[RC_ITR]

Listen, this is going to be a very rude-sounding comment, so feel free to not read, but:

>With two kids aged 10 and 12, I need access to a sports park for practices and games.

[0] Park access is WAY higher in US urban areas vs. the suburbs. I think having a car and driving skews your view of this.

>I need space to park a car and roads wide enough to support them because I have a lot of things to haul.

Again, I think you just like driving.

>I'm sure there are folks who live in places like SF with families and ride around in heavy urban traffic with 2 kids on an electric cargo bike, but that's just not for many of us. We're happier and way more stress free in the suburbs or even in the rural areas working remotely.

Yeah, you just like driving. Which is fine, but don't shit on our cities because of it. It's the driving that's the PROBLEM.

[0] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2019/08/21/parks-m...

[CincinnatiMan]

Is there a chance you're misreading sports park to be a more general park, versus what the OP is referring to such as a facility with 10 soccer fields or baseball diamonds?

[dillondoyle]

Check out a satellite photo of central park! So many baseball fields. I'm in a small city (denver) and have tons of 'sports' specific fields within walking distance.

[RC_ITR]

No. That’s just not how the concept of density works.

For example, A 5 mile radius city has x baseball diamonds in it. That’s x per every 78.5 square miles.

Let’s say the suburbs of that city are a ring of width 25 miles with y baseball diamonds in it. That makes the baseball diamond density of the suburbs y per every 1885 square miles.

I’ll spare you the math x=24y give or take.

Then I encourage you to go to google maps and look at America’s most notoriously crowded cities like nyc, sf, Boston, Chicago. There are dozens if not hundreds of baseball fields in city limits. Central park’s 26 fields alone would need to be offset by 624 in the suburbs to achieve equal density.

The “problem” is that most of those diamonds are difficult to drive to and park at, which is why OP considers them non-existent.

[SilverRed]

I think a lot of people confuse "need to" with "like to" and assume the way they live is the only possible way. People are surprisingly adaptable to many life conditions and its quite easy to get away with not using a car. With the money you save not driving, you can pay for delivery of all that stuff you would have moved yourself and still come out on top.