Tired of Urban Living??????????

[aknowledgeableperson]

Was conversing with another at a meeting.  She was talking about her son living downtown.  He has lived in a loft over a year commuting to work at a location outside of downtown.  However, he is to start working next week at a company a short distance from where he lives.  His mother was initially happy since he would not have to drive to work and thought that was what he wanted.  He surprised her by saying he was going to move.  He was tired of the concrete and blacktop all around him.  He wanted to move to where there would be grass outside his door.  When he looked out the kitchen window he wanted to see trees.  He didn't want to move back home but he did want to go back to his old neighborhood.
Not bringing this up degrade urban living but to give another view.  In fact, in order for downtown to succeed it has to have people, many people, living there or nearby.
How many people move to the DT area because it is the "thing to do" but then find out it isn't for them?
What kind of turnover do the DT housing units have?

[Tosspot]

I'm sure that would be the case with a few of them.

However, take a peek at the housing prices in cities like Boston and San Francisco; practically gentrified to the hilt with the professional creative class dwelling in the core, and the working class residing in the less expensive inner-ring suburbs. Cities have great draw and cache when infrastructured properly, to the point where the notion of "affordable housing" is a moot point.

But yes, some people like more greenery, which is why I advocate New Urbanism. When designed true to its principles, it can accomodate a multitude of tastes. The only sad thing is that we are forced, through a multitude of actors and forces, to seek the principles of New Urbanism in the first place. Because, "true urbanism" was discarded into the bit-bucket long ago, and indeed I have intoned ad nauseum about this in the past, so I'll save you the spiel this time. 

[KCPowercat]

different strokes for different folks.  Nobody says living down here is for everybody.  We finally have a viable option for those who do though....which makes a stronger metro overall.

[omenapt]

I will  be banking on the likes of him in 5-6yrs to buy my house in Volker, offering trees, privacy pool,neighborhood, midtown proiximity and urban loft interior!

It warms my heart to hear this!

[staubio]

Obviously not everyone wants live in the city, but this person sounds to be a bit fickle and not know what he wants.  I would assume, like AKP, that this guy moved downtown because it is "the thing to do" without having an understanding for why he wants to live there.  If one has no desire or no mastery of an urban lifestyle, they aren't going to derive a benefit from an urban location.  Sounds like he has a missing piece.

You wonder if people that flocked to trendy cities like Seattle and Portland are all confused about what they are supposed to like and dislike.

Besides, I have a ton of trees around me and visible outside my window.  Green space and the city are not mutually exclusive.  I would much rather have KC's strong array of parks than my own lawn to maintain.

Of course, AKP could have made the story up just to start the thread. 

[mean]

Whether this story is fictional or not, it brings an interesting point to mind...many more people won't even try moving downtown than will try it and not like it. I'd rather someone give it a shot and decide it isn't for them than not do it at all.

I suspect if every young, creative professional moved downtown for a year, most would love it and stay.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Of course, AKP could have made the story up just to start the thread. 

No, it wasn't made up.  Are you assuming that anyone who moves DT will just like it and not change his or her mind?  People buy houses and move into apartments all of the time and then move the first chance they get when they find out it isn't what they thought it would be.  Why should DT be any different?

[warwickland]

perhaps midtown or near downtown would be a better choice for people who want an urban lifestyle but want some greenery. i wonder if he ever considered that...doubtful, if all he considered was "being cool." anyway, there are way more trees on my street than when i lived in the suburbs of st. louis. in fact, much of midtown is an "urban forest." i'll take that anytime over a shoddy housing tract with one pencil thin tree in each yard. conversely, i wouldnt mind a little more density at the expense of greenery. though, this is kansas city, "city beautiful" anyone? it's pretty hard to not see any greenery in kc.

i guess my point is that it sounds like its easy to over simplify "urban living." there are many different shades of urban living. i think most people who live downtown understand that, and prefer living down there for all of the advantages it offers. they, like myself probably question the point of greenery anyway, if youre sitting in traffic next to a landscaped shenanagans, heheh, or applebees or some god-awful chain restaurant. gag. greenery tends to be valued more in an urban setting, anyway. i get a lot more enjoyment out of spending time in a park in the city than strolling across some office park next to a highway.

i suppose your subject line, "Tired of Urban Living??????????" with the obnoxious amount of question marks screams URBAN BACKLASH and might irritate a few people on here.

[staubio]

perhaps midtown or near downtown would be a better choice for people who want an urban lifestyle but want some greenery. i wonder if he ever considered that...doubtful, if all he considered was "being cool." anyway, there are way more trees on my street than when i lived in the suburbs of st. louis. in fact, much of midtown is an "urban forest." i'll take that anytime over a shoddy housing tract with one pencil thin tree in each yard. conversely, i wouldnt mind a little more density at the expense of greenery. though, this is kansas city, "city beautiful" anyone?

i guess my point is that it sounds like its easy to over simplify "urban living." there are many different shades of urban living. i think most people who live downtown understand that, and prefer living down there for all of the advantages it offers. they, like myself probably question the point of greenery anyway, if youre sitting in traffic next to a landscaped shenanagans, heheh, or applebees or some god-awful chain restaurant. gag. greenery tends to be valued more in an urban setting, anyway. i get a lot more enjoyment out of spending time in a park in the city than strolling across some office park next to a highway.

Excellent comments.  Look at all of that suburban green space.  Despite everyone's claims, it is hardly ever used.  The concept of sharing is lost and everyone needs a massive private tract of unused land for "green space"

Enter urban living.  A great mixture of marvelous parks that are safe, vast and bustling with activity.  I have countless lawns to play on all over the city, thanks.

[staubio]

No, it wasn't made up.  Are you assuming that anyone who moves DT will just like it and not change his or her mind?  People buy houses and move into apartments all of the time and then move the first chance they get when they find out it isn't what they thought it would be.  Why should DT be any different?

I don't doubt that it happens.  In the city, I'd venture those "get out ASAP" situations have more to do with a specific apartment or neighbor than the neighborhood.  I just question that anyone would move downtown that so clearly didn't want to be there when downtown is very much still a neighborhood of pioneers.

As others have said, I also think this is a matter of black and white and misperceptions.  I doubt that this guy put the effort in to know his neighborhood.  It sounds like it was suburbs or city, asphalt or green.  Not quite.

[schugg]

Was conversing with another at a meeting.  She was talking about her son living downtown.  He has lived in a loft over a year commuting to work at a location outside of downtown.  However, he is to start working next week at a company a short distance from where he lives.  His mother was initially happy since he would not have to drive to work and thought that was what he wanted.  He surprised her by saying he was going to move.  He was tired of the concrete and blacktop all around him.  He wanted to move to where there would be grass outside his door.  When he looked out the kitchen window he wanted to see trees.  He didn't want to move back home but he did want to go back to his old neighborhood.
Not bringing this up degrade urban living but to give another view.  In fact, in order for downtown to succeed it has to have people, many people, living there or nearby.
How many people move to the DT area because it is the "thing to do" but then find out it isn't for them?
What kind of turnover do the DT housing units have?

  Sounds like a mommas boy to me,  also could not get away from where he was from and his mom.

[tat2kc]

  A momma's boy? Whatever.  But, back to AKP's silly title on an otherwise interesting topic. Who says urban living means no greenspace and no trees?  Kansas City has buttloads of greenspace and such all over the urban core.  Some people like grass and trees and nice geen space, and some forum members are positvely phobic about having greenery in an urban space.  There are many places to live in an urban setting that allows for greenspace and outdoor living if you so choose.  The guy sounded like a smart man. He moved downtown to see if he liked it. He didn't. Whats the big deal?  Its not an indictment on anyone or on the urban core. 

We initially moved into a loft downtown to see if we liked that style of living before we bought something that we might not like.  We loved the lifestyle, but we did miss having some outdoor space. Had there been lofts with adequate outdoor space that allowed for a reasonable amount of outdoor living for us and our pets, we would have. The lofts that met those requirements were far outside our price range.  The house we bought is in the urban core. It has greenspace. It has a small backyard, the perfecct size for us. Its in an awesome neighborhood.  I'm sure certain forum members don't consider my neighborhood "urban" enough, because there are trees and grass. 

If the guy mentioned was not into the "urban lifestyle" its no biggie. It doesn't make him a momma's boy. It doesn't make him anti-downtown.  Lighten up!!!  But if AKP thinks he didn't mean to degrade downtown, he certainly could have chosen a less inflammatory title to this thread.

[schugg]

  A momma's boy? Whatever.  But, back to AKP's silly title on an otherwise interesting topic. Who says urban living means no greenspace and no trees?  Kansas City has buttloads of greenspace and such all over the urban core.  Some people like grass and trees and nice geen space, and some forum members are positvely phobic about having greenery in an urban space.  There are many places to live in an urban setting that allows for greenspace and outdoor living if you so choose.  The guy sounded like a smart man. He moved downtown to see if he liked it. He didn't. Whats the big deal?  Its not an indictment on anyone or on the urban core. 

We initially moved into a loft downtown to see if we liked that style of living before we bought something that we might not like.  We loved the lifestyle, but we did miss having some outdoor space. Had there been lofts with adequate outdoor space that allowed for a reasonable amount of outdoor living for us and our pets, we would have. The lofts that met those requirements were far outside our price range.  The house we bought is in the urban core. It has greenspace. It has a small backyard, the perfecct size for us. Its in an awesome neighborhood.  I'm sure certain forum members don't consider my neighborhood "urban" enough, because there are trees and grass. 

If the guy mentioned was not into the "urban lifestyle" its no biggie. It doesn't make him a momma's boy. It doesn't make him anti-downtown.  Lighten up!!!  But if AKP thinks he didn't mean to degrade downtown, he certainly could have chosen a less inflammatory title to this thread.

    Thats what i said .  Why don't he just man up and stick it out little, wait for all of the developement first?          timid timmy?

[staubio]

I'm sure certain forum members don't consider my neighborhood "urban" enough, because there are trees and grass. 

If the guy mentioned was not into the "urban lifestyle" its no biggie. It doesn't make him a momma's boy.

Personally, I think your neighborhood is swell.  I admire all of you Northeasters for fighting the good fight up there and bringing back a true gem in KC.

That said, I don't I even try to address the issue of whether your neighborhood is urban or not.  The key is that, to me, it doesn't harbor an urban lifestyle.  It probably forces you to drive more and its decentralized, but it is close to downtown and gives you a diverse environment. 

Of course, if driving was your lifestyle anyway, it wouldn't much matter. 

I suspect that this anecdote describes a person that tried the city but didn't try the lifestyle with it.  One without the other doesn't make sense.  If this was a drive-in, drive-out, everything at home or in my yard kind of person, he probably doesn't belong downtown in the first place -- just like you chose a neighborhood over Crossroads. 

That said, you realize that you can have some of your cake and eat it too by living in the city.  I suspect too many others are black and white and this poor fella probably just moved to Olathe or something.

[mean]

I just don't understand, I guess. Why would I want to sit around by myself in MY fenced-off yard, when I can go to a public "yard" and hang out with a diverse variety of people? Why would anyone? Humans are inherently social creatures, but it seems we're trying very hard to create a society where strangers virtually never have to interact with each other. Is being all alone really that much fun? How depressing.

[moderne]

    I live downtown and merely have to look at the window to see 12 miles of greenery.  Whats more, on those rare days like today when the weather is like champagne, I can stroll through any of our urban greenspaces and savor it rather than having to waste that beautiful day laboring hunched over in the backyard.  That said once I was stuck in the Chicago Loop for 3 weeks and did indeed get sick of concrete canyons.  Some streets in downtown KC are concrete canyons, others are green boulevards.  Take your pick.

[ComandanteCero]

as people have pointed out, green and urban aren't mutually exclusive.  My sister lives in dt Chicago in an apartment building.  Her bay window looks out onto a baseball field, track, dog park and garden.  Lots of green, lots of people excercising, sitting, walking, chatting, etc.  Not to mention her street (and most of the streets in that area) are lined with full grown trees with flowers and such in between.  Dont' need a private piece of green to get the benefits of greenery.  Personally, I think certain parts of the downtown (particularly the Crossroads ((not including central)) are very underserved in terms of greenery, however it seems like the Loop and the Rivermarket have very solid green supplies.  In terms of the Crossroads, i think they could line a couple of streets with trees (where the scale and width make it appropriate), and reserve a surface lot for a centrally located square/park (for example maybe take half of that block at 20th and Grand).

Anywho....

[aknowledgeableperson]

Good replies for those who like (love) urban living.  Especially the ones who suggested some improvements.
The title was not sonthing thought of on a spur-of-the-moment. This person did try to live in one of the DT canyons evidently and was tired of it.  He wanted some greenery by where he lived.
What title would you have preferred?

[tat2kc]

Urban living does not mean that one has to live in a "canyon" Tired of urban living and wanting greenery is not the same.

[Highlander]

Urban living does not mean that one has to live in a "canyon" Tired of urban living and wanting greenery is not the same.

Urban living is as varied, if not more varied, than suburban living.  Although I like to think about it, I probably would not enjoy living at 909 Walnut despite the fact that it is an incredible building.  Just too much like the canyon Tat talks about.  I have always lusted, however, after the newer homes on Union Hill and various other places in the urban core.  Now that I live in the UK, I have had a taste of true urban living replete with public transportation and a fairly large city that most of the key places are within walking distance.  There are both good and bad things: great access to aywhere via foot, bike, public transport or car and some big drawbacks....not exactly kid friendly (however, we do not have to worry about school districts over here). 

10 years from now, when my kids are out of HS and downtown has had a chance to mature anew, the canyon in KC may actually start to sound attractive.  I find my living preferences change as I go through life and I suspect KC's urban environment can accommodate just about any of those preferences....although during the kids-in-school era, I have to admit the suburbs do have a distinct advantage.