Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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 wrote:Aren't apartments in Europe generally larger than the typical US ones? That may account for some of the gap too.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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 wrote:Anonymous wrote:mAnonymous 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.
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 wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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 wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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 wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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 wrote:mAnonymous 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.
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 wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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 wrote:Anonymous wrote:
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 wrote:Which Americans? One branch of my family was urban even in the early 1800s and never resided outside of the cities.