> Hating "suburbia" is actually a deeply suburban stance. The upper-middle-class, isolationist people who are now crowding into Williamsburg are the same sorts of provincial people that their forebears (the artists who can no longer afford to live there) fled suburbia to escape. That suburbia's biggest haters are (in origin and mindset) quite suburban is actually ironic rather than just sarcastic.
It's a false dichotomy. Manhattan is not the only way to build a dense city. It's not the most pleasant way to do so, either, but neither is it even the most unpleasant.
There are ways to build dense cities that people can afford to live in and actually enjoy living in. What there's not a lot of is political will to implement these ways of doing things, because location is assumed to be a zero-sum privilege people should pay for instead of a public good people should share.
> Manhattan is not the only way ... neither is it even the most unpleasant.
> There are ways to build dense cities that people can afford to live in and actually enjoy living in.
This is a subject that deeply interests me. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on what you consider viable alternative models; personally, Manhattan and its satellites seem the closest to a realistic (if obviously flawed) design strategy for achieving livable density.
It's a false dichotomy. Manhattan is not the only way to build a dense city. It's not the most pleasant way to do so, either, but neither is it even the most unpleasant.
There are ways to build dense cities that people can afford to live in and actually enjoy living in. What there's not a lot of is political will to implement these ways of doing things, because location is assumed to be a zero-sum privilege people should pay for instead of a public good people should share.