On the subject of errand running, I've often been mystified by the notion that drivable suburbanism is the superior developmental pattern for getting things done quickly. Obviously a big trip to the grocery or hardware store is more easily done with a car, but when taking many small trips, rather than one big one, I think walkable neighborhoods win out more often than people think. Going from (say) the doctor, to the pharmacist, to a restaurant for lunch, and back to work is maddening in a car in a place like Raleigh. But when I was working in downtown Washington, it was fast and refreshing to walk the few blocks from each spot to the next.
The difference, obviously, is kids. If you are a towing a child (and his gargantuan supply of diapers), it is much easier to bind him tightly into a car seat than manhandle him onto the bus. And indeed, whenever I write anything at all in praise of city living, I am contemptuously informed that I only like it because I don't have kids.
But this is not, really, a very good argument against city living. Most people spend the majority of their lives these days neither being nor having small children. And small children are the ones that make suburban living preferable. Older children are much easier to deal with in a city, because after age eleven or so, they no longer need to soak up hours of Mom's time being ferried around.
Not to mention the fact that there are many people who choose not to, or can't have, children at all.
That's not to say that we should force the suburbanites into the city, either. To each his own. But the mere fact that something is not convenient for toddlers, or their guardians, does not ipso facto mean we should discard it in favor of something that better pleases the Playskool set.
I agree with your conclusion. Just curious, though. I really don't know. Do suburbanites look down their noses at urbanites the way and to the extent that urbanites look down their noses at the lawnlovers? Is it really necessary to tell suburban dwellers, "to each his own"?
It is far easier to walk or take the bus than strap kids into car seats. We have playgrounds and a zoo within walking distance of our house--it's so easy just to throw the kids in a jogger stroller and walk to the zoo rather than load up the car and drive somewhere.
Do urbanites really only patronize businesses within walking distance of home or work? What if your doctor's office is 50 blocks away? What if the corner grocery store sucks? Where do you go when you want something like a TV or a chair and how would you even get it home?
I'm not asking to be obtuse, I've never lived in a city center without a car, and the only store I've ever been able to walk to is 7-11.
Noah--
Yes, urbanites do patronize businesses that are nearby. The bar within walking distance of your house is likely to be the one you drink at, and also local restaurants and the like.
TVs and Chairs can be delivered by companies catering to urbanites without cars (or ordered online) but the neighbourhood I'm in has big electronics stores, and furniture stores within walking distance. People create demand, and the market answers.
The density of people over a (relatively) large area makes subways and public transit systems useful for getting 50 blocks to the doctor's office. And, again, the density of people mean's there's probably more than one store or market to pick from within walking (or transit) distance. But the total amount of groceries you buy decreases to what you can comfortably carry.
"Older children are much easier to deal with in a city, because after age eleven or so, they no longer need to soak up hours of Mom's time being ferried around."
Right......that's because in the city, by the time they're eleven, they starting to experiment with all of the newly-acquired sex education knowledge and making small children of their own........
Noah,
Within 4-5 blocks of my front door there is a doctor, dentist, numerous banks, vet, cheap gym, fancy gym, cheap barber, expensive barber, drug store, little fancy grocery story, big chain supermarket, a mall, a hospital, about 30 resturants and bars, starbucks, dunkin donuts, independant coffe shop, an apple store, a best buy, everything you could possibly need is at most a few minutes walk away.
Amazingly, my entire high school class, and all teh other kids I grew up with, managed to spend seven years as teenagers in New York without any of them having kids of their own. Indeed, it's somewhat harder to have sex or take drugs or drink in New York, because there isn't anywhere that's out of adult eyesight. I suppose in theory middle class kids could start frequenting crack houses, but I never met one that did.
The difference, obviously, is kids. If you are a towing a child (and his gargantuan supply of diapers), it is much easier to bind him tightly into a car seat than manhandle him onto the bus.
I totally disagree with this. Constantly pulling your kid in and out of a carseat is the biggest pain in the world. Much, much easier to walk around with a stroller or (even better) a backpack. We spent six weeks in Italy a few summers ago, and it was so convenient to stuff the (then) one year old in a backpack in the apartment and walk all over the city to run errands. Plus, most kids love the train and bus, so it's usually a LOT easier to keep them interested and not thrashing about like a monkey.
Do urbanites really only patronize businesses within walking distance of home or work? What if your doctor's office is 50 blocks away? What if the corner grocery store sucks? Where do you go when you want something like a TV or a chair and how would you even get it home?
Of course not. Walking distance is a factor when picking a doctor, but obviously it's only one of many. Think of it like a doctor's office with really cool, up-to-date magazines in the waiting room. It's a huge plus, and all things being equal you'd pick that one vs. the crappy six-month-old-People office, but it's far from a dispositive factor.
As for your specific questions, you drive or take public to your doctor's office 50 blocks away. The corner grocery store usually does suck, so you only use it for dry goods when you run out and don't feel like going to the big once-every-two-weeks grocery store, which you drive or cab to. You drive to Best Buy to get the TV, or take a cab. (Incidentally, cabs are often forgotten about by non-city-dwellers. Yes, they're expensive. But if you limit usage to big shopping trips and bad weather commuting, you're probably going to be paying $150/month or so -- much cheaper than a car.) You have the chair delivered, like you do if you live in the suburbs and don't have an SUV or pickup.
I'm not asking to be obtuse, I've never lived in a city center without a car, and the only store I've ever been able to walk to is 7-11.
Do you work downtown? If so, living there would look a lot like working there. Sometimes you'd walk to the restaurant, sometimes you'd drive. Walking distance from the home/office would be a big perk for doctors, dentists, barbers, etc., but hardly the only one.
Speaking as someone who lives in a city with kids, it's a lot easier to have places that are walkable than getting a kid in and out of the car over and over. Especially when they're little and you can just wear them in an Ergo or something - and when they're bigger and can walk themselves. It's the in-between years of 2-5 or so where they get tired too fast to walk but are too heavy to carry for long that are tough. And of course when you have more than two or so kids it gets hard too because there are a few double strollers out there with a small footprint (Phil & Ted's Sport, for example) but most are too big to maneuver in a small urban store. But that said, there are totally drawbacks to each way. Cars suck, walking/public transit sucks - basically kids make your life harder and you kind of have to suck it up and deal with it if you want the good things that come with having kids as well. I will say that I hear more suburbanites whine about how hard it is to do anything now that they have kids than urbanites. I find that urbanites with kids keep doing mostly what they have been doing, while suburbanites fall into the stereotype of doing nothing but parenting for years.
I feel sorry for all those urbanites/suburbanites that simply don't know what is good for them in the opinions of suburbanites/urbanites.
I think you use your qualification that "I only like it because I don't have kids" too quickly. There are other points of view on this besides those of your suburban-parent acquaintances. To wit: I have two young kids, I live in D.C., and I like it plenty. Indeed, taking them on my errands-walks around the neighborhood on Saturdays is one of the pleasures.
I have two small kids (in Raleigh, actually!) and strapping them in does provide relief.. but older kids don't need it. Indeed, in a city with transit older kids don't need ferrying around because they can travel to stuff by themselves. And no, perverts on corners waiting to kidnap my 11 yr old daughter is a vanishingly small risk compared to testosterone impaired teenage boy offering to drive her somewhere.
jwh,
I'd be willing to bet that the rates of teen pregnancy among upper-middle class girls is lower on the Upper East Side of Manhattan than in Greenwich/Westchester/Saddle River.
JMO,
How much do 3 bedroom apartments big enough for all the crap that a family accumulates go for in your neighborhood? How are the public schools? When you are raising a family, you might not be able to name the nearest bar no less hang out there.
I would love to live in the city if I could afford the higher rents and the quality public services (schools) that are provided free in the suburbs.
Right......that's because in the city, by the time they're eleven, they starting to experiment with all of the newly-acquired sex education knowledge and making small children of their own........
You're kidding yourself if you think the suburbs are protection from having sex or doing drugs.
Secondly, living in an urban/walkable area doesn't mean high rise buildings and no cars. I live in a very walkable neighborhood, and the tallest apartment buildings are 3 stories. There are plenty of houses with yards in the area as well. Most people have cars, because they are very useful. I have the two major brand supermarkets for the city nearby. We also have a couple of other smaller supermarkets, Trader Joe's and Henry's within 1/2 mile. Lots of restaraunts, shops and bars within walking distance as well. Because there is so much so close, I don't need to hop in the car everytime I need something. I have the convenience of a car, and the convenience of walking. It is incredible nice when you just need a couple of things at the store, or go to the dentist for a quick check-up to not have to hop into a car.
We have a child in the Manhattan and we find it much easier to get out and do things than when we visit friends and family in the suburbs.
You toss a bottle and a small diaper bag into the stroller and roll to the grocery store, doctor office, park, shopping etc. Everything we need is less than a 5 min walk, and you can do it with baby in tow or it can be delivered if we don't feel like walking.
On nice days we will walk several miles around town with the baby, visit stores, or parks, or friends houses then take a cab back home if he gets cranky.
The main sacrifice living in the city is lack of space, so you cant have as many toys or clothes or extra junk as one can accumulate in the suburbs, but the environment outside the home is rich with sights and sounds.
I find that urbanites with kids keep doing mostly what they have been doing, while suburbanites fall into the stereotype of doing nothing but parenting for years.
Ding ding ding! We go to the same restaurants and bars that we would if we didn't have a kid, only now we either go with the kid (who loves it) or get carryout after she goes to bed. We save the really nice, multiple-hour places for the couple times a month we can afford a babysitter, or the once-a-quarter or so times when we play hooky when she's in preschool. The only material difference is we don't really go to movies anymore. You can't take a kid, and you don't want to waste a babysitter on one.
I would love to live in the city if I could afford the higher rents and the quality public services (schools) that are provided free in the suburbs.
I wouldn't be surprised if "free" isn't quite. We've lived in two $350k-$400k bungalows in urban neighborhoods in Chicago and Denver (the former in an up-and-coming neighborhood, the latter in an nice, established neighborhood). In both cases our annual property taxes were around $2000. That's about what my parents pay every two months in their nice, posh suburban neighborhood in Dallas. It's about half of what my sister-in-law pays in her nice Cleveland suburb (in a house that costs half as much). And as for schools, the Chicago one was really crappy, but magnet opportunities are plentiful. And the Denver ones are pretty good through middle school. High school is a different story, but that's still a decade away.
I find that urbanites with kids keep doing mostly what they have been doing
Yeah, and I really wish they wouldn't. These urbanite parents who insist on taking their squalling brats to the nice restaurant where my wife and I are trying to eat just drive me up the wall. My favorite restaurant in Santa Fe "strongly discourages" patrons from bringing young children, which is one of the reasons it's my favorite restaurant.
Bill: "Do suburbanites look down their noses at urbanites the way and to the extent that urbanites look down their noses at the lawnlovers? Is it really necessary to tell suburban dwellers, "to each his own"?"
Yes. They (1) take the attitude that city life is fun, but you are not really an adult until you "buy" (translation: take out a mortgage on) a house/car, live in the suburbs and pop babies out.
They also look down their noses at "youthful" hobbies (kendo, ultimate frisbee or guitar) as opposed to "adult" hobbies (golf, wine tasting). Witness the yuppie lady from Juno for an example of this attitude.
(1) "They" refers to suburbanites who look down their noses at urbanites, not all surbanites, of course.
As a city dweller and parent of a small (1.5y) child, I'd like to mention this awesome recent invention, a life and back saver for any parent, it's called the stroller, ours averages about 4 miles per day or about 2000 miles so far.
I'm not sure what we're counting as urban here. It seems to me that what the self-identified urbanites have in mind is something very narrow, like living within easy walking distance of one's downtown workplace in one of a few cities, mostly on the East Coast. I used to live in the Richmond District in San Francisco. Is that suburban? I now live in an old West Austin neighborhood. Suburban? I can tell you, the houses all have garages in these places, and people most definitely drive their kids to Target.
I think the categories of 'city' 'suburb' and 'small town' are nowhere nearly clear cut as people seem to be assuming. Many (usually older) suburban and small town neighborhoods are highly walkable and bikeable (with respect to bikes -- more so than city locations tend to be). But the newer subdivisions in 'sprawl land' tend to be isolated, and kids out there have to be driven everywhere outside the subdivision.
My own neighborhood looks suburban, but is about a mile from the center of a medium sized city (Ann Arbor). My kids walked and biked downtown from around age 12. But they have friends who live out in sprawl subdivisions who have to be driven everywhere. I would not want to live out there, but neither would I want to live without a car in a densely packed urban neighborhood. Some of our errands are by foot or bike (or, once in a great while, bus), but most are by car. So am I an example of urban or suburban living?
How many truly livable urban areas ARE there in this country? I've been to DC once and it, basically, horrified me. Cue flashbacks of the good 'ole Soviet Union urban culture with which I grew up. Now, I'll grant that some spots in SFBA and Seattle have their charm but just how many people CAN live there if they wanted to? Most of Bay Area and Seattle are still populated by suburbanites -- but with atrocious commutes, even with the relatively modest distances they have to travel. And costs-to-compensation ratio has always been dead against the coastal metros...
Tom,
Not that much more than a typical house in an upper middle class suburb. The charter schools and exam schools are quite good, and the tuition at the catholic schools is reasonable.
It's certainly something that can work for any decently educated and employed 30-something couple.
You say "tomayto" and I say "tomahto." C'mon, what next? A debate over khakis vs. jeans? Some of the above comments do sort of reek of "the auto is evil" meme.
I'm not sure what we're counting as urban here. It seems to me that what the self-identified urbanites have in mind is something very narrow, like living within easy walking distance of one's downtown workplace in one of a few cities, mostly on the East Coast.
Not me. Like I said above, I've lived in Chicago and Denver in my adult life. In both places, I lived in a house (at least when I was a homeowner) about 15 minutes from downtown by public transportation, 10 minutes by personal car, or 40 minutes running (I'm a runner).
I would define "urban" and "suburban" as follows: If you must have a car for every adult in the family in order to work and care for children, it's suburban. If even a single car is unnecessary, then it's urban. If you only need one car for the family, it's a judgment call, but I would probably put the dividing line at whether or not you use it every day.
I always wonder about the definitions of urban and suburban as they're used in discussions like this. I grew up in Raleigh, and I'm sad to say that it's unwalkable almost everywhere. Of course the suburbs are unwalkable, but so is the city. Even the majority of places within Raleigh's (relatively small) beltline are really crappy places to live without a car, or at least a bike. Of course, Raleigh itself is not a suburb--it's a midsized city.
Are the terms urban/suburban just being extended to signal density, or is there some other meaning that I'm missing?
Not for nothing do the suburbs remind me of Thoreau and his ennui.
Your mileage may vary.
Oh, and kids. Kids are like real estate: very high carrying costs. And the various laws and regulations surrounding same make it virtually impossible to turn a profit from them.
What good are kids if you cannot use them for labor?
Justin: the urban/suburban distinction as used by Megan applies to very few older cities in the US: New York, Boston, and to a much lesser extent, Washington, DC, Chicago, and San Francisco.
Newer cities such as Raleigh, Dallas, etc., which experienced their greatest growth after cars became widespread are not really relevant to this discussion.
How many truly livable urban areas ARE there in this country?
Going north to south, and starting on the East Coast: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, DC, Atlanta (I'm told), New Orleans, Chicago, Minneapolis, Austin, Denver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, maybe San Diego.
It seems to me that what the self-identified urbanites have in mind is something very narrow, like living within easy walking distance of one's downtown workplace in one of a few cities, mostly on the East Coast.
I'm talking about a neighborhood that has stores, shops, restaurants and bars that are within normal walking distance. I've noticed that these areas are fairly widespread. It doesn't need to be a "hip" area to qualify. There may be more than one neighborhood per city that is urban. The same city can even have multiple surburban areas. A small town could have an urban area. I grew up in a very small town that has more in common with the urban area of a big city than the suburban area of the big city.
"I think the categories of 'city' 'suburb' and 'small town' are nowhere nearly clear cut as people seem to be assuming."
Bingo. There's a difference between living in a city neighborhood and living downtown. I live in Pittsburgh's Squirrel Hill neighborhood, where it's possible for me to walk to two different movie theaters and patronize a wide variety of ethnic grocers while still having the comfort of my own house with a sizable backyard. Apropos, the only thing frustrating me in my walking is that the streets are crowded with women pushing strollers.
"To each their own" is a fair sentiment up to a point, but there's a big caveat: we have the cities and urban infrastructure we have because of the infrastructure and geopolitical system we have developed. Without, for example, the interstate highway system, Centerville, VA would not exist as it does today, and Tyson's Corner, VA could not possibly be one of the largest core commercial areas on the East Coast. All those expenditures, subsidies, etc. shape and limit the choices available to us, so it's important that we consider the benefits and drawbacks of those policies carefully.
In that context, I find the comments of people who say that urban areas are too expensive to be a little bit puzzling. I don't blame anyone for making the point that city living is too expensive for them personally, but surely the high cost premium of living in a desirable urban area suggests that we don't have enough supply to meet market demand at an equivalent price to suburban living. It's not as if cities are somehow much more expensive per person to operate relative to suburbs. In fact, once you take into account the different tax bases of urban and suburban areas, and once you account for the fact that suburbs don't generally exist without being dependent on an urban core, the opposite is generally true.
"Not me. Like I said above, I've lived in Chicago and Denver in my adult life. In both places, I lived in a house (at least when I was a homeowner) about 15 minutes from downtown by public transportation, 10 minutes by personal car, or 40 minutes running (I'm a runner)."
I have lived in Denver too, actually, and Denver is another fairly large city with lots of close-in neighborhoods of houses with yards. You can live there without a car. Most people don't, of course. In Denver, I think people tend to call the prewar neighborhoods urban but the equally close '50s and '60s neighborhoods, well, not so much. The Highlands neighborhood is urban, but Southern Hills or Wellshire is not really. Highlands looks urban because it is prewar and was not build with the assumption that everyone would drive a car. Now, there's not much difference in accessibility by public transportation or on foot.
I have two kids, neither of whom will sit in a stroller for more than 30 seconds. Fun! But putting them in the car is monstrous pain, and I'd rather struggle with the stroller/backpack than have to drive. The main reason I don't want to live in a "walkable" neighborhood is that I hate people, and I don't want them walking past my house all the time.
I think Creech hits the nail on the head. These arguments are only valuable to those who don't value personal preferences and who place too much faith in city planning. Wife and I have a child and live in the suburbs. Car travel is easier for us b/c our child won't sit still unless restrained and tends to roam. If we were on a train it would be a constant struggle to keep our daughter stationary and happy. But we know that suburban living is what we enjoy and what works for us. We don't want to impose our standards on everyone.
I would like to add that dogs are another factor missing from this equation. I know many, many, many city-dwellers somehow manage having a dog without a yard (my sister included). I applaud those of you who do so. Myself, I like opening the door and letting the dogs go chase squirrels without me.
"Going north to south, and starting on the East Coast: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, DC, Atlanta (I'm told), New Orleans, Chicago, Minneapolis, Austin, Denver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, maybe San Diego."
Humbug. 6 of the 7 years I've lived in Pittsburgh, I've managed to do it without a vehicle. Many of my octogenarian neighbors _never_ have owned a vehicle. Everything they need is within a 5-10 minute walk (maybe a bit long when pushing an "old lady cart").
If that's not livable, then I don't know what is.
I'll third the car-mandatory crappiness of Raleigh. A couple times my ride was in the shop and I had to bike from my house inside the beltline to NCSU and it was always a nightmare. Barely any roads go through anywhere and those that do are 35 mph quasi-highways with no bike lane.
But to be fair to the city -- it totally sucks to drive there, too. Venture 6 blocks away from the capitol and the roads become a horrible tangled mess.
Now I live in Suburban Philly and I use my car so little that I sold it (it helps to be 1 blk from the train to the city and 3 blks from a shopping center complete with Trader Joes). The rare times I do need a car, I can coördinate with my girlfriend. Not that the roads out here are any less of a snarled madness.
See, in the suburbs it isn't a nightmare to drive the way it is in urban areas, so hopping into a car is no big deal. We don't have to walk five blocks to find our car where we had to park it the previous time we drove, and then drive around at our destination for twenty minutes looking for a parking place. (And we rarely have to pick up a couple of things at the store, because we can make big shopping runs and stock up.)
(I love the "you can just put your kid in the stroller and walk to the grocrey store" argument. Yeah, if you want to get milk. If you want to actually buy all your groceries, little Timmy might feel a little uncomfortable with them all piled on his head in the stroller.)
Hey, if you want to use mass transit or walk, fine with me. But please would urban snobs stop trying to convince me that these are better than driving. I'd rather drive. The only place I wouldn't rather drive is into the city itself.
Rob writes: "The main reason I don't want to live in a "walkable" neighborhood is that I hate people, and I don't want them walking past my house all the time."
Rob, I hate people as well, and that's why my ideal house would be on a dead-end street. Still, if you choose a house on one of the less-traveled side streets, it's really not so bad. Just make sure you have a bit of a front yard (i.e. no houses with stoops) and it'll act as a buffer against the nosy peering into your windows.
As the parent of a 4 month old living in the outskirts of a small city near the Canadian border, two questions pop to mind:
1) All this talk about walking around the city with your kids is great, but what do you do when it's cold? I can't begin to tell you how much I long for spring, when I will be able to take my boy and my dog on proper walks again. I'm pretty sure 30 minute walks in 20 degree F. weather are not appropriate for wee kids.
2) And for how much easier it is to get the kid on a bus than in a car seat -- does that imply the kid has no car-seat-like protection on the bus?
David writes: "Hey, if you want to use mass transit or walk, fine with me. But please would urban snobs stop trying to convince me that these are better than driving. I'd rather drive. The only place I wouldn't rather drive is into the city itself. "
I don't think anybody is advocating abandoning driving altogether, particularly if you have small kids. It's entirely possible to drive to the grocery store on the weekends for the bulk of the items, and then stroll the kids to the bakery to get fresh bread on the weekdays.
Sol writes: "All this talk about walking around the city with your kids is great, but what do you do when it's cold? I can't begin to tell you how much I long for spring, when I will be able to take my boy and my dog on proper walks again. I'm pretty sure 30 minute walks in 20 degree F. weather are not appropriate for wee kids."
There are a lot of Orthodox Jews in my neighborhood, and, as a group, they don't seem to have any qualms against doing this.
I think it's OK, so long as the kids dressed appropriately.
As a parent of two small children who lives in the city (Chicago), I had to laugh at the notion that schlepping kids in and out of their car seat for multiple errands is easier than hopping on the bus/train or strapping them in the stroller for a walk around the neighborhood.
I also chuckled audibly at the poster who claimed his public services in the suburbs are "free." You sure about that? Because the property taxes in many suburbs around here can be two or three times what they are in the city. We can argue all day long about which mode of living is superior, but the one thing that's universal is that if there's a public service that you're fond of where you live, you're almost certainly paying for it in some way.
I think there's also a disconnect when you discuss the term "urbanism." It doesn't mean people live the same way they do in Manhattan or Chicago or San Francisco. It means, simply, that there's a density of population and the ability to shop, work and live without needing a car to get most of those places (either through walkability or ample public transit options).
My hometown, a little Midwest burg of about 35,000 plus a couple thousand students at the small liberal arts college in town, has an entire downtown area that fits the definition. Everyone still has backyards (albeit smaller than the suburban McMansions on the outskirts of town) and still owns cars. But most people walk to work, the grocery or the drug store or their favorite local hangouts.
By contrast, Indianapolis has only a handful of pockets that fit the definition (Broad Ripple, Mass Ave., Fountain Square, etc.), despite being a major city.
David,
What about your commute? Mine is 15-20 each way. I work with people who spend between 45min and 1.5 hours each way every day.
That's not to say that we should force the suburbanites into the city, either. To each his own. But the mere fact that something is not convenient for toddlers, or their guardians, does not ipso facto mean we should discard it in favor of something that better pleases the Playskool set.
Of course, to each his own. Which is something that one would wish Megan would keep in mind more often.
The issue I occasionally have with Megan's writing about city living (or other things, lke the cooking thread last week for example), is that she often confidently proclaims city living to be superior to other forms of living (or similar things - like how hommade tomato sauce is better than jars for all purposes no matter what) without considering that it may not be true for some sets of people - like the Playskool set.
Whereas some of us think that it is incredibly nice when you just need a couple of things at the store, or go to the dentist for a quick check-up, to be able to hop into a car.
See, in the suburbs it isn't a nightmare to drive the way it is in urban areas, so hopping into a car is no big deal. We don't have to walk five blocks to find our car where we had to park it the previous time we drove, and then drive around at our destination for twenty minutes looking for a parking place. (And we rarely have to pick up a couple of things at the store, because we can make big shopping runs and stock up.)
When I want to find my car, I go to my garage that is ten steps from the back door of my house. When I want to pick up a few things from the store, I can either drive (quicker) or take my daughter up to the train stop and go to the Whole Foods a stop away (much more fun for her). To go to work I can either drive myself (10 minutes, and most convenient in bad weather), take the bus (20 minutes) or the train (25 minutes, but the downtown stop is in the middle of a bunch of stores where I can run errands). Or I can run in (40 minutes) and take public transportation home. When we want to go out and drink, we have two public transportation alternatives that will get us home until 1:00 AM or so. Our typical Saturday involves walking up to the big park (10 minutes, but 5 minutes is cutting through the pretty high school campus), playing with the ducks and geese, and then heading by the brunch/lunch seafood place on the way back.
Urban living isn't about everyone living like they do on the Upper West Side. It's about having more options than "drive 15 minutes and...."
I'm a big fan of teh OLD urbanism.
We live in a small city in the midwest. We can walk to parks, churches, the library, restaurants and store. But when we need to do our week's shopping or hit the doctor, we can drive less than 3 miles on uncongested roads. And there are 3 other good-sized towns within a 20 mile drive (which means 20 minutes drive around here-- no traffic!) that have all the amenities ours lacks.....
It's the best of all worlds. And we're an hour from Chicago, too....
The choice isn't just NYC v. Overcrowded Suburbs....
More most of the country, there's a third way! =)
False dichotomy. It's a function of the (mostly wealthy, white, privileged) readership of the blog that not a single user has even mentioned rural living, as if 'should I live in this part of a big city, or that part of a big city?' is the only question.
As far as I'm concerned, and as richcromwell points out, this sort of discussion doesn't serve anyone's purpose (in the sense of 'live where you want to live, and be happy') save that of people who would use coercive power to force others to live in a lifestyle they would not ordinarily choose. Live where you want to live, and quit bitching about people who choose differently.
Next time I'll make sure to close my blockquote propertly...
Deirdre & Howl: white collar (especially hi tech) jobs are more of a problem in rural and small town areas. Blame the business majors who still largely refuse to admit the advantages of telecommuting in the innumerable companies they collectively [mis-]manage. I've met [physically and virtually] a few people who were able to do well in my niche out of a rural setting but they are few and far between; besides this arrangement seems to only become possible after a long career in metro areas as a sort of semi-retirement. Overall, this is probably much harder to achieve than finding oneself a nice urban area to live in.
Max,
"for a family that isn't independently wealthy, enjoyable urban living is largely a pie-in-the-sky."
It also depends if you want to have kids when you're 23 vs. 33. It's workable for most college educated 30 somethings with decent jobs - but you have to put off having kids until you're at a more mid-career level.
hard to push a stroller with six inches of snow on the sidewalk
hard to push a stroller with six inches of snow on the sidewalk
???
Hard to drive with 6 inches of snow on the roads too.
Staash is right. Pittsburgh is the best for urban and suburban "urbanite' living. I grew up first on the South side of Pittsburgh (hardcore, no-car needed urbanite living), then in a 100 year old suburb ( soft no-car needed, but it's no problem to park urbanite living). I followed this trend in my adult life when buying houses-- great houses that are cheap by anyone's standard. Anyone wanna beat a nice 85 year old (think high quality construction) three bedroom house in a good school district for $100K?
Great universities, good schools, awesome football, affordable housing--
Sorry, yinz guys, but Pittsburgh knocks you all out.
Anyone wanna beat a nice 85 year old (think high quality construction) three bedroom house in a good school district for $100K?
I hate to ask, but what shape are the plumbing/heating/electricals in with such a house? I don't imagine there's central A/C to be had, but in PA that should not be a big deal...
We don't have to walk five blocks to find our car where we had to park it the previous time we drove, and then drive around at our destination for twenty minutes looking for a parking place. (And we rarely have to pick up a couple of things at the store, because we can make big shopping runs and stock up.)
I don't do this and I live in an urban area, like I said not all urban areas are downtown with high-rises, no cars and no parking. Mine happens to be a mix of fairly small apartment buildings, townhomes and detached houses with yards. I have a garage so I have no problems parking. Street parking is always available within a block of where I live anyways. We have large drug stores and supermarkets with plenty of parking, just like the suburbs. When I want to stock up, I can drive. If I just need to grab a few things, I can walk.
The problem with the suburban lifestyle is not that people are choosing to live in that particular way. The reason it's such a terrible phenomenon is that it's the result of a system of incentives and subsidization, and urban areas end up providing the tax base for those costs.
It's not even about kids. I've done 5 years of NYC living and more than that in suburbs living, and I can tell you that errand running and driving does work out better.
Yes, technically, the doctor, pharmacist, and restaurant are within 5 minutes walk of your work. Which, if you're lucky, is "only" 30 minutes subway ride from your work (none of my co-workers were that lucky). But the reality is, if you live on the Upper West Side, your doctor/dentist is on the Upper East, your work is Midtown or Wall Street, the restaurant you want to go to is in Little Italy or Chinatown, the shop your wife wants to get clothes at is in SoHo, and the trendy new bar your friends want to meet at is in TriBeCa or the Lower East Side or Brooklyn this week.
Just because stuff exists within five minutes of you, doesn't mean you never go beyond that. In fact, if you're a good adventurous young city type, you want to take advantage of all this wondrous variety the city has to offer. If all you wanted to do was go home-work-eat-sleep-repeat, you could do that cheaper out in the burbs. So you don't end up with convenient 5 minute walks, you end up with hour-long multi-transfer slogs through the (admittedly impressive) public transit.
Once you include all the places you actually go, not just the theoretical stuff within walking distance, you start comparing 45-90 minute public transit excursions with 10-40 minute drives, and you discover that a whole weekend's worth of city errand running can be done in a single morning trip driving round the suburbs. That "out of the way" place your friends want to go is now a (subjectively) tedious 25 minute drive, rather than a two-transfer 90 minute subway ride.
Max writes: "I hate to ask, but what shape are the plumbing/heating/electricals in with such a house? I don't imagine there's central A/C to be had, but in PA that should not be a big deal..."
My buddy just purchased a house where lebecka is from (South Side, albeit the slopes) for $80k. 3 stories + a basement. The outside still needs around $10k of work to look nice, but it's structurally sound. Plumbing/heating/electricals are fine and it was recently remodeled.
I can't really vouch for the school district though, having no personal knowledge of it. If you don't mind spending an extra $50k, a 10 minute street car ride from there will take you to Mr. Lebanon, which has one of the best school districts in the region.
That "out of the way" place your friends want to go is now a (subjectively) tedious 25 minute drive, rather than a two-transfer 90 minute subway ride.
That reminds me of a word that we used to use when we lived in Hyde Park in Chicago and friends wanted us to slog way up on the northside -- something not even convenient to the highway, either -- for pizza or Cuban or whatever.
"No."
Seriously, driving 30 minutes or taking an hourlong public jaunt is just not something it would occur to us to do for fun.
Sorry, Staash, but Pittsburg is the armpit of the world.
Staash,
What are the job and career prospects in Pittsburg? It's great that you can buy a house for 80k but if you can't find a job...
"Sorry, Staash, but Pittsburg is the armpit of the world."
Sorry, what's the context again? My attention slipped when I was admiring my AFC championship tickets.
... and it's "Pittsburgh", by the way.
and it's "Pittsburgh", by the way
I could be wrong, but I think "Pittsburg" is a rapidly-dying podunk community in Kansas. Which would make him right the first time.
jmo writes: "What are the job and career prospects in Pittsburg? It's great that you can buy a house for 80k but if you can't find a job..."
They're decent if you're in tech, health care, or higher education. So-so in everything else.
It's not a booming economy, but it's not busting like it is in some other places.
[My personal lifestyle] is best. For support, see [facts specific to my neighborhood, job, and city]. Your lifestyle is wasteful, inefficient, stupid, and no fun. For support, see [stereotype about different lifestyle].
Hauling kids in and out of cars and car seats is a pain in the rear. Strapping a kid into a stroller (or sling, or baby bjorn, etc.) and grabbing a diaper bag while you go for a walk to the bus or corner market is much less stressful. I've done it both ways.
Which is not to say that there aren't other advantages to living in the suburbs, esp. when you have kids, but "ease" of running errands isn't one of them.
It isn't necessarily all one or the other you can live in a city that has elements of both. We lived a number of years in Melbourne, Australia which had an extensive public transportation (lived in one of the inner city suburbs, in NYC terms think Queens with single family homes and about 20 minutes by train from downtown). We had at that time two boys 18 and 36 months. We were within walking distance of say 75% of day-day errands though there were a few things that were less convenient and you needed a car (for example kids doctor, or if you needed to do shopping for bigger items than fit in the back of the car). I think it helps to remember that 'urban' and 'suburban' in practice have some areas that in practice are a blend of both.
I love how in this dicussion, "kids" almost invariable refers to one kid, or at most 2. When the kids outnumber the adults in the household, and kids do what kids do (test their boundaries), any kind of environment with a dense enough population to be considered urban would be absolute hell for the parents (and dangerous for the boundary-testing kids). That doesn't even account for the incremental costs of providing additional space and stockpiled supplies for larger families. Since 2 kids per couple doesn't meet the necessary reproduction rate to maintain the existing population, urban environments as currently implemented are designed for demographic decay. They can only sustain growth by importing people.
I love how in this dicussion, "kids" almost invariable refers to one kid, or at most 2.
Hey, man, I'm working as quick as I can here, but I need to wait for the last one to move out of the "cute baby" stage so my wife starts wishing for another baby. Until that point, it's all "NO MORE, I HATE DIAPERS!!!!"
When the kids outnumber the adults in the household, and kids do what kids do (test their boundaries), any kind of environment with a dense enough population to be considered urban would be absolute hell for the parents (and dangerous for the boundary-testing kids).
Why? This isn't intuitive. The few friends that we have with 3+ kids live in urban environments and they're turning out just fine. Heck, with both come from families with 3 kids. I was probably right at the dividing line between urban and suburban, and my wife right between exurban and rural, and my upbringing was much safer and productive (we have eight college or graduate degrees between the three of us; they have four, but my wife is responsible for three of them and the fourth was obtained by the skin of her sister's teeth).
I do agree that a big family requires more space, which is cheaper in the suburbs, but that could just as easily be a negative trade-off (i.e., big families live in the suburbs for the space despite the downside).
Do you work downtown? If so, living there would look a lot like working there. Sometimes you'd walk to the restaurant, sometimes you'd drive.
Mercifully, I work in the suburbs. Ironically when I did work downtown (Denver), I walked to lunch maybe 5% of the time. Usually I drove into the suburbs! Though sometimes I did take light rail. Which is interesting because being able to take rail from Auraria to 16th street was the only thing that made those restaurants at all accessible. Walking from 7th & Colfax to 16th & Market takes as long as driving to Lakewood.
Greater Denver is feasible without a car, but only due to our well-run-yet-massively-subsidized transit system. But only the poor and trendy actually do it, because it means giving up an intolerably large slice of your life waiting for buses and/or rail.
[My personal lifestyle] is best. For support, see [facts specific to my neighborhood, job, and city]. Your lifestyle is wasteful, inefficient, stupid, and no fun. For support, see [stereotype about different lifestyle].
I think that about sums it up. A senseless discussion, but the supposed superiority of the urban lifestyle is something Ms. McArdle brings up every now and then. On several occasions she's also argued that spending money on high-def big screen TVs doesn't make sense and people would get more value if they spent that money on travel instead.
It's an odd economist who tells people that their personal evaluations of utility are wrong, but there you have it.
Re: that's because in the city, by the time they're eleven, they starting to experiment with all of the newly-acquired sex education knowledge and making small children of their own
Yes, god knows country folk never have rolls in the hay (Hmm, the very nature of that figure of speech suggests illicit sex is hardly alien to the rural world!)
By the way, as an urbanite (inner city Baltimore) I do drive places, especially to go shopping. But I also bike whenever and wherever I can. It's especially convenient to have the bike at work for lunchtime trips to the bank, post office, Subway, Barnes & Noble, etc.
I also do drive to the bar on Fridays, but that's because I'm gay and there are no gay bars in my neighborhood, while Baltimore's gay-town (Mount Vernon) offers no secure place to leave a bicycle at night.
Re: These urbanite parents who insist on taking their squalling brats to the nice restaurant where my wife and I are trying to eat just drive me up the wall.
Unruly children in inappropriate places is hardly unique to the city.
Re: I would define "urban" and "suburban" as follows: If you must have a car for every adult in the family in order to work and care for children, it's suburban.
See above. I can walk to Camden Yards, the Inner Harbor and City Hall. If the fact that my partner and I both have cars makes this a suburban neighborhood, then there's no such thing as an urban neighborhood.
Walking from 7th & Colfax to 16th & Market takes as long as driving to Lakewood.
7th and Colfax isn't remotely "downtown" Denver. It's not even LoDo. It's the far side of the university campus. The two places I've worked in Denver (15th and Wynkoop, and the Capitol), I've walked to lunch 95% of the time.
As for only the poor and trendy, I'm decidedly neither and I take public 50% of the time (the remainder is split evenly between driving and running). My colleagues mostly do the same.
This discussion presumes that employment is in a safe walking neighborhood that is desirable and affordable. Let's say in DC you work at the Navy Yard, anyone want to live in that neighborhood? Or walk to the Metro after working late? Can someone making $10/hr afford to live in Georgetown or Adams Morgan?
There is also a presumption of wealth or relatively high paying job since housing, food, services, etc. cost more at urban centers than in the surrounding suburbs. I lived right downtown in Norfolk, but rather than going to the urban grocery store a mile away, I drove 10 miles into Virginia Beach to a store of the same chain where I found better selection and better prices. Walking a block over to a street lined with restaurants or 2 blocks to the mall was convenient but then I had a decent amount of disposable income even after paying high rent.
Studies have shown that a family earning below the poverty line, can live much better in a rural area/outer suburb than in the urban environment. Living downtown means you are spending more money on external entertainment/services. In DC, paying for the 4 people on the Metro is decidedly more expensive than driving and paying parking.
The answer is obvious: If you have small children, you should be able to walk down to the ground floor of your apartment, drop them in a box in the morning, and then go about your business. At the end of the day, go back to that box and pick them up.
What happens to them after you drop them in that box? Why, a tube deposits them on a high-speed rail that takes them to a very tiny city on the edge of your city, where they work as tiny lawyers and bus drivers and whatnot. Then, at the end of the day, they get back on the same tiny train and come back to the box in your apartment.
I'm with Rob - the reason I would hate to live in a city is other people. I'm an introvert, so I figure I'd be exhausted at the end of the day, trying to deal with people absolutely everywhere. I don't like noise, and when people talk about 'interesting sights and sounds' as though they were a good thing, my mind just reels.
And honestly, this is why I object to Alexi's characterization of suburbia as tax leeches - because the next 'logical' step in this argument is to make me move to the city. I'd much prefer to reform the tax system with federalist principles, so that there's no reason to prevent me going my way and you going yours.
I haven't finished all the comments, but I've noticed that many people are comparing suburban-living-with-car to urban-living-with-car, and touting urban living because you can walk AND drive! That's dandy if you can afford a car, but for many, the increased expense and hassle of having a car in the city outweighs the benefits.
I live in Brooklyn, and I do have a car now, because my boyfriend got it when he needed to drive to work. And it's great, because we can go to Costco and take trips. But we pay as much for our parking space as some people do on rent (outside New York, of course). We can afford that because we have two incomes, but if we had a kid, and had to pay for child care? Or had to live on one income? I don't think we could afford it.
I do love being within walking distance of our friends, our favorite pub, two bookstores, and a movie theater. But I highly doubt my lifestyle is cheaper than that of most suburbanites.
Re: $100k house in nice walkable suburb in Pittsburgh-- Bought in 2002 in very good condition plumbing/electrical wise. I have 3 small kids, so family-friendly/parks/pool/schools were important. I have a streetcar at the end of my block and buses galore to get to work.
Jobs are steady, unemployment rates put out yesterday and they were pretty good in comparison to the rest of the country.
Pittsburgh may not be a "cool" city like Seattle or SF (or San Diego, which is sooo cool, Chargers Fan-- oh, so sorry! Stillers just kicked your tuchus across the road!), but it is a very, very nice place to live.
T = travel time to and from the store
I = time spent locating all the items
L = time spent waiting in line to buy the items
P = time spent paying for the items
The time spent on a trip to the grocery store is T+I+L+P. The problem is that T and L are basically constants. If you take "many small trips" to the grocery store instead of one big trip, you waste a lot more time shopping, most of it standing in lines or schelping over to the store for the Nth time this month. Why would I want to spend three hours shopping spread out over six 30-minute trips (of which 20 each are spent walking and standing in lines) when I can do it all in one 45-minute trip instead?
I've done the "live downtown and walk everywhere" thing. It took a lot longer to get almost everything done than it does now in the suburbs, and I'm a single guy with no kids. Sure, if I wanted to see a play or go to a club or a fancy restaurant it would have been perfect -- but I hardly ever want to do those things. MOST people rarely do those things. For a yuppie like Megan it is ideal, but for most folks city life stinks.
Quite often literally. :)
There are a lot of places in urban/city areas that are not at all walkable, and where owning a car is still a necessity.
I lived in the Reservoir Hill section of Baltimore for 3 years. The only stores in walking distance were the kind of urban grocery stores where you need to conduct your transaction through Lexan. I still needed to drive everywhere, and often to the suburbs. I was really close to work, but not close enough to drive, and there was absolutely no nightlife.
When it came time for me to buy a house, I moved to the suburbs, near a mall and several shopping centers. My commute to work is a lot longer, but it is nice being near shopping and the like, not having to worry about parking, and not having people hassle me for change on the walk to my car.
Sol,
Yes, that's exactly what it implies.
Sol may not have noticed that the adults on buses are less protected, too, becuase buses don't have seat belts. Fortunately, at least in San Francisco, most bus accidents involve hitting pedestrians, which doesn't really place the passengers at much risk.
Howl mentions rural living. Unless one is engaged in rural work, rural living is effectively suburban living, only more so.
Ahhh. Urban living. Last week a group of young adults threatened to kill my dog while they were buying their drugs in the building next door. Another evening I walked out with my dog to see a man urinating on the side of my apartment building.
Urban living stinks. The grime, crime, and general feeling that many people don't want to live here, they just do not have much of a choice. I myself would have left a long time ago if not for the suppose wealth of jobs.
I have a part in this as I realized I do not know the name of any of my neighbors. I take that is par for the course for a majority of urbanites. Yet they act like urban living is made up of one big happy family.
BTW, I live in what people keep telling me is one of the better neighborhoods of NYC. Astoria.
I cannot wait to get out of here. To each his own.
I have three young children and live in a small town. My experience is that walking errands are MUCH easier with young kids -- we are fortunate in that our town predates the automobile by about 200 years, so we can walk to the market, the drugstore, the shops downtown, the park, the beach, etc.. It is a lot easier to do multiple errands with kids if you can walk there (the littler ones can be put in a stroller, the older ones can bounce around and it becomes an adventure for them esp. if you have planned extra time for them to look for caterpillars or toss sticks in the stream as you go by).
In the city, in my limited experience of visiting friends in Boston, it is a bit harrowing getting multiple small children on and off subways and buses, especially with a stroller. A baby in a sling or backpack is doable, but there is an awkward age wherein children want to walk but are too young to walk far or in the direction you want them to. Which may be why my city-dwelling friends tend to have maybe 1 or 2 children, widely spaced. But, in decent weather and walkable areas, the city seemed preferable to running car errands.
My idea of hell would be the suburbs, because getting kids in and out of the car (especially little ones still in car seats) is akin to the the ninth circle of hell. In my experience, you can get a 2 year old into and out of the car a maximum time of twice per day. Anything more than that and you are asking for what we call "board girl," wherein child makes her body as rigid as possible, so you cannot strap her in, while all the while screeching at the top of her lungs. Add to that the anonymous suburban neighborhoods populated by people who are never home, so that the older kids cannot be set free to roam about the neighborhood -- I cannot understand why people live there. Well, I do understand -- because to live in a quaint colonial-era town means spending massive $$$ for a small, old and drafty house. I think its a fair trade-off for the lifestyle, though.