6 ms·

The decreasing relevance of suburbia is an important story. Urban living is popular for very good reasons.

by paddy_m 13y ago

microb 13y ago
Why is it popular? Serious question.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  Because cities are where success is. People who are already rich like living in the countryside. People who would like to become rich need to live in cities. Also: Cities aggregate enough people that you won't be the only person like you. As a sub-point to the above, if you're looking to meet any other people, for whatever reason, you'd want to be located in a city. Things that are for sale, are generally for sale in cities. Want to buy something? Your best bet is a city.
  - somaguy 13y ago
    Because cities are where success is. People who are already rich like living in the countryside. People who would like to become rich need to live in cities. Huh? In the US, median rural income was $40,135, compared to $51,522 in metropolitan counties. [1] Things that are for sale, are generally for sale in cities. Want to buy something? Your best bet is a city. Please tell me how long the drive from SF to the nearest Walmart is. Cities aggregate enough people that you won't be the only person like you. This is a very good point. Lots of interest-based communities form in cities. In suburbs, there would not be a sufficient "critical mass" for this kind of community to exist. It drives business too - there are, for example, restaurants in cities serving niche foods. They would never have a large enough customer based outside of a highly-concentrated urban area. [1] http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=3086 http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=3086
    - spullara 13y ago
      I think you salary statistic is probably in rural favor unless adjusted for cost of living...
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      Judging by google maps, there are several Walmarts within a 12-14 mile radius of the Sutter-Stockton garage. (All on the east side of the bay, as you might have expected.) The traffic estimates are roughly 30 minutes. For comparison, my family lives in a "suburb" 20 minutes or more away from everything (and 25 miles / 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart). I wouldn't have thought much of driving 30 minutes to Walmart, except that SF doesn't exactly encourage, or even tolerate, car ownership. Then again, I could walk 10-15 minutes to Macy's, Nordstrom, or Target.
      - strlen 13y ago
        By most Americans' definition of suburb, Mountain View doesn't exactly qualify. My apartment was within 15 minute bike ride of Walmart, 10 minute bike ride of downtown (including commuter rail), walking distance of YCombinator, and it on the easternmost edge of Mountain View (the grocery store I walked to was technically in Sunnyvale). My commute to work was 5 minutes. Now I live in Saratoga where I've a 20 minute commute to Palo Alto -- and again, am in walking distance of grocery stores, coffee shops, and biking distance of downtown.
        thaumasiotes 13y ago
        I think I need to elaborate / clarify my earlier words: --- For comparison, my family lives in a "suburb" 20 minutes or more away from everything (and 25 miles / 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart). When I was in San Francisco, I wouldn't have thought much of driving 30 minutes to Walmart (because of my background), except that SF doesn't exactly encourage, or even tolerate, car ownership. Then again, I could (when I was in San Francisco) walk 10-15 minutes to Macy's, Nordstrom, or Target. --- I'm not sure why you bring up Mountain View, as I didn't mention it and in fact was not referring to it in any capacity. My family lives in a "beach community" with one store, of which I do not know the name. Besides the store, there's a church, a school of some primary-or-kindergarten level, an outpost of the public library, and a fire department. I have also heard the location described as a "suburb". Going anywhere at all is a hassle; there is nothing nearby. It is possible, given the right wind, to smell the fertilizer that the local farms apply to their fields.
- impendia 13y ago
  My impression is that cities are chaotic, unpredictable, and fast-paced, while suburbs are designed to be predictable and to feel safe. Working in a startup is also chaotic, unpredictable, and fast-paced, so it seems natural that people drawn to startups would also be drawn to cities.
  - strlen 13y ago
    Historically this isn't true. There's a much less flashy reason for why so many startups are flocking to SF -- there isn't much space available at reasonable prices in Palo Alto or Mountain View that that's suitable for startups. If office space in Palo Alto or Mountain View was not desirable, the prices would crash. This isn't new either: there were plenty of SF startups during the old dot-com boom as well. I'd also predict that if there is a further growth of tech startups we'll see startups spread to other areas now considered "less desirable" -- in dot-com days there were plenty of companies in Santa Clara, Milpitas, Downtown San Jose, Fremont, and even exurbs like Pleasanton. When the boom ended, CA-237 was locally called the "dot com graveyard".
    - spartango 13y ago
      While you're right about office space becoming wildly expensive in Palo Alto and Mountain View, I'm unconvinced the data supports the idea that cheap office space is the driver of growth to the city. As you mention there is plenty of cheap and large offices as you go south along the peninsula, but startups seem to consistently choose more expensive SOMA offices over these. Only startups that need a warehouse or other specialized facilities start their search in the south bay. I think the reality is that its a combination of factors driving people to SF, from 'cool factor'/perception to quality of life issues (employee proximity) to 'cheaper-than-palo-alto' benchmarking. By the way, if you're reading this thread and looking for office space, the south bay is a perfectly good place to look. Yes, it's not as glamorous, but it's both functional, frugal, and actually quite nice. The graveyard doesn't consist of dumpy factories, but pleasantly maintained offices with good facilities. You can even live nearby, as long as calm neighborhood is an acceptable condition for you.
- tibbe 13y ago
  Driving really hurts standard of living, at least for me.
  - ceras 13y ago
    I think this is true for a non-trivial amount of the younger generation. I know a decent number of (relatively affluent) people in their early 20s who simply do not have and do not plan on getting a driver's license. I have one, but I avoid driving like the plague.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    How do you see your friends? Do you just not know anyone who lives over a mile away from you? For me, though obviously it doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else, I miss singing in the car. :/
    - lmm 13y ago
      I live in Europe with a decent public transport system. Cars are slower than trains.
- raldi 13y ago
  I think the real question is, why did city life's millennia-long popularity take a short dip for the 50-year period from 1940-1990?
  - exue 13y ago
    Not really the case when you consider the huge rural population of the past and that the 20th century saw huge amounts of urbanization in the US (where 'urbanization' = developed areas and includes suburbs). The lower-density suburbs are still growing at a decent pace 1990-2013 and on especially in the South/West, but what defines a suburb is no longer the 1950s version and and incorporating urban/city-like elements now
lolwutf 13y ago
In the context of this shift of relevance, I wonder what the Los Angeles region represents? I'm not completely familiar with it's characterization, but it seems like uniquely 'urban suburban' in a way, no? If that's true, I wonder what that uniquely middle-of-the-road quality gives it, in the context of the shifting relevance.
somaguy 13y ago
My girlfriend and I recently had to decide between living in the suburbs (Peninsula) and SF city. The premium for living in a comparable 1br apartment was close to $2k/mo. The suburbs offered a door-to-door 40 minute via public transit (from Millbrae). Driving would be 20-25 minutes during off-peak hours. But obviously some people decide to live in the city. Can you tell me what I'm missing?
- impendia 13y ago
  Some people just want to be in the middle of the action. They just walk around SF and decide that they have to live there. I worked for three years at Stanford. Once, after I'd been living in Menlo Park for about a year, I flew back into SFO from a business trip, and took the train away from all the skyscrapers and nightlife and excitement -- for me, this was the wrong direction. I found an apartment the city, started taking the train down, and didn't look back.
- strlen 13y ago
  The "My girlfriend and I" part -- SF is great if you're living willing to live with ~2-3 rommates, which makes things very awkward for couples who want to cohabit. It's also great if you work in the city, spend most of your time outside of your house at various "third places". In many neighbourhoods it's easy to just step out of your place and have plenty of options within your reach. Peninsula/South Bay isn't a cultural desert -- there are amazing ethnic restaurants, used book stores, concert venues, etc... -- but they generally aren't all within walking distance, nor is it likely that a great selection of such places will be equidistant from both you and your friends. On the other hand, if (like me!) you prefer to read/code/etc... most evenings and are more deliberate in regards to outings, it isn't really a problem. Cities also allow you to save money by foregoing having a car, but it's less true for SF: public transport in Bay Area -- even SF proper -- is quite horrid compared to NYC, Berlin, etc... Not everyone lives in SF by choice: while SOMA is easily accessible from Peninsula by multiple modes of travel, other areas (FiDi, mid-market) are fairly far from Caltrain, expensive as far as parking goes. BART is great when it's not having a strike, but the only locations in Peninsula with BART stops are Millbrae, Dalty City, and Colma. What most people raving about "end of suburbia" are missing is that high density (SF, NYC) living is rather expensive and this isn't likely to change (SF is a Peninsula, Manhattan is an Island). What's also missing is that cities vs. suburbia is a false dilemma: many neighbourhoods in Portland and Seattle, parts of Peninsula (e.g., Burlingame/San Mateo area), East Bay (e.g., Berkeley), and even Downtown Mountain View/Palo Alto are far cry from the usual suburban cliches (there is abudance of independently owned restaurants and stores, relative dearth of strip malls, rail transportation, etc...) while still having lots of green areas, being amenable to driving, good school systems all available to middle class (St. Francis Wood in SF might have all of this features, but the middle class is priced out of it.)
spartango 13y ago
I wonder if what you're describing is that broad, or perhaps a slightly different phenomenon: A huge amount of the growth of SF's (the city proper) tech scene seems to be driven by companies staffed primarily by very young (straight out of college, <30yrs) people. Similarly, much of the migration to the city seems to be driven by young folks (under 30/without family). Back in the old days (when I was growing up on the peninsula), one of the big reasons people wanted to live in Palo Alto/Mountain View/Cupertino was that they were family-friendly towns with good schools and communities. Companies sprung up on the peninsula for many reasons, but people at or near child-rearing ages (~30+) had their priorities set. I'm unconvinced that this rationale has changed in the intervening years. Gentrification and high demand have made living in the 'ideal' parts of the peninsula more difficult, but people still choose Palo Alto to start a family. Similarly, tech companies that tend to have slightly older workforces still prize their peninsula locations. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think studying the demographics of SF growth may tell us more. That said, I don't think that the suburbs[1] are being marginalized at all. -- [1] While cities on the peninsula might be suburban in a way, they are quite different from suburbs in the rest of the country. It's a bit strange calling Mountain View a suburb when it is so different from a city like Needham (suburb of Boston) or the various suburbs of Seattle or Houston for example.

The decreasing relevance of suburbia is an important story. Urban living is popular for very good reasons.

by paddy_m 13y ago

The decreasing relevance of suburbia is an important story. Urban living is popular for very good reasons.

microb 13y ago

Why is it popular? Serious question.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
Because cities are where success is. People who are already rich like living in the countryside. People who would like to become rich need to live in cities. Also: Cities aggregate enough people that you won't be the only person like you. As a sub-point to the above, if you're looking to meet any other people, for whatever reason, you'd want to be located in a city. Things that are for sale, are generally for sale in cities. Want to buy something? Your best bet is a city.
- somaguy 13y ago
  Because cities are where success is. People who are already rich like living in the countryside. People who would like to become rich need to live in cities. Huh? In the US, median rural income was $40,135, compared to $51,522 in metropolitan counties. [1] Things that are for sale, are generally for sale in cities. Want to buy something? Your best bet is a city. Please tell me how long the drive from SF to the nearest Walmart is. Cities aggregate enough people that you won't be the only person like you. This is a very good point. Lots of interest-based communities form in cities. In suburbs, there would not be a sufficient "critical mass" for this kind of community to exist. It drives business too - there are, for example, restaurants in cities serving niche foods. They would never have a large enough customer based outside of a highly-concentrated urban area. [1] http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=3086 http://www.ruraledu.org/articles.php?id=3086
  - spullara 13y ago
    I think you salary statistic is probably in rural favor unless adjusted for cost of living...
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    Judging by google maps, there are several Walmarts within a 12-14 mile radius of the Sutter-Stockton garage. (All on the east side of the bay, as you might have expected.) The traffic estimates are roughly 30 minutes. For comparison, my family lives in a "suburb" 20 minutes or more away from everything (and 25 miles / 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart). I wouldn't have thought much of driving 30 minutes to Walmart, except that SF doesn't exactly encourage, or even tolerate, car ownership. Then again, I could walk 10-15 minutes to Macy's, Nordstrom, or Target.
    - strlen 13y ago
      By most Americans' definition of suburb, Mountain View doesn't exactly qualify. My apartment was within 15 minute bike ride of Walmart, 10 minute bike ride of downtown (including commuter rail), walking distance of YCombinator, and it on the easternmost edge of Mountain View (the grocery store I walked to was technically in Sunnyvale). My commute to work was 5 minutes. Now I live in Saratoga where I've a 20 minute commute to Palo Alto -- and again, am in walking distance of grocery stores, coffee shops, and biking distance of downtown.
      - thaumasiotes 13y ago
        I think I need to elaborate / clarify my earlier words: --- For comparison, my family lives in a "suburb" 20 minutes or more away from everything (and 25 miles / 40 minutes from the nearest Walmart). When I was in San Francisco, I wouldn't have thought much of driving 30 minutes to Walmart (because of my background), except that SF doesn't exactly encourage, or even tolerate, car ownership. Then again, I could (when I was in San Francisco) walk 10-15 minutes to Macy's, Nordstrom, or Target. --- I'm not sure why you bring up Mountain View, as I didn't mention it and in fact was not referring to it in any capacity. My family lives in a "beach community" with one store, of which I do not know the name. Besides the store, there's a church, a school of some primary-or-kindergarten level, an outpost of the public library, and a fire department. I have also heard the location described as a "suburb". Going anywhere at all is a hassle; there is nothing nearby. It is possible, given the right wind, to smell the fertilizer that the local farms apply to their fields.
impendia 13y ago
My impression is that cities are chaotic, unpredictable, and fast-paced, while suburbs are designed to be predictable and to feel safe. Working in a startup is also chaotic, unpredictable, and fast-paced, so it seems natural that people drawn to startups would also be drawn to cities.
- strlen 13y ago
  Historically this isn't true. There's a much less flashy reason for why so many startups are flocking to SF -- there isn't much space available at reasonable prices in Palo Alto or Mountain View that that's suitable for startups. If office space in Palo Alto or Mountain View was not desirable, the prices would crash. This isn't new either: there were plenty of SF startups during the old dot-com boom as well. I'd also predict that if there is a further growth of tech startups we'll see startups spread to other areas now considered "less desirable" -- in dot-com days there were plenty of companies in Santa Clara, Milpitas, Downtown San Jose, Fremont, and even exurbs like Pleasanton. When the boom ended, CA-237 was locally called the "dot com graveyard".
  - spartango 13y ago
    While you're right about office space becoming wildly expensive in Palo Alto and Mountain View, I'm unconvinced the data supports the idea that cheap office space is the driver of growth to the city. As you mention there is plenty of cheap and large offices as you go south along the peninsula, but startups seem to consistently choose more expensive SOMA offices over these. Only startups that need a warehouse or other specialized facilities start their search in the south bay. I think the reality is that its a combination of factors driving people to SF, from 'cool factor'/perception to quality of life issues (employee proximity) to 'cheaper-than-palo-alto' benchmarking. By the way, if you're reading this thread and looking for office space, the south bay is a perfectly good place to look. Yes, it's not as glamorous, but it's both functional, frugal, and actually quite nice. The graveyard doesn't consist of dumpy factories, but pleasantly maintained offices with good facilities. You can even live nearby, as long as calm neighborhood is an acceptable condition for you.
tibbe 13y ago
Driving really hurts standard of living, at least for me.
- ceras 13y ago
  I think this is true for a non-trivial amount of the younger generation. I know a decent number of (relatively affluent) people in their early 20s who simply do not have and do not plan on getting a driver's license. I have one, but I avoid driving like the plague.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  How do you see your friends? Do you just not know anyone who lives over a mile away from you? For me, though obviously it doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else, I miss singing in the car. :/
  - lmm 13y ago
    I live in Europe with a decent public transport system. Cars are slower than trains.
raldi 13y ago
I think the real question is, why did city life's millennia-long popularity take a short dip for the 50-year period from 1940-1990?
- exue 13y ago
  Not really the case when you consider the huge rural population of the past and that the 20th century saw huge amounts of urbanization in the US (where 'urbanization' = developed areas and includes suburbs). The lower-density suburbs are still growing at a decent pace 1990-2013 and on especially in the South/West, but what defines a suburb is no longer the 1950s version and and incorporating urban/city-like elements now

lolwutf 13y ago

In the context of this shift of relevance, I wonder what the Los Angeles region represents? I'm not completely familiar with it's characterization, but it seems like uniquely 'urban suburban' in a way, no? If that's true, I wonder what that uniquely middle-of-the-road quality gives it, in the context of the shifting relevance.

somaguy 13y ago

My girlfriend and I recently had to decide between living in the suburbs (Peninsula) and SF city. The premium for living in a comparable 1br apartment was close to $2k/mo. The suburbs offered a door-to-door 40 minute via public transit (from Millbrae). Driving would be 20-25 minutes during off-peak hours. But obviously some people decide to live in the city. Can you tell me what I'm missing?

impendia 13y ago
Some people just want to be in the middle of the action. They just walk around SF and decide that they have to live there. I worked for three years at Stanford. Once, after I'd been living in Menlo Park for about a year, I flew back into SFO from a business trip, and took the train away from all the skyscrapers and nightlife and excitement -- for me, this was the wrong direction. I found an apartment the city, started taking the train down, and didn't look back.
strlen 13y ago
The "My girlfriend and I" part -- SF is great if you're living willing to live with ~2-3 rommates, which makes things very awkward for couples who want to cohabit. It's also great if you work in the city, spend most of your time outside of your house at various "third places". In many neighbourhoods it's easy to just step out of your place and have plenty of options within your reach. Peninsula/South Bay isn't a cultural desert -- there are amazing ethnic restaurants, used book stores, concert venues, etc... -- but they generally aren't all within walking distance, nor is it likely that a great selection of such places will be equidistant from both you and your friends. On the other hand, if (like me!) you prefer to read/code/etc... most evenings and are more deliberate in regards to outings, it isn't really a problem. Cities also allow you to save money by foregoing having a car, but it's less true for SF: public transport in Bay Area -- even SF proper -- is quite horrid compared to NYC, Berlin, etc... Not everyone lives in SF by choice: while SOMA is easily accessible from Peninsula by multiple modes of travel, other areas (FiDi, mid-market) are fairly far from Caltrain, expensive as far as parking goes. BART is great when it's not having a strike, but the only locations in Peninsula with BART stops are Millbrae, Dalty City, and Colma. What most people raving about "end of suburbia" are missing is that high density (SF, NYC) living is rather expensive and this isn't likely to change (SF is a Peninsula, Manhattan is an Island). What's also missing is that cities vs. suburbia is a false dilemma: many neighbourhoods in Portland and Seattle, parts of Peninsula (e.g., Burlingame/San Mateo area), East Bay (e.g., Berkeley), and even Downtown Mountain View/Palo Alto are far cry from the usual suburban cliches (there is abudance of independently owned restaurants and stores, relative dearth of strip malls, rail transportation, etc...) while still having lots of green areas, being amenable to driving, good school systems all available to middle class (St. Francis Wood in SF might have all of this features, but the middle class is priced out of it.)

spartango 13y ago

I wonder if what you're describing is that broad, or perhaps a slightly different phenomenon: A huge amount of the growth of SF's (the city proper) tech scene seems to be driven by companies staffed primarily by very young (straight out of college, <30yrs) people. Similarly, much of the migration to the city seems to be driven by young folks (under 30/without family). Back in the old days (when I was growing up on the peninsula), one of the big reasons people wanted to live in Palo Alto/Mountain View/Cupertino was that they were family-friendly towns with good schools and communities. Companies sprung up on the peninsula for many reasons, but people at or near child-rearing ages (~30+) had their priorities set. I'm unconvinced that this rationale has changed in the intervening years. Gentrification and high demand have made living in the 'ideal' parts of the peninsula more difficult, but people still choose Palo Alto to start a family. Similarly, tech companies that tend to have slightly older workforces still prize their peninsula locations. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think studying the demographics of SF growth may tell us more. That said, I don't think that the suburbs[1] are being marginalized at all. -- [1] While cities on the peninsula might be suburban in a way, they are quite different from suburbs in the rest of the country. It's a bit strange calling Mountain View a suburb when it is so different from a city like Needham (suburb of Boston) or the various suburbs of Seattle or Houston for example.