[db48x]

You’re still missing the point. Regardless of how much you like your neighborhood, 50% of Americans would prefer to live in a suburb. Even if there were no constraints such as money or family obligations, they would choose a suburb consisting entirely of houses over your neighborhood which mixes residential and commercial uses. Your neighborhood might be great, but it isn’t what most Americans would choose. In fact, only about 20% would choose it; the rest want to live far out in the countryside with as few neighbors as possible.

That’s the key fact that folks like you miss: you’re the minority. And when you denigrate the suburbs, you are hurting your cause. You are insulting the people who see the suburbs as the ideal place for them to live.

Instead of going on about how the suburb they live in is not the dense urban city that they prefer, the folks who wrote this article should move to an existing city and then advocate to make it nicer. Don't try to turn a suburb into a city, turn a city into a better city.

[kkfx]

Actually I'm not against the suburbs, I simply agree with the article (just a bit) that the classic suburb model have issues because you can't buy anything nearby and so you need long trips just to buy some milk, that's is. I'm definitively against the city model, because IMVHO there is no way to turn a city into a "better city"m a city is just "a tool" you can use and than dispose and rebuild another, witch is practically next to impossible and so costly that we can't do on scale.

BTW if peoples living in the suburbs like them there is no issues at all, I do not denigrate anyone of them. IF some would like to live still in single family homes BUT also with some shops around without being in the city than the solution it's easy in nature or adapting a suburb, that's because suburbs and empty space could be changed a small step at a time, while cities can't.

That's is. I'm definitively not pro-urban as the article author.