Post: #26

(09-01-2016 04:25 PM)Laner Wrote:  The downside of mass urbanization.

The next decades there will be even more pressure on the civility of western cities as things like sprawl, crime and access to jobs/infrastructure/schools become more competitive.

Already cities in Canada, which are among the most consistently highly ranked, are starting to see pockets of ghettofication. Those who have the means are living in areas that can access the best of what a city has to offer. In times past, this often meant suburbs. But now, due to insane amounts of cars on the road, many people of means would rather live with a car as a luxury rather than a necessity.

The stress and anxiety of daily driving cannot be downplayed. It will wreak havoc on a mans soul as he grinds away the hours on a hot, gridlocked roadway.

Thoughts on this?
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archiv...ty/492599/

Millennials are choosing to live in dorm like spaces.

I think it will be a growing trend. Why not? Many of this generation do in fact live in a state of arrested development.

I think this desire is also a by-product of not having families. People want social connection, but with less and less families forming, they're losing that sense of "coming home to the family" so they're replacing it with roommates. Oddly enough, I wouldn't be surprised if they spent their time in these cramped living arrangements with their faces stuck in their phones vice talking to the people sleeping 10 ft away from them.

Post: #27

(09-01-2016 07:43 PM)Orion Wrote:  poor content distribution based on property boom based on fake service economy and marketing products that suck people to soulless cities to look for "opportunities" (to indulge into pleasures and spend money) all of this based on crappy economic growth plans that rely on the most deviant calculative ways of getting those numbers to rise.

Can you expand on this?

Post: #28

(04-15-2016 07:07 PM)Durango Wrote:  In America I prefer the suburbs as they have been developed recently to make things simple if you have a car. Entertainment and nightlife is more difficult, but even living in an American city things are still complicated and not very people friendly in terms of lifestyle. With the exception of New York (and arguments for a few others), all American cities essentially require a car for the current standard of living.

European cities are thousands of years old, and were built to house and take care of large populations without cars. Therefore everything is superior there logistically, and you do not need a car to have all of the staples and a social life. In Europe, would much prefer to live in the city, and in America I prefer the suburbs, while being at a maximum 20 minutes from downtown.

Pretty much this.

I really don't like American cities. They are often poorly designed, are way more difficult to get around than they should be/often requiring a car to function without significant hassle, often lack critical amenities like grocery stores in key locations, and have hipsters that inflate the cost of all city real estate by paying stupid amounts of money to live in "gentrifying" (i.e. ghetto) locations. What's the point of living in a city like this and paying a premium for it?

So I can be near a few overpriced bars and restaurants? Slightly easier access to some whores? The only compelling reason for me is to save time on a work commute if that is applicable.

In the US, I MUCH prefer the inner suburbs. Usually a bit cheaper, have better quality housing stock, has less ghetto elements, and I can escape to more rural spots if I need a break easily/quickly BUT I still can get into the city when I want/need it. You can still function without a car in some inner suburbs as well if you plan right and still have a largely walkable lifestyle; which I do prefer just for health reasons alone.

Most American cities simply don't feel livable to me. They just seem dysfunctional and require a lot of compromises without offering much in return. Yet, people will move to these places to feel like they have "made it." All of it seems so retarded to me.

In contrast, European cities feel WAY more livable and therefore, are worth some compromises potentially.

NYC, the often cited example of a real city in the US where you can function without a car is not livable to me for example. Concrete jungle with almost no nature around (your daily scenery), nasty/uncomfortable subway system full of weirdos/bums (your defacto main mode of transport), dirty ass streets (more daily scenery), and massive noise pollution (never can just go home and relax in peace and quiet).

In contrast, a city like Amsterdam gets trashed every night during tourist season and every early morning like clockwork, cleaning personnel/trucks are out making everything look pristine again. There is a light rail that can you get you around town easily and efficiently, endless bicycle paths, and the main train system can get you to the airport quickly or elsewhere in Holland/Europe in comfort. Despite its alternative culture populace, I didn't see much in the way of aggressive bums/weirdos on the street or on public transport which in turn, made getting around a far more pleasant experience. Throw in some trees/rivers and I found it overall very livable place. Not my favorite place but very livable for a city.

I don't think the aforementioned even exists anywhere in the US. You can get places that replicate pieces here and there but never the full package. That's a shame.

Post: #29

(09-02-2016 09:55 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 07:07 PM)Durango Wrote:  In America I prefer the suburbs as they have been developed recently to make things simple if you have a car. Entertainment and nightlife is more difficult, but even living in an American city things are still complicated and not very people friendly in terms of lifestyle. With the exception of New York (and arguments for a few others), all American cities essentially require a car for the current standard of living.

European cities are thousands of years old, and were built to house and take care of large populations without cars. Therefore everything is superior there logistically, and you do not need a car to have all of the staples and a social life. In Europe, would much prefer to live in the city, and in America I prefer the suburbs, while being at a maximum 20 minutes from downtown.

Pretty much this.

I really don't like American cities. They are often poorly designed, are way more difficult to get around than they should be/often requiring a car to function without significant hassle, often lack critical amenities like grocery stores in key locations, and have hipsters that inflate the cost of all city real estate by paying stupid amounts of money to live in "gentrifying" (i.e. ghetto) locations. What's the point of living in a city like this and paying a premium for it?

So I can be near a few overpriced bars and restaurants? Slightly easier access to some whores? The only compelling reason for me is to save time on a work commute if that is applicable.

In the US, I MUCH prefer the inner suburbs. Usually a bit cheaper, have better quality housing stock, has less ghetto elements, and I can escape to more rural spots if I need a break easily/quickly BUT I still can get into the city when I want/need it. You can still function without a car in some inner suburbs as well if you plan right and still have a largely walkable lifestyle; which I do prefer just for health reasons alone.

Most American cities simply don't feel livable to me. They just seem dysfunctional and require a lot of compromises without offering much in return. Yet, people will move to these places to feel like they have "made it." All of it seems so retarded to me.

In contrast, European cities feel WAY more livable and therefore, are worth some compromises potentially.

NYC, the often cited example of a real city in the US where you can function without a car is not livable to me for example. Concrete jungle with almost no nature around (your daily scenery), nasty/uncomfortable subway system full of weirdos/bums (your defacto main mode of transport), dirty ass streets (more daily scenery), and massive noise pollution (never can just go home and relax in peace and quiet).

In contrast, a city like Amsterdam gets trashed every night during tourist season and every early morning like clockwork, cleaning personnel/trucks are out making everything look pristine again. There is a light rail that can you get you around town easily and efficiently, endless bicycle paths, and the main train system can get you to the airport quickly or elsewhere in Holland/Europe in comfort. Despite its alternative culture populace, I didn't see much in the way of aggressive bums/weirdos on the street or on public transport which in turn, made getting around a far more pleasant experience. Throw in some trees/rivers and I found it overall very livable place. Not my favorite place but very livable for a city.

I don't think the aforementioned even exists anywhere in the US. You can get places that replicate pieces here and there but never the full package. That's a shame.

The inner city suburbs are a good compromise. For the most part, they seem to be not so common in North America? When I lived in Australia, I spent most of my time in the inner suburbs. Each one had a high street and everything I needed was there. Groceries, Pubs, Restaurants, etc. We went into the CBD when we wanted to party all night, and thats about it.

European suburbs, in many ways, have less soul than a properly maintained US suburb. When people of a neighborhood take pride, keep the housing solid and live there for a time that allows the trees to grow up, these places are beautiful. But that is what time does, I guess. What was once "a boring tract housing suburb" is now an inner city suburb.

I wonder if there is a limit to the outward expansion of cities? I see cities like Calgary that just go on forever, and I think "Who lives in these far off places?". I picture a low income worker with not many options in life, but wishes to buy into a dream of owning a new home. Him and his wife work, commuting hours a day in order to afford this life, but a very much on the edge of being wiped out by a housing correction. I hope this is not true, for when I think of this, I get sad for my fellow man, that slavery is just re branded.

Post: #30

(09-02-2016 11:53 AM)Laner Wrote:  

(09-02-2016 09:55 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 07:07 PM)Durango Wrote:  In America I prefer the suburbs as they have been developed recently to make things simple if you have a car. Entertainment and nightlife is more difficult, but even living in an American city things are still complicated and not very people friendly in terms of lifestyle. With the exception of New York (and arguments for a few others), all American cities essentially require a car for the current standard of living.

European cities are thousands of years old, and were built to house and take care of large populations without cars. Therefore everything is superior there logistically, and you do not need a car to have all of the staples and a social life. In Europe, would much prefer to live in the city, and in America I prefer the suburbs, while being at a maximum 20 minutes from downtown.

Pretty much this.

I really don't like American cities. They are often poorly designed, are way more difficult to get around than they should be/often requiring a car to function without significant hassle, often lack critical amenities like grocery stores in key locations, and have hipsters that inflate the cost of all city real estate by paying stupid amounts of money to live in "gentrifying" (i.e. ghetto) locations. What's the point of living in a city like this and paying a premium for it?

So I can be near a few overpriced bars and restaurants? Slightly easier access to some whores? The only compelling reason for me is to save time on a work commute if that is applicable.

In the US, I MUCH prefer the inner suburbs. Usually a bit cheaper, have better quality housing stock, has less ghetto elements, and I can escape to more rural spots if I need a break easily/quickly BUT I still can get into the city when I want/need it. You can still function without a car in some inner suburbs as well if you plan right and still have a largely walkable lifestyle; which I do prefer just for health reasons alone.

Most American cities simply don't feel livable to me. They just seem dysfunctional and require a lot of compromises without offering much in return. Yet, people will move to these places to feel like they have "made it." All of it seems so retarded to me.

In contrast, European cities feel WAY more livable and therefore, are worth some compromises potentially.

NYC, the often cited example of a real city in the US where you can function without a car is not livable to me for example. Concrete jungle with almost no nature around (your daily scenery), nasty/uncomfortable subway system full of weirdos/bums (your defacto main mode of transport), dirty ass streets (more daily scenery), and massive noise pollution (never can just go home and relax in peace and quiet).

In contrast, a city like Amsterdam gets trashed every night during tourist season and every early morning like clockwork, cleaning personnel/trucks are out making everything look pristine again. There is a light rail that can you get you around town easily and efficiently, endless bicycle paths, and the main train system can get you to the airport quickly or elsewhere in Holland/Europe in comfort. Despite its alternative culture populace, I didn't see much in the way of aggressive bums/weirdos on the street or on public transport which in turn, made getting around a far more pleasant experience. Throw in some trees/rivers and I found it overall very livable place. Not my favorite place but very livable for a city.

I don't think the aforementioned even exists anywhere in the US. You can get places that replicate pieces here and there but never the full package. That's a shame.

The inner city suburbs are a good compromise. For the most part, they seem to be not so common in North America?

Inner suburbs are getting developed/re-developed in a lot of places with a lot of mixed use stuff (ex: apartment complexes on top businesses; all essential things in walkable distance, massive planned out town centers, etc). I've seen this in various cities throughout the US.

It stems from the big push in the last decade of millennials wanting to stay in the city/near the city even AFTER having kids as oppose to getting the big single family home way out in Bumfuckville like their parents. They want to be closer to work and want as much walkability as possible. There are various real estate publications that have talked about this shift in detail and how it's affecting the real estate industry if you're interested. If you are going to invest in real estate, I would highly recommend reviewing the aforementioned to get a sense about where future growth is gonna be.

Personally, I think its a great thing since it's a good compromise on the things I like. Even with a family, I don't find the idea of a massive single family home very appealing. Too isolated, huge utility bills, huge property bills, way more maintenance, and a lot of wasted space. The only reason for me to have a slightly bigger place is to house an au pair for nanny duties and some side banging action.

Post: #31

My feeling is that large European cities are moving towards American model. Smaller ones probably never will.

When i was a bit younger i used to live in Belgrade, the capital of Serbia, some 1.2 million folks.

I was well supported by my family, and kinda always used to think how Belgraders were lame, cheap, depressed and passive.

Until once it happened that i was all on my own and i realized - hot damn, you cant survive in the city and have fun unless you are rich. Without your own place, a car, and 1000$ income (the average in Serbia is around 400$) you can only live a lifestyle of an average thug. Commuting kills you 2.5 hours only to have a coffee. You don't just go out without a plan, which means if you are going for a coffee, make sure you also bundle some productive activity with it. And that's what they do all day ! You cant afford yourself to just go out like that, phone a friend and buy all the drinks on your own thinking, what the hell.

That's why everyone is stuck on the internet. Having fun is expensive. I used to just take a walk and enter any place i see that is crowded and looks fun. I used to go outside of city, visit other places etc. Average Belgrader is literally stuck around his place and eventually crashing a couch of some student he met through a friend. One of the reasons why place is probably so promiscuous. Once you find somebody to fuck, you are pretty much good to go, and can save yourself some time of trouble.

Post: #32

In North America I like older, 50s through 80s urban sprawl. Part of what I dislike about modern urban sprawl is that its too planned out. Its just blocks and blocks of the same homes on very tight lots. Older urban sprawl has larger lots and usually a corner market or gas station within walking distance...or if you live in Wisconsin a corner bar within walking distance.

The cons of urban living, in my opinion, are crime, culture and cost. Crime is higher with more density, thats just life. Cost is inverse with crime...if you want to be in a nice area with lower crime, you pay out the ass for it. Last, culture. It seems if you want to live in the high cost, lower crime urban areas you are stuck with SJW hippies for neighbors and/or local government.

The cons of suburban living have been mitigated as well. The cons are, logistics (for girls), variety and commuting. For logistics/girls online dating has mitigated that...especially if you are into banging stay at home moms, milfs and barely legal hotties that have to sneak out of the house. Variety has been mitigated by online shopping. Two words, Amazon Prime. Commuting has been mitigated by the amount of options to work from home these days.

Last, I find suburban areas to be more conservative and in line with my political values. Perfection, if you are single, is an older suburban sprawl in a smaller town with proximity to a b-list University campus nearby.

Post: #33

City walkability is the most important factor to me in quality of life.

Your whole lifestyle changes so much just with that.

This is what i dislike about all Lebanese cities. Everything becomes a chore, you spend too much time at home, outdoor areas are non existent/ empty, etc...

Post: #34

I really hate urban sprawl. Especially after visiting old, European cities and comparing them to US.
HOWEVER, suburbs did not arise out of thin air. It is democrat policies and regulations that drove the exodus to the suburbs, because they increased cost of living and regulatory compliance in city proper.
What needs to be done is to roll back the size of the government and its regulatory powers to the level somewhere before WWI.

Post: #35

(09-08-2016 02:45 PM)MOVSM Wrote:  I really hate urban sprawl. Especially after visiting old, European cities and comparing them to US.
HOWEVER, suburbs did not arise out of thin air. It is democrat policies and regulations that drove the exodus to the suburbs, because they increased cost of living and regulatory compliance in city proper.
What needs to be done is to roll back the size of the government and its regulatory powers to the level somewhere before WWI.

I agree once cities started implementing restrictive zoning so that factories couldn't be in the city proper anymore. In the cities I've lived in, you can see that the large, old empty or sometimes converted buildings used to be factories and warehouses. That is where the 'normal' people used to go to work. You close up those shops and force them to the outskirts of town, their workers will go there too. Now, those businesses are all out in 'industrial parks' on the edge of town. No one is going to live in the downtown city, so they can commute out of town to the industrial park.

Post: #36

(08-26-2016 07:26 PM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  Being a young guy in his late 20s, being able to buy a 2 family home gave a great boost to financial independence. My principal and interest payment was $801 a month. But I collects $825 in rent. If you are young and have modest income, buying a multi-unit property gives you a place to live with added financial security. A single family home in the burbs is always a drain on your finances.

Sorry but can you expand on this. What kind of a house is this, which city and how on earth is the emi so low?

Post: #37

(09-11-2016 11:12 AM)Straw Hat Pirate Wrote:  Sorry but can you expand on this. What kind of a house is this, which city and how on earth is the emi so low?

Sure,

This was 19 years ago, so the numbers have to be adjusted for inflation. In 1989 there was a real estate market crash, which also imploded the savings and loan banks. Back then though, the Federal Reserve didn't re-inflate the housing bubble, nor was there a federal bank bailout (other than FDIC insurance payments). The S&L banks were liquidated. With no S&L lending, it was really difficult to get mortgages for investment properties (in particular, if you wanted renovate). Interest rates were relatively high (compared to today), so there wasn't much demand for housing in the market. The crash didn't fully bottom out until late 1997. I bought the summer of that year.

I was looking at three cities that were 'commutable' by public transportation to NYC. This was the Giuliani era when crime cratered and NYC became nice again. I was also looking where I wouldn't have to deal with rent control.

The city I bought in just had a mayor go to prison, was a mess financially, but managed to elect a reformist Republican into office (which started the city's turn-around).

The famous Jewish finance family, the Rothschild's, have a saying: "The time to invest is when there is blood on the streets". Given the S&L crash, the interest rates, the real estate market was a bloody mess. Property was just so damn cheap, but nobody was buying.

I picked up a place for about $85k (about $125k in today's money) and borrowed $35k via an FHA/203k loan to fix the place up. I did a lot the work myself after work and on weekends. All in all, with the rent offset, my home cost me only $600 a month to live in, which was 1/3rd less than the cheapest equivalent rental at the time.

I expect another real estate crash. I think younger guys here should look for opportunities in urban areas that are good candidates for future gentrification, when the crash happens. My city has gentrified incredibly over the past 2 decades. The $90k brownstones now sell for a $1 million+. I sold my tiny 2 family for $210k in 2004. I was getting married and moved into the largest unit of a 4 family I bought and was renovating.

The reason for the gentrification was that people don't want to sit in a car for 2 hours to get to their jobs. A lot of my tenants don't even have cars. My own car is almost 8 years old and has less than 50k miles on it.

Post: #38

Post: #39

Compact European-style cities between 100,000 and 1 million people are ideal. You can take a bus from the central train station and be in a wood or relatively rural looking area within 20 minutes.

Post: #40

Black Pigeon Speaks on youtube has two interesting videos on this matter. The idea of levitt town suburbia and the petro middle class model really has caused a lot of negative effects,obesity, social isolation and a lot lot more. Europe and Asia fortunately due seem to be less affected by this than the rest of the world

Post: #41

Living in the suburbs of a wealthy American city is the most comfortable (and most affordable, per measurable unit of "quality", if you will) form of accommodation in human history. You are, of course, away from all the action. The question is, can you deal with living in an apartment with the unmistakable sense that there are 5 million people living practically on top of you? 10 million? 20 million? It's quite an experience, with a lot of upsides especially if you're getting paid, but every time I go back "home" to the suburbs it really is relaxing-- for the mind and the soul.

Post: #42

(11-18-2016 12:01 AM)Space Cowboy Wrote:  Living in the suburbs of a wealthy American city is the most comfortable (and most affordable, per measurable unit of "quality", if you will) form of accommodation in human history. You are, of course, away from all the action. The question is, can you deal with living in an apartment with the unmistakable sense that there are 5 million people living practically on top of you? 10 million? 20 million? It's quite an experience, with a lot of upsides especially if you're getting paid, but every time I go back "home" to the suburbs it really is relaxing-- for the mind and the soul.

Anglosphere nations have this problem, poor urban planning and the decline of the city means if you don't want some jackass screaming at 2am you're gonna want to live in the burbs.

Post: #43

I love urban sprawl. It just works. People have the space they want. And when you build adequate highways, the commutes and drive times don't have to be bad at all.

I lived in Columbus, Ohio, for six years. The area has managed its growth well. They have wonderful roads, and it's very easy to get from one place to another.

I lived in the central city, and it was easy to get to lots of places from my place. Sprawl also keep it affordable as people didn't mind driving from the suburbs into downtown Columbus. The suburbs have "better schools."

Now I live in Austin, Texas. They have refused to build the infrastructure. They are encouraging people to live close to downtown. The cost of living is outrageous. Traffic is unbearable.

The bullshit about living close to where you work is nice in theory, but it's bullshit. Nobody can depend on their job nowadays. You can buy a house near your job and then lose your job.

Post: #44

(01-02-2017 12:59 AM)puckerman Wrote:  I love urban sprawl. It just works.

It doesn't. What you call "works" is a frog about to get cooked that's still in warm water. American urban planners also agree that American urban policy is a complete failure. The only advocates of American model are not urban planners at all, but economists.

Quote:People have the space they want. And when you build adequate highways, the commutes and drive times don't have to be bad at all.

The highways, and the way they are builtin USA are a huge problem. They ruin environment, knock down property prices wherever they go, promote car ownership and usage instead on relying on greener alternatives, public transport and walking, they expand cities making them essentially without any content apart from shopping malls and parking lots.

Quote:I lived in Columbus, Ohio, for six years. The area has managed its growth well. They have wonderful roads, and it's very easy to get from one place to another.

Yes, using a car. It's also very easy to go from one spot of Paris or Rome to the other, the ride is a way more pleasant experience, you can ride a motorbike pretty much everywhere, and every little street is brimming with content, and property prices high all around, while new spots full of content are opening up everywhere, instead of suburban concentration camps for White people.

Quote:The suburbs have "better schools."

Refer to my previous statement about suburbs being concentration camps for White people

Quote:Nobody can depend on their job nowadays. You can buy a house near your job and then lose your job.

Exactly, suburbs are disaster for mobility

Post: #45

(01-02-2017 03:21 PM)Orion Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 12:59 AM)puckerman Wrote:  I love urban sprawl. It just works.

It doesn't. What you call "works" is a frog about to get cooked that's still in warm water. American urban planners also agree that American urban policy is a complete failure. The only advocates of American model are not urban planners at all, but economists.

You are hoping for this. And what are your sources for these claims? What is the "American model"?

(01-02-2017 03:21 PM)Orion Wrote:  The highways, and the way they are builtin USA are a huge problem. They ruin environment, knock down property prices wherever they go, promote car ownership and usage instead on relying on greener alternatives, public transport and walking, they expand cities making them essentially without any content apart from shopping malls and parking lots.

Like a lot of people, I had my car before I moved to the big city. And you must hate small towns and people who live in the country. They have more cars than people in the city.

The only time I walked to my job was when I lived in a small town. It was the only time my workplace and home were close enough.

Cities expand because people move there. Do you want something like the Kowloon Walled City in Hong Kong? It should be the car-hater's dream. It was about 30,000 people squeezed into an area the size of a few football fields:

Quote:Yes, using a car.

Cars are great. I love having one. I will always have one.

What exactly do car haters want? I have often said there should be a separate country for car haters. They prove me correct time and time again.

Post: #46

Personally, I prefer a mid-size cities the best. It gives you some access to decent shopping and culture. Ideally, it is not that far away from a larger city if you need something "more". Also, in an ideal world, it is best if the mid-size city isn't too far away from total countryside if you want to shoot guns, escape to the wilderness, etc.

Post: #47

(01-02-2017 12:59 AM)puckerman Wrote:  I love urban sprawl. It just works. =

LOL. No... Just no.

Post: #48

I realize now that urban sprawl is really nothing more than a bunch of small towns that are close together. When I can drive my car and get around easily, it does feel like a small town. But I still have the choices of living in large city without some of the pitfalls.

I love urban sprawl. I need to get back to it. The benefits of urban sprawl are clear and obvious. The pitfalls are few.

Post: #49

(01-02-2017 12:59 AM)puckerman Wrote:  The bullshit about living close to where you work is nice in theory, but it's bullshit. Nobody can depend on their job nowadays. You can buy a house near your job and then lose your job.

That's why you don't buy property for a home. You buy it for investment purposes and then you rent wherever you want to live. I've always thought people who spend 300k to 1.5million for a "home" are idiots. If I spend that money it's because it's an investment to flip or get rental income, not to have a yard and a pool.

If you rent close to your job, you can pack up and move conveniently. Living close to where you work is not bullshit. I've done it, and it's awesome.

Ideally, any man with means should find a location where he wants to set up base and live and work in that location.

Not sure why anyone would BUY a house somewhere just cuz they work close to there. Also I'll reiterate, unless you have a family, no reason to buy property unless for investment purposes or because it's cheaper than renting. If you move, just rent that shit out for higher than mortgage, or flip it. If you can't do that, it wasn't a smart business decision.

Post: #50

(09-02-2016 11:53 AM)Laner Wrote:  I wonder if there is a limit to the outward expansion of cities? I see cities like Calgary that just go on forever, and I think "Who lives in these far off places?". I picture a low income worker with not many options in life, but wishes to buy into a dream of owning a new home. Him and his wife work, commuting hours a day in order to afford this life, but a very much on the edge of being wiped out by a housing correction. I hope this is not true, for when I think of this, I get sad for my fellow man, that slavery is just re branded.

This is exactly what's happening to everybody nowadays, especially all the new immigrants. They get sold into the dream of a house and a car, mortgage themselves to the hilt and the reason why there's so many faraway suburbs that are what? 20km? 30km? from the city center and growing. It's been the trend for a while, I saw this a lot when I was living in edmonton and when I went to calgary. Sadly it's happening to montreal as well because of the high property taxes.