Like most things in life, this may boil down to who came first and who holds most of the power? If someone lands in a suburbia and wants to convert it into a dense metropolis because he wants to enjoy city life, existing residents have enough power (and moral high ground) to ask him to fuck off to Manhattan. By the same rule, if someone were to go to Manhattan and wanted a peaceful life with lots of open space, he should move out to suburbs instead of trying to convert Manhattan to his tastes.

Only way a status quo can change is if the newcomers amass enough power to change it.

This is somewhat formalised in the UK with the agent of change principle, basically you can't just rezone and complain about the nature of the neighbourhood https://www.citymetric.com/business/uk-planning-system-final...

This was an otherwise quiet residential neighborhood, not particularly close to any attractions. No one is saying that these people who bothered everyone around them were doing something fundamentally wrong. Partying and traveling are great and I do these things as well. However, it is a pretty difficult position to take, in my opinion, that it is okay for short-term guests to come in for a few days to a few weeks, disregard all norms held by those around them and who actually care about the community, and bother everyone while doing so. You do you, but please don't do it in my neighborhood if it is going to disrupt everyone's lives.

>This land use is just as disruptive to the enjoyment of others as "a vibrant city with street life and parties.

Being drunk and loud late into the night and not letting others sleep is not as disruptive as using land to live life.

If you’ve never been drunk and loud late into the night, are you really living life?

Nightlife districts and rowdy student/yuppie neighborhoods are as essential to the fabric of a city as its sleepy suburbs. If you want to go to one and live a quiet life, that’s fine, but trying to shut down your neighbors’ lives isn’t.