I grew up in a town of 80,000 in the midwestern U.S. and remember it as being completely undistinguished in terms of "character" - it had very average homes, ma

I grew up in a town of 80,000 in the midwestern U.S. and remember it as being completely undistinguished in terms of "character" - it had very average homes, many clustered about a fading downtown, it had light suburban sprawl, it had a meat packing plant and a lot of agricultural-related enterprises and a very few smokestack industry buildings with related infrastructure (railroad lines, etc.). It had absolutely nothing to commend it as far as "character" goes. On top of everything else, it had almost no aesthetics to speak of, being covered for much of the year in deep (and often dirty) snow blankets and drifts. Yet it had more "soul" and "community" than most of what I have experienced in living in more sophisticated places (San Francisco, Silicon Valley) in 40+ years since I moved from there as a kid. Why? Because it had great people. That is what makes "community," not buildings as ends in themselves. Now, a place like San Francisco has incredible character in many of its neighborhoods. Aesthetically, it can't be beat for those qualities that make a place special. But I would wager that the vast stretches of Silicon Valley lying south of the City contain large majorities of their residents who couldn't stand city life and far prefer the openness of the suburbs, sprawl and all. I have lived with such people for many years. They love such qualities as "safe," "quiet," "consistent" [as in quality of a neighborhood], and the like. When a Wal-Mart opens up, they are excited about the savings they will get in shopping there. And the same goes for all the other elements that we associate with "sprawl." Now, it may be spiritually consoling to some, as it is to the author, to be able to walk past and appreciate the fine qualities of old courthouses and other custom-built buildings of the past. In a free society, however, such aesthetics are always balanced against utility and, when people have a choice, they will often choose utility. Yes, we would all love to own that old Victorian that has so much character and that sells for $3 million in a cute San Francisco neighborhood but many people don't have the luxury of being able to afford such a thing, no matter how aesthetically pleasing. For some, that little house on a busy corner of an undistinguished suburban town will have to do because this gives them an affordable home in which to live and to raise their kids. Those are the kinds of homes I and my friends all grew up in and we did not think for a moment that our souls were being deprived of what we needed or that our close circle of friends somehow lacked community just because we couldn't run with the snob crowd. I think an article like this reflects one legitimate way of looking at life but it is a mistake to project this view on society at large. While the author's viewpoint might be seen as commendable from an idealistic perspective of how things ought to be, I would guess there are few people who consciously think this way in living their day-to-day lives. A vast number of them have lived many years in such places as "plastic city" (what San Jose has been called for years) and not given even a second thought about the alleged deadening of their souls as a result of that experience.