> Suburbs are not an anomaly. They even exist in Europe in good numbers if you get outside city centers. The biggest reason why this is not so apparent to tourist is that they never go outside city centers. Many people commute and Europe has a good transportation network as the U.S will soon have to? Then what .... then city centers become less attractive as you can more easily get to where the action is without living a stone's throw from it.
Suburbs are not characterized by sprawl. There can be some suburbs that have sprawl. Others that don't. You're saying that the majority of the bay area is an anomaly? San Francisco is not the center of life. It used to be an average neighborhood with lots of poverty..(Cycle) ..
Most of the good restaurants are outside of it.. This clamoring to live in the city core is a new thing sparked by a generation in search of an advertised lifestyle of activity... The bay area's layout flies in the face of your sentiment.
> I live in the bay area too. I spend lots of time in the city. There are pros and cons. I have lived in both dense urban areas and suburbs. As such, I am not disillusioned about either.
> It's the stuff of million dollar research studies. There are macro social trends that function beyond your or my specific experiences. I am speaking about those and I am speaking about the general drivers that compel a whole generation to seek out things beyond a previous generation. It is a generational trend... One that will be cut short by the insane costs, the true economic correction, and technology that better improves transportation and telecommuting. And again, i have lived in dense cities and have been in every corner in SF.. I hear you. It's just not that serious. Take a look around you.. The majority of tech companies aren't in San Francisco. You think that's an anomaly? It's not. Start thinking beyond your own experience. Just because a bunch of social app companies are in the city and some scattered tech companies doesn't make for a big macro trend. The majority are outside of cities in suburbs.
> Your lack of understanding of what I'm talking about speaks to either your lack of experience outside of a city core (urban) area, lack of experience due to age, or bad experiences in Podunk suburbs. The majority of the bay area is a suburb. Get out of SF and talk to the people who live in it...
The majority of the bay area is a suburb. Get out of the city sometimes. It is most definitely not marked by shitty beers and chipotle. Some of my worst eating experiences have been in the city .. Some of the best restaurants are outside of it.
The bay area isn't some podunk suburb or rural area.. That's the big difference.. If you came from middle of nowhere suburbs to the bay area (straight to San Francisco), I'd question your 'experience' a little more and suggest you ask others for details about things you don't understand.
> Suburbs are not an anomaly and exist all over the world. The world outside city cores are not marked by chipotle and shitty beer. If you've traveled places and gone outside tourist areas or even explored the bay area beyond San Francisco, you'd know this.
The night-life in the city is unbeatable. That gets old as you age and desire more engaging experiences. Most things in the city can be enjoyed without having to live there. Insane costs push out culture anyway... A lot of the attractive/cool things in SF went to Oakland in search of a more affordable foundation... The upcoming generation isn't doing too hot in way of wealth.. As a result, interesting things are popping up in lower-cost areas.
Look up the demographic change that has happened in San Francisco in the last decade. The writing is all around you regarding cycles... Whether or not you're seeing it or not is another thing and you can live a long and enjoyable life not seeing any of it. To each their own w.r.t to personal happiness. Beyond that, you're going to have to dig a little deeper and draw from more varied experiences if you feel you want to chime in on such matters.
