5 ms·

>, or I can rent a great apartment 10 minutes from work and enjoy a vastly greater quality of life. > The "American Dream" of owning a house [...], in my opini

by jasode 11y ago

>, or I can rent a great apartment 10 minutes from work and enjoy a vastly greater quality of life. > The "American Dream" of owning a house [...], in my opinion, a waste of mindshare and money. If we want to discuss city apartments vs suburban houses with "intellectual honesty", I would hope those in favor of downtown urban living acknowledge that some of us really do prefer living in houses. I lived for 2 years in Chicago's downtown loop in a "nice" apartment. Yes, everything was "walking distance". I could walk to Grant Park, the lake, the museum, the restaurants. But I don't care about any of that. Even though I was on the 6th floor, I heard police sirens and taxi horns every day and never got used to it. I also spent a year consulting in downtown Manhattan and visited Tokyo,London,Paris. I can see how the vibrancy and immediacy of those cities appeal to others but they don't appeal to me. I now live 35 miles away from downtown and the tranquility is wonderful. I can look out the window and watch squirrels and birds around the trees. Also, I can putz around my garage with noisy woodworking tools for weekend projects. I don't like the implication that my brain is somehow "broken" for not preferring city living. Many of us are not ignorant of the urban lifestyle. We tried it and we'd prefer to raise a family away from it. We will spend a big chunk of income to make that happen. It doesn't mean we're irrational or brainwashed.

Sacho 11y ago
The part GP highlighted wasn't the museum, or restaurants, or the lake. It was the short commute to work. Slashing the commute from 1 hour to 10 minutes gives you at least 1 and a half hours more each day, or about 10% more life. If you count it in "time spent with the family"(subtract work hours, personal time and various other engagements), it's anywhere from 20-50% more time spent with the family. Is a house worth that much time? Well, it probably depends on the people.
- koolba 11y ago
  > The part GP highlighted wasn't the museum, or restaurants, or the lake. It was the short commute to work. Slashing the commute from 1 hour to 10 minutes gives you at least 1 and a half hours more each day, or about 10% more life. If you count it in "time spent with the family"(subtract work hours, personal time and various other engagements), it's anywhere from 20-50% more time spent with the family. Is a house worth that much time? Well, it probably depends on the people. While true on paper here's what really happens to most people: 1) They spend the extra time working instead of what they would otherwise consider family/fun/relax time. 2) If buying a place costs X and renting costs Y, they end up spending (Y-X) frivolously and getting accustomed to that level of spending. If nothing else, owning a home tricks/forces/cajoles people into saving money. Sure you can argue, "I'll save the difference and invest it at Z% ... Win!" but that's not what the VAST majority of people will do.
  - wernercd 11y ago
    The question tho is simply: Are they happier? If you spend 2 hours in transit... or 20 minutes. If you "invest" or "spend on frivolities"... If you use your time more productively instead of sitting on a bus/in a car... While the trade off might not make sense to you, it obviously does make sense to the GP. I live on family property... and it would actually cost more (no rent/mortgage... vs something new) to live close to work, but I would get ~2 hours of driving (~1 each way) if I moved closer. Due to a variety of reasons, I stay where I'm at. Due to a variety of reasons, other people choose to move closer. Just because they aren't super efficient (wasting money/time, as you seem to suggest), doesn't mean they aren't better off with that decision.
    - koolba 11y ago
      > The question tho is simply: Are they happier? Having done both (short and long commutes), I'd say yes, but only in the short term. There's a distinct joy in not taking any form of powered transit to work. You feel it with every step you take walking in the mornings. Eventually that joy wears off though as you realize that you haven't saved squat over the past N years and if that trend continues, you'll eventually get priced out of renting too!
      - wernercd 11y ago
        While I understand what you are saying - Short commutes and not making forward progress lead to short term happiness - not everyone agrees with you. Growing up, I lived closer to where I worked... I'd walk or bike to work. Getting older, I moved around and anything I've done in the longest time requires "long" commutes (30-60 minutes each way). I've been on both sides and am fine with either. Given a slightly modified set of circumstances, I would probably pay a bit more to shave an hour or two off my commute... the added time and lessened stress (so many bad drivers on the roads... more time to play CoD...) would be worth it. I am lucky enough to live on Family Property - so the economic benefits of having zero rent/mortgage can't be understated (and is a major reason I commute) but it does come at an expense in time commuting.
      - 11y ago
- jasode 11y ago
  >The part GP highlighted wasn't the museum, or restaurants, or the lake. It was the short commute to work. The GGP highlighted both the commute and the city amenities. He specifically contrasted the house with "big backyards" vs apartment access to "Central/Riverside parks, etc" I was countering the notion that those city amenities are so wonderful that supposedly clueless suburbanites "don't know what they're missing out on". Well, we do know what those city benefits are. We enjoyed them at one phase in our lives. We just don't prioritize them. As for the longer commute time of suburbia... to me, it was already an underlying premise. In any case, there are also several factors affecting it. In two-income families, if one spouse works in the city, it's common for the other spouse to work outside of it. So, depending on the type of jobs the husband & wife have, they really don't reduce total commute time for the entire family unit by choosing to live in downtown. Another interesting data point is that many wealthy earners (e.g. hedge fund mgrs, etc) in NYC deliberately purchase their family homes out in the suburbs instead of a high rise apartment next to Central Park. They have the high income to live anywhere and yet they also made the "irrational" decision to commute 2 hours every day to live away from downtown. >Is a house worth that much time? Well, it probably depends on the people. Exactly. People prioritize different things. I had a balcony with my nice Chicago apartment but I never used it. My ears didn't like the constant noise of traffic. On the other hand, my house has a covered outdoor area with a grill that I use all the time. It seems like people spend their "commute" time as a calculated tradeoff to enjoy a certain lifestyle away from the office.
  - harrumph 11y ago
    Wait, you lived in downtown Chicago -- not a community by any stretch, but instead a commercial and tourism district that rolls up its sidewalks by 7PM -- and you call that "living in the city" and imagine that area descriptive of "city benefits"? Hey, you prefer the suburbs and long commutes. Great. But neighborhoods do actually exist in a city of 3 million+. Commutes are minimal, with few taxis and sirens to rattle one prone to rattling. Let's not for a second indulge the idea that you made a fair comparison.
    - carlmcqueen 11y ago
skywhopper 11y ago
No one fails to acknowledge that lots of people like houses and living outside the city. But government policy at all levels is so tipped in favor of detached-home suburban development that there's a severe lack of options in most places for people who prefer urban living or who would choose the tradeoffs of living in the city. So, please, live where you want. It's great that you can afford it. But the assumption in the media and government policy that your particular dream of an isolated home is right for everyone is what the GP was griping about.

by jasode 11y ago

Sacho 11y ago

The part GP highlighted wasn't the museum, or restaurants, or the lake. It was the short commute to work. Slashing the commute from 1 hour to 10 minutes gives you at least 1 and a half hours more each day, or about 10% more life. If you count it in "time spent with the family"(subtract work hours, personal time and various other engagements), it's anywhere from 20-50% more time spent with the family. Is a house worth that much time? Well, it probably depends on the people.

koolba 11y ago
> The part GP highlighted wasn't the museum, or restaurants, or the lake. It was the short commute to work. Slashing the commute from 1 hour to 10 minutes gives you at least 1 and a half hours more each day, or about 10% more life. If you count it in "time spent with the family"(subtract work hours, personal time and various other engagements), it's anywhere from 20-50% more time spent with the family. Is a house worth that much time? Well, it probably depends on the people. While true on paper here's what really happens to most people: 1) They spend the extra time working instead of what they would otherwise consider family/fun/relax time. 2) If buying a place costs X and renting costs Y, they end up spending (Y-X) frivolously and getting accustomed to that level of spending. If nothing else, owning a home tricks/forces/cajoles people into saving money. Sure you can argue, "I'll save the difference and invest it at Z% ... Win!" but that's not what the VAST majority of people will do.
- wernercd 11y ago
  The question tho is simply: Are they happier? If you spend 2 hours in transit... or 20 minutes. If you "invest" or "spend on frivolities"... If you use your time more productively instead of sitting on a bus/in a car... While the trade off might not make sense to you, it obviously does make sense to the GP. I live on family property... and it would actually cost more (no rent/mortgage... vs something new) to live close to work, but I would get ~2 hours of driving (~1 each way) if I moved closer. Due to a variety of reasons, I stay where I'm at. Due to a variety of reasons, other people choose to move closer. Just because they aren't super efficient (wasting money/time, as you seem to suggest), doesn't mean they aren't better off with that decision.
  - koolba 11y ago
    > The question tho is simply: Are they happier? Having done both (short and long commutes), I'd say yes, but only in the short term. There's a distinct joy in not taking any form of powered transit to work. You feel it with every step you take walking in the mornings. Eventually that joy wears off though as you realize that you haven't saved squat over the past N years and if that trend continues, you'll eventually get priced out of renting too!
    - wernercd 11y ago
      While I understand what you are saying - Short commutes and not making forward progress lead to short term happiness - not everyone agrees with you. Growing up, I lived closer to where I worked... I'd walk or bike to work. Getting older, I moved around and anything I've done in the longest time requires "long" commutes (30-60 minutes each way). I've been on both sides and am fine with either. Given a slightly modified set of circumstances, I would probably pay a bit more to shave an hour or two off my commute... the added time and lessened stress (so many bad drivers on the roads... more time to play CoD...) would be worth it. I am lucky enough to live on Family Property - so the economic benefits of having zero rent/mortgage can't be understated (and is a major reason I commute) but it does come at an expense in time commuting.
    - 11y ago
jasode 11y ago
>The part GP highlighted wasn't the museum, or restaurants, or the lake. It was the short commute to work. The GGP highlighted both the commute and the city amenities. He specifically contrasted the house with "big backyards" vs apartment access to "Central/Riverside parks, etc" I was countering the notion that those city amenities are so wonderful that supposedly clueless suburbanites "don't know what they're missing out on". Well, we do know what those city benefits are. We enjoyed them at one phase in our lives. We just don't prioritize them. As for the longer commute time of suburbia... to me, it was already an underlying premise. In any case, there are also several factors affecting it. In two-income families, if one spouse works in the city, it's common for the other spouse to work outside of it. So, depending on the type of jobs the husband & wife have, they really don't reduce total commute time for the entire family unit by choosing to live in downtown. Another interesting data point is that many wealthy earners (e.g. hedge fund mgrs, etc) in NYC deliberately purchase their family homes out in the suburbs instead of a high rise apartment next to Central Park. They have the high income to live anywhere and yet they also made the "irrational" decision to commute 2 hours every day to live away from downtown. >Is a house worth that much time? Well, it probably depends on the people. Exactly. People prioritize different things. I had a balcony with my nice Chicago apartment but I never used it. My ears didn't like the constant noise of traffic. On the other hand, my house has a covered outdoor area with a grill that I use all the time. It seems like people spend their "commute" time as a calculated tradeoff to enjoy a certain lifestyle away from the office.
- harrumph 11y ago
  Wait, you lived in downtown Chicago -- not a community by any stretch, but instead a commercial and tourism district that rolls up its sidewalks by 7PM -- and you call that "living in the city" and imagine that area descriptive of "city benefits"? Hey, you prefer the suburbs and long commutes. Great. But neighborhoods do actually exist in a city of 3 million+. Commutes are minimal, with few taxis and sirens to rattle one prone to rattling. Let's not for a second indulge the idea that you made a fair comparison.
  - carlmcqueen 11y ago

skywhopper 11y ago

No one fails to acknowledge that lots of people like houses and living outside the city. But government policy at all levels is so tipped in favor of detached-home suburban development that there's a severe lack of options in most places for people who prefer urban living or who would choose the tradeoffs of living in the city. So, please, live where you want. It's great that you can afford it. But the assumption in the media and government policy that your particular dream of an isolated home is right for everyone is what the GP was griping about.