American Focus on Suburbs Leading to Large Houses

[Anonymous]

I grew up in a large, very dense European city. The problem with American cities are schools, crime and, sometimes, transportation. They all have parts that are very nice and where none of this is an issue, but those are very expensive.

We now live in North Bethesda and we are loving it. Its pretty walkable and also, every store and activity is a 5-10 minutes drive. There is insane variety of foreign cuisines and products. I am pretty sure majority of people in my home country would prefer this lifestyle to what they are having.

[Anonymous]

Our suburban neighborhood is very walkable and safe. My kids can freely come and go from the pool and friends, houses, Starbucks, other places they hang out. And yes, our house is more than 2000 ft.² but not one of the giant ones that OP is complaining about there’s a happy medium.

I’ve noticed the slightly newer houses built close to us, seem to be slightly bigger MsMansionish houses on smaller lots. In my opinion, my neighborhood is actually better. Even if the houses are a little bit more dated it’s just a nicer to have more space and nature and a house that’s got a little bit more of a cozy feel.

[Anonymous]

American suburbs are very livable and kids friendly. It's the American dream people are programmed to strive for.

Crammed condo/th with rats and crimes surrounded by drunk and drugged people? No thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has lived abroad in several countries (not from here), I always find it difficult to understand the focus of Americans on Suburbs.

You see these massive houses in what I personally would categorize as "middle of nowhere" (especially when we expand to the rest of US, DMV area tbh is very walkable in my view be it DC, N Arlington, or Bethesda, to name a few), where there are no walkable areas (either no sidewalks or nothing to do in a walkable distance), where you have to drive for a while just to get anywhere. Always confused me, why do people here always try to escape to suburbs where you, realistically, don't have much to do and (as I see it) compensate for that by having a large house. Would it not be better to have a smaller property (say instead of 5k Sq ft, 2k Sq ft) but live in an actual city where you can easily get to places and have things to do? Maybe it's my age or my past experience, but just does not add up to me. Having lived in Europe (among other places), it was amazing to be able to exit my place and be close to the action, have restaurants, shopping spots, or nice places to be easily get to.

In an ideal world you would have both a large place and be close to everything, but let's discount this option. Why do so many people here choose to move far to get a massive place rather than staying closer but smaller (assuming that say schools are comparable). Would you not rather live in a modestly size 2k TH rather than super far in a larger place?

Your European monarchs lived in the suburbs. In America every person is monarch of their manorm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who has lived abroad in several countries (not from here), I always find it difficult to understand the focus of Americans on Suburbs.

You see these massive houses in what I personally would categorize as "middle of nowhere" (especially when we expand to the rest of US, DMV area tbh is very walkable in my view be it DC, N Arlington, or Bethesda, to name a few), where there are no walkable areas (either no sidewalks or nothing to do in a walkable distance), where you have to drive for a while just to get anywhere. Always confused me, why do people here always try to escape to suburbs where you, realistically, don't have much to do and (as I see it) compensate for that by having a large house. Would it not be better to have a smaller property (say instead of 5k Sq ft, 2k Sq ft) but live in an actual city where you can easily get to places and have things to do? Maybe it's my age or my past experience, but just does not add up to me. Having lived in Europe (among other places), it was amazing to be able to exit my place and be close to the action, have restaurants, shopping spots, or nice places to be easily get to.

In an ideal world you would have both a large place and be close to everything, but let's discount this option. Why do so many people here choose to move far to get a massive place rather than staying closer but smaller (assuming that say schools are comparable). Would you not rather live in a modestly size 2k TH rather than super far in a larger place?

It's just the flip side of European metro areas, where the urban elites are happy for the poor to live in squalor in the suburban banlieues. Here, the urban areas tend to have higher concentrations of poverty and very poor schools, and people with options want to avoid that. Given technological developments, it's very easy to live in a very nice life in suburbs that haven't been overrun with people with social pathologies.