| These ideas just don’t seem to be in line with how people actually enjoy living. Go to rural Georgia or Tennessee or the Carolinas and you can have this super low density and tons of greenspace. People don’t want that because living in super low-density places aren’t particularly desirable for most people. Because that level of density doesn’t actually support 5-10 small shops that people want to go to. They drive to central locations that have enough amenities to make it worth their time. Walking a km through mostly empty forest just to get to a small convenience store with only the basics is not something people do if given a choice. The average backyard size in the US is 2,164 m2, which would support a family of 4 in your scenario but obviously suburbs full of backyards don’t actually feel very nice and green. Central Park is so amazing because it is adjacent to high density NYC. You have the amenities of a city and a large greenspace. NYC is hyper dense, but that is closer to optimal than rural Georgia. Your Central Park example also points out another issue, which is money to maintain these greenspaces. At a fundamental level, it is a case of not having enough people to pay taxes (or whatever) for something even 10% as nice as Central Park. So you are back to what PartyOperator said, either bare grass, or wild forest. Another aspect is that people move to cities for a reason. Living in higher density allows for much greater and easier economic activity. Work From Home is nice for the few types of jobs that can do them, but most people need to go to work and doing that is only feasible with density. Looking at your Swedish community example, that is only possible with density. You can even see from the overhead map that it is mostly smaller, hyper local parks and other mixed use areas, with a larger more unmanaged greenspace around the outside. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t have the density of a deeply rural community, and also have huge, managed greenspaces and local shops. You should look into Strong Towns [1], that has a lot of good actual city planning information and what makes a happy, vibrant community. [1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/9/15/parks |
The argument of closeness of amenities prioritizes a consumption-based lifestyle over building good nests for humans (and little humans) to actually live in. Let's take your example, where you said people don't like to walk 1 km to a small convenience store -- is the assumption somehow that walking 1 km to reach the tiniest park is something people would like?
As for jobs, I'd say very, very few people live in a city next to their jobs. They have to commute in one way or another. This seems to fall mostly between 10 minutes to 60 minutes when discussing with people. Time-wise I'd say this range is aligned with a smaller town/city (either a job in the town/city, or in another town/city).
And speaking of enjoyment, to be honest I'm not convinced many people in big cities really enjoy it. I'd wager to say that most people generally would enjoy a less noisy and overall cleaner environment where nature is nearer than concrete. Not everyone, but most.
My childhood town (in Northern Europe) is 31 people/km2. It's overall about 80 k people (lots of empty space). Density-wise it's probably something like your rural Georgia but everything one needs is there, plenty of shops and businesses of all kinds and even some variety in restaurants (believe it or not). Quite many people could actually do with a bicycle or a bus, but in practise people have a car because of winters and four seasons and because buses don't run all the time and reach everywhere. So then, for example, most people do groceries once a week and drive that 3-10 km to the grocery store or mall concentrations. But based on my experience, they would likely do exactly the same thing in a bigger city too, since the inner-city core grocery stores are more expensive with less variety.
Also, there's a spectrum between bare grass or wild forest... For example, where I live now one might have a "wild" forest designated as a "park", and someone from the municipality just cuts away the hanging branches, windsnaps and such and ensures the paths don't grow shut. It's very low effort and cost. Once in like 5-15 years they might cut some more growth of trees so there's more sunlight everywhere. This type of "park" does not have manicured golf course like grass areas and fountains and so the per year per area cost are much smaller.
So it's not about the cake and eating it, it's about having a different kind of cake.
Anyway, thanks a lot for the link!
Edit: PS. I followed your link now; the concept of Neighbourhood Park is a neat one. That is kind of what I mean, more of that, not necessarily with golf course lawn. Also, the "John F. Collins Park in Philadelphia" looks great!