My trip to suburbia...

[Gone Fishing]

A friend recently purchased a new home in a development. He invited us over for a housewarming party, so we went to check it out.  His house is 3000 sq. ft. and certainly not the largest in the development.  Being a new clear cut development, there were no trees or significant landscaping to speak of.  Just houses, roads, and cars.  We met a few of the neighbors who were middle aged parents with pre-teen children.  The conversation centered around how the developer needed to fix the road that had been disrupted for some utility work. 

The entire experience was a bit surreal.  Huge houses on postage stamp lots many with 3 car garages, all for small families.  Living in our lower income rural area, I sometimes forget what the other half is doing with their income.  Amazing how short memories are when it comes to the housing crisis of just a few years ago.  I wonder how many times we will see the cycle repeat itself over the coming decades?

[CoffeeAndDonuts]

Ha. Yeah.

Flip side... A friend lives about 25 miles outside of downtown in about 3000 sq ft. He's got some real interest in this community but has been on a more traditional track of moving further out and bigger for a long time and finds it difficult to reverse that trend for a variety of reasons (some quite reasonable and understandable). He and his wife have been looking at new homes that would cut that distance perhaps in half while still keeping themselves in a ~2500-3000 sq ft home (2 adults + 2 kids)

Anyway, he came over to our 1920's 1550'ish sq ft single-family-residence which is about 5 miles from downtown. He insisted on taking a couple photos of our primary bathroom. It featured 1 sink, 1 mirror, a 5'x6" ledge, and two 6" deep cabinets that are only half full. He couldn't wrap his head around how he and his wife could go without dual vanity and tons of storage attached to their master suite.

We visited some other friends who live outside Houston in a 3000 sqft home with triple garage on a tiny lot and with a swimming pool. I couldn't wrap my head around the stuff, especially the toys. So many toys. Everywhere. My buddy asked my wife how many toys we thought we had relative to them. My wife tried evading before sheepishly saying perhaps 1/4 to 1/3. So much room seemed to beget so much stuff.

I try not to judge. We've made our choices, they've made theirs. But wow are the different. And, FWIW, our home values are relatively similar so it really is a choice.

[partgypsy]

To tell you the truth, a lot of homes that look like that, cost significantly less (maybe half?) what my house is worth, which is a 1500 square feet bungalow a mile from downtown. I wouldn't want to live way out there, in a house like that, but surprisingly enough there is a reason that many people live in them; smaller affordable houses that are closer to the city center are lacking in the housing market. 

[swampwiz]

It's very lamentable how typically the developer for new subdivisions just clear cuts the forest, not trying to save even this healthiest trees.

[sui generis]

I definitely don't want to live in suburbia again, but as someone that grew up in the suburban sprawl of So Cal....well, I don't miss the environment, but I miss the homes.  I mean, I never lived in anything bigger than about 1900 sq ft I think, but they all had closets and more than one toilet and, you know, normal layouts.  When my BF and I were looking to move in together in our downtown area, we saw places where the one bathroom was entered through the kitchen and the kitchen was entered through the second bedroom.  Another place, the kitchen was the hallway of the apartment, if you can picture it.  Sometimes these things are a consequence of subdividing old Victorians, sure.  But the place we ended up with was built in the late 90s!  And you can't stand up straight in many parts of the second bedroom or at all in the second bathroom (if you are taller than about 5'10"), and the kitchen is quite literally the size of our bedroom closet (a normal size closet, not walk-in), which by the way is the ONLY closet in the entire apartment.  No linen closet, no coat closet, no closet in the second bedroom or in either of the bathrooms.  I do mostly like living downtown (except for the constant sirens because in dense downtowns, you are never more than a couple blocks away from a fire station), but my god I miss closets.  And standing up straight.  I drool over the floor plans of those subdivisions.

[TheWifeHalf]

There are many people who think living 'near downtown' is one notch above hell.
That's why it's so nice there are many different kinds of places to live - there are so many different kinds of people!

[Mr. Green]

It's very lamentable how typically the developer for new subdivisions just clear cuts the forest, not trying to save even this healthiest trees.

The problem is usually lot sizes. It's basically impossible to leave anything one 1/4 acre lots because the house takes up so much space and machines have to work around the edges.

[FIRE_Buckeye]

There are many people who think living 'near downtown' is one notch above hell.
That's why it's so nice there are many different kinds of places to live - there are so many different kinds of people!

Indeed
Fiancé and I are under contract on a home in a burb of Charlotte. Both of us grew up in small towns, and like being far enough away from the city to have the small-town kind of feel, while being close enough to take advantage of big city amenities when we choose to (as well as the job opportunities of course). You couldn't pay us enough to live anywhere near downtown. To each his or her own.

[jpdx]

@FIRE_Buckeye, to offer another perspective, the place I live feels like a main-street small town, with single family homes, tree-lined streets, where you can walk to nearly everything and also take the light rail 15-minutes to get downtown. So a city, if well-designed, doesn't have to feel urban, it can feel like a small town.

[jpdx]

I couldn't agree more with the OP. The scene he describes is sad and quasi-dystopian. The weirdest part is that many people aren't aware that there is  anything wrong with this way of living, or perhaps they aren't aware that there is a better way.

3000 square feet is outrageous. My house is 1600 sq ft and feels too big.

[LurkingMustache]

I don't really agree or disagree with this - but would just offer a level of gray to it.  You can find houses that are built extremely efficiently, with a lot of space out in the burbs.  The cost per sq ft. is often (at least where I am looking currently) much lower than you would find closer in to the city.  The problem I find is that even old homes that are smaller cost between $200-$250 sq. ft closer to the city.  You can do the math on a 1,400 home that might feel more Mustachian but really isn't.  I can drive 30 minutes out and get to about $120-$130 a sq. ft.  Now, I do wish I could find the sweet spot where that cheaper sq. ftage exists without the RIDICULOUS size of the homes.  But it just don't seem to be what people are into - which is a shame.

[FIRE_Buckeye]

@FIRE_Buckeye, to offer another perspective, the place I live feels like a main-street small town, with single family homes, tree-lined streets, where you can walk to nearly everything and also take the light rail 15-minutes to get downtown. So a city, if well-designed, doesn't have to feel urban, it can feel like a small town.

The picture you painted would be an optimal one if not for the caveat LurkingMustache mentioned above.

Homes as you described in most bigger cities are simply out of the price range of most folks if they want to live in a decent neighborhood and a home with enough space to be happy in. Which is why (among other reasons) people retreat to the suburbs, where you can get a similar feel (albeit without the walkability), for a fraction of the cost.

[Schaefer Light]

Downtown is no good for me.  It's too far from the golf course.

[partgypsy]

I don't feel like living a mile from downtown is close to hell. My neighborhood is in an old part of town where the streets are lined with mature trees. I have a front and back porch, my neighbors are doing a porch crawl this weekend.  I'm near a park-like campus where I can walk my dog. Plus I have the convenience of being able to literally walk to my job, two grocery stores, restaurants and bars and various stores. The main downsides is that a) it is an old house so I'm always having something to fix or repair, b) my property taxes has gone up, and c) there is the temptation knowing I could downsize to a similar house in a less walkable area, and have my house completely paid for plus walk away with 50K+ in cash.
In contrast I find those big tract housing developments, rather souless. I know I sound like a snob when I say that. 

And Shaefer, the city golf course is less than 10 minutes away!
 

[Thegoblinchief]

I’m in a walkable low density (1/10 acre is common lot size) urban neighborhood, but sadly crime seems to be going upwards again after about 5 years of improvement. Murder three blocks away from my house and several armed carjackings late at night within ten blocks just in the last month. Frequent armed robberies of storefronts on the arterial streets just outside of my residential block (1-2 blocks away).

Suburbs get a bad rap because of the way they’re designed: car centric and HOA rules that keep the lots from being productive. If you let homeowners turn landscapes from grass to edibles and put shopping clusters more mixed in with the housing so that walking and biking is easy to do safely, one could argue that low density housing like that is more sustainable than high density urban which has to truck everything in.

Sadly, even in more rural areas near me, the rules within town limits are super restrictive. If the crime continues to worsen, we may end up in much more rural areas than we actually want to achieve the lifestyle we desire. I’d be happy with only a couple cleared acres from a homesteading perspective, but around here at least you often need 5 or even 10+ to avoid all the unnecessary restriction so common in closer suburbs.

My brother lives in a fancy subdivision with big houses but pretty big lots (1/2 acre minimum) and the expanses of nothing but grass maintained with toxic chemicals depresses me every time we visit.

[SilveradoBojangles]

We had a similar experience. We went to the house of a new colleague of my husband's in a relatively new development. They bought a few months after we did, and are of similar age/professions, so it was like looking into an alternative universe.

Their house was enormous, at least 3000 square feet, 10 years old, and mostly empty. I swear it echoed. They are probably ~8 miles from down town in a subdivision where everything looks the same, no sidewalks because no one walks anywhere, so a 25ish min commute I would think.

Our house is blocks from downtown, 1000 square feet, 70 years old, no garage, no commute. Very walkable and bikeable. They probably paid almost 2x what we did.

We came home shuddering at the thought of living that life. But they have been to our house and probably feel the same way about us.

[big_slacker]

Not everyone wants to live in a small, older house or condo in an urban area. I sure as hell don't. People on top of people, traffic, etc. I live in a 2000 sq foot house with a 700 sq ft shop on half an acre in what could be called the burbs although it's really a tiny farm town. Closer in to the city you're paying $800k for a 1200 sq ft rambler built in the 50's-70's on a postage stamp sized lot. 20% cheaper out where we are for *LOT* more house and land.

We've got MILES of trails around us, a river to play in, mountains close by, camping right in town, produce fresh from the farms surrounding the town and good schools as well. Also worth noting is our place is WAY newer and more energy efficient than older homes closer in. We set heat to 66 in the winter and the place stays warm enough for t-shirts with a power/gas bill a little more than half what we used to pay in the '50's house we were in before.

I've got a 15-20 minute commute to the closer in burbs, my wife 30 minutes to downtown. That's the cost of living in the country but I would *NOT* trade it for an urban house, no way in hell. And having a bigger house does NOT mean you have to fill it with junk.

[FIRE_Buckeye]

Our house is blocks from downtown, 1000 square feet, 70 years old, no garage, no commute. Very walkable and bikeable. They probably paid almost 2x what we did.

That's the trade-off, and it just comes down to what's important to you.
Homes like yours; small, older, no garage, but centrally located in the city close to most/all amenities were ultimately (from what I saw during our house-hunting process) often comparably priced to the home we are purchasing, which is twice the size at ~2k sq ft, less than 20 years old, 2-car garage, on 1/4 an acre in a neighborhood with mature trees, sidewalks, and great people which just happens to be 8-10 miles out from "downtown". Sure we've got to drive to get to essentially anything, but that drive is less than 5-minutes for 90% of our needs, not to mention 5 minutes from fiancé's place of employment.

It's all a trade-off, and completely dependent on what things you value.

[undercover]

I've got a 15-20 minute commute to the closer in burbs, my wife 30 minutes to downtown. That's the cost of living in the country but I would *NOT* trade it for an urban house, no way in hell. And having a bigger house does NOT mean you have to fill it with junk.

Stereotyping people based on where they live is just stupid. It doesn't matter where you live. And that person that's filling their house with junk could be a multi-millionaire, who knows (doubtful, but still).

I don't live in a suburb and never have but they get a seriously bad rap when there are PLENTY of pros and cons for anywhere.

[TheDuder]

If they are happy there, like the area, and it doesn't cause them undo financial stress.......why does it matter to you?

Different strokes for different folks.

Some of these posts seem very "holier than thou" and it's kind of sad

[dougules]

If they are happy there, like the area, and it doesn't cause them undo financial stress.......why does it matter to you?

Different strokes for different folks.

Some of these posts seem very "holier than thou" and it's kind of sad

"Different strokes" would be fine if everything were fair, but it's not.

- Extra infrastructure in the suburbs is subsidized.  Not just pavement, but also water, sewer, power, and police and fire protection. 

- Driving pollutes.  Drivers don't pay the costs associated with that.

- Suburban zoning locks the area into one building style.  If you try to go back and build more dense development in an area that is already sprawling, the residents will NIMBY it to death.  This artificial suppression of supply is a major reason that urban development has become so expensive when it shouldn't be. 

- Suburban building styles make us less secure.  It eats land that could otherwise be dedicated to producing food, so we have less food security.  It locks us into high energy consumption so a little shock to the supply chain can hurt our economy. 

- Decades of these imbalances also mean that people in suburban areas would continue reaping the returns of these unfair advantages even if the playing field were leveled today. 

Ironically a lot of the champions of the suburbs think of themselves as champions of the free market. 

[alanB]

If they are happy there, like the area, and it doesn't cause them undo financial stress.......why does it matter to you?

Different strokes for different folks.

Some of these posts seem very "holier than thou" and it's kind of sad

"Different strokes" would be fine if everything were fair, but it's not.

- Extra infrastructure in the suburbs is subsidized.  Not just pavement, but also water, sewer, power, and police and fire protection. 

- Driving pollutes.  Drivers don't pay the costs associated with that.

- Suburban zoning locks the area into one building style.  If you try to go back and build more dense development in an area that is already sprawling, the residents will NIMBY it to death.  This artificial suppression of supply is a major reason that urban development has become so expensive when it shouldn't be. 

- Suburban building styles make us less secure.  It eats land that could otherwise be dedicated to producing food, so we have less food security.  It locks us into high energy consumption so a little shock to the supply chain can hurt our economy. 

- Decades of these imbalances also mean that people in suburban areas would continue reaping the returns of these unfair advantages even if the playing field were leveled today. 

Ironically a lot of the champions of the suburbs think of themselves as champions of the free market. 

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism#United_States

[FireHiker]

I live in the suburbia you describe and it depresses me, too. I tolerate it for now because:
- we love, love, love the local schools and massive parental involvement
- we have some really, really fabulous neighbors on our street and our kids are in and out of each other's houses regularly
- there are tons of kids in our neighborhood and we are right around the corner from a busy, wonderful public park
- 2 mile commute to our very flexible jobs with a lot of vacation days since we've been there 10+ years
- absolute worst case we have just over 12 years before we leave the area, maybe as early as 5 years, so it's not forever to wait
- I've taken up running recently and I love our safe, quiet neighborhood for my early morning runs (I'll trade it for trails when we eventually move)
- there is a ton of diversity where we are because of the tech industry, so our kids know people from SO many different cultures, which is awesome

That said, we have one of those 3000+ square foot monstrosity houses, and I am counting down to when we can get out from under it. We fortunately bought in 2012 so we currently have in excess of 50% equity (55% actually), although that only matters when we sell of course. We have looked into downsizing locally, but the bidding wars for the 1500-2000 square foot houses in the area are outrageous; the selling prices are quite a bit higher than what we paid, and we're locked in at 3.25%. We have five more years before we can potentially make a drastic move, and I look at property in our desired area every day.

I would LOVE the small, tree-lined main street that jpdx described! That's not our reality yet, though, so I try to focus on the positives where we are in the meantime. There are definitely pros and cons everywhere.

[mathlete]

If they are happy there, like the area, and it doesn't cause them undo financial stress.......why does it matter to you?

Different strokes for different folks.

Some of these posts seem very "holier than thou" and it's kind of sad

"Different strokes" would be fine if everything were fair, but it's not.

- Extra infrastructure in the suburbs is subsidized.  Not just pavement, but also water, sewer, power, and police and fire protection. 

- Driving pollutes.  Drivers don't pay the costs associated with that.

- Suburban zoning locks the area into one building style.  If you try to go back and build more dense development in an area that is already sprawling, the residents will NIMBY it to death.  This artificial suppression of supply is a major reason that urban development has become so expensive when it shouldn't be. 

- Suburban building styles make us less secure.  It eats land that could otherwise be dedicated to producing food, so we have less food security.  It locks us into high energy consumption so a little shock to the supply chain can hurt our economy. 

- Decades of these imbalances also mean that people in suburban areas would continue reaping the returns of these unfair advantages even if the playing field were leveled today. 

Ironically a lot of the champions of the suburbs think of themselves as champions of the free market.

If we're considering "suburb" to mean the WASPy, NIMBY type of suburb, often times we're talking about separate municipalities. i.e., the residents who live there are often paying (high) property taxes for separate public services than the ones used by the neighboring major city. So I'm not sure where this idea that suburbs are leaching off of the sewer, police, and fire of the big city comes from.

I understand that it can feel like this goes against the spirit of public services. Especially as it pertains to "good" school districts and "bad" school districts. And as alanB points out, some of this even has roots in nasty, institutionalized racism. But given that the inhabitants of these suburbs are often:

-property owners
-more educated
-higher income
-more civically engaged

than the general population, they're always going to have more sway in deciding the kind of place that they live in. Not much getting around that.

Regarding pollution, lots of stuff pollutes. Not just cars. But we live in a society where people can consume common resources for the sake of comfort and convenience. The best bet here is to advocate a carbon tax.

Speaking of taxes, most states levy significant gasoline taxes, meaning that people who drive more (commuters from the burbs) are usually paying more for the infrastructure they're driving on.

A vast majority of the United States is undeveloped land, so I'm not too concerned about the suburbs "eating up" land.

I generally dislike McMansions, and residential streets that are paved like highways. If for nothing more than they are eyesores IMO. But that's just arbitrary. People would probably consider my situation (two people in a 2000sqft home) excessive too.

My point is that urban development is a complex subject, and it can't be reduced down to "suburbs = bad", like many minimalist communities on the net try to do. People move to the suburbs for a reason, and it's not always because they want to be consumption monsters. It's because they have money and they've decided that the best use of that money is to make sure their kids grow up in a safe environment with access to good schools.

[Cranky]

I’m pretty sure that given an unlimited budget and all other things being equal, most people would choose a giant house and a truck or SUV.

So I’m perfectly  happy with my life, but acknowledge that I’m an outlier.

[dougules]

If we're considering "suburb" to mean the WASPy, NIMBY type of suburb, often times we're talking about separate municipalities. i.e., the residents who live there are often paying (high) property taxes for separate public services than the ones used by the neighboring major city. So I'm not sure where this idea that suburbs are leaching off of the sewer, police, and fire of the big city comes from.

By suburb I was more talking about places that are very spread out and make driving the only practical way to get around.  Some are WASPy, some are not.  But WASPy or not, the people that live in a place get a vote while the people that can't get new housing built don't. 

It's true that a real suburb has its own separate services, but in a lot of places the suburban style development has been annexed by the main city. 

Regarding pollution, lots of stuff pollutes. Not just cars. But we live in a society where people can consume common resources for the sake of comfort and convenience. The best bet here is to advocate a carbon tax.

Yes, and that's not right either. 

Speaking of taxes, most states levy significant gasoline taxes, meaning that people who drive more (commuters from the burbs) are usually paying more for the infrastructure they're driving on.

In most places in the US the gas tax only covers a small fraction of the cost of the infrastructure.   A fair gas tax would look a lot more like European levels.

A vast majority of the United States is undeveloped land, so I'm not too concerned about the suburbs "eating up" land.

There are less than 8 acres of land per person in the US.  If you take out Alaska it's closer to 6.  That 6 acres includes your yard, all the roads you drive on, the place you work, the places you shop, and all the parking spots that go unused most of the time. It includes the space taken up by all the factories and warehouses that get you the stuff you want.  It also includes all the places we'd like to keep wild, and, last but not least, the land that grows our food.  The numbers make me a little more concerned than you. 

My point is that urban development is a complex subject, and it can't be reduced down to "suburbs = bad", like many minimalist communities on the net try to do. People move to the suburbs for a reason, and it's not always because they want to be consumption monsters. It's because they have money and they've decided that the best use of that money is to make sure their kids grow up in a safe environment with access to good schools.

People are generally going to take the subsidized option.  While I don't like the suburbs, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying make it to where people who live in a suburban setting pay the full price for living in a suburban setting. 

[FireHiker]

My suburb is not actually WASPy...our breakdown on greatschools is actually only 31% white, which seems pretty accurate to me. My daughter is actually the only kid in her entire kindergarten class of 25 with two white parents (there are three others who have one white parent). The diversity of our particular suburb is one of its redeeming qualities in my opinion.

I'm curious, @dougules, what do you mean about subsidization and people in a suburban setting paying the "full price"? I'm not trying to be snarky; I'd actually like to know what you mean by that? Additional taxes for certain criteria, or ?? I know where I live is unincorporated county and our property taxes are 1.9% with specific mello-roos for our specific infrastructure: schools, roads, fire, police. Water and sewer are not subsidized as far as I'm aware; we pay a separate bill for those.

I am by no means a "champion" of the suburbs...we live here, but it's not my ideal.

[badassprof]

I couldn't agree more with the OP. The scene he describes is sad and quasi-dystopian. The weirdest part is that many people aren't aware that there is  anything wrong with this way of living, or perhaps they aren't aware that there is a better way.

3000 square feet is outrageous. My house is 1600 sq ft and feels too big.

Yes, us too. 15 minutes from the train, an express bus at the end of the street, walk to restaurants and stores, but on a leafy-treed street of historic homes with good schools, etc.  The urban suburb...https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/2/12/americans-want-walkable-neighborhoods

[KTG]

I live in a 4 bedroom, 2 bath, 3 car garage, 2100 square foot home with a pool and big backyard in suburbia, and here is the real kicker that will blow your minds: it’s just me. I did have a girlfriend live with me but we broke up. I bought the house while we were dating but she didn’t have anything to do with the purchase. I absolutely love the neighborhood and it’s on the edge of a town near a decent-sized city. I didn’t set out to buy a home this big, but was lucky to get it in 2012 during the bottom of the V in prices and rates. I doubt I could afford it at today’s prices.

I use one room as a home office, another as a guest bedroom, and the other what I call a ‘flex room’ since I have no idea what to do with it. It has some exercise stuff and random stuff I don’t know what to do with. I could easily have been fine in a three bedroom, but this is just what I found in my price range at the time. I didn’t really anticipate I would be living in my house by myself, but that’s just the way things are going at the moment.

But I have to admit, while I only have one car, I love having a three car garage. Literally the part of the garage that uses the smaller garage door has my custome made workbench and all of my tools like table, miter, band saws, etc. most of my friends who see it dream of having something similar.

I won’t deny it though, it’s a lot to upkeep. Cleaning the pool, cutting the grass, cleaning the house, etc. I’ve had a couple of serious girlfriends since I got the house, but I am in no hurry to have another one move in. Even though I have more space than I really need, or even know what to do with sometimes, I wouldn’t change a thing. I love my home.

Even though I do not have kids, I chose to live in an area with excellent schools, because I have found at least in my area, those properties tend to hold their values if not go up. One time a woman gave my mom an offer on our old townhouse site unseen simply because of the school district she was in (I had long graduated). I couldn’t believe it, but that seems to be the pressure parents seem to have to get their kids in good schools.

And I hate noise. Sirens, helicopters, speeding cars, etc. I hate living with people in confined spaces, like anywhere near downtown or run-down areas. I even have a theory that people have to live some distance apart to be really nice to each other. Just seems when everyone is on top of each other, they’re dicks. And even though I am on the edge of the sticks (I can hear the cows moo), I wish I was even further out.

[mbl]

If they are happy there, like the area, and it doesn't cause them undo financial stress.......why does it matter to you?

Different strokes for different folks.

Some of these posts seem very "holier than thou" and it's kind of sad

Amen my brother....

[mbl]

If they are happy there, like the area, and it doesn't cause them undo financial stress.......why does it matter to you?

Different strokes for different folks.

Some of these posts seem very "holier than thou" and it's kind of sad

"Different strokes" would be fine if everything were fair, but it's not.

- Extra infrastructure in the suburbs is subsidized.  Not just pavement, but also water, sewer, power, and police and fire protection. 

- Driving pollutes.  Drivers don't pay the costs associated with that.

- Suburban zoning locks the area into one building style.  If you try to go back and build more dense development in an area that is already sprawling, the residents will NIMBY it to death.  This artificial suppression of supply is a major reason that urban development has become so expensive when it shouldn't be. 

- Suburban building styles make us less secure.  It eats land that could otherwise be dedicated to producing food, so we have less food security.  It locks us into high energy consumption so a little shock to the supply chain can hurt our economy. 

- Decades of these imbalances also mean that people in suburban areas would continue reaping the returns of these unfair advantages even if the playing field were leveled today. 

Ironically a lot of the champions of the suburbs think of themselves as champions of the free market.

Excellent points.
You are more than free to write your Congressman/woman and take up your issue with them.

[KTG]

Another thing I noticed that has happened to me since I got my home is the lack of desire to leave it. I essentially became a home body. Some of that has to do with pets, but a big factor is that I have so much to do here, from floating in my pool to grilling to laying in a hammock under an oak tree, to building things in my garage, or reading a book on my patio couch. I’ve put a lot of effort in making my home as relaxing as I can and I just love being here. I feel like I am on vacation every day I am at home, so I haven’t felt much of a need to travel to ‘get away’.

I remember being in my old apartments and just hating it most of the time. I was always looking for a reason to get out of them. I don’t feel that here. I don’t even go to the beach much and that used to be a favorite pastime of mine. Rather than deal with traffic, parking, and crowds I can just jump in my pool.

It’s certainly had an effect on me.

[Clever Name]

To me the problem with suburbs is that they're too crowded. Obviously urban areas are even worse in that respect. I don't need a big house (1000 square feet is plenty) but I want at least an acre of land and preferably a few dozen.

[Noodle]

It's not for me--I like a short commute and minimal upkeep, so I have a small condo close to work--but I can see why people like suburbs. In our city, if you want the combination of good schools and reasonably priced housing, you have to go farther out. Plus some people just like having more space to spread out and not having to deal with updating an older home. I have friends who have put a lot of time and money into their 1960s house--some of it cosmetic, but a lot of it required maintenance like a roof and HVAC--and I know they look longingly from time to time at their siblings' brand new houses that require none of this. The suburbs around here are extremely diverse, so that's not a factor the way it might be some places.

[Slee_stack]

I live downtown and work in suburbia.  Maybe that's someone's ultimate hell.

Admittedly, every minute I'm in my car, I tend to think so.

I don't begrudge anyone whatever situation they choose...as long as they don't bitch/moan about how they can't afford it.


I do tend to think having space you don't use, at least semi regularly, is a waste.  Sometimes its merely financial waste.  Other times its also time waste (for upkeep).    I am a firm believer that a personal residence is NOT an investment....at least not a good one.  Buy what you value...no more.

Some people buy a house because they are told 'it will be easier to sell' or they will 'make more money' when they go to sell, or some other such non-sense.  The reality is that someone may end up ahead down the road 'overbuying'.  Unfortunately, they likely will end up further behind financially...all the while paying for all those 'extras' they never really cared about in the first place.  Worse yet, if the 'extras' necessitated un-enjoyable upkeep.

We currently have an imperfectly laid out 1500s.f. house in downtown.  Its mostly functional.  I'd say about 200 - 300 s.f. of it is a waste.  The remaining 1000 sf is plenty for our needs/wants though.

The general crime sucks.  Car traffic sucks.  Some of the taxes suck.  Some nights there is more noise than I'd like.  There aren't many good dirt trails close by which also sucks a little. 

I do love being able to ride my city/road bike anywhere around town...and often make it there faster than someone driving.  DH gets to ride to work (insert jealous emoji here). 
The entirety of yard work takes 30 minutes tops...every other week.  MORE friends and family are in closer proximity so getting together needs less planning/effort.   Maybe not such a bad place afterall...

Not sure its more or less 'hell' or 'heaven' than anything else mentioned herein.  It ticks many of our boxes.  Its not perfect.  It doesn't have to be.

[Cowardly Toaster]

If they are happy there, like the area, and it doesn't cause them undo financial stress.......why does it matter to you?

Different strokes for different folks.

Some of these posts seem very "holier than thou" and it's kind of sad

"Different strokes" would be fine if everything were fair, but it's not.

- Extra infrastructure in the suburbs is subsidized.  Not just pavement, but also water, sewer, power, and police and fire protection. 

- Driving pollutes.  Drivers don't pay the costs associated with that.

- Suburban zoning locks the area into one building style.  If you try to go back and build more dense development in an area that is already sprawling, the residents will NIMBY it to death.  This artificial suppression of supply is a major reason that urban development has become so expensive when it shouldn't be. 

- Suburban building styles make us less secure.  It eats land that could otherwise be dedicated to producing food, so we have less food security.  It locks us into high energy consumption so a little shock to the supply chain can hurt our economy. 

- Decades of these imbalances also mean that people in suburban areas would continue reaping the returns of these unfair advantages even if the playing field were leveled today. 

Ironically a lot of the champions of the suburbs think of themselves as champions of the free market.

Great post. I'm not a huge fan of welfare for lower classes but everyone ignores middle class welfare (the university student loan complex is another bloated middle class welfare program).

[GuitarStv]

If they are happy there, like the area, and it doesn't cause them undo financial stress.......why does it matter to you?

Different strokes for different folks.

Some of these posts seem very "holier than thou" and it's kind of sad

"Different strokes" would be fine if everything were fair, but it's not.

- Extra infrastructure in the suburbs is subsidized.  Not just pavement, but also water, sewer, power, and police and fire protection. 

- Driving pollutes.  Drivers don't pay the costs associated with that.

- Suburban zoning locks the area into one building style.  If you try to go back and build more dense development in an area that is already sprawling, the residents will NIMBY it to death.  This artificial suppression of supply is a major reason that urban development has become so expensive when it shouldn't be. 

- Suburban building styles make us less secure.  It eats land that could otherwise be dedicated to producing food, so we have less food security.  It locks us into high energy consumption so a little shock to the supply chain can hurt our economy. 

- Decades of these imbalances also mean that people in suburban areas would continue reaping the returns of these unfair advantages even if the playing field were leveled today. 

Ironically a lot of the champions of the suburbs think of themselves as champions of the free market.

I'm a relatively happy suburb dwelling guy, and am in a little disagreement with many of your points.


- Driving pollutes.

Well yeah . . . but it's not necessary to drive when you live in the suburbs.  I'm a 15 minute bike ride away from three grocery stores, a home depot, four or five restaurants, a library, several convenience stores, a gas station, and a couple different banks.  I'm 10 miles from work, and commute by bike several times a week.  We also have a bus system that runs through our suburbs and connects to the rest of Toronto's public transit (I don't use it much though, as my bike tends to be much faster).

My dad drives much more in a typical week than I do.  He's a farmer, and lives out in the middle of nowhere.  It would be extremely difficult to bike to do errands where he lives, and it's not possible to walk.

- Suburban density.
While most of the houses in the area are two story detached homes, there are quite a few 5 story apartment buildings in the area.  I don't believe that land development rules are hindering more from being built.  Suburban sprawl is limited in my area, as we've got an extremely large nationally designated greenspace/park to the East of where we live.

- 'Security'/Energy consumption.
The solar panels on my roof account for 80% of our energy usage through the year.  I've also replaced the windows in our home, caulked, and insulated the crap out of everything.  While it's true that it's easier to make a single building more efficient, I've been to an awful lot of older apartment buildings down town with large, poorly insulated windows that let a lot of in heat in during the summer and cold in during the winter.

My house is totally built on old farmland though, so I've nothing good to say on that front.  :P

- Subsidies?

I'm not sure if this is different for the US than Canada . . . but over here in Ontario, the smaller the place that you live the more of a subsidy you get.  It's more expensive to run and maintain utilities in small towns, so the bigger cities help these smaller ones out financially.  I'm in a suburb on the outskirts of Toronto.  I'm probably getting a small subsidy on utility costs when compared to people living in the downtown core, but overall it's significantly smaller than the subsidy I'd be getting if I lived in a small farming or logging community a bit further North.  I spent most of my younger life living in a small Northern community, and can tell you first hand that it's not predominantly middle class people who are reaping the benefits of these subsidies . . . these communities tend to be quite poor and industrial/working class.

[zhelud]

I spent a lot of time last year canvassing in a far-out suburb where people have multi car garages, big lots, etc. I found that I could generally tell when people were home because their car(s) would be in the driveway.  No one kept their cars in the garage- they were almost all used for storage. I didn't get it at all.   

[GuitarStv]

We park our car in the driveway all spring/summer/fall . . . because the garage is for construction projects and bike maintenance.  In the winter we park the car in the garage because fuck scraping ice off the windscreen every morning.  :P

[Slee_stack]

We park our car in the driveway all spring/summer/fall . . . because the garage is for construction projects and bike maintenance.  In the winter we park the car in the garage because fuck scraping ice off the windscreen every morning.  :P

We have a garage, but I do most bike maintenance in the driveway.  Its also an f-ton warmer here...

Truth be told I'm probably just too lazy to move the car out most times.  Easier to set the stand up outside.

[GuitarStv]

I refuse to allow dust to blow into my grease when servicing a hub . . . and my wife refuses to let me pack grease into a hub in the house.  Plus, if it's a nice sunny day I'm going to be riding my bike, not working on it.

[TheDuder]

"Different strokes" would be fine if everything were fair, but it's not.

- Extra infrastructure in the suburbs is subsidized.  Not just pavement, but also water, sewer, power, and police and fire protection. 
--- I am not familiar with this. How do you mean? I think most of that breakdown is controlled by local governments? In saying that, I don't know if that is true of everywhere, but I am not sure how all areas of the US are ran so I might be incorrect. I also think some of the things that are being subsidized by a close city is obviously beneficial to that city, no? Why else would a city put money into subsidizing those areas? Why is that to be blamed on the suburbs? Blame the cities for putting that money out there for them.

- Driving pollutes.  Drivers don't pay the costs associated with that.
--- While I don't disagree, a lot of things cause pollution (City buses, trains, cabs, boats, etc). Isn't pollution a bigger problem in cities where there are less trees and plants? Not saying I'm good because I have trees and plants/flowers, but I'd rather not be entrapped in a pollution cloud daily. Sales tax, tags, gas tax. Drivers def pay some costs associated with that. To me cities cause more stress on the ecosystem than suburban/rural areas.

- Suburban zoning locks the area into one building style.  If you try to go back and build more dense development in an area that is already sprawling, the residents will NIMBY it to death.  This artificial suppression of supply is a major reason that urban development has become so expensive when it shouldn't be. 
--- Errrrrrr, I dunno about this one either. How much is an apartment in New York vs a house in rural AL? Isn't space suppressed much more in cities? No matter where you live space is finite.

- Suburban building styles make us less secure.  It eats land that could otherwise be dedicated to producing food, so we have less food security.  It locks us into high energy consumption so a little shock to the supply chain can hurt our economy. 
--- Cities also consume this precious land and turn it into a concrete jungle. Would you be more likely to see a corn crop in the middle of a city or a suburban area? Any living area is going to take away from land that could be used for other things.

- Decades of these imbalances also mean that people in suburban areas would continue reaping the returns of these unfair advantages even if the playing field were leveled today. 
--- I'm still not sure of what these unfair advantages are?

Ironically a lot of the champions of the suburbs think of themselves as champions of the free market.

Just some thoughts from me.

[redbird]

It's very lamentable how typically the developer for new subdivisions just clear cuts the forest, not trying to save even this healthiest trees.

It also can affect the environment around there. My subdivision is EXTREMELY windy. Other parts of town that would have just a minor breeze feel more major here. Why? There's hardly any trees to serve as wind breaks thanks to the builder having knocked down everything.

I live in a suburbia HOA subdivision, but it's considered a "starter house" sort of subdivision, so the houses are reasonable sizes and not McMansions. I don't intend to live here long term, just for a few more years. I really hate the small land plots with the neighbors being so super close to each other. I don't like having to pay HOA fees. I want more trees and a more woodsy feel to my yard instead of mostly grass, but the HOA won't allow it. Really looking forward to getting a house built on that land I own across town. It's also more Mustachian in that it's in biking distance to the places I drive the most - library, grocery store, and post office.

[dougules]

Excellent points.
You are more than free to write your Congressman/woman and take up your issue with them.

Yes, I do.  But congress voting in special subsidies for a special interest group (suburban voters) isn't right in the same way it's not right for them to give unfair advantages to big businesses.

My suburb is not actually WASPy...our breakdown on greatschools is actually only 31% white, which seems pretty accurate to me. My daughter is actually the only kid in her entire kindergarten class of 25 with two white parents (there are three others who have one white parent). The diversity of our particular suburb is one of its redeeming qualities in my opinion.

I'm curious, dougules, what do you mean about subsidization and people in a suburban setting paying the "full price"? I'm not trying to be snarky; I'd actually like to know what you mean by that? Additional taxes for certain criteria, or ?? I know where I live is unincorporated county and our property taxes are 1.9% with specific mello-roos for our specific infrastructure: schools, roads, fire, police. Water and sewer are not subsidized as far as I'm aware; we pay a separate bill for those.

I am by no means a "champion" of the suburbs...we live here, but it's not my ideal.

Well, the obvious first start would be to make it so that people who use extra resources pay for them.  Setting the gas tax so that it pays for all road spending would be the natural place to start.  Taxing for pollution would probably also be fair. 

Another big one would be to stop making urban redevelopment illegal.  I see people talking about moving to the suburbs just because it's more affordable, but it's only artificially cheaper.  Urban real estate is only so ridiculously expensive is because it's illegal to build in a lot of places.  It's the same reason marijuana is so much more expensive than spinach. 

The other point would be to make sure every road everywhere is as friendly to bicycles and pedestrians as it is to cars.  A lot of the suburbs as they exist now would be reasonable on a bicycle if the roads weren't made with only cars in mind. 
 

- Driving pollutes.

Well yeah . . . but it's not necessary to drive when you live in the suburbs.  I'm a 15 minute bike ride away from three grocery stores, a home depot, four or five restaurants, a library, several convenience stores, a gas station, and a couple different banks.  I'm 10 miles from work, and commute by bike several times a week.  We also have a bus system that runs through our suburbs and connects to the rest of Toronto's public transit (I don't use it much though, as my bike tends to be much faster).

My dad drives much more in a typical week than I do.  He's a farmer, and lives out in the middle of nowhere.  It would be extremely difficult to bike to do errands where he lives, and it's not possible to walk.

This sounds like it's different in Canada.  There are so many places around here where biking is theoretically possible but extremely impractical.  Even if it isn't statistically as dangerous as it feels, it's way too stressful to be realistic. 

And even way out in the country it's not right to build roads so that you only feel comfortable moving at 100km/hr (haha metric) in a 1 tonne box.  Does he visit his neighbors?  A lot of country roads are fine as is on a bicycle or by foot, though, because the traffic is so low. 

I'm not sure if this is different for the US than Canada . . . but over here in Ontario, the smaller the place that you live the more of a subsidy you get.  It's more expensive to run and maintain utilities in small towns, so the bigger cities help these smaller ones out financially.  I'm in a suburb on the outskirts of Toronto.  I'm probably getting a small subsidy on utility costs when compared to people living in the downtown core, but overall it's significantly smaller than the subsidy I'd be getting if I lived in a small farming or logging community a bit further North.  I spent most of my younger life living in a small Northern community, and can tell you first hand that it's not predominantly middle class people who are reaping the benefits of these subsidies . . . these communities tend to be quite poor and industrial/working class.

I'm pretty sure Canada's a completely different beast on this front. 

[dougules]

- Extra infrastructure in the suburbs is subsidized.  Not just pavement, but also water, sewer, power, and police and fire protection. 

--- I am not familiar with this. How do you mean? I think most of that breakdown is controlled by local governments? In saying that, I don't know if that is true of everywhere, but I am not sure how all areas of the US are ran so I might be incorrect. I also think some of the things that are being subsidized by a close city is obviously beneficial to that city, no? Why else would a city put money into subsidizing those areas? Why is that to be blamed on the suburbs? Blame the cities for putting that money out there for them.

In some places the suburban style development and denser development are in the same municipality.  I pay the same for electricity and sewer as somebody in a more spread out part of the same municipality even though I need less wire and less pipe per capita. 

- Driving pollutes.  Drivers don't pay the costs associated with that.

--- While I don't disagree, a lot of things cause pollution (City buses, trains, cabs, boats, etc). Isn't pollution a bigger problem in cities where there are less trees and plants? Not saying I'm good because I have trees and plants/flowers, but I'd rather not be entrapped in a pollution cloud daily. Sales tax, tags, gas tax. Drivers def pay some costs associated with that. To me cities cause more stress on the ecosystem than suburban/rural areas.

Per acre, yes, a city has a much bigger impact, but per person it's much less.  New York City has almost the same population as the whole state of New Jersey.  The people that live in packed into NYC represent huge tracts of land somewhere else that have been left to farm land or wilderness.  When you think about the environmental impact of NYC, don't forget to also picture the forests and apple orchards in Pennsylvania that are still there because people in NYC decided to build up instead of out. 

- Suburban zoning locks the area into one building style.  If you try to go back and build more dense development in an area that is already sprawling, the residents will NIMBY it to death.  This artificial suppression of supply is a major reason that urban development has become so expensive when it shouldn't be. 

--- Errrrrrr, I dunno about this one either. How much is an apartment in New York vs a house in rural AL? Isn't space suppressed much more in cities? No matter where you live space is finite.

Exactly. Land is finite.  So if you put more floor space on an acre then you leave more acres free somewhere else.  New York may not be the best example here since building a 100 story building is expensive, but I don' think row houses are really much more in terms of construction costs than a single house on a 1/4 acre lot. 

- Suburban building styles make us less secure.  It eats land that could otherwise be dedicated to producing food, so we have less food security.  It locks us into high energy consumption so a little shock to the supply chain can hurt our economy. 

--- Cities also consume this precious land and turn it into a concrete jungle. Would you be more likely to see a corn crop in the middle of a city or a suburban area? Any living area is going to take away from land that could be used for other things.

Same as above, every new infill building in the inner neighborhoods of a city is a little piece of a corn field on the edge of town that doesn't get turned into housing. 

- Decades of these imbalances also mean that people in suburban areas would continue reaping the returns of these unfair advantages even if the playing field were leveled today. 

--- I'm still not sure of what these unfair advantages are?

We've spent trillions of dollars over the years building infrastructure to support suburban living.  On the flip side there used to be a lot of urban infrastructure that either got neglected or actively removed.  If if things changed right now, people who want to live a suburban lifestyle would benefit from decades of infrastucture already in existence. 

[mbl]

Excellent points.
You are more than free to write your Congressman/woman and take up your issue with them.

Yes, I do.  But congress voting in special subsidies for a special interest group (suburban voters) isn't right in the same way it's not right for them to give unfair advantages to big businesses.

well....then the only thing left to do is ...complain...it's every American's right..:)