American Focus on Suburbs Leading to Large Houses

[Anonymous]

I also think it’s rooted in the white flight, “cities are dangerous” mentality that began in the 1950s and 60s in the US and never ended. So like most things in the US, it’s about race.

[Anonymous]

OP you ask about the 2ksf townhouse option as though it doesn't exist. But there are plenty of close-in suburbs that offer proximity, walkability, and space. Many of the houses in these areas were originally in the 2ksf range; now they're being torn down and turned into 5ksf McMansions with little yard space because that's what the market seems to prefer. Those who want more distance between neighbors go further out. Where is the problem here?

[Anonymous]

Living in the city is terrible. Sirens, constant construction noise, never knowing what weirdo is outside your door, noise from adjacent townhomes and people walking by. Commuting by bus means getting on a crowded and smelly bus to get to work every morning, with multiple buses passing by sometimes when they are too crowded. When I lived in Philly there was some form of protest to get a single tree preserved that the city planned to remove — that is, there were so few trees that people lost their minds over the idea of losing a single one.

In the suburbs I have peace and quiet, a backyard, lots of greenery to enjoy, and anything I want is a ten minute drive, with the city being 30 mins away. I also live in a neighborhood that has a few shops so I can walk and grab coffee or a sandwich and then head to a local park or playground without getting in my car.

[Anonymous]

I personally really like both, which is why we are in the city but in a more residential section close to the MD line. We have a SFH (duplex) and a little yard but we also have sidewalks, retail nearby, bus, metro, etc. I don’t dislike the suburbs though and expect we will end up there someday, but I’d love if there was more of a trend of building suburbs with an “urban” feel, i.e. smaller lots, walkable, and a little core of businesses, etc. that the community can access. Almost like a small town. They do exist but they’re hard to find.

[Anonymous]

I visit my MIL in Queens NY this long weekend. The stink of vaping and pot in her yard from neighbors. The noise. The tiny tiny plot of a yard with five neighbors on top of you.

The loud screaming of multiple languages and smelly food. Dog crap everywhere.

She is retired and hates it there is literally 12 people on the house next door that is 1,400 sf.

[Anonymous]

I have the best of all worlds. Close-in Silver Spring, old charming 1100 sq ft house, walkable to anything, or 5 minutes drive. A lot of my neighbors have lived here for decades, enjoying our (large) gardens and safety for our kids and pets. Social as we want but enjoying our privacy.

[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?

If you haven’t figured this out yet perhaps it’s time for you to go back to Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I visit my MIL in Queens NY this long weekend. The stink of vaping and pot in her yard from neighbors. The noise. The tiny tiny plot of a yard with five neighbors on top of you.

The loud screaming of multiple languages and smelly food. Dog crap everywhere.

She is retired and hates it there is literally 12 people on the house next door that is 1,400 sf.

I hate that foreigners scream when having a simple conversation. I am not fan of diversity.

[Anonymous]

I also think it’s rooted in the white flight, “cities are dangerous” mentality that began in the 1950s and 60s in the US and never ended. So like most things in the US, it’s about race.

Cities are more dangerous.

I have lives in a city in the US, a quaint village in Europe, and now in suburban McMansion with decent size yard.
There is much to recommend each location. For me, it’s what fits my life here now. We have lots of space for visitors and eventually elderly parents.

[Anonymous]

Culture is a big factor. I am a mom of 2 and I've NEVER wanted to be in the burbs. I'm a city girl and was raised in a big MW city. I love dining out aka not having to make meals constantly as a busy mom. But I'm an outlier. I have trouble clicking with most people in my now suburban neighborhood because I pretty much hate the boring burb lifestyle. I don't want to play with my kids in the yard and prefer to go to a museum but we're all different. So I can't answer your question but know that an ask the same questions! For us it's financial and to do with school for kids.

[Anonymous]

OP, I agree with you. But Americans have massively underinvested in public transportation (the vast majority of people living in close-in suburbs in DC drive to work, and DC has better and more convenient public transportation than most American cities save a very small handful), and education (massive discrepancies in school quality push a lot of people into less dense, walkable neighborhoods even if they actually prefer density and walkability). As a result, the type of suburb you describe barely exists. You mention a few places around the DMV that offer this lifestyle -- they are all expensive and not all have good schools. They are also not all convenient to all commutes.

Another factor you see in the DMV and in other cities is that a lot of companies have also fled the city in favor of suburbs. So many people work in places like Tysons. While technically Tyson's has metro now, it doesn't matter because it's so aggressively anti-pedestrian in its infrastructure that you'd be nuts to try and commute via metro unless your office just happened to be right on top of the metro stop (it takes 10 minutes just to cross one street in that area).

Anyway, right now my family is in a condo in the city, though feeling pretty tight and definitely want a bit more space (condo is 1000 sq ft). There is some older housing stock that is the right size (we're looking for something in the 1500-2000 range, or even 1200 with a great layout and some bonus space including functional outdoor space) but it goes so fast. There are too many people who want/need homes this size and price, and the ones close to public transportation go really fast. And often, depressingly, get snapped up for cash by investors who will tear those homes down and either build one 4000 sq ft home, or if zoning allows, four 1000 square foot homes. There appears to be little interest in building houses in the 1500-2000 range, I think because they are less profitable (take up more space than small condos but can never be sold for as much as huge McMansions).

I wish we could find a way to incentivize more of those homes being built, especially in higher density levels near public transit. It's exactly what we want. We find it increasingly hard to find and I think we're going to wind up compromising, buying bigger and further out because that's what we can afford and it will get us into better schools. I'm not thrilled about it, but it will probably be better than sticking it out in our little condo, much as I love the convenience factor here.

[Anonymous]

In newer suburbs, transportation engineers also design roads to be much wider and with larger turn radii than the narrower streets with dense housing and shops engineered 100 years ago.

These wider roads are not pedestrian friendly but they allow for speedy response times for emergency vehicles, and most importantly allow for cars to travel faster, since these roads prioritize cars and reducing traffic build up over pedestrians. This is all baked into the code.

Often times, in planned communities like in Reston, Valencia, Greenbelt and Irvine, the pedestrian pathways are completely separated from the roads and run independently of them through parks, in landscaped areas between the houses, and under and over roadways. This way, cars can drive faster without worrying about pedestrians.

Small dense areas of housing and shops can be developed in the suburbs like at the Mosaic in Merrifield. But that whole neighborhood is private property designed and built by a single developer.

[Anonymous]

I live in a far out exurb in a larger house. The same price wouldn't get me the house you are mentioning - I could get a small condo there, or maybe an older townhouse in a high crime area. Telework makes this doable for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think it’s rooted in the white flight, “cities are dangerous” mentality that began in the 1950s and 60s in the US and never ended. So like most things in the US, it’s about race.

No, it's really not about race. I've done the city and suburb living and eventually valued a bigger newer house, more land, more privacy, easier access to highway more than filth, grime, noise and taxes.

[Anonymous]

It’s the size. You can fit 30 European countries into the United States. We did not evolve with the mass transit infrastructure like Europe did.

https://matadornetwork.com/read/map-shows-many-european-countries-can-fit-continental-us/

Something like 80% of people in the UK live in housing that is not a single family home. That level of density does not exist here outside a few cities. People who live in this country overall do not want that level of density.