"Suburb" is a pretty generic term. My hometown has older, inner-ring suburbs that are built more or less on a street grid, with local shops, connections to transit, and walkable corridors.
It also has far-flung, residential-only, cul-de-sac communities where literally nothing is within safe walking distance. [0]
We call both "suburbs," but they're very different places.
Thank you. Moreover, it feels like suburbs (I’m calling the town of Overland Park, Kansas a suburb) can’t or don’t clean sidewalks and crosswalks as quickly (if at all) or worse use the sidewalk as a dumping ground for snow from the road. Even on a normal day, a walk to the post office and back home can easily take half an hour, probably closer to an hour if you’re walking. That being said, it feels cramped to live in a city. There are other reasons to not get a pet (allegedly my fear of commitment) but I hesitate getting a proper desktop computer because it will occupy space. It feels illogical and wasteful (and unhealthy?) of brain cycles to worry about space that much. (What if I have to move... )
I don't strongly disagree with your point here, but like all city statistics that aren't normalized for area and density (e.g. by using the MSA/CSA or some equivalent), this one is potentially quite misleading. Kansas City draws its borders around an awful lot of rural land that wouldn't be (indeed, isn't) counted inside the borders of most cities. This is all well within the city limits, for example:
It also has far-flung, residential-only, cul-de-sac communities where literally nothing is within safe walking distance. [0]
We call both "suburbs," but they're very different places.
[0] What would somebody who lives here walk to, for example: https://goo.gl/maps/nX5ttfsYJBq