|
|
|
|
|
|
by em-bee
1210 days ago
|
|
|
we had a lot of land compared to the number of people who were rapidly settling it that, and many people came to america to start a new life away from the oppressive landlords in europe. many were also poor, meaning that they had to provide for themselves, which is easier if you have land to grow your own food. so quite naturally people favored to be away from the cities. but modern suburbs are not that. i can understand living in the city where the jobs are or out in the country where you grow your own food. suburbs have neither of that. i grew up in cities and on farms growing crops and herding cows. when i lived in american suburbs i found those depressing. i have been to a few places, and while DC bedroom communities may be the worst, suburbs elsewhere were not much better. it doesn't help that in movies you see much of the same. so if those suburbs are not representative, then what is? |
|
|
Well, I do think that Hollywood is biased towards certain demographics.
> but modern suburbs are not that. i can understand living in the city where the jobs are or out in the country where you grow your own food. suburbs have neither of that.
Many people want the city job with the space to raise kids; without the claustrophobia of the big city. Midwestern suburbs achieve that, but suburb means different things to different areas. My suburbs are not the suburbs of the coasts. Still, I would think the general logic would apply, but having not lived in such places, it is not really my place to judge. Maybe they really should just die out and be replaced.
Personally, I hate suburbs almost as much as the city; I belong in the country.
I guess, if I were to say one thing for certain: the country is large. Sweeping statements about it can be difficult to make with accuracy.