3 ms·

I agree. I have lived in cities and in the suburbs, and I greatly prefer the suburbs. I also feel that many of the points in the article make unwarranted assump

I agree. I have lived in cities and in the suburbs, and I greatly prefer the suburbs. I also feel that many of the points in the article make unwarranted assumptions about priorities, or are based on opinion. European cities feel “cozy” and “charming” is because they provide a feeling of enclosure, which humans want because it gives them with a coherent sense of place, like rooms in a house. You may want the feeling of enclosure, but I don't. Again, I've lived in both. I don't feel more "cozy" or comfortable in an urban setting. This is just one of several examples. My biggest frustration about articles on this topic is how much they assume we all want the same thing, or agree on what is good and bad. Fact-based arguments like environmental impacts are great. But treating "ugly," "soul crushing" and "isolating" as absolutes isn't very productive.

WildUtah 10y ago
"My biggest frustration about articles on this topic is how much they assume we all want the same thing" It could be clearer but the opening paragraphs talk about how nearly everything in America is suburban. There is no choice for people that want to live in a city. That's because it's illegal to build anything except suburbia. We'd all like a choice. Developers could build suburbia for you and a city for me. But that's not legal and that is what causes the problem. A few older areas exist from before New Deal development laws mandated suburbia in the 1930s. And places like San Francisco and New York are insanely expensive because about half of us want to live there and they haven't been allowed to build any more of it for seventy years while the population tripled.
- abalashov 10y ago
  Author here - you nailed it. There's no useful discussing to be had about personal preferences when practically the entire country, notwithstanding a very small handful of places, is built as described in the artifice. And as prevailing zoning laws, building rules and perverse government incentives currently stand, it is either outright illegal or massively uneconomical (thanks to the distortions) to build anything but Los Angeles. When we have the option for urban living, then we can talk about who wants to live where. As it stands, the usual highway schlock is all the vast majority of us get.

WildUtah 10y ago

"My biggest frustration about articles on this topic is how much they assume we all want the same thing" It could be clearer but the opening paragraphs talk about how nearly everything in America is suburban. There is no choice for people that want to live in a city. That's because it's illegal to build anything except suburbia. We'd all like a choice. Developers could build suburbia for you and a city for me. But that's not legal and that is what causes the problem. A few older areas exist from before New Deal development laws mandated suburbia in the 1930s. And places like San Francisco and New York are insanely expensive because about half of us want to live there and they haven't been allowed to build any more of it for seventy years while the population tripled.

abalashov 10y ago
Author here - you nailed it. There's no useful discussing to be had about personal preferences when practically the entire country, notwithstanding a very small handful of places, is built as described in the artifice. And as prevailing zoning laws, building rules and perverse government incentives currently stand, it is either outright illegal or massively uneconomical (thanks to the distortions) to build anything but Los Angeles. When we have the option for urban living, then we can talk about who wants to live where. As it stands, the usual highway schlock is all the vast majority of us get.