Reply to American Focus on Suburbs Leading to Large Houses

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "American Focus on Suburbs Leading to Large Houses"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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? [/quote]

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.

[b]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.[/b][/quote]

This is a tangent, but during westward expansion, having land meant self-sufficiency, livelihood, and income. By the time the postwar suburbs emerged, homebuyers had shifted from producers to consumers. Like my own grandparents, many young people post WWII were moving away from family farms, and the easy living of the burbs offered a welcome contrast to milking cows and plowing fields. Even suburbs with tiny lots like my grandparents' were marketed with buzzwords like convenience, modernity, and luxury. The new suburb offered something farm life couldn't: leisure.

Also, by the time American cities were aging in the mid 20th century, federal tax dollars were being offered to tear down older buildings, frequently targeting ethnic neighborhoods. Sometimes entire blocks would be razed, and remain empty. Housing projects were devised to house the people who were displaced, interstate highways and airports were placed in the middle of older neighborhoods, and then came urban decay and white flight, pushing the boundaries of the suburbs even further out. And more land was always available, because a farmer was always willing to sell. So it's multifaceted. But mostly I think many Americans today want to live in the suburbs simply because that's how they grew up and it's what they know.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics