>Local will re-emerge with tighter communities. Suburbs are unsustainable wastes and we'll have to adapt by reforming walkable cities. Kids will have tons to explore at that point, like they used to.

The suburb hate bandwagon on here has gotten way out of hand. They are not inherently unsustainable and it is not a "waste" to spend a bit more resources to make a space that's nicer to live in. Not everybody wants to have to walk everywhere/take public transit and live like a sardine in a can getting accosted for spare change all day. And are you saying you'd really let a kid "explore" in a city? You're not even particularly safe in a "walkable city" as a lone adult if you go down the wrong street or you're not paying attention.

If you can form that argument more convincingly than Jane Jacobs I'll give it more thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_Am...

A lot of people simply dislike density beyond the density found in small towns and suburbs and are willing to pay a bit of a premium for that living condition. The author even "admits that the ideas of the Garden City and the Decentrists made sense on their own terms: a suburban town appealing to privacy-oriented, automobile-loving personalities should tout its green space and low-density housing. [Their] anti-orthodox frustration stems from the fact that their anti-urban biases somehow became an inextricable part of the mainstream academic and political consensus on how to design cities themselves[.]"

I noticed that the author mentions that a busier city street is safer from violent crime but doesn't acknowledge that very busy streets are also havens for pickpockets, whereas you generally get it both ways on mostly-vacant-except-cars streets in lower density areas with little to no violent crime.

Really recommend reading the book as she addresses all of that in depth.