I found a really interesting article that uses empirical evidence to analyze some of the things we’re talking about here. Let’s read it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-30/what-time-use-data-says-about-cities-vs-suburbs>Morris finds no significant association between location and how people allocate their time across 11 of the 18 activities. As to the other activities, on a given day, city dwellers are slightly more likely to leave home, do work, or shop for groceries. Suburbanites are considerably more likely to engage in exercise, sports, and outdoor activities.Hmmm.
> t would seem that residence in a principal city of a metro area with a thriving center does not offer materially better access to most opportunities, and in fact the opposite might be true: those in principal cities with large and thriving centers are engaging in a similar amount of out-of-home activities compared with others, but are taking considerably longer to travel to and from those activities.Woah, so people in the city actually spend more of their time simply going to places. Not really that surprising.
>Again, urbanites and suburbanites are more alike than different. Across the board, people are happier when they spend more time on five activities: eating and drinking; exercise and outdoor pursuits; arts and culture; volunteering; and religious participation. The upshot is that suburbanites tend to have modestly higher levels of meaning, happiness, and life satisfaction. By contrast, urbanites in the six largest cities have lower levels of meaning than urbanites in general.Interesting.
>Suburbanites and urbanites may live far more similar lifestyles than advocates of either geography may believeMaybe we can get along!
Thoughts?
