I think the American press is implicated in widespread delusions about dispersed patterns of settlement and car mobility. Many newspaper and TV networks are funded significantly by car makers and real estate agents, so they have a self-interest in not examining whether it's nonsense to build and move around the way we do. I think in the near future it will be obvious, at least to younger people, that everyone having a little detached house and two cars is pure nonsense. I imagine the birth year gradient of this perception will be similarly steep to the one seen for views of homosexuality and recreational marijuana.

A single person can operate in most suburban areas with only a bicycle. I'm not convinced the objections I've heard can be related to media consumption.

As a single man, I would personally be miserable if I lived in the suburbs without a car. Maybe we have very different ideas of what suburban means, but I have a few questions:

How are they meeting new people? I've never seen a suburb with a nightlife or quality restaurants.

How are they dating? Do they invite people over on the first date?

Where are they buying their groceries?

I understand the desire to have space if you're raising a family, but I can't understand why a single person would willingly live in the suburbs and choose not to own a car.

I live in a suburb with restaurants, several bars, and three grocery stores all within about three miles, with the closest things being about a mile away, because I live in the center of the neighborhood. Easily doable on a bicycle. Tons of good restaurants, too, both local and chain, and a great diversity of cuisine from around the world. Oh and I live in Texas. How's that for stereotypes?

When I was dating (I'm married now) I lived in the city center in an apartment, but it didn't matter because I met my wife online anyway.

We met up in public for the first time at a bar about a mile from my apartment. This would have been the same experience had I already lived in the suburbs, except being 23 at the time, she might've thought I was lame.

And I'll tell ya, I didn't meet new people living downtown anyway. I met new people through work. Who is going to bars or restaurants to meet new people? Nobody I know

That sounds fantastic. I think we have very different ideas of what suburban means, though. In that suburban neighborhood, where do people work? Is everyone remote, except for the service workers at the restaurants, bars, grocery stores, etc? Or do most people commute to a nearby city? Don't you need a car for that?

Cheaper than living in the city center. Suburban towns, bedroom communities usually have bars. Being fit generally helps with dating. Maybe not the best look if you're trying to project the image of a "responsible bread winner". However there's nothing irresponsible about the saved money.

Grocery stores are abundant. Is the idea of bicycling with groceries impossible, because of media portrayals? I don't see that.

Cars are a hassle and expense. Insurance, repairs, fuel and tickets. The opportunity to be pulled over and searched after an alleged traffic infraction. If you want to leave the country and your rental lease it is another item to store.

Don't forget parking! I don't own a car and I agree 100%. I live in a city, though, so it's pretty easy for me to get groceries, go out, stay fit, etc. I guess my experience of suburbia is the sprawl associated with florida, southern california, etc where there are these giant housing communities without a grocery store, gym, or bar for miles. And the ones that are nearby tend to be in chains in strip malls with very little character or personality. Think applebees and planet fitness type places.

Most people will not live close enough to work in a suburb in much of the US, especially if it requires travel via highways.

I also feel like the mortality/morbidity risk would be materially higher such that it would not make sense for the average person.

The war media constantly tells us how dangerous the brown people are and how we should keep preemptively bombing them. Obviously that whole narrative is insane and the only reason we're still fighting in Afghanistan (and we ever started fighting in dozens of other nations) is in order to spend more money on armaments. None of it has a thing to do with security; all of these stupid wars have made us less secure. You'll never hear that on any of the cable news channels, though.

Predictions of the War on Terror security state being turned inward have all come to pass. Domestic terrorists are now presented as the biggest security threat.

Expect a similar outcome for the new biosecurity state.

Of course, these views are near heretical. Just like questions about the drug war decades ago. Then there are the horrors of a climate apocalypse which we must not question.

NPR can give themselves a pat on the back while promoting all of the above, without acknowledging their participation in the War on Drugs. It is all a bit rich, beyond hypocritical. Observe that most of the topics above are flame war material here at HN, well...