Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thread has been interesting. Thank you for those who are participating.
Here's my conundrum. I generally love living in cities and larger buildings that allow me to conveniently access daily needs, as well as entertainment. The best place I've ever lived for that type of lifestyle was when I was living in Queens, NY.
We live on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur now, and whereas it's pretty densely populated, it's not what I would consider to be walkable. Still, we have a mall located in the basement of our building so our needs are met simply by getting on an elevator.
But my wife and I have a daughter now, and to be honest, I'd love to have a situation similar to what we had in Queens. I felt like kids in NYC were so free because they could walk anywhere and public transit was always an option (and NYC is much safer than people say on the internet). But here's the thing - I kind want to get a dog, and I think it's cruel to keep a dog in an apartment all day while my wife and I are at work.
So that means we'd need a house with a bit of land so the dog can run around. Should we move back to the US, that leaves us with some options:
1. Small suburban cities like Quincy, MA or New Rochelle, NY. They have apartments near their city centers and single family houses the further you get away from the trains. Still, unlike many suburbs around the US, you do have access to public transit. If you can afford landed property, it's going to be quite small.
2. Exurbs like Billerica, MA or Windsor Locks, CT - They have some public transit, but people don't move there for that. They move there because land is cheaper, so you can have a lot of land, but the towns themselves are kind of "meh."
3. Smaller, independent cities like Glen Falls, NY or Keene, NH - These cities have urban amenities, but little public transit. They also have fewer urban issues that many US cities face. Houses tend to be cheaper, and you can own a bit of land, but job prospects can be slim
4. Living in the countryside with many acres of land - Sounds nice, but I want a neighborhood. I want to know my neighbors and even interact with them.
Sometimes I think my ideal location will have a small 1 story house in a neighborhood with a small front yard, and 10,000 acres in my backyard
I hope this is the appropriate forum for this question.
Long story short, I love cities. Currently, I live in Kuala Lumpur in a large high rise condo complex (2100 units). I grew up in a exurb of Boston with a decent sized yard and we needed to drive to get to most places.
I've spent the last 20+ or so years living in various cities across the globe, and I've lived in either apartments or condo apartments during that time. I've always enjoyed walking down the street to get groceries or hop on public transit.
But I'm getting older now and I've been thinking about the idea of moving to smaller towns, suburbs and small cities back in the US.
So my question is this: for those of you who live in dense cities in apartments or condo apartments, do you miss having a house with a yard and a bit of land?
I was fortunate to grow up in a suburb that provided me with a good education and lifetime friends. However, I always knew that I wanted to live in my or other cities...or at most a higher-density suburb. (My hometown is perhaps "medium-density".) That's been my life for the past few decades.
There was a brief period during the early part of the pandemic where I thought a little space might do me good. However, I'm glad I didn't act on that notion.
While I won't rule out moving to the suburbs as retirement looms in the not-so-distant future, I would still prefer an apartment or condo to a house. I'm not one who entertains much at home and if I need outdoor space then I can go to a park. Slightly more likely that I'd move out to a quieter, more leafy part of town that still gives me easy enough access to the things that I enjoy.
Of course, I say this currently living solo. Should I find a partner who wants to retreat to the 'burbs, I might be open to a small rancher...but we'd be splitting that yard maintenance bill.
This thread has been interesting. Thank you for those who are participating.
Here's my conundrum. I generally love living in cities and larger buildings that allow me to conveniently access daily needs, as well as entertainment. The best place I've ever lived for that type of lifestyle was when I was living in Queens, NY.
We live on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur now, and whereas it's pretty densely populated, it's not what I would consider to be walkable. Still, we have a mall located in the basement of our building so our needs are met simply by getting on an elevator.
But my wife and I have a daughter now, and to be honest, I'd love to have a situation similar to what we had in Queens. I felt like kids in NYC were so free because they could walk anywhere and public transit was always an option (and NYC is much safer than people say on the internet). But here's the thing - I kind want to get a dog, and I think it's cruel to keep a dog in an apartment all day while my wife and I are at work.
So that means we'd need a house with a bit of land so the dog can run around. Should we move back to the US, that leaves us with some options:
1. Small suburban cities like Quincy, MA or New Rochelle, NY. They have apartments near their city centers and single family houses the further you get away from the trains. Still, unlike many suburbs around the US, you do have access to public transit. If you can afford landed property, it's going to be quite small.
2. Exurbs like Billerica, MA or Windsor Locks, CT - They have some public transit, but people don't move there for that. They move there because land is cheaper, so you can have a lot of land, but the towns themselves are kind of "meh."
3. Smaller, independent cities like Glen Falls, NY or Keene, NH - These cities have urban amenities, but little public transit. They also have fewer urban issues that many US cities face. Houses tend to be cheaper, and you can own a bit of land, but job prospects can be slim
4. Living in the countryside with many acres of land - Sounds nice, but I want a neighborhood. I want to know my neighbors and even interact with them.
Sometimes I think my ideal location will have a small 1 story house in a neighborhood with a small front yard, and 10,000 acres in my backyard
IMO you should find something similar to 1): a suburb with a bustling (and ideally organic) town center and relatively robust transit. If the breadwinner(s) can work from home, you won't have to worry about a daily commute that can tax your mind, body, and gas station bill.
We live in the City and County of Denver in what was a streetcar suburb 100 years ago.
We love our micro-neighborhood.
We can walk to 4 supermarkets. And 5 breweries.
We have our own duplex side on 3000 sqft of land.
Life is good.
We live in the City and County of Denver in what was a streetcar suburb 100 years ago.
We love our micro-neighborhood.
We can walk to 4 supermarkets. And 5 breweries.
We have our own duplex side on 3000 sqft of land.
Life is good.
Do you have children? I'd love to live in a situation like that in Boston, but public schools in the city are lacking, to say the least.
The "problem" is that the deserati equate "city" to a built environment description. "City" is a legal construct, not a physical one. It describes a governmental entity operating within a territory defined by a geopolitical boundary.
Very often terms can have different meanings. The term city can be used to describe a government entity, but it can also be used to describe a large human settlement.
You may want to check out a dictionary from time to time.
Very often terms can have different meanings. The term city can be used to describe a government entity, but it can also be used to describe a large human settlement.
You may want to check out a dictionary from time to time.
So you use another vague term to try to maintain vagueness.
The United States is a human settlement of about 335 million. Is 335 million large?
Texas is a human settlement of about 30 million. Is 30 million large?
You might want to research granularity while working on your denserati manifesto.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 06-11-2023 at 11:14 PM..
I absolutely oppose your vision of density for me or anyone else.
The requirement for more personal private space has little to do with any assessment of others. It's a fundamental, non-negotiable requirement for many.
You have no outside privacy, no yard, and a much smaller indoor space. Your math needs work.
You don't have a choice. You don't have private space other than the inside of your unit. You share your walls and ceiling and have zero yard. Maybe you simply don't have a choice in Germany. But that's one of many things that sets our countries apart. Others are not interested in foregoing private space for "shared space" - and we don't have to!
The great thing is no matter how much you complain about the U.S., we have choices! As much as it may irk you, the vast majority of folks seeking housing here do not share your opinion nor care about how you believe we should all live! Demographics show that people disperse away from high-density areas. There are many reasons but in short people prefer more private space. You might not but is that relevant to anyone else?
I think you missed my point. You are sharing not only the inside of your house, but also the outside with your family. Your individual privacy is much more limited than mine, as long as family members are counted as their own individual beings. But you don't care about the density of having to live with them. You share your walls with them, you share your backyard with them and you may even share your bathroom with them. This is LESS privacy than I have in my apartment. And you don't complain about that, because density and privacy aren't your issue, it's just the type of people where you make the difference.
Don't worry, the seeking for more living space isn't unique to the US. Nations around the world are showing a dispersion of the population with increased incomes. In Germany and Europe in general that seeking is very limited by geography, there is almost no more land to expand settlements. However, that doesn't mean people aren't seeking to cities as places of economic and cultural relevance. We are observing a movement away from rural areas to urban areas worldwide including the US for a very long time now and the trend is continuing.
The problem with dispersion is that it is very resource-hungry in terms of capital, labor and energy. Worldwide the population is still growing and another countries are catching up to the Western world in terms of living standard. With this growing demand there is a growing equalization of the standard of living worldwide regulated by world market prices for capital, labor and energy that makes housing increasingly more expensive in the Western world, which makes the wasteful American Way of Life with Suburbia less and less affordable for Americans.
misanthropic
mĭs″ən-thrŏp′ĭk, mĭz″-
adjective
Of, relating to, or characteristic of a misanthrope. Characterized by a hatred or mistrustful scorn for humankind.
Hating or disliking mankind.
You're a piece of work. I just like to have some space around me and all of a sudden I have a hatred for mankind? My neighbors and I get along splendidly, hanging over the fences drinking beer and talking guns and tractors all day. I just don't want to hear every time they sneeze...and that makes us hateful people?
If I were a misanthrope, it would be people like you who were the reason......
Remember the snippet of yours that I responded to?
You basically wondered why everyone didn't want to live on (at least) five acres of land.
If everyone did that, we would never have developed cities in the first place. The dwellings would be too far apart.
You describe yourself here as a social animal, which humans are, by and large. But that also usually means that we need to gather in close proximity to one another in order to fully express our social nature.
And that's true for many situations, including work. One of the downsides of WFH is that organizational culture takes a big hit. So does the kind of spontaneous collaboration that only takes place when people work in the same physical space. (Which, by the way, is related to a quality I call "serendipity" that happens only in city environments — namely, stumbling across someone or something that offers you stimulation or valuable exchange while in the course of doing something else, usually traveling on foot from some point A to some point B.)
I would find the kind of separation you enjoy too isolating, which was the thrust of my response — and I could see where someone who argued that everyone should enjoy such separation might be called misanthropic by someone who doesn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
