AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
State Sen. Savino Gets Noticed For Impassioned Gay Marriage Speech
Teen Gets Two Years For Killing Kitten
Ashley Dupre On Tiger Woods' Babes: "At Least I Kept My Mouth Shut"
Same-Sex Marriage Blame Game Aims at Paterson, Addabbo
Perhaps because the editors were tired of cover stories about the city's real estate bubble, the New York Times Real Estate section took time to try to convince readers that singles are moving to the suburbs. And by suburbs, the definition includes not just Stamford, South Norwalk, White Plains and Larchmont, but also New Jersey's Hoboken and Newark. Now, some people might stand by the quality of life improvements (especially if their companies are out in the 'burbs) and lower prices, but Gothamist sees a huge flaw. If you meet and date someone if your suburban town, you're going out to the three cool bars or two really good restaurants or one movie theater. But then what happens when you break up? You're left going to those same places, likely to run into your ex. Unless one of you decides to actually move out of town, you're screwed. And, that, ladies and gentlemen, is one reason why Gothamist loves New York City: There are any number of establishments we're willing to adopt in desperate times.
What do you think of living in the suburbs in your single years? Have you done it? Tell us!
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Hoboken is the suburbs? News to me. Where's the green laws, good schools, and soccer moms? The town is Brooklyn on the other side of the other river -- brownstones and apartments.
The NY Times is again trying to be cool and they are just off-base.
Yes, living in the suburbs when you're single is called LIVING WITH YOUR PARENTS. that's no way to live.
The NYTimes fashions itself as not just a regional paper, but a national one. Articles like the one linked to above help indistinguish itself as such, by making it look like a tourist that just stumbled off the bus at the Port Authority. Hoboken and Newark as suburbs? I suppose for all intents and purposes Brooklyn would also be considered a suburb for someone working in Manhattan, give or take a few randomly shifted borders. The focus of this article should be that New York's insane housing laws/taxation/real estate bubble are forcing young people interested in owning their own homes out into the exurbs. Hoboken was the Williamsburgh of the late 80s/early 90s. People move there because it's relatively close to the city, less expensive than Manhattan, it's open to development, and is populated by a group of like-minded cohorts. It's as "suburban" as the West Village. Ask any of these people living in borderland communities who work in NYC where they live, and I bet 90% would answer "New York." Collin Quinn once had a stand-up routine about the same where he would tell people he lived in NYC and when pressed for details he'd admit "F**k it, I live in NJ, OK?" That's different from choosing the "suburbs."
See, I avoid the ex problem completely with a simple, smart strategy - I chose a neighborhood bar that likely no self-respecting girl would ever wish to step foot into. It's loud, smelly, dark, and the drinks are super cheap. It'd be a cold day in hell before I run into an ex there. Heh heh.
Dating a woman averse to "loud, smelly, dark" bars with "super cheap" drinks seems to be the first indication why she might be an ex. For me, personally, those are prerequisites. I'm classy like that.
I think its inaccurate to assume that (1) each suburb contains only 1-2 "good" places to go out, and (2) that a single person living in the suburbs would only go out in the town that he/she lives in.
Also, all of the towns mentioned in that article -- Norwalk, Stamford, Newark, White Plains -- are all actually medium-sized cities with populations well over (I'm guessing) 100,000 each. Its NOT the same as small-town, "population 1000" America. The cities mentioned are only "small" in relation to NYC. I think most of the US and the western world has single people living like this. As shocking as it may be to New Yorkers, there are single people living and dating in, say, Omaha Nebraska.
Like the posters said above, the Times really needs to get a grip.
people date in ohama, nebraska? i find it hard to imagine.
Well said Opala.
It as a stupid article which signified nothing.
WAS
This whole thing seems to be backwards, anyhow. New York is the perfect place for single life, the suburbs are for "settling down". I do agree with above posters that say that places like Hoboken and Newark are only "suburbs" in comparison to New York, but nonetheless...
I grew up in the suburbs. The *real* suburbs. The suburbs where even ONE good bar/place to hang out is out of the question. Sometimes, the NY Times just doesn't get it.
I know I personally had to move to New York from the suburbs to actually begin dating. Lord knows no one would even contemplate asking someone out in the suburbs. It was a lonely life for me. Standing around with all the other single people knowing that society wouldn't stand for us dating one another. What nirvana it was to arrive in Manhattan so I could finally ask a girl out.
Sheesh. Sometimes I think New Yorkers are as parochial as people from BFE.
nobody has mentioned anything about long beach, LI... right on the beach, 45 min. from midtown, lively bar scene, cheaper rents... can't say it beats the city life, but at the same time doesn't sound like a bad deal at all.