I’ve lived in large globally recognized major cities and literal wilderness- the type where there were no permanent man made homes, and most in between. I hate suburbs with a passion and think that the only same people who live there are people who don’t have a real choice. Beyond that though- I understand what different people might like about different places. Wilderness is beautiful and free, but harsh and Spartan. The country is open and there are all sorts of things to do, but for many types of things you’re more or less out of luck, so if you don’t enjoy hunting or trapping, fishing, hiking, shooting, riding horses and taking drives and such- you’re just bored and likely tired as I spent as many or more weekends doing upkeep on property and such. The city is loud. It’s crowded. It’s expensive. You’re often surrounded by people but more alone than in the bush. If you aren’t lucky or rich you have a small home and probably nowhere to keep your things let alone park or work on a car
But you walk, public transit, and there is a beauty to urban environments. Most anyway. In a large city you can get most any kind of food you want most any time day or night. There is almost always something to do and new things all the time. There are tons of shops and all sorts of support for hobbies and such and all the people tend to make it more likely to find people who share interests and such- especially if you lean unconventional. Most people stay out of your business a lot more than less populated places I’ve lived where people may not talk to you about it, but they tend to talk about you.
I don’t think any one way is the best for everyone. Until work at home hit big and until recent technology made it more feasible it was a lot harder to be a big tule lawyer or some corporate type living in big tussle unless you were rich enough to fly to work and only go in once a month or whatever. So cities do often give proximity to lots of money, you can spend 5-10 years in a major global city and live frugal and then go live very comfortably most anywhere else doing just about whatever you want of the savings and wealth you can build. You can spend 20-30 years in a big city and retire at 40 as a millionaire fairly easily and go live in big tussle or be an expat in a cheap foreign country and never work again and live pretty well or do some work and live darn well. So there are benefits. If you aren’t young (at least of heart or mind) a city loses alot of appeal, and stay long enough and you’ve been ther done that. If your hobbies aren’t particularly eclectic and your career or
Life aren’t tied to certain industries or sub cultures etc. city loses a lot of appeal. For most families a city loses appeal- when you work 7-4 or 9-5 or whatever and have responsibilities to come home, spend time with the family, chores, dinner, homework with kids, put down the baby etc- that routine doesn’t leave alot of appeal for all night tacos or pop up concerts at 3am or $200 museum events and such. So the city isn’t always the best place for people with routines- usually people with families, and they can be hard to really enjoy with a family unless you are pretty well off, the appeal of NYC for example for a family not making a couple hundred thousand a year or sitting in wealth would escape me. Asides Central Park and some architecture and libraries, I’d personally rather live somewhere much more affordable and with more “low cost” activities appeal for a family.
But the high density city thing comes from a few places. There’s only so much space. Using the space we have more efficiently makes sense. At the end of the day- country folk and especially those who dislike cities should be very happy we have cities. If you turned NYC into even Dallas style homes vs. high rises and block houses and such- you’d have millions of people needing a place to live and they could only spread out of go somewhere else. Do that in every city and there suddenly is a lot less country, and as many have experienced thanks to “work from home” relocation of city folk seeking cheaper rural housing- you end up in small towns and out in the country with city people brining their way of thinking and values and changing the landscape.
So if nothing else cities make sense in that regard- for people that want that kind of life and often share certain ideas and values, cities create communities such folks can congregate, and in doing they help keep it so that there is room for people who don’t want that way of living can have an affordable option.
Suburbs tend to be the run off- you usually get a little space, more than a city but less than a small town or the country. Usually suburbs are built close to cities for those who want city jobs and perks but don’t want or can’t afford to live in the city, and sometimes they are built near rural areas for those who can’t afford or don’t want to deal with the full rural or country experience. They’re a sort of in between.
But as we have more people around the world driving and using technology, as the environment and resources are more and more strained- we probably need to start giving up some things. I mean- there are whole sorts of America that you really can’t survive in the modern world or at all really without a vehicle and driving, and that’s a problem in reducing waste, but the fact that we have major cities where you really can’t live much life without driving- that’s bad. Really bad. LA has such bad traffic but outside some exceptions of living and working almost entirely in a few small areas- LA and much of SoCal you just really need a car to have real ability to live.
Now, higher density doesn’t necessarily have to be higher density housing per se- but if you think about it, the majority of Americans probably need to drive to get their shopping done. If they need to see a doctor or buy a shirt (without using Amazon etc..), or go to work or buy groceries, they probably have to drive. Suburbs and country areas can be the worst in this regard, but LA is an example of sprawl. You might need to go to opposite ends of the valley or cross massive office complex after complex, fields, endless holes without a business in sight. There are lots of shops and amenities but they are often consolidated- everyone for miles and miles needs to go to the same place to get their shopping done, or they are spread out- miles and miles apart. This condition is often true in the country too.
As a kid, the nearest “big store” was 30 miles drive. There were no targets or Walmarts or anything. There was one place to get tires, one hardware store, one grocery store, maybe four or so restaurants. If you needed something they didn’t carry locally- a power tool or such, material other than lumber, clothes… you had to drive 30 miles. Well- you could get SOME clothes in town but… well- nothing to wear to work or in public in general really. At least not if one had self respect. They eventually opened a video store, but any new releases you needed to.. drive 30 miles.
So I mean- there is some wisdom to the concept of designing things so that people don’t need cars. Realistically we are headed to a place where it is likely in the next century that either only wealthy people will be able to drive or 30% or more of a families budget will need to go to keeping and operating a personal vehicle. Cars aren’t getting cheaper most likely. People are probably going to compromise as people already have. In my life even small town America isn’t the same in most places. It’s slower to change but by and large it has changed across many small towns. Even the one horse town I came from got their first electric traffic signal in the 21st century. So unless you love somewhere that literally almost no one would want to live- change is coming, the goal is to try and cushion the blow.
Live in Gothenburg, Sweden. High density walkable city with affordable public transport. Basically the air is fresh, the water is clean and I've never needed a car through my whole life, I'm 46. Anything big I need I just get delivered at the fraction of the cost of owning and operating a car. The only personal vehicles I've ever owned was a moped, bicycles and currently an ebike. I've visited car oriented cities and they're awful. The air is foul and everyone is stressed out about traffic.
It can be pretty bad. I think we have to remember purpose- function. In most cities- especially “car cities,” cars don’t serve any real function.
It used to take me 30 minutes without traffic to drive to college when I was young. Then I had to find and pay parking and walk the same distance as from the light rail station. With gas prices at the time and factoring parking and wear and tear on the car it was about the same cost to take the light rail and also was 30 minutes from when I left my house. I’ve traveled or been places where it was faster to walk than drive, and in very congested situations you can walk a block 5-10x faster or more than driving that same block.
When you’re in tight urban areas, even without traffic, driving isn’t enjoyable. So it is often slower, there isn’t any fun to it, and there are the costs and hassles and liabilities of driving.
It was common through most of my life living near but not in cities for people to take public transit for sports events or nights out. No parking, no having your car vandalized or stolen, no traffic, often the same or faster travel times, and a big one- when going out you can drink and take public transit without much or any real worry of a DUI or hitting someone.
So I mean- indeed it is hard to move lumber or a massive grocery order on a bus- cars are useful for that, and people with infirmities or differences in ability might have situations where a vehicle can be helpful- but most of that is infrastructure. The big “purpose” driving serves for most Americans asides privacy is that most people in the country don’t have access to affordable and decent options like public transit or delivery. We can fix that, and we probably should.
Suburbs tend to be the run off- you usually get a little space, more than a city but less than a small town or the country. Usually suburbs are built close to cities for those who want city jobs and perks but don’t want or can’t afford to live in the city, and sometimes they are built near rural areas for those who can’t afford or don’t want to deal with the full rural or country experience. They’re a sort of in between.
It used to take me 30 minutes without traffic to drive to college when I was young. Then I had to find and pay parking and walk the same distance as from the light rail station. With gas prices at the time and factoring parking and wear and tear on the car it was about the same cost to take the light rail and also was 30 minutes from when I left my house. I’ve traveled or been places where it was faster to walk than drive, and in very congested situations you can walk a block 5-10x faster or more than driving that same block.
When you’re in tight urban areas, even without traffic, driving isn’t enjoyable. So it is often slower, there isn’t any fun to it, and there are the costs and hassles and liabilities of driving.
So I mean- indeed it is hard to move lumber or a massive grocery order on a bus- cars are useful for that, and people with infirmities or differences in ability might have situations where a vehicle can be helpful- but most of that is infrastructure. The big “purpose” driving serves for most Americans asides privacy is that most people in the country don’t have access to affordable and decent options like public transit or delivery. We can fix that, and we probably should.