A debate about the relative desirability of city and suburban living is spreading through the blogosphere at a surprising clip, given the timelessness of the topic.

It doesn't suprise me.
I suppose and assume the subject is on a lot of minds of late, given their (IMV, accurate) perception that if Obama makes it into the White House our energy situation will impose a move to the city for many folks.

... as the UN desires.

Daniel Ellsberg held his first press conference after he leaked the Pentagon Papers at a hotel in Cambridge (I think the hotel's now a Harvard dorm.) I went to press conference. Two elderly women were sitting in front of me, and I heard one say to the other, "Oh, yes, he's much better looking than Norman Mailer."

I've never been in a more exciting place than New York City.

Ah, but do you really want excitement in your everyday existence? Especially with so much tradeoff in terms of cost, privacy, and living space?

Yes. But note that I wrote "win lottery bigtime".

Graywolf is right, you'd better have a Trump-sized income. Actually, I'd probably move to the Boston area, maybe Cambridge. And try to buy one of those big houses on Brattle street. I went to grad school in that area, and, as I said, I grew up in LA. When I got to place where I found didn't need a car, well, that was liberation, baby! YMMV... :)

You can spot them in first grade!

This is simply a matter of personal preference, not a value judgment, and one that I suspect largely depends on what one is used to.

Aye, but there's the rub, James. My country friends consider it a preference whereas my urban friends consider it value judgment. The country folks say, "You would enjoy it out here." The city folks say, "Why do you drive that stinking, inefficient, polluting automobile everywhere you inconsiderate suburban jerk?" Around here the "debate" is always started by the city dweller intent on forcing his way of life on everybody else. I have never once had a country friend bring up the subject except in response to accusations by urbanites.

Same here. I also own a turn of the (19th) century Victorian in the city ("Old Louisville"). I have a deck, a backyard plenty big enough for my dog to run around, and off street parking. There's a park across the street and several small stores and restaurants (even bars, were I so inclined) within walking distance. And I have a 7 minute commute to my office downtown. As far as I'm concerned, I have the best of both worlds.

Lawns tend to be water/chemical intensive and sterile.

I know and value my neighbors and we're a varied bunch (although predominantly Catholic): Polish immigrants, Mexican immigrants, Filipino immigrants, Irish-Americans, and me (mostly Swiss and Irish--long time American).

I've never been in a more exciting place than New York City.

Ah, but do you really want excitement in your everyday existence? Especially with so much tradeoff in terms of cost, privacy, and living space?

It's a fantastic place to visit and I'm sure I'll do it many more times. But I wouldn't want to live there.

Now, perhaps, on a Donald Trump level income, where one can pay to avoid all the inconveniences, that might change.

Personally, I don't care whether people live urban, suburban, exurban, rural or wilderness lifestyles. What I care about most is that people have the freedom to chose for themselves.

Hank Williams, Jr. captured the sentiment nicely a quarter century ago: “Just send me to hell or New York City, it would be about the same to me.”

If I ever win the lottery big time, hell here I come. I've never been in a more exciting place than New York City. Of course, I grew up in Los Angeles...