Sure, I can't walk to ten different restaurants and an art museum, but that's pretty low on my list of wants.

For me my decision to live in the city is one of safety (driving cars is dangerous) and time. When I lived in the burbs I spent something like 30-40 full days a year sitting in my car. That's 10% of each year in my car. That's just not a trade I'm willing to make anymore.

You can't walk, take the bus, or ride a bike anywhere. Not only because it's 10 miles away, but because there simply is no safe way to get there without a car.

What I was thinking when I when I wrote "I'm not sure anyone loves suburbia" was that I'm not sure anyone loves that big suburban commute to the city. If that's eliminated, or mitigated by excellent transit connections (ie. pre-automobile street car suburbs), then a lot of negatives go away.

1: which is, really, not THAT much more in terms of cost per mile than using public transportation

And that's entirely a function of bad city design. When I lived in New York, I lived in a Westchester suburb satellite city over 20 miles away from the city. I had a 35 minute commute by train right to Manhattan. There are tons of such suburbs in Westchester, because they have train lines running through the whole area.

Meanwhile, my parents live in D.C. suburbs that are similarly priced, half the distance out of the city, but where the commuting options are a 1-1.5+ hour drive. In Westchester you've got a little downtown and can walk to shops and restaurants. In the D.C. suburbs you have to drive 20 minutes just to get to the drug store.

It's all about city design.

Metro Vancouver recently did a study comparing affordability combining both housing and transportation costs. Once transportation was considered, Vancouver City proper dropped to one of the 3 most affordable Metro Vancouver cities, whereas outlying suburbs rose to least affordable. The gap in transportation costs between the cheapest and most expensive areas was several thousand dollars a year, possibly as high as $12k a year.

http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/Pla...

I would guess that has a lot to do with how one defines the term.

I love living outside of the city. I wouldn't have it any other way. When I'm ready to retire, I plan to move even further away from the city.

I grew up in the suburbs. I am raising my children in the suburbs. I detest going into the city. The traffic, the parking, the population density and the crammed nature of city living all irritate me to no end.

Unfortunately, I have to go into the city for work. That is the primary reason why I'm waiting until retirement to move further away.

Within the last 10 years we have had a real problem in the area. The gentrification of certain inner-city areas has made it impossible for the low income residents to remain there, so they've been moving out to the suburbs and bringing a lot of crime with them.

Try as we might to escape the problems of city living that drove us out two generations ago, the city keeps sending its problems our way.

That's the result of a poorly planned city, not intrinsic to cities. If you've been to Europe, or even NYC, you might have experienced the freedom of jumping on a train to downtown and back, with enough exercise to keep you healthy.

Old cities, like NYC or London were established before the existence of the automobile. It makes sense that they were designed to move large numbers of people without automobiles. I don't live near such a city.

The geography of my area prevents the kind of mass transit system that exists in NYC.

I like cities with good public transit systems but they're not nirvana. And for cities that are just so-so, like SF, the people I know there who don't own cars use Uber, Zipcar, and conventional rentals plenty.

No matter what you choose, you're bound by something.

Here, yes. I prefer those things over the list of things that I mentioned previously.

I have arranged my work schedule to miss the worst of both inbound and outbound rush hour.

When I'm outside of my regular work hours, on evenings and weekends, there is much more freedom in driving one's self as opposed to waiting for public transportation.

For those of us who are so inclined, public transportation is still an option.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of living outside of the city, but the problem is the design and form of development that many suburban cities have taken.

not to mention getting anywhere takes like 5-10 minutes.

what do i miss? a great modern restaurant experience, but classic ethnic is great out here - indian, chinese, mexican etc.

factor in better schools for your children for "free" and i can't see a reason to live in a city.

I pay taxes to my county and my suburban municipality. The city-proper does virtually nothing for me.

The city is not entitled to any of my money.

And if the city proper really did nothing for you, then why would you be working there?

Most of which are maintained by the county, to which I pay taxes.

and there's the federal gas subsidy which is also subsidizing your lifestyle.

From the FEDERAL government, to which I also pay taxes.

Much of the road maintenance is also done by the state government, to which I pay taxes as well.

And if the city proper really did nothing for you, then why would you be working there?

Because decades ago, my employer put offices in the city and it's more expensive to move them than it is to stay put.

Not all of us are working for start-ups. Some of us have employers that predate the interstate highway system.

As telecommuting becomes more of a factor, I will spend less and less time in the city. Hopefully, it'll get to the point where I spend one day here every five years.