I grew up in the suburbs outside of Atlanta, and last year I moved from rural East Tennessee to the Bay Area. Having lived in all three (rural, suburban, and city), the suburbs are definitely my least favorite.
Suburbs sort of combine the worst aspects of city and rural life; too many people around that you don't really get space, privacy, or scenery, yet not enough people for there to be any interesting restaurants, farmer's markets, museums, coffee shops, or really just anything to do.
I love the Bay Area because it offers all the amenities of a big city, yet all sorts of natural beauty is within an hour's drive away. One of my relatives visited recently and was shocked at how you can be in downtown SF one minute and then standing in an old-growth forest of redwood trees twenty minutes later.
Unfortunately, I imagine once my wife and I have children, expenses will become rather difficult. I'm not sure how well a tiny apartment will accommodate a growing family, especially if we have two or three kids. So... I'll probably end up back in the suburbs eventually, but I'm not in a hurry, and it certainly isn't my preference to be there.
> Unfortunately, I imagine once my wife and I have children, expenses will become rather difficult. I'm not sure how well a tiny apartment will accommodate a growing family, especially if we have two or three kids. So... I'll probably end up back in the suburbs eventually, but I'm not in a hurry, and it certainly isn't my preference to be there.
You may find that your preferences change as a result of having children. Also - there are a lot of different living options falling somewhere between San Francisco and Atlanta suburbs with regards to population density. E.g. a small city with a walkable downtown, restaurants, etc., but affordable enough to own a decent-size house and a car.
Suburbs are way worse for children than cities are. As a teen/pre-teen in a city you have independence, you can go to places with your friends and hangout. Suburbs make your children dependent on you for rides and consequently stunts their emotional maturity.
I have no doubts that a city is better for teens/pre-teens, but I don't think growing up in a suburb stunts their emotional maturity. I grew up outside of DC in a decent suburb, and was able to get around via bike and meet my friends at the mall, the movie theater, etc. This was 2004-2007ish, not the 80's.
I spent a lot of time exploring with my friends, and being independent. I think it would be hard to have this kind of experience in a rural town, but in a suburb, it seems pretty normal.
A typical suburban-sprawl house is in an exclusively residential pod, separated from the nearest commercial pod by several miles on a fast road with no bike lane. If a teenager on a bike can reach any kind of business without mortal peril, it’s a different kind of suburb from the ones people react so negatively to.
> Suburbs sort of combine the worst aspects of city and rural life; too many people around that you don't really get space, privacy, or scenery, yet not enough people for there to be any interesting restaurants, farmer's markets, museums, coffee shops, or really just anything to do.
This is interesting. I live in a suburb and my suburb along with many of those neighboring all have good restaurants, farmer's markets and good coffee. I will admit that we don't have many museums, but the city is only a 20 minute drive if you want to do that.
I will say that we have a plethora of nice parks and a great library system. I've noticed that they are all cleaner and better maintained than that of the city too.
Yeah I grew up in the outer suburbs of the Atlanta metro and now live in the suburbs of a smaller southern city. And I see absolutely no reasons why suburban life would appeal to a young, single male especially like myself who can't drive. Im planning to get the hell out in a few years and live in a denser city, and maybe, if I'm able to retire, live in a rural area somewhere off a nice river.
Interestingly, the suburban are I live in now if in the middle of a lower income neighborhood and a typical middle-class southern suburb. There is slight walkability, but only towards the poorer area, the sidewalk abruptly ends heading the other way
The lack of amenities in most suburbs has nothing to do with "too few people around", it is actively enforced. Residential-only zoning, vs. natural "mixed" development in long-established towns and cities.
Suburbs sort of combine the worst aspects of city and rural life; too many people around that you don't really get space, privacy, or scenery, yet not enough people for there to be any interesting restaurants, farmer's markets, museums, coffee shops, or really just anything to do.
I love the Bay Area because it offers all the amenities of a big city, yet all sorts of natural beauty is within an hour's drive away. One of my relatives visited recently and was shocked at how you can be in downtown SF one minute and then standing in an old-growth forest of redwood trees twenty minutes later.
Unfortunately, I imagine once my wife and I have children, expenses will become rather difficult. I'm not sure how well a tiny apartment will accommodate a growing family, especially if we have two or three kids. So... I'll probably end up back in the suburbs eventually, but I'm not in a hurry, and it certainly isn't my preference to be there.