Ice Honkey:
"That character type definitely exsists but you're exaggerating
somewhat."
Yes, it was my flippant response to the 'vapid suburbanite' stereotype as used by previous posters.
" ... If this thread is going to proceed in a reasonable manner we're going to have to be more specific about demographics."
Exactly. Discussion of this sort is almost impossible without the odd bit of generalisation, but I don't think it's too much to ask that we exercise a bit of quality control in that department, ie try to avoid those with a high assumption, low evidence content, however tempting it may be. Too often, it seems, folks use these discussions as an excuse to indulge in the pleasure of hating. That's my, um, high and mighty assumption anyway.
Re: cities being expensive>
"Things to do in the city that cost realitvely little: neighborhood coffee shop, made for doing nothing for hours..."
Greasy cafs rule. The point I was making was more to do with the lack of temptation to spend in the suburbs. I think that if you were to deliberately set out to live a low-consumption lifestyle, you would stand a better chance in the suburbs than the city, simply because it's more difficult to spend money there (the suburb).
stereodee:
"That, surely, is part of the, uh, well, "problem" -- that suburbs are bland, characterless, vapid."
That's because they are made to be lived in, not looked at. Certainly you can argue that as sources of beauty they come up short (they're not going to attract any tourists, which is another point in their favour), but that's not their job. You can get that elsewhere.
Sometimes, bland is the most appropriate state. [I have more to say on this matter but cannot, at the moment, explain it any better than in my original post. Blah blah blah blank canvas, blah blah blah freedom to seek out stimulation when you want, rather than being constantly immersed in it, that sort of thing].
"Now, I live in what could be called a suburb - but Belfast doesn't really have suburbs - and there is nothing to do. At all."
The lack of activity in suburbs is one of the things I like about it. BUT - yes, that's just me, and I totally accept that suburbs provide little in the way of entertainment. Again, you're supposed to find it elsewhere, which obviously sucks if that elsewhere is bloody miles away and you have no transport. I'm not trying to argue that suburbs are perfect, just that they are not 100% shit.
"The houses look the same, the kids are bored, everyone drives into town in the morning with the same look on their face..."
I don't think you can draw a link between 'houses looking the same' and kids being bored. The kids are bored because there is nothing to do. Changing the appearance of the houses won't make them any less bored. As for the expression on motorists faces, I think you'll find that's universal. How many expressions do you want the motorists to have?
"the suburb saps your will for change."
I think that's being overdramatic. Anyway, I would argue quite the reverse. Look at the strong opinions vented here.
Dharma Bum:
"Burn the Suburbs."
Alternatively, move.
[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: Saveloy ] |
