Size doesn’t really matter to me. Density and accessibility matter to me most.
I would rather live in a community of ~10k that is walkable than a community of 1m+ where I have to drive everywhere. If I can access groceries, dining, and public transportation without ever needing to own a car, I am happy.
I could live in North Bend, Washington, but not Gary, Indiana.
This entire question is completely distorted by the poor-qualtiy postwar urbanism that is rampant everywhere.
The reality is, there shouldn't be much difference. Lowrise cities -- 2-4 story buildings/townhomes, small apartments, walkable neighborhoods/mass transit, corner groceries, all that stuff that people think can ONLY exist in big cities should be the norm for nearly all towns.
I don't think many people would describe a place like, say, Bordeaux as a "big city". 250kish people in 50 square kilometers is hardly Paris. It's a small city, or maybe a big town. And it has everything you can want from a city and more. Shows, museums, beautiful multimodal neighborhoods, a robust tram system, restaurants and cafes and bars. All this kind of stuff.
The problem is we've all been mentally taught you can either live in island, R1A zoned suburbs which require driving to do ANYTHING or else you need to live in a huge metropolis like NYC. Or else we've been trained to think of a "city" like the bullshit they have in Texas, where it combines all the worst features of those island suburbs/car dependence with all the worst parts of city (crazy prices, noise, exposure to nearby-feeling crime, etc).
While a lot of the US big cities are trying to sort out the knots they've tied themselves in, your best bet to find beautiful, livable urban-ism is in those much smaller <500k cities that don't even show up on the typical lists of cities. Especially if they are historic, since the more historic a place is the less likely it got bulldozed in the 60s to make room for more highways (destroying local neighborhoods in the process) Some kind of a big university also tends to be a plus, though it's a mixed bag. Check for places that do not have an interstate carving through the middle of the city.
The problem is we've all been mentally taught you can either live in island, R1A zoned suburbs which require driving to do ANYTHING or else you need to live in a huge metropolis like NYC
I prefer areas zoned for agriculture over either of those. My favorite place I've lived so far is one where you look out at night and see nothing but inky black outside my windows. I'll walk 5 miles to the nearest town for that.
I'll never argue with someone who wants that true, rural/countryside/homestead life. The appeal is there for me too, even if my own calculus says the cons wildly outweigh the pros.
I'm pretty skeptical you're going to find it 5 miles from a healthy town, though.
For me the important difference between the two isn’t just a zoning problem, it’s a people problem.
Small towns, like the one I grew up in, even ones that are comparatively progressive, are still a nightmare for anyone who doesn’t fit in with the community norm.
Big cities let people find their community because therefore a lot of different ones to try.
This doesn’t go away with different planning or by fucking cars or whatever the kids are into these days.
Big cities let people find their community because therefore a lot of different ones to try.
You should read the horror stories from so many of those NYC co-ops. Some would make even the most jackbooted HOA presidents blush.
I don't really think this is unique to cities of some specific size. I definitely agree that it's going to be harder to find a perfect fit in a smaller town. But it's also harder to meet people at all in an anonymous metropolis where you have to work 75 hours a week just to make rent.
If you take away anything from what I have written, it's that I think this dichotomy is bad. We need a compromise. The lowrise old-world city is what worked for our species for at least 5 millenia -- it's only in the past couple of decades we decided to rethink it and force a schism between the fake rural aesthetic of the suburbs and the productive, efficient downtown -- and in so doing we destroyed both city life (by making it ungodly expensive thanks to the immense financial drain the suburbs and lack of continuing infill development represent) and the peaceful countryside life (by putting to death small towns in favor of the interstate highway big box store commercial strip). The only lifestyle that has weathered and still works pretty well in this day and age is the homesteader life, and to say that way of living is not for everyone is definitely an understatement.
It wasn’t just them, or the auto manufacture lobbyists that were probably more powerful at the time. There was also the influence of slightly older conspicuous consumption, so suburban lots were designed to look like mini country estates, and generally the re-emphasis of connection with the outdoors and nature that came in the midcentury. Plus, if it’s a totally new neighborhood, you can keep minorities out from the start.
It seems designers thought people in suburbs would like be close friends with everyone on the cul-de-sac, and they’d spend all weekend chilling outdoors and having barbecues. Maybe make one giant croquet course all down the street. Instead, you barely know your immediate neighbor’s names, and anyone two doors down is under suspicion of being a violent criminal.
To be fair, they aren’t the first or last designers to fundamentally misunderstand how the public will interact with the infrastructure; that’s still a source of surprises today.
I prefer living i a nice suburb with excellent public transport to get to work in the city.
Just like I have been doing for all my life (:
The city is a place you visit, and then come home to your nice suburb walk home from the bus stop along a small, quiet canal, sometimes there is an event in the park you pass through, else it is just quiet.
Need to get to work in the city center? Get on the bus that departs every 5-10 min during rush hour, 30 min later switch to the underground that departs every 5 min, switch lines, get off 15 and walk to the office, arrive 45 min after you left home having slept or watched videos on your commute.
Nope, not if you build it before selling land and building houses.
Here in Sweden, it usually works like this:
The municilapity decide to develop some land, this includes public transport, in lower density areas a few well placed bus stops is all that is needed, they connect with the suburb center, and might even have a few lines connecting further away, the suburb center usually has a train station and a small shopping center, the train then takes you further along to your destination.
If you don’t build public transport during or before construction of the neighbourhood then it will obviously be a higher cost. But build it before or during construction and it will be quite resonable
I have lived in a tier-2 city, and I hated it. My house used to be next to the highway, the sound was so irritating, the house kept getting dusty, there were too many pigeons shitting and making that irritating noise. I would rather live in a forest farm in a remote area, but I guess small town is the closest to what I’m looking for.
My house used to be next to the highway, the sound was so irritating
You don’t dislike the city, you dislike cars. Cars in cities are often people who live outside the city imposing the cost of their life style onto the city.
Not really. Yes, I dislike large cars, but that’s just a part of why I don’t like cities. I hate living in the city as a whole. Living in Navi Mumbai was a horrible experience. Sure, you have stores and malls nearby, and it is cheaper and more modern than Mumbai, but the vibe sucked. It was nothing like Worli, one of the many high-end parts of South Mumbai. The air was heavily polluted, there was trash thrown everywhere, and I am more of a recluse. Living next to a highway flyover with huge traffic, cars beeping everyday, even at night will make you lose your mind.
I prefer to live in the middle of nowhere(ish) aside from the conservative culture which inevitably comes with it. I also like walkable city areas. I completely hate anything in between.
I prefer a small town that’s geographically close to a larger city and public transit. Sounds weird but I’m actually lucky enough to currently live in such a place. Everybody in my town is super friendly, I’ve not had a single porch pirate incident or other securoty since I moved in over a year ago, even after accidentally leaving the trunk of my car open overnight, plenty of nature, cheap(er) groceries… and then I can hit the subway to hit the rest of civilization.
Rail for intercity/town transport plus bikes and buses/trams for in town is my dream set up.
I just want to get to places quickly, safely, and without breaking the bank. It doesn’t need to be bullet train for me, or with a quintuple 9 degree of safety and I would pay more in taxes or personal cost to have it. Just something better than the constant growing traffic and distances every year.
Philadelphia has Fairmount park, the largest inner city park (not counting Central Park, which was manufactured). You can live in a house right up against it. I imagine other cities have plenty of nature too. And even not next to giant parks, many larger cities have home with large yards and tons of trees
Being able to walk, bike and take transit instead of having to own a car is important for me. I’m not interested in the additional maintenance involved with owning a house, an apartment suits me a lot better. I also like having good access to plenty of things to do in the form of a great selection of restaurants and being close to international transportation options. Good access to nature without having to drive a car is also important to me.