[corodra]

Yea, I'm not picking on you about the car culture thing (sorry if it seemed so). I'm just getting irked by it because I've been seeing that comment so often the past year as "America bad because America likes cars, car culture bad". There's just way many to these issues than just cars.

And, I agree, maybe too much reliance of cars in this country. I can totally agree we should focus on increasing the walk-ability of many communities. But, you can't deny having the ability to say at any moment, "I feel like going 30 miles somewhere, at my choosing and route" is a bad thing. I've been through 3 different public transit systems, (Portland, Seattle and Denver). Portland was the best out of the three. But knowing you are wasting 15 minutes waiting for public transit, then another 10-15 minutes of time to get there due to stops and general traffic (25-30 min) for essentially a 10 minute car ride... yea... It's great in plenty of situations, but is annoying as hell in just as many. The fact that my mobility is not dictated by someone else, yes, to me, is worth the extra monthly cost in comparison of daily use public transit tickets.

[asdfman123]

Yeah, it's a backlash from all us millenials who felt trapped growing up in the suburbs and moved to the city at the first chance we got. It's important to have nuanced views on things, though.

[corodra]

I get that, I'm 32, a millenial as well. I tried the urban lifestyle because... well, I guess I was supposed to. It was fun at first, and then I hated it. Three different cities and, just not for me. I like having a backyard (I like to garden) but I also don't like having to pay two to three times the price for living.

I don't need to hit downtown everyday. I'd rather invite friends over to grill/drink. While owning a car might be "more expensive" than using just public transit, the general lifestyle of not living urban is far cheaper. That and if we all pass out on the floor, it's not frowned upon when at someone's house. It is when you're at a bar. It's sort of like when people in some of the big Cali cities complain it's impossible to own a home or save enough money. No, where you live is terrible. There was an NPR story a year or so ago about a couple selling their home in san fran, then buying a bigger home in cash in Michigan (I think), paying off some debt and still had a savings left over, which they never could do before. They took "pay cuts" compared to their old jobs, but they were living far easier, with a savings in comparison to cost of living.

Personally, it took me way too long to realize salaries are not created equal depending on location. 60k in a place like San Fran or Seattle, does not equal 60k in let's say Tampa, FL. You can live far better in Tampa on 60k than you ever could in Seattle. That's something I think a lot of people aren't quite picking up on. There's a cost/benefit to location. You want to live urban? There are things you have to sacrifice (like a savings account unless you work finance or make a shit ton of cash). Don't want to sacrifice that? Then you can't live there. Simple as that. There are other places to live... with trees. I like trees.

Also, it's quiet away from the city. I get far better sleep these days.

[asdfman123]

Houston is pretty nice because inside the loop, there's lots of suburban style housing but also the variety/culture of urban life and it's cheap.

[acheron]

This has nothing to do with “millennials”. See, e.g., the Rush song “Subdivisions”, which describes exactly that dynamic, and was recorded before any millennials were even born yet.