But I get the feeling that many - especially families - prefer to live in the suburbs because they are able to have a garden and lawn area. On the other hand, dense urban areas could have community gardens, roof-top gardens, large balconies, courtyards and public parks to replace the lost personal gardens.
Also, some 'cities' are really like giant suburbs. There are a lot of people, but it's not necessarily 'urban'.
For instance, Kansas City is urban. Salt Lake City is urban? Salt Lake City has more residents than Washington, DC, but I would say Washington, DC is more 'urban'. Portland, OR is also technically urban. Notice how I said technically? Miami is a city so I guess it's considered urban but northeast urban (philadelphia, nyc, boston, etc.) is very different from pacific northwest urban which is different from uh, california, which is different from etc. I heard Atlanta and even LA described as a bunch of smaller cities/suburbs connected by road/highway. Lots of different kind of 'urban' out there.
BTW, Silicon Valley, where I grew up, is a suburb but it's the second largest (maybe largest?) population of a metro area in CA and has more people than some bonafide 'cities'.
I know it contributes to urban sprawl but I really want my own garden. A space that's my own. I find gardening to be calming and grounding (no pun intended). I wouldn't get that in a communal garden. I like to be able to wander out the back door and go into the garden whenever I feel like it. Also, I'm seriously considering getting a dog, which I'd hate to do in an apartment block.
I voted suburban.
Perhaps compact townhouses with private gardens are a good alternative. Can you live without a driveway if well-designed public transport was just a 5-10 minute walk away? If you could, then roads leading to housing could be narrowed and priority could be given to pedestrians and bikes.
I don't want a huge house and garden. I want a small townhouse (maybe 60-70 square metres) and a garden that's maybe 10 metres x 10 metres.
A 5-10 minute walk is not really acceptable to me. a) I've yet to live anywhere where I'd feel comfortable walking by myself late at night through a laneway and b) when it's cold/rainy/stormy, again I don't want to have that walk (specially if I'm carrying heavy bags of groceries).
Like seriously, doesn't the title of village require you to have like, a local idiot, a town crier, and people running around in robin hood-esque clothes?
Do people REALLY want to live at the Rennaisance fair?
Personally, I'm not likely to be walking at night by myself either, but it has been observed that urban areas with a mix of commercial, residential and retail buildings, with a healthy night-life - such as popular restuarants and theatres - are more likely to be safer. There are more 'eyes' so to speak - free security surveillance. It really depends on how the city is planned, if social problems are taken care of - such as security - environmentally based planning can be implemented more easily.
I don't know how much grocery shopping you do at once, but if you lived in the same street as your local 'Fruit and Veg.' store, butcher and bakery, it is likely you would only buy small amounts at a time but more often. On the other hand, weather is different matter all together! Stinking hot weather here is more likely to be a problem for me, but our cars are usually twice as hot when we get in them than the outdoor temperature, so maybe it wouldn't be too bad, especially if there are some shady trees over footpaths.
Well when I say village I mean an isolated clustered small community in an agricultural area, whereas by rural I suppose I meant on a farm or on an isolated single property, perhaps a log cabin in the middle of a dense forest.