Where would you rather live (urban vs. suburban vs. rural)

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by F50Fanatic, Jun 8, 2016.

?

Where kind of environment would you prefer to live in

  1. City

    3 vote(s)
    21.4%
  2. Suburb

    4 vote(s)
    28.6%
  3. Small towns

    2 vote(s)
    14.3%
  4. Rural areas

    5 vote(s)
    35.7%
  1. #1 F50Fanatic, Jun 8, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2016
    I prefer suburb of a major metro area, where I get most of the amenities of a city without the city's congestions and lack of parking lots. Plus if I want to visit inner city it is only 30 minutes or less of driving away on most occasions.

    However, this only works in a highly decentralized urban areas like the ones in my country. In some countries, all the best amenities are concentrated in the inner city where the rich and middle class live, while the outer suburbs tends to have very poor infrastructure and lacks decent shopping centers and restaurants.
     
  2. ideally a lifestyle block 30-60mins from a decent-sized urban area
     
  3. I like suburban right now, 25min from downtown yet calm place to raise a family.

    wish I could afford rural area
     
  4. city during the week and head to the cottage one the weekend

    if I had to pick just one , city ... more to do
     
  5. Suburbs. You're able to have a house with enough space, and you're still close to places.
     
  6. Depends. As long as I'm single, there's basically nothing for me in the suburbs, except maybe traffic jams trying to get into the city. If I had a wife and kids, I would probably choose one of the suburbs nearby (such as where I grew up at). Due to our size, nearby cities have developed into actual cities with all the amenities you'd expect from a big city, but still remain close to the actual big city (Tel Aviv). One would have to go pretty darn rural to be at a distance of more than 1.5 hours away from one of the bigger (>200,000) cities.
     
  7. Rural areas, because I have a lot of loud hobbies I don't want to have neighbours for. Though farm houses exist in the other suggested areas as well, they're far more expensive there.
     
  8. City/suburb

    I've lived in rural area and i hated it. Nothing to do, million miles from everything, lots of dumb people and lots of people who talk giberish. And it smells like cow poop. Only good tart is that houses are super cheap in rural areas.
     
  9. On a scale of 1-10 rural to urban I'm at about a 2-3 right now, would happily move that to a 1.
     
  10. Like some frozen lakeside build-it-yourself house in Alaska?
     
  11. Mostly but not completely rural, which is pretty easy to do here. I can live 30 minutes from my work right in the middle of Tulsa, but be less than 10 minutes from major shopping centers, while staying rural and having half the property tax of Tulsa county

    Though I'm so picky with floorplans I probably won't be able to live in a rural area again until I build my own
     
  12. I'd love that srsly
     
  13. if im a young single guy, definitely the city. Wouldnt want to own a car, would love walking/ubering to everyplace i needed to be
    if I had a family, definitely the suburbs. Id like space for a home and a little land around it
     
  14. Far enough from downtown that I need a car, but not so far that it's a sea of single family homes for miles.
     
    ScoRpFerrari likes this.
  15. Depends on the location, really. In reality these always boil down to where your work is, where you family is, where decent real estate is available and where can you afford to live. But I'll pretend that those things don't matter... hmmm

    In Finland either the city core or completely rural. Suburbs are dreary and small towns completely dead. Nothing to do, no jobs and you'd have to sit in a traffic jam/train to get anywhere near where things happen. Rural because there are some properly idyllic places around. I like the idea of being able to have sheep and chickens and a huge greenhouse and still have 4G.

    In the German-speaking world it would be small towns. Those are really nice. (Pic from Colmar lol)

    [​IMG]

    In Southern Yurops I'd prolly live in a rural area (Toscana plz) or in a small town like this (not actually Cinque Terre because it's a tourist trap but you get the idea):

    [​IMG]


    In Asia I'd prefer to live in a fking megalopolis where there's no city centre and suburbs are somewhere the poor people go to sleep

    [​IMG]

    Murika... haven't travelled the continent enough to form an educated opinion.
     
  16. No internets

    No phone

    No access to outside world during winter months

    argh
     
  17. A pack of wild caribous could attack at any moment
     
  18. In city so can drive bus. Is no job in rural farm area, constipate income.
     
  19. Thought Alaska was fine at all of these things. But fine, rural somewhere with 3G/4G.
     
  20. America kinda sucks at coverage outside, and sometimes inside cities.
     
  21. #21 F50Fanatic, Jun 9, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2016
    Speaking of suburbs, one thing I found interesting is the cities in the southwestern US, like Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, which have the reputation for having low density sprawl, actually has some of the most dense suburbs in the country. The inner cities have relatively low density, but overall density of the entire metro areas are actually quite high. Basically very decentralized, with inner city having the same density as the surrounding suburbs.

    I was in New York not too long ago, the city of New York was super-dense of course but I was surprised at how sparsely populated Long Island is, even at places not that far from Queens and Brooklin. I had visited NYC many times over the years but that was my first time been to Long Island. Lots of those so-called suburbs in Jersey and Long Island were almost rural compared with places like Irvine, Summerlin, Scottsdale.
     
  22. Yet the population density of Long Island is significantly higher than that or Irvine, Summerlin or Scottsdale. Hell, it's higher than in LA county.
     
  23. LA is the worst, completely decentralized, too dense for hundreds of square miles
    you have to drive everywhere, and driving is the worst
    I dont know how much worse it is than the sfbayarea but at least here there are times when you can get around efficiently. Plus there is mass transit to the city/stadiums
     
    F50Fanatic likes this.
  24. That's because boroughs of Queens and Brooklin are officially a part of Long Island, which brings up the overall density. Once heading east beyond the city limits, the population becomes much more sparse.
     
  25. #25 HippoCrushEverything, Jun 10, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2016
    Nassau + Suffolk county average population density is higher than all of those examples except Irvine. Nassau county is more densely populated than Irvine. The "rural" part of Long Island is still more densely populated than LA.
     

Share This Page