Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Schools:
Our property taxes pay for public schools throughout our respective counties or regions, not just one or two schools, a particular area of the city or even a particular city.
This is probably part of the reason our taxes are a bit higher, as people in my neighbourhood also pay for schools and the buses to bring farmkids to school 20-30 miles north of us, because we're all in Peel Region. While it's not great that we pay more tax, it is nice that there aren't really many "bad schools," so where you choose to live within our Region is almost irrelevant.
Lot sizes:
I don't like the lot sizes in the city of the newer developments.
I like how a lot of places in the U.S., people get 1/4-3/4 acre lots with modestly-priced homes, still living in the suburbs.
However putting 2500 sq ft homes on yards at 40'x80' does make the overall size of the sub-divisions smaller.
A negative to Canadian-style new sub-divisions is with more people living close together, traffic in urban areas is often worse than experienced in the more sprawling American cities. IMHO, there are way too many people here, but if everyone had a nicely landscaped 1/2 acre lot the developers might have used up twice as much land, mostly prime farmland.
Frankly, I would not be inspired by any TV show, especially one as dumb as "Sex and the City", to do anything, but that is one of the author's premises.
Perhaps, but its harder to dismiss the underlying demographic and economic trends which are discussed in the article.
I'm curious about all the things that teenagers have to do in the city when compared to the suburbs? Please mention specifics. I live in a suburban city and there is plenty for my teenagers to do. They can go to the beach, the movies, there are several malls nearby, the Anaheim Angeles and Ducks sport teams are thirty minutes away, we have a lake in our city for sailing, windsurfing, and kayaking, Disneyland and all the other So Cal amusement parks, snowboarding on the weekends at Big Bear one hour away, a street filled with other kids their age and people they have grown up with sense they were 5, a large park with a skate board area, basketball court, softball field, and soccer field down the street, etc... Honestly there is almost too much to do! I have to tell my kids No all the time about going somewhere because they need to finish homework on weekends. They usually get 1 thing to do on the weekends and then it is back to school work since they take rigorous classes.
I'm just wondering what the city offers the kids that keeps them so much more entertained? They can't go to clubs, bars, and don't want to go to museums so what is it specifically. No one is mentioning specifics.
Perhaps, but its harder to dismiss the underlying demographic and economic trends which are discussed in the article.
I read the entire article. I do not think this trend towards "city life" is all that new. It was prevalent when I was a young woman in the early 70s. It was prevalent for the "beatniks" of the 1950s/60s. The "City Mouse/Country Mouse" phenomenon is nothing new. When people of my generation started getting a bit older and having kids, they/we wanted different things. When we lived in Denver, I could walk to a liquor store. I could care less now about that. I rarely darken the door of a liquor store. We still had to drive to a grocery store, a clothing store, hardware store, etc, even if we shopped within our own neighborhood. We wanted a yard so we could garden. We wanted a little more room in the house to pursue our hobbies of woodworking, computers, sewing, etc.
And I agree with missionhome about teen activities. I'd like to see some specifics, too, about what city kids do that suburban kids can't.
I read the entire article. I do not think this trend towards "city life" is all that new. It was prevalent when I was a young woman in the early 70s. It was prevalent for the "beatniks" of the 1950s/60s. The "City Mouse/Country Mouse" phenomenon is nothing new. When people of my generation started getting a bit older and having kids, they/we wanted different things. When we lived in Denver, I could walk to a liquor store. I could care less now about that. I rarely darken the door of a liquor store. We still had to drive to a grocery store, a clothing store, hardware store, etc, even if we shopped within our own neighborhood. We wanted a yard so we could garden. We wanted a little more room in the house to pursue our hobbies of woodworking, computers, sewing, etc.
And I agree with missionhome about teen activities. I'd like to see some specifics, too, about what city kids do that suburban kids can't.
New trends:
1. Cost of transportation is increasing. Gas prices are at record levels (in real inflation-adjusted terms) and are not likely to significantly decrease and, in fact, are likely to continue to escalate in the future. Road and highway construction has not kept up with increased miles driven, and are not likely to keep up in the future.
2. The proportion of the population consisting of families with children will continue to decrease. This was not true back in the 60s and 70s or even the 80s.
Additionally, the article does not claim all suburbs will dry up and blow away. Dense, walkable suburbs with good public transit (I happen to live in one), will do very well. Not everyone will be living in a three story walk-up in the city.
In fact, the article suggests that the exurbs will still exist as well. The only difference will be the socioeconomic makeup of the exurbs will change from affluent to poor. This trend will make American cities more like European cities in their geographic-demographic profile.
The absolute number of families with children will continue to increase as the population increases (from the article).
Re: increase in transportation costs, not everyone who lives in a suburb drives to work downtown. I drive 4 1/2 miles to my work, stay in at lunch, drive 4 1/2 miles back. DH drives 6 miles, usually walks to a Wendy's for lunch, and drives back. I pretty much take care of all my daily needs within 5 miles of my home. The grocery store is 1 1/4 miles away. I probably drive less than my daughter, who lives in the heart of Denver.
Re: Cold Canadian's comments: In the western US, the school districts are more like you describe in Canada. Here in Colorado, the only city districts (I think) are Denver and Colorado Springs. You are correct that denser development brings about more traffic congestion. That is something the "New Urbanists" need to keep in mind.
Re: increase in transportation costs, not everyone who lives in a suburb drives to work downtown.
But a lot do. Say only 20% of the exurb population drives into the central city. Assuming higher gas prices and ever worsening gridlock, perhaps many of those 15% will choose to relocate more centrally. Maybe not all the way back into the city, but into the inner suburbs so they have a shorter commute or they can take advantage of rail transit. Losing 20% of the target market for your exurb will be a big blow to these exurbs. These are long-term trends, nothing will change overnight of course.
Denser development bring more traffic, but also allows public transit to become more efficient. Here in Chicago, suburbs with commuter rail access to the city are generally quite desirable towns, relative to those without easy rail access.
I think it really depends on A) how old the kid is and B) what kind of suburb you live in. Kids under the age of 16 years old obviously cannot drive a car, so they need to rely on walking and/or biking to get places. If they live in a suburb that does not have amenities (corner/convenience store, recreational facilities, etc.) within walking/biking distance, kids in the suburbs have a lot fewer options than kids in the cities/towns/more densely developed suburbs. Also, depending on the kind of suburb, it may be more dangerous for kids to cross the street and/or bike than it would be in a city or town, due to street widths and traffic speeds. Those street features would also restrict their options. Obviously the "kid-friendliness" of different places, if a kid is allowed to have a degree of independence after he/she gets to a certain age, varies from place to place.
Yes, CHIP72, I agree with you. And while some suburban streets are dangerous and full of cars, so are some city streets.
While I was in the shower, I had a "Eureka" moment; just call me Archimedes, LOL!To say that all, or even many, suburban kids are out committing crimes like burglary, petty theft, stealing cars, etc is as ridiculous as saying many city kids are committing murder, dealing drugs, pimping prostitutes, and committing rape!
BTW, here in Denver, virutually everyone within 40 miles north of the city to about 25 miles south has bus service. Again, east to west from Aurora to Evergreen, about 40 miles. I think sometimes people who write these articles need to get out of their Ivory Towers and go out into the suburbs and see what they are really like. It is not a sterile environment with nothing but houses and malls.
I like sprawl. I actually really like clean suburban living.
Yeah...I'm a square. But apparently so are most Americans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
