6 ms·

Why is suburban living so evil? For me, living in the suburb just makes sense. The cost of living is far less, the schools are better, I can enjoy the outdoors

Why is suburban living so evil? For me, living in the suburb just makes sense. The cost of living is far less, the schools are better, I can enjoy the outdoors more, and crime is lower too. Mint says I spend a total of about $270 per month to fuel and maintain two cars. Even if I were able to get rid of owning both cars altogether and move into the city, it would still cost me much more for a lower standard of living (by most people's standards).

ntownsend 17y ago
The environmental impact and culture of waste are enough to make suburban-living evil to me. It's not just about the cost to you in driving your ass around.
- nathanwdavis 17y ago
  Of course, it's not "just about the cost". However, you could say it is "mostly" about cost of living and standard of living. It's cool if you think suburban living is evil, but don't just say it is evil. Instead work to create a better city with better schools and lower crime. Basically what I'm saying is: Stop whining and do something.
  - ntownsend 17y ago
    I could not say that it is "mostly" about cost of living (edit: or standard of living, which is subjective). Who's whining here except you about how the suburbs get a bad rap for being evil? Why don't YOU work to make YOUR urban center better, fix the schools, stop crime, and stop hiding from the big, bad city in the sprawl and disposable lifestyle of the cushy suburbs?
  - bct 17y ago
    The city I'm in doesn't seem to have those problems. Maybe it's a problem with your city (or your perception of cities) rather than cities in general?
roc 17y ago
Zoning. By itself, the suburbs are fine. But it's the zoning that goes out of its way to pave all that greenery you theoretically move out to see, that causes the problems. No mixed-use zoning clusters the lower-income together into apartment complexes and neighborhoods that have a net negative social effect. Parking lot requirements spread everything out to nigh-unwalkable distances. Varying or non-existent sidewalk requirements finish off any chance of walkability, or even bike-ability. All that space makes efficient mass transit implausible, forcing poorer/younger residents to lock up a significant chunk of their expenses in their cars, and making car trouble a near-catastrophic point of failure. All that space and all those cars also create traffic-related waste that's largely impossible to avoid and very expensive to scale with growth. Cul-de-sac neighborhoods kill any chance at efficient traffic flow. The spacing leads to higher infrastructure costs per resident (higher taxes) which retards or suffocates competition and advancement in the infrastructure space. Etc. In short: suburbs are great place if you're relatively wealthy and they aren't too big yet. But they're not self-sufficient or healthy socio-economic communities.
- bretthoerner 17y ago
  > But they're not self-sufficient In what way are urban areas self-sufficient?
  - roc 17y ago
    I didn't mean in a 'grow your own food' sort of way. I meant in terms of being able to locally supply the jobs, services and opportunities that their residents need to grow and prosper.
bct 17y ago
There's a lot of waste involved, and a lot of suburbs get free rides on the infrastructure of the urban areas they're attached to. I don't know if they're evil, but it looks to me like they combine the worst aspects of urban living with the worst aspects of rural living (surrounded by people but isolated from them; at the same time you can have isolation, but not solitude).
yalestar 17y ago
It's not really that your living in suburbia is evil, it's the fact that suburban development is a hugely wasteful, inefficient, costly, and completely unsustainable mode of development.
kingkongrevenge 17y ago
Every day car accidents kill a jet liner worth of Americans, and maim many more. Driving is arguably more dangerous than moderate smoking. Yet unlike smoking driving is subsidized and encouraged.
- hachiya 17y ago
  And unlike smoking, driving has practical benefits, i.e. getting from point A to point B, enabling one to have a job, social outings, vacations, etc... Smoking has no real benefits. It has a short term plus of making one "feel good"; but nobody claims smoking is "good", while the above goals of driving are. So I don't really know what point you are trying to make. People all know the dangers of driving, but are willing to trade those for the benefits. People know the dangers of smoking, and are willing to trade those because they are addicted, and for no real benefits. There's a big difference.
  - bct 17y ago
    The problem is that subsidies and encouragement make people forget that actually, yes, it is possible to go places and have a job without a car. And as they forget, it slowly stops being true.
- skushch 17y ago
  I'm confused about the "driving is subsidized part". Last time I checked nobody helped me pay for my car, my registration or my gas taxes. Which do help pay for public transit... Am I missing something?
  - kingkongrevenge 17y ago
    The roads are certainly built and maintained with capital diverted from more productive uses. Even if the postal service didn't lose money hand over fist I'd still call it subsidized, as it wouldn't exist without its legal monopoly. One can argue whether road costs are covered by user fees or not. The subsidized policing and EMS costs are typically ignored, for example. You might want to include some of the military and intel budgets related to oil security.
bpyne 17y ago
You're entitled to your own choice. Your decision points about what constitutes a "lower standard of living" are completely your own. I'm not sure the "most people's standards" part is supportable. I'd like to see some research about 20 and 30 somethings, since they are the ones making decisions now about where to settle and form families, and their distribution. What constituted a "higher standard of living" for us was a short commute, walkable area, cultural activities near our house, diversity in every sense of the word, and an area with a sense of community. For raising our daughter, we balanced the quality of public schools with the education received by being around different people from different walks of life. Our goal as parents is to raise not only a reasonably intelligent child, but one who can understand and empathize with people different from her. Btw, despite being < 1 mile from what would be considered the inner city, we have very little crime. I think this is due in part to neighbors all being close. We know when someone is out of town and what work schedules are. We also have a decent contingent of people who work from home. Add to that my own impression, from being raised in a poor working class area, that inner city crime certainly exists but has taken on a boogie-man hype factor.
- youngian 17y ago
  Right on all counts. I wish everyone had these kinds of priorities and that sensible outlook on life. I wouldn't trade my education at a broke-ass, shoddy, prison-like public city school for any private or suburban school with vaulted ceilings and brand new textbooks and everyone else looking and acting exactly like me. And sure, there is crime in cities, but it's not like us city dwellers live in constant fear, scampering from one blue telephone to the next. My parents have had one break-in in the almost thirty years they've lived in the city. I've never been mugged or otherwise attacked. But I've met so many suburbanites who have ridiculous ideas about city life - all city dwellers carry around guns/knives, getting shot at is a frequent part of city life, etc.
  - hachiya 17y ago
    "and everyone else looking and acting exactly like me." Is this ever really the case? It seems thrown out there so much, but I've never observed a case of people all acting the same. Especially in a school.

ntownsend 17y ago

The environmental impact and culture of waste are enough to make suburban-living evil to me. It's not just about the cost to you in driving your ass around.

nathanwdavis 17y ago
Of course, it's not "just about the cost". However, you could say it is "mostly" about cost of living and standard of living. It's cool if you think suburban living is evil, but don't just say it is evil. Instead work to create a better city with better schools and lower crime. Basically what I'm saying is: Stop whining and do something.
- ntownsend 17y ago
  I could not say that it is "mostly" about cost of living (edit: or standard of living, which is subjective). Who's whining here except you about how the suburbs get a bad rap for being evil? Why don't YOU work to make YOUR urban center better, fix the schools, stop crime, and stop hiding from the big, bad city in the sprawl and disposable lifestyle of the cushy suburbs?
- bct 17y ago
  The city I'm in doesn't seem to have those problems. Maybe it's a problem with your city (or your perception of cities) rather than cities in general?

roc 17y ago

Zoning. By itself, the suburbs are fine. But it's the zoning that goes out of its way to pave all that greenery you theoretically move out to see, that causes the problems. No mixed-use zoning clusters the lower-income together into apartment complexes and neighborhoods that have a net negative social effect. Parking lot requirements spread everything out to nigh-unwalkable distances. Varying or non-existent sidewalk requirements finish off any chance of walkability, or even bike-ability. All that space makes efficient mass transit implausible, forcing poorer/younger residents to lock up a significant chunk of their expenses in their cars, and making car trouble a near-catastrophic point of failure. All that space and all those cars also create traffic-related waste that's largely impossible to avoid and very expensive to scale with growth. Cul-de-sac neighborhoods kill any chance at efficient traffic flow. The spacing leads to higher infrastructure costs per resident (higher taxes) which retards or suffocates competition and advancement in the infrastructure space. Etc. In short: suburbs are great place if you're relatively wealthy and they aren't too big yet. But they're not self-sufficient or healthy socio-economic communities.

bretthoerner 17y ago
> But they're not self-sufficient In what way are urban areas self-sufficient?
- roc 17y ago
  I didn't mean in a 'grow your own food' sort of way. I meant in terms of being able to locally supply the jobs, services and opportunities that their residents need to grow and prosper.

bct 17y ago

There's a lot of waste involved, and a lot of suburbs get free rides on the infrastructure of the urban areas they're attached to. I don't know if they're evil, but it looks to me like they combine the worst aspects of urban living with the worst aspects of rural living (surrounded by people but isolated from them; at the same time you can have isolation, but not solitude).

yalestar 17y ago

It's not really that your living in suburbia is evil, it's the fact that suburban development is a hugely wasteful, inefficient, costly, and completely unsustainable mode of development.

kingkongrevenge 17y ago

Every day car accidents kill a jet liner worth of Americans, and maim many more. Driving is arguably more dangerous than moderate smoking. Yet unlike smoking driving is subsidized and encouraged.

hachiya 17y ago
And unlike smoking, driving has practical benefits, i.e. getting from point A to point B, enabling one to have a job, social outings, vacations, etc... Smoking has no real benefits. It has a short term plus of making one "feel good"; but nobody claims smoking is "good", while the above goals of driving are. So I don't really know what point you are trying to make. People all know the dangers of driving, but are willing to trade those for the benefits. People know the dangers of smoking, and are willing to trade those because they are addicted, and for no real benefits. There's a big difference.
- bct 17y ago
  The problem is that subsidies and encouragement make people forget that actually, yes, it is possible to go places and have a job without a car. And as they forget, it slowly stops being true.
skushch 17y ago
I'm confused about the "driving is subsidized part". Last time I checked nobody helped me pay for my car, my registration or my gas taxes. Which do help pay for public transit... Am I missing something?
- kingkongrevenge 17y ago
  The roads are certainly built and maintained with capital diverted from more productive uses. Even if the postal service didn't lose money hand over fist I'd still call it subsidized, as it wouldn't exist without its legal monopoly. One can argue whether road costs are covered by user fees or not. The subsidized policing and EMS costs are typically ignored, for example. You might want to include some of the military and intel budgets related to oil security.

bpyne 17y ago

You're entitled to your own choice. Your decision points about what constitutes a "lower standard of living" are completely your own. I'm not sure the "most people's standards" part is supportable. I'd like to see some research about 20 and 30 somethings, since they are the ones making decisions now about where to settle and form families, and their distribution. What constituted a "higher standard of living" for us was a short commute, walkable area, cultural activities near our house, diversity in every sense of the word, and an area with a sense of community. For raising our daughter, we balanced the quality of public schools with the education received by being around different people from different walks of life. Our goal as parents is to raise not only a reasonably intelligent child, but one who can understand and empathize with people different from her. Btw, despite being < 1 mile from what would be considered the inner city, we have very little crime. I think this is due in part to neighbors all being close. We know when someone is out of town and what work schedules are. We also have a decent contingent of people who work from home. Add to that my own impression, from being raised in a poor working class area, that inner city crime certainly exists but has taken on a boogie-man hype factor.

youngian 17y ago
Right on all counts. I wish everyone had these kinds of priorities and that sensible outlook on life. I wouldn't trade my education at a broke-ass, shoddy, prison-like public city school for any private or suburban school with vaulted ceilings and brand new textbooks and everyone else looking and acting exactly like me. And sure, there is crime in cities, but it's not like us city dwellers live in constant fear, scampering from one blue telephone to the next. My parents have had one break-in in the almost thirty years they've lived in the city. I've never been mugged or otherwise attacked. But I've met so many suburbanites who have ridiculous ideas about city life - all city dwellers carry around guns/knives, getting shot at is a frequent part of city life, etc.
- hachiya 17y ago
  "and everyone else looking and acting exactly like me." Is this ever really the case? It seems thrown out there so much, but I've never observed a case of people all acting the same. Especially in a school.