6 ms·

All of this works in cycles. There once was a time when people were flocking to the suburbs. Now, it is fashionable to live in the city. This too will pass whe

All of this works in cycles. There once was a time when people were flocking to the suburbs. Now, it is fashionable to live in the city. This too will pass when people (a generation maybe) comes to understand the little value obtained from all the chaos and activity. What are people chasing? Technology has made it easier to be in touch and socialize w/ people beyond physical geography. Transportation is getting better. Yet, people are centered on cramming into cities. The concrete jungle... Living among all the action but having no time to enjoy it because you're too busy busting your ass to pay for the insane cost of the 'privilege'. I used to live in Mountain View, CA and knew more about San Francisco and the cool things than most of my friends who lived in the city. Many times, I could get to places in the city faster than friends living in it. What's the allure? When I think of California, I think of the beautiful outdoors and geography... Not cramming into a concrete jungle. Hey look, I live in the city. I don't have a car. I pay a company to clean my place. I pay a company to do my laundry. There is no parking available for friends visiting me. I can't host anything at my place because its so small. I have to do all of my get together events 'out'. The city generally provides the illusion that you are part of something that's bigger than you really are. Young people haven't formed a clear definition of this. So, they flock to the city which provides it in 'instant' form. This changes when a generation after realizes the cons of one thing and seeks out the pros in another. Or, when you get older and wiser. As the saying goes, a smart investor is selling when everyone is buying and buying when everyone is selling. With all of the distractions of technology around me, I desire peace and quiet when i am at home. When I want noise and chaos, I go to the city. The big thing is, I have a choice in the matter and live by the beat of my own drum. When you are young, you have no sense of this 'beat'. The city provides a steady one. Will the youth be able to maintain affordability of the city? How long will this cycle last? https://resilienceeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/40-year.gif https://resilienceeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/40-y... Arcade Fire - Album (The Suburbs) 2010 Choice song (Suburban war)

untog 11y ago
When I think of California, I think of the beautiful outdoors and geography... Which an office park isn't, either. Of course the outdoors and mountains are very attractive but they're not a viable workplace. While many of your city complaints are valid, it's not as if the suburbs solves all of them. "There is no parking available for friends visiting me." Sure, and if you live in the suburbs there is plenty of parking but nothing to do.
- astrocyte 11y ago
  Taking the bay area as an example, living further towards south bay allows me to shoot out to the outdoors much quicker than being in the city. Office park? When I'm at work, I want to be focused on my work .. Not distracted by the noise of a city. As for the city, when I want to go there and enjoy something in particular, that's what I do. You can list off every music venue, club, restaurant, cultural event, park event in the city .. I've probably been to the majority of them. It's called getting off your bum, and going to where you want to be. I can jump on 280 and can get to many places in the city (40-45 min) a lot faster than my friends who live in it. Weekend in the city? Jump on BART and go explore. Bike around the city? Jump on BART and bike around the city. Uber/public transportation are there for me just like it is for people in the city. The thing is : When i want peace and quiet I can get it. When I want to focus in my own space, I can have it.... The noise/chaos is attractive when you're young and have not found your own sound. When you have, the city becomes a lot less attractive. More interestingly, the city doesn't necessarily help you find yourself any faster.
  - untog 11y ago
    The noise/chaos is attractive when you're young and have not found your own sound. When you have, the city becomes a lot less attractive. More interestingly, the city doesn't necessarily help you find yourself any faster. Absolutes like this don't really help. That may be true for you, but it isn't for all of us.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- dasmoth 11y ago
  Of course the outdoors and mountains are very attractive but they're not a viable workplace. While many of your city complaints are valid, it's not as if the suburbs solves all of them. Given all the technology that supports remote working, it's a terrible shame that we still take this for granted.
- sosborn 11y ago
  >Sure, and if you live in the suburbs there is plenty of parking but nothing to do. It all depends on the person. When I was younger I enjoyed city life, but now that I am older and have kids I prefer hanging out with them at the park near my suburban dwelling. The city offers certain people plenty to do, and the suburbs offers other people plenty to do. Finding out which one appeals to you and getting there is one of the tricks to enjoying life.
ddispaltro 11y ago
Side note, living in a concentrated city is better for the environment since there's less human sprawl.
- astrocyte 11y ago
  Actually it isn't (several studies have highlighted this). The reason why a lot of cities aren't better for the environment is that the insane cost force many people out to the cities edge who then have to commute in... negating a good deal of the concentration benefits. Further, cities can wreak havoc on health due to the concentration of pollution, noise, etc ... Increase mental health issues due to stress/etc. Human beings weren't meant to be crammed into concrete jungles in shoe boxes filled with noise and chaos.
  - bluthru 11y ago
    Your data must be from the industrial revolution. We have decades of data from dense European cities that indicate better health and quality of life. Also just look at the health of rural people versus urban people in the US--the obesity crisis ain't happening in cities. >The reason why a lot of cities aren't better for the environment is that the insane cost force many people out to the cities edge who then have to commute in That's not urbanization. Urbanization is where people live densely, removing the need for so much driving. Half of a suburban family's energy use is devoted to driving.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Also just look at the health of rural people versus urban people in the US The rural/urban comparison (most studies of which include suburbs in the "urban" side) is a very different thing from the suburban/urban comparison. > --the obesity crisis ain't happening in cities. Yes, it is -- sure, its higher in rural areas, but the urban rate is quite high, too.
    - astrocyte 11y ago
      My data is on the analysis of U.S cities. Please use Google. That's what were talking about right? Dense European cities are not designed like U.S cities namely in way of transportation systems... That's the number one point you're missing. Europe != US. Europe has tons of suburbs btw. You should travel outside city cores the next time you're there. Europe's transportation network doesn't revolve around highways and individual vehicle transport. Thus, they don't have the problem the U.S has in way of how people get into city cores. Not to mention, you're missing a huge difference w.r.t to how jobs are scattered throughout the U.S vs europe and the affordability of housing therein. Since the U.S's transportation system is not like Europe's nor are the city centers, the U.S's cities are most definitely not more efficient when you consider the total cost (the huge pollution cost, the time cost, and inefficiency of people who can't afford/fit in the city commuting in) I really wish people would do more research before down voting people's comments and rebutting commentary with unsound rebuttals .. Downvotting is not for voting down comments you don't favor. You express that in comments and allow for responses to clear the air... which I have
happyscrappy 11y ago
>Now, it is fashionable to live in the city. This too will pass Yes, when you decide to have children.
- astrocyte 11y ago
  Or, when a generation who flocked to it, realizes it wasn't all that instrumental to their formation .. Just served as years of noise and chaos. So, they'll flee the city in droves , set up in the suburbs and then suburbs will be all the rage for young people hoping to have a more peaceful (involved) experience beyond the hustle and bustle of the city... You say that will never happen? It already has and will again. It's the reason why there are seas of built up suburbs and a generation of kids and their kids who grew up in them. There are cycles that exist beyond you... And sure, when you age and have had all your 'experiences', you get to reflect on which ones were of most value and you try to provide those for your kids. Of all my years of partying/being in the city and living it to its fullest, my biggest take-a-way was : I'm glad I experienced it enough to know I have no grand desire for what a city has to offer.
ocb 11y ago
I'm skeptical that you can call this a cycle when we have no idea what's going to happen... Suburbanization isn't some recurring thing that's happened countlessly throughout history. It's also possible to have urban, walkable neighborhoods where parking isn't extremely difficult or expensive. SF is pretty atypical in the US when it comes to population density.
normloman 11y ago
This is not a cycle. What happened to urban development in the mid 20th century was a historical anomaly. People have always lived closely. Look at any historic town; they were designed for walking. And if you lived outside of a town or city, it was because you farmed the land.
arebop 11y ago
Cities grew for thousands of years. Suburbs have had a 50 year run. Maybe it's oscillation on a exponentially increasing frequency, but I'm more inclined to think that suburbs were a temporary aberration. People seem to like to be together, and throughout technological history the infrastructure scales better in cities as well, so even if people were indifferent to isolation vs. socialization the economics would favor urban development.
agrotera 11y ago
> All of this works in cycles. There once was a time when people were flocking to the suburbs. Now, it is fashionable to live in the city. American suburbs are something of an anomaly. They've existed for a relatively brief period of time, and they seem to be waning now after a few generations. I think you may be conflating "small town" and "suburb" to some degree, when I wouldn't consider those things to be exactly the same. Towns have more centralization and more personality. Suburbs are characterized by sprawl and you tend to end up with chains and nothing really unique or notable. > Hey look, I live in the city. I don't have a car. I pay a company to clean my place. I pay a company to do my laundry. There is no parking available for friends visiting me. I can't host anything at my place because its so small. I have to do all of my get together events 'out'. I don't have a car payment, or a car insurance payment, and I don't have to deal with maintenance (cost or time associated with sitting at the mechanic). I actually do clean my own place and do my own laundry, but I've considered paying for these things to free up more of my time. I don't see essentially buying more time as a bad thing. I frequently host things at my place, but then I prefer smaller gatherings anyway. We cook, we drink, we talk, we play games. There's plenty of room for that. > The city generally provides the illusion that you are part of something that's bigger than you really are. Young people haven't formed a clear definition of this. So, they flock to the city which provides it in 'instant' form. This changes when a generation after realizes the cons of one thing and seeks out the pros in another. Or, when you get older and wiser. This seems like maybe a weird over-generalization of personal experience. I don't think I know anyone that's moved to the city to "feel like part of something bigger". There are a ton of good jobs here. I rarely have to leave a 2 mile radius because my favorite restaurants, doctor's office, grocery store, parks, museums and stores are all right here. I live a pretty quiet, comfortable life where a lot of nice things are very convenient. > I have a choice in the matter and live by the beat of my own drum. When you are young, you have no sense of this 'beat'. I honestly don't even know what you're talking about here, maybe another generalization of personal experience. I didn't move to a city to "find the beat of my drum" or learn who I am as a person or any of those things. I've lived in rural, suburban, small urban and massive urban areas. Both urban areas were far and away more enjoyable than the suburbs or rural. I visited a friend out in suburbia recently and found the identical office parks full of identical grey rectangular prisms and identical houses and Chipotle after Chipotle depressing. All there seemed to be to do was drink shitty beer at depressing "Irish" pubs. She complains that my city is too dirty and requires too much walking. To each their own, I guess. But I don't think your change in personal preference is indicative of any massive cyclical shifts. I'd also argue that it's not neccisarily indicative of being "older and wiser".

untog 11y ago

When I think of California, I think of the beautiful outdoors and geography... Which an office park isn't, either. Of course the outdoors and mountains are very attractive but they're not a viable workplace. While many of your city complaints are valid, it's not as if the suburbs solves all of them. "There is no parking available for friends visiting me." Sure, and if you live in the suburbs there is plenty of parking but nothing to do.

astrocyte 11y ago
Taking the bay area as an example, living further towards south bay allows me to shoot out to the outdoors much quicker than being in the city. Office park? When I'm at work, I want to be focused on my work .. Not distracted by the noise of a city. As for the city, when I want to go there and enjoy something in particular, that's what I do. You can list off every music venue, club, restaurant, cultural event, park event in the city .. I've probably been to the majority of them. It's called getting off your bum, and going to where you want to be. I can jump on 280 and can get to many places in the city (40-45 min) a lot faster than my friends who live in it. Weekend in the city? Jump on BART and go explore. Bike around the city? Jump on BART and bike around the city. Uber/public transportation are there for me just like it is for people in the city. The thing is : When i want peace and quiet I can get it. When I want to focus in my own space, I can have it.... The noise/chaos is attractive when you're young and have not found your own sound. When you have, the city becomes a lot less attractive. More interestingly, the city doesn't necessarily help you find yourself any faster.
- untog 11y ago
  The noise/chaos is attractive when you're young and have not found your own sound. When you have, the city becomes a lot less attractive. More interestingly, the city doesn't necessarily help you find yourself any faster. Absolutes like this don't really help. That may be true for you, but it isn't for all of us.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
dasmoth 11y ago
Of course the outdoors and mountains are very attractive but they're not a viable workplace. While many of your city complaints are valid, it's not as if the suburbs solves all of them. Given all the technology that supports remote working, it's a terrible shame that we still take this for granted.
sosborn 11y ago
>Sure, and if you live in the suburbs there is plenty of parking but nothing to do. It all depends on the person. When I was younger I enjoyed city life, but now that I am older and have kids I prefer hanging out with them at the park near my suburban dwelling. The city offers certain people plenty to do, and the suburbs offers other people plenty to do. Finding out which one appeals to you and getting there is one of the tricks to enjoying life.

ddispaltro 11y ago

Side note, living in a concentrated city is better for the environment since there's less human sprawl.

astrocyte 11y ago
Actually it isn't (several studies have highlighted this). The reason why a lot of cities aren't better for the environment is that the insane cost force many people out to the cities edge who then have to commute in... negating a good deal of the concentration benefits. Further, cities can wreak havoc on health due to the concentration of pollution, noise, etc ... Increase mental health issues due to stress/etc. Human beings weren't meant to be crammed into concrete jungles in shoe boxes filled with noise and chaos.
- bluthru 11y ago
  Your data must be from the industrial revolution. We have decades of data from dense European cities that indicate better health and quality of life. Also just look at the health of rural people versus urban people in the US--the obesity crisis ain't happening in cities. >The reason why a lot of cities aren't better for the environment is that the insane cost force many people out to the cities edge who then have to commute in That's not urbanization. Urbanization is where people live densely, removing the need for so much driving. Half of a suburban family's energy use is devoted to driving.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Also just look at the health of rural people versus urban people in the US The rural/urban comparison (most studies of which include suburbs in the "urban" side) is a very different thing from the suburban/urban comparison. > --the obesity crisis ain't happening in cities. Yes, it is -- sure, its higher in rural areas, but the urban rate is quite high, too.
  - astrocyte 11y ago
    My data is on the analysis of U.S cities. Please use Google. That's what were talking about right? Dense European cities are not designed like U.S cities namely in way of transportation systems... That's the number one point you're missing. Europe != US. Europe has tons of suburbs btw. You should travel outside city cores the next time you're there. Europe's transportation network doesn't revolve around highways and individual vehicle transport. Thus, they don't have the problem the U.S has in way of how people get into city cores. Not to mention, you're missing a huge difference w.r.t to how jobs are scattered throughout the U.S vs europe and the affordability of housing therein. Since the U.S's transportation system is not like Europe's nor are the city centers, the U.S's cities are most definitely not more efficient when you consider the total cost (the huge pollution cost, the time cost, and inefficiency of people who can't afford/fit in the city commuting in) I really wish people would do more research before down voting people's comments and rebutting commentary with unsound rebuttals .. Downvotting is not for voting down comments you don't favor. You express that in comments and allow for responses to clear the air... which I have

happyscrappy 11y ago

>Now, it is fashionable to live in the city. This too will pass Yes, when you decide to have children.

astrocyte 11y ago
Or, when a generation who flocked to it, realizes it wasn't all that instrumental to their formation .. Just served as years of noise and chaos. So, they'll flee the city in droves , set up in the suburbs and then suburbs will be all the rage for young people hoping to have a more peaceful (involved) experience beyond the hustle and bustle of the city... You say that will never happen? It already has and will again. It's the reason why there are seas of built up suburbs and a generation of kids and their kids who grew up in them. There are cycles that exist beyond you... And sure, when you age and have had all your 'experiences', you get to reflect on which ones were of most value and you try to provide those for your kids. Of all my years of partying/being in the city and living it to its fullest, my biggest take-a-way was : I'm glad I experienced it enough to know I have no grand desire for what a city has to offer.

ocb 11y ago

I'm skeptical that you can call this a cycle when we have no idea what's going to happen... Suburbanization isn't some recurring thing that's happened countlessly throughout history. It's also possible to have urban, walkable neighborhoods where parking isn't extremely difficult or expensive. SF is pretty atypical in the US when it comes to population density.

normloman 11y ago

This is not a cycle. What happened to urban development in the mid 20th century was a historical anomaly. People have always lived closely. Look at any historic town; they were designed for walking. And if you lived outside of a town or city, it was because you farmed the land.

arebop 11y ago

Cities grew for thousands of years. Suburbs have had a 50 year run. Maybe it's oscillation on a exponentially increasing frequency, but I'm more inclined to think that suburbs were a temporary aberration. People seem to like to be together, and throughout technological history the infrastructure scales better in cities as well, so even if people were indifferent to isolation vs. socialization the economics would favor urban development.

agrotera 11y ago

> All of this works in cycles. There once was a time when people were flocking to the suburbs. Now, it is fashionable to live in the city. American suburbs are something of an anomaly. They've existed for a relatively brief period of time, and they seem to be waning now after a few generations. I think you may be conflating "small town" and "suburb" to some degree, when I wouldn't consider those things to be exactly the same. Towns have more centralization and more personality. Suburbs are characterized by sprawl and you tend to end up with chains and nothing really unique or notable. > Hey look, I live in the city. I don't have a car. I pay a company to clean my place. I pay a company to do my laundry. There is no parking available for friends visiting me. I can't host anything at my place because its so small. I have to do all of my get together events 'out'. I don't have a car payment, or a car insurance payment, and I don't have to deal with maintenance (cost or time associated with sitting at the mechanic). I actually do clean my own place and do my own laundry, but I've considered paying for these things to free up more of my time. I don't see essentially buying more time as a bad thing. I frequently host things at my place, but then I prefer smaller gatherings anyway. We cook, we drink, we talk, we play games. There's plenty of room for that. > The city generally provides the illusion that you are part of something that's bigger than you really are. Young people haven't formed a clear definition of this. So, they flock to the city which provides it in 'instant' form. This changes when a generation after realizes the cons of one thing and seeks out the pros in another. Or, when you get older and wiser. This seems like maybe a weird over-generalization of personal experience. I don't think I know anyone that's moved to the city to "feel like part of something bigger". There are a ton of good jobs here. I rarely have to leave a 2 mile radius because my favorite restaurants, doctor's office, grocery store, parks, museums and stores are all right here. I live a pretty quiet, comfortable life where a lot of nice things are very convenient. > I have a choice in the matter and live by the beat of my own drum. When you are young, you have no sense of this 'beat'. I honestly don't even know what you're talking about here, maybe another generalization of personal experience. I didn't move to a city to "find the beat of my drum" or learn who I am as a person or any of those things. I've lived in rural, suburban, small urban and massive urban areas. Both urban areas were far and away more enjoyable than the suburbs or rural. I visited a friend out in suburbia recently and found the identical office parks full of identical grey rectangular prisms and identical houses and Chipotle after Chipotle depressing. All there seemed to be to do was drink shitty beer at depressing "Irish" pubs. She complains that my city is too dirty and requires too much walking. To each their own, I guess. But I don't think your change in personal preference is indicative of any massive cyclical shifts. I'd also argue that it's not neccisarily indicative of being "older and wiser".