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.
I think the initial post is generally correct. I've lived my entire life in the Chicago area, which has an urban core and public transportation system that most cities only wish they could ever come close to having, yet when you look at the fastest growing counties in America, you'll see Will, Kendall, and McHenry Counties on that list, which are home to exurbs on the fringes of the Chicago area. Meanwhile, Cook County, which is where Chicago is located, is near the top in terms of losing population. If Chicago, which has done a fantastic job in making the city into one of the best urban atmospheres you'll find in the world IMHO, is really only holding steady in terms of population at this point (albeit with higher income people replacing lower income people due to high housing prices), how does that bode for cities that don't have anywhere near as strong of an urban core?
Look, Chicago is my favorite place in the world and I've lived in two if its most densely packed neighborhoods and loved every moment of it. However, when it came down to my wife and I wanting to actually buy real estate as opposed to renting, we had a choice of getting either (a) a 1,000 sf 2 BR condo in the city where we would also feel the need to pay private school tuition for children since the public schools have been in disarray or (b) a 2,500 sf 4 BR house in the suburbs with one of the top-rated public school districts in the state for the same price. There are plenty of anecdotal stories of people choosing (a), but as population trends bear out, the majority of people end up choosing (b) as we eventually did.
"Quality of life" is really a pretty personal matter - I would go insane living in small metropolitan area, much less a rural town, while I know others that can't imagine living in a big city or not having anything less than an acre of land. However, I don't know if anyone can really refute that given a choice, most people would rather have a larger space than a smaller space (even if that wouldn't be your own personal decision). In the end, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Why is there so much angst about the growth of large houses in exurbs but if someone lives in a rural area with hundreds of acres of land, nobody cares? You should be able to live where you want to live and in the type of housing that you like (at least in the sense that you can pay market price for it, which is an entirely different matter).
One reason -- other than driveways and front-facing 3-car garages -- I can think of why someone would prefer a McMansion over some of those beautiful homes SWB posted is simply that they're new. Some people just want a new home, and can't fathom life without an electrical outlet every 6 feet and a cable outlet in every room. They don't see the worth of taking an old home and repairing the plaster, upgrading the electrical box, and adding a powder room. New vs. old is simply a matter of preference.
McMansions also are frickin' huge! Does anyone build 1,200 square foot homes anymore? They've got walk-in closets, multiple full bathrooms, "bonus" rooms (whatever those are), dining rooms and breakfast rooms, and main- or second-floor laundry rooms that many older houses don't have.
And about the garages in these older neighborhoods -- my 1928 twin house in Norristown has one, off the alley -- and I was beyond thrilled that I found a house in my price range with a garage. But once I get my little Mazda 3 into the garage, I can't open the door to get out of the car!
I've toured a few McMansions and found them to be poorly constructed, with lots of superfluous 'bells and whistles' instead of a better grade of building materials.
You just described everything built after, oh say, 1990, in this country for consumer use.
Since we have become increasingly a "car culture," (ever see that movie "Over the Hedge" where the weasel notes that "humans are gradually losing their ability to walk"?) that 2+ car garage has become a huge selling point. Like it or not, people want it.
Sad but true: many new developments are geared toward driving, not walking. My particular pet peeve is developments that don't even bother to put in sidewalks!
While I suppose that some of these places may have alley garages behind them, or at least an off-street driveway, I bet that many don't. Good luck selling that in this day and age to any but the most hard-core urbanite.
Since we have become increasingly a "car culture," (ever see that movie "Over the Hedge" where the weasel notes that "humans are gradually losing their ability to walk"?) that 2+ car garage has become a huge selling point. Like it or not, people want it.
Ha! Thanks for the flashback to the movie! I think the McMansionization of America has a lot to do with our obesity epidemic as well. In the "good 'ole days" people used to walk on a daily basis a half-mile or so to the market, bakery, deli, restaurants, church, school, and even work in some cases. These were the days when mixed-use zoning wasn't such a major "no-no" in American culture. Since then we're becoming a nation of "pods." People live in housing pods known as "gated master-planned communities." People work in housing pods known as "office/industrial parks." People shop at shopping pods known as "lifestyle centers." People even visit archaeological pods known as "downtowns" every now and then to reflect upon just how wrong our land usage policies are in many parts of the nation, especially right here in sprawl-loving Pennsylvania.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagus
Sad but true: many new developments are geared toward driving, not walking. My particular pet peeve is developments that don't even bother to put in sidewalks!
You just described my own subdivision as well! No sidewalks. No curbs. No streetlights. Just bland and ugly sprawl that is soon to be surrounded with a new wave of sprawl with a Wal-Mart Supercenter, Home Depot, etc. along an already congested commuter highway. MOST developments in our area lack these basic amenities; I'm shocked that people don't DEMAND sidewalks when they move into these communities. No wonder why our children are so fat! How can they ride their bikes or walk to their friends' homes when they don't have any SAFE way to get anywhere without an automobile? I suppose most of their parents are more concerned with "keeping up with the Jones's" to even notice this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagus
While I suppose that some of these places may have alley garages behind them, or at least an off-street driveway, I bet that many don't. Good luck selling that in this day and age to any but the most hard-core urbanite.
I suppose I'm one of those "hard-core" people because Scranton beckons to me more and more each day. You're correct in saying that a good 75% of the city doesn't have off-street parking. In today's world of having three cars for the 2.1 people in your family, that can be an issue.
... I don't understand why people here in the suburbs/exurbs think obtrusive front-facing two-car garages are a "fashion statement" of sorts for their homes. YUCK!
You said it! It gives me the creeps looking at the pictures of those new developments -- sterile and car based. Awful! And those huge "Dynasty-wannabes" -- narcissistic.
Last edited by Winston Smith; 04-19-2007 at 01:56 PM..
I know that California is a long way away from many of the people that posted in this particular thread, but although I tend to agree with your opinions of how nice older homes are, I can think of a big reason that people like to live in the new areas here in CA: schools.
Obviously I'm not talking about every neighborhood in California, but as a general rule, if those pictures of the older areas of Scranton were in a larger California city, they'd all be drawn into a terrible school district, and the Mc Mansions would be going to a good one. Typically in CA, the newer the area, the better the school, and the older, the worse, even in those older neighborhoods with wonderful, monied houses. You'd either have to put up with sending your kid to metal-detector high, or a private school. This is a sad fact of the way things are in CA schools. The thought of a good school in an older area is almost an anomaly to me, because it's such a general rule here that that doesn't happen much. How nice it must be.
As a result, I always grew up living in a car-centric area, and it's obviously not for everyone, but I don't see why it has to be the devil to so many. My family collects cars, and one of my hobbies growing up was taking a sunday drive in one of our vintage autos. I love driving a fine automobile, so living in an area with about 3/4 an acre to get my privacy, enough to garden, which I enjoy, and a slightly larger garage (in back!) for my hobbies is my personal answer to the perfect area. That being said, I currently live in the city, and will continue to do so until I have kids a few years down the line, but in CA, good schools = move out to the 'burbs.
...I always grew up living in a car-centric area, and it's obviously not for everyone, but I don't see why it has to be the devil to so many. ...
Because car-centric development deteriorates quality of life through noise, congestion and pollution. In car-based places it's uncomfortable and even dangerous to attempt any other form of transportation, such as walking or riding a bicycle. Car-centric neighborhoods also tend to have inferior public transportation. Car-based development uses public tax money to subsidize one form of transportation -- car-and-driver -- over every other. Car-based cities are inefficient and energy hogs. Just some reasons why it's "the Devil."
I'd suggest that when asking the people that live and embrace the suburbs if their quality of life is lower, they'd disagree with you. Many left the city, citing congestion and noise as their reason. Cars may make some noise, but I'd say cities are MUCH noisier than the suburbs, this coming from having lived in everything, ranging from the country to downtown.
You can say that it's all terrible, but people that like McMansions more don't think of themselves as prisoners. They clearly have a point of view that led them to make their choice. People that like the McMansions like the extra space they can afford, and many like driving everywhere. In a car you don't have to put up with sitting next to some cokehead to or talkng to other people if you don't want to. They have a point. You'd think they were dangerous, irrational people based on the way some people here talk about them.
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.
-- and I was beyond thrilled that I found a house in my price range with a garage. But once I get my little Mazda 3 into the garage, I can't open the door to get out of the car!
I think the McMansionization of America has a lot to do with our obesity epidemic as well. In the "good 'ole days" people used to walk on a daily basis a half-mile or so to the market, bakery, deli, restaurants, church, school, and even work in some cases. These were the days when mixed-use zoning wasn't such a major "no-no" in American culture. Since then we're becoming a nation of "pods." People live in housing pods known as "gated master-planned communities." People work in housing pods known as "office/industrial parks." People shop at shopping pods known as "lifestyle centers." People even visit archaeological pods known as "downtowns" every now and then to reflect upon just how wrong our land usage policies are in many parts of the nation, especially right here in sprawl-loving Pennsylvania. 
MOST developments in our area lack these basic amenities; I'm shocked that people don't DEMAND sidewalks when they move into these communities. No wonder why our children are so fat! How can they ride their bikes or walk to their friends' homes when they don't have any SAFE way to get anywhere without an automobile? I suppose most of their parents are more concerned with "keeping up with the Jones's" to even notice this. 
YUCK!
