American Focus on Suburbs Leading to Large Houses

[Anonymous]

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?

[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?

I can’t speak to the appeal of larger houses—for me, the appeal of the suburbs is actually larger lots.

As a practical matter, I don’t have much interest in “being close to the action”. I want a big yard to play with the kids, a place to garden, mature trees and quiet places to sit and read, a pool to swim in, no neighbors in earshot, etc., etc.

I think there’s also a cultural aspect to this—part of America’s heritage is the relative availability of land for people who couldn’t own in their country of origin (obviously, mostly only available to white people). The suburban lot is an echo of this heritage.

[Anonymous]

uh, money, OP. It's costly to buy in major cities. Young families that want space and a yard must purchase father out. But go on being judgy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:uh, money, OP. It's costly to buy in major cities. Young families that want space and a yard must purchase father out. But go on being judgy!

My god this forum never ceases to amaze me with the negativity and posts that don't positively contribute towards the topic.

Was not being judgy at all was just posting a question. And obviously money is a factor but that was not the point of the discussion (let's discount money as a factor for the purpose of discussion moving forward). Furthermore (if we focus on this area) plenty of people are wealthy but you still see people choosing a 1-2m place in the Suburbs instead of a 1-2m place closer to the city/walkable areas.

[Anonymous]

Different people have different priorities. I have lived in NYC and enjoyed all that it had to offer. At this stage of my life, I don't particularly like people, or want to be near them. So, I moved to a place where I can have a large yard, few neighbors, can garden to my heart's content, enjoy the peace and quiet, the birds and bugs, and all trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I can’t speak to the appeal of larger houses—for me, the appeal of the suburbs is actually larger lots.

As a practical matter, I don’t have much interest in “being close to the action”. I want a big yard to play with the kids, a place to garden, mature trees and quiet places to sit and read, a pool to swim in, no neighbors in earshot, etc., etc.

I think there’s also a cultural aspect to this—part of America’s heritage is the relative availability of land for people who couldn’t own in their country of origin (obviously, mostly only available to white people). The suburban lot is an echo of this heritage.

I am a foreigner.

In my view, Americans really value privacy.

Big lots = more privacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I can’t speak to the appeal of larger houses—for me, the appeal of the suburbs is actually larger lots.

As a practical matter, I don’t have much interest in “being close to the action”. I want a big yard to play with the kids, a place to garden, mature trees and quiet places to sit and read, a pool to swim in, no neighbors in earshot, etc., etc.

I think there’s also a cultural aspect to this—part of America’s heritage is the relative availability of land for people who couldn’t own in their country of origin (obviously, mostly only available to white people). The suburban lot is an echo of this heritage.

This is a tangent, but during westward expansion, having land meant self-sufficiency, livelihood, and income. By the time the postwar suburbs emerged, homebuyers had shifted from producers to consumers. Like my own grandparents, many young people post WWII were moving away from family farms, and the easy living of the burbs offered a welcome contrast to milking cows and plowing fields. Even suburbs with tiny lots like my grandparents' were marketed with buzzwords like convenience, modernity, and luxury. The new suburb offered something farm life couldn't: leisure.

Also, by the time American cities were aging in the mid 20th century, federal tax dollars were being offered to tear down older buildings, frequently targeting ethnic neighborhoods. Sometimes entire blocks would be razed, and remain empty. Housing projects were devised to house the people who were displaced, interstate highways and airports were placed in the middle of older neighborhoods, and then came urban decay and white flight, pushing the boundaries of the suburbs even further out. And more land was always available, because a farmer was always willing to sell. So it's multifaceted. But mostly I think many Americans today want to live in the suburbs simply because that's how they grew up and it's what they know.

[Anonymous]

I wanted a big yard to garden and for the kids to play. We have a small house on a big lot. Walkability wasn’t that important to me. I can easily drive to everything I need. I grew up in a tiny apartment in Mumbai so I love having space and greenery around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I can’t speak to the appeal of larger houses—for me, the appeal of the suburbs is actually larger lots.

As a practical matter, I don’t have much interest in “being close to the action”. I want a big yard to play with the kids, a place to garden, mature trees and quiet places to sit and read, a pool to swim in, no neighbors in earshot, etc., etc.

I think there’s also a cultural aspect to this—part of America’s heritage is the relative availability of land for people who couldn’t own in their country of origin (obviously, mostly only available to white people). The suburban lot is an echo of this heritage.

Exactly this. Also, not everyone desires to be in the middle of “action” and concrete. I like greenery, nature around me and if I can have it within a reasonable commute then that’s what I am going for. I don’t care for walk ability.

[Anonymous]

Despite trends towards walkability in urban and more urban suburban areas, and also the trend away from enclosed shopping malls as reported in the Wall Street Journal, most Americans still prefer car-oriented suburbia and communities isolated from the crime, real or perceived, closer to cities.

[Anonymous]

Americans like their privacy. We do not have a social culture like Europeans or middle eastern cultures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Americans like their privacy. We do not have a social culture like Europeans or middle eastern cultures.

That’s right. Americans like visiting dense European cities, but don’t necessarily want to live that lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Americans like their privacy. We do not have a social culture like Europeans or middle eastern cultures.

That’s right. Americans like visiting dense European cities, but don’t necessarily want to live that lifestyle.

American “individualism” is one aspect of this. In their day to day lives, stereotypical Americans prefer to be self-sufficient and rely (or at least, perceive to rely) on others as little as possible, so a close-knit “community” where everyone works together and helps each out out isn’t something they seek out to the same extent as some other cultures.

[Anonymous]

I think our cities are not as nice or actually walkable as they may be elsewhere. With the possible exception of NYC, it's not actually very easy to do errands or daily life in the city - eg, to pop into the store and get food, to take your kid to school, etc.

We also have less free time, due to the working culture and policy decisions here vs Europe. It does not feel efficient to go to the store daily, to leave the house for entertainment, etc, when you only have a few free hours a day.

[Anonymous]

One problem with the inner suburbs is so many cars and traffic. Plus the homes are old and not in good condition. People I know who go to the big new communities in Loudoun want newer homes and quieter roads where kids can bike around