Which do you prefer: cities, suburbs or small town/rural?

[Truvelo]

I'm currently in the suburbs although I'm in process of buying a house in a small town. I would prefer rural but rural property is too expensive over here. Where I am at the moment is too noisy and the last decade or so has seen less desirable people move into the area and one of my neighbours is doing her best to run the area down.

[Brandon]

can anyone justify the suburbs?  I think they're an absolute blight.

Define suburb.  Are you talking about Levitowns where all the houses are the same, built out in the middle of nowhere?  Or are you talking about places like Lisle, Elmhurst, or even larger places like Joliet and Aurora that have rail stations, bus service, areas that are easily drivable and walkable, and have services?

Not everywhere had suburbs that grew up like Levitown.  Most of the suburbs of Chicago started as rail stops and farming villages (Wheaton, Plainfield) or industrial centers (Aurora, Joliet).  It was from there they grew, both independently and in conjunction with Chicago.  These suburbs tend to have downtown areas and very walkable (and in some cases, very desirable) older districts nearer the center of town, yet they have all the amenities of Chicago without the corruption and problems.

[agentsteel53]

Are you talking about Levitowns where all the houses are the same, built out in the middle of nowhere?

not quite the middle of nowhere, but yes, the same approach to development.  even in San Diego proper, there are suburban districts.  they have no older downtown areas, and while the bus transportation is moderately functional, they are filled with a mix of labyrinthine side streets full of residences, and commercial areas filled with box stores and strip malls that are accessed by six-lane pedestrian-hostile arterials.

I used to live here:
http://goo.gl/maps/UOAmW

pure hell. 

[Brandon]

Are you talking about Levitowns where all the houses are the same, built out in the middle of nowhere?

not quite the middle of nowhere, but yes, the same approach to development.  even in San Diego proper, there are suburban districts.  they have no older downtown areas, and while the bus transportation is moderately functional, they are filled with a mix of labyrinthine side streets full of residences, and commercial areas filled with box stores and strip malls that are accessed by six-lane pedestrian-hostile arterials.

I used to live here:
http://goo.gl/maps/UOAmW

pure hell. 

Dang, not a single grid of any kind anywhere near.  Looks like it was all built within the past 30 years or so.

May area for contrast: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.533961,-88.131552&spn=0.037072,0.084543&t=h&z=14

[agentsteel53]

Dang, not a single grid of any kind anywhere near.  Looks like it was all built within the past 30 years or so.

May area for contrast: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.533961,-88.131552&spn=0.037072,0.084543&t=h&z=14

I don't see much of a contrast.  planned subdivisions, with the occasional retail block, all accessed by a grid of arterials.

[1995hoo]

can anyone justify the suburbs?  I think they're an absolute blight.

The OP asked for opinions. Nobody has to "justify" anything.

[Brandon]

Dang, not a single grid of any kind anywhere near.  Looks like it was all built within the past 30 years or so.

May area for contrast: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.533961,-88.131552&spn=0.037072,0.084543&t=h&z=14

I don't see much of a contrast.  planned subdivisions, with the occasional retail block, all accessed by a grid of arterials.

Downtown is off to the right, by the river (with the rail station on the east side of downtown), and the arterials are smaller (2-4 lanes) and much closer together.  Most of the streets tend to run with the PLSS grid instead of all over the place as in the San Diego example.  And is it just me, but it seems there is far less open space in San Diego.

Most subdivisions are planned, even those built in the 1800s.  Ever see a plat of a town?  Those are basically early subdivision plans.  They even show up in the descriptions of a property, i.e. "LOT 5, BLOCK 4, JOHN DOE'S ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF SPIT, A SUBDIVISION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 40 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS".  I've seen ones that date from the 1870s, and they're basically subdivisions.

[Zeffy]

Maybe my definition of suburbs is off. What would you guys consider where I live? The closest actual cities to us are Trenton and New Brunswick, but maybe even Somerville might qualify, since it's kind-of urban.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Hillsborough+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.504402,-74.63974&spn=0.141749,0.295601&sll=40.506751,-74.638367&sspn=0.070872,0.1478&oq=Hi&hnear=Hillsborough+Township,+Somerset+County,+New+Jersey&t=m&z=12

FIXED LINK THIS TIME.

Dang, not a single grid of any kind anywhere near.  Looks like it was all built within the past 30 years or so.

May area for contrast: https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.533961,-88.131552&spn=0.037072,0.084543&t=h&z=14

Downtown is off to the right, by the river (with the rail station on the east side of downtown), and the arterials are smaller (2-4 lanes) and much closer together.  Most of the streets tend to run with the PLSS grid instead of all over the place as in the San Diego example.  And is it just me, but it seems there is far less open space in San Diego.

Most subdivisions are planned, even those built in the 1800s.  Ever see a plat of a town?  Those are basically early subdivision plans.  They even show up in the descriptions of a property, i.e. "LOT 5, BLOCK 4, JOHN DOE'S ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF SPIT, A SUBDIVISION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 40 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS".  I've seen ones that date from the 1870s, and they're basically subdivisions.

Looking at Joliet, that looks more of an actual city in New Jersey standards to me. The only point against that is that Chicago is to the east, and well, Chicago is Chicago.

[texaskdog]

I can't stand going downtown.  Paying to park and congestion.  Who wants to do with all that?

[agentsteel53]

Downtown is off to the right, by the river (with the rail station on the east side of downtown), and the arterials are smaller (2-4 lanes) and much closer together.  Most of the streets tend to run with the PLSS grid instead of all over the place as in the San Diego example.  And is it just me, but it seems there is far less open space in San Diego.

if I were living in the northwest corner of the map (Theodore at Essington, for example), it's about 6 miles to downtown.  that means I need a car, because it's even a mile to the bus station, and you try hauling 8 bags of groceries that far.  so if I am to have a car, I would not want to live anywhere with heavy traffic.

give me this any day, over the outskirts of Joliet:
http://goo.gl/maps/5WC9B

average vehicles per day on 64/87?  about 4000.  nearest traffic light?  25 miles away.

Most subdivisions are planned, even those built in the 1800s.  Ever see a plat of a town?  Those are basically early subdivision plans.  They even show up in the descriptions of a property, i.e. "LOT 5, BLOCK 4, JOHN DOE'S ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF SPIT, A SUBDIVISION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 40 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS".  I've seen ones that date from the 1870s, and they're basically subdivisions.

fair enough.  but at least all the houses weren't planned by the same builder.  thus, you don't have the "cookie cutter" look.

plus, on 1870s maps, you don't have idiotic marketroid "neighborhood" names like "Idyleside".  ("starting at the low 270s!  because you need advertising to make your important life decisions for you!")

I think the actual physical layout of the suburbs sickens me only in secondary magnitude to the lifestyle it promotes.

[signalman]

Most definitely rural.  I was born and raised in suburbia, and it sickens me.  I've never been a fan of cities and dense population.  Having to travel a long distance in order to get groceries and other things that I need wouldn't bother me.  I like to drive; especially in the absence of other vehicles. 

[Brandon]

Maybe my definition of suburbs is off. What would you guys consider where I live? The closest actual cities to us are Trenton and New Brunswick, but maybe even Somerville might qualify, since it's kind-of urban.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.517584,-74.299078&spn=0.017715,0.03695&t=m&z=15

Looks like an urban suburb with a downtown type area in Perth Amboy.

Looking at Joliet, that looks more of an actual city in New Jersey standards to me. The only point against that is that Chicago is to the east, and well, Chicago is Chicago.

Chicagoland is an interesting place in that regard.  Some of the cities around Chicago are not suburbs so much as they are satellites (think of Chicago as a planet and these cities as large moons).  Waukegan, Elgin, Aurora, and Joliet are all satellite cities of Chicago, but could act as, and have acted as independent cities in the past (and even currently for that matter).  Two of them (Aurora and Joliet) are the second and fourth largest cities in the state now, but have been counted amongst the top 10 or 20 for several decades.  Each of them had or has industries that would be appropriate in other small or medium sized cities downstate (Peoria, Decatur).  For example, Joliet used to have a decent sized steel industry as well as a minor rail hub.  They've since become a major intermodal rail hub.

Two of these are county seats (Joliet and Waukegan), and are thus governmental centers in their own right, rivaling Chicago in that regard (also a county seat).  All four have served as regional centers for their portion of the area, an alternate to going into the larger city of Chicago.  Two of them (Aurora and Joliet) still serve as major retail centers.  Waukegan has lost it to Gurnee, and Elgin has lost it to the Dundees.  In Aurora's case, this is in spite of the growth of Naperville next door (which is a farming village with a rail stop turned suburb).  The satellite cities still form the outer edges of Chicagoland, and even have cultivated suburbs of their own (see below).

Waukegan:
Gurnee, Zion, North Chicago

Elgin:
East Dundee, West Dundee, Crapentersville, South Elgin

Aurora:
North Aurora, Montgomery, Sugar Grove

Joliet:
New Lenox, Crest Hill, Rockdale, Shorewood

[vdeane]

I'm probably more biased towards suburbs than I would be since I grew up in Brighton, which seems like a suburban/urban hybrid compared to the exurban sprawl that's become typical.  It even has a "downtown" with Twelve Corners (where Winton, Elmwood, and Monroe meet).  The undeveloped land with Buckland Park used to be a dairy farm.  I grew up in the triangle formed by Monroe, Winton, and Westfall that has Twelve Corners at the top.  My neighborhood was built all at once, but nearly every house has had at least one addition of some kind so they're noticeably different now.  The older neighborhoods surrounding it are much more varied; all I had to do was walk across the road to see older houses. http://goo.gl/maps/d0EBQ

It's served by the city bus lines and used to be served by Rochester's subway, when it was still around.  Traffic isn't too bad for the most part, though avoiding Monroe during busy shopping times is always a good idea.

[Zeffy]

Maybe my definition of suburbs is off. What would you guys consider where I live? The closest actual cities to us are Trenton and New Brunswick, but maybe even Somerville might qualify, since it's kind-of urban.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.517584,-74.299078&spn=0.017715,0.03695&t=m&z=15

Looks like an urban suburb with a downtown type area in Perth Amboy.

OOPS. Somehow the link from the 'Baffling Interchanges' thread got copied here. Fail... I meant this:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Hillsborough+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.504402,-74.63974&spn=0.141749,0.295601&sll=40.506751,-74.638367&sspn=0.070872,0.1478&oq=Hi&hnear=Hillsborough+Township,+Somerset+County,+New+Jersey&t=m&z=12

Also, your explanation of Chicago and it's 'satellite cities' remind me a lot of 'satellite states' in Europe back in the Cold War era.

[Brandon]

Most subdivisions are planned, even those built in the 1800s.  Ever see a plat of a town?  Those are basically early subdivision plans.  They even show up in the descriptions of a property, i.e. "LOT 5, BLOCK 4, JOHN DOE'S ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF SPIT, A SUBDIVISION OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 40 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS".  I've seen ones that date from the 1870s, and they're basically subdivisions.

fair enough.  but at least all the houses weren't planned by the same builder.  thus, you don't have the "cookie cutter" look.

plus, on 1870s maps, you don't have idiotic marketroid "neighborhood" names like "Idyleside".  ("starting at the low 270s!  because you need advertising to make your important life decisions for you!")

I think the actual physical layout of the suburbs sickens me only in secondary magnitude to the lifestyle it promotes.

Wanna bet?

They very much did advertise them, and many houses do look alike.  I lived in an area dating from the 1910s that was built by a developer with two styles of houses.  It was only a small, two block area, but the houses were similar nevertheless.  It even had a subdivision name (that escapes me right now).

Riverside, a rail suburb of Chicago, was built and advertised by the Riverside Improvement Company in 1869.  It was advertised to the upper middle class as a way to get out of Chicago and commute by rail into the city.  Many of the things we find in suburbs today are found here - curvilinear streets, being a bedroom community, a planned village square.  It incorporated in 1875, after construction started.

They were very much advertised and promoted, and the concept is not as new as some think.  It dates from pre-WWII, and even pre-WWI.

[Brandon]

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Hillsborough+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.504402,-74.63974&spn=0.141749,0.295601&sll=40.506751,-74.638367&sspn=0.070872,0.1478&oq=Hi&hnear=Hillsborough+Township,+Somerset+County,+New+Jersey&t=m&z=12

Now that's very much suburban with pod-type development.  It's even more cut off from anything else than Jake's example in San Diego.

[Road Hog]

Dallas/Fort Worth is spreading out in much the same way Chicago has and the larger megalopolis has taken in the surrounding counties and their seats. I happen to live on the edge of where the growth is starting, but the conveniences are lagging so I still have to drive a ways to go to nice restaurants, etc.

If I was comparing the two suburbias, I'd say Denton is comparable to Joliet and McKinney to Aurora. Both were existing towns already with their own centers of commerce. Frisco is Naperville, the old farmtown with big aspirations. Ironically, the Illinois town of Plano looks to be the next link on the chain in Chicagoland.

[Zeffy]

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Hillsborough+Township,+NJ&hl=en&ll=40.504402,-74.63974&spn=0.141749,0.295601&sll=40.506751,-74.638367&sspn=0.070872,0.1478&oq=Hi&hnear=Hillsborough+Township,+Somerset+County,+New+Jersey&t=m&z=12

Now that's very much suburban with pod-type development.  It's even more cut off from anything else than Jake's example in San Diego.

This is what half of New Jersey actually is. While we have more boroughs than Townships, it isn't by much. I used to tell my out of state friends that you can go any direction on in New Jersey, and end up in a different municipality 5 miles later.

I think Jake's Mira Mesa example looks even more city-like than half of New Jersey's Townships.

[agentsteel53]

I think Jake's Mira Mesa example looks even more city-like than half of New Jersey's Townships.

I suppose it is, given that I got along without a car moderately well... but I think my tolerance for walking is much higher than average.  (for a while I took the bus to work and walked home - 5.5 miles each way.)

[Brandon]

I think Jake's Mira Mesa example looks even more city-like than half of New Jersey's Townships.

I suppose it is, given that I got along without a car moderately well... but I think my tolerance for walking is much higher than average.  (for a while I took the bus to work and walked home - 5.5 miles each way.)

Well, at least San Diego has the weather for it.  Must be the easiest place in the US to be a weatherman on TV.

[xcellntbuy]

I prefer anywhere that maintains my privacy, peace and quiet.

[Alps]

Suburbs. I'd say NY is not the ideal case. I feel too far away from the city, and the high cost of crossing the Hudson River is a real impediment to feeling connected. In most cities, though, I'd rather be a little outside the noise, but with easy access in whenever I want.

[Duke87]

I'm a city person, although it's not without it's tradeoffs. Compared to living in the suburbs it's a much shorter and easier commute, and not having to use a car to commute is a perk unto itself.

But then, unlike when I lived in the suburbs, my car is not right outside whenever I want or need it - it's usually a 15 minute walk from my front door. And having to deal with congestion and potholes (to varying degrees) whenever I want to leave the city is also a minus.

That said, I commute five days a week most weeks. I leave the city two days a week at most, sometimes none. Better to optimize the type of trip that I take more often.


Other things that I find very favorable about urban life compared to suburban life:
- grocery and drug stores are all within quick walking distance and are open long hours. This is highly convenient.
- electric grid reliabilty. At my parents' house the power goes out several times a year, and if there is a really nasty storm it might be out for days. In give or take six years of living in the city (including my current stint, and college dorms previously), the total number of times I have had my power go out is... zero. This includes through Hurricane Sandy and some other nasty storms which knocked out a lot of customers in the suburbs.
- related to the above, the ability to shrug at winter weather. When we get 6+ inches of snow, people commuting in from the suburbs often can't make it into the office because their street hasn't been plowed or some such. But the subway is still running just fine, so I have a completely uneventful commute and then sit the office laughing at all the suburbanites who are snowed in at home.

[realjd]

can anyone justify the suburbs?  I think they're an absolute blight.

Sure. My neighbors are far enough away that I don't have to worry about how loud I am. I have my own pool. I don't have to drive half an hour to get groceries and I don't have to pay for parking. Unlike rural areas, the population is high enough that I don't have trouble finding good, non-chain restaurants, but I also don't have much traffic to deal with. It's an longer bike ride to work or to the store if I choose to bike, but it's a significantly easier ride than it would be in an urban area.

I enjoy suburban life, at least in the area I'm in, but I'd much prefer a city to a rural area if I were to leave the suburbs.

[Doctor Whom]

Cities.  I might as well be near the things that I enjoy, such as culture and nightlife, and I'm less likely to have a Gladys Kravitz on my case.  Cities can have high taxes, dysfunctional political cultures, and imploding school systems, but so can suburbs.