What do you think of the "demise of Suburbia"?

[JD50]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Suburban sprawl is good. It keeps the boring conservative white people away.

Urban consolidation is good...it keeps all the elitist liberals isolated to small geographic areas

I think this is a win-win situation.

Exactly.

They can have their mega churches, bland chain restaurants and their cookie cutter houses built by illegal aliens that fall apart in 20 years. And we can have our Museums, good food with actual flavor and brick houses that have character and last for over 200 years.

Or you can have the best of both worlds by living in the suburbs and then driving for 15 minutes to go visit the Museums and eat the good food. All while enjoying the low crime and good schools of the suburbs. IMO, cities are great to visit, but I'd never want to live in the city and raise a family.

Suburban schools here in Colorado produced Klebold and Harris.

City schools here produced Phillip Bailey, Don Cheadle, Douglas Fairbanks, Chauncey Billups and Sidney Sheldon just to name a few.

So much for the "safe" place you and GenX87 are talking about. Suburban white boy schools sound far more scary then the city high school I graduated from

I'll take the incredibly rare columbine like massacres in the suburbs to the shit that goes on in Baltimore or DC schools on a daily basis. I mean come on man, don't you watch The Wire?

. If you (or anyone else) want to live and/or raise a family in the city then that's great, I'm glad you're happy. But that doesn't change the fact that the people that can afford it generally do not raise their kids in the city or send them to public schools. Suburbs have less crime and better schools than the city, sorry.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett
30% is most?

In this forum, 52% Obama to 48% McCain is considered a landslide, but somehow here 30% City to 70% Suburbs means most people work in the city?

Hopefully your brain will thaw out now that spring is here, Canuckitard.

I said "Majority or significant minority", 30% is "significant.

When the facts don't support your hypothesis, change the facts, eh?

Read my original statement. I haven't changed.

I think you should go back and read your original statement, you can't even quote yourself correctly.

Originally posted by: sandorski


It depends on a persons situation. Most or a very large Minority of Jobs Surburbanites hold are in the City though.

Neither statement really makes any sense anyways. You definitely did try to cover all of your bases though, you might as well have said "Between 10 and 90 percent of people in suburbs commute to the city". Kind of a broad range there don't you think?

Hehe, that's what I get for quoting from memory. I purposely left it vague, because I have no hard numbers. It is a fact that many do though, which is why so many Highways/Freeways clog up every Rush hour.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: sandorski


Hehe, that's what I get for quoting from memory. I purposely left it vague, because I have no hard numbers. It is a fact that many do though, which is why so many Highways/Freeways clog up every Rush hour.

Well yea, I'll agree with you there, many people do. However, a lot of those people (myself included) might be commuting from suburb to suburb. I'd be more than happy to take the train in, but the train costs $300+ per month AND it takes just as long, if not longer, than sitting in rush hour traffic. Public transportation really does suck.