4 ms·

I'm confused as to whether you're describing urban living or suburban living. Both have everything mentioned, the latter without being stacked on top of your ne

I'm confused as to whether you're describing urban living or suburban living. Both have everything mentioned, the latter without being stacked on top of your neighbors.

oblio 6y ago
It's in the name. You only have "sub-urban living" because there is an "urban" nearby.
- luckylion 6y ago
  You don't have to go to the urban center for everyday things though, you go there because that's where the jobs are. When full remote becomes more wide-spread, that might change things rapidly.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Some jobs. There are more than there used to be in some cities but most technology jobs are still in suburban campuses and industrial parks.
  - oblio 6y ago
    It's not only jobs. Do you want to watch theater? Opera? Concerts? Major sports events? Do you want to join a club for an obscure African sport? I could go on and on. There is a reason we've been congregating in cities for millennia, despite having to overcome many diseases which are made worse by overcrowdedness.
    - philwelch 6y ago
      Much of that has been largely replaced with electronic media, and what remains is a “once in a while” occasion that people are willing to travel to. These days, much of the time, city-dwellers are the ones who have to travel to suburban venues. The main reasons for urbanization were always economic and political. Rome was not built for the Coliseum; the Coliseum was built for Rome.
      - jschwartzi 6y ago
        There are still a lot of us who really enjoy theater, opera, concerts, shows, and the like. And those things can only be had in a city. It's true that local amphitheaters may book a few good live acts every year but that selection pales in comparison to what you can get every weekend in a reasonably-sized city. There are some fun local theater groups in my suburb too. But sometimes I really want to watch something other than Shakespeare.
        philwelch 6y ago
        That’s true. But since the mid-20th century, most people enjoy music, “dramatic productions” (for lack of a better generic term), and live sports electronically rather than in person. I know it’s not the same, and I also enjoy live entertainment and the other amenities of cities. I just don’t think these amenities are historically a prime driver for urbanization. People historically move to cities for economic reasons, providing a lucrative and competitive market for entertaining them.
        mmm_grayons 6y ago
        True, but that's not that common. And few people enjoy them so much as to live in the city for that reason alone.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > It's not only jobs. Do you want to watch theater? Opera? Concerts? Major sports events? Do you want to join a club for an obscure African sport? I could go on and on. It's primarily jobs though. I know quite a few people who don't care enough for the Opera or obscure African sports to pay two or three times as much in rent and taxes. It's a mixed bag, some love living in the city, but all have to live in the city if they want to work in certain jobs & have a career. > There is a reason we've been congregating in cities for millennia, despite having to overcome many diseases which are made worse by overcrowdedness. Yes, primarily because that's where the opportunities were, always. The colorful cultural life you describe was (and still is) enjoyed by the urban elite, that wasn't a thing for the working poor in e.g. 19th century Paris. Their entertainment would be a bottle of wine and laughter with friends after slaving away in the factories; much the same they'd have in a village, just minus having a job and some money. Today's working class might go to the movies (if they don't prefer Netflix), the theaters, opera houses, obscure sports etc are upper class things. That might be changing, though I'm not convinced we'll see full remote work for large amounts of office jobs.
      - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
        The urban poor in the 19th century went to see the performing arts, too. Yes, some theaters and operas were strictly for the bourgeoisie, but there were theaters for the proletariat too (and whole genres of plays written to appeal to them), and vaudeville/music-hall type venues. I don't know where you got this idea that the masses could only make their own entertainment at home.
        luckylion 6y ago
        It's not that they "could only" do that, it's that their primary life wasn't full of cultural entertainment as the comment made it sound. They came to the cities looking for work and and opportunity, not from a late-20th-century sense of "small town life isn't interesting enough". The life described is one of privilege, not of the lower classes. It's pubs vs operas.
    - vel0city 6y ago
      You can live in the suburbs and still enjoy theater, concerts, opera, etc. I live in a suburb. There is a performing arts center a bicycle ride away which outside of these Covid times had some kind of opera or symphony or ballet or something along those lines going on. The university nearby often had shows well. If you wanted to see a live show you could probably find one within 15min any given weekend. There is a light rail line running through the suburb which connects downtown. Its a 30 minute train ride to go to the big event venue for big sports and concerts. This precludes the idea of going to the local minor league teams in the area as well which can often be just as much fun to watch and follow and far cheaper to attend. There are club sports which participate in the park in my neighborhood. All I need to do is walk down the street and find people playing various kinds of sports. There are larger suburb-city owned sports complex on the bike trails for even more congregation. Living in a suburb does not mean you can never go and see a show or a sports game or a concert.
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      Living in a major city, I and other people would still drive or even fly to other major cities for concerts or major sports events. That's not-that-frequent occassion, it's a bit more convenient if the event happens close to your home but living 100km from the city where it happens is not an obstacle anyway. The location of jobs matters because many of them require daily commute. But for major entertainment events it's sufficient to be 'close enough' for the things that haven't yet been replaced with something that's accessible remotely. For example, 30 years ago living in a small town meant that your access to cinema was limited or at least delayed, so you were 'out of the loop' of the culture in some sense. That's not an issue anymore - not because there are more cinemas, because their role has decreased.
matchbok 6y ago
In no way do the suburbs have the quality and diversity of food that any urban core does. 0%. I've been in both, they simple do not compare.
- vel0city 6y ago
  There's little reason why it would be impossible to have though. I live in a suburb. You'd be hard pressed to think of a type of food that I couldn't get within a 15min drive. Rotating sushi restaurant? Check. Lebanese bakery? Check. Canadian poutine? Check. Noodle restaurant - you want Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese? Which of the half dozen hot pot restaurants would you want to go to? Don't forget to pick up some borscht from the Russian restaurant. Meanwhile I go downtown and there's less choice of restaurants than the suburb I live in. Turns out you don't have to live in San Fransisco or Manhattan to have more than just a McDonalds to eat at in the US. Many suburbs elsewhere may only have Applebees as the pinnacle of culture, but that is not a given. Not every city is the same around the world. Not every suburb is the same.
  - Dahoon 6y ago
    A 10 minute walk is more realistic to compare the two. Jumping to a 15 minute drive makes it very apparent you are an American.
    - vel0city 6y ago
      The question posed was if a suburb could offer the quality and depth of food choices as compared to an urban area. In 10-15 minutes of travel in the suburban area where I live I can easily choose between over one hundred different restaurant choices. Practically any kind of food I can think of, I can probably take a pick between at least a couple of choices, probably several. Is that the same in your 10 minutes of walking?
- bluGill 6y ago
  My house has equal or better diversity of food than whatever city you live in. I cook it myself. If course my house needs to have a nice kitchen because I spend a lot of time there. Is the compromise worth it? I think so, but you may be different.

I'm confused as to whether you're describing urban living or suburban living. Both have everything mentioned, the latter without being stacked on top of your neighbors.

oblio 6y ago

It's in the name. You only have "sub-urban living" because there is an "urban" nearby.

luckylion 6y ago
You don't have to go to the urban center for everyday things though, you go there because that's where the jobs are. When full remote becomes more wide-spread, that might change things rapidly.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Some jobs. There are more than there used to be in some cities but most technology jobs are still in suburban campuses and industrial parks.
- oblio 6y ago
  It's not only jobs. Do you want to watch theater? Opera? Concerts? Major sports events? Do you want to join a club for an obscure African sport? I could go on and on. There is a reason we've been congregating in cities for millennia, despite having to overcome many diseases which are made worse by overcrowdedness.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    Much of that has been largely replaced with electronic media, and what remains is a “once in a while” occasion that people are willing to travel to. These days, much of the time, city-dwellers are the ones who have to travel to suburban venues. The main reasons for urbanization were always economic and political. Rome was not built for the Coliseum; the Coliseum was built for Rome.
    - jschwartzi 6y ago
      There are still a lot of us who really enjoy theater, opera, concerts, shows, and the like. And those things can only be had in a city. It's true that local amphitheaters may book a few good live acts every year but that selection pales in comparison to what you can get every weekend in a reasonably-sized city. There are some fun local theater groups in my suburb too. But sometimes I really want to watch something other than Shakespeare.
      - philwelch 6y ago
        That’s true. But since the mid-20th century, most people enjoy music, “dramatic productions” (for lack of a better generic term), and live sports electronically rather than in person. I know it’s not the same, and I also enjoy live entertainment and the other amenities of cities. I just don’t think these amenities are historically a prime driver for urbanization. People historically move to cities for economic reasons, providing a lucrative and competitive market for entertaining them.
      - mmm_grayons 6y ago
        True, but that's not that common. And few people enjoy them so much as to live in the city for that reason alone.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > It's not only jobs. Do you want to watch theater? Opera? Concerts? Major sports events? Do you want to join a club for an obscure African sport? I could go on and on. It's primarily jobs though. I know quite a few people who don't care enough for the Opera or obscure African sports to pay two or three times as much in rent and taxes. It's a mixed bag, some love living in the city, but all have to live in the city if they want to work in certain jobs & have a career. > There is a reason we've been congregating in cities for millennia, despite having to overcome many diseases which are made worse by overcrowdedness. Yes, primarily because that's where the opportunities were, always. The colorful cultural life you describe was (and still is) enjoyed by the urban elite, that wasn't a thing for the working poor in e.g. 19th century Paris. Their entertainment would be a bottle of wine and laughter with friends after slaving away in the factories; much the same they'd have in a village, just minus having a job and some money. Today's working class might go to the movies (if they don't prefer Netflix), the theaters, opera houses, obscure sports etc are upper class things. That might be changing, though I'm not convinced we'll see full remote work for large amounts of office jobs.
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      The urban poor in the 19th century went to see the performing arts, too. Yes, some theaters and operas were strictly for the bourgeoisie, but there were theaters for the proletariat too (and whole genres of plays written to appeal to them), and vaudeville/music-hall type venues. I don't know where you got this idea that the masses could only make their own entertainment at home.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        It's not that they "could only" do that, it's that their primary life wasn't full of cultural entertainment as the comment made it sound. They came to the cities looking for work and and opportunity, not from a late-20th-century sense of "small town life isn't interesting enough". The life described is one of privilege, not of the lower classes. It's pubs vs operas.
  - vel0city 6y ago
    You can live in the suburbs and still enjoy theater, concerts, opera, etc. I live in a suburb. There is a performing arts center a bicycle ride away which outside of these Covid times had some kind of opera or symphony or ballet or something along those lines going on. The university nearby often had shows well. If you wanted to see a live show you could probably find one within 15min any given weekend. There is a light rail line running through the suburb which connects downtown. Its a 30 minute train ride to go to the big event venue for big sports and concerts. This precludes the idea of going to the local minor league teams in the area as well which can often be just as much fun to watch and follow and far cheaper to attend. There are club sports which participate in the park in my neighborhood. All I need to do is walk down the street and find people playing various kinds of sports. There are larger suburb-city owned sports complex on the bike trails for even more congregation. Living in a suburb does not mean you can never go and see a show or a sports game or a concert.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    Living in a major city, I and other people would still drive or even fly to other major cities for concerts or major sports events. That's not-that-frequent occassion, it's a bit more convenient if the event happens close to your home but living 100km from the city where it happens is not an obstacle anyway. The location of jobs matters because many of them require daily commute. But for major entertainment events it's sufficient to be 'close enough' for the things that haven't yet been replaced with something that's accessible remotely. For example, 30 years ago living in a small town meant that your access to cinema was limited or at least delayed, so you were 'out of the loop' of the culture in some sense. That's not an issue anymore - not because there are more cinemas, because their role has decreased.

matchbok 6y ago

In no way do the suburbs have the quality and diversity of food that any urban core does. 0%. I've been in both, they simple do not compare.

vel0city 6y ago
There's little reason why it would be impossible to have though. I live in a suburb. You'd be hard pressed to think of a type of food that I couldn't get within a 15min drive. Rotating sushi restaurant? Check. Lebanese bakery? Check. Canadian poutine? Check. Noodle restaurant - you want Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese? Which of the half dozen hot pot restaurants would you want to go to? Don't forget to pick up some borscht from the Russian restaurant. Meanwhile I go downtown and there's less choice of restaurants than the suburb I live in. Turns out you don't have to live in San Fransisco or Manhattan to have more than just a McDonalds to eat at in the US. Many suburbs elsewhere may only have Applebees as the pinnacle of culture, but that is not a given. Not every city is the same around the world. Not every suburb is the same.
- Dahoon 6y ago
  A 10 minute walk is more realistic to compare the two. Jumping to a 15 minute drive makes it very apparent you are an American.
  - vel0city 6y ago
    The question posed was if a suburb could offer the quality and depth of food choices as compared to an urban area. In 10-15 minutes of travel in the suburban area where I live I can easily choose between over one hundred different restaurant choices. Practically any kind of food I can think of, I can probably take a pick between at least a couple of choices, probably several. Is that the same in your 10 minutes of walking?
bluGill 6y ago
My house has equal or better diversity of food than whatever city you live in. I cook it myself. If course my house needs to have a nice kitchen because I spend a lot of time there. Is the compromise worth it? I think so, but you may be different.