Technically it was established before the automobile, but its tenth of a mile downtown commercial strip is the only remaining remnant of that. For all intents and purposes, it was built to "modern" standards, which is to say that its density is on par with the average American suburb. – To be fair, the streets and sidewalks are sensibly laid out. Some of those winding maze suburbs would take days of walking just to get out of the maze. That certainly helps.
By definition, urban requires at least 1,000 people per square mile at minimum. Any less than that and a place is well and truly rural by every account. Even at that minimum density, unless the town is literally a straight line, most everything should still be reasonably walkable.
The difference is really only that people in towns of 3,000 people want all the jobs, services, and amenities as possible. Whereas suburban folk fight tooth and nail to keep it all out. But the question is: Why? Why wouldn't you want those things nearby, most especially when you are complaining you can't afford transportation to those amenities where there are found elsewhere? What's the appeal of being shoved up tight against your annoying neighbour and to have nothing else?
> The difference is really only that people in towns of 3,000 people want all the jobs, services, and amenities as possible. Whereas suburban folk fight tooth and nail to keep it all out. But the question is: Why? Why wouldn't you want those things nearby, most especially when you are complaining you can't afford transportation to those amenities where there are found elsewhere?
Because the amenities usually require low income service employees, who then might want to live in that suburb, or just stay past their quitting time, which might then compromise some of the reasons you liked the suburb in the first place.
> when you are complaining you can't afford transportation to those amenities where there are found elsewhere
I don't think suburbanites complain about the cost of transportation. They complain about the time spent in traffic.
> which might then compromise some of the reasons you liked the suburb in the first place.
What might be those reasons?
This 3,000 person town has some very well paid people and low paid workers living side-by-side seemingly in harmony. Seriously, I really cannot imagine any quality that would be different in a suburb. I did even live in a suburb of a large city a number of years ago for a while when I was young and dumb and I can really find no noticeable difference in the way of life other than everything I do outside of the home is a lot easier to access now.
Granted, in this part of the world the small town/rural areas are predominantly – almost exclusively, even — white. Is that what you're trying to subtly hint at? That the people in those suburbs are afraid of reverting their "white flight" efforts? Apparently that's a thing, astonishingly.
> I don't think suburbanites complain about the cost of transportation.
That's exactly how we got here, though: Comments were complaining about how transportation is of high cost/unaffordable. When we dug into why transportation was even needed, the answer was that many people live in suburbs that are void of any nearby jobs, other amenities, or anything at all, requiring access to transportation to live out life.
The people who don't need transportation because they have those things nearby have no need to be worried about the cost of transportation. So who is worried about the cost of the transportation? Are you suggesting nobody — that the original comments were making shit up?
> and low paid workers living side-by-side seemingly in harmony.
Have you asked the low paid workers about that?
Because I strongly suspect that, to their own detriment, they put in a lot of effort and avoid doing things that would help them get ahead in order to prevent the rich people from having reason to sick the government on them.
Can't smoke weed on your porch or run a mechanic business out of your apartment driveway when you've got a bunch of HNers leering at you from the balconies of their 5-over-1 luxury apartment complex across the street like you're an animal in a zoo.
> I can really find no noticeable difference in the way of life other than everything I do outside of the home is a lot easier to access now
Yes, small walkable towns are nice. I personally prefer them to unwalkable suburbs by a long shot. But plenty of people reasonably find the balance of their preferences is better met by suburbs. And as suburbs densify into towns themselves, people might reasonably want to upgrade the transportation options available.
> Is that what you're trying to subtly hint at? That the people in those suburbs are afraid of reverting their "white flight" efforts? Apparently that's a thing, astonishingly
Not sure if you meant that sarcastically, but what's astonishing? Historically zoning has been used this way: to exclude non-white people, but it works against poor white people also.
> So who is worried about the cost of the transportation? Are you suggesting nobody — that the original comments were making shit up?
Yeah. For the average middle class suburbanite who can afford a car, transportation is pretty affordable (caveat high oil prices). It's only expensive if you are poor.
> But plenty of people reasonably find the balance of their preferences is better met by suburbs.
Obviously. They wouldn't be there otherwise. But the question was: Why? (Or maybe better asked, given your phrasing, as what or how?) The discussion seeks to understand what that balance is.
> while still having relatively easy access to opportunities.
Trouble is that this discussion stems from comments about how those in the suburbs can't afford the cost of transportation. Is there really opportunity if you can't afford it? Other thread branches seem to agree that those comments were made up bullshit, so that adds complexity, but we aren't really serving the intent of the discussion if we deviate from the idea (even if fake).
> It sounds like you (like me) have found our personal balance elsewhere.
Now, if only I could convince the rest of my family! I have no qualms in admitting that I am where I am because I have chosen to prioritize certain people in my life. I don't much care for the civil side of things.
I have asked a lot of people the same question and not a single other one has said that they didn't actually want to be there on the basis of what the community type offers. I find it quite interesting that I stand alone. Makes one wonder if I actually stand alone, or if others are just putting on a pretty face? Post-purchase rationalization is a hell of a drug.
> Is there really opportunity if you can't afford it?
If your argument is that a suburban lifestyle of convenient access to opportunity is not universally affordable given the current configuration of American society, then I'd be in complete agreement.
Question is what to do about that, if anything.
My preference is to densify the suburbs, allow mixed use development, and add better transit links.
Technically it was established before the automobile, but its tenth of a mile downtown commercial strip is the only remaining remnant of that. For all intents and purposes, it was built to "modern" standards, which is to say that its density is on par with the average American suburb. – To be fair, the streets and sidewalks are sensibly laid out. Some of those winding maze suburbs would take days of walking just to get out of the maze. That certainly helps.
By definition, urban requires at least 1,000 people per square mile at minimum. Any less than that and a place is well and truly rural by every account. Even at that minimum density, unless the town is literally a straight line, most everything should still be reasonably walkable.
The difference is really only that people in towns of 3,000 people want all the jobs, services, and amenities as possible. Whereas suburban folk fight tooth and nail to keep it all out. But the question is: Why? Why wouldn't you want those things nearby, most especially when you are complaining you can't afford transportation to those amenities where there are found elsewhere? What's the appeal of being shoved up tight against your annoying neighbour and to have nothing else?