3 ms·

This trend must be a price over preference issue. The desirable cities in the US are just so damn expensive to live in town. If you want to buy, it's either the

This trend must be a price over preference issue. The desirable cities in the US are just so damn expensive to live in town. If you want to buy, it's either the 'burbs, or most of your income going to rent/buy in the city. Of course, if you really do the math, even beyond being unsustainable from an economic and infrastructure/governance standpoint, on a personal level, owning and maintaining a house in the suburbs has many hidden costs.

ashark 9y ago
It's that plus the schools, at least in this city. If we lived in the city, it'd take ~2-2.5x as much money to buy a house with one fewer bedrooms than our current 'burbs house has (two of our kids could have bunk-beds I guess) and probably 500-100sqft smaller overall and in kinda so-so shape, and that's outside the heart of the city and not in a ritzy neighborhood (but also not a slum). Then we'd also have to hope our kids got into one of a couple good waiting-listed charter schools, or else pay another $2-3K/month for private school. We couldn't afford that at all, and even if they got into the charter schools we'd be living like paupers thanks to the much-higher mortgage (or rent). So, lifeless, boring 'burbs full of seemingly-intentionally-ugly houses it is.
majormajor 9y ago
Is it that hard to believe, especially with other articles[0] discussing how much millenials love pets even before having kids, that there's a significant number of people who prefer yards and quiet and peace and all those other suburban perks over living in dense environments? I don't deny that a lot of people prefer living in the city, but it's not only price that can make people choose the alternative. (But due to the nature of density and surface area, you'd have to seriously large majority prefering the suburbs to really drive the city prices down.) There's also a definitions thing hiding in here: much of San Fransisco is pretty damn suburban, with houses, one or two story buildings, etc. Still expensive as hell, though. And then look at all the towns on the peninsula. I'd argue that the affordability differences are regional much more than urban/suburban driven. Worth also looking at the costs within those regions of city vs certain suburbs, like SF vs Palo Alto, or LA vs Santa Monica. [0] such as https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/09/13/millennials-are-picking-pets-over-people/?utm_term=.6509c339a5d6 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/09/13/m... http://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-pets-have-the-potential-to-unleash-millennials-on-housing-market-2017-08-02 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-pets-have-the-potential-...
chrismealy 9y ago
It's true. When nice places for people get too crowded and expensive the obvious solution is to make more nice places for people. Sadly America only makes more nice places for cars.

ashark 9y ago

It's that plus the schools, at least in this city. If we lived in the city, it'd take ~2-2.5x as much money to buy a house with one fewer bedrooms than our current 'burbs house has (two of our kids could have bunk-beds I guess) and probably 500-100sqft smaller overall and in kinda so-so shape, and that's outside the heart of the city and not in a ritzy neighborhood (but also not a slum). Then we'd also have to hope our kids got into one of a couple good waiting-listed charter schools, or else pay another $2-3K/month for private school. We couldn't afford that at all, and even if they got into the charter schools we'd be living like paupers thanks to the much-higher mortgage (or rent). So, lifeless, boring 'burbs full of seemingly-intentionally-ugly houses it is.

majormajor 9y ago

Is it that hard to believe, especially with other articles[0] discussing how much millenials love pets even before having kids, that there's a significant number of people who prefer yards and quiet and peace and all those other suburban perks over living in dense environments? I don't deny that a lot of people prefer living in the city, but it's not only price that can make people choose the alternative. (But due to the nature of density and surface area, you'd have to seriously large majority prefering the suburbs to really drive the city prices down.) There's also a definitions thing hiding in here: much of San Fransisco is pretty damn suburban, with houses, one or two story buildings, etc. Still expensive as hell, though. And then look at all the towns on the peninsula. I'd argue that the affordability differences are regional much more than urban/suburban driven. Worth also looking at the costs within those regions of city vs certain suburbs, like SF vs Palo Alto, or LA vs Santa Monica. [0] such as https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/09/13/millennials-are-picking-pets-over-people/?utm_term=.6509c339a5d6 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/09/13/m... http://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-pets-have-the-potential-to-unleash-millennials-on-housing-market-2017-08-02 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-pets-have-the-potential-...

chrismealy 9y ago

It's true. When nice places for people get too crowded and expensive the obvious solution is to make more nice places for people. Sadly America only makes more nice places for cars.