Being able to walk, bike and take transit instead of having to own a car is important for me. I'm not interested in the additional maintenance involved with owning a house, an apartment suits me a lot better. I also like having good access to plenty of things to do in the form of a great selection of restaurants and being close to international transportation options. Good access to nature without having to drive a car is also important to me.
Sounds like you'd enjoy Shinjuku.
I'll have to check it out sometime, thanks for the recommendation.
Sounds like a city that’s not in North America. But OP didn’t specify.
Always a small town. I like to have a big house and a semblance of nature available. Although I could do with less right wing neighbours.
Philadelphia has Fairmount park, the largest inner city park (not counting Central Park, which was manufactured). You can live in a house right up against it. I imagine other cities have plenty of nature too. And even not next to giant parks, many larger cities have home with large yards and tons of trees
Mid-sized stand-alone city. Think 50-200K people.
If I explicitly have to choose between big city or small town, then it comes down to employment options. If that is a non-factor (e.g. remote work) then small town.
For those saying culture or whatever, I'm ok with commuting to a big city once a month or whatever for that stuff. I don't need cultural attractions for my day-to-day life.
Agreed. You go to a small town and everyone knows your business. Big cities end of up terrible commuting experiences as everything needs a vehicle. Yeah, you get often public transportion, but spend most of the day trying to get anything done as everything gets spread out.
Mid size usually has everything reasonably nearby, public transport and cycling is generally safer/practical.
Size doesn't really matter to me. Density and accessibility matter to me most.
I would rather live in a community of ~10k that is walkable than a community of 1m+ where I have to drive everywhere. If I can access groceries, dining, and public transportation without ever needing to own a car, I am happy.
I could live in North Bend, Washington, but not Gary, Indiana.
I prefer to live in the middle of nowhere(ish) aside from the conservative culture which inevitably comes with it. I also like walkable city areas. I completely hate anything in between.
This entire question is completely distorted by the poor-qualtiy postwar urbanism that is rampant everywhere.
The reality is, there shouldn't be much difference. Lowrise cities -- 2-4 story buildings/townhomes, small apartments, walkable neighborhoods/mass transit, corner groceries, all that stuff that people think can ONLY exist in big cities should be the norm for nearly all towns.
I don't think many people would describe a place like, say, Bordeaux as a "big city". 250kish people in 50 square kilometers is hardly Paris. It's a small city, or maybe a big town. And it has everything you can want from a city and more. Shows, museums, beautiful multimodal neighborhoods, a robust tram system, restaurants and cafes and bars. All this kind of stuff.
The problem is we've all been mentally taught you can either live in island, R1A zoned suburbs which require driving to do ANYTHING or else you need to live in a huge metropolis like NYC. Or else we've been trained to think of a "city" like the bullshit they have in Texas, where it combines all the worst features of those island suburbs/car dependence with all the worst parts of city (crazy prices, noise, exposure to nearby-feeling crime, etc).
While a lot of the US big cities are trying to sort out the knots they've tied themselves in, your best bet to find beautiful, livable urban-ism is in those much smaller <500k cities that don't even show up on the typical lists of cities. Especially if they are historic, since the more historic a place is the less likely it got bulldozed in the 60s to make room for more highways (destroying local neighborhoods in the process) Some kind of a big university also tends to be a plus, though it's a mixed bag. Check for places that do not have an interstate carving through the middle of the city.
We can only get the amenities of modern urbanism in the biggest metropolises these days because of how badly the "suburban experiment" has distorted and destroyed our community life. And there can only be so many metropolises, so they've naturally turned absurdly expensive. People can't afford to live in them because of how much people want to live in them. So they settle for suburbia, since financial poverty feels way worse than poverty of community.
The problem is we've all been mentally taught you can either live in island, R1A zoned suburbs which require driving to do ANYTHING or else you need to live in a huge metropolis like NYC
I prefer areas zoned for agriculture over either of those. My favorite place I've lived so far is one where you look out at night and see nothing but inky black outside my windows. I'll walk 5 miles to the nearest town for that.
I'll never argue with someone who wants that true, rural/countryside/homestead life. The appeal is there for me too, even if my own calculus says the cons wildly outweigh the pros.
I'm pretty skeptical you're going to find it 5 miles from a healthy town, though.
I would walk 500 miles for a clear, dark night sky.
For me the important difference between the two isn't just a zoning problem, it's a people problem.
Small towns, like the one I grew up in, even ones that are comparatively progressive, are still a nightmare for anyone who doesn't fit in with the community norm.
Big cities let people find their community because therefore a lot of different ones to try.
This doesn't go away with different planning or by fucking cars or whatever the kids are into these days.
Big cities let people find their community because therefore a lot of different ones to try.
You should read the horror stories from so many of those NYC co-ops. Some would make even the most jackbooted HOA presidents blush.
I don't really think this is unique to cities of some specific size. I definitely agree that it's going to be harder to find a perfect fit in a smaller town. But it's also harder to meet people at all in an anonymous metropolis where you have to work 75 hours a week just to make rent.
If you take away anything from what I have written, it's that I think this dichotomy is bad. We need a compromise. The lowrise old-world city is what worked for our species for at least 5 millenia -- it's only in the past couple of decades we decided to rethink it and force a schism between the fake rural aesthetic of the suburbs and the productive, efficient downtown -- and in so doing we destroyed both city life (by making it ungodly expensive thanks to the immense financial drain the suburbs and lack of continuing infill development represent) and the peaceful countryside life (by putting to death small towns in favor of the interstate highway big box store commercial strip). The only lifestyle that has weathered and still works pretty well in this day and age is the homesteader life, and to say that way of living is not for everyone is definitely an understatement.
The older I get the more remote I want to live. I just want a good grocery store, a hardware store, doctor and vet in approx 10 min drive distance and I need something to charge my car nearby. That’s all the „city“ I need. Otherwise I want peace and nature around me.
75% of the water pumped out of America's rock needs treatment for particulate. You're going to need food municipal water for a while if you're in America, and that is gonna limit your range from city hall.
Also. Low-density is the worst configuration for housing on a cost/benefits and land-use perspective. We left the 1950s a long time ago, so, no matter where you live we can't go back to sprawl and low density.
Bad for your water (and other infrastructure) and bad for the planet. Otherwise, enjoy!
If low density is the worst for housing cost-effectiveness, why is living in large cities so much more expensive?
Because people prefer living there and (in the US) because low density development is given legislative preference
The thing I've heard is, think of how when you're a mile away from each neighbor, it's your tax dollars paying for the road, sewer, sidewalks, water, electric, gas lines, for a half mile in each direction. Initially and for maintenance and replacements. That's why a lot of rural areas just don't have sidewalks or fiber internet or sometimes they're using well water.
In a city duplex, you're paying half the utilities for like 20 feet in front of your house.
It just is more efficient to live closer together, the reason cost of living goes up is because everyone wants to live in the city and employers want that supply of workers so they try to get in or close to the city too and it's a virtuous cycle of concentration. But housing supply being what it is, and all the jobs being nearby, means housing prices go up. Still worth it to most people hence why there's still demand, but higher than living in a place with fewer jobs and amenities.
Subsidies. Both in form of roads and home ownership incentives being focused on single family homes. The fact that renting is the primary way to live in the city seems detrimental to it being cost effective too.
I find your point about renting compelling, is there anything that could be done to improve the situation?
Housing cooperatives seem good. There have been some successful uses of community land trusts to keep prices in check too.
Better laws surrounding collective loans feels necessary for medium density too high density housing to be bought up by groups tenets. This just an issue at large for community and worker owned coops in my experience. There are some creative crowd funding type bonds out there but its not very responsive and better suited for long term plannings then seizing on need or opportunity.
Lastly there are tenet unions to at least mitigate the rise of rent and unmet obligations by land lords.
I grew up in a small town. I live in a big city. While I can see the allure of smallish towns (20-50k people), I prefer not having to drive several miles to get anywhere. I have three grocery stores and a bar/restaurant/music venue within walking distance. Cities that size also tend to have urban sprawl which I think is ugly af.
The town I grew up in had about 2500 people and you had to drive an hour and a half to get to a town with more than 10k people. People there tend to be very conservative which is odd considering the government is the biggest employer and towns like that take more state funds than they produce.
That’s a planning problem imo, from small towns to metropolises groceries, health clinic, some entertainment can be in walking distance.
Yeah but people in small towns are more likely to believe 15 minute cities is just a cover for 15 minute prisons so planning is a minefield of conspiracy morons.
City. Around 100k is the comfortable size.
Not like I require the city's wider array of amenities all that much. I will still be spending 97% of my time at work or at home.
But if I lived in a small town again (born and raised in a town of <8,000), that extra 3% of the time I wanted to go out I'd have to remind myself, "Oh yeah, I live in a dead end town in the middle of nowhere that services none of my personal interests," and that 3% would rapidly become 0%. I'd live fine with that, but eh. Why take a strict net loss when I can simply not?
The walkabiity and community arguments for small towns are complete non-factors for me, seeing as I go basically nowhere and talk to basically no one. And I'm not persuaded by the cost of living argument for small towns, since lower rent would be almost equally counterbalanced by lower salary opportunities.
Not only does the salary go down in small towns but the number of positions are greatly reduced. All it takes is a layoff and that "cheaper" small town could be too expensive because there are no more positions to fill.
The exception would be high-paid remote work, I guess. But with the reputation that corpos big enough to field those salaries have been recently building, going mask-off with no warning for no reason and asking employees to start filling desks again, I don't know if I'd risk it.
100k is a big town, not a city.
I have lived in a tier-2 city, and I hated it. My house used to be next to the highway, the sound was so irritating, the house kept getting dusty, there were too many pigeons shitting and making that irritating noise. I would rather live in a forest farm in a remote area, but I guess small town is the closest to what I'm looking for.
My house used to be next to the highway, the sound was so irritating
You don't dislike the city, you dislike cars. Cars in cities are often people who live outside the city imposing the cost of their life style onto the city.
Not really. Yes, I dislike large cars, but that's just a part of why I don't like cities. I hate living in the city as a whole. Living in Navi Mumbai was a horrible experience. Sure, you have stores and malls nearby, and it is cheaper and more modern than Mumbai, but the vibe sucked. It was nothing like Worli, one of the many high-end parts of South Mumbai. The air was heavily polluted, there was trash thrown everywhere, and I am more of a recluse. Living next to a highway flyover with huge traffic, cars beeping everyday, even at night will make you lose your mind.
This. Fuck cars
Having lived in both, I prefer the big city. Aside from numerous reasons already mentioned in this thread, I notice that big city people are more open-minded and more diverse. Being slightly different for whatever reason is more of an issue in a small community.
Small town. Cities are high energy. I like visiting but get worn down by the hustle and bustle.
Perfectly located small town. 10k population, right besides the train station which takes me in 10min to either a small city, a medium sized city or, in 30min, to the largest city of the country.
City.
Fewer bigots, fewer people in your business, there's community spaces other than the church, the food is better, and most of all, there's work to be had.
It is a matter of personal preference, but there is a reason most people are migrating into cities right now.
Edit: I was wrong. While most people were migrating to cities for work, that isn't necessarily true anymore nationwide. In my state, it is still happening, but we have a large influx of people from other states.
Isn't that reason return to office policies though, and the majority of people would happily leave the city life behind if they were not forced to go back?
Appreciate you are answering a question and each one of us has their own preference but not sure you can say most people agree with yours.
So I looked it up, and this isn't true anymore most places.
It used to be, young people flocked to cities both for work and for things to do. It looks to me based on where this is/isn't happening now that the main factor is cost of living.
I'm confused now, are you saying that the current trend is to move out of cities or to the cities?
Most places, the current trend right now is moving out of cities. In my local area, people are still moving into cities for some reason.
Big city for sure, I don't want to need a car and I do want to be able to get groceries 23.40 at a Saturday night. It's nice to have a group of 500k+ people actively trying to supply for all of the needs and wants I might have.
US Centric Answer:
Somewhere in between.
Somewhere there is still a downtown, the arts, interesting things to do.
But also, just not to massive. I don't want actual skyscrapers. 6 stories is tall enough for me.
There's only a handful of US cities like this, that straddle the line between having big city amenities and small town charm where it feels like you know a bunch of the locals.
I'm always confused when I hear people say this. I'm in an actual one-water tower small town and I see people I don't know constantly. If you go up to tens of thousands you might as well be in the city, because you'll mostly be interacting with strangers.
Is everyone else just really great at keeping track of everyone, or something?
What are some places in the US that would fit this description? I'm guessing maybe something like Burlington, VT?
A lot of big state university towns that are not part of major metros probably fit this. They are going to have a lot of amenities due to the university.
They can definitely fit this, and are my preferred town type. I grew up and spent most my life around college towns and they're pretty great.
To add examples about the nearby metros: Moscow/Pullman on the Idaho/Washington border are college towns in the middle of a large farming community. Never any real need to travel to a city because they're too far away and the needs of the college keep the town in stock with everything you'd want anyway. Cheney on the other hand is close enough to Spokane that it uses Spokane's bus system (or used to idk haven't been there in years). Cheney is lacking a lot of essentials because people just go to Spokane for them.
Moscow/Pullman have tight knit communities while also being open and friendly. You just see so many people from different places coming in through the colleges. College towns are really the best middle ground of small town feel with city convenience I've been able to find.
Asheville, North Carolina used to be one, but it's been almost 16 years since I knew anyone out that way, so I don't know if it still has the same vibe. Easy for that vibe to be killed by too many people moving there.
Also yes, Burlington is pretty much exactly the kind of city I'm thinking about (never been there, just looked it up on Wikipedia).
Most cities in the 100-200k population
Countryside.
I prefer living i a nice suburb with excellent public transport to get to work in the city.
Just like I have been doing for all my life (:
The city is a place you visit, and then come home to your nice suburb walk home from the bus stop along a small, quiet canal, sometimes there is an event in the park you pass through, else it is just quiet.
Need to get to work in the city center? Get on the bus that departs every 5-10 min during rush hour, 30 min later switch to the underground that departs every 5 min, switch lines, get off 15 and walk to the office, arrive 45 min after you left home having slept or watched videos on your commute.
It is really expensive to build public transportation in lower density suburbs.
Nope, not if you build it before selling land and building houses.
Here in Sweden, it usually works like this:
The municilapity decide to develop some land, this includes public transport, in lower density areas a few well placed bus stops is all that is needed, they connect with the suburb center, and might even have a few lines connecting further away, the suburb center usually has a train station and a small shopping center, the train then takes you further along to your destination.
If you don't build public transport during or before construction of the neighbourhood then it will obviously be a higher cost. But build it before or during construction and it will be quite resonable
If I could live in West Virginia but without West Virginians, I'd probably do that.
Small town. Less traffic, crime, pollution, expense. More sense of community.
Less walkable / car dependent, further away from medical attention or emergency services, the community is awful
Small towns are typically going to have hospitals within the same distance. The only difference is they will helicopter you to a large city if its a severe medical problem.
Agreed. Emergency services stations are all within minutes from my place in the outskirts of a small town, so is the hospital. The community is awesome.
I'm two minutes away from the best doctors in my country. A rural person is found 30 minutes too late by his neighbor who calls his brother in law before 911
Maybe in some places, but I think most small towns of 10k and larger have normal hospitals and EMS services. All the places I have lived have been within 10 minutes of the hospital.
I dont really see much of a benefit to big cities, its a quick helicopter ride if someone is going to need extreme medical care. As long as there is a Costco, Home Depot, and walmart, I am all set.
Big city! Given those 2 extremes. Not that I genuinely know. Every choice of residence has been out of extreme necessity. Never made a "voluntary" choice to move with proper time.
I want walkability, access to services, and robust infrastructure.
2nd choice is middle of nowhere where I can do all that stuff myself and homestead.
The way the world is going .... to live as far away from others as much as possible.
I live pretty darn rural nowadays. Used to live in a biggish city. Didn't dislike it, it has its upsides like people have pointed out. And I could afford it, even a largeish house if I would've wanted. But the prospect of being effectively turned into a modern day slave by virtue of having to have a well paying job to afford mortgage and over all higher cost of living associated with big city life it just didn't feel appealing. So we bought an old farm in the boonies instead for less than we sold the apartment for. Pretty much no neighbors. 20.000 SQ meters of land, some goats and hens. It's pretty tranquil and peaceful. Still work a stressful IT job that pays well but being able to just stroll through a 100 year old forest by walking out the door does wonders for stress management I feel. Sure the commute sucks when I do need to be at the office but it's a small price to pay and it has meant that I actually take the time to read quite a few books per year during said commute.
I already live in a huge city and I like it that way.
There is always something happening, and always a way to get there.
I live in a small city of about 90k and I love it. We have the important amnesties, eg shopping and a hospital, but in a few minutes you’re out in the open fields. Meanwhile buses to nearby large city depart every 6 to 30 min from my street.
Big city, I am an urban animal, I enjoy having a wide cultural/activity offer, having a grocery store down my stairs, and be able to do tons of stuff by walking/cycling.
I've done both, neither, just kill me now. Unless the small town is near a big city, so I can have cheaper housing but also access to more than a dollar general without driving for an hour.
City.
I want to be able to surround myself with a variety of people and cultures, while also being able to surround myself with the community that makes me feel welcome.
Growing up gay in a rural town that was relatively progressive was still a nightmare, and the town's best feature for me was the commuter train that took me to the closest big city.
I love having access to basically everything relatively easily and I love having a multitude of options for all the things I have access to. Small towns can't provide that.
I also hate yards, though gardens are nice.
So yeah, for me while I have found some small towns I could make work, I would always be giving up things that I value to do so. Big cities are the best, and smaller cities can be good, too, but I'm a city boy through and through.
Whichever is more walkable. I'm living crazy cheap with no car these past few years and I don't want to go back.
Cities are generally better if you need to walk to stores, restaurants, entertainment, etc. also better public transit
Yeah for sure, but here in the UK a small town with a train station gets you a good blend of both worlds
I'm definitely a city person. I love walking to things (for which I need sidewalks) and hate cars. I like being able to walk to a bar, personally I find more sense of community with close neighbors instead of being a mile from anybody. I have a rural friend who once asked if I got freaked out that my neighbors could see what I do in my yard and...no. Doesn't bother me. Honestly I feel safer when I leave for vacation that my neighbors would text me if something was wrong at my house. I'm not scared of violent crime because it's vanishingly small odds in most residential areas that aren't poverty stricken.
Any outdoor activity I don't do frequently enough that it's worth having a huge plot of land for it and I don't want to have to mow an acre or more. I wouldn't be able to survive on satellite internet.
Definitely small town for me. I couldn't live with the noise, pollution, crowds and lack of nature of a big city for long. I wouldn't want to live completely out in the sticks either though, so a decently sized city should be within at least an hours reach or so. Thankfully such places are pretty easy to find in Germany.
So what you are saying is that you would rather be the noise and pollution for the city dwellers?
No, why? I take the train to the nearest bigger city maybe once a month, do my shopping/visit the theatre or whatever and go back. If anything, I'm doing the people there a favor, by not driving the apartment prices up even further by living there.
Not OP, but I'd be happy to never, ever, ever visit a city again in my entire life. As long as I can get electricity and bandwidth you can keep your "amenities." I'll take a star-filled sky.
I live 15 minutes outside a small town, 1 hour away from the city.
Love it.
I might go for a city if not for the environmental challenges, people not feeling like people, and the violence. Cities seem built on quantity, villages are built on quality.
UK answer: city 100% no question.
Being able to actually get places and do things and have people to do those things with, I don't even know how a small town could ever compare. Grew up in one, currently living in another one, both crap.
They are both too big for me. I like a small rural community, where everything is close enough that no car is needed (an island in my case). I grew up in a city, and I'm so glad I got out of there.
Big city so long as I don't have upstairs neighbors.
I don't know if I could ever deal with (American) upstairs neighbors again in my life. The percentage of inconsiderate people meeting the percentage of multi-family housing with basically no soundproofing is a recipe for sleeplessness and rage.
The percentage of inconsiderate people meeting the percentage of multi-family housing with basically no soundproofing is a recipe for sleeplessness and rage
This problem is exactly why I will never live in a city again. I'm sure it's possible for multi-family housing to have reasonable sound proofing. I'm also sure it will never actually happen in anything except the most high-end units.. And even that soundproofing does nothing when you try to have the windows open during nice weather and discover that your neighbor's wife screams like an actress in a bad porno at 3am. Ya, no, fuck that noise. Gimme a small home in the forest with trees between me and the next asshole.
That all said, I quite like my current setup. I'm in a rural area with ~25k people in the county, last time I looked into it. The community I live in is more suburban in layout. We don't hear our neighbors unless they are really, really loud. But, we also have BBQ's on the regular with our neighbors and our kids are out and about together constantly. It's pretty darn idyllic.
Big city. I feel claustrophobic in small towns.
Costco or bust.
Having lived in both, big city no question. People stay out of your shit there.
I want to be able to have your take, but I get so overwhelmed by crowds of people and noise...
Big city that is close to wilderness. Like, a 1 hour drive to leave the city and be in a forest.
I like having my big selection of restaurants, entertainment venues, large hospitals with lots of doctors and specialists, massage therapists/physiotherapists, high speed internet/phone, oddball clubs and sports, and Costco.
I also want to get away from it all easily for a day or two at a time.
I don't want a huge lawn or massive house, that's just extra chores. I'd rather just live in a condo, higher up with a nice view, but it has to be near a park. Let someone else mow the damn lawn. And I like being within walking distance of groceries, movie theaters, and restaurants.
Live in the US, and I live in a village, like there’s not even enough people here to be a town. There are cities within reasonable driving distances (5 mins - 1 hour depending on what you want to do/see.)
But, for the most part I like staying here in my area. Not too much noice and plenty of woods to see and go through. But still good food around, and fairly decent places to go and see.
Small town, need woods
I've lived in both, and prefer big cities as long as I'm living in a walkable neighborhood.
Rural village please and thank you
Given those choices, a big city. But ideal is a medium sized city.
Small town. I was born and raised in Toronto/GTA. Moved to a small town during Covid, where my dad was born and raised… Absolutely love it. I do of things I was never able to do (or did) in the city. I can do all of those things alone and without people watching (wonderful, as an introvert).
I do occasionally travel to Toronto for work, and I absolutely despise it. First day, I want to go back home. Too much chaos. Too much traffic. Too much people. I simply don’t know what to do when I’m there and have free time.
City. Everything closes at night in podunk towns, and everybody is a Republican.
Within 30 minutes of a Costco.
Low cost of living city near big city is great
I wish Buffalo was closer in size to Cleveland or Pittsburg, but being within driving distance of Toronto and to a lesser extent NYC (on top of the aforementioned Cleveland and Pittsburg) is pretty friggin great.
I think a small city works well enough for me. It's basically the best of both worlds.
Small town for sure. I love the outdoors, I love the quiet life, I love the community cohesion, I love pretty little houses and cottages and I love animals. I adore hills and crags and mountains and valleys.
The city itself isn't really my scene. I don't like cars, I don't like shopping centres, I don't like big flashing lights, and loud noises, and I don't like sirens or clubs. I especially don't like loud cars and pollution.
I live in a city now and I just miss the colour green and ponds and lakes and people that smile and say hello. I realise the country isnt perfect and there's still things I'd miss about the city but by far I'd rather live out there than the middle of a city.
Big enough to get a Costco.
300 k is the sweet spot, but I want to live in the outskirts, small house with a big garden. 15 mn drive from the city or 35 mn walk to the city
There was a city I lived in that had a small town feel on Vancouver Island. It was nice being able to go do things like eat at restaurants, hike, go buy hobby stuff, but also the freedom of driving a few minutes to the woods to be alone. The neighborhood I lived in and the surrounding area was quiet and close to nature. So, I'd say I'd like to live in a small town, since I grew up in one, but be close enough to a city where I can do stuff.
I'd love to live in a European styled city, but I live in the US. The best option here is a small town.
Not in a small town, but on the outskirts at the end of a long drive. I've lived in two houses like that and it was wonderful both times. I'm a boring person and enjoy doing yard work and I finally had enough to keep me busy and fit.
Country. But I admit I love cities for the "night feel". Small towns are a decent mix.
Well, if I lived in a small town I would need to either walk or give little kids asthma to get anywhere. And seeing as I have both a conscience and the pressures of 21st century fast paced living, it's impossible for me to live in a small town.
City, no doubt in my mind.
Being able to walk, bike and take transit instead of having to own a car is important for me. I'm not interested in the additional maintenance involved with owning a house, an apartment suits me a lot better. I also like having good access to plenty of things to do in the form of a great selection of restaurants and being close to international transportation options. Good access to nature without having to drive a car is also important to me.
Sounds like you'd enjoy Shinjuku.
I'll have to check it out sometime, thanks for the recommendation.
Sounds like a city that’s not in North America. But OP didn’t specify.
Always a small town. I like to have a big house and a semblance of nature available. Although I could do with less right wing neighbours.
Philadelphia has Fairmount park, the largest inner city park (not counting Central Park, which was manufactured). You can live in a house right up against it. I imagine other cities have plenty of nature too. And even not next to giant parks, many larger cities have home with large yards and tons of trees
Mid-sized stand-alone city. Think 50-200K people.
If I explicitly have to choose between big city or small town, then it comes down to employment options. If that is a non-factor (e.g. remote work) then small town.
For those saying culture or whatever, I'm ok with commuting to a big city once a month or whatever for that stuff. I don't need cultural attractions for my day-to-day life.
Agreed. You go to a small town and everyone knows your business. Big cities end of up terrible commuting experiences as everything needs a vehicle. Yeah, you get often public transportion, but spend most of the day trying to get anything done as everything gets spread out.
Mid size usually has everything reasonably nearby, public transport and cycling is generally safer/practical.
Size doesn't really matter to me. Density and accessibility matter to me most.
I would rather live in a community of ~10k that is walkable than a community of 1m+ where I have to drive everywhere. If I can access groceries, dining, and public transportation without ever needing to own a car, I am happy.
I could live in North Bend, Washington, but not Gary, Indiana.
I could live in NYC, but not L.A.
It's all about girth!
I prefer to live in the middle of nowhere(ish) aside from the conservative culture which inevitably comes with it. I also like walkable city areas. I completely hate anything in between.
Suburbia has no redeeming features. ! fuckcars@lemmy.world
This entire question is completely distorted by the poor-qualtiy postwar urbanism that is rampant everywhere.
The reality is, there shouldn't be much difference. Lowrise cities -- 2-4 story buildings/townhomes, small apartments, walkable neighborhoods/mass transit, corner groceries, all that stuff that people think can ONLY exist in big cities should be the norm for nearly all towns.
I don't think many people would describe a place like, say, Bordeaux as a "big city". 250kish people in 50 square kilometers is hardly Paris. It's a small city, or maybe a big town. And it has everything you can want from a city and more. Shows, museums, beautiful multimodal neighborhoods, a robust tram system, restaurants and cafes and bars. All this kind of stuff.
The problem is we've all been mentally taught you can either live in island, R1A zoned suburbs which require driving to do ANYTHING or else you need to live in a huge metropolis like NYC. Or else we've been trained to think of a "city" like the bullshit they have in Texas, where it combines all the worst features of those island suburbs/car dependence with all the worst parts of city (crazy prices, noise, exposure to nearby-feeling crime, etc).
While a lot of the US big cities are trying to sort out the knots they've tied themselves in, your best bet to find beautiful, livable urban-ism is in those much smaller <500k cities that don't even show up on the typical lists of cities. Especially if they are historic, since the more historic a place is the less likely it got bulldozed in the 60s to make room for more highways (destroying local neighborhoods in the process) Some kind of a big university also tends to be a plus, though it's a mixed bag. Check for places that do not have an interstate carving through the middle of the city.
We can only get the amenities of modern urbanism in the biggest metropolises these days because of how badly the "suburban experiment" has distorted and destroyed our community life. And there can only be so many metropolises, so they've naturally turned absurdly expensive. People can't afford to live in them because of how much people want to live in them. So they settle for suburbia, since financial poverty feels way worse than poverty of community.
I prefer areas zoned for agriculture over either of those. My favorite place I've lived so far is one where you look out at night and see nothing but inky black outside my windows. I'll walk 5 miles to the nearest town for that.
I'll never argue with someone who wants that true, rural/countryside/homestead life. The appeal is there for me too, even if my own calculus says the cons wildly outweigh the pros.
I'm pretty skeptical you're going to find it 5 miles from a healthy town, though.
I would walk 500 miles for a clear, dark night sky.
For me the important difference between the two isn't just a zoning problem, it's a people problem.
Small towns, like the one I grew up in, even ones that are comparatively progressive, are still a nightmare for anyone who doesn't fit in with the community norm.
Big cities let people find their community because therefore a lot of different ones to try.
This doesn't go away with different planning or by fucking cars or whatever the kids are into these days.
You should read the horror stories from so many of those NYC co-ops. Some would make even the most jackbooted HOA presidents blush.
I don't really think this is unique to cities of some specific size. I definitely agree that it's going to be harder to find a perfect fit in a smaller town. But it's also harder to meet people at all in an anonymous metropolis where you have to work 75 hours a week just to make rent.
If you take away anything from what I have written, it's that I think this dichotomy is bad. We need a compromise. The lowrise old-world city is what worked for our species for at least 5 millenia -- it's only in the past couple of decades we decided to rethink it and force a schism between the fake rural aesthetic of the suburbs and the productive, efficient downtown -- and in so doing we destroyed both city life (by making it ungodly expensive thanks to the immense financial drain the suburbs and lack of continuing infill development represent) and the peaceful countryside life (by putting to death small towns in favor of the interstate highway big box store commercial strip). The only lifestyle that has weathered and still works pretty well in this day and age is the homesteader life, and to say that way of living is not for everyone is definitely an understatement.
The older I get the more remote I want to live. I just want a good grocery store, a hardware store, doctor and vet in approx 10 min drive distance and I need something to charge my car nearby. That’s all the „city“ I need. Otherwise I want peace and nature around me.
75% of the water pumped out of America's rock needs treatment for particulate. You're going to need food municipal water for a while if you're in America, and that is gonna limit your range from city hall.
Also. Low-density is the worst configuration for housing on a cost/benefits and land-use perspective. We left the 1950s a long time ago, so, no matter where you live we can't go back to sprawl and low density.
Bad for your water (and other infrastructure) and bad for the planet. Otherwise, enjoy!
If low density is the worst for housing cost-effectiveness, why is living in large cities so much more expensive?
Because people prefer living there and (in the US) because low density development is given legislative preference
The thing I've heard is, think of how when you're a mile away from each neighbor, it's your tax dollars paying for the road, sewer, sidewalks, water, electric, gas lines, for a half mile in each direction. Initially and for maintenance and replacements. That's why a lot of rural areas just don't have sidewalks or fiber internet or sometimes they're using well water.
In a city duplex, you're paying half the utilities for like 20 feet in front of your house.
It just is more efficient to live closer together, the reason cost of living goes up is because everyone wants to live in the city and employers want that supply of workers so they try to get in or close to the city too and it's a virtuous cycle of concentration. But housing supply being what it is, and all the jobs being nearby, means housing prices go up. Still worth it to most people hence why there's still demand, but higher than living in a place with fewer jobs and amenities.
Subsidies. Both in form of roads and home ownership incentives being focused on single family homes. The fact that renting is the primary way to live in the city seems detrimental to it being cost effective too.
I find your point about renting compelling, is there anything that could be done to improve the situation?
Housing cooperatives seem good. There have been some successful uses of community land trusts to keep prices in check too.
Better laws surrounding collective loans feels necessary for medium density too high density housing to be bought up by groups tenets. This just an issue at large for community and worker owned coops in my experience. There are some creative crowd funding type bonds out there but its not very responsive and better suited for long term plannings then seizing on need or opportunity.
Lastly there are tenet unions to at least mitigate the rise of rent and unmet obligations by land lords.
I grew up in a small town. I live in a big city. While I can see the allure of smallish towns (20-50k people), I prefer not having to drive several miles to get anywhere. I have three grocery stores and a bar/restaurant/music venue within walking distance. Cities that size also tend to have urban sprawl which I think is ugly af.
The town I grew up in had about 2500 people and you had to drive an hour and a half to get to a town with more than 10k people. People there tend to be very conservative which is odd considering the government is the biggest employer and towns like that take more state funds than they produce.
That’s a planning problem imo, from small towns to metropolises groceries, health clinic, some entertainment can be in walking distance.
Yeah but people in small towns are more likely to believe 15 minute cities is just a cover for 15 minute prisons so planning is a minefield of conspiracy morons.
City. Around 100k is the comfortable size.
Not like I require the city's wider array of amenities all that much. I will still be spending 97% of my time at work or at home.
But if I lived in a small town again (born and raised in a town of <8,000), that extra 3% of the time I wanted to go out I'd have to remind myself, "Oh yeah, I live in a dead end town in the middle of nowhere that services none of my personal interests," and that 3% would rapidly become 0%. I'd live fine with that, but eh. Why take a strict net loss when I can simply not?
The walkabiity and community arguments for small towns are complete non-factors for me, seeing as I go basically nowhere and talk to basically no one. And I'm not persuaded by the cost of living argument for small towns, since lower rent would be almost equally counterbalanced by lower salary opportunities.
Not only does the salary go down in small towns but the number of positions are greatly reduced. All it takes is a layoff and that "cheaper" small town could be too expensive because there are no more positions to fill.
The exception would be high-paid remote work, I guess. But with the reputation that corpos big enough to field those salaries have been recently building, going mask-off with no warning for no reason and asking employees to start filling desks again, I don't know if I'd risk it.
100k is a big town, not a city.
I have lived in a tier-2 city, and I hated it. My house used to be next to the highway, the sound was so irritating, the house kept getting dusty, there were too many pigeons shitting and making that irritating noise. I would rather live in a forest farm in a remote area, but I guess small town is the closest to what I'm looking for.
You don't dislike the city, you dislike cars. Cars in cities are often people who live outside the city imposing the cost of their life style onto the city.
Not really. Yes, I dislike large cars, but that's just a part of why I don't like cities. I hate living in the city as a whole. Living in Navi Mumbai was a horrible experience. Sure, you have stores and malls nearby, and it is cheaper and more modern than Mumbai, but the vibe sucked. It was nothing like Worli, one of the many high-end parts of South Mumbai. The air was heavily polluted, there was trash thrown everywhere, and I am more of a recluse. Living next to a highway flyover with huge traffic, cars beeping everyday, even at night will make you lose your mind.
This. Fuck cars
Having lived in both, I prefer the big city. Aside from numerous reasons already mentioned in this thread, I notice that big city people are more open-minded and more diverse. Being slightly different for whatever reason is more of an issue in a small community.
Small town. Cities are high energy. I like visiting but get worn down by the hustle and bustle.
Perfectly located small town. 10k population, right besides the train station which takes me in 10min to either a small city, a medium sized city or, in 30min, to the largest city of the country.
City.
Fewer bigots, fewer people in your business, there's community spaces other than the church, the food is better, and most of all, there's work to be had.
It is a matter of personal preference, but there is a reason most people are migrating into cities right now.
Edit: I was wrong. While most people were migrating to cities for work, that isn't necessarily true anymore nationwide. In my state, it is still happening, but we have a large influx of people from other states.
Isn't that reason return to office policies though, and the majority of people would happily leave the city life behind if they were not forced to go back?
Appreciate you are answering a question and each one of us has their own preference but not sure you can say most people agree with yours.
So I looked it up, and this isn't true anymore most places.
It used to be, young people flocked to cities both for work and for things to do. It looks to me based on where this is/isn't happening now that the main factor is cost of living.
I'm confused now, are you saying that the current trend is to move out of cities or to the cities?
Most places, the current trend right now is moving out of cities. In my local area, people are still moving into cities for some reason.
Big city for sure, I don't want to need a car and I do want to be able to get groceries 23.40 at a Saturday night. It's nice to have a group of 500k+ people actively trying to supply for all of the needs and wants I might have.
US Centric Answer:
Somewhere in between.
Somewhere there is still a downtown, the arts, interesting things to do.
But also, just not to massive. I don't want actual skyscrapers. 6 stories is tall enough for me.
There's only a handful of US cities like this, that straddle the line between having big city amenities and small town charm where it feels like you know a bunch of the locals.
I'm always confused when I hear people say this. I'm in an actual one-water tower small town and I see people I don't know constantly. If you go up to tens of thousands you might as well be in the city, because you'll mostly be interacting with strangers.
Is everyone else just really great at keeping track of everyone, or something?
What are some places in the US that would fit this description? I'm guessing maybe something like Burlington, VT?
A lot of big state university towns that are not part of major metros probably fit this. They are going to have a lot of amenities due to the university.
They can definitely fit this, and are my preferred town type. I grew up and spent most my life around college towns and they're pretty great.
To add examples about the nearby metros: Moscow/Pullman on the Idaho/Washington border are college towns in the middle of a large farming community. Never any real need to travel to a city because they're too far away and the needs of the college keep the town in stock with everything you'd want anyway. Cheney on the other hand is close enough to Spokane that it uses Spokane's bus system (or used to idk haven't been there in years). Cheney is lacking a lot of essentials because people just go to Spokane for them.
Moscow/Pullman have tight knit communities while also being open and friendly. You just see so many people from different places coming in through the colleges. College towns are really the best middle ground of small town feel with city convenience I've been able to find.
Asheville, North Carolina used to be one, but it's been almost 16 years since I knew anyone out that way, so I don't know if it still has the same vibe. Easy for that vibe to be killed by too many people moving there.
Also yes, Burlington is pretty much exactly the kind of city I'm thinking about (never been there, just looked it up on Wikipedia).
Most cities in the 100-200k population
Countryside.
I prefer living i a nice suburb with excellent public transport to get to work in the city.
Just like I have been doing for all my life (:
The city is a place you visit, and then come home to your nice suburb walk home from the bus stop along a small, quiet canal, sometimes there is an event in the park you pass through, else it is just quiet.
Need to get to work in the city center? Get on the bus that departs every 5-10 min during rush hour, 30 min later switch to the underground that departs every 5 min, switch lines, get off 15 and walk to the office, arrive 45 min after you left home having slept or watched videos on your commute.
It is really expensive to build public transportation in lower density suburbs.
Nope, not if you build it before selling land and building houses.
Here in Sweden, it usually works like this:
The municilapity decide to develop some land, this includes public transport, in lower density areas a few well placed bus stops is all that is needed, they connect with the suburb center, and might even have a few lines connecting further away, the suburb center usually has a train station and a small shopping center, the train then takes you further along to your destination.
If you don't build public transport during or before construction of the neighbourhood then it will obviously be a higher cost. But build it before or during construction and it will be quite resonable
If I could live in West Virginia but without West Virginians, I'd probably do that.
Small town. Less traffic, crime, pollution, expense. More sense of community.
Less walkable / car dependent, further away from medical attention or emergency services, the community is awful
Small towns are typically going to have hospitals within the same distance. The only difference is they will helicopter you to a large city if its a severe medical problem.
Agreed. Emergency services stations are all within minutes from my place in the outskirts of a small town, so is the hospital. The community is awesome.
I'm two minutes away from the best doctors in my country. A rural person is found 30 minutes too late by his neighbor who calls his brother in law before 911
Maybe in some places, but I think most small towns of 10k and larger have normal hospitals and EMS services. All the places I have lived have been within 10 minutes of the hospital.
I dont really see much of a benefit to big cities, its a quick helicopter ride if someone is going to need extreme medical care. As long as there is a Costco, Home Depot, and walmart, I am all set.
Big city! Given those 2 extremes. Not that I genuinely know. Every choice of residence has been out of extreme necessity. Never made a "voluntary" choice to move with proper time.
I want walkability, access to services, and robust infrastructure.
2nd choice is middle of nowhere where I can do all that stuff myself and homestead.
The way the world is going .... to live as far away from others as much as possible.
I live pretty darn rural nowadays. Used to live in a biggish city. Didn't dislike it, it has its upsides like people have pointed out. And I could afford it, even a largeish house if I would've wanted. But the prospect of being effectively turned into a modern day slave by virtue of having to have a well paying job to afford mortgage and over all higher cost of living associated with big city life it just didn't feel appealing. So we bought an old farm in the boonies instead for less than we sold the apartment for. Pretty much no neighbors. 20.000 SQ meters of land, some goats and hens. It's pretty tranquil and peaceful. Still work a stressful IT job that pays well but being able to just stroll through a 100 year old forest by walking out the door does wonders for stress management I feel. Sure the commute sucks when I do need to be at the office but it's a small price to pay and it has meant that I actually take the time to read quite a few books per year during said commute.
I already live in a huge city and I like it that way.
There is always something happening, and always a way to get there.
I live in a small city of about 90k and I love it. We have the important amnesties, eg shopping and a hospital, but in a few minutes you’re out in the open fields. Meanwhile buses to nearby large city depart every 6 to 30 min from my street.
Big city, I am an urban animal, I enjoy having a wide cultural/activity offer, having a grocery store down my stairs, and be able to do tons of stuff by walking/cycling.
I've done both, neither, just kill me now. Unless the small town is near a big city, so I can have cheaper housing but also access to more than a dollar general without driving for an hour.
City.
I want to be able to surround myself with a variety of people and cultures, while also being able to surround myself with the community that makes me feel welcome.
Growing up gay in a rural town that was relatively progressive was still a nightmare, and the town's best feature for me was the commuter train that took me to the closest big city.
I love having access to basically everything relatively easily and I love having a multitude of options for all the things I have access to. Small towns can't provide that.
I also hate yards, though gardens are nice.
So yeah, for me while I have found some small towns I could make work, I would always be giving up things that I value to do so. Big cities are the best, and smaller cities can be good, too, but I'm a city boy through and through.
Whichever is more walkable. I'm living crazy cheap with no car these past few years and I don't want to go back.
Cities are generally better if you need to walk to stores, restaurants, entertainment, etc. also better public transit
Yeah for sure, but here in the UK a small town with a train station gets you a good blend of both worlds
I'm definitely a city person. I love walking to things (for which I need sidewalks) and hate cars. I like being able to walk to a bar, personally I find more sense of community with close neighbors instead of being a mile from anybody. I have a rural friend who once asked if I got freaked out that my neighbors could see what I do in my yard and...no. Doesn't bother me. Honestly I feel safer when I leave for vacation that my neighbors would text me if something was wrong at my house. I'm not scared of violent crime because it's vanishingly small odds in most residential areas that aren't poverty stricken.
Any outdoor activity I don't do frequently enough that it's worth having a huge plot of land for it and I don't want to have to mow an acre or more. I wouldn't be able to survive on satellite internet.
Definitely small town for me. I couldn't live with the noise, pollution, crowds and lack of nature of a big city for long. I wouldn't want to live completely out in the sticks either though, so a decently sized city should be within at least an hours reach or so. Thankfully such places are pretty easy to find in Germany.
So what you are saying is that you would rather be the noise and pollution for the city dwellers?
No, why? I take the train to the nearest bigger city maybe once a month, do my shopping/visit the theatre or whatever and go back. If anything, I'm doing the people there a favor, by not driving the apartment prices up even further by living there.
Not OP, but I'd be happy to never, ever, ever visit a city again in my entire life. As long as I can get electricity and bandwidth you can keep your "amenities." I'll take a star-filled sky.
I live 15 minutes outside a small town, 1 hour away from the city.
Love it.
I might go for a city if not for the environmental challenges, people not feeling like people, and the violence. Cities seem built on quantity, villages are built on quality.
UK answer: city 100% no question.
Being able to actually get places and do things and have people to do those things with, I don't even know how a small town could ever compare. Grew up in one, currently living in another one, both crap.
They are both too big for me. I like a small rural community, where everything is close enough that no car is needed (an island in my case). I grew up in a city, and I'm so glad I got out of there.
Big city so long as I don't have upstairs neighbors.
I don't know if I could ever deal with (American) upstairs neighbors again in my life. The percentage of inconsiderate people meeting the percentage of multi-family housing with basically no soundproofing is a recipe for sleeplessness and rage.
This problem is exactly why I will never live in a city again. I'm sure it's possible for multi-family housing to have reasonable sound proofing. I'm also sure it will never actually happen in anything except the most high-end units.. And even that soundproofing does nothing when you try to have the windows open during nice weather and discover that your neighbor's wife screams like an actress in a bad porno at 3am. Ya, no, fuck that noise. Gimme a small home in the forest with trees between me and the next asshole.
That all said, I quite like my current setup. I'm in a rural area with ~25k people in the county, last time I looked into it. The community I live in is more suburban in layout. We don't hear our neighbors unless they are really, really loud. But, we also have BBQ's on the regular with our neighbors and our kids are out and about together constantly. It's pretty darn idyllic.
Big city. I feel claustrophobic in small towns.
Costco or bust.
Having lived in both, big city no question. People stay out of your shit there.
I want to be able to have your take, but I get so overwhelmed by crowds of people and noise...
Big city that is close to wilderness. Like, a 1 hour drive to leave the city and be in a forest.
I like having my big selection of restaurants, entertainment venues, large hospitals with lots of doctors and specialists, massage therapists/physiotherapists, high speed internet/phone, oddball clubs and sports, and Costco.
I also want to get away from it all easily for a day or two at a time.
I don't want a huge lawn or massive house, that's just extra chores. I'd rather just live in a condo, higher up with a nice view, but it has to be near a park. Let someone else mow the damn lawn. And I like being within walking distance of groceries, movie theaters, and restaurants.
Live in the US, and I live in a village, like there’s not even enough people here to be a town. There are cities within reasonable driving distances (5 mins - 1 hour depending on what you want to do/see.)
But, for the most part I like staying here in my area. Not too much noice and plenty of woods to see and go through. But still good food around, and fairly decent places to go and see.
Small town, need woods
I've lived in both, and prefer big cities as long as I'm living in a walkable neighborhood.
Rural village please and thank you
Given those choices, a big city. But ideal is a medium sized city.
Small town. I was born and raised in Toronto/GTA. Moved to a small town during Covid, where my dad was born and raised… Absolutely love it. I do of things I was never able to do (or did) in the city. I can do all of those things alone and without people watching (wonderful, as an introvert).
I do occasionally travel to Toronto for work, and I absolutely despise it. First day, I want to go back home. Too much chaos. Too much traffic. Too much people. I simply don’t know what to do when I’m there and have free time.
City. Everything closes at night in podunk towns, and everybody is a Republican.
Within 30 minutes of a Costco.
Low cost of living city near big city is great
I wish Buffalo was closer in size to Cleveland or Pittsburg, but being within driving distance of Toronto and to a lesser extent NYC (on top of the aforementioned Cleveland and Pittsburg) is pretty friggin great.
I think a small city works well enough for me. It's basically the best of both worlds.
Small town for sure. I love the outdoors, I love the quiet life, I love the community cohesion, I love pretty little houses and cottages and I love animals. I adore hills and crags and mountains and valleys.
The city itself isn't really my scene. I don't like cars, I don't like shopping centres, I don't like big flashing lights, and loud noises, and I don't like sirens or clubs. I especially don't like loud cars and pollution.
I live in a city now and I just miss the colour green and ponds and lakes and people that smile and say hello. I realise the country isnt perfect and there's still things I'd miss about the city but by far I'd rather live out there than the middle of a city.
Big enough to get a Costco.
300 k is the sweet spot, but I want to live in the outskirts, small house with a big garden. 15 mn drive from the city or 35 mn walk to the city
There was a city I lived in that had a small town feel on Vancouver Island. It was nice being able to go do things like eat at restaurants, hike, go buy hobby stuff, but also the freedom of driving a few minutes to the woods to be alone. The neighborhood I lived in and the surrounding area was quiet and close to nature. So, I'd say I'd like to live in a small town, since I grew up in one, but be close enough to a city where I can do stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_city
wealthy+nontechie+extrovert+nocar=city middleincome+techie+introvert+car=rural
I'd love to live in a European styled city, but I live in the US. The best option here is a small town.
Not in a small town, but on the outskirts at the end of a long drive. I've lived in two houses like that and it was wonderful both times. I'm a boring person and enjoy doing yard work and I finally had enough to keep me busy and fit.
Country. But I admit I love cities for the "night feel". Small towns are a decent mix.
Well, if I lived in a small town I would need to either walk or give little kids asthma to get anywhere. And seeing as I have both a conscience and the pressures of 21st century fast paced living, it's impossible for me to live in a small town.
Also small towns don't got any gay bars