I prefer cities. There's always something going on in a city.
Suburbs don't do a whole lot for me. They're OK, but they tend to lack character that central cities have.
I could possibly live in a small town, but not enough conveniences to for me to want to live in one on my own volition. I lived with my mom in a rural after I moved back to MS from San Diego. Not my lifestyle.
I haven't experienced much compared to some others here, but I think towns with about ~4000 people are the best.
I prefer suburbs. Cities are too dense for me but rural areas lack conveniences.
Suburbs, rural, and city, in that order, although I'm slowly gravitating towards rural over suburbs.
City. I've lived 15 years in this suburb and anytime I go to a city / urban area I just wish I lived there. At least I can get a job by walking somewhere, even if the city is a total shithole in this state. Plus, like Golden Eagle said...
Quote from: golden eagle on March 09, 2014, 09:05:59 PM
There's always something going on in a city.
Unfortunately in New Jersey, 'something' usually refers to an act of violence, but hey, it's usually targeted.
I love suburbs and the damage they're doing to our planet and humanity's future.
Rural through and through. Most cities and suburbs have a very elitist and narcissistic way of life that I don't like at all.
Suburbs are boring as hell.
I either want to be in a small, tight-knit town, out in the middle of nowhere where I won't likely see anybody for miles, or in the center of a big city. Everything in between is icky.
Give me a small town in the middle of nowhere surrounded by miles upon miles of utter desolation, a place with a strong sense of community and welcoming to visitors. Aside from that, all I'd need is a ranch 30 or 40 miles out of town for when I want some time alone. I'll buy a van and a big freezer and say good-bye to the city except to stock up on supplies.
Urban for sure, but nothing over 1.5 - 2 million population.
Quote from: corco on March 09, 2014, 10:23:21 PM
I either want to be in a small, tight-knit town, out in the middle of nowhere where I won't likely see anybody for miles, or in the center of a big city. Everything in between is icky.
I'm kind of in this camp, although I don't object to those parts of a big city that aren't the center. What I don't much care for are those places that are peripheral to the big city, yet neither identifiably part of it nor appreciably distinct from it. For me, it's all about the identity of the place, not its size.
I prefer a smaller-medium sized city to a very large city or a rural area. But, it's not necessarily size that makes a place for me, it's also how it is in relation to its area. It's much better being in a regional center than in a close-in suburb that must depend on a large city, or in a smaller town with few amenities. It's also better having access to get out of town quickly.
I'd rather live in an area with easy freeway access, regardless of city or suburb. Areas with poor freeway access, particularly dense urban areas, can be intolerable to live in.
Suburbs. I've lived in the Virginia suburbs of DC for most of my life (born in Texas but we moved when I was 1 so I don't remember it, and my college and law school years in Charlottesville and Durham were in areas that felt more suburban than urban). I don't care for many of the hassles of living in a city, such as parking, noise, etc., and in the case of the District of Columbia the corrupt government and single-party governance are further turnoffs to me. I prefer suburbs to rural because when I've spent time in small towns I've felt confined; because I prefer the conveniences of the suburbs; and because I like the easy access to some of the aspects of a city that I do like, the most notable in the case of DC being the ability to attend sporting events (primarily the Capitals and Nationals), concerts, and occasionally the theatre (meaning stage productions at the Kennedy Center or the National Theatre).
Yes, there are some hassles related to traffic, but I've lived here long enough that they don't bother me all that much. I can understand why someone moving here from a more rural place would think a half-hour commute into the city (which I no longer do, BTW) is brutal, but I've known that my whole life because growing up we always lived a short distance outside the Beltway and my father commuted to downtown.
I live in a rural county of 7,000, and the county seat is an incorporated town with a population of 1,000 or so. I love the rural life, but it has its disadvantages. In my case, the lack of high-speed internet is a real pain. (HughesNet satellite internet blows goats and I have proof). Shopping and dining opportunities are lacking. The nearest Walmart is in the town where I work and it's just an old-style WM. The nearest Supercenters are an hour away (Richmond, Winchester, Mt. Sterling, Hazard or London).
I hate the crowds and traffic jams that are a part of suburban or city living. I hate going to even a small city like Lexington because of it. I lived in Winchester for about six years and even felt it was too big for me, but that's partly because I only slept there and worked elsewhere, and I didn't know anyone. One of the things I like about small-town or rural living is that I know the officials personally and can ask them for things. You don't get that in bigger communities. After moving back to my home county, I lived in town for about nine years and I knew all three mayors elected during that time personally. If I needed a pothole patched or something, all I had to do was ask. I wouldn't have that luxury in Lexington, much less NYC.
Country, small town, suburb, city with excellent/safe mass transportation in that order.
rural, then urban.
suburbs are horrifying.
Suburbs
wheres the poll?
I've lived on the very edge of metro areas all my life (Valparaiso, and the part of Davenport I live in). I feel it has a great blend of urban and rural, both of which I like.
Preference for the city. Close to stuff, and there are usually options to get there BESIDES getting in a car. Also, unlike some earlier commenters, I've found suburban traffic to be worse than city traffic.
That said, rural areas aren't that bad....I will have plenty of time to get used to them as I'm retiring to the hinterlands in the coming weeks.
In my current situation, I'd rather live in the city than suburbs. I can save $6.60 a day (~$800 for the entire year) in transit fares by moving at least 1 kilometer south. And I'd likely find a cheaper apartment than $1,256/mo. >_>
I prefer living in the city. Everything would be closer to me than in the suburbs. And I don't have to pay any more to get around than the $108/mo I already do. When I move out, I'm moving downtown. Or at least close to school. :)
Cities and Rural area. Suburbs feel too generic.
can anyone justify the suburbs? I think they're an absolute blight.
In a suburb, (well New Jersey anyway) it is almost required to have a car to get anywhere around the town. It would take me almost 30 minutes to walk the grocery store that is 1.3 miles away. People
will call me crazy for saying this, but I would rather live in Trenton then where I currently do. There's lots of job opportunities in the Trenton area, and I've applied to who-knows-how-many places in Hillsborough that's within a suitable walking distance. At least in the city you have public transport and everything isn't too far away. Yes, I realize that Trenton is 'dangerous', but those dangerous city lists are skewed - it doesn't tell you what % of those crimes are targetted versus untargetted - and usually the former is much higher than the latter.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 10, 2014, 01:55:27 PM
can anyone justify the suburbs? I think they're an absolute blight.
Hillsborough is a very unblighted area, but like I said before, you
need a car to get anywhere around town. That's my main problems with suburbs. Cities were made for people to work and live in, without needing (now) expensive transport options.
Cities
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 10, 2014, 01:55:27 PM
can anyone justify the suburbs? I think they're an absolute blight.
Close enough to the city to be convenient to work, shopping and entertainment; yet in an environment more conducive to home ownership and the ability to have a place to park your car(s).
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.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 10, 2014, 01:55:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2014, 03:02:26 PMAre 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.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 10, 2014, 03:13:32 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2014, 03:02:26 PMAre 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
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2014, 03:29:29 PM
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.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 10, 2014, 01:55:27 PM
can anyone justify the suburbs? I think they're an absolute blight.
The OP asked for opinions. Nobody has to "justify" anything.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 10, 2014, 03:31:26 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2014, 03:29:29 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2014, 03:43:54 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2014, 03:29:29 PM
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.
I can't stand going downtown. Paying to park and congestion. Who wants to do with all that?
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2014, 03:43:54 PM
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.
QuoteMost 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.
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.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 10, 2014, 04:09:04 PM
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.
Quote
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
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.
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2014, 04:29:58 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 10, 2014, 04:09:04 PM
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.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 10, 2014, 04:18:39 PM
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2014, 03:43:54 PM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverside,_Illinois), 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.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 10, 2014, 04:37:01 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Brandon on March 10, 2014, 04:40:49 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 10, 2014, 04:37:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Zeffy on March 10, 2014, 04:52:40 PM
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.)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 10, 2014, 05:07:17 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on March 10, 2014, 04:52:40 PM
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.
I prefer anywhere that maintains my privacy, peace and quiet. :nod:
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.
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.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 10, 2014, 01:55:27 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: realjd on March 11, 2014, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 10, 2014, 01:55:27 PM
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.
It depends on which suburb you're in. In a suburban city like Irvine, CA, you have homeowners' associations which would absolutely be on you about noise; there's plenty of traffic and congestion, and even with over 200,000 people, you'd be hard-pressed to find any non-chain restaurant of quality/reputation. On the other hand, it's safe and clean, and you're certainly close enough to big cities and rural areas alike.
Given my druthers, I could do either large or medium city, then suburb (although I prefer a little more bustle). Not that I would dislike mind small town or rural, but my career and hobbies require me to be near a population center.
Quote from: realjd on March 11, 2014, 05:51:29 PMMy neighbors are far enough away that I don't have to worry about how loud I am.
that sounds fairly rural, actually. you probably live in a neighborhood of similar character to me. when I think "suburbs", I think of the Irvine that DTComposer described: suffocating conformity. to "safe and clean", I give NE2's favorite rejoinder.
QuoteI don't have to drive half an hour to get groceries
I think for me it's 15 minutes.
here's a map of approximately where I live, and then the nearest commercial district.
http://goo.gl/maps/T3YhT
you can see that just to the west of where I live, the character changes from terrain-based and rural (though far from "Groom Lake, Nevada") to grid-based and suburban. one's Lakeside, the other's Santee. guess which one reminds me more of Irvine.
I really do like living in Lakeside, but going into Santee for shopping is pretty damn miserable.
My order (1 is most desirable):
1. Older Suburb (mid-1960's and earlier)
2. Small City
3. Small Town
4. Large City
5. Rural
6. Rural-Suburban
7. Newer Suburb (mid 1960's and later)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 12, 2014, 06:47:15 PM
Quote from: realjd on March 11, 2014, 05:51:29 PMMy neighbors are far enough away that I don't have to worry about how loud I am.
that sounds fairly rural, actually. you probably live in a neighborhood of similar character to me. when I think "suburbs", I think of the Irvine that DTComposer described: suffocating conformity. to "safe and clean", I give NE2's favorite rejoinder.
You have my address from when I bought that sign from you if you want to see where I live. Looking at the street view you linked, I live in what looks like the Florida equivalent to your neighborhood with larger lots and older homes. Here in Palm Bay the standard lot size is 1/4 acre and my house is on a double lot. It's absolutely not like the newer zero-lot-line suburban neighborhoods but it's still suburban IMO. My criteria between urban and suburban is retail parking. Do the shops and apartments open up right onto the sidewalk? That's urban. Do the shops open up onto a parking lot like in a strip mall? Suburban.
It's not a rural area IMO unless the lots are big enough to own horses, livestock, and the like.