4 ms·

I think you have some good points, but it seems you're against a straw-man version of city life that doesn't match what most city folks experience every day: *

by yongjik 10y ago

I think you have some good points, but it seems you're against a straw-man version of city life that doesn't match what most city folks experience every day: * "a home that was built during or since the 1950s"... is supposed to be preferable? A home built in the 80s will be considered old-fashioned in places like Seoul. (Besides, what's that got to do with city-versus-rural difference?) * "I prefer to live in an area where I can leave my doors unlocked..." Some cities have crime problem. Others don't. Also, I have the impression it's always the (Americal) rural dwellers who say "You urbanite liberals have no idea why guns are necessary!" So I'm taking your argument with a grain of salt. * "...rather than an environment where I have to be careful not to step in human feces when I walk between two parked cars." Well... then don't live in SF, I guess?

rhapsodic 10y ago
>I think you have some good points, but it seems you're against a straw-man version of city life that doesn't match what most city folks experience every day: > "a home that was built during or since the 1950s"... is supposed to be preferable? A home built in the 80s will be considered old-fashioned in places like Seoul. (Besides, what's that got to do with city-versus-rural difference?) First, a little background. In a previous life I was a carpenter who did some new home construction, but mostly remodeling, in both cities and suburbs. So, given just about any wall in any home, I have a pretty good idea what you'll find under the paint if you take a sledgehammer to it. In the northeastern US city I'm using as my reference point, the housing stock is on average much older than the suburbs. And to me, an old house is like a a really old car. It breaks down a lot and requires a lot of maintenance. The walls are less likely to be square and plumb. The wiring is more likely to be obsolete and insufficient for all the computers/gadgets/appliances we rely on today. I just don't care to deal with it. Different people have different value systems. I really don't care whether or not there is excellent Thai Fusion cuisine available within walking distance, but I like a home that is reasonably up to date and low maintenance. The so-called charm of century old city houses is of no value to me. In some wealthier areas of my local city, most of the houses have been gutted and refurbished down to the last piece of trim by their cardiac surgeon owners, but those houses sell for around 4X what I paid for mine and cars are still more likely to get stolen from their driveway than from mine. So, to sum up, my preferences are based on my own set of values, which are markedly different from people who prefer to live in cities. And one thing I've noticed, is that when I say things like this openly, for example at a dinner party attended mostly by white professional city dwellers, it invariably bothers some of them, visibly, that I have the preferences I do and I'm not embarrassed to admit them. (I'm well aware of how fashionable suburb-bashing is among fashionable people.) I always find that part amusing. They try to convince me that it's so awesome living as they do in a row house in some "up and coming" neighborhood, but it really sounds like they're trying to convince themselves.
- matchbok 10y ago
  Nobody is trying to convince you of anything. Some people value time more than money. Living in the burbs requires a car, sitting in traffic, etc. That's not worth it for a lot of people. I can walk outside my door and have access to 10 times the things the average suburbian does. That makes it worth it.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    > Living in the burbs requires a car, sitting in traffic, etc. FWIW, this isn't always true. I live in the suburbs about 30 miles from work, and it takes about as much time for me to drive there as it does for my friends who live 3x closer, but in the city. They get all the traffic; I can literally just set cruise control at speed limit, and coast 20 miles out of those 30 on a wide open freeway.
    - umanwizard 10y ago
      If your friends need a car for their daily commutes then they probably don't live in what I would consider a "city".
      - mantas 10y ago
        Then you'd probably not consider most of what is cities a city. I live in >500k fully walkable european city with okay-ish public transit. During peak times, it's ~30 minutes to get to downtown by both public transit and car. But most of offices are located outside of downtown(=oldtown) area. One office area is 30min+ by public transit (and requires a transfer or long walk) or 10min by car, even during peak times. Office park on another side of the city would be well over 1h by public transit, but 30min by car. There're locations that take 3x longer by public transit and/or require elaborate transfer plan than driving. Difference gets even bigger if you can start a wee earlier/later.
      - int_19h 10y ago
        That would be Seattle. And do account for the relatively shitty public transit infrastructure that is the norm here in US. And you seem to be assuming that the offices are also right there in the city. That's not the case for many people.

by yongjik 10y ago

rhapsodic 10y ago

>I think you have some good points, but it seems you're against a straw-man version of city life that doesn't match what most city folks experience every day: > "a home that was built during or since the 1950s"... is supposed to be preferable? A home built in the 80s will be considered old-fashioned in places like Seoul. (Besides, what's that got to do with city-versus-rural difference?) First, a little background. In a previous life I was a carpenter who did some new home construction, but mostly remodeling, in both cities and suburbs. So, given just about any wall in any home, I have a pretty good idea what you'll find under the paint if you take a sledgehammer to it. In the northeastern US city I'm using as my reference point, the housing stock is on average much older than the suburbs. And to me, an old house is like a a really old car. It breaks down a lot and requires a lot of maintenance. The walls are less likely to be square and plumb. The wiring is more likely to be obsolete and insufficient for all the computers/gadgets/appliances we rely on today. I just don't care to deal with it. Different people have different value systems. I really don't care whether or not there is excellent Thai Fusion cuisine available within walking distance, but I like a home that is reasonably up to date and low maintenance. The so-called charm of century old city houses is of no value to me. In some wealthier areas of my local city, most of the houses have been gutted and refurbished down to the last piece of trim by their cardiac surgeon owners, but those houses sell for around 4X what I paid for mine and cars are still more likely to get stolen from their driveway than from mine. So, to sum up, my preferences are based on my own set of values, which are markedly different from people who prefer to live in cities. And one thing I've noticed, is that when I say things like this openly, for example at a dinner party attended mostly by white professional city dwellers, it invariably bothers some of them, visibly, that I have the preferences I do and I'm not embarrassed to admit them. (I'm well aware of how fashionable suburb-bashing is among fashionable people.) I always find that part amusing. They try to convince me that it's so awesome living as they do in a row house in some "up and coming" neighborhood, but it really sounds like they're trying to convince themselves.

matchbok 10y ago
Nobody is trying to convince you of anything. Some people value time more than money. Living in the burbs requires a car, sitting in traffic, etc. That's not worth it for a lot of people. I can walk outside my door and have access to 10 times the things the average suburbian does. That makes it worth it.
- int_19h 10y ago
  > Living in the burbs requires a car, sitting in traffic, etc. FWIW, this isn't always true. I live in the suburbs about 30 miles from work, and it takes about as much time for me to drive there as it does for my friends who live 3x closer, but in the city. They get all the traffic; I can literally just set cruise control at speed limit, and coast 20 miles out of those 30 on a wide open freeway.
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    If your friends need a car for their daily commutes then they probably don't live in what I would consider a "city".
    - mantas 10y ago
      Then you'd probably not consider most of what is cities a city. I live in >500k fully walkable european city with okay-ish public transit. During peak times, it's ~30 minutes to get to downtown by both public transit and car. But most of offices are located outside of downtown(=oldtown) area. One office area is 30min+ by public transit (and requires a transfer or long walk) or 10min by car, even during peak times. Office park on another side of the city would be well over 1h by public transit, but 30min by car. There're locations that take 3x longer by public transit and/or require elaborate transfer plan than driving. Difference gets even bigger if you can start a wee earlier/later.
    - int_19h 10y ago
      That would be Seattle. And do account for the relatively shitty public transit infrastructure that is the norm here in US. And you seem to be assuming that the offices are also right there in the city. That's not the case for many people.