>>457867Person you were replying to here. Like
>>457886 said, it all depends on the city. I'll recount my own experience of different places where I have lived
>suburbs of St. Louis, MOThis is actually a really nice area to raise kids. However, it's not good to live here if you don't have a car. Walking is simply impractical in many residential blocks (all houses for miles around). Buses are infrequent, and are planned around commuting to work, rather than convenience. The downtown area is extremely dangerous place. Crime is rampant, and there isn't much reason to be down there besides sporting events.
>urban Denver, COThere's a light rail, and lots of buses, but again, crime is rampant due to feral blacks. The downtown is currently being "gentrified," but still, in the span of a single day, you are likely to count over a hundred homeless.
>suburban Altanta, GALike St. Louis' suburbs, there are huge residential-only blocks where walking is impractical, and many roads lack sidewalks altogether. Nevertheless, lots of people live in the greater Atlanta area, so it's a valid place to live for anyone with a decent job in the city. Crime is rampant in the downtown area of Atlanta.
>urban Salt Lake City, UTThere is a light rail, and buses are plentiful. Crime is minimal in the downtown area due to the historically white nature of the people who live there. However, even so, from any given point in the city or outlying suburbs, your trip will not be convenient. Buses are frequently late, and many commutes will be an hour or more, when a car could get you there in 10-15 minutes.
>Breckenridge, COThis is the only example I am familiar with where it's possible to take a bus to the downtown area, while actually being able to reach a trail from your front door. Even so, you have to find an apartment/house that backs up to trail, and you'd still be stuck with JUST THAT TRAIL. Other outdoor areas require a car. Breckenridge is also not exactly the pinnacle of "urban" living.
