7 ms·

I've happily relocated to suburbia since starting a family with small children. As others have mentioned, I enjoy the open spaces, lack of crowds, and lines whe

I've happily relocated to suburbia since starting a family with small children. As others have mentioned, I enjoy the open spaces, lack of crowds, and lines when I want to go out and do something. I consider cities like NY and SF to be great places to live if single but basically untenable with a family except in certain circumstances. There are some great cities like Seattle and Tokyo where I might be willing to raise my family but in general I am glad that tech companies aren't in city centers.

laurentoget 10y ago
People did have children and they lived in cities before suburbs were developed in the 1940s and 1950s, though, so it has to be possible.
- ryuker16 10y ago
  They likely didnt have much of a choice due to lower car ownership. I cant imagine commuting in a 1940s car for hours each day.
  - Symbiote 10y ago
    Cars? The first suburbs were enabled by trains, not cars, and were developed and promoted by the railway company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-land
    - ryuker16 10y ago
      Trains in the USA suck in most cities for commutes. Theyre still stuck in the 1950s compared to asia or europe for ccommuting
- mtbcoder 10y ago
  I suppose one could argue that cities in the early - mid 20th century weren't as heavily populated. I could be wrong, but I would also assume that noise levels were much lower and the streets much less congested. Looking at old pictures of city life, you often see kids playing in the streets. I don't think that would be possible today.
  - Brakenshire 10y ago
    > I suppose one could argue that cities in the early - mid 20th century weren't as heavily populated. I could be wrong, but I would also assume that noise levels were much lower and the streets much less congested. That is wrong I think. Inner London for instance still hasn't recovered the population level that it had in the 1930's. There are also videos that show a lot of traffic, and huge numbers of pedestrians. Go back another 30-50 years and most of the traffic would have been horse-drawn carts, which means enormous amounts of excrement, and extreme levels of noise, because before the invention of pneumatic tires wheels were metal on stone.
    - mtbcoder 10y ago
      True, European cities would still have been densely populated, but I was envisioning US cities from that time period since we are talking about the American 'burbs. (I could be wrong just as well.) I currently reside in DC and the old, original suburbs as well as what used to be considered the outskirts, have long been consumed by the metro area. Where it was once sparsely populated, it is now heavily populated, heavily paved and herds of cars as far as the eye can see.
randycupertino 10y ago
We moved to suburbia (SF peninsula) and there is still tons of traffic and lines :(
- vadym909 10y ago
  I live in the SF peninsula and don't think the traffic is terrible. Mostly 20 min to get anywhere. There are a few places 101, 85 and 280 that are busy during peak times in some directions, but other than that, its pretty similar to most other cities I been.
  - gbin 10y ago
    We can say that to any congested areas: Only few directions at only specific time, it is bad luck because this is where the majority of people is commuting to or from. The Bay Area has been getting worse for the last few years, it is now pretty common to spend 1h30 between San Francisco and Mountain View.
    - eitally 10y ago
      But the good news about the peninsula is that there's almost zero residential traffic, and it's almost always <10 minutes to get to most common retail/service businesses (groceries, laundries, takeout food, neighborhood schools, gyms, etc). I attribute this to the fact that there are so few through streets connecting major arteries, and enough major arteries (El Camino, Central Expy, 101, 237(ish), 280, and 85) that attract the vast majority of worker traffic. Getting to & from work sucks, but getting around the neighborhood is a piece of cake.
jsemrau 10y ago
You don't want to raise kids in Tokyo. Almost no parks, too much concrete, kindergarten places are sparse and expensive, train stations don't have elevators for the pram, trains are overly crowded, apartments are small.
- inglor 10y ago
  There are plenty of parks in most of Tokyo and apartment costs are reasonable if you get 10-20 minutes of metro away from the center. There are excellent educational centers in Tokyo too if you know where to look and every single train station has an elevator (albeit - only in one out of several exits which can make your trip longer). I think the main issue would be the "hidden" discrimination against foreigners (gaijin) though and very demanding and destructive company culture.
  - jdale27 10y ago
    You two seem to have completely opposite impressions of the same city. Is it really that big? Or just subjective?
    - andyjohnson0 10y ago
      I've never been to Tokyo, but Google Maps shows a number of large public parks and quite a few small ones too [1]. [1] https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Tokyo,+Japan/@35.6826505,139.715148,13.25z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x605d1b87f02e57e7:0x2e01618b22571b89!8m2!3d35.6894875!4d139.6917064?hl=en https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Tokyo,+Japan/@35.6826505...
      - ronnier 10y ago
        Be warned, those parks, while big, can't be used for much. Most of them have "no ball sports" signs, and yes, it's enforced. Can you imagine going to a huge park and not being able to throw a frisbee?
        10y ago
raldi 10y ago
> I consider cities like NY and SF to be great places to live if single but basically untenable with a family except in certain circumstances. Could you elaborate on that? I've got an 18-month-old, and we happily commute by train together in San Francisco every day. At what age does it get bad?
- inglor 10y ago
  It doesn't, it just gets very _expensive_ to live very well in a city center with a family. I guess this is what the OP meant by "certain circumstance".
  - shmerl 10y ago
    You don't need to live in a center or Manhattan for instance. But it doesn't really help much prices wise. Real estate in NYC is just expensive in general.
pesenti 10y ago
I moved to NYC with my 4 young kids. NYC is a great place for kids as long as you can afford the rent. We sold our cars, get most of what we need delivered, and walk or bike pretty much everywhere. All the kids activities are at walking distance and my oldest who is 12 is completely independent. I have no idea why people think that cities are bad for kids (apart from the cost of lodging).
- rodgerd 10y ago
  I don't live anywhere as dense and NYC, but I'd echo the sentiment. I live on the city fringe, and the ability to easily get to music, dance, language lessons, galleries, playgrounds, and so on are all invaluable to me and the kids. Pretty much anything they want to do (other than "have a pony") is much easier in the city that it would be in an outlying suburb. And when they get into their teens, I'll be a lot happier with them having good options for buses, trains and so on.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- wizardforhire 10y ago
  Fellow New Yorker here. New York's a great town if you're not racist and only slightly classist. Let's not forget why suburbs became popular in the first place. cough cough https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
  - rtehfm 10y ago
    That's hardly why suburbs became popular across the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb#Origins_of_the_modern_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb#Origins_of_the_modern_s...
    - wizardforhire 10y ago
      Fwiw from the article you just posted. "A greater percentage of whites and lesser percentage of citizens of other ethnic groups than in urban areas. However, Black suburbanization grew between 1970 and 1980 by 2.6% as a result of central city neighborhoods expanding into older neighborhoods vacated by whites.[27][28][29]" "The English word is derived from the Old French subburbe, which is in turn derived from the Latin suburbium, formed from sub (meaning "under" or "below") and urbs ("city"). The first recorded usage of the term in English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, was made by John Wycliffe in 1380, where the form subarbis was used." Generally in the west, being below something is a sign of weekness or inferiority. Traditionally only poor/ surfs/ peasants/ redneck country folk / barbarians (which has a great etymology btw), lived outside the city walls... Hence sub urban areas. They developed originally primarily for economic reasons you're right not racist. Or maybe we're taking about two different things with the same name? Because I'm talking about the vast droves of concrete waste in America inhabited by isolated individuals who exist in echo chambers of their own creation and defend them vehemently. #yesallsuburbs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York http://ushistoryscene.com/article/levittown/ http://ushistoryscene.com/article/levittown/
shmerl 10y ago
NYC is livable, if you can afford the rent. The problem is, it's only growing everywhere.
reagan83 10y ago
A common fear I hear from young expecting couples is that kids cannot be raised in the city. We moved to SF 4 years ago from the suburbs and really enjoy the benefits of being here with kids (in 1st & 3rd grade). It is definitely an adjustment from suburbia, but so far it has been worth it. Edit: Also happy to share my experiences in more detail if you are considering this path. My email is in my profile.
- mrsharpoblunto 10y ago
  I imagine the dealbreaker for most young couples expecting kids is the cost of renting a 3+ bedroom in SF more than any fear of raising kids in the city.
  - mc32 10y ago
    Well, there is the dreaded PS lottery[1]. So unless you both are working and can put the kids in private school, the kids may well end up in one of the district's poorly run schools. [1]http://blog.sfishome.com/san-francisco/san-francisco-public-school-lottery-explained/ http://blog.sfishome.com/san-francisco/san-francisco-public-...
- Spooky23 10y ago
  I did too, until we drew the ghetto elementary school where the average 5th grader can't read. Fortunately, we're able to afford a catholic school.
  - Brakenshire 10y ago
    It's a reflection of the societies we live in. More difficult to avoid that in the suburbs than it is in the city.
  - digler999 10y ago
    Not judging you at all, but I can't help but chuckle at the irony that you pay a premium to educate your child at the Christian organization that worships a god who championed the value of the poor.
cozzyd 10y ago
Companies being located in cities doesn't prevent you from living in the suburbs and commuting in by your mode of choice. Companies located in suburbs make it extremely inconvenient to live in a city and commute out in any mode other than a vehicle, which you would not have use for otherwise.

laurentoget 10y ago

People did have children and they lived in cities before suburbs were developed in the 1940s and 1950s, though, so it has to be possible.

ryuker16 10y ago
They likely didnt have much of a choice due to lower car ownership. I cant imagine commuting in a 1940s car for hours each day.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  Cars? The first suburbs were enabled by trains, not cars, and were developed and promoted by the railway company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-land
  - ryuker16 10y ago
    Trains in the USA suck in most cities for commutes. Theyre still stuck in the 1950s compared to asia or europe for ccommuting
mtbcoder 10y ago
I suppose one could argue that cities in the early - mid 20th century weren't as heavily populated. I could be wrong, but I would also assume that noise levels were much lower and the streets much less congested. Looking at old pictures of city life, you often see kids playing in the streets. I don't think that would be possible today.
- Brakenshire 10y ago
  > I suppose one could argue that cities in the early - mid 20th century weren't as heavily populated. I could be wrong, but I would also assume that noise levels were much lower and the streets much less congested. That is wrong I think. Inner London for instance still hasn't recovered the population level that it had in the 1930's. There are also videos that show a lot of traffic, and huge numbers of pedestrians. Go back another 30-50 years and most of the traffic would have been horse-drawn carts, which means enormous amounts of excrement, and extreme levels of noise, because before the invention of pneumatic tires wheels were metal on stone.
  - mtbcoder 10y ago
    True, European cities would still have been densely populated, but I was envisioning US cities from that time period since we are talking about the American 'burbs. (I could be wrong just as well.) I currently reside in DC and the old, original suburbs as well as what used to be considered the outskirts, have long been consumed by the metro area. Where it was once sparsely populated, it is now heavily populated, heavily paved and herds of cars as far as the eye can see.

randycupertino 10y ago

We moved to suburbia (SF peninsula) and there is still tons of traffic and lines :(

vadym909 10y ago
I live in the SF peninsula and don't think the traffic is terrible. Mostly 20 min to get anywhere. There are a few places 101, 85 and 280 that are busy during peak times in some directions, but other than that, its pretty similar to most other cities I been.
- gbin 10y ago
  We can say that to any congested areas: Only few directions at only specific time, it is bad luck because this is where the majority of people is commuting to or from. The Bay Area has been getting worse for the last few years, it is now pretty common to spend 1h30 between San Francisco and Mountain View.
  - eitally 10y ago
    But the good news about the peninsula is that there's almost zero residential traffic, and it's almost always <10 minutes to get to most common retail/service businesses (groceries, laundries, takeout food, neighborhood schools, gyms, etc). I attribute this to the fact that there are so few through streets connecting major arteries, and enough major arteries (El Camino, Central Expy, 101, 237(ish), 280, and 85) that attract the vast majority of worker traffic. Getting to & from work sucks, but getting around the neighborhood is a piece of cake.

jsemrau 10y ago

You don't want to raise kids in Tokyo. Almost no parks, too much concrete, kindergarten places are sparse and expensive, train stations don't have elevators for the pram, trains are overly crowded, apartments are small.

inglor 10y ago
There are plenty of parks in most of Tokyo and apartment costs are reasonable if you get 10-20 minutes of metro away from the center. There are excellent educational centers in Tokyo too if you know where to look and every single train station has an elevator (albeit - only in one out of several exits which can make your trip longer). I think the main issue would be the "hidden" discrimination against foreigners (gaijin) though and very demanding and destructive company culture.
- jdale27 10y ago
  You two seem to have completely opposite impressions of the same city. Is it really that big? Or just subjective?
  - andyjohnson0 10y ago
    I've never been to Tokyo, but Google Maps shows a number of large public parks and quite a few small ones too [1]. [1] https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Tokyo,+Japan/@35.6826505,139.715148,13.25z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x605d1b87f02e57e7:0x2e01618b22571b89!8m2!3d35.6894875!4d139.6917064?hl=en https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Tokyo,+Japan/@35.6826505...
    - ronnier 10y ago
      Be warned, those parks, while big, can't be used for much. Most of them have "no ball sports" signs, and yes, it's enforced. Can you imagine going to a huge park and not being able to throw a frisbee?
      - 10y ago

raldi 10y ago

> I consider cities like NY and SF to be great places to live if single but basically untenable with a family except in certain circumstances. Could you elaborate on that? I've got an 18-month-old, and we happily commute by train together in San Francisco every day. At what age does it get bad?

inglor 10y ago
It doesn't, it just gets very _expensive_ to live very well in a city center with a family. I guess this is what the OP meant by "certain circumstance".
- shmerl 10y ago
  You don't need to live in a center or Manhattan for instance. But it doesn't really help much prices wise. Real estate in NYC is just expensive in general.

pesenti 10y ago

I moved to NYC with my 4 young kids. NYC is a great place for kids as long as you can afford the rent. We sold our cars, get most of what we need delivered, and walk or bike pretty much everywhere. All the kids activities are at walking distance and my oldest who is 12 is completely independent. I have no idea why people think that cities are bad for kids (apart from the cost of lodging).

rodgerd 10y ago
I don't live anywhere as dense and NYC, but I'd echo the sentiment. I live on the city fringe, and the ability to easily get to music, dance, language lessons, galleries, playgrounds, and so on are all invaluable to me and the kids. Pretty much anything they want to do (other than "have a pony") is much easier in the city that it would be in an outlying suburb. And when they get into their teens, I'll be a lot happier with them having good options for buses, trains and so on.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wizardforhire 10y ago
Fellow New Yorker here. New York's a great town if you're not racist and only slightly classist. Let's not forget why suburbs became popular in the first place. cough cough https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
- rtehfm 10y ago
  That's hardly why suburbs became popular across the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb#Origins_of_the_modern_suburb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb#Origins_of_the_modern_s...
  - wizardforhire 10y ago
    Fwiw from the article you just posted. "A greater percentage of whites and lesser percentage of citizens of other ethnic groups than in urban areas. However, Black suburbanization grew between 1970 and 1980 by 2.6% as a result of central city neighborhoods expanding into older neighborhoods vacated by whites.[27][28][29]" "The English word is derived from the Old French subburbe, which is in turn derived from the Latin suburbium, formed from sub (meaning "under" or "below") and urbs ("city"). The first recorded usage of the term in English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, was made by John Wycliffe in 1380, where the form subarbis was used." Generally in the west, being below something is a sign of weekness or inferiority. Traditionally only poor/ surfs/ peasants/ redneck country folk / barbarians (which has a great etymology btw), lived outside the city walls... Hence sub urban areas. They developed originally primarily for economic reasons you're right not racist. Or maybe we're taking about two different things with the same name? Because I'm talking about the vast droves of concrete waste in America inhabited by isolated individuals who exist in echo chambers of their own creation and defend them vehemently. #yesallsuburbs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown,_New_York http://ushistoryscene.com/article/levittown/ http://ushistoryscene.com/article/levittown/

shmerl 10y ago

NYC is livable, if you can afford the rent. The problem is, it's only growing everywhere.

reagan83 10y ago

A common fear I hear from young expecting couples is that kids cannot be raised in the city. We moved to SF 4 years ago from the suburbs and really enjoy the benefits of being here with kids (in 1st & 3rd grade). It is definitely an adjustment from suburbia, but so far it has been worth it. Edit: Also happy to share my experiences in more detail if you are considering this path. My email is in my profile.

mrsharpoblunto 10y ago
I imagine the dealbreaker for most young couples expecting kids is the cost of renting a 3+ bedroom in SF more than any fear of raising kids in the city.
- mc32 10y ago
  Well, there is the dreaded PS lottery[1]. So unless you both are working and can put the kids in private school, the kids may well end up in one of the district's poorly run schools. [1]http://blog.sfishome.com/san-francisco/san-francisco-public-school-lottery-explained/ http://blog.sfishome.com/san-francisco/san-francisco-public-...
Spooky23 10y ago
I did too, until we drew the ghetto elementary school where the average 5th grader can't read. Fortunately, we're able to afford a catholic school.
- Brakenshire 10y ago
  It's a reflection of the societies we live in. More difficult to avoid that in the suburbs than it is in the city.
- digler999 10y ago
  Not judging you at all, but I can't help but chuckle at the irony that you pay a premium to educate your child at the Christian organization that worships a god who championed the value of the poor.

cozzyd 10y ago

Companies being located in cities doesn't prevent you from living in the suburbs and commuting in by your mode of choice. Companies located in suburbs make it extremely inconvenient to live in a city and commute out in any mode other than a vehicle, which you would not have use for otherwise.