American Focus on Suburbs Leading to Large Houses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so weird. There have always been large English manor houses in the middle of no where. This concept isn’t foreign to Europeans they just couldn’t afford it and don’t have the land to support it.

Many of those estates are too expensive to maintain in this day and age and are now open to the public as hotels or wedding venues to make money.

The descendants of the old European aristocracy by and large no longer live in those estates on hundreds of acres of land.

Lived in Britain for a while. There's no shortage of money in the British countryside. It may not be London oligarchs but there's unquestionably wealth in the countryside. It's more often in the restored farmhouses and smaller manor houses which typically now only have a few acres up to a few dozen acres. Very popular and very much in demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In DC, there basically aren’t any grocery stores. If you have to drive 20 minutes to get groceries anyway, may as well do it in a burb where you can park without having an aneurysm.

This is untrue? Within a 20 minute walk or 5 minute bike ride from my house, there is a Whole Foods, a Giant, a Harris Teeter, and a Trader Joes. I could also drive to them all in less than 5 minutes (and they all have free parking in easily accessed underground lots). I live in the middle of the city.

I don't love everything about city living but I've never heard this weird suburban myth about how there are no grocery stores here. Half of the cars parked at the stores I go to are from the burbs so I know some suburbanites know about them (and find them convenient for lunchtime or after work grocery shopping, apparently).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except when it comes to public bathrooms. There the bigger the gap on the side and bottom of the door the better obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so weird. There have always been large English manor houses in the middle of no where. This concept isn’t foreign to Europeans they just couldn’t afford it and don’t have the land to support it.

Many of those estates are too expensive to maintain in this day and age and are now open to the public as hotels or wedding venues to make money.

The descendants of the old European aristocracy by and large no longer live in those estates on hundreds of acres of land.

Lived in Britain for a while. There's no shortage of money in the British countryside. It may not be London oligarchs but there's unquestionably wealth in the countryside. It's more often in the restored farmhouses and smaller manor houses which typically now only have a few acres up to a few dozen acres. Very popular and very much in demand.

That sounds like the article on the Cotswalds I read in the Financial Times. I hope to visit there some day. I have fond memories hiking the famous Lake District back in high school. The English countryside is so beautiful. (What they call third through sixth form back in the UK I think? I always thought that was a strange system.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That sounds like the article on the Cotswalds I read in the Financial Times. I hope to visit there some day. I have fond memories hiking the famous Lake District back in high school. The English countryside is so beautiful. (What they call third through sixth form back in the UK I think? I always thought that was a strange system.)

My Virginia private has 1st-6th grade and then 1st-6th form. It also has a refectory and cloisters. The used to also have Prefects, though I think that is gone now. Some older private schools in various parts of the US still use the British setup and terminology.

Cotswolds are indeed lovely. Most UK folks I know live in a village outside the big cities. They drive or train to work. I could never afford to live in the UK though. Food is so silly expensive there and the VAT on goods is almost 20%. A lovely fantasy a la Walter Mitty, I suppose.

[Anonymous]

Crime. The answer is crime OP.

European cities are safer and the schools are good.

[Anonymous]

In my 20’s, I valued living in the city and being in walkable areas near shops, nightlife and entertainment. No need for a car, just metro or Uber everywhere.

Now that I’m in my late 30’s with kids, I couldn’t imagine living where I lived in my 20’s in a city condo where I didn’t have a car. I care about space, safe environments, and walkability is a complete and utter joke when you have kids with groceries every other day to haul. Having a house in the burbs makes sense for me now. 10 years ago, you couldn’t pay me to live in the burbs. Just depends on where you are in life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my 20’s, I valued living in the city and being in walkable areas near shops, nightlife and entertainment. No need for a car, just metro or Uber everywhere.

Now that I’m in my late 30’s with kids, I couldn’t imagine living where I lived in my 20’s in a city condo where I didn’t have a car. I care about space, safe environments, and walkability is a complete and utter joke when you have kids with groceries every other day to haul. Having a house in the burbs makes sense for me now. 10 years ago, you couldn’t pay me to live in the burbs. Just depends on where you are in life.

Exactly.

I’ve lived in the downtown areas of a few major cities, but I don’t want to do that now. I want to be close enough to the city that I can occasionally go in for events or dining, but far enough away that I don’t feel immersed in it.

[Anonymous]

There’s nothing wrong with modest suburban homes. From the 2500-4000 sq ft range. The issue is the ones that are 8000 sq ft for no reason for a family of 3 or 4. There is no point besides flexing, at that point.

Unfortunately, for builders, that’s what brings money in. Gone are the days of the 2500 sq ft SFH.

[Anonymous]

For us the #1 reason was money. We could afford to buy a 4 bed home in the burbs. While we could have all crammed into our 2 bed 1 bath in the city, it would have been uncomfortable.

Second reason was proximity to kid friendly stuff and a neighborhood that is safe and walkable for kids. We can’t walk to cool restaurants and bars where we live but our kids can easily and safely walk to school, the pool, and parks.

[Anonymous]

I mean yeah OP- the problem is usually cost.

We paid a fortune for our tiny rowhome in DC to avoid the suburbs for all the reasons you mention. But others can’t afford it.

Or they’re worried about the schools. We are fortunate to be in a stronger school area but many of us still send our kids to private. That of course also requires money.

There is an American fixation on size, too. I know people who could afford to stay in the city but they absolutely needed a 9 bedroom home with a 4 car garage in the middle of nowhere. That personally is a nightmare to me but to each his own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For us the #1 reason was money. We could afford to buy a 4 bed home in the burbs. While we could have all crammed into our 2 bed 1 bath in the city, it would have been uncomfortable.

Second reason was proximity to kid friendly stuff and a neighborhood that is safe and walkable for kids. We can’t walk to cool restaurants and bars where we live but our kids can easily and safely walk to school, the pool, and parks.

For us, it wasn’t even money. Raising a family in DC with more than one kid is just rough in a rowhouse. Nowhere for them to play, the schools and the lottery system. And now with the increase in crime in the city, the suburbs are just a no-brainer. I couldn’t fathom raising my kids in DC now. It’s too much.

[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?

Tell me about it, OP. I am American but having traveled and lived in many countries in Europe and Asia. Once I saw and experienced an alternate way of life I could never unsee how strange and alienating American suburbs are. Unfortunately there is also some subjectivity here and I cant change the fact that my husband does like suburban life style and all its requisite driving.

Fortunately, divorce is an option.

[Anonymous]

When I tell people who aren't from here that I am raising three kids in NYC they look at me like I've completely lost my mind. I'm convinced that people think all of NY is like midtown or Times Square. They cannot fathom that I live in a leafy, quiet neighborhood (UWS) with access to a ton of parks, playgrounds, restaurants, shopping, etc.

I totally understand the appeal of the suburbs but I love raising my kids in such a walkable, diverse, and exciting city. Different strokes. I honestly find it as annoying as the SAHM vs. WOHM debate. You do you and I'll do me!

[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.

God, I miss it so much.

I hate how anti social suburban life has made me. And how it means I have to live somewhat close to horrible nouveau riche snobs like you.