Why are so many Americans anti-cities?

[OyCrumbler]

My guess is environmental pollution from rapid technological advancement and industrialization within cities where the ramifications of some of those technologies weren't well known drove a good deal of fleeing from the city and what made US cities so very unpleasant. The suburbs as the way we've had them are quite recent and a relatively small blip even in the short span of US history, but it made a good deal of sense to relocate a bit away from dense urban areas during that era if someone had the means to. When that happened, the people just outside the city still wanted access to the city for certain things which meant increasingly reorienting cities, including both physical alterations but also larger regional, state, or national policy that were favorable to commuters. Parts of this has reversed course, but certainly there's still quite a few lasting issues.

[Prickly Pear]

Americans have a weird association with land ownership and freedom. You can still be free and live in a condo or townhouse but, people don't think that way. This has been a thing for a very long time by the way, only land-owning white males were allowed to vote when the nation was founded. In many way land-owners still have more power over the renters, and if you're a homeowner in an urban area (like a row house or something) you are more likely to have less representation in politics (more people per politician).

So when it comes to zoning and development which often it falls along political lines whether we like to admit it or not, suburbs and rural are much more powerful than urban areas. Compare Wyoming and New Jersey for example. Therefore the interests of suburbs and rural areas are much more represented, and it's these beliefs that carry out to the urban areas. Those who live in the burbs and countryside think their way of living is the best way, and will implement that every where they go. Few people (this goes both ways by the way) believe that different lifestyles work in different contexts and what works for them may not work for others. Suburban people generally think that urban areas are crime-ridden, overly polluted, and generally have racist undertones, and will do anything to stop such developments especially if they may grow closer to their backyard. The mental gymnastics they go through to justify their actions may seem morally acceptable, but lead to immoral outcomes (increases in homelessness, etc) In contrast, those in urban areas generally want to see the environments of where they live grow, mostly to increase affordability and options, rather than seeing suburbs as "crime-ridden and filled with 'those' types".

The truth is our ultra-suburban cities like mine of Phoenix are drastically hurting from this line of thinking. Phoenix almost *exclusively* offers suburban living, with little options for other lifestyles. This hinders us. Truth is most people are no longer in the nuclear family of the 20th century. And for a city to offer *exclusively* housing only for the nuclear family is nonsensical and therefore Phoenix won't attract people not in this type of lifestyle, missing out on many economic opportunities.

For example, I'm a young 20 year old. I'd love to be able to walk to restaurants, bars, and other interesting events. But there's probably one or two neighborhoods in the entire 5 million or so metro that offer this. And rents are close to 1.5k/month and climbing in these areas which is highly unaffordable for the local wages. In contrast, if I want to be suburban and drive to everything, I can cut my rent by about 600/month. It's hard for me to justify living in Phoenix, even though it's my hometown, when I'm bored with what's offered to me. What if I was the next Bill Gates? I only have such time on Earth and might decide NYC is where I want to be because what I want is actually an option there. And if I create the next Microsoft, well, Phoenix won't be the HQ then. It'll be NYC.