[rcthompson]

This is a pretty sweeping generalization. The suburb I grew up in was and still is plenty walkable (though it is admittedly even more bikeable/driveable) and has plenty of places for kids to have adventures. Of course, I've definitely been to many suburbs that are completely unwalkable by design, but not every suburb is like that.

(My sense is that more recently-built suburbs tend to be more heavily designed around a presumption of car ownership, but that's just based on my own experience.)

[rootusrootus]

> The suburb I grew up in was and still is plenty walkable

I think on HN a lot of the urbanites think of suburbia as an endless sea of cookie-cutter houses on nondescript, seemingly identical streets. Nothing but houses for as far as you can see.

That certainly exists in some places, I'm sure. But some of us grew up in places like Portland, Oregon, which is essentially one big suburban city (sure, there is an urban core, but it's tiny). Lots of single family houses, but lots of retail, industrial, and office space intermixed. Very walkable in most areas.

I think a lot of the break down of suburban discussion happens because of this. There's a pretty wide range of perception based on different life experience.

[drewcoo]

Portland isn't a big city but it is a city. An urb, not a suburb. Portland actually has suburbs of its own. It has so many suburbs that they're ranked by someone who does that kind of thing (not that I vouch for the rankings):

https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/search/best-suburbs-for...

[rootusrootus]

Aside from a few blocks north of downtown on the west side of the Willamette River, Portland is entirely suburban, by my definition at least. Single family houses dominate outside of that small urban core.

Outside of Portland you could say there are suburbs, but many of them are just towns themselves that blend into Portland as the area has grown. E.g. Oregon City, which is older than Portland but might now be considered a suburb.