[TacticalCoder]

> HN needs to just drop this notion that anyone opposed to density is a caveman.

I totally agree with that. I've been a city dweller (in Europe) for 45 years or so and hated every second of it. I then lived in suburbia for 5 years and liked it much better.

I then just spent one year in the countryside in a very remote area and loved it. I knew my neighbors (but we all had big plots so it's not as if we could see each other) and already have made friends there.

Now I'm back to european city life and not one of the worst city (Luxemburg) and yet I hate it already. Shitty miserable apartment life, stacked on top of each others like ants "because density".

Just fuck that.

I'm going back to the country side as soon as I can.

[BenFranklin100]

Often however the denser the urban core the easier it is for people to choose to live a short distance away in sparsely populated areas and still have ready access to urban amenities like good hospitals. In other words, those who dislike dense cities the most, should be promoting urban density as it increase options for those who like city living and for those who prefer the countryside.

[shrimp_emoji]

I classify myself as an extremophile; suburbs are the worst of both worlds in that you're crammed in with a bunch of people but on a sprawling 2D plane -- large enough to have little privacy and low access to stuff, but just close enough for possible social friction. Ug.

My favorite, but less practical, choice is also countryside. :p

[jjav]

> suburbs are the worst of both worlds

Suburbs are a compromise for sure, but instead I'd call them a combination of some of the best of both worlds.

Personally now as an adult I'd rather live in a much more rural area to have more land and space to do things, but for children that's kind of boring. So this suburban area gives convenient walkable access to activities, places and friends for kids while still at least having a bit of space and land for the adults.