[1stcity3rdcoast]

For you, perhaps. But for me and my family, raising children in the densest urban core is a highly enjoyable experience. Imagine never being in traffic again. Having your choice of activities, parkland, and restaurants. Hundreds of friends within a single square mile. That’s what draws many of us to the city over the suburb. But to each their own.

[dahfizz]

I think it's highly dependent on your area. In my smaller town I never have traffic. I have plenty of restaurants and activities and more "parkland" and nature than a city dweller could dream.

City dwellers seem to think of smaller towns as some sort of dessert wasteland, but I can get to anything a city dweller can in the same amount of time. There's just as much stuff out here, we just also have enough room to live comfortably. The low property prices and crime are great too.

[fountainofage]

Well, are you in support of a suburb or a small town? A suburb is wildly distinct from a small town. Most would agree that a suburb solely exists to house people that work in a nearby city, whereas a small town is self-sufficient (in the sense any area can be "self-sufficient").

[dahfizz]

This is where the conversation tends to break down. What you would call a suburb, I would probably call part of the city. What I would call a suburb, you would probably call rural.

I do think hit the nail on the head with the self sufficiency. I have absolutely no need or desire to commute into the nearest big city (big it is fun for day trips every once in a while).

The area directly outside the urban core that contains only housing and bad traffic is definitely not somewhere I would want to live, although owning a proper house instead of renting an apartment is very important to some people.

[matchbok]

Same amount of time? I have 20 restaurants within a 30 second walk. There also is never, ever the diversity of food or entertainment.

Also, many small towns have higher crime rates per capita than cities.

[dahfizz]

> Also, many small towns have higher crime rates per capita than cities.

Per capita crime rates do not matter. What matters is the question "How likely am I to be the victim of a crime if I live in area X?".

Depending on the type of crime, you are around 4x as likely to be the victim of a violent crime if you live in a city[1].

Per capita rates is a statistical curiosity. Being 4x more likely to be shot is what people actually care about. When the population density is 10 - 100x different, a small difference in per capita rates is meaningless.

[1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

[KUcxrAVrtI]

20 restaurants within 40 meters (120 feet for those in less civilized countries) from the ground floor of your building?

That seems like hyperbole unless you live above a shopping complex.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Restaurants that are needed because you have a tiny little galley kitchen and no garden, making it impossible to cook meals for yourselves?

[souprock]

OK, I'll try to imagine it. I'll assume you don't mean living like Trump did, in a personally owned tower with lots of servants including chefs and drivers. Note that I actually do have 12 kids. Imagining...

I herd my 12 kids down from my far-too-small apartment. My wife and I go in separate elevator cars so that we can fit. We'll go enjoy a trendy restaurant because we're city people and we do that. We walk along toward the subway station, sometimes stepping out into traffic to avoid tents. Every 30 seconds, we count the children to make sure that we have the same number we started with. We really should do more than count, in order to prevent substitutions. Sometimes we have to back up to find a kid who is slow. Sometimes we must run to stop a kid who is running ahead. We check shoelaces, then lead the kids onto the escalator. At the platform, we continue counting while keeping kids away from the platform edge. Once the subway arrives, we get on, hopefully 100% of us. We guard the door to make sure nobody exits before the correct stop. At the correct stop, we herd them off, hopefully getting 100% of them onto the platform. We check shoelaces again, and then head up the escalator. We continue on our way, counting as we go. The kids are tired. Some need to pee, without warning. Too late! We find the restaurant. People glare at us. Oops, backtrack for a missing kid, hopefully not swiped or squished or infected. Again we go to the restaurant. We order a meal. It's only $1400 for the family, such a deal. Oh, they want to tack on a huge tip for themselves, so more. People are still glaring at us. Food gets dropped. A glass slides off the table and shatters, splattering the drink on several people. At least my kids don't scream and throw things, so I get some credit for that. Now we can go to the parkland or activities, but several kids are looking sleepy. Well, back home we go. This happens 3 times per day, every day, just so we can eat. We can't possibly carry enough overpriced groceries home for cooking, and anyway the kitchen in our apartment is a joke. We just have to accept spending $1,533,000 per year to eat.

[leetcrew]

how do you go on errands with your kids in the suburbs? did you buy a used schoolbus? also, your oldest children must be somewhere between 15 and 20. assuming they haven't moved out yet, are they totally incapable of helping your shepherd their youngest siblings?

[souprock]

I nearly did buy a short used schoolbus. I ended up with a Ford E350 with 15 seats in 5 rows.

The oldest kids can help herd the younger ones, but I have the responsibility. I still have to check. Failure causes serious trouble.

[jessaustin]

You need to instill more responsibility into your "12 kids". Mewling babes are fine if there are one or two of them, but you're way past that...

Also who on earth ever takes "12 kids" out to eat, in the city or out of it? Do you and your wives go in separate minivans, or do you own a bus?

[souprock]

Well 1stcity3rdcoast is "raising children in the densest urban core" and asks us to "Imagine" being in his situation. I did imagine it.

In reality, of course I don't live like that. I'm in a big house in a non-urban city, I almost never go out to eat, and there is no subway here. We drive a Ford E350 with 15 seats in 5 rows, and the vehicle title or registration does actually say "bus". The kids usually surprise other people with good behavior, but they are still kids. They aren't the sort to throw tantrums, but spills and other accidents will happen.

[1stcity3rdcoast]

Literally nothing you described is unique to a city. Have a lovely cynical life!

[souprock]

Much of it is unique to an urban city: the existence of a subway, the need to use one because there is no parking, the apartment (including kitchen) being small, the cost of food, the use of elevators, the people in tents.

Much of the rest is in your statement of what to imagine: using a restaurant, not being in traffic.

[1stcity3rdcoast]

Yes, I think we can agree that there are trade offs, as with everything in life. In a world of scarce resources, we all place different value in different things. I’m not lambasting your choices just as I’d expect you not to deride mine.

But on your last throw-in dig, that’s disingenuous. Poverty is not unique to large cities. I’ve lived in rural towns as small as 7,000 and poverty there is just as visible and acute.