6 ms·

I will never understand the attraction of suburbs Low taxes. Lower cost of living. Privacy of a detached house. The lack of 'city' noise. Letting my kids p

by bdunbar 15y ago

I will never understand the attraction of suburbs Low taxes. Lower cost of living. Privacy of a detached house. The lack of 'city' noise. Letting my kids play in the yard, on sidewalks. Letting my kids tear around the cul-de-sac. I've lived in the country, I've lived in the city, I've lived in the 'burbs. I prefer the latter, now. Maybe it's just me. I live in a smaller town, my commute is a five minute drive. YMMV.

stygianguest 15y ago
To be fair. I have never lived outside of a city/town (>=200k). But living in suburbs "for the kids" (a big point of yours too) does not convince me. As a kid, I had a great time. With plenty of time outdoors too.
- rubashov 15y ago
  Do you live in North America? In most American metros to live in the city with kids you have to make enough money to easily afford expensive private school tuition. If your kid goes to the public school he will be beat up by black or hispanic gang members. This is probably 80% of the reason families rarely choose cities in America.
  - bdunbar 15y ago
    My wife taught at a 80% Hispanic majority high school in Dallas in the 90s. The gang violence on white kids thing just didn't happen there. Gangs, yes. Gang violence, no.
    - rubashov 15y ago
      Did you send your kids there?
      - bdunbar 15y ago
        No. My kids were not high school age at the time, and we didn't live in the area for that high school. I would have had no qualms about it, if it were otherwise.
  - michaelchisari 15y ago
    If your kid goes to the public school he will be beat up by black or hispanic gang members That's a very alarmist statement that I'm afraid has no relationship with the experience of my friends who went to inner city schools with diverse populations (and yes, a number of gang members). It's true that many inner city schools were defunded by capital flight to the suburbs. But the notion that they're all active warzones that only James Belushi or Michelle Pfeiffer can bring law and order to is a stereotype that needs to be put to rest.
    - tsotha 15y ago
      They're not all that way, to be sure, but there's enough truth in the stereotype that neighborhoods with known good schools have insane housing costs.
      - michaelchisari 15y ago
        Bad schools have unmotivated teachers. They operate more on discipline than inspiration. They have poor infrastructure and outdated books. They're understaffed, poorly managed, and some even have lead paint in the walls. There are a good amount of schools that have these problems, and since school funding is tied to property values, then we have an idea why housing costs around the good schools are high. Bad schools are not a high school zombie apocalypse of having to fight for your life against "black and hispanic gang members". That's the stereotype that needs to end already.
        tsotha 15y ago
        I think I disagree with pretty much everything you've written here. For one thing, the problem isn't money. Some of the worst school districts have the highest per-pupil spending. The DC school district may be the worst in the entire country, and yet it's right up at the top of list in outlays per student. And the problem isn't unmotivated teachers. Young, idealistic teachers are made prematurely cynical by the thousands in bad urban school districts every year. The problem is too many of the students and (more importantly) their families don't care. That's why charter schools work. That's why private schools work. And that's why suburban schools work. Because the students in those schools belong to families that consider education important and have made sacrifices to get their kids in a good school. All the things schools used to do to maintain order are either illegal or carry a big financial penalty for the district. When I was in school our district had a reform school, and everyone knew if you acted out too much that's where you would end up. Kids got suspended and eventually expelled for too much disruptive behavior. That just doesn't happen today to any meaningful degree. It's all well and good to rail about the unfairness of it all, but when the future of your own kids is on the line you make the sacrifices you have to make in order to keep them out of bad schools. Even the president, who is under a lot of political pressure to put his kids in DC public schools decided to send them to a private school instead.
  - moultano 15y ago
    This is completely ridiculous. I went to a 60% black city public school in the midst of a ghetto. So did most of my friends. None of us ever had any issue. I'm glad I was exposed to a diverse group of people early on in life, so that there isn't any risk of embarrassing myself by making a comment as ignorant as yours. On top of that, my friends who went to the expensive private schools (whether in the city or suburbs) had easy access to cocaine, which was not a feature of the public schools.
  - dalke 15y ago
    Pure utter malarky. My urban high school in Miami was 40% white/non-hispanic, 40% hispanic, and 20% black (minus a smidgeon for the few percent Asian). It was also one of the best high schools in the county - public or private - and many of my friends' parents could not afford private school tuition. Mine sure couldn't.
- bdunbar 15y ago
  Kids are adaptable - I suspect any kid with a good home life is going to enjoy growing up wherever.
wmoxam 15y ago
Are taxes lower in the suburbs of most American cities? I thought they'd be higher due to lower densities (more roads, sewer pipes, etc per capita to maintain). At least that's the case here in the Greater Toronto area ...
- tsotha 15y ago
  It's a bit more complicated than that. Yes, you need to run the sewer pipes farther, for instance, but the land occupied by utilities is much cheaper, labor is cheaper, and it isn't a major catastrophe if you have to close a suburban street while you're burying the sewer pipe.
- bdunbar 15y ago
  In my experience, yes. But I haven't lived everywhere - a fellow who lives in LA might have a different experience than a guy living in Wisconsin.
- pkteison 15y ago
  Yes, much lower. Property taxes in my suburb are around three quarters compared to the nearby city (Atlanta, GA - millage rate 44.435; Gwinnett, GA - millage rate 32.10). Couple that with the fact that houses are much much cheaper, and in practice I pay ~$2000/year property taxes on my house while my friend pays over $5000/year in property taxes for his condo in the city. Then my mortgage and insurance are also cheaper, and it works out to be much cheaper. But I have to drive more. Part of the reason is more government - cities will tack on their own taxes to pay for the city government. I have no idea what benefit this extra level of government actually provides, though.
  - michaelchisari 15y ago
    I have no idea what benefit this extra level of government actually provides, though. I have public infrastructure (transportation, libraries, etc) in the city of Chicago that the suburbs could only dream of.
    - 15y ago

by bdunbar 15y ago

stygianguest 15y ago

To be fair. I have never lived outside of a city/town (>=200k). But living in suburbs "for the kids" (a big point of yours too) does not convince me. As a kid, I had a great time. With plenty of time outdoors too.

rubashov 15y ago
Do you live in North America? In most American metros to live in the city with kids you have to make enough money to easily afford expensive private school tuition. If your kid goes to the public school he will be beat up by black or hispanic gang members. This is probably 80% of the reason families rarely choose cities in America.
- bdunbar 15y ago
  My wife taught at a 80% Hispanic majority high school in Dallas in the 90s. The gang violence on white kids thing just didn't happen there. Gangs, yes. Gang violence, no.
  - rubashov 15y ago
    Did you send your kids there?
    - bdunbar 15y ago
      No. My kids were not high school age at the time, and we didn't live in the area for that high school. I would have had no qualms about it, if it were otherwise.
- michaelchisari 15y ago
  If your kid goes to the public school he will be beat up by black or hispanic gang members That's a very alarmist statement that I'm afraid has no relationship with the experience of my friends who went to inner city schools with diverse populations (and yes, a number of gang members). It's true that many inner city schools were defunded by capital flight to the suburbs. But the notion that they're all active warzones that only James Belushi or Michelle Pfeiffer can bring law and order to is a stereotype that needs to be put to rest.
  - tsotha 15y ago
    They're not all that way, to be sure, but there's enough truth in the stereotype that neighborhoods with known good schools have insane housing costs.
    - michaelchisari 15y ago
      Bad schools have unmotivated teachers. They operate more on discipline than inspiration. They have poor infrastructure and outdated books. They're understaffed, poorly managed, and some even have lead paint in the walls. There are a good amount of schools that have these problems, and since school funding is tied to property values, then we have an idea why housing costs around the good schools are high. Bad schools are not a high school zombie apocalypse of having to fight for your life against "black and hispanic gang members". That's the stereotype that needs to end already.
      - tsotha 15y ago
        I think I disagree with pretty much everything you've written here. For one thing, the problem isn't money. Some of the worst school districts have the highest per-pupil spending. The DC school district may be the worst in the entire country, and yet it's right up at the top of list in outlays per student. And the problem isn't unmotivated teachers. Young, idealistic teachers are made prematurely cynical by the thousands in bad urban school districts every year. The problem is too many of the students and (more importantly) their families don't care. That's why charter schools work. That's why private schools work. And that's why suburban schools work. Because the students in those schools belong to families that consider education important and have made sacrifices to get their kids in a good school. All the things schools used to do to maintain order are either illegal or carry a big financial penalty for the district. When I was in school our district had a reform school, and everyone knew if you acted out too much that's where you would end up. Kids got suspended and eventually expelled for too much disruptive behavior. That just doesn't happen today to any meaningful degree. It's all well and good to rail about the unfairness of it all, but when the future of your own kids is on the line you make the sacrifices you have to make in order to keep them out of bad schools. Even the president, who is under a lot of political pressure to put his kids in DC public schools decided to send them to a private school instead.
- moultano 15y ago
  This is completely ridiculous. I went to a 60% black city public school in the midst of a ghetto. So did most of my friends. None of us ever had any issue. I'm glad I was exposed to a diverse group of people early on in life, so that there isn't any risk of embarrassing myself by making a comment as ignorant as yours. On top of that, my friends who went to the expensive private schools (whether in the city or suburbs) had easy access to cocaine, which was not a feature of the public schools.
- dalke 15y ago
  Pure utter malarky. My urban high school in Miami was 40% white/non-hispanic, 40% hispanic, and 20% black (minus a smidgeon for the few percent Asian). It was also one of the best high schools in the county - public or private - and many of my friends' parents could not afford private school tuition. Mine sure couldn't.
bdunbar 15y ago
Kids are adaptable - I suspect any kid with a good home life is going to enjoy growing up wherever.

wmoxam 15y ago

Are taxes lower in the suburbs of most American cities? I thought they'd be higher due to lower densities (more roads, sewer pipes, etc per capita to maintain). At least that's the case here in the Greater Toronto area ...

tsotha 15y ago
It's a bit more complicated than that. Yes, you need to run the sewer pipes farther, for instance, but the land occupied by utilities is much cheaper, labor is cheaper, and it isn't a major catastrophe if you have to close a suburban street while you're burying the sewer pipe.
bdunbar 15y ago
In my experience, yes. But I haven't lived everywhere - a fellow who lives in LA might have a different experience than a guy living in Wisconsin.
pkteison 15y ago
Yes, much lower. Property taxes in my suburb are around three quarters compared to the nearby city (Atlanta, GA - millage rate 44.435; Gwinnett, GA - millage rate 32.10). Couple that with the fact that houses are much much cheaper, and in practice I pay ~$2000/year property taxes on my house while my friend pays over $5000/year in property taxes for his condo in the city. Then my mortgage and insurance are also cheaper, and it works out to be much cheaper. But I have to drive more. Part of the reason is more government - cities will tack on their own taxes to pay for the city government. I have no idea what benefit this extra level of government actually provides, though.
- michaelchisari 15y ago
  I have no idea what benefit this extra level of government actually provides, though. I have public infrastructure (transportation, libraries, etc) in the city of Chicago that the suburbs could only dream of.
  - 15y ago