Why don’t Americans embrace urban living?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused by the people who want yards. I think I'd rather live right next to or very close by some awesome parks. When I was growing up, we only played in our yard until we were 6 or 7, then it was just playdates with other kids.... which you'd have to drive to in the 'burbs. My city kids walk around the block to play with their friends. Sure you need money, but DC is amazing for having close-in neighborhoods with green space and parks and being pretty safe.

Suburbs have both great parks, great yards, friend to walk to.

Capture the flag, catching lightning bugs while parents visit on the deck.

Have you ever lived in a city? Do you think that doesn't happen here too?

So we get a yard AND friends running to park. How is that not better?

Who wants to mow a lawn? Treat grass?

No thank you.

Suburban dweller here. You really think we all mow our own lawns? In my neighborhood its generally just the retired military guys who mow their own lawns. Otherwise we contribute to the local economy by hiring lawn services.

God forbid kids do chores.

There are plenty of chores to go around but I don’t want to buy/store/fix a lawnmower.

Thats the beauty of the lawn service! They take care of the lawnmower for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work for a European company. Most of my European co-workers with kids have one car, both parents work and a lot only have one kid. College is only three years and most kids don’t go away to school.

Growing up my parents had four kids. My mom a SAHM. I recall at one point we owned five cars when my sister in grad school, my brother and I in college. My father also owned a business where he stored files and stuff at home.

Exactly how are six people with five cars living in a 700sf flat with one parking spot. Growing up none of us went away to school. Cars was to drive to schools and jobs. Yes we bought and insured our own cars. Quite a sight to see 5 cars on driveway where three of them worth less than $1,000 dollars

Most people we know in the UK with kids live outside London, in a suburb with more than 3 BRs. Some used to live in London, but when they had kids, they moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For whatever reason, folks in Singapore, London, Hong Kong don’t seem to have these hang-ups about “the neighbors,” “living on top of one another” or “sharing walls”

For whatever reason? Do you own a map?

One word-land. We have more of it than we know to do with.

Most countries do not have anywhere close to the amount of livable land we have. They don’t have many options outside of living in top of each other. We do.

Living in an urban environment is great until you get older and realize you don’t make enough to live in the city the way you could elsewhere. Only the super wealthy can afford having creature comforts in cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We let the car lobby dictate urban planning, and now we all are paying the price. And also, racism.

Subsets, albeit important ones, of a much larger problem of crappy government policy, at least as far as most people are concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For whatever reason, folks in Singapore, London, Hong Kong don’t seem to have these hang-ups about “the neighbors,” “living on top of one another” or “sharing walls”

For whatever reason? Do you own a map?

One word-land. We have more of it than we know to do with.

Most countries do not have anywhere close to the amount of livable land we have. They don’t have many options outside of living in top of each other. We do.

Living in an urban environment is great until you get older and realize you don’t make enough to live in the city the way you could elsewhere. Only the super wealthy can afford having creature comforts in cities.

Lol! If the only factor was land there would be a lot more countries with population dispersed as it is in the US. The U.S. experience is driven by some uniquely aggressive government policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For whatever reason, folks in Singapore, London, Hong Kong don’t seem to have these hang-ups about “the neighbors,” “living on top of one another” or “sharing walls”

For whatever reason? Do you own a map?

One word-land. We have more of it than we know to do with.

Most countries do not have anywhere close to the amount of livable land we have. They don’t have many options outside of living in top of each other. We do.

Living in an urban environment is great until you get older and realize you don’t make enough to live in the city the way you could elsewhere. Only the super wealthy can afford having creature comforts in cities.

Lol! If the only factor was land there would be a lot more countries with population dispersed as it is in the US. The U.S. experience is driven by some uniquely aggressive government policies.

Never say the US is more of a socialist country than Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For whatever reason, folks in Singapore, London, Hong Kong don’t seem to have these hang-ups about “the neighbors,” “living on top of one another” or “sharing walls”

For whatever reason? Do you own a map?

One word-land. We have more of it than we know to do with.

Most countries do not have anywhere close to the amount of livable land we have. They don’t have many options outside of living in top of each other. We do.

Living in an urban environment is great until you get older and realize you don’t make enough to live in the city the way you could elsewhere. Only the super wealthy can afford having creature comforts in cities.

Lol! If the only factor was land there would be a lot more countries with population dispersed as it is in the US. The U.S. experience is driven by some uniquely aggressive government policies.

Suburbanization was inevitable. It was already well underway before the US government got involved. Americans like bigger houses and yards and driving cars. The masses of former urbanites moving to suburbs left behind walkable urban neighborhoods and did so quite willingly.

I do think American suburbia could be better organized but these threads always end up with angry urban progressives railing against everything while refusing to see why different people prefer different things.

[Anonymous]

Honestly I am a young person (under age 30) and was never interested in living in the city. I would love to live in a city like Tokyo perhaps, but cities in the US are often smelly, full of trash (other than a couple nice touristy neighborhoods), homeless people, crime etc. as other PP’s pointed out they are also very expensive in both living and cost of living, and you get little natural greenery near your living space.

Also, walkability isn’t as great as it’s hyped up to be. It is awesome to be able to dash out and grab a jug of milk when you run out yes, but honestly you will probably be walking several blocks with arms full of groceries whenever you want to do proper shopping. And if you do want to go anywhere outside the city, you have to deal with the snarl of city traffic. (I can’t ever imagine living in a city and using a car, public transport is absolutely mandatory to even start considering the idea).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For whatever reason, folks in Singapore, London, Hong Kong don’t seem to have these hang-ups about “the neighbors,” “living on top of one another” or “sharing walls”

For whatever reason? Do you own a map?

One word-land. We have more of it than we know to do with.

Most countries do not have anywhere close to the amount of livable land we have. They don’t have many options outside of living in top of each other. We do.

Living in an urban environment is great until you get older and realize you don’t make enough to live in the city the way you could elsewhere. Only the super wealthy can afford having creature comforts in cities.

Lol! If the only factor was land there would be a lot more countries with population dispersed as it is in the US. The U.S. experience is driven by some uniquely aggressive government policies.

Suburbanization was inevitable. It was already well underway before the US government got involved. Americans like bigger houses and yards and driving cars. The masses of former urbanites moving to suburbs left behind walkable urban neighborhoods and did so quite willingly.

I do think American suburbia could be better organized but these threads always end up with angry urban progressives railing against everything while refusing to see why different people prefer different things.

This is not uniquely American. We're just the ones who could afford it earliest. In almost every single country when families have the money and means, they build bigger, badder, bolder. It's a human experience. You might not see it as often in other countries because of the inability to access wealth, credit, etc. The idea that only Americans like to have big houses and space is just silly. We have money and ample building area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the obsession with huge houses 3 miles away from everything. Why not access to parks, trails, restaurants, schools, grocery stores, socializing in coffee shops, biking etc?

The American obsession with SFH is unsustainable environmental, financially (impossible to maintain long exburban roads) and mentally

We do embrace it, and that's why its so expensive to live in urban cores.

Yep, exactly. And a lot of the people who move out of the cities WOULD live there if they could afford to do so.

A lot more people can afford to than actually do, they just refuse to live in a condo

Why should I live in a condo?

Don’t unless you want to, but that’s because you reject urban living. Plenty of reasons to live in the city core where a condo may be the only housing option.

Plenty of people would be happy to live in a city, but want a yard. Look at the price that anything in a major city with green space sells for

Um, there are yards in most cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For whatever reason, folks in Singapore, London, Hong Kong don’t seem to have these hang-ups about “the neighbors,” “living on top of one another” or “sharing walls”

Well, those are the people who choose to live in cities. The people in New York City and London and Tokyo choose to live there. The people who want more space move out to the suburbs or countryside in England or to the suburbs or countryside in America, or to the far out suburbs and countryside wayyyy out on the rail lines in Japan.

Before everyone starts going on about these cities --- in London -- once bankers and magic circle lawyers make partner and have kids older enough to go to school they move out to the country and take a train. If they get really rich they move back to the city but just rich they stay in the country. Why? Because they can.

It would be cool if the U.S. had rail from the countryside.

I would rather drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the obsession with huge houses 3 miles away from everything. Why not access to parks, trails, restaurants, schools, grocery stores, socializing in coffee shops, biking etc?

The American obsession with SFH is unsustainable environmental, financially (impossible to maintain long exburban roads) and mentally

First things first -- people like what they like and it is different from others.

Second many people just do not like urban living -- I don't. Not even sure I like suburban.

Third ---- the way we live is not even close to being unsustainable in any way. I have no idea what you mean by impossible to maintain long exburban roads. That is not even an issue in the US.

How have you never heard about climate change? Or are you just a denier?

Yes. There is climate change going on ---- little or no impact to the way we live in the US going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the obsession with huge houses 3 miles away from everything. Why not access to parks, trails, restaurants, schools, grocery stores, socializing in coffee shops, biking etc?

The American obsession with SFH is unsustainable environmental, financially (impossible to maintain long exburban roads) and mentally

First things first -- people like what they like and it is different from others.

Second many people just do not like urban living -- I don't. Not even sure I like suburban.

Third ---- the way we live is not even close to being unsustainable in any way. I have no idea what you mean by impossible to maintain long exburban roads. That is not even an issue in the US.

How have you never heard about climate change? Or are you just a denier?

np. if we ever want to get serious about carbon emissions, we'll go to all nuclear power, or mostly all nuclear. in the meantime, it's not worth worrying about because individual lifestyle actions don't matter. and urban dwellers use tons of energy, too.

nuclear power isn't 100 percent safe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the obsession with huge houses 3 miles away from everything. Why not access to parks, trails, restaurants, schools, grocery stores, socializing in coffee shops, biking etc?

The American obsession with SFH is unsustainable environmental, financially (impossible to maintain long exburban roads) and mentally

First things first -- people like what they like and it is different from others.

Second many people just do not like urban living -- I don't. Not even sure I like suburban.

Third ---- the way we live is not even close to being unsustainable in any way. I have no idea what you mean by impossible to maintain long exburban roads. That is not even an issue in the US.

How have you never heard about climate change? Or are you just a denier?

np. if we ever want to get serious about carbon emissions, we'll go to all nuclear power, or mostly all nuclear. in the meantime, it's not worth worrying about because individual lifestyle actions don't matter. and urban dwellers use tons of energy, too.

nuclear power isn't 100 percent safe

Life is not 100% safe. Do you want oil or no oil?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I am a young person (under age 30) and was never interested in living in the city. I would love to live in a city like Tokyo perhaps, but cities in the US are often smelly, full of trash (other than a couple nice touristy neighborhoods), homeless people, crime etc. as other PP’s pointed out they are also very expensive in both living and cost of living, and you get little natural greenery near your living space.

Also, walkability isn’t as great as it’s hyped up to be. It is awesome to be able to dash out and grab a jug of milk when you run out yes, but honestly you will probably be walking several blocks with arms full of groceries whenever you want to do proper shopping. And if you do want to go anywhere outside the city, you have to deal with the snarl of city traffic. (I can’t ever imagine living in a city and using a car, public transport is absolutely mandatory to even start considering the idea).

True. When I lived in dc, I was walkable to grocery stores. But good luck getting to the stores in peace and quiet. But nope, all I did was get harassed by homeless people or someone begging for something. That and almost getting ran over to cross the street. Not as easy as you think.