniel18]

Skyliner, on Jul 16 2006, 09:48 AM, said:

Between these two choices, I definitely say, CITY.  I actually prefer the rural mountain villages where properties are larger and more interesting, but to live in an urban setting has major advantages that one can't dream of in a rural or even suburban location.  Of course, there are drawbacks to that as well.  Some urban locations have much higher crime rates, and most have a considerably higher cost of living.  The benefits are tremendous though, when you consider the savings in transportation costs, among others.  If a majority of people were to reside in the urban centers of our cities, I think we could see less air pollution as a result, and definitely would help to preserve the natural beauty and importance of the land.  More could be done to satisfy alternative transportation demands.  Mass transit and light transit could all be redesigned to utilize new methods of clean and efficient energy.

Where did you get that stat from?

[moonshield]

krazeeboi, on Jul 16 2006, 02:47 PM, said:

Are we speaking of "city" as in the CBD, urban core, center city, etc., or simply within city limits? In that same vein, are we talking about inner-ring suburbs, outer-ring suburbs (both of which can be within city limits), etc.?

Indeed. It's a little confusing with some cities.

For cities like Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh - the inner ring suburbs are like the far flung suburbs of other cities.

Add in the pockets of urbanity and new urbanist centers and it becomes even more confusing.

Edited by moonshield, 16 July 2006 - 01:06 PM.

[Cadeho]

The city has so much more life than the suburbs.  People in the suburbs (the newer ones) tend to put up big privacy fences and can only be seen when getting in and out of their cars. In others, if the people get out, it's for walking or jogging. There's hardly any real communities anymore, just places to live.  It can be like that in some city neighborhoods too, but  not likely. Most times they're not so car-oriented.

And suburban housing is not always bigger.  The city is also can have mansions or areas that are exclusive to the rich. The lot sizes in the suburbs can be larger though.  But too, some cities have suburban-styled housing inside them.  There are parts of Richmond that even have a suburban look and aren't far from downtown.

The only thing is the suburbs tend to attract all the stores, at least here and they tend to cluster retail developments in the farthest reaches in the counties as to say they're better than everyone else.

[FromCityToRural]

The city is fun to visit, but living there is just not for me. I like to relax a little! Plus, inside those city limits, they have regulations for EVERYTHING, even petty stuff that I would never have thought would be regulated. It's just highly annoying to me.

Plus, I restore classic cars as a hobby (and want to do it for a living), and urban cores just aren't friendly to shadetree mechanics such as myself. That may not mean much to those of you to whom cars are just a utilitarian thing, but it's a HUGE drawback to me.

Having said that, I do appreciate the diversity in all aspects that a city provides, as well as the wealth of activities that are around. This is why I love Chicago, and love visiting, but could never fathom living there.

[krazeeboi]

One thing I think we need to keep in mind is that a suburb can be rather urban in nature and a city can be rather suburban in nature.

Carry on.

[waccamatt]

I'll take the city, hands down. While I grew up in the suburbs, I have only lived in the suburbs for 1 year as an adult and I couldn't wait to sell the house and move back into the city. Since that time (about 18 years) I've lived within a mile or so of the original city limits of Columbia, which is now generally considered to be the downtown area.

[suburban george3]

I'll say city, but I still want a single family home with some grass.  I could never be happy in a townhouse/condo/apartment situation.  Just my preferences.  I guess ideally, would be the outer edge neighborhoods of a city.

[cheeriokid61]

I don't know, I'd like to try the city life, maybe in my twenties and while I'm married (without children) But I imagine as I get older and want to raise a family, I'll move back out to the suburbs, preferably the ones inside city limits (which isn't saying much for Nashville). But IDK, I guess I'll have to wait and see.

[Recchia]

I hate suburbs.  I need to be within walking distance of things, especially a variety of food places.  That's why I love my hood now.

[SouthParkRocks]

cheeriokid61, on Jul 16 2006, 08:09 PM, said:

I don't know, I'd like to try the city life, maybe in my twenties and while I'm married (without children) But I imagine as I get older and want to raise a family, I'll move back out to the suburbs, preferably the ones inside city limits (which isn't saying much for Nashville). But IDK, I guess I'll have to wait and see.

That seems to be a common and logical sequence for young couples that then decide to have kids, but I would like to hear from others on this forum that have kids or have raised kids in urban areas and the 'burbs and see what their take is on it.
  
I don't have kids and that has made it easy for me to decide to live in the city (street car suburb) but it seems to me that kids can thrive in urban settings, and can just as easily get into very negative behavior/situations in the suburbs.  Of course most parents wish to have the yard, the safety, and the good schools; but parks, actual crime rates as opposed to perceived crime rates, and parental involvement in education and cultural opportunities can make a city a desirable place to grow up.

I am always pleased to see kids in very urban settings seem to be so at ease and taking in all the environment around them with fervor- the interactions with the vast majority of the adult population that genuinely cares for the well-being of children helps raise confident and secure citizens, despite what some country or surburban folks may perceive as the dangerous and negatively influencing environment of a city.

And I can easily remember growing up in a rural town and the suburbs and how much trouble one can get into despite what may appear to be a bucolic and safe environment.

So parents, what are your experiences?

Edited by SouthParkRocks, 17 July 2006 - 01:31 PM.

[krazeeboi]

Recchia, on Jul 17 2006, 02:09 PM, said:

I hate suburbs.  I need to be within walking distance of things, especially a variety of food places.  That's why I love my hood now.

You can be within walking distance of things in some suburbs. Suburbs need not be suburban in nature.

Edited by krazeeboi, 17 July 2006 - 03:50 PM.