My issues with cities

[Northwest Slobovia]

Similarly, POTUS (any POTUS, not Trump) has the power to surrender the military, as commander in chief, to a foreign power. Or to declare that he or she would not order the military to fight an invasion were one to come. Or some variation on that.

Given the presidental oath of office, both orders may be illegal, and would result in the military refusing to follow them. But again, I'm not a lawyer.

[San Lumen]

I agree with your analysis however our highest court is not the Supreme Court its called the Court of Appeals.

Damned picky New Yorkers. I didn't read the whole silly thing; I went looking for the rights of cities, 'cause I knew that some states had ceded certain powers and rights to them.

I believe your analysis to be correct.

[Aeritai]

As someone who grew up in a rural area, I much prefer the rural life than the urban life it is my opinion that rural life is peaceful.

With that said I don't hate cities and if people want to live in one then that's fine.

[Ethel mermania]

They do. That's called general police power.

They wouldn't. But they have the legal power. Its not barred by the Constitution, and anything not bared or limited by the federal constitution in the US is reserved to the state. NY state can totally break up NYC into 10,000 individual towns. They won't, and nobody will ever vote for that. But the legislature is possessed of the power.

I'm no lawyer, but having read the NYS constitution, I don't think so.

Powers and duties of legislature; home rule powers of local governments; statute of local governments.

§2. (a) The legislature shall provide for the creation and organization of local governments [but apparently not their destruction] in such manner as shall secure to them the rights, powers, privileges and immunities granted to them by this constitution.

(b) Subject to the bill of rights of local governments and other applicable provisions of this constitution, the legislature:

(l) Shall enact, and may from time to time amend, a statute of local governments granting to local governments powers including but not limited to those of local legislation and administration in addition to the powers vested in them by this article. A power granted in such statute may be repealed, diminished, impaired or suspended only by enactment of a statute by the legislature with the approval of the governor at its regular session in one calendar year and the re-enactment and approval of such statute in the following calendar year.

(2) Shall have the power to act in relation to the property, affairs or government of any local government only by general law, or by special law only (a) on request of two-thirds of the total membership of its [the local government's] legislative body or on request of its [the local government's] chief executive officer concurred in by a majority of such membership, or (b) except in the case of the city of New York, on certificate of necessity from the governor reciting facts which in the judgment of the governor constitute an emergency requiring enactment of such law and, in such latter case, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the legislature.

In short, it appears that once NYS chartered NYC, it was beyond their control, except in terms of general laws about cities. There's a bit in the previous section about the rights of cities being interpretted liberally, so I think attempts to break up NYC with a "general" law that only affected it would be shot down by the NYS Supreme Court.

Edit: this constitution is dated 2014, after the referendum Ethel mentioned upthread. NYC maybe have grabbed a few more rights to prevent a repeat of that.

It wouldn't surprise me if other states with single, dominating cities have similar laws, simply because the city's residents wanted to prevent backwards, rural outsiders from meddling in the affairs of proper, civilized, cosmopolitan urban folk.

I would think The power to create, by definition includes the power to destroy. Creating the city of staten Island would be within the preview of the state, it would be much harder than the breaking up of Buffalo.

[Kernen]

Damned picky New Yorkers. I didn't read the whole silly thing; I went looking for the rights of cities, 'cause I knew that some states had ceded certain powers and rights to them.

I believe your analysis to be correct.

Nope. Not correct. The oath does not preclude the premise of surrender. Not when surrender is itself a protective act to avoid destruction in war.

You can twist it that way, but it is not a blatant violation that is prima fascie illegal.

[Kernen]

They do. That's called general police power.

They wouldn't. But they have the legal power. Its not barred by the Constitution, and anything not bared or limited by the federal constitution in the US is reserved to the state. NY state can totally break up NYC into 10,000 individual towns. They won't, and nobody will ever vote for that. But the legislature is possessed of the power.

I'm no lawyer, but having read the NYS constitution, I don't think so.

Powers and duties of legislature; home rule powers of local governments; statute of local governments.

§2. (a) The legislature shall provide for the creation and organization of local governments [but apparently not their destruction] in such manner as shall secure to them the rights, powers, privileges and immunities granted to them by this constitution.

(b) Subject to the bill of rights of local governments and other applicable provisions of this constitution, the legislature:

(l) Shall enact, and may from time to time amend, a statute of local governments granting to local governments powers including but not limited to those of local legislation and administration in addition to the powers vested in them by this article. A power granted in such statute may be repealed, diminished, impaired or suspended only by enactment of a statute by the legislature with the approval of the governor at its regular session in one calendar year and the re-enactment and approval of such statute in the following calendar year.

(2) Shall have the power to act in relation to the property, affairs or government of any local government only by general law, or by special law only (a) on request of two-thirds of the total membership of its [the local government's] legislative body or on request of its [the local government's] chief executive officer concurred in by a majority of such membership, or (b) except in the case of the city of New York, on certificate of necessity from the governor reciting facts which in the judgment of the governor constitute an emergency requiring enactment of such law and, in such latter case, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the legislature.

In short, it appears that once NYS chartered NYC, it was beyond their control, except in terms of general laws about cities. There's a bit in the previous section about the rights of cities being interpretted liberally, so I think attempts to break up NYC with a "general" law that only affected it would be shot down by the NYS Supreme Court.

Edit: this constitution is dated 2014, after the referendum Ethel mentioned upthread. NYC maybe have grabbed a few more rights to prevent a repeat of that.

It wouldn't surprise me if other states with single, dominating cities have similar laws, simply because the city's residents wanted to prevent backwards, rural outsiders from meddling in the affairs of proper, civilized, cosmopolitan urban folk.

General police power includes the power to rescind what is created. If the legislature has the power to pass a law, it has the power to repeal it. Congress has the power to repeal or amend the Constitution despite being bound to it. They can repeal or amend the sections governing their own procedure.

The same is true of state constitutions and statutes no body can pass a law that it cannot unpass. You are not correct.

[San Lumen]

I'm no lawyer, but having read the NYS constitution, I don't think so.


In short, it appears that once NYS chartered NYC, it was beyond their control, except in terms of general laws about cities. There's a bit in the previous section about the rights of cities being interpretted liberally, so I think attempts to break up NYC with a "general" law that only affected it would be shot down by the NYS Supreme Court.

Edit: this constitution is dated 2014, after the referendum Ethel mentioned upthread. NYC maybe have grabbed a few more rights to prevent a repeat of that.

It wouldn't surprise me if other states with single, dominating cities have similar laws, simply because the city's residents wanted to prevent backwards, rural outsiders from meddling in the affairs of proper, civilized, cosmopolitan urban folk.

General police power includes the power to rescind what is created. If the legislature has the power to pass a law, it has the power to repeal it. Congress has the power to repeal or amend the Constitution despite being bound to it. They can repeal or amend the sections governing their own procedure.

The same is true of state constitutions and statutes no body can pass a law that it cannot unpass. You are not correct.

If any legislature attempted such an action it would be beyond unpopular.

[Kernen]

General police power includes the power to rescind what is created. If the legislature has the power to pass a law, it has the power to repeal it. Congress has the power to repeal or amend the Constitution despite being bound to it. They can repeal or amend the sections governing their own procedure.

The same is true of state constitutions and statutes no body can pass a law that it cannot unpass. You are not correct.

If any legislature attempted such an action it would be beyond unpopular.

Yes, but, for probably the fourth time, that doesn't mean they lack the power. There is a difference between legal power and political will or ability. Your original claim was that governments lacked the power to do this. This is untrue.

[Esternial]

Your mindset is what contributes to crappy ribbon development, which complicates logistics of water, broadband, electricity, public transportation, sewage management, etc.

In my region, Flanders, 1 out of 8 homes is not connected to any sewer system. Sewage just ends up in nature. It's probably worse in Wallonia.

Then people have the balls to whine about their shitty internet connection or the trouble they need to go through to catch a bus or train, after opting to live in the freedom of nature. Then people complain about taxes while expecting the government to ensure the public infrastructure they rely on so heavily is maintained.

The reason people - that choose to do so - can enjoy a country life is because of cities. Get off your high horse.

[Chan Island]

On a personal level, I actually agree. I despise the fact that I've had to move to one in order to have any opportunities worth pursuing and vastly prefer the country life.

On a societal level, cities are a necessity and the engines of the modern world. They also generally have better politics and are much, much less judgemental of non-conformists.

[San Lumen]

On a personal level, I actually agree. I despise the fact that I've had to move to one in order to have any opportunities worth pursuing and vastly prefer the country life.

On a societal level, cities are a necessity and the engines of the modern world. They also generally have better politics and are much, much less judgemental of non-conformists.

The latter is one of the main reasons i want to go back to the city. Rural areas at least here are much less tolerant and accepting.

[Thepeopl]

https://youtube.com/c/StrongtownsOrg

https://youtu.be/bnKIVX968PQ

https://amsterdam-mamas.nl/articles/10- ... -amsterdam

Your issues with cities stem mostly from them being American. They have been gutted and redeveloped for cars, not people.

I love the cultural freedom cities provide. The street art, the dependable, safe and high frequent public transport, the sheer variety in sports to do. Try to find an rural area where one can follow lessons in ninja training, parkour, crossfit, archery, climbing, boxing, self defense, swimming, dancing (both ball room, jazz ballet, classical ballet, street dance), yoga, tennis, soccer, hockey and basketball. These are only the ones I know from the top of my head. All available in my city on less than one hour bicycle ride.
Actually, I'll go for a jog in a few moments. But I didn't list it above, because I don't need/ want lessons nor want to do it in a group.

We have 6 playgrounds for children in a 500 meter radius from my home. Some areas are designated for campfires. But most houses have gardens and a lot of apartments have balconies. So having a bbq with friends is possible.

I do love rural life as well. Used to live on a farm in a village with 500 inhabitants. Mind, its Dutch. City centre only 1 hour bicycle ride away. (30 min by bus, 30 min by car).

[Adamede]

https://youtube.com/c/StrongtownsOrg

https://youtu.be/bnKIVX968PQ

https://amsterdam-mamas.nl/articles/10- ... -amsterdam

Your issues with cities stem mostly from them being American. They have been gutted and redeveloped for cars, not people.

I love the cultural freedom cities provide. The street art, the dependable, safe and high frequent public transport, the sheer variety in sports to do. Try to find an rural area where one can follow lessons in ninja training, parkour, crossfit, archery, climbing, boxing, self defense, swimming, dancing (both ball room, jazz ballet, classical ballet, street dance), yoga, tennis, soccer, hockey and basketball. These are only the ones I know from the top of my head. All available in my city on less than one hour bicycle ride.
Actually, I'll go for a jog in a few moments. But I didn't list it above, because I don't need/ want lessons nor want to do it in a group.

We have 6 playgrounds for children in a 500 meter radius from my home. Some areas are designated for campfires. But most houses have gardens and a lot of apartments have balconies. So having a bbq with friends is possible.

I do love rural life as well. Used to live on a farm in a village with 500 inhabitants. Mind, its Dutch. City centre only 1 hour bicycle ride away. (30 min by bus, 30 min by car).

None of what you said really relates to his criticism, nor does it apply to the curious s of most people who don’t like cities.

[San Lumen]

https://youtube.com/c/StrongtownsOrg

https://youtu.be/bnKIVX968PQ

https://amsterdam-mamas.nl/articles/10- ... -amsterdam

Your issues with cities stem mostly from them being American. They have been gutted and redeveloped for cars, not people.

I love the cultural freedom cities provide. The street art, the dependable, safe and high frequent public transport, the sheer variety in sports to do. Try to find an rural area where one can follow lessons in ninja training, parkour, crossfit, archery, climbing, boxing, self defense, swimming, dancing (both ball room, jazz ballet, classical ballet, street dance), yoga, tennis, soccer, hockey and basketball. These are only the ones I know from the top of my head. All available in my city on less than one hour bicycle ride.
Actually, I'll go for a jog in a few moments. But I didn't list it above, because I don't need/ want lessons nor want to do it in a group.

We have 6 playgrounds for children in a 500 meter radius from my home. Some areas are designated for campfires. But most houses have gardens and a lot of apartments have balconies. So having a bbq with friends is possible.

I do love rural life as well. Used to live on a farm in a village with 500 inhabitants. Mind, its Dutch. City centre only 1 hour bicycle ride away. (30 min by bus, 30 min by car).

None of what you said really relates to his criticism, nor does it apply to the curious s of most people who don’t like cities.

How does it not relate to the criticism in the OP?

[Adamede]

None of what you said really relates to his criticism, nor does it apply to the curious s of most people who don’t like cities.

How does it not relate to the criticism in the OP?

Because the OP criticisms are towards the liberal culture of cities more than anything else, not their layout.

[Thepeopl]

How does it not relate to the criticism in the OP?

Because the OP criticisms are towards the liberal culture of cities more than anything else, not their layout.

OP comments on the "not freedom" of cities which compels people to entertain friends in "public spaces"
Which is a direct result of how the city has been developed.
Also it comments on how cities makes on poor and how only rich really enjoy cities.
Imo that's because the cities OP complains about are American (where most power resides with the most money), where the landlord is master. In European countries the tenant is protected, the landlord will be punished for too lax repairs/ unsafe buildings and they cannot evict tenants as easily.

The functions of a city can be mixed. As Amsterdam clearly shows. In North American cities, it would be difficult to walk from ones home to a restaurant and do grocery shopping (walking) on the way home.

In traffic, the European cities actually try to minimize car presence in city centres. Public transport has free lanes, only for public transport vehicles. There are pedestrian areas, safe bicycle routes. There are primary schools in the city centre.
I don't actually live in the city centre. It's a 5 minute walk from my home. But I can choose from 6 primary schools in a radius of 1 km of my home for my children. And as soon as they can cycle, they can go to school independently. 6 year olds can make their own play dates with friends. (School does require a written statement from the parents that child x is allowed to independently go to and from school, but one can just write this by hand, no costs involved. As soon as the child is 8 years, school doesn't need a statement. )
Middle school is harder, I have 1 in a radius of 1 km, 2 additional in a radius of 2 km. Some students will travel by public transport (< 5km, 1.7%; > 5km 14.4°%) and some will arrive by car (< 5km, 2.1%; > 5km 5.9%)
But most will cycle. (< 5km, 83.8%; > 5km, 63.6%)
Number are found in a research from 2008, not many research is available on middle school students traffic.
If one searches on google: "reizen naar school cvs congres" one should be able to find the pdf, in Dutch. Sorry, can't provide you a real link.
The report addresses the differences between dutch/ Flemish transportation.

[Adamede]

Because the OP criticisms are towards the liberal culture of cities more than anything else, not their layout.

OP comments on the "not freedom" of cities which compels people to entertain friends in "public spaces"
Which is a direct result of how the city has been developed.
Also it comments on how cities makes on poor and how only rich really enjoy cities.
Imo that's because the cities OP complains about are American (where most power resides with the most money), where the landlord is master. In European countries the tenant is protected, the landlord will be punished for too lax repairs/ unsafe buildings and they cannot evict tenants as easily.

The functions of a city can be mixed. As Amsterdam clearly shows. In North American cities, it would be difficult to walk from ones home to a restaurant and do grocery shopping (walking) on the way home.

In traffic, the European cities actually try to minimize car presence in city centres. Public transport has free lanes, only for public transport vehicles. There are pedestrian areas, safe bicycle routes. There are primary schools in the city centre.
I don't actually live in the city centre. It's a 5 minute walk from my home. But I can choose from 6 primary schools in a radius of 1 km of my home for my children. And as soon as they can cycle, they can go to school independently. 6 year olds can make their own play dates with friends. (School does require a written statement from the parents that child x is allowed to independently go to and from school, but one can just write this by hand, no costs involved. As soon as the child is 8 years, school doesn't need a statement. )
Middle school is harder, I have 1 in a radius of 1 km, 2 additional in a radius of 2 km. Some students will travel by public transport (< 5km, 1.7%; > 5km 14.4°%) and some will arrive by car (< 5km, 2.1%; > 5km 5.9%)
But most will cycle. (< 5km, 83.8%; > 5km, 63.6%)
Number are found in a research from 2008, not many research is available on middle school students traffic.
If one searches on google: "reizen naar school cvs congres" one should be able to find the pdf, in Dutch. Sorry, can't provide you a real link.
The report addresses the differences between dutch/ Flemish transportation.

Again, the central criticism is the culture of cities. All else is tacked on rationalizations. It’s not a rational mindset, and you’re not going to find a city they’re going to like.

[Flarmsburg]

I love cities. Anyone who's ever been to a city cathedral knows how humbling the experience is.

small European villages will have massive cathedrals and damn, they're impressive. i'm agnostic leaning towards Odinism and Greek Hellenism, but would never hesitate to visit a cathedral.

[Thepeopl]

OP comments on the "not freedom" of cities which compels people to entertain friends in "public spaces"
Which is a direct result of how the city has been developed.
Also it comments on how cities makes on poor and how only rich really enjoy cities.
Imo that's because the cities OP complains about are American (where most power resides with the most money), where the landlord is master. In European countries the tenant is protected, the landlord will be punished for too lax repairs/ unsafe buildings and they cannot evict tenants as easily.

The functions of a city can be mixed. As Amsterdam clearly shows. In North American cities, it would be difficult to walk from ones home to a restaurant and do grocery shopping (walking) on the way home.

In traffic, the European cities actually try to minimize car presence in city centres. Public transport has free lanes, only for public transport vehicles. There are pedestrian areas, safe bicycle routes. There are primary schools in the city centre.
I don't actually live in the city centre. It's a 5 minute walk from my home. But I can choose from 6 primary schools in a radius of 1 km of my home for my children. And as soon as they can cycle, they can go to school independently. 6 year olds can make their own play dates with friends. (School does require a written statement from the parents that child x is allowed to independently go to and from school, but one can just write this by hand, no costs involved. As soon as the child is 8 years, school doesn't need a statement. )
Middle school is harder, I have 1 in a radius of 1 km, 2 additional in a radius of 2 km. Some students will travel by public transport (< 5km, 1.7%; > 5km 14.4°%) and some will arrive by car (< 5km, 2.1%; > 5km 5.9%)
But most will cycle. (< 5km, 83.8%; > 5km, 63.6%)
Number are found in a research from 2008, not many research is available on middle school students traffic.
If one searches on google: "reizen naar school cvs congres" one should be able to find the pdf, in Dutch. Sorry, can't provide you a real link.
The report addresses the differences between dutch/ Flemish transportation.

Again, the central criticism is the culture of cities. All else is tacked on rationalizations. It’s not a rational mindset, and you’re not going to find a city they’re going to like.

So, because OP has an irrational mindset, I should not be pointing out that there are different forms of cities? Different ways to treat tenants? Different ways to organize cities? That in some countries children learn that government will protect them, that police officers are there to help and maintain order?

[Esternial]

Because the OP criticisms are towards the liberal culture of cities more than anything else, not their layout.

OP comments on the "not freedom" of cities which compels people to entertain friends in "public spaces"
Which is a direct result of how the city has been developed.
Also it comments on how cities makes on poor and how only rich really enjoy cities.
Imo that's because the cities OP complains about are American (where most power resides with the most money), where the landlord is master. In European countries the tenant is protected, the landlord will be punished for too lax repairs/ unsafe buildings and they cannot evict tenants as easily.

The functions of a city can be mixed. As Amsterdam clearly shows. In North American cities, it would be difficult to walk from ones home to a restaurant and do grocery shopping (walking) on the way home.

In traffic, the European cities actually try to minimize car presence in city centres. Public transport has free lanes, only for public transport vehicles. There are pedestrian areas, safe bicycle routes. There are primary schools in the city centre.
I don't actually live in the city centre. It's a 5 minute walk from my home. But I can choose from 6 primary schools in a radius of 1 km of my home for my children. And as soon as they can cycle, they can go to school independently. 6 year olds can make their own play dates with friends. (School does require a written statement from the parents that child x is allowed to independently go to and from school, but one can just write this by hand, no costs involved. As soon as the child is 8 years, school doesn't need a statement. )
Middle school is harder, I have 1 in a radius of 1 km, 2 additional in a radius of 2 km. Some students will travel by public transport (< 5km, 1.7%; > 5km 14.4°%) and some will arrive by car (< 5km, 2.1%; > 5km 5.9%)
But most will cycle. (< 5km, 83.8%; > 5km, 63.6%)
Number are found in a research from 2008, not many research is available on middle school students traffic.
If one searches on google: "reizen naar school cvs congres" one should be able to find the pdf, in Dutch. Sorry, can't provide you a real link.
The report addresses the differences between dutch/ Flemish transportation.

Indeed, European cities often took a very conservative response to their cultural heritage and the initial results of modernization and skyscraper construction in Europe (also see "Brusselization") has caused architects, etc. to lobby for more preservation. I recall seeing a huge construction work going on in Ghent where the only thing left standing at some point was the historical facade of a building (Facadism).

I think this mindset is common throughout historical European cities. In Paris, for example, high rise buildings are all concentrated in the area designated for their construction, La Défense.

In Belgium, I think I would prefer raising my children away from "big" (relatively speaking) cities and opt to move closer around the time they need to attend high school. To me Ghent is ideal for this, as it is still a rather small but active city. Friends of mine that grew up there are relatively more socially capable and have a more expansive social network than myself and friends of mine that grew up in the countryside, which is a notable benefit later in life.

[San Lumen]

OP comments on the "not freedom" of cities which compels people to entertain friends in "public spaces"
Which is a direct result of how the city has been developed.
Also it comments on how cities makes on poor and how only rich really enjoy cities.
Imo that's because the cities OP complains about are American (where most power resides with the most money), where the landlord is master. In European countries the tenant is protected, the landlord will be punished for too lax repairs/ unsafe buildings and they cannot evict tenants as easily.

The functions of a city can be mixed. As Amsterdam clearly shows. In North American cities, it would be difficult to walk from ones home to a restaurant and do grocery shopping (walking) on the way home.

In traffic, the European cities actually try to minimize car presence in city centres. Public transport has free lanes, only for public transport vehicles. There are pedestrian areas, safe bicycle routes. There are primary schools in the city centre.
I don't actually live in the city centre. It's a 5 minute walk from my home. But I can choose from 6 primary schools in a radius of 1 km of my home for my children. And as soon as they can cycle, they can go to school independently. 6 year olds can make their own play dates with friends. (School does require a written statement from the parents that child x is allowed to independently go to and from school, but one can just write this by hand, no costs involved. As soon as the child is 8 years, school doesn't need a statement. )
Middle school is harder, I have 1 in a radius of 1 km, 2 additional in a radius of 2 km. Some students will travel by public transport (< 5km, 1.7%; > 5km 14.4°%) and some will arrive by car (< 5km, 2.1%; > 5km 5.9%)
But most will cycle. (< 5km, 83.8%; > 5km, 63.6%)
Number are found in a research from 2008, not many research is available on middle school students traffic.
If one searches on google: "reizen naar school cvs congres" one should be able to find the pdf, in Dutch. Sorry, can't provide you a real link.
The report addresses the differences between dutch/ Flemish transportation.

Indeed, European cities often took a very conservative response to their cultural heritage and the initial results of modernization and skyscraper construction in Europe (also see "Brusselization") has caused architects, etc. to lobby for more preservation. I recall seeing a huge construction work going on in Ghent where the only thing left standing at some point was the historical facade of a building (Facadism).

I think this mindset is common throughout historical European cities. In Paris, for example, high rise buildings are all concentrated in the area designated for their construction, La Défense.

In Belgium, I think I would prefer raising my children away from "big" (relatively speaking) cities and opt to move closer around the time they need to attend high school. To me Ghent is ideal for this, as it is still a rather small but active city. Friends of mine that grew up there are relatively more socially capable and have a more expansive social network than myself and friends of mine that grew up in the countryside, which is a notable benefit later in life.

Ghent is a medium sized city I gather?

I think those are a nice compromise. Another example of medium sized city would be New Haven, CT or Manchester, UK. They are diverse and very active and not overly expensive.

[Foundhome Republic]

No. Big cities make professional baseball possible, therefore they are inherently good.

[Adamede]

Again, the central criticism is the culture of cities. All else is tacked on rationalizations. It’s not a rational mindset, and you’re not going to find a city they’re going to like.

So, because OP has an irrational mindset, I should not be pointing out that there are different forms of cities? Different ways to treat tenants? Different ways to organize cities? That in some countries children learn that government will protect them, that police officers are there to help and maintain order?

I’m saying that he has a problem with the cities in general, regardless of their layouts.

And no government can’t protect everyone all the time. There comes a point where the only one you can rely on is yourself.

[San Lumen]

No. Big cities make professional baseball possible, therefore they are inherently good.

That's an odd reason to say they are good.

[SD_Film Artists]

I would never live in a city willingly but rural life ain’t exactly without its own problems.

This. I'm a country boy a heart but they do have positives and negatives.

Cities have more places to visit, more job opportunities and better public services eg more frequent buses.

The countryside (including small towns) have less pollution, a closer community culture, less crime, more scenic walks and while public services have less funding they do at least tend to be more personal and friendly; in my experience government offices are more likely to give you a direct phone number rather than hiding behind the bureaucracy of a national call centre, and (pre-covid) buses have no barrier between you and the driver, letting you give them coins by hand and talk on the journey whereas with city buses the driver is just a thing in a box.