I thought this was a very interesting article from the perspective of someone who reluctantly moved to the suburbs for schools.
Confessions from a Cul-de-Sac
Confessions from a Cul-de-Sac

Until we start busing wealthy kids from Ladue into city public schools, or exiling poors from the city, it's an issue that's never going away. School quality is a direct function of parental wealth, the city is too large to be a wealthy enclave, the end.onecity wrote:Schools, again. Deseg needs to be regional.
thats already happening....MarkHaversham wrote:Until we start busing wealthy kids from Ladue into city public schools,onecity wrote:Schools, again. Deseg needs to be regional.
This is the heart of the problem right here. You could substitute "most people" for "a lot of people," and it's the reason why we'll never see a true resurgence of city living ever again. The best we can hope for is incremental block-by-block gentrification, and even then, the people that move into those spaces will (and currently do) mostly move to the suburbs once they have families. Convenience will always win out 1000% of the time. The suburbs are more convenient than the city. End of story.For many young families the weekdays are completely consumed by school, work, soccer practice, getting dinner on the table and doing it all over again. They can head into the center city to get their fill for true urbanism, culture, and entertainment on the weekends and then return to the world of affordability and convenience. And that works for a lot of people.
That the suburbs are more convenient in the city is the conventional way of thinking in the US, but I have such a different outlook. For so many of our friends and families out in the suburbs, EVERY trip from their house involves seatbelts and an internal combustion engine. They spend up to 1/3 of their income on transportation. Incredible. And that's just for everyday life, and not jaunts into "the center city".Mound City wrote:This is the heart of the problem right here. You could substitute "most people" for "a lot of people," and it's the reason why we'll never see a true resurgence of city living ever again. The best we can hope for is incremental block-by-block gentrification, and even then, the people that move into those spaces will (and currently do) mostly move to the suburbs once they have families. Convenience will always win out 1000% of the time. The suburbs are more convenient than the city. End of story.For many young families the weekdays are completely consumed by school, work, soccer practice, getting dinner on the table and doing it all over again. They can head into the center city to get their fill for true urbanism, culture, and entertainment on the weekends and then return to the world of affordability and convenience. And that works for a lot of people.
Webster Groves is a terrific place and as an old streetcar suburb is atypical than most suburbs.sirshankalot wrote:I live in Webster and we walk everywhere....
Just as a very simplistic comparison, I went online and found a home in St. Louis Hills that's similar in size, style and price to my home in the Webster School District. The taxes on the St. Louis Hills home were approximately $900 less than what I paid last year. I believe tuition at my parish school is around $5,000 and presume that St. Gabe's/Raphael's is comparable. As far as commutes go, I would probably shave around 10 minutes from my commute by living in St. Louis Hills, while my wife would add maybe 20 to hers. She would also be subject to city earnings tax, which she does not pay now.dbInSouthCity wrote:Does anyone do the numbers to figure out the cost of sending your kid to a private city school vs cost of higher property taxes in the county/higher home prices, possibly longer commute to work if you still work in the city, time wasted not being with your kids because of that commute ect.
I went to city public schools from 4th grade to 7th...went to catholic school for 8th grade (Resurrection on Meramec) then St.Johns on Delor for H/S (at that time it was about $3000 a year (2000-2004) that's about $4000 in 2015 dollars.
Webster Groves isn't a suburb. In any other metro area it would be part of the main city. St. Louis' messed up boundaries create this problem.sirshankalot wrote:I live in Webster and we walk everywhere....
I don't know if that's really a useful definition. Are you saying if Ballwin had adhered to good walkable design principles like older developments, it wouldn't be a suburb?dweebe wrote:Webster Groves isn't a suburb. In any other metro area it would be part of the main city. St. Louis' messed up boundaries create this problem.sirshankalot wrote:I live in Webster and we walk everywhere....
By my definition, real suburbs aren't walkable.
Hmmm. I don't agree with this. Was in Oak Park in Chicago last weekend. That's a place that is roughly 4.70 square miles and has a population the size of the county's largest muni, Florissant, at 52k.dweebe wrote:Webster Groves isn't a suburb. In any other metro area it would be part of the main city. St. Louis' messed up boundaries create this problem.sirshankalot wrote:I live in Webster and we walk everywhere....
By my definition, real suburbs aren't walkable.
I think there's a danger in conflating terms "urban" and "well-designed", and contrawise "suburban" and "badly-designed". That may seem the case with most new suburbs, but it's an abuse of language. There are many poorly-designed cities, and likewise many well-designed suburban and rural communities that are not "urban".framer wrote:I think, practically speaking, there's a difference between the words "suburb" and "suburban". In other words, not all suburbs are suburban.