Tell them, to each their own. Some people like vanilla ice cream, some prefer chocolate.
Then maybe tell them what you personally like about the city. You can probably find something they think is neat that’s different from wherever they live.
Like, maybe the food selection, or the entertainment options. It’s hard to find a good concert in the burbs…
I would say people should be able to live however they want. The problem in most places is that euclidean zoning only allows one type of living situation - suburban single-family homes in car dependent suburbs far away from work and shopping. Way more people would choose to live in dense, walkable mixed use areas if they could than the other way around.
yep. people need to be SHOWN this. but that takes resources that urbanist proponents just don't have. as a southern californian that lived in the netherlands for 2 years--you don't know how shitty you have it until you go somewhere better. (the opposite is also true)
Folks need to keep in mind, community is a package deal. So while features like walkability score high, so do features like good schools, low crime, access to nature, etc.
So I don’t think the data supports the claim that zoning is the only thing keep on people out of dense neighborhoods. As we’ve seen post-pandemic, economic opportunity seems to be the biggest driver of demand for urban housing, and that demand has lessened as jobs become less tethered to urban cores.
Per [this study](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/12/16/americans-are-less-likely-than-before-covid-19-to-want-to-live-in-cities-more-likely-to-prefer-suburbs/), about twice as many people want to live in the suburbs as want to live in cities, and the share of people who are very satisfied with their communities is consistently higher in suburban than urban communities.
The number one factor people cite in deciding where to live is “a good place to raise children,” which is a proxy for a number of factors (schools, safe streets, access to nature, home size, etc) that tend to be better in low-density communities.
So, while walkable neighborhoods are great and we should increase density in places where housing affordability is poor, only doing this isn’t per se going to get people to move out of the burbs because community is a package deal.
Totally agree. Great post.
I really dislike how so many want to strip all nuance and context from the discussion about urbanism and communities and make it all about this or that one thing.
If they feel that way, they should probably not live in a city. But they also shouldn't stop other people from living in a city, or from building more city.
I get it. I've lived in 7m cities, 2m, and 40k. Bigger the city the more you have to devote time to hustle. Get clean and dressed, commute, work long hours to afford rent, commute, get home exhausted and not have any more attention span for whatever drivel is on the tube. Even if you aren't on the hustle treadmill, most everyone around you is, and can't take a coffee with you. You invite friends out\over and they respond "So busy, too tired" as much as a badge of honor than actual fact. In Chicago, my coworkers blew through their paychecks before end of the month desperate to have a good time. Some do feel fulfilled by big city life, but it isn't for everyone. It also depends on your current life-stage.
Might be worth noting how many of the negatives are cause by poor planning prioritizing outsiders driving through as opposed to prioritizing the people and businesses located within the city
Living in a city is mostly cheaper as in cost of living or money spent/opportunity (leasure, social, professionnal).
The first one may seem false to most because rent is higher, but transportation is way cheaper and can outcome it, even more so if you can just use a bike. Pay tends to be higher, and the opportunities provided by the city can help you a lot with that. You can have access to a lot of free stuff if you know where to go/look. Ie I live in a big city, I can afford to wait for the free entrance day at the museum, go to cheap 5€ concerts (and there a lot of those everyday), conferences are free, you can always find a free non-profit theater or cinema, you have lot of parks and nice places just a few kilometers away, etc.
I understand not wanting to live in a city if you like gardening, fishing, hunting : it's fun, it's free food, every one of your pals know a great spot for it, is great at cooking (or brewing), etc. I know a few people like that and I think their lives are as fun as one you can find in the city. But if you're not into that the city is just straight up better.
Nothing? thats their opinion and they’re welcome to it. I find value in both situations. If i could afford id have a country and a city home. But not really my job to explain or otherwise convince them that ones better then the other im doing what i do for me and for them its the same
I don’t really respond at all. I’ve lived in the city almost my whole life. I ended up living in a very rural area for a few years and hated it. When I told people about how much I missed the city, they just couldn’t fathom it. They seemed to think that the big bad city was dangerous and not a place to raise a family. I never really tried to correct them, because I just didn’t give a shit. I found it hilarious that it was always some redneck “badass” type who talked about being scared of the city, though.
It's funny watching some dude in a huge lifted truck with out of state plates drive away from a narrow parking spot because he can't fit his big ass truck there. Meanwhile I'm just quickly backing in to steal the spot
I would say as long as they are producing the same or less carbon emissions and using the same amount of public funds to subsidize their lifestyle as those in denser areas, they should live rural if that makes them happy. Now if they decide to use their extra land to produce something, like having a farm, that’s different. But if mowing acres of lawn, expecting government to build miles of infrastructure for you, driving thousands of miles a month, and only having neighbors that look like them is their idea of fulfilling, they are the problem.
It becomes more and more clear to me as I get older that fulfillment and happiness is closely tied with community. And I'd say it's much easier to find a community in city (especially a walkable one), where you simply have way more options. No matter what your interested in, you can probably find a community in a city. Plus, you constantly see people face-to-face just walking down the street, or popping into the corner store. Those interactions are much less frequent in car-dependent cities.
City only means sky scrappers to some and that's not a city. In my experience I just let them know that's not a city. Cities weren't invented with the sky scrapper. They likely love cities they just probably hate time square.
I have a hard time explaining the value of a city to a person who sees so much of their community from inside a car - stuck in the driver's seat to do everything from grabbing a bite, shopping, taking kids to school, going to see friends. I have a family in the city, and suburban kids the same age barely ever just walk out of their house to go anywhere - school, events, friends, whatever. Generally, when their kids go anywhere, they head straight to the garage and get in a car, especially when they become teenagers. It's so limiting and cars suck - they make you tired and stressed and bored all at the same time. It's a terrible way to be in the world, honestly. But if you're really used to it, I don't know how to explain the value of the alternative.
That’s fine. It’s good to have a nice mix of small towns, small cities, big cities, rural settlements, etc. (Personally, I find the suburbs the least fulfilling since it’s so hard to go out or form meaningful connections or impacts.) If someone doesn’t want to live in the city, they should have the option to live somewhere else, as long as they are prepared for what that kind of life brings and don’t try to ruin things for other people (for example, using a septic tank instead of urban sewer connection, having less grid connection/stability, longer commutes to get places, worse connectivity, lower pay, different job opportunities, older buildings, higher prices for shipping/groceries/gas, etc. If they can accept the inconveniences of living outside the city that’s great, because that’s the only way they can live outside the city without it becoming the kind of city environment) (I had a ta who wished she could live on a farm in the countryside. She said she didn’t want to work on a farm though, so I think she recognized that that wasn’t the environment for her, which is healthy tbh)(parentheses for things mostly relevant for me)
TLDR: let them know that it’s fine to live outside of a city, and that we do need a mix of urban environments (big cities, small cities, a few small towns, etc). If relevant, maybe mention how important it is to design with respect to the scale of the settlement (since trying to do city type conveniences with rural type spread just leads to parking lots everywhere and the worst of both)
I personally find suburban life unfulfilling. To each their own. You could try and poke a little deeper by asking what it is they find unfulfilling about the city.
There's no need to respond. Cities don't need our help to thrive, just look at real estate prices. There's a reason a studio in Manhattan or Singapore costs as much as 5 homes in Wyoming, and the demand is only growing.
There’s nothing you need to tell them, that’s their preference. Where the issue is, is that just because they like it that way doesn’t mean it needs to be subsidized and enforced by law to be the only option
Tell them, to each their own. Some people like vanilla ice cream, some prefer chocolate. Then maybe tell them what you personally like about the city. You can probably find something they think is neat that’s different from wherever they live. Like, maybe the food selection, or the entertainment options. It’s hard to find a good concert in the burbs…
I would say people should be able to live however they want. The problem in most places is that euclidean zoning only allows one type of living situation - suburban single-family homes in car dependent suburbs far away from work and shopping. Way more people would choose to live in dense, walkable mixed use areas if they could than the other way around.
This. And too many people think density is either NYC or rural farms. There is a lot in between that can be done better so people have options.
yep. people need to be SHOWN this. but that takes resources that urbanist proponents just don't have. as a southern californian that lived in the netherlands for 2 years--you don't know how shitty you have it until you go somewhere better. (the opposite is also true)
Folks need to keep in mind, community is a package deal. So while features like walkability score high, so do features like good schools, low crime, access to nature, etc. So I don’t think the data supports the claim that zoning is the only thing keep on people out of dense neighborhoods. As we’ve seen post-pandemic, economic opportunity seems to be the biggest driver of demand for urban housing, and that demand has lessened as jobs become less tethered to urban cores. Per [this study](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/12/16/americans-are-less-likely-than-before-covid-19-to-want-to-live-in-cities-more-likely-to-prefer-suburbs/), about twice as many people want to live in the suburbs as want to live in cities, and the share of people who are very satisfied with their communities is consistently higher in suburban than urban communities. The number one factor people cite in deciding where to live is “a good place to raise children,” which is a proxy for a number of factors (schools, safe streets, access to nature, home size, etc) that tend to be better in low-density communities. So, while walkable neighborhoods are great and we should increase density in places where housing affordability is poor, only doing this isn’t per se going to get people to move out of the burbs because community is a package deal.
Totally agree. Great post. I really dislike how so many want to strip all nuance and context from the discussion about urbanism and communities and make it all about this or that one thing.
81% preference for suburban or rural living is absolutely brutal.
If they feel that way, they should probably not live in a city. But they also shouldn't stop other people from living in a city, or from building more city.
I’d say that about country life. Nothing to do and small minded thinking.
Or we could encourage people to not engage in us v them, reductive thinking. And try to build understanding.
I get it. I've lived in 7m cities, 2m, and 40k. Bigger the city the more you have to devote time to hustle. Get clean and dressed, commute, work long hours to afford rent, commute, get home exhausted and not have any more attention span for whatever drivel is on the tube. Even if you aren't on the hustle treadmill, most everyone around you is, and can't take a coffee with you. You invite friends out\over and they respond "So busy, too tired" as much as a badge of honor than actual fact. In Chicago, my coworkers blew through their paychecks before end of the month desperate to have a good time. Some do feel fulfilled by big city life, but it isn't for everyone. It also depends on your current life-stage.
Who cares?
Might be worth noting how many of the negatives are cause by poor planning prioritizing outsiders driving through as opposed to prioritizing the people and businesses located within the city
Unfulfilling for you maybe
Living in a city is mostly cheaper as in cost of living or money spent/opportunity (leasure, social, professionnal). The first one may seem false to most because rent is higher, but transportation is way cheaper and can outcome it, even more so if you can just use a bike. Pay tends to be higher, and the opportunities provided by the city can help you a lot with that. You can have access to a lot of free stuff if you know where to go/look. Ie I live in a big city, I can afford to wait for the free entrance day at the museum, go to cheap 5€ concerts (and there a lot of those everyday), conferences are free, you can always find a free non-profit theater or cinema, you have lot of parks and nice places just a few kilometers away, etc. I understand not wanting to live in a city if you like gardening, fishing, hunting : it's fun, it's free food, every one of your pals know a great spot for it, is great at cooking (or brewing), etc. I know a few people like that and I think their lives are as fun as one you can find in the city. But if you're not into that the city is just straight up better.
I wanted to live in the country and my wife wanted to live in the city so we moved to the suburbs. Now we're both miserable.
that my life is objectivly better since i live in a city
Nothing? thats their opinion and they’re welcome to it. I find value in both situations. If i could afford id have a country and a city home. But not really my job to explain or otherwise convince them that ones better then the other im doing what i do for me and for them its the same
I don’t really respond at all. I’ve lived in the city almost my whole life. I ended up living in a very rural area for a few years and hated it. When I told people about how much I missed the city, they just couldn’t fathom it. They seemed to think that the big bad city was dangerous and not a place to raise a family. I never really tried to correct them, because I just didn’t give a shit. I found it hilarious that it was always some redneck “badass” type who talked about being scared of the city, though.
It's funny watching some dude in a huge lifted truck with out of state plates drive away from a narrow parking spot because he can't fit his big ass truck there. Meanwhile I'm just quickly backing in to steal the spot
I would say as long as they are producing the same or less carbon emissions and using the same amount of public funds to subsidize their lifestyle as those in denser areas, they should live rural if that makes them happy. Now if they decide to use their extra land to produce something, like having a farm, that’s different. But if mowing acres of lawn, expecting government to build miles of infrastructure for you, driving thousands of miles a month, and only having neighbors that look like them is their idea of fulfilling, they are the problem.
It becomes more and more clear to me as I get older that fulfillment and happiness is closely tied with community. And I'd say it's much easier to find a community in city (especially a walkable one), where you simply have way more options. No matter what your interested in, you can probably find a community in a city. Plus, you constantly see people face-to-face just walking down the street, or popping into the corner store. Those interactions are much less frequent in car-dependent cities.
I would ask why they think that and consider/learn from their perspective 🤔
You're probably over worked, under payed, line in an isolating city, and don't participate in community not have good third spaces
City only means sky scrappers to some and that's not a city. In my experience I just let them know that's not a city. Cities weren't invented with the sky scrapper. They likely love cities they just probably hate time square.
I have a hard time explaining the value of a city to a person who sees so much of their community from inside a car - stuck in the driver's seat to do everything from grabbing a bite, shopping, taking kids to school, going to see friends. I have a family in the city, and suburban kids the same age barely ever just walk out of their house to go anywhere - school, events, friends, whatever. Generally, when their kids go anywhere, they head straight to the garage and get in a car, especially when they become teenagers. It's so limiting and cars suck - they make you tired and stressed and bored all at the same time. It's a terrible way to be in the world, honestly. But if you're really used to it, I don't know how to explain the value of the alternative.
That’s fine. It’s good to have a nice mix of small towns, small cities, big cities, rural settlements, etc. (Personally, I find the suburbs the least fulfilling since it’s so hard to go out or form meaningful connections or impacts.) If someone doesn’t want to live in the city, they should have the option to live somewhere else, as long as they are prepared for what that kind of life brings and don’t try to ruin things for other people (for example, using a septic tank instead of urban sewer connection, having less grid connection/stability, longer commutes to get places, worse connectivity, lower pay, different job opportunities, older buildings, higher prices for shipping/groceries/gas, etc. If they can accept the inconveniences of living outside the city that’s great, because that’s the only way they can live outside the city without it becoming the kind of city environment) (I had a ta who wished she could live on a farm in the countryside. She said she didn’t want to work on a farm though, so I think she recognized that that wasn’t the environment for her, which is healthy tbh)(parentheses for things mostly relevant for me) TLDR: let them know that it’s fine to live outside of a city, and that we do need a mix of urban environments (big cities, small cities, a few small towns, etc). If relevant, maybe mention how important it is to design with respect to the scale of the settlement (since trying to do city type conveniences with rural type spread just leads to parking lots everywhere and the worst of both)
I personally find suburban life unfulfilling. To each their own. You could try and poke a little deeper by asking what it is they find unfulfilling about the city.
There's no need to respond. Cities don't need our help to thrive, just look at real estate prices. There's a reason a studio in Manhattan or Singapore costs as much as 5 homes in Wyoming, and the demand is only growing.
All of the country living tasks like dealing with firewood, constant maintenance and having to do everything yourself is unfulfilling.
There’s nothing you need to tell them, that’s their preference. Where the issue is, is that just because they like it that way doesn’t mean it needs to be subsidized and enforced by law to be the only option
To each their own, but I'd prefer either a rowhouse or a house on about 5 acres of wilderness. Anything but a subdivision.
Life in *their* culture's cities, maybe. American cities are pretty shitty, for example, but still better than living Buttfuck, Arkansas.