“so-called satellite cities once deemed too far away from anything else to be desirable. These are places like Tempe, Arizona and Spokane, Washington…” Those o

“so-called satellite cities once deemed too far away from anything else to be desirable. These are places like Tempe, Arizona and Spokane, Washington…” Those of us who have lived wonderful fulfilling lives for decades in exactly such places can only shake our head and smile. The article is spot-on in most ways, questioning whether a densely urbanized life is worth it when considering the money expense, inability to afford a decent home with a little land, the time tax arising from congestion, money-stratified society, and the sheer aggravation of it all. The fear of the unknown that dense urbanites face when considering the migration to “right-sized” cities or village life isn’t much different than the concerns we all faced when we grew up and left home. The language the author uses still presumes there will always be a single dominant economic engine located in a dense downtown area. “Polynucleated urban fields” are a Western US invention, and the author seems firmly grounded East of the Rockies, as evidenced by the citations to Bloomberg media. And there is no content provider more gung-ho about ultra high density living than Manhattan-based Bloomberg. Hence the allusion to Tempe and Spokane as “too far away to be desirable [sic]”. My only doubts about the article(s) are whether it is an attempt by Bloomberg and his ilk to eventually control the narrative of people taking positive control of their lives and environments by moving to their querencia. Wouldn’t be the first time…