3 ms·

I don't see how that is true. > mountain biking The mountains are where the mountains are. Being the suburbs or cities changes nothing. > road biking I woul

by screye 3y ago

I don't see how that is true. > mountain biking The mountains are where the mountains are. Being the suburbs or cities changes nothing. > road biking I would never dare road bike on American roads. If anything, cities have more protected bike lanes. > playgrounds for the kids, sports fields Playgrounds are about having 22 people to play a game of football. Cities have both sufficient fields and sufficient people. Suburbs struggle with the latter. > walking to friends houses ?? More like, being forced to be friends with the 5 families on the block, because no where else is walkable. > having friends over (plenty of parking) Hah, solving a problem of your own creation ? Cities don't need parking. You can have plenty of friends over using transit, who can safely have a couple of beers, because they don't need to drive back. ___________ When people explain suburbs like this, I have to wonder what shaped their opinions of cities. Surely you must have a specific perspective on cities, which would lead you to believe that cities struggle to accommodate these exact things. To a degree, We are in agreement. No one wants to live in cities in the way the US has built them. IMO, Chicago, SF, NY, Boston, DC & Philly are the proper cities (as a non-American would recognize) in the country. Of those, SF & Philly refuse to deal with their public safety issues. Chicago has peculiar weather. Boston and DC are great, but are confusingly limited to oddly shaped and tiny city boundaries. This leaves NYC as the only city that is allowed to leverage its full city-ness. The issue with NYC is that most people do the FiDi -> Times Square pilgrimage and come out disappointed, having experienced the touristiest and therefore the worst that NYC has to offer.

jjav 3y ago
> I have to wonder what shaped their opinions of cities By far most of my city-time has been in the #1 densest city in the US, NYC (specifically in Manhattan). I'm on the record (in HN comment history) on how much I loved time in Manhattan when I lived in the east coast in my 20s. In middle age now my hobbies and lifestyle and family commitments are quite different and I'd hate living in Manhattan now. The second city I've spent most time in is the #2 densest in the US, San Francisco. > lead you to believe that cities struggle to accommodate these exact things Cities do struggle to accommodate these things. Cities do come with pros & cons, it's good to be open about that. Pretending there are no compromises at all to make with living in a city is not a good way to promote city life. Some people love it some don't, all depends on the priorities. Sometimes the same person (like me) will love it at one stage of life and then want nothing to do with it in a different stage, because life priorities change. > The mountains are where the mountains are. Being the suburbs or cities changes nothing. Despite the name, mountain biking does not require mountains. It is off-road biking in forests, open fields and sometimes actual mountains. Clearly being in the suburbs vs cities changes everything. It is difficult in a city to ride out your front door into a forest or the mountains in reasonable time (Central Park doesn't count, as much as I've enjoyed tons of time cycling there, it's not mountain biking). In many suburbs this is easy. In the suburbs I'm less than a mile away from forest land where I can ride for hours (or even all day). Such places rarely exist within a city. > I would never dare road bike on American roads. If anything, cities have more protected bike lanes. Yeah, no. I did spend a lot of time road biking in Manhattan but I was much younger and foolish. As a road cyclist (more than a mountain biker) I don't really want to risk my life road biking in any city. Out here in the suburbs, I can ride out my door into rarely-used mountain and rural roads where I'll see a car maybe once or twice an hour. It is prime territory for road cycling. If I was living in a city I'd have to put the bike in the car (but what if I don't have a car?) and drive out to the suburbs to look for safe cycling roads. > Playgrounds are about having 22 people to play a game of football. Playgrounds means for the kids. These exist in cities but out in the suburbs they are larger and easier to access, cleaner and safer. > Cities have both sufficient fields and sufficient people. Suburbs struggle with the latter. Suburbs don't struggle with this. Surely the term soccer-mom is familiar as an archetype of suburban life? Because it is so common. I have several soccer fields just across the street and the kids take full advantage. I don't have time to research how many people in Manhattan live within a block of a soccer field but it's a tiny percentage. > More like, being forced to be friends with the 5 families on the block, because no where else is walkable. There are more than 5 families in a suburb. In particular, all the kids from all the nearby suburbs go to the same few schools, so they can all walk to each others houses which is very awesome at that age. > Cities don't need parking. You can have plenty of friends over using transit Yes you can, as long as everyone lives in the same transit. If you live in Manhattan and everyone you know does as well, it's perfect. There's even Seinfeld episodes about how people move out to Queens never to be seen again due to this dynamic. It's a tradeoff. Dense cities can be really awesome, particularly in young adulthood. But it's not honest to pretend that there are no drawbacks. City living comes with a stiff set of tradeoffs, you gain many conveniences but you lose access to many activities as well. Whether it's paradise or hell really depends on what each person enjoys the most.

by screye 3y ago

jjav 3y ago

> I have to wonder what shaped their opinions of cities By far most of my city-time has been in the #1 densest city in the US, NYC (specifically in Manhattan). I'm on the record (in HN comment history) on how much I loved time in Manhattan when I lived in the east coast in my 20s. In middle age now my hobbies and lifestyle and family commitments are quite different and I'd hate living in Manhattan now. The second city I've spent most time in is the #2 densest in the US, San Francisco. > lead you to believe that cities struggle to accommodate these exact things Cities do struggle to accommodate these things. Cities do come with pros & cons, it's good to be open about that. Pretending there are no compromises at all to make with living in a city is not a good way to promote city life. Some people love it some don't, all depends on the priorities. Sometimes the same person (like me) will love it at one stage of life and then want nothing to do with it in a different stage, because life priorities change. > The mountains are where the mountains are. Being the suburbs or cities changes nothing. Despite the name, mountain biking does not require mountains. It is off-road biking in forests, open fields and sometimes actual mountains. Clearly being in the suburbs vs cities changes everything. It is difficult in a city to ride out your front door into a forest or the mountains in reasonable time (Central Park doesn't count, as much as I've enjoyed tons of time cycling there, it's not mountain biking). In many suburbs this is easy. In the suburbs I'm less than a mile away from forest land where I can ride for hours (or even all day). Such places rarely exist within a city. > I would never dare road bike on American roads. If anything, cities have more protected bike lanes. Yeah, no. I did spend a lot of time road biking in Manhattan but I was much younger and foolish. As a road cyclist (more than a mountain biker) I don't really want to risk my life road biking in any city. Out here in the suburbs, I can ride out my door into rarely-used mountain and rural roads where I'll see a car maybe once or twice an hour. It is prime territory for road cycling. If I was living in a city I'd have to put the bike in the car (but what if I don't have a car?) and drive out to the suburbs to look for safe cycling roads. > Playgrounds are about having 22 people to play a game of football. Playgrounds means for the kids. These exist in cities but out in the suburbs they are larger and easier to access, cleaner and safer. > Cities have both sufficient fields and sufficient people. Suburbs struggle with the latter. Suburbs don't struggle with this. Surely the term soccer-mom is familiar as an archetype of suburban life? Because it is so common. I have several soccer fields just across the street and the kids take full advantage. I don't have time to research how many people in Manhattan live within a block of a soccer field but it's a tiny percentage. > More like, being forced to be friends with the 5 families on the block, because no where else is walkable. There are more than 5 families in a suburb. In particular, all the kids from all the nearby suburbs go to the same few schools, so they can all walk to each others houses which is very awesome at that age. > Cities don't need parking. You can have plenty of friends over using transit Yes you can, as long as everyone lives in the same transit. If you live in Manhattan and everyone you know does as well, it's perfect. There's even Seinfeld episodes about how people move out to Queens never to be seen again due to this dynamic. It's a tradeoff. Dense cities can be really awesome, particularly in young adulthood. But it's not honest to pretend that there are no drawbacks. City living comes with a stiff set of tradeoffs, you gain many conveniences but you lose access to many activities as well. Whether it's paradise or hell really depends on what each person enjoys the most.