[zepto]

> I think the difference being is that you don't have to get in the car just to leave it.

Again there is an innuendo that this is fundamental bad.

In my experience (having lived in London for decades), for most people who live within 5 minutes of a major train station, which is not most Londoners, it’s not even practical to have a car at all, and even if you do, just getting out of the city can take an hour.

London is great if you like urban environments and don’t like cars. But I don’t see why that should be a universally held preference.

[onorton]

I don't mean leaving the city by public transport or whatever. I mean leaving the monotony of a particular area which I thought you meant in your OP.

Streets in London typically aren't the same for literal miles, whereas they can be in the case of some American suburbs where you need a vehicle like a car to escape it.

To be clear, my reference to the train station was to indicate how busy my local area can be. But despite that, you don't have to walk very far to find somewhere a bit more tranquil.

[zepto]

> Streets in London typically aren't the same for literal miles

Is this meaningfully true? South london for example has enormous areas with architecture that is just as ‘the same’ as American suburbs.

It’s definitely true that American suburbs are lower density and the houses are typically larger, but again that seems like just a preference.