Why don’t Americans embrace urban living?

[Anonymous]

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

I guess the other branch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You make a quarter million per year, which, granted, you acknowledged makes you very privileged. However, you are planning to rent basically forever? How much do you have in retirement, and how old are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In our 4,000 sf suburban house, we have only 800 sf per person.

Please tell me, lady who has no home equity, how this is costing us economically, socially, and environmentally?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How can dense living be good for kids? All that air and noise pollution.

I prefer my kids be able to walk around the neighborhood that doesn't have busy streets, or play in the yard, and not me having to go with them to the park for fear that some homeless person will accost them on the way to the park. London is not like DC or NYC. I stated up thread.. all of our friends in the UK moved out to the burbs when they had kids. The uber rich have nannies who take their kids to the park in the city. Regular people don't have that luxury here. DH had a flat in SF when we started dating. It was great fun. But when we were looking to a buy a house, I told him I am not buying a tiny house in the city with no yard, and certainly not if we were going to have kids.

I also prefer to have outdoor bbqs with our friends on our large patio.

I also like to have a large vegetable garden in my backyard.

There are areas in the burbs that are reasonably close to shopping centers. My kids and her friends walk to it all the time. The UK is super old, as you are aware, and most cities were built with a city center. Most suburbs here in the US weren't designed with city centers, but I think that is changing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP, yeah I could live in an apartment but I don’t want to. We lived in a small house close in for years and as the kids got older the space was just too tight and I hated it with every fiber of my being. And we at least didn’t hear people above, below and on either side of us. Some people don’t need personal space, but others do. I cannot overstate how much our whole family’s quality of life has improved since moving further out into a bigger home. We don’t have 2000 sq ft per person, we have 2600 sq ft for a family of 4, and that is a size that is really hard to come by in a safe area of a city or a nice close in suburb for under a million dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hey houlier than thou PP, not everyone likes apt living. I detest it. BTDT. Since I have the option, I would never live in an apt if I had kids. I get that some people have no choice, but I'm fortunate to have those choices.

You can hear babies crying, people yelling, loud music, people jumping.. no thank you. Had my fill.

[Anonymous]

The biggest factor is schools. In a lot of foreign countries kids mostly go for private schools anyway.

I think another big factor is food supply. It’s such a pain to go shopping in cities other than New York (which has better food sources in the city for whatever historical reasons). In other countries people can easily pick stuff up on the way home—they also are more likely in some countries to have staff that can do this. There are historical reasons why America ended up with the big grocery store system — there’s a good freakonomics on kt. It does have a lot of benefits—I know Europeans that are in awe of our supermarkets. But they really only work for suburban living.

[Anonymous]

In second-tier and third-tier cities, anyone with means lives in the suburbs. These suburbs rival each other and ones of major cities in terms of wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are making my point for me. You make three and half times the median US HHI and you can still only afford an apartment there. A normal family making $70k could even dream of affording your apartment in CP.

[Anonymous]

Aren't apartments in Europe generally larger than the typical US ones? That may account for some of the gap too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How can dense living be good for kids? All that air and noise pollution.

I prefer my kids be able to walk around the neighborhood that doesn't have busy streets, or play in the yard, and not me having to go with them to the park for fear that some homeless person will accost them on the way to the park. London is not like DC or NYC. I stated up thread.. all of our friends in the UK moved out to the burbs when they had kids. The uber rich have nannies who take their kids to the park in the city. Regular people don't have that luxury here. DH had a flat in SF when we started dating. It was great fun. But when we were looking to a buy a house, I told him I am not buying a tiny house in the city with no yard, and certainly not if we were going to have kids.

I also prefer to have outdoor bbqs with our friends on our large patio.

I also like to have a large vegetable garden in my backyard.

There are areas in the burbs that are reasonably close to shopping centers. My kids and her friends walk to it all the time. The UK is super old, as you are aware, and most cities were built with a city center. Most suburbs here in the US weren't designed with city centers, but I think that is changing.

You’re last paragraph makes my larger point, which is that the US cities were built based on a model that provides less actual lifestyle freedom and choice. Larger older cities actual offer choice…terrace house vs flat. Drive vs train vs bus vs cycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In our 4,000 sf suburban house, we have only 800 sf per person.

Please tell me, lady who has no home equity, how this is costing us economically, socially, and environmentally?

If you don't understand the basic facts of how suburban sprawl is detrimental to the environment, PP sure won't be able to educate you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aren't apartments in Europe generally larger than the typical US ones? That may account for some of the gap too.

This is actually a really good point. We don't build apartments/condos to suite family sizes. I'd be much more likely to live in an apartment or condo if they were 3-4 bedrooms. I'm not living with 2 kids in a 2 bedroom apartment.

We renovated our house and I tried to find an apartment with 3 bedrooms in Arlington to stay in for that time period and it was impossible. There were so few units and they were totally rented out.

When we lived in Germany we had a ton of 3 - 4 bedroom apartments to choose from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In our 4,000 sf suburban house, we have only 800 sf per person.

Please tell me, lady who has no home equity, how this is costing us economically, socially, and environmentally?

If you don't understand the basic facts of how suburban sprawl is detrimental to the environment, PP sure won't be able to educate you.

Sounds like nobody actually knows the answer, just assumes it's true. Interesting.

[Anonymous]

I love my suburban neighborhood. Our house is almost 40 years old and not huge but has been well taken care of. I work FT from home and kids take the bus to local school. Teen son and I take turns mowing lawn with electric mower. Kids walk or bike to and from neighborhood parks, pool, and friends homes. Our yard has many trees and native plants. I love gardening. We love having our dog here. Everything is great.

I hate city noise and air pollution. PPs already mentioned all the crime and vagrancy; those also do not appeal to me. All of these factors combined would make me super stressed.

I am not “conditioned” to prefer suburban living. How is it unnatural for a human to prefer a cleaner, quieter, safer and greener environment? It isn’t a “white” thing either, as evidenced by my neighbors of all colors and nationalities.