Why don’t Americans embrace urban living?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s fine, but you shall pay for your choice in gas, tolls and parking.

[Anonymous]

Which Americans? One branch of my family was urban even in the early 1800s and never resided outside of the cities.

[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.

And Hong Kong's isn't? For decades, it was a capitalist island surrounded by a communist country. There was nowhere to spread out to, unless you wanted to no longer be a part of Hong Kong and wanted to live in communist China.

Singapore is also a small island sovereign nation. Leave the island and you are no longer a resident of Singapore, you're Malaysian, which means now you need a work visa, etc. I believe Singapore also generally has much better tax rates for high earners.

[Anonymous]

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

Because your great great grandparents lived in urban tenements and taught their children to work hard and improve their lives. Rinse and repeat down the generationsvv

[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”

Cos they got no other choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, I get that people want different lifestyles, but the way America's suburbs are design is so incredibly horrible for the environment that it's hard for me to understand.

So you think creating super cities like Shanghai, NYC, CDMX, São Paulo, etc. across the globe are preferable to more, smaller cities? No thank you. Those cities don't fair well in a pandemic.

Access to world class hospitals is generally a plus during a pandemic.

Yup, NYC faired so we’ll compared to the rest of the country

They wouldn’t open up thev rich peoples hospitals to COVID patients who were sent back to nursing homes to die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people can't understand that people are allowed to have preferences. I live in NYC. There used to be a board like this called UrbanBaby for NYC moms and every day there'd be a post titled "city or suburbs, which is better?' and people would get into crazy fights calling each other bad parents or boring or stupid for what they chose to do. I never got why people can't just agree that some people prefer the amenities and walkability of cities while others prefer the quietness and slower pace of suburbs. One is not better or worse.

And whatever you do your kids might hate you for it. My parents moved me out of Manhattan to a tony suburb (think, Chevy Chase but richer) and I vowed for LIFE I would never, ever do that to my kids. And I haven't! Maybe they can repeat the cycle and dream of living in a 'burb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For us:

Living in a city was great with no kids.

Living in the suburbs in a large house on a large lot with a large yard is so much better now that we have kids.

Others may think differently. That's the beauty of choice.

m

But the reality is there is not much choice unless you are super wealthy.

I think dense urban, walkable living is better for kids. But there are really few options that offer that affordably for middle incomes. I currently live in London where my kids can to parks and corner shops, as well as there schools. However, we need to move back to the US and are hard pressed to find a location in the US that offers the ease and independence outside very select and HCOL cities.

Whereas, if we were to stay in the U.K. there are loads of suburbs and small towns that still offer walk ability.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I would never live in a dangerous neighborhood if I lived in the city so this is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Bc urban living is disgusting. People realized that during Covid and came to their senses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bc urban living is disgusting. People realized that during Covid and came to their senses.

Home prices disagree with you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would never live in a dangerous neighborhood if I lived in the city so this is irrelevant.

It's very relevant because the average American can only afford housing in the dangerous areas of major cities. Sure, Cleveland Park is beautiful and walkable and relatively safe, but you need to be able to afford a house that is $2.5M+ and pay $50k a year/kid for private school because the public schools stink. The average American cannot do that, which is a very big reason that they don't live in urban areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would never live in a dangerous neighborhood if I lived in the city so this is irrelevant.

It's very relevant because the average American can only afford housing in the dangerous areas of major cities. Sure, Cleveland Park is beautiful and walkable and relatively safe, but you need to be able to afford a house that is $2.5M+ and pay $50k a year/kid for private school because the public schools stink. The average American cannot do that, which is a very big reason that they don't live in urban areas.

Or (shocker!) you could live in an apartment like we do. Sure, we're still technically rich (HHI 250k) but we can't buy a home in CP, but we love it here so we rent. It's right near so much nature, very safe, it's a tradeoff well worth it to us. Plus, my kids have some best friends in our building and it's a lovely community.

The thing is that everybody should really evaluate whether you really need 2000sq ft per person in your home. The cost of insisting on that arbitrary need for space is just so high: economically, socially, environmentally. Sure, some of you will need it, but it's like this "given" in our culture and it's just so incredibly untrue.

[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

it's proven to be the safest form of energy we've got