I've lived the big city, high density European lifestyle, I lived it in America too, and in Canada, and I've lived the American and Canadian small town life.
They're both nice. The small town life is great if the community is healthy, and there is a town core that is dense of businesses and shops which you can go to and walk around. It gives you access to nature and land in an unprecedented way. And the small population means you get a feel of community and know others, and events can be hosted on peoples properties.
If the town is struggling, its not that great, and can start to feel depressing and isolated.
The european city style is also great, it feels like a buzzing small town, minus the access to land and nature. The sense of community, knowing your neighbors, being proud and invested in your neighborhood. Being physically active. These are all there. Similar to how you can find that in prosperous small towns too.
In the end, I feel the choice between small town and European style cities is personal. If you prefer nature, enjoy quiet downtime, and peace, small town wins. If you prefer urban landscapes, a buzzing vibrant environment, and constant flux of activities and creativity, European cities would win.
That said, I'd be surprised if anyone prefers the American style cities and suburbs. Its like the worst of both worlds. You get a medium sized house, big enough that maintenance is a chore, yet too small to have the space for serious house endeavors. A yard, but too small to have it be a place to enjoy nature. Its not quiet, yet also not buzzing. It lacks creativity and the feeling of community, and everywhere is hard to get too, too far to walk, too crouded to drive.
That's what I think people complain about. I personally hate them with a passion.
When I was growing up I lived in the suburbs, I hated it so far from everything, very infrequent public transport (lucky to get one bus an hour). Maybe worst of all as a young geek poor internet speed. I was stuck on dial up for years because it was all we had...
I vowed when I left my parent's home I'd live closer to the city. But it is just so expensive (especially rent) there is no way I can justify it. So I suffer through all the long commutes, traffic congestion hell etc.
I guess I just wonder sometime, what if we designed a city where cars took second place, and high density, public transit, walk-ability, bike-ability, e-bike, car share, etc, was made the priority. Would it make for nicer cities, which are more livable and affordable?
I don't know, maybe not, but it seems as long as Car are still around, we'll never try it out.
EDIT: Generally, dense cities in the European style are like that because they were designed prior to the existence of Cars, and thus Cars have never been able to enter them successfully, too small roads, and weird road networks. Since they were made for walking, they're automatically higher density. But, those cities were also designed before public transit, e-bike, bikes, scooters, package delivery, car share, etc. So I feel like we could do much better then those today.
Condos in Perth near the CBD are surprisingly very affordable, though there are fewer good jobs.
It's not exactly the most progressive of places, however. But personally I love it.
NB: I'm currently in the position of purchasing land in Perth and you can get some good sub-$200k deals on 350-400 square metre blocks within 20 minutes to the city too if you look around.
I'm looking in the near future so would be keen to know where to look.
The times, and with it many people's preferences, are always changing.
It's wonderful that you have found the place that suits you. Likewise, a growing number of people value higher density living, just as you do low density living.
> An urbanized area consists of densely developed territory that contains 50,000 or more people.
Still 70% of the US population.
For example, LA used to have a great train network for public transportation until the automobile industry made sure to tear it down so people would be forced to drive cars.
In SF/BayArea people want zoning to change so there can be more housing/apartment buildings. Who's blocking that from happening? Homeowners who think that would devalue their properties.
Also, doesn't seem like people in NYC value cars or yards that much (at least not over living in NYC).
In fact, if we generously estimate that 10 million people live in high density metro areas that don't rely on cars we are looking at less than 3% of the US population. I think that is something to sneeze at.
I know it's hard for you to believe, but some people like living in high density areas.
SF only has a population of one million.
Basically the US has NYC and parts of Chicago as emblems of urban density.
De-urbanization was spurred by housing shortages post-WW2 and federal policy seeking to stabilize the housing market. The FHA was created to insure home loans that met a long list of requirements[1], which had biases towards increasing consumption (including cars) and racial segregation. The marketing and growth of suburbia was then promoted by various business interests that would benefit from that increased consumption[2]. The new suburban lifestyle led to the rise of modern conservatism[3]. Most (~85% [3]) of the US lives in metropolitan areas, so rural lifestyles are not typical and it would be vastly less efficient if everyone lived there rather than in cities.
1: https://marketurbanism.com/2017/09/12/financing-suburbia-how...
2: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/...
3: http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/97...
I have moved our family into progressively rural environments and will continue to do so until the distance to basic necessities is intolerable. In most rural environments there is no meaningful traffic so people aren't that down on being in their vehicles.