This is a complicated problem and it is not as simple as you want to make it. Check this out:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/are-europes-cities-better/
Don't forget that most of the rural life that you promote is heavily subsidized by the urban areas- transportation, energy, water, food. Urbanites will pay for modernization of the rural areas- the 80% of the population is heavily supporting the 20% who "prefer a backyard lifestyle". Rural areas need the internet and there are promises to get it to them- and urbanites will pay for it. Most European cities don't subsidize rural lifestyles (but they do subsidize farmers and the US doesn't as much) and so a higher proportion of Europeans live in cities. Let's also not forget that suburbs, areas of low density, have mostly benefited the older whites. In Los Angeles, we had many areas that were called sunset towns- and they had signs up proclaiming they were sunset towns. For those who do not know- sunset towns are areas that will not tolerate persons of color on the street after sundown. Culver City was one such area until the 1970s' federal laws prohibited it. But by then, most of the design of the urban areas (urban is defined by the census as 3,000 or more per square mile, but most urban thinkers prefer 5,000+ based on their comparison research) was set in stone through design, policy, regulation and a desire to keep POC out of their communities. Nonwhites who could not afford a house were left scrambling in hostile inner-cities with little access to jobs, rights, decent housing, or any real protection. So is it fair to say that dense American cities are unsafe because of density or because of racism? Today is MLK day and this is what is on my mind today. But again- European cities are much safer. Tokyo is incredibly dense and yet all of Japan has very few gun homicides.
I heartily encourage people to read Jacobs' urban books - not just her book on the decline of great cities but also her two books on urban economics. She believed, and I think most urban thinkers agree, that we should be pegging density at about 20 people per acre. Anything less and you get decline and anything more and it becomes unmanageable. She ripped Los Angeles because of our sprawl and everything she warned us came true. A lot of NYC is less than 5,000/sq mile population and in those areas they have problems. Much of Los Angeles is less than 5,000/sq mile and there are where problems are. She side steps most of the criticism by focusing on 4 topics, one of which is walkability (the others is density, eyes on the ground and I forget the last one).
Where are the least problems? Areas built during the 1930s depression area. They had to build for a growing population, and they built it just dense enough to save money and it was a perfect level. These are typically the most expensive areas to live today because of their high desirability- the right level of density, walkability, etc.
Where are the biggest problems: locations where older white NIMBYs have locked in their large backyards and have no problem denying housing for everyone else. This is especially true in Los Angeles. Most single family houses are white owned. Our homeless problem is directly tied to a refusal to eliminate the R1 zoning that effectively prohibits anything but single family homes to be built in 85% of Los Angeles. To make it worse, we have dedicated more than 25% of the built environment to cars. And car ownership is probably one of the biggest socialist programs the US has, that benefits the whites in suburbia the most.
Centuries ago density was bad- it was filthy and we didn't understand why and how to avoid the disease that came with density. After the depression it became a self-fulfilling prophecy and we designed cities with the mistaken idea that density was bad. Modernism of the 1950s was as time of massive growth and by design the urban areas tied sprawl and the car into a destructive force that is only today getting reimagined.
In Los Angeles they destroyed thriving black neighborhoods like South Central and put a highway down the middle of it, ripping the heart out of it (thankfully there is a movement to eliminate highways and those that have been taken out have largely shown positive community benefits.
One last point: I am at work and they block certain sites. I will bet this list has European cities rated safer than most American cities. Can someone confirm?
https://safecities.economist.com/wp...NG-NEC-Safe-Cities-2019-270x210-19-screen.pdf
