This post got a lot of upvotes, and a lot of downvotes. I know because I watched it fluctuate up and down. Everything I wrote was merely my personal preferences. I wonder why so many people were upset by it enough to downvote it.
* "a home that was built during or since the 1950s"... is supposed to be preferable? A home built in the 80s will be considered old-fashioned in places like Seoul. (Besides, what's that got to do with city-versus-rural difference?)
* "I prefer to live in an area where I can leave my doors unlocked..." Some cities have crime problem. Others don't. Also, I have the impression it's always the (Americal) rural dwellers who say "You urbanite liberals have no idea why guns are necessary!" So I'm taking your argument with a grain of salt.
* "...rather than an environment where I have to be careful not to step in human feces when I walk between two parked cars." Well... then don't live in SF, I guess?
> "a home that was built during or since the 1950s"... is supposed to be preferable? A home built in the 80s will be considered old-fashioned in places like Seoul. (Besides, what's that got to do with city-versus-rural difference?)
First, a little background. In a previous life I was a carpenter who did some new home construction, but mostly remodeling, in both cities and suburbs. So, given just about any wall in any home, I have a pretty good idea what you'll find under the paint if you take a sledgehammer to it.
In the northeastern US city I'm using as my reference point, the housing stock is on average much older than the suburbs. And to me, an old house is like a a really old car. It breaks down a lot and requires a lot of maintenance. The walls are less likely to be square and plumb. The wiring is more likely to be obsolete and insufficient for all the computers/gadgets/appliances we rely on today. I just don't care to deal with it.
Different people have different value systems. I really don't care whether or not there is excellent Thai Fusion cuisine available within walking distance, but I like a home that is reasonably up to date and low maintenance. The so-called charm of century old city houses is of no value to me. In some wealthier areas of my local city, most of the houses have been gutted and refurbished down to the last piece of trim by their cardiac surgeon owners, but those houses sell for around 4X what I paid for mine and cars are still more likely to get stolen from their driveway than from mine.
So, to sum up, my preferences are based on my own set of values, which are markedly different from people who prefer to live in cities.
And one thing I've noticed, is that when I say things like this openly, for example at a dinner party attended mostly by white professional city dwellers, it invariably bothers some of them, visibly, that I have the preferences I do and I'm not embarrassed to admit them. (I'm well aware of how fashionable suburb-bashing is among fashionable people.) I always find that part amusing. They try to convince me that it's so awesome living as they do in a row house in some "up and coming" neighborhood, but it really sounds like they're trying to convince themselves.
FWIW, this isn't always true. I live in the suburbs about 30 miles from work, and it takes about as much time for me to drive there as it does for my friends who live 3x closer, but in the city. They get all the traffic; I can literally just set cruise control at speed limit, and coast 20 miles out of those 30 on a wide open freeway.
I live in >500k fully walkable european city with okay-ish public transit. During peak times, it's ~30 minutes to get to downtown by both public transit and car. But most of offices are located outside of downtown(=oldtown) area. One office area is 30min+ by public transit (and requires a transfer or long walk) or 10min by car, even during peak times. Office park on another side of the city would be well over 1h by public transit, but 30min by car. There're locations that take 3x longer by public transit and/or require elaborate transfer plan than driving. Difference gets even bigger if you can start a wee earlier/later.
And do account for the relatively shitty public transit infrastructure that is the norm here in US.
And you seem to be assuming that the offices are also right there in the city. That's not the case for many people.
Besides, where did you work when you lived in Seattle? Plenty of people live in the city, but work across the lake in one of the offices in Eastside (Microsoft in Bellevue, Redmond or Samammish, Google in Kirkland etc).
You don't need a car in a sense that you can take a bus, or the private connector shuttle if your employer provides one. But they sit in the same traffic jams on the roads, so it's not really saving you any time (although you do get the benefit of reading or doing something else while waiting).
My main complaint with suburbs is the likelihood of myself or my kid getting struck and killed by a car while cycling. I can't do that in the suburbs, or at least the ones I've lived in. The drivers go 50 mph+, turn right on reds without _ever_ checking for people walking or cycling, and will blame a dead kid for cycling if they were killed while riding a bike.
Maybe that's just California though.
It's much narrower than that. It's really the culture of the particular area. I've been in some towns in California where you will get angry people if you drive like that and others where that's the norm.
Anyone who has ever done any significant renovations on an old house knows the problems with aging housing stock.
I would go even further and say 1950s is still a pain in the neck.
It's really nice to work on a house built after 1985, for the simple fact you can sand door and window trim down to a nice smooth finish without having to worry about unleashing the lead kraken.
Next time I buy an old house I'm going to do a full gut renovation. Take it down to the frame and build anew. It's the only way to go in my opinion.
Drywall is very easy to repair. Old walls covered in decrepit wallpaper with who knows what underneath, not so much.
It is difficult to get insurance for a house with knob and tube wiring, and this is just the start.
Anything built in the 50's has the potential to contain asbestos as well.
In regards to density, I have found that .15-.25 acre single family lots with some three story apartment complexes sprinkled in make a very nice compromise that gives most of the benefits of suburbia while allowing for a nice walkable to bikeable town.
Obviously you'll never get all those things in the city, especially the ones involving lots of land. What makes a city a city is having people close together. That's what a city is.
The only way you can get density that low in a city is when zoning regulations require some area to stay that way, and its regulations like that that enforce low densities that have caused tons of problems in the US.
That's true, but unfortunate, because a lot of non-inflammatory posts made in good faith get downvoted to where they get marked [dead] simply because they express unpopular opinions.
I tend to try to counter that phenomenon through upvotes. I won't hesitate to upvote something I disagree with if it appears to be getting unfairly downvoted.
Have a separated (UI distance is important) button for reporting abuse/too far off topic.