Where's the intelligentsia for those of us who don't want to live in small boxes, on top of each other, and don't want to live next door to businesses?
It's hardly something you'd call sustainable, but there's many metros that have yet to be built out -- there's always another Boise [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb#History [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16898200
Mega-businesses, like JC_Penny, Walmart, Nordstroms, and similar do open up in an area, but all profit gets siphoned elsewhere. It makes wherever $BigCo's Headquarters much richer at the expense of every community they go into.
Whereas, the little one and two store local business takes money from local people, and its turned right around and reinvested in that very community.
One drains a community of its wealth, while the other bolsters it.
Politicians have always (in recent years) accepted that $BigCo moving in is an absolute boon. And the politicians award the business with abatements, tax writeoffs, and other vehicles to "sweeten the deal". But none of the small businesses have these connections. Nor can they request abatements, or low to 0 interest loans.
But as we see, once a chain starts haemorrhaging, every community with one of these carcasses ends up rotting the whole area at its core.
It's a common one, but I don't really buy this argument. Small local businesses don't usually hire more people than large chains and they don't pay their employees more. Small shops are notorious for low pay and no benefits.
In the case of a discounter like Walmart the profits don't get siphoned elsewhere as much as never spent in the first place. There may not be a local shop owner anymore, but everyone else in the community has spent less money.
The Waltons are not rich because each WalMart vacuums money out of a community. The Waltons are rich because there is a metric shit-ton of stores that do a high volume of business, and they get their 2-3% slice of it.
When Walmart Comes to Town https://economics.mit.edu/files/7575
Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-25/wal-mart-...
An early Snapper Mower take on walmarts practices: https://www.fastcompany.com/54763/man-who-said-no-wal-mart
As others have pointed out, there aren't any, at least of the non-rental variety.
Cheer up though - you've gotten the better part of a century of subsidization of your lifestyle in a wide variety of ways.
When you think of urbanization, think barcelona or berlin, don't think of 1970s new york.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.406821,2.1665481,3a,75y,191....
What are the others?
>Where's the intelligentsia for those of us who don't want to live in small boxes
It's not there because most experienced people in this domain know is a pretty poor way for people to live and architect cities. It needs to be subsidized and take away from the economic productivity of the city centers.
As someone who lives in a "small box", I will most likely never leave the city again unless I intend to farm in some way. I spend less material resources living here, all my neighbors are friends and feel like we actually have a community, events are only 10-15 minutes on foot, etc.
But I can assure you that high crime rates, poor schools and SF style feces/needle filled streets are not inevitable characteristics of dense cities. And as someone currently living in a small town with a lot of farm machinery, I can also assure you that noise pollution is unfortunately not exclusive to cities.
City centers shouldn't be expected to subsidize other people's ideal life styles. Crime rates and poor schools wouldn't be a problem if we took a fraction of the money we spend on infrastructure of suburbs and pointed it towards maintaining and improving city centers.
>or SF style feces/needle filled streets.
I'm sorry, what was that about patronizing? None of the characteristics you mentioned are inherit or even a common quality of city centers.