Sure, but outside of where that backyard is wanted to be hundreds of acres, then there is the density necessary to introduce amenities like jobs, healthcare, shopping, etc. alongside the backyard. At which point you no longer need transportation as you have everything you need right there.
But what happens in the places we're talking about is that the people accept a small backyard in order to keep everything close, but also work to ensure that amenities aren't welcome, only allowing other houses to be close. So you get all the downsides of the city, having to trip over your annoying neighbours, but also the downsides of living in the country, having to waste large amounts of time driving to do anything.
What do people see in these strange middle places?
> What do people see in these strange middle places?
Not sharing a wall or ceiling with other people is great actually
I am constantly told that dense housing "built right" is quiet and peaceful and you never hear your neighbors through the walls, but my experience in apartments in my 20s was not like that
I constantly had neighbours that would play loud music at all hours, or get into fights with their partners or otherwise just be extremely disruptive and stressful to share a building with
I'll take the trade of having to drive a couple more minutes to get to a store if it means I never have to hear my neighbours having loud sex through the walls again at 2am when I'm trying to sleep
How? I live in about the most typical suburb imaginable: ~2500 sq ft house on ~8500 sq ft lot. I never hear or am bothered by neighbors (other than early morning landscapers). I have 3 grocery stores that are around a 10 minute walk along with just about every other type business. Don’t understand what is undesirable about that to you.
Well the weird middle places are just a compromise between "having more space and more distance from neighbours" and "being far from amenities and city life"
They close the distance gap, but thanks to poor civil design often (yes, there are exceptions, always) they don't close the time gap. I don't suppose it is being able to see a mostly occluded, hazy silhouette of the downtown skyscrapers is the appeal there. Surely this is about minimizing travel time?
A family member once lived in the suburbs of a large city. I live 50 miles clear of that city. It was always fun to razz them about the fact that I could be to the amenities in the city faster than they could. Many cities (not all, there are exceptions, always) develop as economic hubs, needing to get things in and out of the city as fast as possible, often at the cost of intercity movement. This leaves it more advantageous, if not in the heart of the action, to live outside of the city with respect to the matter of time.
Perhaps people just end up in the suburbs out of happenstance (e.g. they were born there) and never give it any more thought? It would be fascinating to hear from those who gave all three types of places a fair shake and still settled on the suburbs in the end.
During peak hours maybe, or in very poorly designed or overcrowded cities, but ultimately if everyone is using the same roads then you will eventually sit in the same traffic if you're trying to get to the same places? Travel time might not be that much longer but it will be longer
> It would be fascinating to hear from those who gave all three types of places a fair shake and still settled on the suburbs in the end
I am one of those people. I grew up in suburbs, my family moved to the countryside in my teens, and I spent my 20s in dense urban areas, settled in the suburbs now
When I lived in the country I did often joke with my friends that I could be anywhere in the city in 20 minutes faster than they could, because I could get far north or far south faster than going through the city
But the tradeoff was that 20 minutes was a hard minimum. I could not get anywhere faster than that really
> but ultimately if everyone is using the same roads then you will eventually sit in the same traffic if you're trying to get to the same places?
Once you get to the arterial roads that take the traffic to the amenities that's true, but it is often slow going just to get that far.
Fair to say that is less true if you are on the edge of the suburbs, but, for the sake of this discussion, are you really living in the suburbs if you are right beside the action? I think that goes against the premise presented in the beginning.
> my family moved to the countryside in my teens
Not to diminish or dismiss your experience, but can a teenager really give something like that a fair shake? Like you indicate, you ended up there because your family brought you there, not because you chose to go there to make your own life. Typically, teenagers have limited autonomy and really can't experience it for what it is. You had an experience, but don't you think it would be an entirely different experience if you moved to the countryside now when you can fully shape the experience into being what you want it to be, not what your parents (or equivalent) wanted it to be?
> now when you can fully shape the experience into being what you want it to be
Sort of my whole point is that there is no situation in life that we can "fully" shape into what we want, every situation comes with upsides and downsides which are often not really in our control, because we have to share space with other people
I grew into an adult and commuted to my local college from the countryside. I didn't live out there for long, but a couple of years at least. Long enough to realize it wasn't really for me
But what happens in the places we're talking about is that the people accept a small backyard in order to keep everything close, but also work to ensure that amenities aren't welcome, only allowing other houses to be close. So you get all the downsides of the city, having to trip over your annoying neighbours, but also the downsides of living in the country, having to waste large amounts of time driving to do anything.
What do people see in these strange middle places?