Yes, small walkable towns are nice. I personally prefer them to unwalkable suburbs by a long shot. But plenty of people reasonably find the balance of their preferences is better met by suburbs. And as suburbs densify into towns themselves, people might reasonably want to upgrade the transportation options available.

> Is that what you're trying to subtly hint at? That the people in those suburbs are afraid of reverting their "white flight" efforts? Apparently that's a thing, astonishingly

Not sure if you meant that sarcastically, but what's astonishing? Historically zoning has been used this way: to exclude non-white people, but it works against poor white people also.

> So who is worried about the cost of the transportation? Are you suggesting nobody — that the original comments were making shit up?

Yeah. For the average middle class suburbanite who can afford a car, transportation is pretty affordable (caveat high oil prices). It's only expensive if you are poor.

Obviously. They wouldn't be there otherwise. But the question was: Why? (Or maybe better asked, given your phrasing, as what or how?) The discussion seeks to understand what that balance is.

In the suburbs people generally seek more space, privacy, and security, while still having relatively easy access to opportunities.

It sounds like you (like me) have found our personal balance elsewhere.

Trouble is that this discussion stems from comments about how those in the suburbs can't afford the cost of transportation. Is there really opportunity if you can't afford it? Other thread branches seem to agree that those comments were made up bullshit, so that adds complexity, but we aren't really serving the intent of the discussion if we deviate from the idea (even if fake).

> It sounds like you (like me) have found our personal balance elsewhere.

Now, if only I could convince the rest of my family! I have no qualms in admitting that I am where I am because I have chosen to prioritize certain people in my life. I don't much care for the civil side of things.

I have asked a lot of people the same question and not a single other one has said that they didn't actually want to be there on the basis of what the community type offers. I find it quite interesting that I stand alone. Makes one wonder if I actually stand alone, or if others are just putting on a pretty face? Post-purchase rationalization is a hell of a drug.

If your argument is that a suburban lifestyle of convenient access to opportunity is not universally affordable given the current configuration of American society, then I'd be in complete agreement.

Question is what to do about that, if anything.

My preference is to densify the suburbs, allow mixed use development, and add better transit links.

But then you're right back to it being regular city — exactly what the people in the suburbs (supposedly) want to avoid when they choose to live in the suburbs.

This is the conundrum that prompted the discussion. The cost of transportation is said to be too high, but at the same time it is said that it is important to preserve the qualities of the suburbs that necessitates those high transportation costs.

They don't have to have the density of Manhattan or SF to be better for walkability than they are now.

After all, the walkable boroughs of some of the world's biggest cities were at one point a lot like suburbs (albeit minus the car-centered planning).

Many people who move to suburbs do so because they are priced out of the affluent parts of cities, but often still want to live in a more walkable and mixed-use environment than most suburbs offer today. Suburbs can evolve to meet those preferences. It's not an easy process though, and in many places it is triggering inter-generational conflicts over zoning laws.

And yes, they could potentially meet some of these preferences in a small town like yours - many have - but small town life isn't for everyone for all kinds of reasons as we've discussed.

Right, but it was said that the people don't want walkability at all. I mean, that's how we got here: Wondering why someone wants neither the walkability of the city nor the wide open spaces of the countryside, but instead the crampedness of the city and having to drive everywhere.

I mean, hey, If that's what is up someone's ally, cool. Whatever floats your boat. But the complaining about the the cost of transportation becomes at odds to that. At some point there needs to be a recognition of "you can't have it both ways", no?

Yes, at some point that true.

My point is that there is space for transit systems and mixed use zoning to make life easier in suburbs if they incrementally densify, but not to the point of being cramped.

To put a number on it, a population density somewhere around 5000/sqmi (vs the average suburban density right now of 2000/sqmi).

Have you asked the low paid workers about that?

Because I strongly suspect that, to their own detriment, they put in a lot of effort and avoid doing things that would help them get ahead in order to prevent the rich people from having reason to sick the government on them.

Can't smoke weed on your porch or run a mechanic business out of your apartment driveway when you've got a bunch of HNers leering at you from the balconies of their 5-over-1 luxury apartment complex across the street like you're an animal in a zoo.

Why not? My neighbours do both those things. It seems they can do it just fine.

> 5-over-1 luxury apartment complex

That would be the true spectacle.