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 said, on average. Unless you want to keep everything at the atomized, separate individual level, some kind of brush will be necessary and it WILL give you a general idea. You know they say that generalizations are nothing but distortions of the truth.
Well...this is the type of "legend" that stands out a bit more than it should. In my experience, Americans who travel through Europe, and even more so, American expats, are NOT exactly the "ugly" prototype who will fuss over not finding ice tea. Such Americans tend to be quite well-informed and tend to know what Europe's downsides are: from not being able to find REALLY cold beer to resigning yourself to crammed, small spaces - Americans tend to enter their cross-cultural experience relatively well prepared.
By contrast, I have met tons of Europeans or immigrants from other countries who came to the US believing that their experience here will be largely like what they had at home, particularly in terms of social interaction, only with a much higher standard of MATERIAL living: lots of space, nice houses with yards, big cars, pools, awesome roads and a shower of parking spaces...the "good livin'" that the entire world knows America has.
After a few years of living here and learning that the US is largely a modern, very individualistic, very competitive, very fast-paced and quite atomized country - they start feeling the hard-to-anticipate losses in spiritual well-being, compared to what they had at home. Differences in material standard of living are easy to understand from a distance. Spiritual/psychological differences are much harder to anticipate, process and understand ahead of time.
Of course - there will always be some people who do clearly better exactly where they thought the grass was greener. For some it just turns out the grass REALLY WAS greener - to them; but I can tell you that for every such expat experience, there are many who simply have to adapt to whatever choice they made for job-related purposes, whether they like it or not; in the end - job is king and dictates where people will be. Moving back and forth cross-nationally after trying to make a life in a new place for a few years is not exactly the piece of cake it sounds to be. Many people go through the cross-national experience and then they learn to just deal with the perceived negatives of the new place or even convince themselves that those are not really "negatives", so they internalize the new values because not doing so can result in a lot of frustration. Some can temper with their authentic identities easier than others.
Europe is dense everywhere, of course. Just like America is less dense everywhere, even in the city (save the few very big metropolitan areas)
Sure, I can see these correlations. When I mentioned city-burb differences, however, we were talking about the premium that city people are generally willing to pay to be in the middle of urban culture (which "culture" can include anything from arts of all sorts, to street cafes, to public transport, monuments, architecture, history, liveliness, festivals, fashion parades, sports competitions, large parks with attractions, and just plain fellow humans walking and interacting all over). It is in this respect that the European large city can differ dramatically from the relatively quiet, small European small town/village (as Europe has few suburbs in the American sense).
I would continue to strongly disagree on this one. If you had spent even more time in Europe, including on the continent, you would have noticed there is a very sharp cultural divide between "city people" and the "non-city people", which many Europeans associate with "country". The two cultures are dramatically different, much more so than the cultural divide between American city dwellers and American suburbanites.
This is very evident on the continent and slightly less so in England.
You need to live in the states a while longer... and go to more places within the country. You are well spoken and quite intelligent on one hand, but you have made many rash judgments about the US that don't have a leg to stand on.
For one: Suburban is not country. When defining "urban" vs. "rural" in the US, suburban definitely falls in the urban camp. There is a vast difference in rural and suburban areas in this country, much moreso than the difference in urban core and suburban.
You need to get out and experience more of life besides lingering and chatting in cafes.
i have to say also... you obviously haven't spent time outside of the "mega-regions" in the us:
inside of these "mega-regions" you have some urban nodes with a lot of sprawl connecting them. that's one thing you don't really seem to get— cities here are spread out to the point that it takes a long time to get to where the "country people" are. you seem to be going 20 or so miles outside of the major cities and expecting the same sort of thing you'd find 20 or so miles outside of a major european city.
look at all the grey area on the map. that's the "country" in the united states, and it is absolutely nothing like the suburbs. head to a place like McRae, Georgia and you'll find it's awfully different from anything you find around here:
you get out in those grey areas and away from the interstates, and you'll find that places don't even have kroger or CVS, let alone places like best buy that you would find in the suburbs. like McRae for example, the town grocery store is Harvey's. ever heard of that? although life is still primarily car-dependent due to the agricultural backbone supporting these communities, it's nothing like the suburbs.
Some of this ITP versus OTP is so silly and arbitrary. Wonder if it will ever stop? The first time I experienced it was after moving here in 1987. A co-worker was very smug that he lived in an area that had a 404 area code while I had the strictly suburban 770. But ironically, although I lived OTP and he lived ITP, I took advantage of the city amenities much more than he did, especially the cultural ones (opera, symphony, and ballet season tickets).
Of course there was, at least originally, some truth to the stereotypes about OTP versus ITP. Years ago, ITP seemed more diverse; at least there were blacks and whites, as opposed to the lily-white suburbs. But flash forward to 2013 and the suburbs are now vibrantly diverse. My Gwinnett gym is probably more diverse in color and ethnicity/nationality than any intown gym, with lots of people from Korea, other Asian countries, Latin America, eastern Europe, Somalia, and so on.
Back in the eighties and early nineties, it WAS harder in some ways to live a sophisticated, cosmopolitan life in the suburbs. I've always loved foreign and independent films, but the local Blockbusters didn't carry many of them. The only video store that specialized in them was in Virginia Highlands. Not conducive for me to rent from there. I did go into the city often to catch the films at LeFont theatres. But nowadays, with Netflix, virtually any foreign or indy film is available and comes into my mailbox or instantly onto my computer. So that's one aspect where the playing field is leveled for people regardless of where they live.
Although I have always lived in the suburbs, I have never had the mentality that a big house and big manicured lawn were desirable. I've always lived in a small condo. And I've always taken advantage of what the city has to offer. This weekend, for example, is the Inman Park Festival.
And people are people, regardless of where they live.
I think it's best to enjoy where we live, whether it's ITP or OTP, but not to discount the other side of the perimeter. Metro Atlanta allows people to cross the perimeter without a passport, so why not take advantage of what both areas have to offer (and no eye-rolling from ITP people----I promise you there are some wonderful ethnic restaurants OTP, some great people, and some beautiful parks, outdoor concerts, and so on).
Last edited by jazzcat22; 04-24-2013 at 06:49 AM..
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,487 posts, read 15,019,151 times
Reputation: 7349
Quote:
Originally Posted by syracusa
If you ask me to pay an arm and a leg to live downtown London, I will understand where my arm and leg went; but if you ask me to pay almost the same arm and leg in Atlanta (maybe you'll leave me the pinky toe in this case), I will no longer understand. Since the new, modern city is way too similar to its suburbs - which are much more affordable - then it is only natural for many people to opt for the burbs. After all, look at how many millions live in the Atlanta burbs compared to the hundred thousands in the city.
This argument would have legs if the price of living in Central Atlanta was comparable to the cost of living in a Central London borough. It's not. Not even close.
The higher end property that does exist in the City of Atlanta I think is appropriately priced. Or should one pay bottom barrel prices for an Buckhead estate or Midtown penthouse? Sure, Atlanta may not compare to the amenities London has to offer but isn't as if there are no amenities in Atlanta for which one would get a good ROI for living in a top dollar neighborhood. For most people though, "top dollar" in any higher end Atlanta neighborhood is $300,000 to $500,000 (or much lower depending on the neighborhood) for a decent sized home. We're not exactly talking "breaking the bank" type of money for even a dual income middle class couple.
You need to live in the states a while longer... and go to more places within the country. You are well spoken and quite intelligent on one hand, but you have made many rash judgments about the US that don't have a leg to stand on.
For one: Suburban is not country. When defining "urban" vs. "rural" in the US, suburban definitely falls in the urban camp.
Goodness, when did I say that suburban means "country/rural" in the US? Please read what I wrote carefully. This is what I was arguing about Europe - as Europe doesn't really have suburbs in the American sense. In Europe, you have more of an urban/rural divide than in the US. City vs. village. Town vs. country - that's EUROPE.
This is not the case of the US. Suburban is indeed much closer to urban in the US than it is to "country/rural". I never disagreed with that.
As far as the kind of experiences people "should" get - this is a matter of personal preference, and I am quite sure you would be the first to argue for this kind of freedom of choice. So you can't give this kind of advice.
Some people really do like to have long conversations over a cup of coffee or what have you, with other human beings - more so than they would like to do anything else in their leisure time - including when they travel. After all, how fun can travel be if you can't share the experience with someone else?
I have traveled quite a bit and have had a large number of experiences of all sorts in both Europe and the US, so I don't necessarily think I lack perspective.
Sure, Atlanta may not compare to the amenities London has to offer but isn't as if there are no amenities in Atlanta for which one would get a good ROI for living in a top dollar neighborhood. For most people though, "top dollar" in any higher end Atlanta neighborhood is $300,000 to $500,000 (or much lower depending on the neighborhood) for a decent sized home. We're not exactly talking "breaking the bank" type of money for even a dual income middle class couple.
Part of the argument comes down to whether one would actually use those "amenities" on a regular enough basis to justify paying for the convenience of living near them. Sure, Atlanta proper has the symphony, a few theaters, the zoo, the aquarium, sports venues, etc., but if you're not one to use those amenities (or not use them often), "having" them is irrelevant. If you're big into symphony concerts, it's probably a good idea to live somewhere convenient to where they play- if you never go to the symphony (or go once in a lifetime), proximity to the symphony means nothing. Same goes for the zoo, aquarium, World of Coke, or any other touristy attractions- it's easy enough to drive into Atlanta for the day and hit any of those (or multiple), on the once a year (or less) that you might want to go to them.
The average "dual income middle class couple" probably isn't utilizing most of the intown amenities that can't be found in the suburbs often enough to make the case for living intown viable.
i have to say also... you obviously haven't spent time outside of the "mega-regions" in the us:
inside of these "mega-regions" you have some urban nodes with a lot of sprawl connecting them. that's one thing you don't really seem to get— cities here are spread out to the point that it takes a long time to get to where the "country people" are. you seem to be going 20 or so miles outside of the major cities and expecting the same sort of thing you'd find 20 or so miles outside of a major european city.
look at all the grey area on the map. that's the "country" in the united states, and it is absolutely nothing like the suburbs. head to a place like McRae, Georgia and you'll find it's awfully different from anything you find around here:
you get out in those grey areas and away from the interstates, and you'll find that places don't even have kroger or CVS, let alone places like best buy that you would find in the suburbs. like McRae for example, the town grocery store is Harvey's. ever heard of that? although life is still primarily car-dependent due to the agricultural backbone supporting these communities, it's nothing like the suburbs.
Goodness, when did I say that suburban means "country/rural" in the US? Please read what I wrote carefully. This is what I was arguing about Europe - as Europe doesn't really have suburbs in the American sense. In Europe, you have more of an urban/rural divide than in the US. City vs. village. Town vs. country - that's EUROPE.
This is not the case of the US. Suburban is indeed much closer to urban in the US than it is to "country/rural". I never disagreed with that.
As far as the kind of experiences people "should" get - this is a matter of personal preference, and I am quite sure you would be the first to argue for this kind of freedom of choice. So you can't give this kind of advice.
Some people really do like to have long conversations over a cup of coffee or what have you, with other human beings - more so than they would like to do anything else in their leisure time - including when they travel. After all, how fun can travel be if you can't share the experience with someone else?
I have traveled quite a bit and have had a large number of experiences of all sorts in both Europe and the US, so I don't necessarily think I lack perspective.
I was referring to your summary paragraph, and please excuse me if I am wrong, but you clearly related a Europeans view of city vs. country with American city vs. suburb. That is why I replied the way I did. Here is a copy and paste (bold and italics mine):
Quote:
I would continue to strongly disagree on this one. If you had spent even more time in Europe, including on the continent, you would have noticed there is a very sharp cultural divide between "city people" and the "non-city people", which many Europeans associate with "country". The two cultures are dramatically different, much more so than the cultural divide between American city dwellers and American suburbanites.
If I misunderstood your post, many apologies. From my years in London, I did not get to know many core dwellers. There was not the distinctions between inner dwellers and suburban dwellers. The thing that shocked me was the distinction between class... the jump to judge someone because of the station in life they were "predestined" to become because of the station in life they were born into. Us Americans have a truly more democratic mindset as far as class and upward mobility. We are taught from an early age that you can become whatever you want with a determination to work hard and get an education.
Of course class distinctions remain in the US, but not near to what I experienced in the UK. I think this plays a part in the overall difference you are seeing in the US and must be understood to then grasp more symptomatic things like strip malls and dining habits.
Part of the argument comes down to whether one would actually use those "amenities" on a regular enough basis to justify paying for the convenience of living near them. Sure, Atlanta proper has the symphony, a few theaters, the zoo, the aquarium, sports venues, etc., but if you're not one to use those amenities (or not use them often), "having" them is irrelevant. If you're big into symphony concerts, it's probably a good idea to live somewhere convenient to where they play- if you never go to the symphony (or go once in a lifetime), proximity to the symphony means nothing. Same goes for the zoo, aquarium, World of Coke, or any other touristy attractions- it's easy enough to drive into Atlanta for the day and hit any of those (or multiple), on the once a year (or less) that you might want to go to them.
The average "dual income middle class couple" probably isn't utilizing most of the intown amenities that can't be found in the suburbs often enough to make the case for living intown viable.
This is very true - especially when those amenities tend to be very expensive, in and of themselves. For example, if the symphony was very affordable, I would go very often; but it isn't, so we go rarely.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,487 posts, read 15,019,151 times
Reputation: 7349
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobKovacs
Part of the argument comes down to whether one would actually use those "amenities" on a regular enough basis to justify paying for the convenience of living near them. Sure, Atlanta proper has the symphony, a few theaters, the zoo, the aquarium, sports venues, etc., but if you're not one to use those amenities (or not use them often), "having" them is irrelevant. If you're big into symphony concerts, it's probably a good idea to live somewhere convenient to where they play- if you never go to the symphony (or go once in a lifetime), proximity to the symphony means nothing. Same goes for the zoo, aquarium, World of Coke, or any other touristy attractions- it's easy enough to drive into Atlanta for the day and hit any of those (or multiple), on the once a year (or less) that you might want to go to them.
The average "dual income middle class couple" probably isn't utilizing most of the intown amenities that can't be found in the suburbs often enough to make the case for living intown viable.
Well, I would say that line of thought is circumstantial at best.
I personally use the city's non-touristy amenities on a daily basis without a single need to leave to go OTP.
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.
to resigning yourself to crammed, small spaces - Americans tend to enter their cross-cultural experience relatively well prepared.
