Then use the cars in rural areas where they have a place. They don't belong in cities, electric or not.

And one of the reasons that cities are better for the environment is less need of transportation.

But are cities better for people if you're cramming everyone into less space and want them to move about less? If research says no, we shouldn't be promoting cities, but ways of reducing environmental impact while also reducing density when zoning/land use planning.

"In fact, the Centre for Urban Design and Mental Health estimates that city dwellers face a nearly 40 percent higher risk of depression, 20 percent higher chance of anxiety, and double the risk of schizophrenia than people living in rural areas."

I won’t get into the completely different discussion about mental health. You don’t state where your quote comes from, but it would be interesting to know if they say anything about what exactly living in a city makes people more depressed.

But your point about move about less: people living in cities actually move more. You’re much likely to walk or bicycle to shops or work when the distance is one and a half mile than when it’s ten.

Quote is directly from the linked article for this thread.

I don’t want to be restricted to shopping, work, or entertainment that is walking distance or possibly public transit if I’m feeling adventurous, which is what living in a city constrains you to.

I guess you are joking. Or are you seriously trying to say that you have more choices because you are living in a rural area and have to take the car whenever you want to go anywhere?

Just as an example, where I am sitting right now, I have more than 30 restaurants and cafés that I can reach within 5 minutes walk. If I don't mind walking a bit longer, or taking the subway a few stops, for a total traveltime of say 20 minutes, I can reach hundreds, most likely thousands, of restaurants. Shopping and entertainment are similar.

And this is far from a mega-city, but a city with around a million people.

Not joking at all. In the suburbs of a major Tier 2 city near Lake Michigan, via the interstate/toll system throughout said suburbs, I can cover ~60-80 miles per hour. How much can you cover in the city on foot, local roads, or public transit? I assure you, far less, having been exposed to Chicago Loop/West Loop/Bucktown/Ukrainian Village traffic and having to ride the L for a period of time (and occasional jaunts into SF and Manhattan). You might walk or subway it to a restaurant, while I decide to drive to Milwaukee or Naperville for dinner (in the comfort of a private electric vehicle, not a dreadful MTA subway or the BART, or trying to walk in inclement weather with a stroller and kids in tow).

I argue we have equal access to places of interest, and I need a car regardless for access to places public transit doesn't go; it's a net win for me versus inflated city housing and other costs associated with an urban lifestyle. (This ignores temporarily the argument that having access to hundreds or thousands of restaurants and places of shopping is necessary or significantly more valuable) Yes, I spend more time in transit, but the quality of life in transit is much higher than that of it in city life.

From my perspective, I personally cannot see a positive in living in the city now that I have a family. We lead a far better life than we could in an urban core (did I mention my backyard pool?). This is my argument against the stance "city == better!" people seem to take, even when evidence (see: this article) is demonstrating otherwise.

> I can cover ~60-80 miles per hour.

You are totally missing the point. I don't have to cover 60-80 miles per hour, because everything I need and want on a daily basis is close. Where I'm living (Europe) the streets are safe and comfortable to walk and the public transportation is usually nice. I let my two year old ride on my shoulders on the walk to dinner, and he loves riding both buses and trains. And while we do that, I talk with him instead of having him strapped in in a back seat.

And I've had long commutes before. And I absolutely hated to lose 90 minutes a day of the little time I have left after work, sleep and chores. I'd much rather spend that time with my child.

Then I perfectly well understand that city-life isn't for everyone. It's great that you can get a big yard without bankrupting yourself. I've never argued that city-life is better than rural living in all aspects.

But you tried to argue that you have better access to entertainment and shopping because you can drive so fast from where you are. Don't expect anyone to take that seriously.

80% of Americans live in cities. That means if they all moved to rural areas, the population density of rural areas would go up 5X. Would they still be rural then?

That's actually a good question... There is so much land, especially west of the Mississippi, that is almost completely unpeopled that I'm not sure that distributing the people concentrated in the most dense 1000 sq miles would make a significant increase.

We need a Randall Monroe What If?

Much of the land west of the Mississippi isn't arable land or livable in any way, unless you do what they did in Phoenix and pump the rivers dry. That isn't sustainable; it's an environmental disaster.

I live in a very rural area. On three sides of my acreage are cattle.

When I drive in to the city, which I do sometimes, I am imposing a cost on everyone living in that city because I chose to drive.

I still do it sometimes - if I'm going to Ikea I'm not carrying my stuff home on the train - but let's not pretend it isn't a burden on others.