Why are those bad results? Neighborhood character matters - what's wrong with people having a preference for low density, open air, fast access, uncrowded parks, and so forth? You are engaging in the same dishonest recasting of people's personal preferences by summoning a caricature about increasing property values or "keeping out the poors". No one I know who favors low density cares about those things - it is first and foremost about preserving the kind of life and community feel they get from a lower density neighborhood, that you simply cannot get in an impersonal dense city.
I would argue that neighborhood character is prioritizing people. It's prioritizing the ones who live there already, who have built their town into a desirable location, and want to protect what they have. It's about prioritizing a connection with others that you would lose with higher density. There's nothing wrong with that, and I would argue those are very good results.
> Meanwhile, very-dense-by-US-standards cities like Vienna and Munich often top the charts for quality of life.
Based on what opinion? Self-reported opinions of European residents? Why are those a useful measure? It may just be they simply don't know their lives could be better elsewhere or that they have a low bar for quality of life or that they simply hold a different set of preferences culturally. I've traveled and lived all over the world, and have spent a lot of time in both Vienna and Munich. They're fine, but to me they're not amazing and they don't strike me as having a great quality of life. I did appreciate high speed rail providing easy access to other cities and countries. But locally, I didn't feel life was happier or better - rather it felt like these were dull, boring cities that lacked the character of American towns that many people appreciate. To me they felt culturally repressed, with less of an entrepreneurial or lively spirit, and life felt a lot like living in a limited sandbox. That's not surprising, since the urbanist push to design lives within 15 minutes necessarily means living with a small set of hyper-local choices.
> you were less likely to get hit by a car, people were much healthier, you had actual options to get around
There is no rational basis for living in fear of getting hit by a car. It is just something that is exceedingly rare in America. Health is also orthogonal and dependent on so many other factors, including personal choice and priorities. Everyone can certainly choose to be healthy while living a car-centric lifestyle, if they wanted. As for options to get around - cars are the ultimate option, because they give you far more freedom to go where you want, when you want.
> I would argue that neighborhood character is prioritizing people. It's prioritizing the ones who live there already, who have built their town into a desirable location, and want to protect what they have.
No. It is prioritizing the loud ones over everyone else. Also, most people don't understand what makes a good city and have hardly seen anywhere else. They just want other people to pay for their unchanging city.
> There is no rational basis for living in fear of getting hit by a car.
This is so completely wrong. In the US, you have lifetime odds of death in a crash of 1 in 106. That is just for death--the odds of getting struck by a driver are MUCH MUCH higher. That could include permanent injury.
This is one of the most bizarro world comments I’ve ever read. The argument is internally consistent, but so completely opposite of my lived experiences. I nomad around extensively. I am in suburban Florida now and this character and freedom you’re talking about is incredibly absent. I was just in Vienna for a month and my opinion on the city is the opposite of yours in every way. This is a good reminder to me that different people can differ more in just some opinions, but can have absolutely irreconcilably opposing worldviews. I would steamroll your suburbs if I could and you would steamroll my walkable urban core. Cheers!
I would argue that neighborhood character is prioritizing people. It's prioritizing the ones who live there already, who have built their town into a desirable location, and want to protect what they have. It's about prioritizing a connection with others that you would lose with higher density. There's nothing wrong with that, and I would argue those are very good results.
> Meanwhile, very-dense-by-US-standards cities like Vienna and Munich often top the charts for quality of life.
Based on what opinion? Self-reported opinions of European residents? Why are those a useful measure? It may just be they simply don't know their lives could be better elsewhere or that they have a low bar for quality of life or that they simply hold a different set of preferences culturally. I've traveled and lived all over the world, and have spent a lot of time in both Vienna and Munich. They're fine, but to me they're not amazing and they don't strike me as having a great quality of life. I did appreciate high speed rail providing easy access to other cities and countries. But locally, I didn't feel life was happier or better - rather it felt like these were dull, boring cities that lacked the character of American towns that many people appreciate. To me they felt culturally repressed, with less of an entrepreneurial or lively spirit, and life felt a lot like living in a limited sandbox. That's not surprising, since the urbanist push to design lives within 15 minutes necessarily means living with a small set of hyper-local choices.
> you were less likely to get hit by a car, people were much healthier, you had actual options to get around
There is no rational basis for living in fear of getting hit by a car. It is just something that is exceedingly rare in America. Health is also orthogonal and dependent on so many other factors, including personal choice and priorities. Everyone can certainly choose to be healthy while living a car-centric lifestyle, if they wanted. As for options to get around - cars are the ultimate option, because they give you far more freedom to go where you want, when you want.