4 ms·

Better schools, better roads, nicer parks and playgrounds, lower crime, less homeless, worse food, worse entertainment, worse public transportation

cure 7y ago
Here in Massachusetts, I'd say there are not many playgrounds in suburbs at all. There are many very nice playgrounds in (certain) cities. I've always assumed that suburbs don't care as much about playgrounds and parks because most houses have a (large) yard already. On the whole, suburbs also have nicer libraries, though there are examples to the contrary - e.g. Cambridge, MA has a really fantastic main library. The quality of libraries and schools mostly tracks how wealthy the suburb/city is. I agree with you that no matter how wealthy the suburb, food, entertainment and public transportation are going to be seriously underwhelming compared to a city.
Spooky23 7y ago
Depends on your point of view. For 50 years in vital cities, the model has been that most people who aren't rich boogey out of the city when their entertainment needs evolve away from nightlife. Unless you are a 9-5 corporate or .gov type, which is increasingly less common, suburbia is more convenient for many purposes once you have the ability to support a car. Being chained to public transit corridors and schedules is very difficult for workers with marginal means. I live in the city and love it. Fortunately I bought my home earlier -- today it would be dumb. Living in the city is great, except when school lotteries mean that your kids have to go to school 45 minutes away from your home, because of a court order from 1970, and you end up paying for private school. My city has to fund a large police department and fire department, so my city taxes are 30% higher than a suburb. The city school district has to provide much more special ed and social services, so those taxes are 40% higher. Good news is that living for my family is cheap and convenient. But I can't improve my home, because the value won't go up due the taxes. If I had invested about 30% more in 2002, my housing investment would be about 150% more valuable today.

cure 7y ago

Here in Massachusetts, I'd say there are not many playgrounds in suburbs at all. There are many very nice playgrounds in (certain) cities. I've always assumed that suburbs don't care as much about playgrounds and parks because most houses have a (large) yard already. On the whole, suburbs also have nicer libraries, though there are examples to the contrary - e.g. Cambridge, MA has a really fantastic main library. The quality of libraries and schools mostly tracks how wealthy the suburb/city is. I agree with you that no matter how wealthy the suburb, food, entertainment and public transportation are going to be seriously underwhelming compared to a city.

Spooky23 7y ago

Depends on your point of view. For 50 years in vital cities, the model has been that most people who aren't rich boogey out of the city when their entertainment needs evolve away from nightlife. Unless you are a 9-5 corporate or .gov type, which is increasingly less common, suburbia is more convenient for many purposes once you have the ability to support a car. Being chained to public transit corridors and schedules is very difficult for workers with marginal means. I live in the city and love it. Fortunately I bought my home earlier -- today it would be dumb. Living in the city is great, except when school lotteries mean that your kids have to go to school 45 minutes away from your home, because of a court order from 1970, and you end up paying for private school. My city has to fund a large police department and fire department, so my city taxes are 30% higher than a suburb. The city school district has to provide much more special ed and social services, so those taxes are 40% higher. Good news is that living for my family is cheap and convenient. But I can't improve my home, because the value won't go up due the taxes. If I had invested about 30% more in 2002, my housing investment would be about 150% more valuable today.