| The first two points probably have less to do with the the design of suburbs, but can probably be better attributed to income/wealth: * https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/the-ur... I live in Toronto, Canada, and we probably have as much variation with-in the city as between the suburban and urban areas given that different neighbourhoods with-in the city have different average incomes. Access to green spaces does help help in many ways, but that may be countered by the lack of activity in car-centric areas: * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-11/the-publi... Further, lower density building necessities eating up more land for the same population than higher density. You're paving over the very 'green' land that is providing benefits in the first place. And 'urban living' also exists on a spectrum: it is not necessary to design things as scrunched together as (say) Manhattan. Brooklyn and Queen's (for example) can support walkable neighbourhoods with useful public transit (and cycling), while having SFH, garages/lanes, backyards, etc. I'm less against 'real' rural living than suburban design. The post-WW2 suburbs just seem to be the worst of both worlds. |