The debate over supposed suburban decline

A lot of the sales activity in CA right now is foreclosure sales--vulture speculators trying to pick up bargains in the rubble of the crash. So it's hard to tell from that what the future of those communities will be. There are a lot of places that were extremely overbuilt during the bubble, and those places are going to be virtual ghost towns for some time into the future. Eventually, fuel prices will rise again. Eventually, interest rates will rise. Eventually, people will realize that a lot of the condos on the market now are, indeed, really poor values at still-inflated prices. If a condo costs as much as the two-family house right next door, you kinda have to wonder who's stupid enough to buy the condo.

If the MBTA goes through with some of their alleged cuts, mainly the no commuter rail service after 7PM on weekdays and on the weekends, then I think the Boston suburbs will take be taking a huge hit to their viability.

It's asinine that we might be taking a huge step backwards in terms of public transportation, when one of the best things we could do is provide efficient (and cheap) forms of transportation to get people into the city and to their jobs.

I would much rather buy a house in the suburbs than doling out a lot of cash to buy a small condo near or in the city. But if my only option to get into work is to drive, how feasible is that? Traffic into the city is already bad enough. Imagine the nightmare it will be in 10 years!

The MBTA commuter rail works only if you have a job in Boston within walking distance of north or south station or near a subway stop. Does the Boston Glob realize that people also work off of rt 495--rt 128-- In lexington, in framingham.. in andover places where the rail doesnt go.

The only thing that will be missing from the suburbs is the junk car rumbling in the driveway at 5AM delivering the Boston Glob. Perhaps I can get some sleep

exurbs are going to be a problem in many states - places like Cali and Florida etc, where people were building in multiple hour car commutes.

I don't really see it being much of an issue in Massachusetts though.

Bear in mind, as an aside, that almost all of europe lives in a neighborhood like the one you say not everyone wants to live in - while true, the issue is very far from simple.

If the T puts through its ridiculous cuts, though, there will be blood in the suburbs... even if you don't use the T now, think of how many more cars will come on the road. Traffic will hit LA levels - we are smaller, but don't have the road infrastructure

Scott, I object your characterization of "anti-sprawl folks". I think it is possible to want to develop underutilized urban areas, and to have smart plans for developments in the suburbs, without wanting everyone "to live in overpriced condo projects next to the local commuter rail or subway station".

By mocking the concept in this way, you are not really advancing the discussion.

I thought $6 / gallon gas was going to put a nail in the suburbs, or at least the exurbs. I guess that didn't materialize. And hey, when that does happen, we'll switch over to electric cars, solar powered homes, etc. There will be pain during the switchover, but we'll make it through.

Some people like space of suburbs, some people like cities. Both have appeal. Neither is going anywhere any time soon.

Finally, I wouldn't count on the MBTA cuts to the commuter rail anytime soon. Where do many of the wealthy political donors come from? Wealthy suburbs. I would far sooner bet on cuts to the subway system which service the middle and poor as opposed to the commuter rail which serves the more wealthy. Either one would be a tragedy, though.

I suppose that the author's ideal living involves spending 3 hours in your car everyday just so that you "can have a yard". And I assume he loves chains, chains chains, from restaurants to stores to eveything else. He probably dismisses global warming, higher gas prices, unnecessary congestion, crumbling infrastructure and the eroding of communities as the price to pay "for some elbow room". All just to have some generic looking McMansion to impress your neighbors.

You can keep your suburbs and your narrow mindedness. You contribute nothing to society and unfortunately you have an outlet for your outdated, paranoid views here in the Globe.

Scott, I agree wholeheartedly with Dan. The "anti-sprawl" folks, me included, are for greater consumer choice and options, not fewer. What we seek to end is the tyranny of single-use zoning that mandates automobility as the only means of connection among places. Doing so enables a wider array of dwelling arrangements, from rural to urban in character. Some may choose condos next to rail stops, while others prefer detached single-family homes. But no one I know is trying to limit options for anyone. What you presented is a derisive misrepresentation of a movement you clearly don't understand.

"To live in overpriced condo projects next to the local commuter rail or subway station"... Seems to me that this phrase is set to be the most divisive section of the blog. I would just ask that everyone think for a moment.... Say a couple wants to raise 2 children and have a dog and a cat. You know, the typical "American" style household. Lets say one is a teacher and the other an engineer and have a combined income of $120,000 a year. Of that, they make student loan payments that are about 25-30% of their monthly income. That alone puts anything more than a 1 bedroom economy condo out of there price range at the urbanist condo development. Both to rent AND to own... Not only that- the condo probably won't allow for their dog or cat if they rent or it will be an additional 100-200 dollars a month just to have them. And lets not forget that living in these developments is usually akin to living in a hotel setup, not very homey...

My point is, I don't believe the American suburb is going anywhere- because there are too many amenities that they offer that Americans aren't willing to give up for the sake of living in or near the city. Cities will continue to grow and thrive- but they will be populated by young urban professionals, couples with no kids, older folks/ empty nesters, single folks, and traditional city-dwelling family units: families who have lived in the city for generations. When I see many listing for homes or condos- more often than not it includes a crib, and baby is getting too old to live in the city anymore... Just sayin'.

The Washington DC area is not the same as the Boston area. Everything is more compact here, commuter rail or not.

The only way the suburbs are despoiled is if Chapter 40B is allowed to fill up the suburbs last green open spaces with these sprawling complexes of cheap stick built "luxury" apartments that are going to be sold off as condos as soon as the places start to become too costly to maintain in about 30 years.

I completely support the idea of Town center overlay districts that bring back a downtown of shops, offices and affordable apartments near transportation centers including rail and ample parking. But often under 40B what we are getting is densification without any other planning. And developers are targeting green space because they avoid the costs of demolition associated with redeveloping areas.

One thing for sure is that the urbanist planning movement has become cultish and this boosterism is not based on the hard facts that despite some efficiencies, dense urban environments are the most costly and resource intensive to maintain per capita in the long term. Not to mention that having so many people codependent on one another is not good for Freedom and Democracy.

I don't think so: You are hands down the most intelligent commentor on this blog. Some of these others obviously resent everyone who doesn't live exactly to their standards. Good work!

Anywhere you can both grow food and avoid noise isn't a slum.

The towns that Scott refers to were probably an intersection 5-10 years ago. Having lived about 30 miles from Washington DC my entire young life, I can attest that the infrastructure is completely different than here. (I'm coming from a VA centric mindset so sorry to anyone from across the river.) The VRE has 2 routes. If you aren't near a station, it's not worth taking. The Metro starts in Vienna and the parking lot fills up quickly. The only manner of "public" transportation outside of Fairfax County are the vanpools and slug lines. Virginia has had a moratorium on new towns since the 70's so the zoning is actually done by the county. The rapid growth from rural to exurb was dictated more by developers than local residents. Though Loudon County did a good job of curbing the growth in the northern part before it was too late.

I moved away because I hated the traffic. Now, the housing stock in the city and Arlington/Alexandria, could never handle the influx of new residents that has happened in the past 5-10 years. The exurbs have served a valuable purpose; however, I just think that the rapid expansion should have not have been so rapid. These communities overtook beautiful old farms and replaced them with 10,000 houses. The communities were well planned, but the connecting roads between communities and the highways were not upgraded to handle that many cars. Property values are plummeting there because the dream of a beautiful house didn't match the reality of never actually spending anytime there. I think the new residents have been there long enough to know the difference, and want out of that car-centric life.

this article is extremely biased. what is the angle of the author?

suburban sprawl - and the increased use of resources that goes hand-in-hand with it - is contributing to our dependence on foreign oil. we need to lessen that dependence. is that even debatable?

People want their own house and they want to live in an urban environment. That's why the demand for single family homes is so great in Boston.

Doesn't it depend a lot on whether or not there are jobs at a reasonable distance from those suburbs? I suspect that some places (like parts of Florida) may not recover soon. Other suburbs may do better. Places where growth was based solely on perpetually increasing real estate values probably won't be nice places to live until the homes can be repopulated with people who can actually afford their mortgages.

Personally, I like a little density. Much as I love "the country" as an escape, day-to-day living is much easier when you're closer to an active urban center.

City life to the end... I suppose you like crowds, people living on top of you, constant noise, rats, crime, sirens, no yard, and no privacy. The infrastructure in the city is crumbling as well. Tell me where there's a road in Boston without perpetual potholes. Tell me it isn't nice to be able to have your family down for a cookout in the backyard where you've got trees, a nice big lawn, and space to move. Your idea of a cookout is probably packing the cooler and using one of the picnic tables out at Castle Island with 4,000 other people. Some people actually like to take have yard to take care of and be proud of and don't mind if it does mean they have to spend a little time in the car to get to work. It beats being crammed into a filthy subway car or bus with every fuzzy foreigner in sight coughing up all their diseases all over you. You know what I did last week? I had someone come by and put a nice fresh coat of pavement on my nice big driveway that leads up to my nice brick walkway next to my nice big garage that's bordered by some really nice landscaping that I take care of myself. The walkway leads right up to both, (yes both) of my front doors because my house is so big I need two of them. And I wouldn't have it any other way. Hell I might even plant a garden thiss year.

Just bought a house in the burbs. Won't be driving more than an hour in traffic to get to work and live near enough "non-chain" restaurants to satisfy us. We thought of buying a condo in the city but just didn't want to after thinking about it and looking at some places. Our house is not a "McMansion" like other posts have said that we bought just to impress neighbors/friends/family - Nice modest house/yard that we loved. Staying within the same distance to family was a factor too - moving into the city would have tripled the time to get out to see family which was not ideal. Its personal preference.

My husband and I, in our recent home search, would not consider anything without T access. And by T access, I mean T ACCESS...not commuter rail. Good thing if they are planning on cutting services.

We were really lucky in that we got our first choice location---Brookline, as first time home buyers. To be there, we gave up the single family home but instead got a large condo (3 beds, 2 baths). I suspect we were lucky there because of the circumstances of the seller--we haven't seen anything close in size for what we paid, but we also came at the worst time of year in the worst market in many generations. The seller had two mortgages and was forced to sell to pay college bills and she moved originally because she was hit by a car and couldn't do steps anymore.

We can stay there with kids for many, many years--especially if we limit ourselves to 2. We can even do with 3 kids, although its a squeeze. We have two cats and a Boston Terrier who have plenty of room to roam, and the dog gets to visit the reservoirs and many parks in the area. While a single family has its merits, we're getting along extremely well with the other condo owners and we're all in complete agreement on the next projects we're tackling. We don't have a yard, but that also means we don't have the upkeep that goes with said yard. We do have tons of parks within a few minutes walk, so I'm perfectly happy to let my taxes do their work and my lawn care for me. The only real negative we've had is parking. For us it was a no brainer to stay close to Boston. Our jobs are there and will stay there even if we changed groups. Why pay more money or the same money to have a home that you can't enjoy because you're always in traffic coming to and from your job? And less eating out and enjoying what the area has to offer because you're all alone on the repair bills, the lawn needs mowed, you have to afford that second car and the gas to go with it?

I suspect that the differing views is VERY MUCH generational. Nearly everyone our parents age or older wanted to know which suburbs we were looking at--they assumed that suburbs were a necessary ingredient for having kids. If we explained our rationale a few even acted like we were bad parents because our kids might not have their own lawn (which infants and toddlers don't even really use, but anyway). Any crappy swingset I could put up isn't going to be nearly as good as what's in the community, plus it comes with playmates!

For what is worth, by the way, I grew up rural with ACRES of land and woods to play on. My husband grew up in a suburban development. So obviously that wasn't much of an influence. I don't doubt that many of the next generation will do the suburban thing, mostly due to the costs. But I think if money were no object, many would want to stay close to the City. Its a great way of hedging your bets since there will always be jobs, events, things, places to see there.

I have lived in both and both have their advantages. To think in 2009 that we don't have a viable transportation system, other than the auto, for those living in the suburbs who have to get into the city is pathetic and corrupt. We subsidize everyhting uner the sun to be successful except for rail. Year after year ridership grows only to see level funding of Amtrak which makes it impssible to expand.
Until we have train service to and from the burbs we wil be making choices of long, boring, inefficient, polluting commutes but big back yards and plenty of space VS access to culture, trains and good resturants and expensive living. What a choi

Don't be so sure, April. Not to sound like a full-blown Kunstlerite, but I don't think alternative energy sources will every fully make up for cheap fossil fuels. Some fairly major lifestyle changes will be necessary when the oil runs out.

And I don't think the suburban-vs-urban debate should be understood as an argument about preference and different types of amenities. I think eventually as concerned citizens both of the country and the globe, we'll have to recognize that most aspects of modern suburbia are non-sustainable, irresponsible, and sort of reckless. Also, boring and ugly.

One significant factor not mentioned in this article is the difference between the quality of the public school systems in versus out of the major cities in this country....until the urban public schools can provide an education of the same quality of the suburban school system the majority of families will choose the suburbs over the city simply because the quality of the schools!

Disdain of the suburbs is often by the well educated and privileged, who don't have to live in subdivisions, toward middle and working class people. In the 1950s Walter Muir Whitehill expressed disdain for all the postwar suburban housing thrown up around Boston and predicted it would be the next generation's slums. That has not come to pass. Much of that housing looks more attractive now than it did then, partly because the houses are not so big as some new ones, the landscape has matured, and what looked like new schlock at the time looks like "mid-century modern" two generations on. Something else that's specific to the Boston area (or other parts of southern New England) is that the suburbs are not just suburbs but suburban housing is built in towns and cities that already have their own governance and culture and economies and history. It's not like Phoenix or Las Vegas where the edge of development is out in raw space; here the new is only the latest layer on an established fabric. Would be great if the towns allowed more concentrated development in central places--as the new urbanist folks would point out, you can't build any new Marbleheads or Newburyports or Portsmouths under existing zoning and subdivision controls. I think as a society we doubt anyone could build anything so attractive and so we're not inclined to let them try. I hope this fear of trying will give way.

You sure are afraid of foreigners, myhouseisbiggerthanyourhouse. You should build yourself an underground bunker or something. It's the only way you'll be safe.

The difference in public school qualities is a real problem, Smahtguy. I think, though, it's really a symptom of the rapid suburbanization after World War II, which bled the inner cities of the middle and upper class incomes that would provide the sort of tax base necessary for quality public schools. Now it's a sort of vicious cycle, and it's leaving those born into the cycle behind. It's a shame.

A.B-G: You make some good points. I too grew up in an EXTREMELY rural environment and have been a city dweller ever since. But I'd like to make something perfectly clear- I am a young professional looking to start a family in a few years. My wife and I were also out looking for condos and levels of 2 or 3 families and single families close to the city. We consistently came across the same thing- to have something that we deem inline with the way we want to raise out children, etc.

We were totally into drinking the "urbanist" Koolaid for a few years. But as long as you live in a city like Boston and not say, Austin or Pittsburgh. You make some serious sacrifices if you are A) not as lucky as you with your Brookline condo situation or B) not as well-off as you to get a Brookline condo to begin with. upon looking at a condo in Fenway- we ran in the opposite direction: our lab is too big, they don't take kindly to babies, no decorations may be seen from the outside courtyard and to top it off- it was a 2 bed and the 2nd bedroom was more like a closet with one small window. The perfect nursery... What we saw for a condo in Malden that is "Smart Growth" insanely overpriced and all the amenities were traditional chain stuff. All so we can live a 10 minutes walk (if you miss the shuttle) to Wellington???

As before- why do that to yourself? I am an environmentally conscious person and I want to believe the whole urbanist movement's promises, especially with the rabid boosters. But I can't justify make the sacrifices that are required when I could move elsewhere and be just as happy.

And for the record, urbanists would probably even still be much happier with a city like Austin, Seattle or Pittsburgh- people inherently want/ need a little more space when raising a family. And Boston and New York just cannot provide that... Until real estate prices come down within 128, the suburbs here will thrive. I cannot speak for elsewhere in the country, but there is a reason why Westwood, Middleton, Lynnfield and Hingham are as expensive as Back Bay and the South End.

I'll take my 3 hrs in a car to go home to an acre plus lot, and my 2500 square house witha 2 car garage, any day. Even when I drive home in the Cape traffic for an extra hour or two, I don't mind. I had my entire family over for Easter Sunday as I do every year. We have plenty of room to set up 4 banquet tables and sit quite comfortably. We hid 400 Easter Eggs in the backyard and watched my nieces run around with my dog and collect them while we took pictures and video taped it for memories. Let see you do that in a Boston condo, or even one of those "posh" brownstones. It's a preference and I guess it all depends on an individuals needs too.
I also agree about the public schools. You get a much better student to teacher ratio in a suburban school. Liek I said its a preference and well this is what I prefer.

The commuter rail and T are great if you work in the core of the city but, realistically, what percentage of the jobs in the Metro Boston area are actually IN the city? 5%? 10%? The rail/T combo doesn't go anywhere near the vast majority of job locations in the Metro area, and never will, even with over-the-top funding. If your home or job is located somewhere outside of the city core, public transportation is not an option. If you open up this discussion to the entire state the argument gets even more one-sided.

QUABBIN - Awesome Post! You nailed it on the head.

"Something else that's specific to the Boston area (or other parts of southern New England) is that the suburbs are not just suburbs but suburban housing is built in towns and cities that already have their own governance and culture and economies and history. It's not like Phoenix or Las Vegas where the edge of development is out in raw space; here the new is only the latest layer on an established fabric."

Awesome Point!

Macindot: "I think eventually as concerned citizens both of the country and the globe, we'll have to recognize that most aspects of modern suburbia are non-sustainable, irresponsible, and sort of reckless. Also, boring and ugly."

Not sure I agree with any of these. Four of them (reckless, irresponsible, boring, and ugly) are merely opinions, so you are welcome to think what you please. Many in the suburbs think that the city is boring and ugly (and some other things I imagine). The last you write, non-sustainable, is questionable at best. What part is non-sustainable? In the suburbs, you have houses on the land, surrounded by trees, birds, bees, animals, etc. Many areas use well water, but those that pump in are no worse than a city. Many use septic systems, but again, those that don't are no worse that a city. Lights inside a house are the same city or suburb. Heating and cooling might be a bit more wasteful in the suburbs, but in the summer time it can be a full 10 degrees cooler in the suburbs than in the city...due to the heating of the city by all of the pavement. In the suburbs, you can just open the windows and get a breeze. So I guess it comes down to car travel that makes life in suburbs non-sustainable? And when we get cars that get 100-200 miles per gallon, will that still be the case.

Living anywhere will be non-sustainable if we allow the population to keep growing and refuse to update our energy or agriculture to meet the needs. Doesn't matter if it is a city or a suburb.

No one seems to be mentioning the inner-ring suburbs. There are single family homes, with yards, in places like Arlington, Malden, Watertown, and even Cambridge or Somerville. The yards perhaps aren't as big, but for many they may be completely sufficient. And each of those places is brimming with non-chain establishments in their transit-served business areas.

Not everyone who thinks the exurbs are a bad idea is focused on dense multi-family, zero lot line housing. Although there are some who want to live there and it's great that the opportunity is becoming more available.

The key point missed by the author and commentors is that you can have both...Metro Boston is fortunate enough to have expanded over many pre-existing towns that have attractive town centers with pre-existing urban amenities such as old-style walkable streets, historic architecture, and infrastructure such as commuter rail. Compare this to DC/NOVA/Charlotte/Atlanta et al, which expanded into farm land and is subdivision after shopping center after subdivision.
Towns such as Wellesley, Arlington, and Newton are examples of how Boston differs from many other US cities. They're expensive, but precisely because they're convenient (both internally and to downtown Boston) and offer amenities that families need/desire such as good schools and open space. Natick/Framingham/Canton/even West Roxbury are less expensive versions of these towns.

Ask yourselves this: How will towns full of 1000 square foot raised ranches with15 years of deferred maintenance and little or no commercial base and no commuter rail fare in an era of high energy prices, limited infrastructure and local aid spending by the state, and slow population growth? How will the shopping centers look when population density goes down or the only people who want to live there are the only people who can't afford to live somewhere else? My guess is that they will cease to be attractive places to live. Weston, Dover, and Sudbury will get by nicely, thank you.

On a per square foot basis and certainly on a per acre basis I don't think Westwood, Middleton, etc. are as expensive as the Back Bay or South End.

The suburbs only *look* cheap.

The problem is, the real cost of living in the exurbs isn't reflected in housing prices, so people think they're getting a good deal. It's a 60 mile round trip from Marlborough to Boston -- even at $2/gal, that's $133 a month in the 18MPG three-row SUV exurban types "need" for their two kids. Figure $600 a month to lease it (when you factor in that "cash due at signing") and $200 to insure it, and guess what? Your commute is costing nearly $1,000 a month.

If you lived in the city, the same family could have one car instead of two, and drop those costs for a T pass for less than $100. With the other $900 a month you're not paying to sit in traffic for two hours, you can afford $175,000 more house.

I wouldn't be too concerned with the exurbs in states like California becoming "dead zones". Eventually its high in-migration rates will return increasing the demand for those homes.

And maybe I'm an anomaly for my age group (I'm 24) but when I think about getting into real estate some day I want a house, not a condo. I know many people think condos in the city are the "it" thing for my generation, but seriously doubt many of us will want to stay in the city once we have kids (or once they are no longer infants).

Great Story! I thought I was the only one that saw the masses drinking the city koolaid until I read this. I lived and worked in the city during my single years. I got completely sick of it- all hype. We moved to a suburb is a lovely, crime-free and sprawling. I enjoy my large house and would not consider a town with the T (T=Crime) in it. I have no desire to go to Boston more than a couple of times per year (Sox).
I don't want to have 50 nightclubs near me, nor do I want to fight over parking. I like having an inground pool of my own, pets, gardens, fresh air, good schools and peace and quiet.

City dweller, all the way. The Ksuburbanites can have their commutes and their huge yards. I own a single family, completely rehabbed, with a small yard for my dog and some gardening, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

If I wanted kids, I can understand moving to the burbs maybe, for the schools. but other than that, I don't get why childless people want to head outside of the city where you need to drive everywhere, and the commutes are longer. As for watching my neices/nephew chase my dog around, I can do that at my house. or at theirs. And, visiting them at their houses NEVER makes me want to move out there. And why would I want a 4,000 sq ft house? I'd just have to clean it. Mine is 1500, that is plenty for two people.

Dan T.: You forgot the cost of paying for parking in the city...$100-200 / month. Tickets you get for forgetting about street cleaning, $50 / month. Higher car insurance cost for living in the city, who know how much...

Still your point is a good one, it costs real money to commute into Boston and people often forget this cost. As some people have written, why not split the difference. Watertown! Arlington!

I live in a single family within walking distance of Davis Square and the red line. I take a bus to my job on 128, or I bike 10 miles out the minuteman trail. My husband takes the T to work. We don't own a car. Are we urban or suburban?

Everyone seems to assume that you either live in a small condo with no space next to the subway, or that you live in a single family with a gigantic yard and a 2 hour commute in the suburbs. Why not have single families or two-families with nice modest yards within walking distance of the T?

Dan T.,
You hit the nail right on the head. When we were buying we really thought about things like what we would be spending on transport to get to and from the City. We figured out that we could buy at least $140K in "house" once we took into consideration an extra car payment, extra gas, and increased auto insurance since we'd be using our car to commute (we only use our car for weekend errands right now). Cars are a depreciating asset (so are houses right now, but at least in a couple decades they will eventually recoop the value). You never see money that you spend on gas, auto insurance, etc. again.

However, you don't recoop it on day care either. Buying a larger home out in the burbs to start a family might making securing an au pair feasible, which can cut down on childcare costs (yes, it can be cheaper, surprisingly). And, if you blow major bucks on a home in Back Bay or Beacon Hill, you are still in Boston schools, which unfortunately aren't the greatest. I've watched too many friends think that trading up right before they need the schools is a given, and are now are stuck. Because of being "trade up adverse" that's why we wouldn't consider anything under 1500 square feet---single family OR condo.

I can't imagine going more than 500 feet beyond that. Any more than that its just more to maintain and clean. My family is all out of state and that's where we schlep for holidays. So there is no Easter egg hunt factor.

I also live in a nice house a short walk from the Redline in Dorchester. I have a nice sized yard that is just fine for my gigantic dog and my garden (yes we grow vegetables in the city). I know and like my neighbors. I don't own a car either. No need. It takes a lot of cabs, delivery charges, and rentals to come close to the cost of owning and maintaining a car. Anyway, it's not all condos in the Back Bay/South End. It may not work for you, but it works for some of us quite nicely. (I get to spend the extra 3 hours a day you spend in a car working/relaxing in my garden, playing with my dog, or spending time with my friends.)

Hey! Don’t be so quick to diss living in the city – please keep in mind not all your readers are in the same situation as yourself. Yes, it sometimes stinks to share a building with neighbors, or to not have a yard. But sometimes it’s nice to have other people help shovel the walk way when it snows, the nearby Boston Common and Southwest Corridor are more beautiful than any suburban yard I’ve ever seen, and many condos have a deck on which to BBQ and whatnot. In the city, I have a 5 min walk to the T, which is just a few stops from my office. A quick walk to Shaw’s. Stop by my favorite sushi restaurant on my walk home from work. Swing over to the Pru for some shopping, rather than having to deal with the mass chaos of the Natick Mall and finding parking on weekends. No car=no transportation costs other than a monthly T pass and the occasional cab ride when I’m feeling lazy… no car insurance, no gas, no headaches of potential accidents. Take the T to fenway, the boston garden, or the wang center….or walk if it’s a nice day out. And because I work 10-12 hour days, the thought of having to drive out to the suburbs after work--or to wait until a specific time to take the commuter rail—makes me want to pull my hair out.

Sure, costs go up when you have children and in those instances it often makes sense to move out to the suburbs. And yes, I paid much more per square foot and probably in taxes than I would in the suburbs. But I am willing to pay that premium for the convenience and quality of living I get here, and I’ve calculated that I will be able to stay in my 2 BR condo for another 5-7 years even if I have a child during that time. But anyway, my point is you shouldn’t be so one-sided in your portrayal of Boston condos. Not everyone would want to live in a Natick fixer-upper like yours.

BC, that all sounds great and I agree the city has many conveniences the burbs don't. But what you said near the end of your post is revealing - that you could stay in your condo for another 5-7 years. Many of us in the burbs are there not because we want a McMansion to impress our neighbors. It's because since we have kids, we want to set down roots in a real neighborhood of families who are setting down roots, and plan to stay there permanently and be a part of the neighborhood long term. The transient nature of most city condo dwellers doesn't give you that. I loved the city when I was young and single but things change, and it burns me to see idiotic posts from morons like City life to the end.

JN -- totally agree with you. I actually look forward to moving out to the suburbs when that time comes... when living right by all the "excitement" of the city is, well, less exciting. You get more bang for your buck in the suburbs and don't have to deal (as often) with the shoddy construction you often find even in the multimillion dollar condos downtown. My main critique was that while living downtown may not be for everyone, it was a bit naive (or condescending?) for the author of this post to classify boston condos as overpriced projects next to commuter rail/subway stations. My condo (and many others) is 5 minutes or less walking from the prudential t stop, is on a small dead-end street with no traffic or noise. Already fired up the BBQ and am looking forward to working on my rooftop garden where I am growing veggies, herbs, and flowers! :)